Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology Research Directions To Advance The Field.

Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology
Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology

Research Directions to Advance the Field
EDSON FILHO AND ITAY BASEVITCH

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s
objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a
registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2021
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the
appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of
the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any
acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Filho, Edson, editor. | Basevitch, Itay, editor.
Title: Sport, exercise and performance psychology :
research directions to advance the field / Edson Filho, Itay Basevitch.
Other titles: Sport, exercise and performance psychology
(Oxford University Press)
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2021. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021023962 (print) | LCCN 2021023963 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197512494 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197512517 (epub) |
ISBN 9780197512524 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Sports—Psychological aspects—Research. |
Exercise—Psychological aspects—Research | Sports—Physiological
aspects—Research. | Self-efficacy. | Sports sciences.
Classification: LCC GV706.4 .S657 2021 (print) |
LCC GV706.4 (ebook) | DDC 796.01—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021023962
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021023963
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197512494.001.0001
Contents
Foreword
Edson Filho and Itay Basevitch
Preface
Contributors
SECTION 1 PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING

1. Advancing Research on Efficacy Beliefs
Deborah L. Feltz and Mark R. Beauchamp
2. Attention
Ronnie Lidor and Gal Ziv
3. Choking Under Pressure
Christopher Mesagno, Felix Ehrlenspiel, V. Vanessa Wergin, and
Peter Gröpel
4. Flow and Clutch States
Christian Swann, Scott G. Goddard, Patricia C. Jackman, Matthew J.
Schweickle, and Stewart A. Vella
5. Mental Skills
Dave Collins and Hugh Richards
6. Mental Toughness
Robert Weinberg and Joanne Butt
7. Expert Performance
Joe Baker and Brad Young
8. Decision-Making
Itay Basevitch and Gershon Tenenbaum
9. Mind-Body Interaction in Sport Psychophysiology
Maurizio Bertollo, Marika Berchicci, and Selenia di Fronso
10. Genetics
Sigal Ben Zaken
11. Group Dynamics
Edson Filho and Francisco Miguel Leo
12. Athlete Leadership
Todd M. Loughead, Krista J. Munroe-Chandler, Matthieu M. Boisvert,
and Katherine E. Hirsch
SECTION 2 HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

13. Mental Health
Brad Donohue, Gavin Breslin, and Shane Murphy
14. Affective Responses to Exercise
Panteleimon Ekkekakis and Mark E. Hartman
15. Health Behavior and Exercise Adherence
Selen Razon and Michael Sachs
16. Mindfulness in Exercise Psychology
Sarah Ullrich-French and Anne E. Cox
17. Exercise and Aging
Michel Audiffren and Nathalie André
18. Youth Sport
Daniel Gould and Michael Mignano
19. Career Transitions and Change
Roy David Samuel
20. Fatigue, Overtraining, and Burnout
Robert C. Eklund and J. D. DeFreese
21. Injury and Concussion
Leslie Podlog, Stefanie Podlog, and Jeffrey G. Caron
22. Moral Behavior and Doping
Vassilis Barkoukis and Anne-Marie Elbe
SECTION 3 CULTURAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

23. Ethics
Jack C. Watson II, Brandonn S. Harris, and Megan Byrd
24. Cross-Cultural, Multi-Cultural, and Intercultural Issues
Thierry R. F. Middleton, Robert J. Schinke, Brennan Petersen, and
Cole E. Giffin
25. Supervision
David Tod, Martin Eubank, Hayley E. McEwan, Charlotte Chandler,
and Moira Lafferty
Afterword
Itay Basevitch and Edson Filho
Index
Foreword
Edson Filho and Itay Basevitch
125 Novel Research Questions to Guide Future Research

in Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology
Editors’ Positionality
Know thyself.
—Oracle of Delphi
In Ancient Greece, thousands of people would visit the Temple of Delphi to

ask questions about their future. A large scripture at the entrance of the
temple reminded the visitors that before seeking knowledge about their
future, they should be attuned to their present, inside world. In editing this
book, we asked experts from around the world, each with a unique
background and theoretical and methodological outlook, to propose
questions that can propel the field of sport, exercise, and performance
psychology into the future. We consider ourselves “global citizens” and
holistic researchers, and as such, we believe that multiple theoretical
stances and empirical methods are needed to study the manifold topics that
exist in our field.
The idea for this book originated over a decade ago, when we were both
graduate students, during a drive back to campus from our weekly Monday
night soccer game. At the time we were both reviewing literature for our
dissertations in search for “gaps.” On the return trip to campus, we talked
about the difficulty of finding a meaningful research idea to inform our
dissertations, and the challenges with navigating vast amounts of literature
without knowing the key essential readings—that is, “Where do you start
when your literature search returns hundreds of articles of both classic and
contemporary literature?” As the conversation progressed over the 25-
minute drive, we discussed how most book chapters and peer-reviewed
manuscripts conclude with a short section (usually one or two paragraphs)
discussing avenues for future research; we connected the dots and this was
a Eureka moment for us! We decided that night that one day we would edit
a book together focusing on (a) open research questions that address the
unknown in the field and (b) key readings for a given subfield or topic
within the field of sport, exercise, and performance psychology. We were
inspired by the writings of some of the best philosophers of all time, and we
wanted to put forth a resourcer that could help students and seasoned
researchers to identify some of the key questions that must be addressed to
move our field forward. In essence, we envisioned the book to be a database
of the most important questions to address—one of the main sourcers for
researchers across the world and at various points in their career, updated
every few years in accordance with theoretical, methodological, practical,
and of course technological advancements in the field.
Philosophical Positionality
The Socratic Method: A Book About Questions
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
—Socrates
Socrates, the father of Western Philosophy, never ceased asking questions.

We believe scholars need this curiosity and intellectual humility to advance
the knowledge base across domains. To this day, the so-called Socratic
Method is a fundamental pillar of scientific research and evidence-based
practice (e.g., Overholser, 2018; Stenning et al., 2016). Research projects
are based on questions that, when addressed properly, might provide us with
answers and, most certainly, generate more questions. Likewise,
practitioners informed by an evidence-based practice philosophy must ask
their clients key questions (e.g., needs assessment or a performance profile)
to design an effective and personalized intervention plan (Rousseau &
Gunia, 2016). Put plainly, this book is primarily inspired by the Socratic
Method. Each chapter starts with a brief overview of “what we know”
followed by five open research questions about “what we know that we
don’t know” that should be addressed to move our field forward.
In Quest for Enlightenment: Theoretical, Methodological, and
Applied Questions to Shed Light Into “What We Know That We
Don’t Know”
Dare to know!
—Immanuel Kant
The rationalist Descartes taught us to use our reasoning to “doubt

everything” (“The Omnibus Dubitandum”; see Broughton, 2003), and the
empiricist Francis Bacon once said that “by far the best proof is
experience.” Thanks to Immanuel Kant, who unified Descartes’s
rationalism and Bacon’s empiricism, there is consensus that
“enlightenment” comes from both reasoning and empirical data collection
and analysis (Stumpf, 2003). Accordingly, we have asked the authors to
propose theoretical, empirical, and applied questions. Throughout this book
you will find questions labeled “theoretical,” “methodological,” or
“applied,” as well as “hybrid” questions (e.g., theoretical-applied).
Essentially, these questions reflect three main types of knowledge, namely
descriptive (what), explanatory (why), and procedural (how). Altogether,
this book reveals 125 research questions on important unknowns in the field
of sport, exercise, and performance psychology.
Popperian Falsifiability and Kuhn’s Scientific Paradigm Shift: A

Book With Hopes to Challenge the Status Quo
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as
it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
—Karl Popper
Karl Popper’s and Thomas Kuhn’s philosophical ideas are also an

inspiration for this book (see Kuhn, 2012; Popper, 2005). As Popper noted,
science can only progress if scholars try to falsify rather than verify their
own models and ideas. It was based on this so-called “Popperian
falsifiability principle” that we asked authors to propose questions beyond
their own publication records and research agendas. We also asked the
authors to summarize in a table the five key readings in each topical area
(for a total of 125 suggested key readings) and to include not only their
papers but also publications by other scholars and reflecting other schools
of thought. As you read through this book, we ask you not to merely accept
the ideas presented and the questions proposed, but rather to critically
counterpoint each one so that you can generate your own set of questions to
inform future research in the field. To this point, Kuhn has warned us that
“the answers you get depend on the questions you ask” and that real
scientific progress can only happen if we are willing to challenge our most
engrained paradigms. In this spirit, we invite you to dive into this book,
which is intended to stimulate research and encourage scholarly debate on
novel theoretical, methodological, and applied paradigms in the field.
What to Expect From This Book

Each chapter starts with a brief summary of the “State of the Art” literature
and includes a table with five must-read papers for that specific area. The
five questions that must be addressed to move the field forward are then
presented. In total, this volume presents 125 questions and 125 key readings
to help guide scholars of all levels to address novel theoretical,
methodological, and applied research in the field. Overall, we hope that you
read each page bearing in mind the importance of asking more questions,
“daring to know!,” “doubting everything,” trying to falsify rather than
verify your ideas, and having the ambition to conduct novel and potentially
paradigm-shifting research in sport, exercise, and performance psychology.
References
Broughton, J. (2003). Descartes’s method of doubt. Princeton University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Overholser, J. C. (2018). Guided discovery: A clinical strategy derived from the Socratic Method.
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 11, 124–139.
Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP
implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 667–692.
Stenning, K., Schmoelz, A., Wren, H., Stouraitis, E., Scaltsas, T., Alexopoulos, K., & Aichhorn, A.
(2016). Socratic dialogue as a teaching and research method for co-creativity? Digital Culture &
Education, 8(2), 154–168.
Stumpf, S. E. (2003). Socrates to Sartre and beyond: A history of philosophy. McGraw-Hill
Education.
Preface
Sport, exercise, and performance psychology researchers and practitioners

will be inspired by the information and variety of topics presented in this
unique and essential book, edited by Edson Filho and Itay Basevitch. I have
known Edson and Itay since they were doctoral students at Florida State
University (FSU), where I was the head coach of the women’s volleyball
team for 26 years and then a faculty member in the Sport Management
Department for 15 years.
During my academic tenure at FSU, I had the pleasure of having
numerous doctoral students work with me on the design and delivery of a
graduate-level coaching certificate. Two of those doctoral students were
Edson and Itay. I used to meet with Edson and Itay each week and we
would work on designing these courses. We often found ourselves getting
sidetracked, and instead of talking about the actual classes, we would end
up talking about many of the topics that are in this book. So, while the
young doctoral students thought they were learning something in my office,
I was constantly fascinated with what they taught me. Usually after our
meetings or lunches we would have more questions than answers, but isn’t
that what higher education is supposed to be about? And maybe that is what
inspired them and planted the seed for the idea of this book. It has been
nearly a decade since they left FSU and I have enjoyed following their
successful careers. I am so proud of them for editing this much-needed
book, which will provide professionals in the field with the depth and
breadth of knowledge to conduct top-notch research with real-world
implications.
I know there will be much more outstanding work from Itay and Edson to
come in the future, but for now I invite you to dive into this fascinating
book that will most certainly change the landscape of the field in the years
to come.
Contributors
Nathalie André, PhD

Associate Professor
Sport Sciences Faculty
University of Poitiers
Poitiers, France
Michel Audiffren, PhD
Full Professor
Sport Sciences
University of Poitiers
Poitiers, France
Joe Baker, PhD
Professor
School of Kinesiology and Health Science
York University
Toronto, ON, Canada
Vassilis Barkoukis, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Physical Education and Sport Science
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki, Greece
Itay Basevitch, PhD
Adjunct Professor
Department of Psychology
College of Management Academic Studies
Rishon, Lezion, Israel
Mark R. Beauchamp, PhD
Professor
School of Kinesiology
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Marika Berchicci, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Psychological, Humanistic and Territorial Sciences
University “G. d’Annunzio” Chieti
Chieti, Italy
Maurizio Bertollo, PhD
Professor
Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences
University G. d’Annunzio of Chieti and Pescara
Chieti, Italy
Matthieu M. Boisvert, PhD(c)
Department of Kinesiology
University of Windsor
Windsor, ON, Canada
Gavin Breslin, BSc, PhD, FHEA
Senior Lecturer in Psychology
School of Psychology
Ulster University
Coleraine, GB, UK
Joanne Butt, PhD
Professor of Sport Psychology
School of Sport and Exercise Sciences
Liverpool John Moores University
Liverpool, UK
Megan Byrd, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Health Sciences and Kinesiology
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA, USA
Jeffrey G. Caron, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Kinesiology and Physical Activity Sciences
Université de Montréal
Montreal, PQ, Canada
Charlotte Chandler, PhD, MSc, BSc, FHEA
Senior Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology
University of Derby
Derby, GB, UK
Dave Collins, PhD, CPsychol, CSci
Professorial Fellow in Human Performance Science
Moray House School of Education and Sport
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, GB, UK
Anne E. Cox, PhD
Professor
Kinesiology and Educational Psychology
Washington State University
Pullman, WA, USA
J. D. DeFreese, PhD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Department of Exercise and Sport Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Brad Donohue, PhD
Distinguished Professor
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Felix Ehrlenspiel, Dr
Department of Sport and Health Sciences
Technische Universität München
München, Germany
Panteleimon Ekkekakis, PhD
Professor
Iowa State University
Ames, IA, USA
Robert C. Eklund, PhD
Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Advancement
College of Education
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL, USA
Anne-Marie Elbe, PhD
Professor
Department of Sport Psychology
Leipzig University
Leipzig, Germany
Martin Eubank, PhD
Subject Head and Principal Lecturer in Sport Psychology
School of Sport and Exercise Sciences
Liverpool, GB, UK
Deborah L. Feltz, PhD
Distinguished Professor Emerita
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI, USA
Edson Filho, PhD
Associate Professor of Sport Psychology and Counseling
Wheelock College of Education and Human Development
Boston University
Boston, MA, USA
Selenia di Fronso, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, Behavioral Imaging and
Neural Dynamics (BIND) Center
“G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara
Chieti, Italy
Cole E. Giffin, Doctoral Student in Human Kinetics
Student
School of Kinesiology and Life Sciences
Laurentian University
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Scott G. Goddard, BPsych(Hons)(SCU)
PhD Candidate and Causal Academic
Faculty of Health
Southern Cross University
Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia
Daniel Gould, PhD
Director, Institute for the Study of Youth Sports and Professor
Peter Gröpel, PhD
Professor
Department of Sport Science
University of Vienna
Vienna, Austria
Brandonn S. Harris, PhD, CMPC, NCC, LAPC
Program Director and Professor of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Department of Health Sciences and Kinesiology
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA, USA
Mark E. Hartman, PhD
Assistant Professor
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island, USA
Katherine E. Hirsch, MHK
PhD Student
Windsor, ON, Canada
Patricia C. Jackman, PhD
Lecturer
School of Sport and Exercise Science
University of Lincoln
Lincoln, GB, UK
Moira Lafferty, PhD
Professor
University of Chester
Chester, GB, UK
Francisco Miguel Leo, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Didactics of Musical, Plastic and Corporal Expression
University of Extremadura
Cáceres, ES, Spain
Ronnie Lidor, PhD
Professor and President of the Academic College at Wingate, Wingate
Institute, Israel
The Motor Behavior Laboratory
The Academic College at Wingate
Netanya, IL
Todd M. Loughead, PhD
Professor
Windsor, ON, Canada
Hayley E. Mcewan, PhD
Senior Lecturer
Division of Sport and Exercise
University of the West of Scotland
Lanarkshire, GB, UK
Christopher Mesagno, PhD, MSESS, BS
Associate Professor
School of Science, Psychology, and Sport
Federation University Australia
Ballarat, Australia
Thierry R. F. Middleton, MSSc, MSc
PhD Candidate
Human Studies and Interdisciplinarity Program
Sudbury, ON, Canada
Michael Mignano, MS, MBA
Doctoral Candidate/Instructor Institute for the Study of Youth Sports
Krista J. Munroe-Chandler, PhD
Professor
The University of Windsor
Windsor, ON, Canada
Shane Murphy, PhD
Professor and Graduate Coordinator
Western Connecticut State University
Danbury, CT, USA
Brennan Petersen, PhD Candidate
Department of Human Kinetics
Sudbury, ON, Canada
Leslie Podlog, BA, MA, PhD
Associate Professor, Sport and Exercise Psychology
Department of Health and Kinesiology
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Stefanie Podlog, PhD, MSc, BSc (Exercise Science), RN (German),
CHW
Professor at the University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences
College of Health Sciences
St. Augustine, FL, USA
Selen Razon, PhD
Associate Professor
West Chester University
West Chester, PA, USA
Hugh Richards, MSc, CPsychol
Senior Lecturer
Institute of Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, GB, UK
Michael Sachs, PhD, CMPC
Professor Emeritus
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Roy David Samuel, PhD
Lecturer
Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC)
Herzliya, Israel
Robert J. Schinke
Doctorate of Education
Professor
Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences
Sudbury, ON, Canada
Matthew J. Schweickle, BA, Psyc (Hons); BA Comm
PhD Candidate
University of Wollongong
Wollongong, Australia
Christian Swann, PhD, BSc (Hons)
Associate Professor
Faculty of Health
Southern Cross University
Coffs Harbour, Australia
Gershon Tenenbaum, PhD
Professor
B. Ivcher School of Psychology
Interdisciplinary Center
Herzeliya, Israel
David Tod, PhD
Senior Lecturer
School of Sport and Exercise Science
Liverpool, GB, UK
Sarah Ullrich-French, PhD
Professor
Department of Kinesiology and Educational Psychology
Washington State University
Pullman, WA, USA
Stewart A. Vella, PhD
Senior Lecturer
University of Wollongong
Wollongong, Australia
Jack C. Watson II, PhD
Dean and Professor
College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV, USA
Robert Weinberg, PhD
Professor
Sport Leadership and Management
Miami University
Oxford, OH, USA
V. Vanessa Wergin, Dr Phil
Postdoctoral Researcher
Chair of Sport Psychology, Department of Sport and Health Sciences
Technical University of Munich
Munich, Germany
Brad Young, PhD
Professor
School of Human Kinetics
University of Ottawa
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Sigal Ben Zaken, Dr
The Genetic and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Head
The Genetic and Molecular Biology Laboratory
The Academic College at Wingate for Physical Education and Sport
Sciences
Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel
Gal Ziv, PhD
Senior Lecturer
The Academic College at Wingate
Netanya, Israel
SECTION 1
PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING
1
Advancing Research on Efficacy Beliefs
Deborah L. Feltz and Mark R. Beauchamp
Self-efficacy theory has been extensively studied as a cognitive explanation

for differences in achievement strivings in sport and physical activity
contexts (Beauchamp et al., 2019; Feltz et al., 2008). Since Bandura’s
seminal publication (1977) on the self-efficacy (SE) construct, there have
been over a thousand research articles published on SE and collective
efficacy (CE) related to sport and physical activity. Previous reviews have
summarized much of this work (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 2019; Feltz et al.,
2008; Jackson et al., 2020), but as the field continues to grow, new research
questions arise that have the potential to shed light on human behavior
across a range of sport and exercise settings.
In this chapter, we pose some of these questions in the hope of
stimulating future research. We start with a brief overview of SE theory and
CE and provide a summary of key areas of current inquiry within sport and
physical activity settings. We then propose and discuss five major research
questions that we contend have considerable potential to contribute to the
field.
State of the Art

Overview of Self-Efficacy Theory and Collective Efficacy
Bandura’s (1977, 1997) theory of SE was developed within the framework
of social cognitive theory (SCT), where individuals are posited to use
forethought, self-reflection, and self-regulation to influence their own
functioning. Within this social cognitive framework, SE, defined as “beliefs
in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3), addresses the role of
self-referent beliefs as the core agentic factor that determines people’s goal-
directed behavior. That is, people make conscious efficacy judgments that
then influence the challenges they undertake, the effort they expend in the
activity, and their perseverance in the face of difficulties. SE judgments can
also influence motivation through certain thought patterns and emotional
reactions (e.g., pride, shame, happiness, sadness).
Efficacy judgments, in turn, are based on a complex process of self-
persuasion that relies on cognitive processing of diverse sources of
information (Bandura, 1997). Bandura put these sources into categories of
past performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and physiological/affective states. Performance
accomplishments are based on one’s own mastery experiences, and thus
provide the most dependable source of efficacy information. Vicarious
experiences are sources of efficacy information based on gaining
information from observing others and comparing one’s own capabilities to
those observed. Persuasive information includes verbal persuasion,
evaluative feedback, expectations by others, self-talk, and imagery.
Physiological/affective information includes autonomic arousal that is
associated (through perceptual processes) with fear and self-doubt or with
being energized and ready for performance, as well as one’s level of fitness,
fatigue, and pain, such as in strength and endurance contexts (Feltz et al.,
2008). Affective states (e.g., mood, anxiety, and depression) are sometimes
considered as a separate category of efficacy information that can influence
efficacy beliefs (Feltz et al., 2008). Various interventions, based on one or
more sources of efficacy information and experiences (e.g., feedback on
past performance), can alter SE beliefs (Ashford et al., 2010).
The theory of SE extends to the concept of CE. For instance, whereas SE
refers to people’s judgments of individual capabilities to perform a given
task, CE is defined as a group’s judgment of their conjoint capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce specified
levels of collective (e.g., team) performance (Bandura, 1997). Although the
concept of CE represents a shift in reference from the self to the collective
(e.g., Chan, 1998), it is guided by the same theoretical postulates as SE.
Much of the research on SE and CE within sport and exercise settings has
focused on the relationship between efficacy beliefs and achievement-
striving behaviors. However, key areas of current research focus on the
functional properties of SE, how best to analyze SE and CE, and how
efficacy beliefs between individuals (i.e., relational efficacy) influence
performance. We provide an overview of this research next and provide key
readings in Table 1.1.
Key Areas of Current Research

Functional properties of self-efficacy beliefs in physical activity
settings. One of the functional properties of efficacy beliefs that has
evolved in physical activity research is the nature of task demands. Early
work in the sport domain primarily focused on the effects and predictive
utility of efficacy beliefs to perform the various motor behaviors in sport at
a given level of difficulty (e.g., diving). Over the ensuing years, however,
researchers expanded on the parameters of the original theory to investigate
the nature and effects of other forms of efficacy belief. For example, in the
exercise domain, a considerable body of research has examined the efficacy
beliefs required to engage in effective self-regulation and pursue exercise in
the face of multiple demands and obstacles (e.g., Woodgate et al., 2005).
Beyond the distinction between task and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs, an
array of other forms of efficacy belief have been studied in sport and
exercise settings that include coping efficacy, coaching efficacy, and
relational efficacy beliefs, to name a few, along with beliefs that groups,
people, or teams have in their collective capabilities (for reviews see
Beauchamp, 2007; Feltz et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2020).
Data analysis issues. The current literature on SE and CE includes a
number of data analysis considerations. One issue concerns the linearity of
the SE and CE relationship to outcome variables. Within SCT, SE is
hypothesized to be linearly related to effort, persistence, and performance.
This positive, linear relationship has been supported in much of the
previous literature on SE in sport and exercise (Feltz et al., 2008). However,
Bandura (1997) suggested that there are times when some self-doubt is
beneficial for an individual or team to exert optimal effort, particularly in
the practice or training phases of a task. The curvilinear relationship
between efficacy beliefs and performance has rarely been tested. One study
that examined this curvilinear relationship used polynomial regression
analyses to show a significant curvilinear, inverted-U relationship with
performance in a strength training task (Ede et al., 2017).
A second data analytic issue that has received particular attention within
the physical activity domain concerns the way in which CE data are treated
when they are derived from individuals nested within groups (e.g., athletes
nested within teams). Research on how to measure CE in sport has been
summarized by Myers and Feltz (2007), with measures derived from such
assessments typically subject to multilevel modeling (MLM). Using this
methodology, the relationship between CE and performance has been
studied to examine the variability and predictors of CE at both individual
and group levels (e.g., Magyar et al., 2004). Although MLM has been used
in a number of studies within sport and exercise psychology, how
individuals vary in their perceptions of their team’s abilities and the pattern
of those dispersions have not been investigated in published research (Feltz
et al., 2008; DeRue et al., 2010). DeRue et al. (2010) described four forms
of efficacy dispersion that may exist within teams: (a) shared efficacy
(consensus among team members), (b) minority belief (one team member
will have either higher or lower perceptions of team efficacy than the rest of
the group), (c) bimodal (subgroups will form with different efficacy levels),
and (d) fragmented (all members have different team efficacy beliefs).
Relational efficacy. In sport and exercise settings a considerable amount
of behavior occurs whereby a person works with or acts to support another
to help them achieve their goals. From the perspective of SE theory, a
growing body of work has sought to examine the relational efficacy (RE)
beliefs that emerge in such settings and their effects on human behavior.
Two types of RE have received particular attention. These include the
beliefs that one person has in another’s capabilities, which is often called
other-efficacy (but has also been called proxy efficacy), and relation-
inferred self-efficacy (or RISE), which represents a person’s appraisals of
someone else’s efficacy beliefs in them (Lent & Lopez, 2002). Specifically,
RISE is a meta-perception in which person A makes an appraisal of person
B’s confidence in person A.
Research to date has generally found evidence that holding favorable
beliefs in a significant other (e.g., an athlete believing in her coach’s
capabilities, or vice versa) may contribute to the affective states of both the
target and holder of those other-efficacy beliefs, as well as relationship
quality (see Jackson et al., 2020, for a detailed review). Similarly, believing
that a significant other believes in you appears to act as a relational source
of SE and support the motivation of the holder of those RISE beliefs (see
Jackson et al., 2020).
Table 1.1 Five Key Readings in Efficacy Beliefs in Sport and Physical Activity
Authors Methodological Design Key Findings
Beauchamp Focus is on SE Review Critically evaluates empirical evidence related to the
et al. theoretical interplay between self-efficacy and other key
(2019) SCT constructs (e.g., goals, outcome expectations) and
physical activity behavior
DeRue et Focus is on CE Review Challenges assumption that within-team variability in CE
al. (2010) and theory Focus is on SE is simply a methodological concern and statistical
Ede et al. Experimental, within- prerequisite Presents taxonomy that distinguishes four
(2017) subjects design distinct forms of dispersion in CE Significant curvilinear
Participants performed relationship between SE and performance on the first trial
two trial blocks of plank Significant linear relationship between the two on the
exercise. SE was recorded second trial Support for the possibility that some self-
prior to each trial doubt can be a motivating factor for individuals to exert
Performance was used as maximal effort when initially attempting an exercise
an indicator of endurance task
motivational effort
Sparks et Focus is on RE Cluster Intervention designed to promote relatedness support
al. (2017) randomized controlled among teachers resulted in improvements in students’
trial confidence in their teacher (other-efficacy) as well as peer-
related RISE beliefs
Williams & Focus is on SE Conceptual Presented and reviewed evidence that typical SE measures
Rhodes analysis and critique unintentionally reflect motivation rather than perceived
(2016) capabilities
CE, collective efficacy; RISE, relation-inferred self-efficacy; SCT, social cognitive theory; SE, self-
efficacy.
Questions to Move the Field Forward

1. Theoretical Question: What Directional Paths of SE Work Best
to Predict Performance and Behavior in Sport and Physical
Activity Contexts?
SCT provides an excellent explanatory framework for understanding the
sources of efficacy beliefs and the downstream outcomes associated with
those beliefs. However, on the back of a growing and compelling body of
research, it may be pertinent to consider extensions/revisions to the original
framework, in particular with respect to the causal sequence through which
social-cognitive factors shape human behavior. For instance, in much of his
writing, Bandura contended that efficacy beliefs constitute “the key factor
of human agency” (1997, p. 3) from which subsequent cognitive factors
derive. These factors include one’s conceived goals, envisioned outcomes,
and approaches to socio-structural barriers and obstacles that might impede
subsequent behavior. That is, those clusters of social-cognitive factors act as
explanatory variables that mediate the effects of SE on behavior.
However, balanced against these theoretical postulates, empirical
evidence has accumulated that suggests that when outcome expectations are
targeted (and manipulated through intervention), through either monetary
incentives or by people being encouraged to envision the consequences of a
particular behavior, people’s SE beliefs improved (for a review, see
Williams & Rhodes, 2016). In short, and contrary to the tenets of SCT,
outcome expectations may causally precede efficacy beliefs. In a similar
regard, there is compelling evidence that goals may causally precede, and
influence, SE beliefs, and so the positioning of goals within the broader
SCT framework might require some realignment/repositioning (Beauchamp
et al., 2019).
Why is it important to address the question? This question helps
researchers understand exactly how different psychological processes
emerge and influence behavior and has a major bearing on which
psychological factors are prioritized through intervention. What is the best
way to address this question? A good theory should acknowledge its
contradictions (Smaldino, 2019) and be reconfigured if data are inconsistent
with the theory’s postulates. What this may mean for SCT is the need to (a)
better reflect the complexity of relations between key elements of the model
and (b) test those postulates using robust experimental methods. In the
physical activity domain, the role of socio-structural factors has received
relatively scant research attention, but in moving forward it might be
prudent to ascertain exactly how complex socio-structural factors (e.g.,
local health care providers, family income supports and benefits, school
systems and educational policy) shape beliefs of human agency, as well as
the processes by which agentic thought might differentially overcome
barriers to human accomplishment in physical activity pursuits. In the first
instance, socio-structural factors might be considered as inputs/antecedents
of efficacy beliefs (e.g., a well-resourced school system providing
opportunities for sport participation contributing to an adolescent’s
confidence to be active), whereas in the latter case they might represent a
moderator or even a downstream consequence of a person’s SE beliefs (e.g.,
a new immigrant’s lack of confidence to speak the local language inhibiting
her pursuit of, and access to, local services).
2. Methodological Question: What Measurement,
Methodological, and Analytical Tools Can Be Used to Advance
Our Understanding of the Dynamic Processes in the Efficacy
Belief and Performance Relationship?
There are a number of subquestions within this larger question. In the
subsections that follow we address three major issues that relate to ensuring
participants’ response processes reflect assessments of capability and not
motivation, the importance of using analytic methods that allow for
examination of nonlinear (efficacy-behavior) relations, and the need to
consider the dispersion of efficacy beliefs on sport teams in relation to
salient group-related outcomes.
How can assessments ensure that responses reflect a person’s
perceived capabilities and not motivation? As recent research designed to
examine participants’ response processes reveals, traditional SE
questionnaires may unintentionally tap into conceptions of intention (i.e., an
element of motivation) rather than a person’s perceived capabilities that
they “can” complete the target behavior (Williams & Rhodes, 2016;
Williams et al., 2020). Why is it important to address the question?
Research findings might overestimate explained variance in a targeted
behavioral or health outcome due to SE, when the explanatory process
might be more motivational in nature. Regardless, improved measurement
precision is clearly required to better understand the predictive utility of SE
beliefs in physical activity settings. What is the best way to address this
question? One approach proposed includes the use of brief vignettes, prior
to the provision of SE questionnaire items that point out the difference
between intentions and perceived capabilities, to ensure that when people
are asked about whether they “can” perform a given behavior, perceptions
of one’s capabilities are actually/appropriately assessed (Rhodes et al.,
2016).
What analytical tools can best advance our understanding of
nonlinear efficacy-performance relationships? Much of the research on
efficacy beliefs and performance in sport and exercise psychology is based
on the linear model. However, this assumption could limit the predictive
strength of efficacy beliefs on performance or other outcomes in contexts
where the relationship may not be linear, such as in practice or training
phases (e.g., Ede et al., 2017). Why is it important to address the question?
Determining what levels of SE and CE are most optimal for performance
will help in designing appropriate interventions.
What is the best way to address this question? At a very basic level, this
involves collecting repeated measures of SE and the relevant criterion
measure (e.g., performance) over time. Furthermore, from a data analytic
perspective, as Ede et al. (2017) have done, polynomial regression is one
statistical tool to examine the linearity of the efficacy-performance
relationship. Experimental designs that manipulate efficacy beliefs should
have at least high, moderate, and low efficacy belief conditions.
Additionally, cusp catastrophe regression within the cusp catastrophe model
has been shown to provide a more nuanced understanding of the
relationship between health knowledge (e.g., HIV) and health behavior SE
than linear regression (Chen & Chen, 2017). Polynomial regression could
also be used within MLM to examine CE within teams (Jansen & Kristof-
Brown, 2005). More research is needed using these methods to explore
nonlinear characteristics in the efficacy-performance relationship.
What data analytic methods can advance our understanding of how
different levels of CE within teams contribute to team functioning? An
important question that remains to be addressed within sport psychology
corresponds to the dispersion of efficacy beliefs within a team (i.e., the
inverse of consensus). Why is it important to address the question? The
variability of athletes’ responses within a specific team may have important
implications related to the team’s functioning, especially at different stages
of team development. For instance, dispersion in CE may be positively
related to a team’s preparatory performance as a result of more structuring,
planning, learning, and adapting in the team (DeRue et al., 2010). What is
the best way to address this question? Using the taxonomy proposed by
DeRue et al., MLM can enable researchers to examine a number of
variables (e.g., preparatory performance, team viability, cohesion, and
dispersion trajectories) in relation to CE beliefs.
3. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Might Teamwork

Processes and Structure Foster Improvements in Collective
Efficacy?
With a view to ascertain the potential determinants of team performance,
several studies within the sport domain have sought to understand the
relations between CE, group cohesion, and team performance. A major gap
in knowledge corresponds to a broader appraisal of the group dynamics that
contribute to CE beliefs in the first instance. Within organizational settings,
“teamwork” has been identified as an important behavioral contributor to
team effectiveness outcomes, with this relationship mediated by a set of
emergent states that include CE and group cohesion (LePine et al., 2008;
McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014). Teamwork represents “a dynamic process
involving a collaborative effort by team members to effectively carry out
the independent and interdependent behaviors that are required to maximize
a team’s likelihood of achieving its purposes” (McEwan & Beauchamp,
2014, p. 233). Some preliminary evidence exists in support of teamwork
being a correlate of CE in sport (McEwan, 2020); however, research has yet
to provide causal evidence for a teamwork–CE–team effectiveness effect.
Why is it important to address the question? First, in light of the fact that
teamwork represents a set of behavioral processes that exist in the
regulation of team performance and the management of team maintenance
(McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014), the subcomponents of teamwork (e.g.,
preparation and execution) provide very clear and tangible targets for
intervention and training. Meta-analytic evidence provides strong support
for teamwork interventions being able to enhance team effectiveness
outcomes outside of sport settings (McEwan et al., 2017), and so an
understanding of whether (and the extent to which) teamwork is able to
bolster CE beliefs and subsequent team effectiveness outcomes (through
experimental intervention-based designs) would appear a viable research
question to be pursued within sport.
Another group-related psychological process that is worthy of particular
empirical inquiry corresponds to the influence that one teammate might
have on the SE and CE of other team members. The effects of a slumping
athlete or athlete on a hot streak (CE “contagion”) on a team’s CE has not
been studied. This influence may depend on the status of the impacting
athlete (e.g., team captain, starter, nonstarter). Displays of ineffective or
inspirational performance could “infect” other teammates’ sense of CE.
What are the best ways to address these questions? In terms of
understanding the effects of a specific athlete’s teamwork behaviors on CE,
two approaches would appear particularly worthy of pursuit. First,
longitudinal approaches that examine the prospective effects of teamwork
behaviors on CE would enable researchers to ascertain exactly which facets
of a focal athlete’s teamwork might be particularly salient in predicting
subsequent confidence among team members in their collective capabilities.
In addition, experimental research that systematically targets (through
intervention) each of the subcomponents of teamwork would enable
researchers to ascertain causality in the extent to which factors such as
preparation, execution, and conflict resolution (either by a specific team
member or among all team members) causally influence subsequent CE and
thereafter team effectiveness outcomes. In addition, researchers should
include measures of other-efficacy along with CE when investigating team
effectiveness. One way to track such “contagious” influences is through the
use of a simulation technique called agent-based modeling (ABM; Oldham
& Crooks, 2019). ABM captures emergent phenomena by simulating the
behavior of players (i.e., agents) and their interactions, capturing the
emergence of structure and patterns of the collective behavior from the
bottom up. For example, Oldham and Crooks (2019) provide an example of
ABM in a simulation of the hot-streak effect using an agent-based
simulation of a basketball game.
4. Methodological Question: How Can We Disentangle the

Interrelationships Among Relational Efficacy Beliefs?
A notable contribution to research within the physical activity domain
corresponds to examination of the efficacy beliefs that exist within
relational settings. Early work by Feltz and colleagues (1999) on coaching
efficacy highlighted the importance of coaches having confidence in their
coaching capabilities, and the effects of such thought processes on shaping
the development and learning of the athletes under their charge. With the
contribution of Lent and Lopez’s (2002) conceptual model, subsequent
research sought to examine the correlates of the two forms of RE described
earlier in the chapter, namely other-efficacy and RISE. This corpus of
research has generally found these relationship-based efficacy cognitions to
be related to important outcomes for both the holder of those cognitions
(i.e., actor effects) and the other person in the relationship (i.e., partner
effects). Where insights derived from this work are limited is that the
research designs used to examine these processes have tended to be
correlational (i.e., either cross-sectional or passive prospective analyses
over time) or qualitative (based on interviews with coaches and athletes).
Why is it important to address the question? Disentangling the
interrelationships among the distinct types of efficacy beliefs that exist
within close relationships in physical activity settings has the potential to
increase understanding of how to best support the effective functioning of
dyads in physical activity settings. For example, if the confidence that a
coach has in their athlete’s capabilities (i.e., other-efficacy) drives both the
coach’s commitment to the athlete and the athlete’s confidence in
themselves, then any intervention might be best served through encouraging
coaches to make overt (and clear) their beliefs in their athletes’ capabilities.
Conversely, if an athlete’s RISE beliefs are particularly salient in bolstering
the athlete’s confidence in themselves, concerted efforts could be made to
persuade an athlete that their coach’s remarks, body language, and training
methods are indicative of the coach’s confidence in the athlete. In the
former case (i.e., should other-efficacy be a salient predictor), the
intervention would involve targeting the coach (encouraging the coach to
display confidence in the athlete). However, in the latter case (i.e., should
RISE be a salient predictor), the intervention might involve targeting the
athlete (helping them to reappraise the coach’s interactions as indicative of
the coach’s confidence in the athlete).
What are the best ways to answer this question? With this in mind, high-
quality experimental work that looks to disentangle the relationships among
SE, other-efficacy, and RISE in relation to intraindividual and
interindividual behavioral processes is clearly needed. Some experimental
research has sought to examine the relative contributions of SE and other-
efficacy on individual performance in dyadic physical activity tasks (e.g.,
Dunlop et al., 2011). However, there has been a distinct absence of work
that has sought to examine how other-efficacy and RISE beliefs emerge and
causally influence behavioral responses (e.g., sport performance), and
whether they may operate as viable interpersonal sources of SE beliefs that
complement the primary sources of SE articulated by Bandura (1997)
within SCT.
Experimental designs can be difficult when trying to control for
extraneous variables and still have some ecological validity. One way to
understand the predictive strength of other-efficacy and RISE is to use a
virtual reality environment with a computer-generated coach, teacher,
trainer, or teammate who could be manipulated to be perceived as having
differing levels of efficacy beliefs in the participants. Although these would
not be real people, there is evidence from media equation theory that people
often interact with nonhuman agents as if they represented reality (Reeves
& Nass, 1996).
5. Theoretical and Methodological Question: What Do the

Trajectories of Self-Efficacy Beliefs Look Like Across the Life
Course in the Context of Sport and/or Physical Activity Settings?
Across the life span, from childhood to adulthood, SE has been identified as
one of the most consistent modifiable determinants of physical activity
behavior (Bauman et al., 2012). One of the limitations of this research,
however, corresponds to the fact that we have very limited insight into the
development (and within-person fluctuations) of efficacy beliefs over the
life course, or even within/across specific life transitions (e.g., from
childhood to late adolescence, from adolescence to early adulthood, and so
forth).
In a recent passive prospective study that tracked a large sample of
adolescents from the fifth to the seventh grade in the United States,
Dishman and colleagues (2017) examined the relationships between
participants’ self-regulatory efficacy beliefs and physical activity. They
found that declines in physical activity (that mirror typical physical activity
trajectories among adolescent populations) were buffered to a certain extent
among those who had higher efficacy beliefs to overcome barriers.
Although this study points to a protective role of SE beliefs over time, the
sampled timeframe (2 years) would still be considered short term in nature.
Why is it important to address the question? In the same way that cohort
studies in epidemiology track salient lifestyle behaviors over the life course,
it would be revealing to track the trajectories of SE beliefs across the life
span, and in particular in relation to salient life events in sport (and
transition out of sport), as well as in relation to the pursuit of health-
enhancing physical activity. If one takes the example of professional
athletes, it could be important to see how their efficacy beliefs in sport
evolve from childhood to adulthood. Similarly, given established links
between SE and health-enhancing physical activity, it would be useful to
examine what basic resources (such as fundamental movement skills
developed in early childhood) are accrued in early childhood and
adolescence that promote downstream SE beliefs and lifelong trajectories
that manifest in active lifestyles.
What is the best way to address this question? In light of the fact that SE
beliefs represent domain-specific conceptions related to one’s perceived
capabilities, a life course approach to studying SE beliefs would have
considerable potential to examine the “generality” of SE beliefs (Bandura,
1997) across the different physical activity domains that one might sample
from childhood to early adulthood and beyond. The study of generality
effects has received limited empirical attention in the physical activity
domain; however, by sampling, for example, children and adolescents as
they attempt each new physical activity in school-based physical education,
recreational play, and organized sport, researchers would be well placed to
examine how physical competencies and efficacy beliefs accrued in one
domain might transfer to each new activity that people sample. Similarly, it
would be revealing to ascertain how efficacy beliefs, derived during early
adulthood and midlife, contribute to activities pursued during old age.
Conclusion
SE and CE research in sport and physical activity has continued to grow
over the four decades since Bandura’s (1977) seminal paper, expanding to
focus on the functional properties of SE, improved analyses of SE and CE,
and how relational efficacy influences performance. To stimulate further
research that contributes to the field, we have presented five broad
questions that expand on theoretical, methodological, and applied issues,
suggesting research approaches that examine the complexities of key
theoretical elements, using more robust experimental methods, newer
sophisticated analytical tools, virtual technologies, and lifespan research
designs.
References
Ashford, S., Edmunds, J., & French, D. P. (2010). What is the best way to change self-efficacy to
promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 265–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910709X461752
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bauman, A. E., Reis, R. S., Sallis, J. F., Wells, J. C., Loos, R. J., Martin, B. W., & Lancet Physical
Activity Series Working Group. (2012). Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people
physically active and others not? Lancet, 380(9838), 258–271.
Beauchamp, M. R. (2007). Efficacy beliefs within relational and group contexts in sport. In S. Jowett
& D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 181–193). Human Kinetics.
Beauchamp, M. R., Crawford, K. L., & Jackson, B. (2019). Social cognitive theory and physical
activity: Mechanisms of behavior change, critique, and legacy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
42, 110–117.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different
levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–
246.
Chen, D-G., & Chen, X. (2017). Cusp catastrophe regression and its application in public health and
behavioral research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14,
1220. doi:10.3390/ijerph14101220
DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Feltz, D. L. (2010). Efficacy dispersion in teams:
Moving beyond agreement and aggregation. Personnel Psychology, 63, 1–40.
Dishman, R. K., Dowda, M., McIver, K. L., Saunders, R. P., & Pate, R. R. (2017). Naturally-
occurring changes in social-cognitive factors modify change in physical activity during early
adolescence. PLoS ONE, 12(2), 1–16.
Dunlop, W. L., Beatty, D. J., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2011). Examining the influence of other-efficacy
and self-efficacy on personal performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 586–
593.
Ede, A., Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2017). Self-doubt: Uncertainty as a motivating factor on effort
in an exercise endurance task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 31–36.
Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching
efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 765–776.
Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport. Human Kinetics.
Jackson, B., Beauchamp, M. R., & Dimmock, J. (2020). Efficacy beliefs in physical activity settings:
Contemporary debate and unanswered questions. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed., pp. 57–80). Wiley & Sons.
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2005). Marching to the beat of a different drummer:
Examining the impact of pacing congruence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97, 93–105.
Lent, R. W., & Lopez, F. G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in
growth-promoting relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 256–286.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of
teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
Magyar, T. M., Feltz, D. L., & Simpson, I. P. (2004). Individual and crew level determinants of
collective efficacy in rowing. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 136–153.
McEwan, D. (2020). The effects of perceived teamwork on emergent states and satisfaction with
performance among team sport athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(1), 1–15.
McEwan, D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2014). Teamwork in sport: A theoretical and integrative review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 229–250.
McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). The
effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: A systematic
review and meta-analysis of controlled interventions. PLoS ONE, 12, e0169604.
Myers, N. D., & Feltz, D. L. (2007). From self-efficacy to collective efficacy in sport: Transitional
methodological issues. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), The handbook of sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 799–819). Wiley.
Oldham, M., & Crooks, A. T. (2019, April–May). Drafting agent-based modeling into basketball
analytics. Paper presented at Spring Simulation Conference, Tuscan, AZ.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new
media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
Rhodes, R. E., Williams, D. M., & Mistry, C. (2016). Using short vignettes to disentangle perceived
capability from motivation: A test using walking and resistance training behaviors. Psychology,
Health, and Medicine, 21, 639–651.
Smaldino, P. E. (2019). Better methods can’t make up for mediocre theory. Nature, 575, 9.
Sparks, C., Lonsdale, C., Dimmock, J. A., & Jackson, B. (2017). An intervention to improve
teachers’ interpersonally-involving instructional practices in high school physical education:
Implications for student relatedness support and in-class experiences. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 39, 120–133.
Williams, D. M., Dunsiger, S., Emerson, J. A., Dionne, L., Rhodes, R. E., & Beauchamp, M. R.
(2020). Are self-efficacy measures confounded with motivation? An experimental test. Psychology
and Health, 35(6), 685–700.
Williams, D. M., & Rhodes, R. E. (2016). The confounded self-efficacy construct: Conceptual
analysis and recommendations for future research. Health Psychology Review, 10, 113–128.
Woodgate, J., Brawley, L. R., & Weston, Z. J. (2005). Maintenance cardiac rehabilitation exercise
adherence: Effects of task and self-regulatory self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
35, 183–197.
2
Attention
Ronnie Lidor and Gal Ziv
State of the Art

Attention—the ability to focus on a selected stimulus and sustain that focus
and shift it at will (Shiel, 2019)—is fundamental for skilled motor
performance. The performance of motor skills is linked with paying
attention to the task at hand and/or to relevant cues associated with the
environment where the individual/team is performing (e.g., Moran, 2010;
Schmidt et al., 2019; Wulf, 2007). In this chapter, we focus on two major
concepts of attention that have been studied extensively in the literature of
sport and exercise psychology: attentional instructions (internal and
external) and visual attention. The chapter is composed of two parts. In the
first part, we provide an updated overview of the research findings on the
two aforementioned concepts. In the second part, we identify five questions
associated with attention and skilled performance that have the potential to
advance theory, methodology, and applied interventions in the domain.
Attentional Instructions and Visual Attention

Attentional instructions and visual attention are associated with sporting
tasks performed in both stable and dynamic settings (Lidor, 2007). In stable
settings, performance occurs in a predictable environment wherein athletes
know in advance what they are going to do, such as a floor routine in
gymnastics or a free-throw shot in basketball. In these events, performers
are mainly required to focus attention on one relevant environmental cue.
For example, while standing at the line and preparing themselves for a free-
throw shot, the shooter is focusing at one specific cue related to the
shooting environment—the front edge of the rim. In dynamic settings,
performance occurs in an open environment wherein athletes are required to
attend to multiple environmental cues and search for the most relevant one,
for example, when passing the ball in soccer. Attentional instructions are
typically associated with settings that are more stable, while visual attention
is more related to dynamic environments. Presumably, in both settings
performers should maximize their ability to attend to the most relevant cues
to achieve a high level of proficiency.
Internal/External Focus of Attention

In a typical study on attentional focus, participants are assigned to one of
two conditions—internal instructions (e.g., the body’s own movements) or
external instructions (e.g., the intended movement effect). Empirical
evidence emerging from an extensive line of studies (see Wulf, 2007, 2013)
has revealed that participants who were taught how to focus externally
outperformed those who were instructed to attend internally.
The advantage of using external instructions has been observed in several
motor tasks (e.g., putting in golf, shooting free throws in basketball,
balancing), at different skill levels, and in various age groups (Wulf, 2013).
In addition, external attention instructions have been shown to impact both
immediate performance (i.e., in the practice sessions where the instructions
were initially introduced to the participants) and learning (i.e., a phase that
reflects a more permanent change in the capability to perform the learned
skill). Finally, both movement effectiveness (e.g., accuracy, consistency,
balance) and movement efficiency (e.g., muscular activity, force
production, cardiovascular responses) have been shown to improve with the
use of external focusing attention guidance (for a review, see Wulf, 2013).
Two main possible explanations for the superiority of external focus of
attention have been proposed by researchers. According to the constrained
action hypothesis (see Wulf, 2007, 2013), attention instructions induce a
conscious type of control, causing performers to constrain their motor
system by interfering with the automatic processes. External attention
instructions promote a more automatic mode of control, by utilizing
unconscious, fast, and reflexive control processes.
The second explanation for the superiority of external attention
instructions is found in an expansion of the constrained action hypothesis.
According to Wulf and Lewthwaite (2010), references to one’s body parts
or movements (i.e., internal focus of attention) facilitate access to the neural
representation of the self, resulting in self-evaluative and self-regulatory
processing. Conditions that trigger neural activation of the self-system
result in what Wulf and Lewthwaite (2010) call “micro-choking” episodes,
and when these episodes occur performance is hampered.
The expansion of the constrained action hypothesis is one of the pillars of
the OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance through Intrinsic Motivation and
Attention for Learning) theory proposed by Wulf and Lewthwaite (2016).
According to this theory, (a) providing instructions for external focus of
attention, (b) increasing learners’ sense of autonomy in learning, and (c)
providing enhanced expectancies all facilitate motor skill acquisition.
Visual Attention
Athletes are usually required to search visually for relevant information in
the sporting environment. However, the ability of humans to visually
process a scene is limited. Therefore, how do athletes find objects in the
environment or perceive stimuli? Wolfe and Horowitz (2017) proposed five
factors that guide our visual attention: (a) top-down guidance—individuals
purposefully search for desired targets; (b) bottom-up salience—the shift in
visual attention toward salient environmental features, even if one is not
purposefully looking for them; (c) scene meaning—guiding attention
toward locations in which one is likely to find certain targets; (d) previous
history of search—in which targets that were searched for previously may
attract more attention in a subsequent search; and (e) relative value of the
targets and distractors—in which being rewarded for finding certain targets
in previous searches will make them more prominent in a subsequent
search.
Understanding how athletes guide their searches can increase knowledge
on how they perceive their sporting environments and why they display
specific search patterns of behavior. For example, athletes might fail to
perceive targets in these environments that are salient to us as an audience.
If the visual search was guided to a certain area (based on a combination of
the aforementioned five factors affecting the search), it can be understood
why another area in the visual field was disregarded—even though
searching that area might have led to a better result. Indeed, the relationship
between gaze and performance is of major importance in sport (for a
review, see Brams et al., 2019).
Three theories on the relationships between gaze and performance have
been proposed (see Gegenfurtner et al., 2011). According to these theories,
certain gaze features may characterize expert performers. The information
reduction hypothesis posits that experts are better than novices at attending
to relevant areas of interest in their visual field and disregarding areas that
are irrelevant to the task at hand (Haider & Frensch, 1999). Based on this
hypothesis, experts make more fixations of longer durations to relevant
areas and fewer fixations of longer durations to distracting areas.
The long-term working memory theory purports that experts have more
context-related information stored in their long-term memory that can be
rapidly retrieved than novices (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). Therefore, when
experts need to perform a motor task or make a decision, they can quickly
compare the current environmental information with that stored from
previous experiences. According to this theory, experts can retrieve relevant
information from fewer fixations of shorter durations compared to novices.
This theory may seem to contradict the information reduction hypothesis;
however, a number of studies suggest that these two theories may
complement one another (see Brams et al., 2019).
The holistic model of image perception suggests that visual scanning
starts with a brief glimpse, followed by intentional fixations to relevant
areas based on the information received during that glimpse (Kundel et al.,
2007). Compared to novices, experts can extract more information during
the first glimpse and are then able to more quickly fixate on the relevant
areas (Gegenfurtner et al., 2011). Therefore, eye-tracking data of experts
should show shorter times until the first fixation toward a relevant area in
the visual field.
A recent systematic review examined the relationships between gaze
behavior and expertise in sport and in other domains (Brams et al., 2019).
In this review, support was provided for the long-term working memory
theory, which claims that experts in sport have shorter fixation durations
during the performance of perceptual-cognitive tasks, respective to their
less expert counterparts. In addition, strong support was provided for the
information-reduction hypothesis, which states that compared to
nonexperts, experts make more fixations of longer duration on relevant
areas of interest. It is worth noting that an insufficient number of studies
have examined the holistic model of image perception in the sport domain,
and therefore no conclusion can be drawn regarding the importance of this
model in sport. Five key readings concerning attention (i.e., attentional
instructions and visual attention) and skilled motor performance are
presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Five Key Readings in Attention and Skilled Motor Performance
Authors Methodological Key Findings
Design
Brams Systematic Thirty-six studies examining gaze behavior and expert perceptual-
et al. review of visual cognitive skills in sports were found. Strong support for the
(2019) search and information-reduction hypothesis. Experts make more fixations and
expert dwell longer on relevant AOIs. Experts are also better at ignoring
performance1 irrelevant AOIs.
Park et Narrative This review discusses frequency- and time-domain analysis of EEG in
al. review/ sport. The review suggests that mobile EEG technology offers
(2015) conceptual opportunities to study sport in ecologically valid settings. Certain brain
article on waves and certain EEG potentials known to be related to attentional
mobile EEG processes can therefore supplement our behavioral/performance
and sport measures to provide more robust applied learning strategies.
performance3
Toner & Literature The review draws on empirical evidence and theory to elucidate the role
Moran review and of bodily awareness in facilitating continuous improvement at the elite
(2015) position level of sport. Based on the reviewed evidence, the authors sketched a
statement3 number of theoretical and practical implications of the theory of
“somaesthetics” for research on expertise in sport.
Vater et Systematic Twenty-nine studies examined the role of peripheral vision in sports:
al. review on the basketball (2), soccer (9), squash (2), table tennis (1), volleyball (4),
(2020) role of baseball (1), cricket (1), combat sports (5), other (4). Three main gaze
peripheral strategies for perception were discussed: foveal spot, gaze anchor, and
vision in sport1 visual pivot.
Wulf Narrative A review of the effects of external and internal focus on motor
(2013) review of performance. Generally, external focus of attention is more beneficial to
attentional motor performance and learning than internal focus of attention.
focus effects2
1
Related mainly to visual attention.
2
Related mainly to attentional instructions.
3
Related to both visual attention and attentional instructions.
AOI = area of interest; EEG, electroencephalography.

We identify five questions associated with attentional instructions and
visual attention that may advance theory, methodology, and applied
interventions, as follows.
1. Applied Question: Can Internal Focus of Attention Be
Preferable at Times to an External One?
Based on her review of studies examining the effectiveness of attentional
instructions, Wulf (2013) concluded that an external focus of attention
applies to all types of tasks and all skill levels, and facilitates both
movement effectiveness and movement efficiency. However, a number of
researchers have questioned the breadth of the external attentional focus
effect (e.g., Montero et al., 2019; Toner & Moran, 2015; Ziv & Lidor,
2015). According to these researchers, an internal focus of attention may be
more useful when certain motor tasks are performed, or when the learners
who are involved in the learning process are novices.
Montero and colleagues (2019) investigated the difficulty of eliminating
confounds in experiments examining the effectiveness of external and
internal instructions. One such confound is whether internal focus and
external focus are equally natural to participants. For example, in targeting
tasks (e.g., dart throwing, free-throw shooting in basketball), an external
focus may be more natural than an internal focus, as athletes are required to
focus on the target to perform well. This difference alone can lead to
superior performance under external focus conditions. Montero and
colleagues (2019) also argued that an internal focus of attention can
facilitate performance in certain motor skills. Among these skills are those
that are defined in terms of attaining an internal focus (e.g., dance,
meditation, yoga), skills that may benefit from conscious control (e.g.,
putting in golf), and skills that are enjoyable to practice. Importantly,
Montero and colleagues (2019) did not doubt that sometimes consequence-
centered (external) attention leads to a superior outcome compared with
body-centered (internal) attention. However, they questioned the breadth of
this guidance.
In one study, the relationships between attentional instructions, accuracy
of golf putting, and gaze behavior in learners who had not played golf prior
to their participation in the study were examined (Ziv & Lidor, 2015). It
was found that participants in both the internal and the external attentional
instruction groups achieved a higher level of proficiency than those in the
control group (i.e., attentional instructions were not provided). However,
there were no differences in the performance of participants between the
internal and the external attention groups. The authors of this study
suggested that a possible explanation for these findings is related to the fact
that different types of information can be termed as either internal or
external. For example, in golf putting an internal focus of attention can be
directed to the arms, the wrists, or the swing of the arms. Similarly, an
external focus of attention can be directed to the club, the ball, the hole, or
an imaginary line on which the golf ball should roll. In the current study,
the external focus of attention was placed on the head of the golf club.
However, it is possible that in golf putting the external focus should be
directed elsewhere. Therefore, additional empirical evidence on the specific
focus of attention is needed for (a) a given learned/performed task and (b)
the specific learning stage of the learners.
2. Applied and Theoretical Question: What Is the Role of

Peripheral Vision When the Performer Is Attending to the
Task/Environment, and How Does Peripheral Vision Influence
Attention?
Most studies on visual attention examine foveal (constituting the area of
maximum visual acuity and color discrimination) attention by using eye-
tracking technology. However, attention can be overt (i.e., directed to the
gaze location) or covert (i.e., directed to a location different than the
location of gaze). Unfortunately, eye-tracking technology can only inform
us where one is looking but cannot provide information on what an athlete
is attending to, which is our main interest.
The role of peripheral vision in sport was discussed in a recent review of
29 studies (Vater et al., 2020). In this review, three definitions of possible
gaze strategies were put forward: first, a foveal spot—overt attention, where
information is processed via the fovea; second, a gaze anchor—where gaze
is directed to one point that is located between several relevant areas, from
which information can be covertly gathered using peripheral vision; and
lastly, a visual pivot—where a fixation is located at a strategic point
between several areas of interest, and gaze can frequently be directed to
each of these areas for foveal perception and then return to the central
location. Each of these strategies may be beneficial for tasks within a sport
or between sports. For a closed, self-paced motor task, for example, a
foveal spot and overt attention to the fovea are mostly advised. However, in
dynamic situations where there are several areas of interest, it is perhaps
more useful to use a gaze anchor and gather information from the peripheral
vision.
The literature suggests that peripheral vision plays an important role in
our ability to visually search for or visually attend to relevant stimuli (for a
review, see Rosenholtz, 2016). Peripheral vision is especially important
when there is more than one location on which to fixate or when there is a
need to detect motion. A recent review discussed several studies that
examined the role of peripheral vision in sport, among them two in
basketball, four in volleyball, one in baseball, and nine in soccer (Vater et
al., 2020). However, those studies mostly measured natural gaze behavior.
While this approach increases external validity, it reduces internal validity
and the ability to clearly identify when attention is directed to the peripheral
vision.
While methodologies that emphasize external or ecological validity are
important in sport and coaching sciences, perhaps it is time to design
studies in which internal validity is emphasized. This can be achieved by (a)
constraining the head and recording eye movements in front of a computer
screen or (b) occluding the foveal field of view or the peripheral field of
view to require the participants to use the information from one field or the
other (see, e.g., Ryu et al., 2015). Such strategies will improve our
understanding of the interplay between foveal and peripheral vision in
various motor tasks, as previously suggest by Vater et al. (2020).
3. Applied and Theoretical Question: What Are the Mechanisms

That Contribute to Visual Attention in a Number of Individuals
Performing Together to Achieve a Shared Goal?
The vast majority of studies on visual attention or gaze behavior in sport
have been conducted on the individual athlete. However, in team sports
most of the tasks require team coordination. For example, when two
basketball players find themselves trying to score a basket against two
opposing players, their behavior should be coordinated. To accomplish this,
their gaze behavior should be coordinated as well. This is true for the
attacking players as well as the defending players. If only one player on the
team shows “optimal” gaze behavior and the other player does not, the team
may not achieve its goal.
It is important, therefore, to measure gaze behavior of teams rather than
only of individual athletes. By synchronizing the recordings of eye
movements of two or more expert players, researchers should be able to
show how team visual attention leads to expert team performance. It may
then be possible to teach “optimal” team visual attention to less expert
players, or to novices, and thus improve team performance. Understanding
shared gaze behavior can complement the literature on team cognition,
coordination, and shared cognition in sport (see Cooke et al., 2013; Gray et
al., 2017; McNeese et al., 2016).
We suggest that researchers start with examining the gaze behavior of a
team of two participants (i.e., dyads) in relevant sports. For example, an
examination of the synchronized gaze behavior of two players in doubles
tennis or in two-on-two basketball game scenarios can lead to important
findings for the required shared gaze behavior of the two players. After
characterizing the gaze behavior of the team, researchers could then
examine whether this shared gaze behavior is trainable. Finally, researchers
can attempt to increase the size of the team and measure gaze behaviors of
three or more players. We believe that this line of research is feasible, as
modern eye-tracking technology is now relatively inexpensive and allows
for relatively easy synchronization between a number of systems.
4. Theoretical Question: What Are the Neural Correlates of

Attentional and Visual Processes in Sport?
In most studies on attention in sport, researchers measure performance
variables (e.g., accuracy and consistency), which are sometimes augmented
by physiological measures (e.g., heart rate and electromyography). While
data have been accumulated on the contribution of attentional strategies to
the enhancement of sport performance, the underlying brain mechanisms
have been much less researched. More specifically, it would be beneficial to
find the neural correlates to different attentional and visual search strategies
that are related to improved performance. Once we understand the
underlying brain mechanisms, such findings could improve our ability to
recommend certain learning strategies that are more robust. Indeed, it can
sometimes be difficult to show causation using performance variables only,
especially when direct measurements of attention are unavailable. For
example, using electroencephalography (EEG) may help researchers show
changes in certain brain waves that represent less or more attentive/alert
states that accompany behavioral and performance measures (for a review
on the relationship between such neurophysiological signals and
alertness/mental workload/drowsiness, see Borghini et al., 2014).
In studies in which participants use different types of attentional focus, or
when they are required to fixate their gaze at a certain location for a certain
duration prior to movement execution, EEG measures can show (a) that
one’s attention is indeed elevated and/or (b) that the attentional instructions
are related to specific brain activity. For example, Mann and colleagues
(2011) showed how one specific gaze measure, the Quiet Eye—the final
fixation on a specific location before the onset of a critical movement
execution (Vickers, 2016)—is related to a specific brain potential, the
Bereitschaftspotential, which represents a preparatory period before task
execution. Indeed, longer Quiet Eye durations characterize experts (Mann et
al., 2007) and the finding by Mann et al. (2011) suggests that behavioral
characterization is represented by a specific brain potential.
Research paradigms that include such neurophysiological measures are
feasible in sport science, since mobile EEG technology is now available and
is relatively inexpensive (for a review of the mobile EEG capabilities for
sport performance, see Park, Fairweather, and Donaldson, 2015). For
example, Bertollo et al. (2016) used EEG recordings to explore the neural
correlates of processing efficiency and performance states in 10 elite
shooters. They found that different neural dynamics are associated with
either optimal/automatic performance or optimal/controlled performance.
Such findings can lead to the development of cognitive and neuro-feedback
strategies to improve performance. EEG recordings can also be used when
examining team shared cognition (e.g., Filho et al., 2016) and can
complement the usage of gaze recordings of multiple participants striving
for a shared goal. Finally, from an ecological validity perspective, the
availability of mobile eye trackers and mobile EEG systems can enable
researchers to understand attentional processes and expert performance in
conditions that mimic real-life situations. In addition, the use of virtual
reality can allow researchers to mimic real-life situations while still
maintaining control over the research environment.
5. Applied and Methodological Question: What Do We Actually

Know About the Ecological Validity of the Attentional
Instructions/Visual Attention Field Training?
The primary goal of any instructional program is to facilitate long-term
learning (Soderstrom & Bjork, 2015). More specifically, instructions should
create relatively enduring changes in the comprehension, understanding,
and skills that will provide support for long-term retention and transfer.
Both attentional instructions and visual attention strategies were mainly
studied with short-term retention intervals. Although the attentional studies
allowed the researchers to argue that attentional practice enhanced both
performance and learning of motor tasks (e.g., Wulf, 2013), studies on long-
term retention (e.g., months, years) are still needed. While we acknowledge
the difficulties of running such longitudinal studies, we believe that efforts
should be made to conduct them. In addition, we have relatively little
knowledge on training in the field. For example, how do coaches,
instructors, and sport psychology consultants plan short- and long-term
attentional training? Do we know if they do this as part of their practice
sessions where the sport skills are learned/performed, or as part of the
consultation/psychological sessions that complement the practice sessions?
Answers to the aforementioned questions will strengthen the ecological
validity of attentional training in both stable and dynamic sport
environments. Additional studies—field studies, evaluative studies, and
case studies—should be performed to obtain evidence-based information on
the applicability effect of attentional instructions and visual attention
practice.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the relationship between two aspects of attention
(i.e., focus of attention and visual attention) and performance. After
presenting the main theories related to both aspects of attention, five
questions that could move the field forward were discussed. A few of these
questions are applied in nature and the others are more theoretical. We
suggest that researchers increase the use of current technology (e.g., modern
eye trackers, mobile EEG systems) that can help understand how attention
is related to expert performance—both in theory and in practice.
Specifically, we propose that research should be expanded on (a) foveal and
parafoveal vision and their relationships with performance, (b) gaze
behavior and attention of teams who have a shared goal rather than
individuals within teams, and (c) understanding the neural activity that
supports both individual and team performance. By doing so, we should
also be able to explore the applicability of learning strategies that are based
on attentional processes, and therefore provide evidence-based practical
instructions to practitioners who work with athletes with the goal of
improving performance.
References
Bertollo, M., di Fronso, S., Filho, E., Conforto, S., Schmid, M., Bortoli, L., Comani, S., & Robazza,
C. (2016). Proficient brain for optimal performance: The MAP model perspective. PeerJ, 4, e2082.
Borghini, G., Astolfi, L., Vecchiato, G., Mattia, D., & Babiloni, F. (2014). Measuring
neurophysiological signals in aircraft pilots and car drivers for the assessment of mental workload,
fatigue and drowsiness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 58–75.
Brams, S., Ziv, G., Levin, O., Spitz, J., Wagemans, J., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2019). The
relationship between gaze behavior, expertise, and performance: A systematic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 145, 980–1027.
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition.
Cognitive Science, 37, 255–285.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102,
211–245.
Filho, E., Bertollo, M., Tamburro, G., Schinaia, L., Chatel-Goldman, J., Di Fronso, S., Robazza, C.,
& Comani, S. (2016). Hyperbrain features of team mental models within a juggling paradigm: A
proof of concept. PeerJ, 4, e2457.
Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of
visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 523–552.
Gray, R., Cooke, N. J., McNeese, N. J., & McNabb, J. (2017). Investigating team coordination in
baseball using a novel joint decision making paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 907.
Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the
information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 25, 172–190.
Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., Conant, E. F., & Weinstein, S. P. (2007). Holistic component of image
perception in mammogram interpretation: Gaze-tracking study. Radiology, 242, 396–402.
Lidor, R. (2007). Preparatory routines in self-paced events: Do they benefit the skilled athletes? Can
they help the beginners? In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology
(3rd ed., pp. 445–465). Wiley.
Mann, D. T., Coombes, S. A., Mousseau, M. B., & Janelle, C. M. (2011). Quiet eye and the
Bereitschaftspotential: Visuomotor mechanisms of expert motor performance. Cognitive
Processing, 12, 223–234.
Mann, D. T., Williams, A. M., Ward, P., & Janelle, C. M. (2007). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 457–478.
McNeese, N., Cooke, N. J., Fedele, M., & Gray, R. (2016). Perspectives on team cognition and team
sports. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A-M. Elbe, & A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport and
exercise psychology research (pp. 123–141). Academic Press.
Montero, B. G., Toner, J., & Moran, A. P. (2019). Questioning the breadth of the attentional focus
effect. In M. L. Cappuccio (Ed.), Handbook of embodied cognition and sport psychology (pp. 199–
221). MIT Press.
Moran, A. (2010). Concentration/attention. In S. J. Hanrahan & M. B. Andersen (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of applied sport psychology (pp. 500–509). Routledge.
Park, J. L., Fairweather, M. M., & Donaldson, D. I. (2015). Making the case for mobile cognition:
EEG and sports performance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 52, 117–130.
Rosenholtz, R. (2016). Capabilities and limitations of peripheral vision. Annual Review of Vision
Science, 2, 437–457.
Ryu, D., Abernethy, B., Mann, D. L., & Poolton, J. M. (2015). The contributions of central and
peripheral vision to expertise in basketball: How blur helps to provide a clearer picture. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 167–185.
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C. J., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2019). Motor control and
learning – A behavioral emphasis (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.
Shiel, W. C. (2019). Attention. Retrieved from MedTerms medical dictionary.
https://www.medicinenet.com/medterms-medical-dictionary/article.htm
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 176–199.
Toner, J., & Moran, A. (2015). Enhancing performance proficiency at the expert level: Considering
the role of somaesthetic awareness. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 110–117.
Vater, C., Williams, A. M., & Hossner, E.-J. (2020). What do we see out of the corner of our eye?
The role of visual pivots and gaze anchors in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Vickers, J. N. (2016). Origins and current issues in Quiet Eye research. Current Issues in Sport
Science, 1.
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature
Human Behaviour, 1, 1–8.
Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning. Human Kinetics.
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 77–104.
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Effortless motor learning? An external focus of attention
enhances movement effectiveness and efficiency. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new
perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 75–101). MIT Press.
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and
attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
23, 1382–1414.
Ziv, G., & Lidor, R. (2015). Focusing attention instructions, accuracy, and quiet eye in a self- paced
task – An exploratory study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 104–120.
3
Choking Under Pressure
Christopher Mesagno, Felix Ehrlenspiel, V. Vanessa Wergin, and Peter Gröpel
The pressure of competition helps develop athletes who can focus their
attention well, performing better than normal in big moments. Often,
however, competitive pressure leads athletes to perform worse than normal
(e.g., as displayed in practice), which is known as choking under pressure
(i.e., choking). In this chapter, we first provide a brief, contemporary
summary of the choking literature, which mainly includes choking in
individuals but also incorporates team choking (i.e., collective team
collapse). We then offer unknown questions for future researchers.
State of the Art

Researchers who experimentally examine choking have advanced the
literature exponentially since Baumeister’s (1984) seminal work, which
investigated the effects of personality, and anxiety, on choking. Six main
areas discussed within choking research include definitions of, personality
characteristics predicting, models of, neurophysiological correlates of,
interventions of, and “team” choking. The “key readings” in Table 3.1
(ordered alphabetically) are choking-specific papers meeting the following
criteria: (a) an “influential” choking paper, (b) robust study design, and (c)
related to existing choking models or “theory-matched” choking
interventions. Ultimately, we chose one article that supports the self-focus,
distraction, and self-presentation models of choking, and one theory-
matched choking intervention article that relates to either the self-focus or
distraction model. Since Baumeister’s work initiated this research, it is an
assumed key reading and was excluded. We have also excluded literature
(or systematic) reviews because we include them in the choking summaries
later.
Choking Definitions Debate
Recent literature has provided conjecture about how much of a magnitude
of performance decrement equates to choking. Initially, Baumeister (1984)
defined choking as “performance decrements under pressure
circumstances” (p. 610), which implies that “any” performance decrease
constitutes choking. Other researchers (e.g., Hill et al., 2009; Mesagno &
Hill, 2013), however, have questioned whether choking should be reserved
for large performance decreases because differences in thought patterns
may exist between small (i.e., underperformance) and substantial (i.e.,
choking) performance decrements. Mesagno and Hill (2013) initiated a
within-journal issue debate (see International Journal of Sport Psychology
[IJSP], 2013 issue) arguing for clarity of the choking definition and more
investigations dedicated to a magnitude of performance decrease under
pressure to determine if cognitive processing differences between
“underperformance” and choking exist. Jackson (2013) agreed that the
underperformance and choking dichotomy could be investigated through
hypothesis testing, and other researchers (in the IJSP special issue) agreed
that examining the underperformance and choking dichotomy could
advance choking research. Nevertheless, Mesagno and Hill suggested
choking is defined as “an acute and considerable decrease in skill execution
and performance when self-expected standards are normally achievable,
which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived pressure” (p. 273).
Mesagno and Hill acknowledged this as an underdeveloped definition
suggesting that researchers investigate the dichotomy further to agree on a
magnitude for decreased performance. Although no agreed-upon choking
definition exists, we (the authors of this chapter), in independent recent
publications, have needed to justify the selected choking definition to
reviewers. This may signify a paradigm shift in reporting definitions and
links to research findings, which was less monitored prior to the Mesagno
and Hill choking definition debate.
Personality Characteristics of Choking

Researchers have continued to investigate the link between personality and
choking, which may include trait anxiety, self-consciousness, dispositional
reinvestment, fear of negative evaluation and failure, coping, self-
confidence, and narcissism. With the exception of self-confidence and
narcissism, these personality characteristics have a positive correlation with
choking. Self-confidence and narcissism are negatively linked to choking;
as self-confidence or narcissism increases, choking decreases.
Generally, researchers investigate the predictive nature of these
personality characteristics, whereby participants complete a self-report
questionnaire prior to an experiment. During the experiment, participants
perform a sporting task under low and high pressure and then the trait is
analyzed using correlational or regression analyses on the low- and high-
pressure performance (and anxiety) scores. Researchers have also combined
three personality characteristics (i.e., trait anxiety, self-consciousness, and
coping) in an attempt to identify and help choking-susceptible (i.e., more
prone to experience decreases in performance under pressure) athletes
improve performance (Mesagno et al., 2008). For in-depth discussions of
personality characteristics and choking, the reader is referred to Mesagno et
al. (2015).
Choking Models
Researchers who investigate explanatory theories of choking would agree
that a heightened anxiety is essential for an experience to be labeled
choking (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Mesagno et al., 2015). Explanations, to
date, focus on attentional changes that occur as a consequence of the
anxiety increase, or antecedents that predispose someone to become more
anxiety stricken. Most research support is focused on the attention-based
consequences of heightened state anxiety through the self-focus and
distraction models of choking (Mesagno & Beckmann, 2017). Self-focus
explanations (e.g., explicit monitoring hypothesis or reinvestment theory)
indicate that, as anxiety increases, explicit attention is allocated to task
execution (see Masters & Maxwell, 2008, for a review on reinvestment
theory). That is, attention shifts from task-relevant information to internal
monitoring of skill-based knowledge in order to consciously control
movement, which decreases smooth, coordinated actions, usually processed
intuitively. Distraction-based explanations indicate that as anxiety increases,
the combined effects of worry and explicit self-instruction exceed a
threshold of attentional capacity, which diminishes high-level performance.
Ultimately, anxiety shifts attention toward threat-based and task-irrelevant
stimuli, reducing available attention to process task-relevant cues and
decreasing performance.
Recently, researchers have proposed theoretical descriptions about the
antecedents of increased state anxiety via self-presentation. The central
premise of the self-presentation model (Mesagno et al., 2011, 2012), which
has limited support to date, is that certain personality characteristics
predispose athletes to being more choking susceptible. When these
characteristics are associated with choking-susceptibility, athletes are
predisposed to higher cognitive state anxiety and self-presentation concerns.
Self-presentation is the process by which people attempt to monitor and
control how they are perceived and evaluated by others (Schlenker, 1980).
People engage in self-presentation behaviors to help create a public identity.
Given that athletes likely have a strong (or exclusive) athletic identity, self-
presentation concerns and behaviors may emerge because athletes want to
create a positive public image to other athletes and supporters to confirm
their own beliefs about themselves. To deal with the cognitive anxiety
increases, attentional shifts occur to control public image and avoid
relational devaluation, which exacerbate performance decrements. The
reader is referred to other reviews (e.g., Christensen et al., 2015; Roberts et
al., 2019) for recent discussions about choking models and theoretical
debates.
Neurophysiological Correlates of Choking

Although the choking theories are considered cognitive and specifically
propose attentional mechanisms, they also imply neurophysiological
underpinnings (i.e., brain areas and functions). Choking theories have been
examined mainly employing electroencephalography (EEG) equipment to
assess cortical activity and communication.
Self-focus theories imply greater activity of the left, “analytic”
hemisphere, especially in the temporal lobe, where verbal-analytic
processing originates. Such ideas resonate in findings that expert
performers show a comparably relaxed and refined cortical state, especially
in the left temporal region (Del Percio et al., 2011), and that explicit motor
learning (but not control) is associated with strong neural communication
(called coherence) between the verbal-analytic regions of the temporal lobe
and central motor areas (Gallicchio et al., 2017). Furthermore, improved
performance under pressure is accompanied by reduced connectivity
between motor and nonmotor areas (Rietschel et al., 2011), whereas an
elevated coherence between verbal-analytic areas and motor planning is
found in “chokers” (Lo et al., 2019). Finally, performing under pressure
appears to increase an error-specific EEG signal, the error-related
negativity, which is an indicator of enhanced error monitoring (Masaki et
al., 2017). Taken together, these studies provide general evidence for
neurophysiological underpinnings of self-focus theories.
Distraction theories, however, imply less interference with motor
processes from verbal-analytic areas but rather problems with executive
control. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is associated with executive functions
(Banich, 2009), and it is thought that frontal influences on motor activity
are necessary to protect performance from interference. Using brain
imaging methods, Lee and Grafton (2015) showed that activity in the right
anterior cingulate cortex and the medial PFC is indeed related to enhanced
performance in a visuomotor coordination task. Moreover, elevated
coherence between the dorsolateral PFC and motor areas protected against
performance failure under pressure, again highlighting the role of executive
functions (Lee & Grafton, 2015). We were unable to identify
neurophysiological choking reviews; thus, we encourage readers to review
the articles discussed in this section.
Choking Intervention
To ameliorate choking, sport psychologists have developed “theory-
matched” choking interventions (see Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019, for a
review). Distraction-based interventions aim to prevent internal or external
distractions and promote task-relevant attention. These interventions often
include a preperformance routine (PPR), which is a set of cognitive and
behavioral elements that an athlete systematically engages in prior to
performance execution (Cotterill, 2010). Researchers have found that
effective PPRs are individualized and typically consist of (but are not
limited to) a combination of relaxation, mental imagery, cue words, external
focus, and temporal consistency (Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010). Self-
focus-based interventions are used to minimize the conscious, step-by-step
control of skill execution, often applying distal methods or ad hoc
interventions. Distal methods include implicit (or analogy) learning (i.e.,
biomechanical metaphors; hitting a table tennis forehand as if drawing a
triangle) to reduce the likelihood of “reinvestment” occurring (Masters &
Maxwell, 2008). The most effective ad hoc interventions are dual task and
left-hand dynamic handgrip interventions. When performing a dual task,
athletes focus attention toward the dual task rather than skill execution,
which facilitates the smooth skill execution and minimizes reinvestment.
Alternatively, athletes may use a dynamic handgrip and squeeze a soft ball
in their left hand prior to skill execution (Beckmann et al., 2013), which
leads to a state of cortical relaxation and prevents overcontrol (Cross-
Villasana et al., 2015). Finally, acclimatization interventions focus on
reducing the anxiety that leads to distraction or self-focus. These
interventions may include (but are not limited to) practice under mild
anxiety conditions, such as when being videotaped or watched by an
audience, with the goal to familiarize participants with pressure (Oudejans
& Pijpers, 2010).
Collective Team Choking

While choking in individual athletes is well investigated, research into team
choking is still in its infancy. A competitive situation where a team’s
performance suddenly breaks down is called a collective collapse
(Apitzsch, 2009a, 2009b) or collective sport team collapse (Wergin et al.,
2018). Collective team collapse can be defined as “a sudden, collective, and
extreme underperformance of a team within a competition, which is
triggered by a critical situation that interferes with the team’s interplay, a
loss of control of the game, and ultimately the inability of the team to regain
their previous performance level within the game” (Wergin et al., 2018, p.
5).
Existing evidence indicates a cascade of causes rather than single triggers
of team collapse (Apitzsch, 2009a, 2009b; Wergin et al., 2018, 2019).
Wergin and colleagues’ model distinguishes antecedents (e.g., increased
pressure, overconfidence, lack of attentional focus) and critical events on
the court or field (e.g., team errors accumulating, collapse of a key player)
that make the collapse more likely. These critical events change the
affective, cognitive, and behavioral state of players and the team, which
exacerbates the collapse and prohibits the team from returning to their
initial level of “normal” performance.
Affective changes or outcomes maintaining the collapse include (but are
not limited to) increased anxiety, anger, and frustration, as well as negative
emotional contagion. On a cognitive level, insecurity, a lack of
accountability, and a shift from goal to prevention orientation (i.e., trying to
play safe rather than attempting to score) play a role in collective team
collapse. Behavioral changes include (but are not limited to) decreased
performance contagion, limited communication, cautious or hectic play, or
blaming teammates for failure. Social factors arising from the interaction of
players (e.g., limited communication, lack of accountability, blaming each
other for failure) are important in evocation and maintenance of a team
collapse. The perceived importance of these social factors indicates that
team collapse is more than the sum of individual athletes choking
concurrently (Wergin et al., 2018).
Table 3.1 Five Key Readings in Choking Research
Beckmann Multistudy experimental design using three Left-hand dynamic handgrip optimized
et al. different sports under low and high pressure to performance under pressure (and
(2013) determine if left-hand dynamic handgrip minimized choking) in the three studies
(theory-matched intervention to self-focus compared to a control group.
model) could prevent choking.
Beilock & Multistudy experimental design to test the self- Choking occurred in the sensorimotor
Carr focus model with novice and experts’ generic task and dual-task training, but not in
(2001) and episodic knowledge generation the arithmetic task or self-
(Experiments 1–2) and using arithmetic or consciousness training. Step-by-step
sensorimotor tasks with dual-task and self- control of procedural knowledge harms
consciousness training (Experiments 3–4). experts’ performance under pressure,
supporting self-focus models of
choking.
Mesagno Single-study experimental design with The group with high (but not low) fear
et al. “preselection” into an experimental stage. of negative evaluation experienced
(2012) Preselection involved 138 athletes completing choking, with cognitive anxiety
questionnaires to select 34 athletes, partially mediating the fear-
categorized as either low or high in fear of performance relationship. This adds
negative evaluation, to perform basketball support to the self-presentation model
shots under low and high pressure. of choking.
Mesagno Single-study experimental design with five PPR groups improved performance
& separate PPR groups (theory-matched under pressure compared to a control
Mullane- intervention to distraction model) performing group.
Grant football kicks under low and high pressure.
(2010)
Oudejans Robust qualitative methodology using Expert athletes commonly attended to
et al. retrospective verbal reports and concept worries (statements concerning
(2011) mapping of expert athletes to determine distracting thoughts and worries), with
common attentional focus under pressure. minimal thoughts about movement
Statements were clustered (in common execution, under pressure, favoring
choking themes) and rated on the frequency of distraction models of choking.
occurrence and how important statements were
for choking.
PPR, preperformance routine.
Our major research questions, which are in order of the topics discussed
previously—interventions of, neurophysiology of, and team choking—
could advance the “unknown” in choking. We have also included another
nonexistent choking topic: mental health of “chokers.”
1. Applied Question: How Do We Target Choking Interventions

to Specific Sports?
The benefits of choking interventions have been evidenced for various sport
skills, but substantial variations in their effectiveness exist, possibly
because they are not sport specific. A targeted intervention seems
appropriate to help performers deal with the particular demands of a sport
task. For example, researchers have begun speculating that externally and
self-paced skills can fail because of different attentional mechanisms
(Roberts et al., 2019). Externally paced skills (e.g., baseball batting)
demand rapid reaction to a moving stimulus, whereas self-paced skills (e.g.,
golf putt) allow the performer to decide when to initiate action. Experts of
externally paced skills use nonverbal cues to anticipate and prepare for
action, and thus misplaced attentional resources due to distraction (rather
than self-focus) can harm anticipation and performance. The challenge of
self-paced skills is the opportunity for distracting thoughts to occur prior to
execution, which allows for both distraction and self-focus choking
mechanisms to emerge. Consequently, future researchers may test the
benefits of targeting distraction-based interventions to externally paced
skills, and both distraction- and self-focus-based interventions for self-
paced skills, especially when used in combination.
2. Applied Question: How Do We Tailor Choking Interventions to

Specific Personalities?
Targeted interventions can be further tailored and individualized according
to the personality characteristics relevant to choking. A tailored approach
using personality characteristics would provide interventions based on an
individual’s score on those traits. If, for example, trait anxiety and self-
consciousness were high, the individual would presumably benefit from
acclimatization training and specific elements (e.g., external focus, left-
hand dynamic handgrip) within a PPR to adapt to enhanced pressure and
prevent conscious control, respectively. The tailored approach seems
important as targeted interventions alone may not be equally appropriate for
everyone. A tailored intervention might produce more visible benefits,
which may strengthen the individual’s willingness to apply the intervention.
Methodologically, tailored intervention studies could test how independent
interventions interact with specific personality characteristics, initially
using hypothesis testing with single personality characteristics together with
pre- and postintervention designs. In addition, single-case (or perhaps
mixed-methods) designs with “chronic chokers” (i.e., athletes who perform
poorly under pressure frequently and consistently) may provide valuable
details on how interventions work for different personalities. Researchers
could also better predict choking susceptibility using more personality
variables than the three applied previously (Mesagno et al., 2008). If we can
integrate multiple personality characteristics to better identify the choking-
susceptible athlete, researchers could more accurately predict choking and
then also prevent it using tailored interventions.
3. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Do

Neurophysiological Processes Relate to Cognitive Processes
Underlying Choking?
To advance choking theory and also theory-matched interventions, we need
to identify the neurophysiological link between cognitive processes and
choking. Christensen et al. (2015) suggested that there is a dearth of direct
evidence of either self-focus or distraction-based choking because most
studies rely on assessing and interpreting performance outcomes rather than
directly examining underlying motor or cognitive processes. This extends to
a neurophysiology explanation of choking. To date, there is no evidence
that the enhanced communication between verbal-analytical areas in the
temporal cortex and central motor areas of the brain (indicating self-
monitoring) leads to skill breakdown or step-by-step control of execution.
Furthermore, there is no direct connection between reduced involvement of
the PFC (indicating distraction) and “distracted” cognitive processing (e.g.,
via a reduced quiet eye). To provide such evidence, the integrated
assessment of neurophysiology (via EEG), visual attention (via eye
tracking), movement execution (via motion sensors or capture), and
performance is needed. Showing and understanding these connections is
paramount for at least three reasons.
First, providing links between neurophysiology and cognitive processes
might allow a reconciliation of the self-focus and distraction models of
choking. Such a reconciliation has been attempted (e.g., Mesagno et al.,
2015; Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2012), but the current neurophysiological
evidence indicates that the two explanations are not just “overlapping”
(Mesagno et al., 2015). For example, Lo et al. (2019) found not only
elevated coherence between motor planning and verbal-analytic areas
(“self-monitoring”) but also increased high-alpha in the occipital area,
indicating impaired visual processing (“distraction”). Thus, distraction and
self-focus are separate processes that could occur in parallel, within a single
choking experience. Second, understanding the neurophysiology and
cognitive processing links better will allow more accurate evaluation of
choking interventions, which may create more precise tailoring to
conditions and people. For example, given that the propensity for
reinvestment is related to interindividual differences in coherence between
verbal and motor areas, dynamic handgrip might be tailored for individuals
with high reinvestment tendencies (Hoskens et al., 2020). Third,
understanding neurophysiological underpinnings and linkages will facilitate
the design of neurophysiological interventions. Such interventions could
involve distinct technological tools (e.g., EEG neurofeedback; transcranial
direct current stimulation) and the easy-to-use, “off the shelf” mobile
recording devices already available. This “stimulation” might enhance
activity of the PFC to augment executive control or inhibit communication
between verbal and motor areas and improve performance (under pressure).
4. Applied Question: Which Social or Team-Related Factors

Should Be Addressed When Designing Team Choking Prevention
and Intervention Strategies?
Given the causes and processes of team choking discussed earlier, further
research investigating the relationship between causes of team choking is
needed. In particular, social or team-related factors should be of interest
because they are a major element of evocation of a team collapse (Wergin et
al., 2018) and thus could provide future approaches for preventions and
interventions.
One approach to identify team factors may be to expand the process
model of collective sport team collapse (Wergin et al., 2018, 2019). While
the occurrence of critical, uncontrollable events happening on the field
(e.g., wrong referee decision, opponent scoring) may not be influenceable,
but may adversely affect the game, future prevention and intervention
strategies should focus on antecedents, and facilitating factors, underlying
the team collapse. For example, poor preparation, physical exhaustion of
players, or young and inexperienced players are antecedents, which can be
addressed by coaches prior to a game. Psychological antecedents (e.g., team
overconfidence, high respect for the opponent, or lack of self-confidence)
or facilitating factors (e.g., emotional contagion among team members, lack
of accountability, or immobility) could be addressed by providing sport
psychology education to the players and team throughout the season.
Moreover, a better understanding of the interrelatedness of affective,
cognitive, and behavioral factors causing and maintaining team collapse is
needed. Affective, cognitive, and behavioral connections may be explored
by conducting qualitative focus groups with sport teams and coaching staff
on team collapses. Methodologically, organizing such focus groups shortly
after (i.e., within a week) a collective team collapse would allow for
sufficient memory recall. Furthermore, providing video recordings, and
maybe using the “think aloud” technique (Eccles & Arsal, 2017) while
players are watching the video footage, may support athletes and coaches in
recalling the event more accurately. Further ideas may include (but are not
limited to) the use of a continuous assessment of emotion and/or thoughts
while watching the video. During the focus group, social or team-related
affective, cognitive, and behavioral factors along with identifying key
factors that evoke the team collapse could be explored. The type of sport, as
well as individual experiences of the team in the past, should be considered.
The most salient social causes of team collapse (e.g., negative emotional
contagion or blaming each other for failure) could then be addressed in the
development of team-based interventions.
5. Applied and Methodological Question: Is There a Connection

Between Choking and Mental Health Issues?
Many sport psychology associations (e.g., International Society for Sport
Psychology—Schinke et al., 2018; European Federation of Sport
Psychology [FEPSAC]—Moesch et al., 2018) and international committees
(e.g., International Olympic Committee—Reardon et al. 2019) have
recently provided guidelines for improving mental health for high-
performance athletes. Because choking is connected to elite sport and
athlete identity, and being a successful athlete may be important
theoretically (e.g., self-presentation model of choking; Mesagno et al.,
2011, 2012), elite athletes who experience choking may either be
predisposed to mental health problems or experience mental health issues
following a “choke.” This is exacerbated with “chronic chokers,” who
“choke” repeatedly and may be devastated and embarrassed after the
incident. Although not the main purpose, Hill and colleagues (e.g., 2011,
2019) provided qualitative evidence that suicidal ideation (Hill et al., 2011)
or risky behavior (e.g., drunk driving; Hill et al., 2019) may be a destructive
consequence of chronic choking, but only for certain athletes (which also
needs further examination). Thus, correlational, qualitative, experimental,
case study, and/or longitudinal designs, with the sole purpose of
determining the mental health effect of choking, could be used in future
research.
Conclusion
In summary, researchers who investigate (individual) choking have
increased our understanding since Baumeister’s (1984) first investigations.
Researchers who examine team choking, however, have only begun to
explore the characteristics and antecedents associated with a team’s
catastrophic decline in performance during a competition. There is still
much to be learned about models of team choking, which are largely
grounded in qualitative exploration and need substantiation through
rigorous experimental designs. The “unknown” suggestions we have
provided should give aspiring sport psychology researchers our view on
where the choking literature should develop and also provide insight into
what questions could be investigated based on current choking literature.
References
Apitzsch, E. (2009a). A case study of a collapsing handball team. In S. Jern & J. Näslund (Eds.),
Dynamics within and outside the lab (pp. 35–52). LiU-Tryck.
Apitzsch, E. (2009b). Coaches’ and elite team players perception and experiencing of collective
collapse. Athletic Insight, 1(2), 57–74.
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18, 89–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01615.x
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of
incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.
Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-
specific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 142, 679–691. doi:10.1037/a0029852
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking
under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130, 701–725. doi.org/10.1037/0096-
3445.130.4.701
Christensen, W., Sutton, J., & McIlwain, D. (2015). Putting pressure on theories of choking: Towards
an expanded perspective on breakdown in skilled performance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive
Sciences, 14, 253–293.
Cotterill, S. (2010). Pre-performance routines in sport: Current understanding and future directions.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 132–153.
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2010.488269
Cross-Villasana, F., Gröpel, P., Doppelmayr, M., & Beckmann, J. (2015). Unilateral left-hand
contractions produce widespread depression of cortical activity after their execution. PLoS ONE,
10(12), e0145867. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145867
Del Percio, C., Iacoboni, M., Lizio, R., Marzano, N., Infarinato, F., Vecchio, F., . . . Babiloni, C.
(2011). Functional coupling of parietal alpha rhythms is enhanced in athletes before visuomotor
performance: A coherence electroencephalographic study. Neuroscience, 175, 198–211.
Eccles, D. W., & Arsal, G. (2017). The think aloud protocol? What is it and how do I use it?
Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9, 513–541.
Gallicchio, G., Cooke, A., & Ring, C. (2017). Practice makes efficient: Cortical alpha oscillations are
associated with improved golf putting performance. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,
6, 89–102. doi:10.1037/spy0000077
Gröpel, P., & Mesagno, C. (2019). Choking interventions in sports: A systematic review.
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2017.1408134
Hill, D. M., Cheesbrough, M., Gorczynski, P., & Matthews, N. (2019). The consequences of choking
in sport: A constructive or destructive experience? Sport Psychologist, 33, 12–22.
Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N. (2009). A re-examination of choking in sport.
European Journal of Sport Science, 9, 203–212.
Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2011). Alleviation of choking under pressure
in elite golf: An action research study. Sport Psychologist, 25, 465–488.
Hoskens, M. C., Bellomo, E., Uiga, L., Cooke, A., & Masters, R. S. (2020). The effect of unilateral
hand contractions on psychophysiological activity during motor performance: Evidence of verbal-
analytical engagement. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, 101668.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101668
Jackson, R. C. (2013). Babies and bathwater: Commentary on Mesagno and Hill’s proposed re-
definition of “choking.” International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44, 281–284.
Lee, T. G., & Grafton, S. T. (2015). Out of control: Diminished prefrontal activity coincides with
impaired motor performance due to choking under pressure. NeuroImage, 105, 145–155.
Lo, L. C., Hatfield, B. D., Wu, C. T., Chang, C. C., & Hung, T. M. (2019). Elevated state anxiety
alters cerebral cortical dynamics and degrades precision cognitive-motor performance. Sport,
Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 8, 21–37.
Masaki, H., Maruo, Y., Meyer, A., & Hajcak, G. (2017). Neural correlates of choking under pressure:
Athletes high in sports anxiety monitor errors more when performance is being evaluated.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 42, 104–112. doi:10.1080/87565641.2016.1274314
Masters, R. S. W., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 1, 160–184.
Mesagno, C., & Beckmann, J. (2017). Choking under pressure: Theoretical models and interventions.
Current Opinions in Psychology, 16, 170–175.
Mesagno, C., Geukes, K., & Larkin, P. (2015). Choking under pressure: A review of current debates,
literature, and interventions. In S. Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Contemporary advances in sport
psychology: A review (pp. 148–174). Routledge.
Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2011). Self-presentational origins of choking: Evidence
from separate pressure manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 441–459.
Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2012). Choking under pressure: The role of fear of
negative evaluation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 60–68.
Mesagno, C., & Hill, D. M. (2013). Definition of choking in sport: Re-conceptualization and debate.
International Journal of Sport Psychology-Performance Under Pressure, 44, 267–277.
Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). Using a pre-performance routine to alleviate
choking under pressure in “choking-susceptible” athletes. Sport Psychologist, 22, 439–457.
doi:10.1123/tsp.22.4.439
Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as
possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 343–360.
doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.491780
Moesch, K., Kenttä, G., Kleinart, J., Quignon-Fleuret, C., Cecil, S., & Bertollo, M. (2018). FEPSAC
position statement: Mental health disorders in elite athletes and models of service provision.
Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 38, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.05.013
Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2012). Anxiety and perceptual-motor performance: Toward
an integrated model of concepts, mechanisms, and processes. Psychological Research, 76, 747–
759. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0384-x
Oudejans, R. R. D., Kuijpers, W., Kooijman, C. C., & Bakker, F. C. (2011). Thoughts and attention of
athletes under pressure: Skill-focus or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24, 59–73.
Oudejans, R. R., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking under
higher levels of anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 44–50.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.002
Reardon, C. L., Hainline, B., Miller Aron, C., Baron, D., Baum, A. L., Bindra, A., . . . Engebretsen,
L. (2019). Mental health in elite athletes: International Olympic Committee consensus statement
(2019). British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53, 667–699. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-100715
Rietschel, J. C., Goodman, R. N., King, B. R., Lo, L. C., Contreras‐Vidal, J. L., & Hatfield, B. D.
(2011). Cerebral cortical dynamics and the quality of motor behavior during social evaluative
challenge. Psychophysiology, 48, 479–487.
Roberts, L. J., Jackson, M. S., & Grundy, I. H. (2019). Choking under pressure: Illuminating the role
of distraction and self-focus. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 49–69.
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2017.1374432
Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., Si, G., & Moore, Z. (2018). International Society of Sport
Psychology position statement: Athletes’ mental health, performance, and development.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 622–639.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1295557
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal
relations. Brooks/Cole.
Wergin, V. V., Mallett, C. J., Mesagno, C., Zimanyi, Z., & Beckmann, J. (2019). When you watch
your team fall apart – Coaches’ and sport psychologists’ perceptions on causes of collective sport
team collapse. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1331. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01331
Wergin, V. V., Zimanyi, Z., Mesagno, C., & Beckmann, J. (2018). When suddenly nothing works
anymore within a team: Causes of collective sport team collapse. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2115.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02115
4
Flow and Clutch States
Christian Swann, Scott G. Goddard, Patricia C. Jackman, Matthew J.
Schweickle, and Stewart A. Vella
The Society for Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology defines

performance psychology as “the study and application of psychological
principles of human performance to help people consistently perform in the
upper range of their capabilities and more thoroughly enjoy the
performance process” (American Psychological Association, Division 47,
2019, p. 9). Episodes of optimal functioning—or optimal experiences—
typically involve exceptional performance as well as highly positive
subjective experiences (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), and are therefore
integral to the study and application of sport, exercise, and performance
psychology. Such episodes are relatively brief yet typically represent the
most enjoyable and memorable times that an individual can have in sport,
exercise, or performance contexts, including personal bests, important
achievements and successes, and harmonious experiences (e.g., when
everything just “flows”; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2017). In turn, optimal
experiences have lasting benefits such as satisfaction, pride, and intrinsic
motivation to engage in the activity again (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and are
highly important in sport, exercise, and performance psychology.
The primary construct in the field of optimal experience, based on the
most developed body of literature, is flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).
Despite its appeal, and 45 years of research, flow is generally considered to
be rare and elusive (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2017).
Indeed, it has been suggested that research in this field “is plagued by a
variety of conceptual and methodological problems” (Moran & Toner,
2017, p. 193), and that flow research is approaching a “crisis point” and
potential paradigm shift (see Swann et al., 2018, for a review). Against this
backdrop, a new perspective outlined recently, the Integrated Model of
Flow and Clutch States (Swann et al., 2016, 2017a), has potential to address
the existing issues and facilitate progress in research and practice. However,
the Integrated Model is thus far based on a small number of primarily
qualitative studies and needs further testing and refinement. Therefore, it is
important and timely to consider the future of research in this field. This
chapter reviews the state of the art, before identifying and discussing what
we consider to be the five most important questions requiring attention at
this point. By doing so, we hope this chapter helps guide scientific progress
in this field, to the point that we can meaningfully influence applied
practice and better fulfill the promise of this field for sport, exercise, and
performance psychology.
State of the Art

Flow
Flow is commonly defined as an intrinsically rewarding and harmonious
psychological state that involves concentration and absorption in an
activity, with a sense of “everything coming together” or “clicking into
place,” even in challenging situations (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Flow is
traditionally conceptualized through Csikszentmihalyi’s nine dimensions
framework, which involves three conditions (challenge-skill balance, clear
goals, unambiguous feedback) and six characteristics (action-awareness
merging, sense of control, concentration on the task at hand, loss of self-
consciousness, time transformation, and autotelic experience; e.g.,
Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). In sport, exercise, and performance
psychology, this framework is accompanied by measures based explicitly
on the nine dimensions (such as the Flow State Scales—Jackson & Eklund,
2002), upon which most of the evidence on flow is based (e.g., Tan & Sin,
2019).
There are a number of reasons as to why flow remains difficult to apply,
ranging from definitional to conceptual, measurement, and even
philosophical issues. For example, the dimensions of flow are defined in a
broad/imprecise manner (Swann et al., 2018); most research has been
correlational in nature rather than tapping into the causal mechanisms and
explanation of flow (Swann et al., 2018); and there are questions as to
whether common measures (e.g., Flow State Scale-2 [FSS-2]; see Jackson
& Eklund, 2002) can discriminate between an individual who has
experienced flow and someone who has not (Kawabata & Evans, 2016;
Moneta, 2021). In turn, we proposed that “given these problems, it is
difficult to confidently proceed with the traditional paradigm centered on
Csikszentmihalyi’s conceptualization of flow as nine dimensions” (Swann
et al., 2018, p. 11).
The Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch States

The Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch States was outlined in 2017
(Swann et al., 2017a), based on interviews conducted with athletes within
days of an exceptional performance, and through inductive analyses (i.e.,
rather than deductively “shoe-horning” data into the nine dimensions). As
such, this model is based on a recent, detailed, and chronological recall of
specific events and experiences, which enabled description of the contexts,
processes of occurrence, experience, and outcomes of flow as well as
“clutch” states (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 The initial iteration of the integrated model of flow and clutch states.
Note: Figure as originally published in Swann, C., Crust, L., Jackman, P. C., Vella, S. A., Allen, M.
S., & Keegan, R. (2017). Psychological states underlying excellent performance in sport: Toward an
integrated model of flow and clutch states. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 375–401.
doi:10.1080/10413200.2016.1272650
Clutch performances have commonly been defined as “any performance

increment or superior performance that occurs under pressure situations”
(Otten, 2009, p. 584). Clutch states are proposed to be the psychological
state underlying such performances (Swann et al., 2017b) and are often
reported when there is an important outcome on the line (e.g., at the end of
a race). Where flow is characterized by effortless attention, positive
feedback (e.g., feeling that “everything is going to plan”), and perceptions
that the performance is easy or on autopilot, clutch states are characterized
by complete and deliberate focus on the task, heightened awareness of the
situation and its demands, and intense effort (Swann et al., 2017b). Both
states also share overlapping characteristics including absorption and
confidence.
The Integrated Model presents clear and testable/falsifiable predictions
about the processes through which flow and clutch states occur, as well as
the outcomes of each state (see Figure 4.1), which is an improvement on the
nine-dimensions framework. Arguably the most important implication of
this recent work is that these two distinct psychological states both appear
to be described by Csikszentmihalyi’s nine dimensions (Swann et al., 2018).
That is, the nine-dimensions framework conflates flow and “clutch” states.
In turn, there are now questions regarding the discriminant validity of
measures based on the nine-dimensions framework, such as the FSS-2
(Jackman et al., , 2017; Moneta, 2021).
Interestingly, there are similarities between this work on the Integrated
Model and earlier studies by other research groups. In collecting same-day
data on flow in adventure recreation, Houge Mackenzie, Hodge, and Boyes
(2011) reported two types of flow—“paratelic” (playful) and “telic”
(serious)—based on a reversal theory perspective (see Swann et al., 2018,
for a critique). Similarly, Bortoli et al., (2012) described a Multi-Action
Plan Model involving “Type 1” (automatic) and “Type 2” (controlled)
performance in Olympic shooters, which included details of how athletes
transition between performance types. These studies lend support for key
propositions in the Integrated Model, such as distinct psychological states
underlying excellent performance and the possibility of transitioning
between those states.
While the Integrated Model holds promise, this new perspective is in
need of further testing and, potentially, refinement to make meaningful
progress toward evidence-based interventions and applied practice. Thus
far, the Integrated Model is based on a series of primarily qualitative studies
(e.g., Jackman et al., 2017; Swann et al., 2016, 2017a, 2017b). At this point,
only one quantitative/experimental study has tested (and provided
preliminary support) for the Integrated Model (Schweickle et al., 2017), but
much stronger and more comprehensive tests are required. Additionally,
critical investigation is required regarding the criticisms raised around the
nine-dimensions framework and evidence based on that framework to date
(e.g., using the FSS-2). Therefore, it is timely and important to consider
future directions for research on flow and clutch states. Table 4.1 presents
five key studies underpinning the state of the art in this field. The following
sections discuss what we consider to be the five most impactful questions
that will guide the future of this field in terms of how we can move beyond
a crisis point to guide scientific progress in this field and ultimately
influence applied practice.
Table 4.1 Five Key Readings Underpinning the State of the Art on Flow and Clutch States
Design
Bortoli et Longitudinal This study reported two types of optimal performance that overlap
al. (2012) evaluation of a with flow and clutch states: “Type 1” (automatic) and “Type 2”
2-year (controlled) performance. Strategies for transitioning between types
intervention of performance were also identified. Although this study was not
with 15 focused on flow and clutch states specifically, it does lend support for
Olympic key propositions in the Integrated Model.
shooters
Houge Interviews with This study provided the first empirical evidence that two distinct
Mackenzie six expert psychological states are experienced rather than just flow. Flow and
et al. adventure reversal theory were integrated to present evidence of “paratelic”
(2011) participants; (playful) and “telic” (serious) flow states—descriptions of which are
waterproof highly similar to those of flow and clutch states in the Integrated
surveys and Model. Notably, this study employed real-time data collection via
recordings via head-mounted video cameras and waterproof surveys, enabling the
head-mounted collection of much more recent, detailed, and specific data—similar
video cameras to event-focused interviews used in later studies.
with 10 novice
river-surfers
Jackman et Longitudinal By collecting interview and questionnaire data about the same
al. (2017) mixed-method performances, this study provided the first empirical evidence that
multiple case the FSS-2 conflates both flow and clutch states, thereby supporting
study with 10 concerns around discriminant validity. Specifically, this study found
athletes that the majority of the 36 items, and all nine of the subscales, in the
FSS-2 could represent the experience reported during either flow or
clutch states.
Schweickle Systematic This systematic review found that there is considerable heterogeneity
et al. review of 27 in definitions, conceptualization, and measurement of clutch
(2020) studies on performance. There are two ways in which clutch performance has
clutch primarily been studied: (a) as an ability and (b) as an isolated episode
performance of performance. Stronger evidence exists for clutch performance as
an isolated episode. This review provided a series of
recommendations to help address issues in the field and guide future
research toward refined explanations of clutch performance.
Swann et “Event- This study first presented the Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch
al. (2017a) focused” States, including contexts, processes of occurrence, experience, and
interviews with outcomes for each state. Psychological skills used to
26 athletes, on maintain/maximize each state were also reported, whereby
average 4 days dissociative strategies were employed during flow and associative
after a specific strategies were used during clutch states. Athletes also reported
activity transitioning between states to optimize outcomes.
Note: A broad range of other studies have been highly influential in the development of this field, and
to be clear, the studies in this table were identified because they directly address the issues
highlighted in this chapter and the specific questions we have posed for future research.
FSS-2, Flow State Scale-2.

1. Methodological Question: What Is the Best Way to Measure
Flow and Clutch States?
Before further testing can take place, new measures of flow and clutch
states—consistent with the Integrated Model—are required.1 With such
measures, researchers will be able to test and falsify, support, or refine the
Integrated Model. For example, new measures could further assess recent
insights such as the processes through which each state is proposed to
occur. Furthermore, this step would enable critical examination of the
concerns raised over the nine-dimensions framework, accompanying
questionnaires, and existing evidence based on those questionnaires (e.g.,
do measures based on the nine-dimensions framework encompass both flow
and clutch states?). As such, the development of measures to test the
Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch States is of critical importance to
further research.
It is imperative that a critical perspective of the Integrated Model is
adopted during the development and validation of new measures. Rather
than seeking to provide support for the Integrated Model, the aim should be
to try and falsify the model in accordance with Popperian philosophy (see
Swann et al., 2018). Measures should be developed based on flow-specific,
clutch-specific, and overlapping characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis
should first seek to identify the factor structure in a data-driven manner, as
opposed to the theory-driven approach used in validation of existing
questionnaires such as the FSS-2 (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis based on
the nine-dimensions framework; Jackson & Eklund, 2002). Such measures
should be able to discriminate between an individual who experienced flow
and/or clutch states versus those who did not (i.e., individuals who
experienced neither), which is a core critique of the FSS-2 at present
(Kawabata & Evans, 2016; Moneta, 2021). The development and validation
of these measures is an important next step, before other innovative
approaches to measurement may follow in the future (e.g., real-time
measures).
2. Theoretical Question: What Is the Nature of Clutch

Performance?
There are also fundamental questions around clutch states, given that they
have only been reported recently. For example, an essential step is to
understand whether clutch states are inherent in clutch performance. That
is, do clutch states always underlie clutch performances, or could an
individual experience clutch states without a clutch performance? Does
performance need to be defined objectively (e.g., scoring three points in the
last seconds to win a basketball match), or are individuals’ subjective
appraisals of performance more important (e.g., an individual feeling like
they are “giving everything” in terms of effort during a pressure situation)?
Such questions are important in understanding the relationship between
clutch states and performance, which also has implications for when we
may ultimately aim to promote such states or when facilitation of other
states (i.e., flow) may be more appropriate. Indeed, similar research is also
required to develop better understanding of the relationship between flow
and performance.
Inhibiting investigation of these questions, however, are issues
surrounding how clutch performance is defined and conceptualized. For
example, clutch has been described as “a challenging concept which is
inadequately defined in sport” (Seifreid & Papatheodorou, 2010, p. 92).
This issue is illustrated in the two primary definitions of clutch
performance, which are provided by Otten (2009) and Hibbs (2010). On
one hand, Otten (2009) defines clutch performance as “any performance
increment . . . under pressure circumstances” (p. 584). On the other hand,
Hibbs (2010) defines clutch performance as “succeed[ing] at a competition-
related, challenging task during a clutch situation,” whereby a clutch
situation is when the performance has a significant impact on the outcome
of the contest (p. 55). Questions remain, however, over what increment is
required to constitute a clutch performance, and further, what the
performance should be compared against (e.g., should performance be
compared against one’s career best or some measure of best performance on
that particular day?). It is also unclear as to whether success or just
improved performance is necessary to be a clutch performance, as well as
competition.
Future research should therefore aim to resolve definitional issues in
clutch performance. First, researchers should consider the nature of pressure
in clutch performance. For example, clutch states have been found to occur
in noncompetitive settings (e.g., exercise; Swann et al., 2019), which
suggests that clutch performances may also occur in noncompetitive
settings (assuming the performance contains pressure). Second, we know
that clutch performance is some form of positive performance (i.e.,
increased or successful performance, either measured objectively or
appraised subjectively). As such, researchers should examine the type of
indicators athletes use to assess their performance. Specifically, do athletes
consider clutch performance based on objective or subjective indicators of
performance? Exploration of these questions will illuminate the nature of
clutch performance and, consequently, facilitate a robust and conceptually
sound investigation of the relationship between clutch states and clutch
performance.
3. Theoretical Question: How and Why Do Flow and Clutch

States Occur?
A core priority for research in this field is to understand the mechanisms
through which flow and clutch states occur. The Integrated Model has
promise in that it makes causal predictions about the processes of
occurrence for each state (see Figure 4.1). For example, flow is proposed to
occur through a positive event, which leads to positive feedback and
increased confidence, which in turn results in a challenge appraisal and the
setting of open goals—the pursuit of which leads to the experience of flow.
Clutch states are proposed to occur through a challenge appraisal,
identification of a specific goal (e.g., to birdie the last hole in order to win a
golf tournament), and a decision to increase effort and intensity, which
results in clutch states (e.g., Swann et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2019). By testing
these predictions in the Integrated Model, researchers will be able to
support, refine, or falsify the model.
Once new measures are developed and validated, these predictions can be
tested experimentally, with the important aim of assessing how to induce
flow/clutch states in a laboratory setting. For example, Schweickle et al.
(2017) experimentally tested the effects of open versus specific goals on
flow and clutch states in a cognitive task and found preliminary support for
the Integrated Model; however, flow was reported during significantly
lower performance compared to clutch states. Importantly, such
experiments will be able to test effects of inducing these states on
performance and other hypothesized outcomes such as enjoyment, intrinsic
motivation, and well-being. That is, experimental research can address the
highly impactful questions: If we can induce a flow or clutch state, will it
lead to exceptional performance? What is the relationship between
flow/clutch states and performance? This work should also guide research
in other performance domains. Flow is suggested to be universal (i.e.,
experienced across all cultures and activities; Csikszentmihalyi, 2002),
which raises the question: Is that the case with clutch states too? And does
the Integrated Model apply similarly in other performance domains such as
dance and the military? In turn, this knowledge can contribute to the
development of a strong, practically useful theory of flow and clutch states
in sport, exercise, and performance psychology.
4. Applied Question: Can Individuals Maximize Flow and Clutch

States?
Understanding if/how performers and exercisers can manage, prolong, and
maximize flow and clutch states is an exciting avenue for future research
(Brick et al., 2019). Initial insights have suggested that flow and clutch
states can be maximized, for example, by using psychological skills to
prolong these states. Athletes have explained that flow can be prolonged
through positive distractions (Jackman et al., 2020; Swann et al., 2017a),
suggesting that focusing one’s attention away from the task can be helpful
to avoid the effortful, analytical thoughts that can disrupt flow. The use of
distractions to enhance performance or prolong flow is somewhat
counterintuitive, however, and requires further research (e.g., in terms of the
limits of such distractions for remaining constructive). During clutch states,
athletes have reported using motivational self-talk, setting short-term goals,
and strategically monitoring their performance/attention to manage and
maintain their experience (Jackman et al., 2020; Swann et al., 2017a). Thus,
it appears that flow is prolonged by utilizing distractive strategies, while
clutch states are managed through active self-regulation (see Brick et al.,
2014). The lack of debilitative interpretations of anxiety during flow and
clutch states may explain why such cognitive strategies can maintain these
states, even though attentional shifts are a primary component in common
explanations of choking, such as distraction (e.g., Oudejans et al., 2011) and
self-focus (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001) theories. Furthermore, athletes have
reported transitioning between flow and clutch states during performances
to achieve optimal outcomes, through processes of reappraisal and resetting
of goals (Swann et al., 2017a).
While these initial insights are interesting and have potential from an
applied perspective, several questions exist concerning the management,
sustainment, and maximization of flow and clutch states, and especially in
terms of what strategies are most effective for each state. One potential line
of inquiry is how research on attentional focus and metacognition (e.g.,
Brick et al., 2014) could be combined with the Integrated Model to build
understanding of self-regulation during flow and clutch states (Brick et al.,
2019). Such research should initially seek to explore metacognitive
processes (e.g., metacognitive feelings, estimations, and judgments) and
attentional focus during flow and clutch states (i.e., to determine strategies
used, if any), before experimentally testing whether specific strategies are
more suitable to prolong, maximize, and manage each state.
Additionally, more research is required on the prospect that individuals
can transition between flow and clutch states. Studies are needed to identify
the mechanisms of these transitions, whether they can be initiated
consciously, and, if so, what strategies are involved. Finally, it is important
to examine the mental and physical effects of experiencing flow and clutch
states. The Integrated Model proposes that flow is characterized by
ease/reduced effort and leaves individuals feeling energized, whereas clutch
states involve intense effort and lead to exhaustion (Swann et al., 2017a,
2019). Questions remain, however, as to whether these distinctions in effort
are physical and/or mental, and if they are supported by objective data.
Researchers could examine psychophysiological demands associated with
experiencing flow and clutch states, for example, through heart rate
variability, which is a potential physiological marker of flow (e.g., Tozman
et al., 2015). Together, these lines of inquiry present promising avenues for
future research in terms of whether/how individuals can manipulate these
psychological states to optimize performance and experiential outcomes.
5. Applied Question: What Should Flow and Clutch State

Interventions Involve?
Understanding how to purposefully induce flow and clutch states remains
arguably the most important question for sport and exercise psychologists,
representing the “holy grail” for researchers in this field. To reiterate, our
role as sport, exercise, and performance psychologists is to apply
psychological principles to help individuals “consistently perform in the
upper range of their capabilities and more thoroughly enjoy the
performance process” (American Psychological Association, Division 47,
2019, p. 9). Arguably, promoting optimal experiences of flow and clutch in
performers and exercisers concurrently embodies both objectives.
Nonetheless, attempts to induce and enhance flow and clutch in sport and
exercise have been considered as methodologically flawed and largely
unsuccessful (Swann et al., 2012, 2018). As discussed previously, at this
point we are unable to provide performers and exercisers with strategies and
techniques to reliably experience these optimal states (Swann et al., 2018).
Addressing this issue is fundamental in translating optimal experience
research into applied settings and, in turn, fulfilling our role as sport,
exercise, and performance psychologists. Despite its challenges, we must
endeavor to provide practitioners with trainable and effective methods to
increase the frequency and intensity of flow and clutch states.
Ideally, researchers, performers/exercisers, and practitioners should be
able to create interventions to induce and manage (e.g., prolong/maintain)
the occurrence and experience of flow and clutch states (Swann et al.,
2018). Interventions should inform performers and exercisers of strategies
for inducing and maintaining such states and how/when to use those
strategies (e.g., depending on contexts such as the stage or importance of
the activity and desired outcomes). Advancing the application of flow and
clutch states will require the development of interventions that clearly link
the techniques and strategies with a mechanism of change related to flow
and clutch. That is, interventions should be developed with clear and logical
links between the techniques or strategies employed and proposed
mechanisms of action (i.e., processes that influence the occurrence of
flow/clutch states), and in doing so, they will have greater potential to be
effective (e.g., Connell et al., 2019). Interventions built upon the processes
and mechanisms provided by a testable model will either refine the
conceptualization or afford genuine strategies for athletes and practitioners
to utilize in applied settings.
Conclusion
Optimal experiences and episodes of superior functioning are central to
sport, exercise, and performance psychology. Specifically, this chapter
reviewed the state of the art of research on flow and clutch states. Despite
extensive research, flow states remain rare, elusive, and difficult for
researchers or practitioners to induce purposefully—due primarily to a
number of conceptual issues in the traditional nine-dimensions framework.
We reviewed recent research on the Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch
States, which makes several important contributions (including
testable/falsifiable hypotheses about the occurrence of each state) and may
be able to overcome limitations in the nine-dimensions framework. The
Integrated Model is at an early stage of development and requires further
testing and refinement. We proposed five key questions that we believe can
help guide future research: (a) What is the best way to measure flow and
clutch states? (b) What is the nature of clutch performance? (c) How and
why do flow and clutch states occur? (d) Can individuals maximize flow
and clutch states? and (e) What should flow and clutch state interventions
involve? We hope this chapter helps guide scientific progress in this field,
with the ultimate aims of meaningfully influencing applied practice and
better fulfilling the promise of flow and clutch states in sport, exercise, and
performance psychology.
References
American Psychological Association, Division 47. (2019). Defining the practice of sport and
performance psychology. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-47/about/resources/defining.pdf
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking
under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 701–725.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701
Bortoli, L., Bertollo, M., Hanin, Y., & Robazza, C. (2012). Striving for excellence: A multi-action
plan intervention model for shooters. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(5), 693–701.
Brick, N., Campbell, M., & Swann, C. (2019). Metacognitive processes in the self-regulation of
endurance performance. In C. Meijen & S. Marcora (Eds.), The psychology of endurance
performance. Routledge.
Brick, N., MacIntyre, T., & Campbell, M. (2014). Attentional focus in endurance activity: New
paradigms and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1),
106–134.
Connell, L. E., Carey, R. N., de Bruin, M., Rothman, A. J., Johnston, M., Kelly, M. P., & Michie, S.
(2019). Links between behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action: An expert
consensus study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53, 708–720.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Latter, P., & Weinkauff Duranso, C. (2017). Running flow. Human Kinetics.
Hibbs, D. (2010). A conceptual analysis of clutch performances in competitive sports. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport, 37(1), 47–59.
Houge Mackenzie, S., Hodge, K., & Boyes, M. (2011). Expanding the flow model in adventure
activities: A reversal theory perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(4), 519–544.
Jackman, P. C., Crust, L., & Swann, C. (2017). Systematically comparing methods used to study flow
in sport: A longitudinal multiple-case study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 32, 113–123.
Jackman, P. C., Crust, L., & Swann, C. (2020). The role of mental toughness in the occurrence of
flow and clutch states in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 51(1), 1–27.
Jackson, S., & Eklund, R. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and
Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 133–150.
Kawabata, M., & Evans, R. (2016). How to classify who experienced flow from who did not based
on the flow state scale-2 scores: A pilot study of latent class factor analysis. Sport Psychologist,
30(3), 267–275.
Moneta, G. B. (2021). On the conceptualization and measurement of flow. In C. Peifer & S. Engeser
(Eds.), Advances in flow research (2nd ed.). Springer Science.
Moran, A., & Toner, J. (2017). A critical introduction to sport psychology. Taylor & Francis.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). Oxford University Press.
Otten, M. (2009). Choking vs. clutch performance: A study of sport performance under pressure.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 583–601.
Oudejans, R. R. D., Kuijpers, W., Kooijman, C. C., & Bakker, F. C. (2011). Thoughts and attention of
athletes under pressure: Skill-focus or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 24(1),
59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.481331
Schweickle, M., Groves, S., Vella, S. A., & Swann, C. (2017). The effects of open vs. specific goals
on flow and clutch states in a cognitive task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 45–54.
Schweickle, M., Swann, C., Jackman, P., & Vella, S. (2020). Clutch performance: A systematic
review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2020.1771747
Seifreid, C., & Papatheodorou, M. (2010). The concepts of clutch and choking: Recommendations
for improving performance under pressure. Journal of Coaching Education, 3(1), 91–98.
Swann, C., Crust, L., Jackman, P. C., Vella, S. A., Allen, M. S., & Keegan, R. (2017a). Psychological
states underlying excellent performance in sport: Toward an integrated model of flow and clutch
states. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 375–401.
Swann, C., Crust, L., Jackman, P., Vella, S. A., Allen, M. S., & Keegan, R. (2017b). Performing
under pressure: Exploring the psychological state underlying clutch performance in sport. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 35(23), 2272–2280.
Swann, C., Jackman, P. C., Schweickle, M. J., & Vella, S. A. (2019). Optimal experiences in
exercise: A qualitative investigation of flow and clutch states. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
40, 87–98.
Swann, C., Keegan, R., Crust, L., & Piggott, D. (2016). Psychological states underlying excellent
performance in professional golfers: “Letting it happen” vs. “making it happen.” Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 23, 101–113.
Swann, C., Keegan, R., Piggott, D., & Crust, L. (2012). A systematic review of the experience,
occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13,
807–819.
Swann, C., Piggott, D., Schweickle, M., & Vella, S. A. (2018). A review of scientific progress in
flow in sport and exercise: Normal science, crisis, and a progressive shift. Journal of Applied Sport
Tan, L., & Sin, H. X. (2019). Flow research in music contexts: A systematic literature review.
Musicae Scientiae, 1029864919877564.
Tozman, T., Magdas, E. S., MacDougall, H. G., & Vollmeyer, R. (2015). Understanding the
psychophysiology of flow: A driving simulator experiment to investigate the relationship between
flow and heart rate variability. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 408–418.
1 Note: the dichotomous flow/clutch used in Schweickle et al., (2017) had sound psychometric
properties in that study but has not been exposed to rigorous development and validation processes.
As such, caution is urged regarding that measure until further testing and validation is conducted.
5
Mental Skills
Dave Collins and Hugh Richards
State of the Art

Sport psychology (SP) is an essentially applied subject that historically has
been inextricably linked to concepts of mental skills (MS) and mental skills
training (MST). Importantly, however, the view that SP is just concerned
with MS is limited, inaccurate, and justifiably criticized (cf. Collins et al.,
2011). Such criticism has run parallel to other debates including the role of
sport psychologists contrasted with other subdisciplines (particularly clinical
and counseling), the services provided (e.g., performance enhancement,
individual well-being, or research), and, more recently, the expertise
appropriate to address mental health issues of performers (and coaches).
Therefore, our review of what is needed in MS considers not only the
“what” of MST but also issues related to the who, how, and why, reflecting
the ideas of professional judgment and decision-making (PJDM; Martindale
& Collins, 2012, 2013) that underpin effective service provision. Table 5.1
offers our overview of key readings reflecting key issues on MS.
Psychological factors play an important role in performance. This applies
equally to skills used “on the performance day,” skills to maximize training
benefits, and skills to ensure the well-being of the athlete as a person.
Additionally, however, other factors critical to performance must be
addressed, either directly or indirectly through the sport psychologist
working effectively with and through other disciplines. Reflecting this, an
effective practitioner will need knowledge and the ability to apply the
knowledge in five key areas:
• MST
• Skill acquisition and motor control (cf. Abraham & Collins, 2011a)
• Coaching science (cf. Abraham & Collins, 2011b)
• Organizational behavior for teams and squads (cf. Fletcher &
Wagstaff, 2009)
• Mental welfare (cf. Küttal & Larsen, 2019)
Effective SP practice requires the ability to blend and balance knowledge

of all of these broad areas, as well as more specialist ones such as talent
development, to achieve agreed-upon target outcomes. Thus, for example,
psychologists working in sport need to be aware of how a mental health first
aid course might be beneficial but might be even more effective when
adjusted to meet the social context and culture of sport (cf. Lebrun &
Collins, 2017).
The importance of sociocultural factors in delivering effective MS has
been previously acknowledged (Vealey, 2007). Accordingly, in this chapter
we also highlight specific issues and areas for work that reflect the
complexity of sociocultural (e.g., nationality) and sport cultural influences
that may coact or compete in determining what works best (cf. Pankhurst,
2014). Additionally, further research is necessary to examine how MS usage
—indeed, suitability—may vary between men and women. This issue is
relevant in other areas (e.g., talent development; see Curran et al., 2019),
which suggests it might be inappropriate to assume that methods developed
predominantly on males will apply to females.
But Do We Measure What We NEED to Measure?

Fundamental to any scientific discipline is that it is based on empirical
evidence generated through research and the application of systematic
method. Few approaches to establishing evidence receive as much credibility
as the randomized controlled trial (RCT) because evidence on treatment
effects is obtained with minimal bias. Such a design is effective when
standardized treatment (e.g., drug dosage by body weight) can be applied.
However, this approach is not effective or suitable when the “treatment” is
multifactorial/longitudinal/dependent on professional relationships and
outcomes are dependent on multiple interacting factors. Thus, there are
significant drawbacks in applying RCT approaches to assess the
effectiveness of MST. First, principles of RCTs—randomization, comparison
to a control group, and double-blind designs—are challenging to achieve in
realistic applied settings. Even if these were achieved, an RCT still has
potential for biases, which must be minimized or acknowledged (Killin &
Della Sala, 2015). Topically, in arguing against overreliance of RCT
evidence informing policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, Greenhalgh
(2020) extolls the value of “practice-based evidence” (Ogilvie et al., 2020)
to complement limits of traditional RCT-oriented evidence.
If MS were considered only in terms of MST, reducing research focus
down to assessing causal linear effects on single/few outcomes, it would be
easier to adopt elements of RCTs. For example, Barwood, Thelwell, and
Tipton (2008) taught psychological skills (goal setting, arousal regulation,
mental imagery, and positive self-talk) to healthy male adults, who showed
significantly improved running performance in the heat (8%) compared to
pretest, while the control group showed no significant change. An equally
robust approach was utilized by Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010) to
assess relative benefits of preperformance routines (PPRs) to maintain
performance under pressure. Those receiving “extensive PPR” showed better
performance compared to groups receiving single elements of PPR (such as
breathing, cue words, or temporal consistency alone). In both examples, the
intervention was standardized and the impact assessed on a single outcome
measure. Outside of sport, MST was shown to improve surgical performance
of medical residents under stress, using a full RCT design including blinding
of evaluators (Anton et al., 2018). Although each high-quality study
contributed positively to understanding MST impact, none considered needs
assessment, training delivery, provider-participant interactions, or the
iterative process of adaptation expected to take place in real applied SP
service. Indeed, expert SP practitioners (Henriksen et al., 2019) report that
successful interventions with senior performers often have no curricula,
focus on the whole person using multiple data sources to assess needs, and
are based on “deep, trusting and long term” relationships (p. 79) that include
regular contact with/feedback to the client. When features of good practice
contrast so strongly with the standardized protocol required for RCT, more
appropriate methods are needed to develop a convincing evidence base.
So How COULD We Measure It Better?

Typically, SP interventions comprise multiple components that interact to
enhance performance together with other changes influencing more holistic
issues for the athlete. Accordingly, such interventions can be construed as
complex interventions, notwithstanding that work is often focused on an
individual. On this basis, adopting principles from the Medical Research
Council guidance on process evaluations could provide a useful approach to
building an evidence base that informs practice for developing MS (Moore
et al., 2015).
Process evaluations are proposed to complement evidence-based RCT
research, emphasizing the importance of context and differential effects of
intervention, utilizing qualitative information to assess two dimensions:
implementation of interventions and mechanisms of impact. This is
completed in tandem with “normal” research that describes the intervention
and assesses changes in outcomes. Notably, this approach fits well with the
concepts of PJDM (Martindale & Collins, 2012). Process evaluations play a
critical role in providing complete evaluation of interventions without which
evidence from RCTs cannot be adequately judged. Although stringent
publication word limits may work against this, detail on implementation
focuses on delivery, training conduct, materials, and resources, which
contrasts and complements the detail of experimental protocols typically
provided in MS training studies discussed earlier. Additionally,
implementation reports on fidelity (intervention delivered as intended), dose
(intensity, frequency, and duration of sessions), and adaptations (changes to
intervention to fit needs and context) are needed.
Secondly, process evaluation focuses on the mechanism of impact, testing
putative pathways such as whether benefits of PPRs may be influenced
through changing self-efficacy alone, rather than a specific performance
preparation. This focus also considers intervention responses, such as the
commitment, adherence, and uptake of MS. Implementation and mechanism
of impact are evaluated, along with details about opportunities and barriers
in the context to help interpret the effect of treatment and consider
generalization. While process evaluations are presented by Moore et al.
(2015) in relation to public health research on a much larger scale, the
principle can be easily adjusted to support developing robust evidence on
MS delivery.
Another approach to guide research on MS interventions is through the
organizational training and development literature. Salas et al. (2012)
discuss comprehensive training evaluation based on Kirkpatrick’s
hierarchical four-level model: reactions, learning, behavior, and results.
This model has been criticized for the ordinal structure, purported to suggest
that if no learning was assessed, then behavior was not expected to change.
However, Salas et al. recommended that thorough training evaluation should
focus on all four levels and that this should be conducted with a specific aim
with measures linked directly to intended outcomes.
Conclusion: So What Does This Mean?

The potential for evidence from process evaluation or training evaluations to
inform effective MS interventions is significant. Such evidence would be
superior to that from simple research designs where delivery is reduced to
formulaic protocol and effectiveness considered only in relation to limited
outcome variables. Professional training requirements could adopt these
approaches and the information generated published to inform the
professions’ evidence base. The practical and ethical issues associated could
be effectively addressed. Furthermore, adopting ideas such as premortems
and cultures of dialogue and criticism proposed as a partial solution to the
“replication crisis” in psychology (Bishop, 2019) would not only benefit
professionals completing training but also create stronger and more
scientifically rigorous practice.
Table 5.1 Five Key Readings on MS and Related Topics
Adler et RCT in military recruits. Examination of MST effects. Comparatively small but
al. Surveys at various points significant effects of intervention on several indices of training
(2015) of training outcome
Behnke Psychometric design: five Development of an MST-related measurement tool, developed
et al. studies using PCA and in two languages in parallel
(2019) factorial analysis
Collins Desktop study. Literature- Three “ages” of a science and how this influences knowledge
& based exposition application. Offers insights on how different aims will
Kamin influence epistemologies and application
(2012)
Moore Methodology advice Guidance application of RCTs, stressing the use of process
et al. evaluations to offer a richer picture of intervention mechanism
(2015) and impact
Sharp et Qualitative study with Effective use of supervision in applied SP. Examines the
al. practitioners and ethical challenges experienced in supervised practice
(2019) supervisors
MS, mental skills; MST, mental skills training; PCA, principal component analysis; RCT, randomized
controlled trial; SP, sport psychology.
We now propose five questions that we consider to offer significant
opportunity to develop the field. Given that MS is an overwhelmingly
applied topic, these questions reflect the critical issues facing sport
psychologists to optimize the efficacy and effectiveness of mental skills
applications with performers.
1. Methodological Question: Are We Clear on the Link Between

Aim and Design in MST?
What
Identifying exact objectives for MS interventions is a key stage in design
(Martindale & Collins, 2005), whether these are short-term (e.g., within
sessions based on intentions for impact) or long-term outcomes from a
program. Current debate exists on optimizing balance across elements such
as performance (now or future), well-being, and athletic and/or personal
development. Indeed, as SP becomes more accepted, the scope of
application is likely to broaden. However, it is important that case
conceptualization and subsequent design of MS “packages” be explicitly
considered.
Why
Good practice starts with setting mutually agreed-upon targets and includes
both outcome and process goals, nested into an overall program (cf.
Martindale & Collins, 2007). Interestingly, case conceptualization and
planning are increasingly common requirements of professional SP
accreditation programs (cf. Tod et al., 2017). Despite this positive
development and the increase in published case studies offering
underpinning evolution and rationale, the link between aim and design is still
comparatively unexplored.
How
In contrast to clinical psychology, where clients contract to a series of
sessions to solve a specific problem, SP practitioners commonly form longer
term relationships, often as embedded members of support teams. Reflecting
this, longer term and longitudinal research is required. The significant
change in work timescale necessitates different approaches to evaluating
efficacy, moving beyond simplistic consultant evaluation questionnaires.
Evaluation should enable original case conceptualizations and objectives
to be assessed against eventual impact together with ongoing refinement and
adaptation. Comprehensive triangulation can be achieved by incorporating
data-driven needs analyses with case conceptualization, intervention
approaches, and consideration of alternative options. Such approaches will
also cater to providers’ social constructivism in intervention design and
deployment. On completion or, more likely in the current climate, when a
benchmark is reached, these same measures and planning parameters will
inform thorough evaluations against design, ongoing refinement, and
endpoint outcomes.
2. Applied Question: How Do We Deliver MST Services?
What
Once case conceptualization has been accurately completed, the optimum
“blend” of MST must be designed, incorporating aspects such as timing,
sequencing of the skills taught, and how they fit into a nested periodization
approach. Recent research (e.g., Collins et al., 2018) has emphasized the
importance of periodization, for example, tactical periodization for team
sports and emotional periodization in high-risk adventure or action sports. A
key point here is that the many forms of sport present a very wide spectrum
of challenges and contexts.
Why
SP is no longer a young discipline, yet there is still a significant tendency to
draw uncritically on research from the parent discipline of psychology
(Collins & Kamin, 2012). Considering the complex demands and particular
challenges inherent in performance sport means that practitioners require not
just a bespoke set of skills but specific research to underpin them.
How
The overlapping and interacting nature of issues presents significant
challenges, for example, how to achieve an optimum blend of MS in a
complex social setting with multiple interactions and different personalities
with individual needs. An effective solution we believe is to adopt a PJDM
approach. This is significantly different from “off-the-peg recipes”
disseminated in the pop-psych literature and by social media gurus. Instead,
effective SP support is more complicated and time consuming and requires
thorough analysis and bespoke intervention. The major issue is how much
knowledge and experience are required to deliver this approach.
In the final three questions we discuss the integration of the client, the
practitioner, and culture to maximize the effect of MS interventions. As
illustrated in Figure 5.1, the effects of MST are all influenced by this
interaction and research is required to contribute to a sophisticated
understanding to benefit applied practice and SP service. To aid flow, we
have collapsed the what-why-how structure within the three interacting
factors.
Figure 5.1. Schematic of the key factors affecting intervention impact.
3. Applied Question: What Individual Client Factors Are Relevant

in Determining MST Interventions?
Performers differ with respect to many dimensions, which are relevant to
effective MS delivery (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Client Factors Relevant to Effectiveness of MS Development
Age/cognitive Correlated but not the same. Typically, around puberty, females may show greater
maturity cognitive maturity. Performance experience compared to age also varies considerably
between sports (e.g., experienced female gymnasts may be quite young), and types of
experience (development academy) may influence elements of cognitive maturity.
Gender Gender differences in response to MS have been identified; however, the evidence is
not clear and more specific examination of this issue through research is necessary.
Special Working with athletes with disabilities is one example that may require specific
populations consideration. Athletes with disabilities may have experienced discrimination, have
longstanding psychological issues, and/or have experienced specific trauma. In such
instances, the importance of quality supervision, awareness of professional
boundaries and competencies, and suitable referral systems and networks is
particularly high. In relation to the pragmatics of MST, careful adaptation is required.
For example, imagery and attentional control both typically have strong visual
components, so providing explanations and content needs to be reconfigured for use
with visually impaired athletes. Peer networks, supervision, and professionals in
allied fields (e.g., education) can help to inform work on adaptations.
Injury Psychosocial and emotional factors associated with injury have been well explored in
the literature (e.g., Brewer, 2010). Sport psychologists must demonstrate high levels
of rapid adaptability to offer effective service to clients. Timing of service can be
critical in such circumstances.
Career stage Several transitions are relevant to MS interventions such as those between athletic
levels, stages of education, independent living, and parenthood. MST can be
employed effectively to help address issues, from practical to emotional. There is also
a reciprocal relationship in which the transition itself may significantly influence
development of the athlete and their MS.
Retirement Technically a career stage (see previously) but uniquely one in which psychological
support may be altered or ceased. Forced retirement is particularly challenging. Many
professional sports have player associations that can provide support, information,
and resources and in some cases SP provision is maintained for a period, postcareer.
Judicious referrals can be critical in assisting athletes and help to compensate if
psychological support is not resourced.
MS, mental skills; MST, mental skills training.
Unlike many other performance domains (e.g., business, military,

medicine), sport performers start athletic careers much earlier, often as
children and adolescents, and the majority may have retired from
competitive performances well before age 40! Consequently, age and
cognitive maturity are important factors to include in determining effective
design of MST. It is also salient that the sport context usually includes direct
and immediate feedback, public performance, and critical evaluation to
enhance performance.
Successful sport participation is also predicated upon effective physical
and technical training, which require significant levels of motivation to
adhere to prolonged training, sleep restriction to enable schedules to be met,
and consequent sacrifices in relation to social life. For adolescents
specifically, these demands are particularly challenging as detailed by
Blakemore (2019), who summarized the most recent evidence identifying
the significant neurological transformations that occur for adolescents.
Heightened sensitivity to social exclusion from peers, acute self-
consciousness, and biochemical adaptations driving changes in sleep
patterns (from “lark” to “owl”) each present specific issues that sport
psychologists must help young athletes carefully navigate.
As one example, the evidence-based emphasis on developing self-
regulation to support achievement in high-level sport (Cleary & Zimmeran,
2001; Toering et al., 2009) must at the same time reflect the different brain
“architecture” associated with functional differences. Specifically, the limbic
(reward) system is well developed and shows little change through
adolescence. In contrast, the prefrontal cortex (self-control, planning, and
self-awareness) is relatively underdeveloped from the early teenage years
onward and continues transforming significantly through to the early 20s
(Mills et al., 2014). Social and environmental factors influence this process,
which also has significant interindividual variation, requiring sport
psychologists to attend especially to needs analysis and monitoring. Such
factors might suggest that an early Sunday morning workshop on long-term
planning and goalsetting with a group of adolescent athletes would seem
particularly ill-conceived scheduling.
4. Applied Question: What Are the Implications of Sport

Psychologist Characteristics?
Within counseling and psychotherapy, the importance of the client-
professional relationship is well recognized and suggested to have a greater
bearing on outcome than theoretical orientation or technique (Horvath &
Bedi, 2002). This same issue has also been outlined in relation to SP practice
(Petipas et al., 1999). Understanding when and how to flexibly adopt
different relationship styles, to best suit both client and context, is what
Lazarus (1993) refers to as an “authentic chameleon”: a critically important
skill to effectively deliver MS interventions. This is not to suggest that
psychologists should “play roles,” but rather that they focus on making
connections to the client that recognize their expectations, needs, and
personal characteristics—in other words, an optimum but also broad-ranging
application of PJDM in using interpersonal skills.
Forging a working alliance (cf. Figure 5.1) lies at the heart of successful
practice, and these principles have been clearly articulated in the fields of
counseling and psychotherapy (see, e.g., Taber et al., 2011). An effective
working alliance is based on three components: clearly agreed-upon goals,
tasks that will help to achieve goals, and a bond between performer and
psychologist. Importantly, however, this bond need not necessarily be a
“positive” friendship, but rather needs to be effective for the goals agreed
upon. For example, while counseling is usually driven by specific problems
or concerns, in SP there may be a broader remit on development over a
longer period. Consequently, developing an agreed-upon focus requires
detailed attention and periodic review as work progresses. In agreeing upon
the tasks to achieve such dynamic goals, psychologists must identify the
most suitable approaches yet have adaptability to cater to performer
preferences and impact. Agreed-upon goals and tasks will create the third
component of the alliance: the bond based on trust, respect, and rapport.
Notably, how these components are developed will vary according to the
performer’s age. Simple professional requirements such as explaining how
confidentiality works, justifying rationale for the chosen approach, and
effective communication skills will all contribute to creating an effective
bond.
Reflecting our earlier caveat, being approachable, trustworthy, and
effective are much more salient than attempting to be liked. Within a
program, psychologists may have to challenge clients, provoke desire to
change, and provide honest, critical feedback. Attempting to be friendly and
supportive, typically reported by athletes as their preferred style, is not the
basis for a professional relationship and risks limiting effectiveness and
creating potential for dependency, both of which should be avoided.
5. Applied Question: What Cultural Factors Influence Effective

Development of MS?
All sport performers train and compete in situations that have a social
context. The term culture has been used to refer to this social dimension but
does not precisely define the scope of the social context. Thus, culture might
be used confusingly to describe a social dimension at the largest scale,
linked to country, race, and religion, down to the smallest scale, such as a
conditioning training group or a coach-athlete dyad. In between these are
many other dimensions of culture, for example, types of sports (e.g.,
individual or team, independent or interactive performance), specific named
sports within the same “type” (e.g., Rugby Union or Rugby League; Formula
1 or Rally), outcome focus (development, performance, or recreation), age
and gender, team-specific culture, and subgroup of performers (by
position/role/training needs). Effective MST requires the sport psychologist
to be sensitive to cultural norms at any, and all, of these levels and work hard
to suspend their own preconceptions that could limit their ability. There has
been significant growth in SP research on team culture generally in the last
decade (e.g., Cruickshank et al., 2013). However, research has not focused
specifically on showing how MS development can be improved by attending
to cultural dimensions. Consequently, while the importance of culture is
widely acknowledged at a practical level, evidence is urgently required to
underpin professional behavior and training.
Psychology, including SP and, indeed, many research fields, is subject to a
broad sampling bias in research that has been referred to by the acronym
WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; Henrich
et al., 2010). In essence, this means that the enormous overreliance on
sampling a particular section of society (especially university students) in
countries such as the United States and United Kingdom leads to an
extremely low generalizability of research to a world population of sport
performers. Henrich et al. identify several approaches to try to improve this
situation, including systemic (e.g., funding, publication demands) and
organizational (e.g., data sharing), that would have significant impact but are
hard to achieve. However, they also promote active collaborations between
researchers, several approaches to “comparative” studies, and developing
relationships with participant pools with different demographics. These latter
approaches can be addressed by research groups and individuals and,
together with greater publication of SP training experiences suggested earlier
in this chapter, could significantly advance research knowledge of MS.
The challenge to sport psychologists to understand and work within a
sport or team culture for effective development in MS can appear complex.
Research in this area examining and comparing the development of culture
in professional sports teams and Olympic sports offers an empirically based
model on which SP can begin to analyze and understand the key components
of this complex dynamic (Cruickshank et al., 2013, 2014). This relative new
contribution must be developed further and of course considered in light of
the previous paragraph since the research was primarily based in the United
Kingdom. The experience of working with individuals from different world
regions, with distinctive cultures, highlights, by contrast, the predominant
influence of “Westernized” traditions. The SP literature is typically
characterized by a focus on the individual rather than collective and values
autonomy, high status, and principles of liberal democracy in groups.
Furthermore, the religious and spiritual backdrop to a culture can influence
thinking about even basic components of MST, such as attention control or
casual attributions. Cultural awareness and sensitivity, at multiple levels, are
essential.
Conclusion
As active pracademics (we research it and do it), we hope that our
observations are of interest to both sides of the research-practice divide.
Indeed, and returning to the point made at the start of this chapter, we hope
that we encourage colleagues to erode and eradicate this divide in what is,
after all, an applied discipline. In closing, we would stress how useful
knowledge from outside a domain, in this case SP, can be, so long as it is
critically reviewed and applied. We trust that message has emerged loud and
clear!
References
Abraham, A. K., & Collins, D. (2011a). Effective skill development: How should athletes’ skills be
developed? In D. Collins, A. Button, & H. Richards (Eds.), Performance psychology: A
practitioner’s guide (pp. 207–230). Elsevier.
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011b). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science. Quest,
63, 366–384.
Adler, A. B., Bliese, P. D., Williams, J., Csoka, L., Pickering, M. A., Hammermeister, J., Harada, C.,
Holliday, B., & Ohlson, C. (2015). Mental skills training with basic combat soldiers: A group-
randomised trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1752–1764.
Anton, N. E., Beane, J., Yurco, A. M., Howley, L. D., Bean, E., Myers, E. M., & Stefanidis, D. (2018).
Mental skills training effectively minimizes operative performance deterioration under stressful
conditions: Results of a randomised controlled study. American Journal of Surgery, 215, 214–221.
Barwood, M. J., Thelwell, R. C., & Tipton, M. J. (2008). Psychological skills training improves
exercise performance in the heat. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 387–396.
Behnke, M., Tomczak, M., Kaczmarek, L. D., Komar, M., & Gracz, J. (2019). The sport mental
training questionnaire: Development and validation. Current Psychology, 38(2), 504–516.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9629-1
Bishop, D. V. M. (2019). The psychology of experimental psychologists: Overcoming cognitive
constraints to improve research: The 47th Sir Frederic Bartlett Lecture. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 22, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819886519
Blakemore, S. J. (2019). Adolescence and mental health. Lancet, 393(10185), 2030–2031.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31013-X. PMID: 31106741.
Brewer, B. (2010). The role of psychological factors in sport injury rehabilitation outcomes.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840903301207
Clearly, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by
experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 185–206.
doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149883
Collins, D., Button, A., & Richards, H. (2011). Performance psychology: A practitioner’s guide.
Elsevier.
Collins, D., & Kamin, S. (2012). The performance coach. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Handbook of sport and
performance psychology (pp. 692–706). Oxford University Press.
Collins, D., Willmott, T., & Collins, L. (2018). Periodisation and self-regulation in action sports:
Coping with the emotional load. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01652
Cruickshank, A., Collins, D., & Minten, S. (2013). Culture change in a professional sports team:
Shaping environmental contexts and regulating power. International Journal of Sport Science and
Coaching, 8(2), 319–325. http://dx.doi.org/10–1260/1747-9541.8.2.271
Cruickshank, A., Collins, D., & Minten, S. (2014). Driving and sustaining culture change in Olympic
sport performance teams: A first exploration and Grounded Theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Curran, O., MacNamara, A., & Passmore, D. (2019). What about the girls? Exploring the gender data
gap in talent development. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. ISSN 2624–9367.
Fletcher, D., & Wagstaff, C. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its emergence,
application, and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(4), 427–434.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.009
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi.10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Henriksen, K., Storm, L. K., Prydol, N., Stambulova, N., & Larsen, C. H. (2019). Successful and less
successful interventions with youth and senior athletes: Insights from expert sport psychology
practitioners. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13, 72–94.
Horvath, A. O., & Bedi, R. P. (2002). The alliance. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy
relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (pp. 37–69). Oxford
University Press.
Killin, L., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Seeing through the double blind. The Psychologist, 28(4), 288–
291.
Küttal, A., & Larsen, C. H. (2019). Risk and protective factors for mental health in elite athletes: A
scoping review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 231–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1689574
Lazarus, A. A. (1993). Tailoring the therapeutic relationship, or being an authentic chameleon.
Psychotherapy, 30, 404–407.
Lebrun, F., & Collins, D. (2017). Is elite sport (really) bad for you? Can we yet answer the question?
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 324. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00324
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2005). Professional judgment and decision making: The role of
intention for impact. Sport Psychologist, 19(3), 303–317.
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2007). Enhancing the evaluation of effectiveness with professional
judgement and decision making. Sport Psychologist, 21, 458–474.
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2012). A Professional Judgment and Decision Making Case Study:
Reflection-in-Action Research. The Sport Psychologist (Special Edition), 26, 500–518.
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2013). The development of professional judgment and decision making
expertise in applied SP. Sport Psychologist, 27, 390–398.
Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as
possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 343–360.
Mills, K. L., Goddings, A-L., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S-J. (2014). The
developmental mismatch in structural brain maturation during adolescence. Developmental
Neuroscience, 36, 147–160.
Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., Moore, L., O’Catain, A.,
Tinati, T., Wight, D., & Baird, J. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical
Research Council guidance. BMJ, 351, 350. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1258.
Ogilvie, D., Adams, J., Bauman, A., Gregg, E. W., Panter, J., Siegel, K. R., Warehame, N. J., & White,
M. (2020). Using natural experimental studies to guide public health action: Turning the evidence-
based medicine paradigm on its head. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 74, 203–
208. doi:10.1136/jech-2019-213085
Pankhurst, A. (2014). Exploring stakeholder coherence in an effective talent identification and
development environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Lancashire).
Petipas, A. J., Giges, B., & Danish, S. J. (1999). The sport psychologist-athlete relationship:
Implications for training. Sport Psychologist, 13(3), 344–357.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and
development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 13(2), 74–101.
Sharp, L-A., Hodge, K., & Danish, S. (2019). “I wouldn’t want to operate without it”: The ethical
challenges faced by experienced Sport Psychology consultants and their engagement with
supervision. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1646838
Taber, B. J., Leibert, T. W., & Agaskar, V. (2011). Relationships among client-therapist personality
congruence, working alliance, and therapeutic outcome. Psychotherapy Theory Research Practice
Training, 48(4), 376–380. doi:10.1037/a0022066
Tod, D. A,, Eubank, M. E., & Hutter, R. I. (2017). Professional development for sport psychology
practice. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 134–137.
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009). Self regulation and
performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(14),
1509–1517. doi:10.1080/02640410903369919
Vealey, R. S. (2007). Mental skills training in sport. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 285–309). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118270011.ch13
6
Mental Toughness
Robert Weinberg and Joanne Butt
Since the upsurge of interest in mental toughness research that was sparked
by a seminal paper in 2002 (Jones et al.), researchers have learned a great
deal about different aspects of mental toughness. However, despite all this
research attention, there are lots of questions and issues that remain
unanswered (or are controversial), including the stability of mental
toughness, mental versus physical toughness, the relationship between
mental toughness and mental health, different types of mental toughness,
and the measurement and definition of mental toughness. This chapter will
briefly discuss the current state of mental toughness literature, but as the
title of the text implies, the focus will be on discussing the unknown and
potential areas for future research.
State of the Art

The first section in this chapter will summarize key aspects of mental
toughness research where there appears to be general agreement among
researchers. This does not mean that all research (or researchers) agree;
rather, there is consistency in findings regarding a specific aspect of mental
toughness (see Table 6.1).
Psychological Attributes of Mental Toughness

First, an area of research that has been consistent is that mental toughness
pertains to a certain set of psychological attributes. In their seminal
research, Jones et al. (2002) interviewed elite athletes, used focus groups,
and used rating scales to identify the psychological attributes that make up
mental toughness. They found 12 different psychological attributes
underpinning mental toughness, but they designated coping with pressure,
focused concentration, motivation, and self-belief as the four pillars of
mental toughness. Subsequent research has found many other psychological
attributes underlying mental toughness, although researchers do not always
agree on all the attributes (see Gucciardi, 2017, for a review). The ones that
are consistently found in research include focused concentration, self-belief
(confidence), coping with pressure, goal-directed motivation (commitment),
sense of control, optimism, and resilience (bouncing back from setbacks;
see Harmison, 2011).
Genetic Versus Learned Aspects of Mental Toughness

A second area of mental toughness research where there is consensus is that
mental toughness has both genetic and learned aspects to it (Harmison,
2011). Specifically, researchers using twin study methodology found that
individual differences in mental toughness could be attributed to both
genetic and environmental factors (Horsburgh et al., 2009). Specifically,
they found individual differences in overall mental toughness to be
primarily explained by both genetic and nonshared environmental factors (r
= .52). Their results also revealed that the correlation coefficients between
hereditability and specific aspects of mental toughness (e.g., challenge,
commitment) ranged from .36 to .56. These findings led Horsburgh et al. to
conclude that mental toughness is similar to just about every other
personality trait that has been studied to determine the extent to which
genetics or environmental factors determine individual differences.
From a qualitative perspective, research by Connaughton et al. (2008)
revealed that mental toughness can be developed in a number of different
ways depending on the environment in which an athlete grows up. This can
be considered as mental toughness being “caught” as opposed to “taught.”
Specifically, mental toughness being caught might include natural rivalry
with a sibling, “archrival” competitor, overcoming negative critical
incidents, creating training simulations, and coach motivational climate.
Mental toughness being “taught” has included many of the mental skills to
enhance performance and well-being such as anxiety management, focused
attention, imagery, goal setting, and self-talk. In addition, researchers have
implemented and positively evaluated, both quantitatively and qualitatively,
the effectiveness of a mental training program (e.g., Gucciardi et al.,
2009a).
Is Mental Toughness Multidimensional or Unidimensional?
A third area of general consensus is that mental toughness is
multidimensional in nature and focuses on a collection of values, attitudes,
emotions, and cognitions that are hypothesized to enable individuals to
behave in such a way as to achieve their goals in the face of obstacles
(Hardy et al., 2014). A few examples demonstrate the point of the perceived
multidimensionality of mental toughness. Specifically, for Jones et al.
(2002), these characteristics are motivation, confidence, attentional focus,
and coping. For Gucciardi, Gordon, and Dimmock (2009b), the
characteristics include challenge, sport awareness, tough attitudes, and
desire for success. Finally, Harmison (2011) conceptualizes mental
toughness as a social cognitive personality construct, which by definition is
multidimensional. For example, affects, expectancies, and goals are part of
the social cognitive approach to mental toughness. In summary, although
these characteristics are sometimes similar and sometimes dissimilar, these
research studies all view mental toughness as a multidimensional construct.
What Is the Relationship of Mental Toughness to Hardiness and

Resilience?
A fourth area of consensus is that mental toughness is more than resilience
and hardiness. In fact, hardiness and resilience are seen as part of the larger
construct of mental toughness. For example, Clough, Earle, and Sewell
(2002) suggested that hardiness, a key concept within the field of health
psychology, could be used to help explain mental toughness in sport.
Hardiness has been defined as a personality trait that acts as a buffer to
influence how an individual copes with stressful life events. Hardiness is
thought to comprise the personality components of control, commitment,
and challenge, but in terms of mental toughness, Clough et al. (2002) added
the component of confidence. Thus, for these authors, hardiness is part of
mental toughness, because mental toughness has the added component of
confidence. It should be noted that Clough et al. have been criticized for
failing to adequately justify the transferring of the health psychology
construct of hardiness into a more sport-specific setting (Gucciardi &
Gordon, 2009). Researchers understand that one cannot simply take a
construct out of mainstream psychology (or health psychology in this
specific case) and apply it to a sport-specific setting. Psychometrics need to
be conducted to demonstrate the reliability and validity of mainstream
psychology constructs being applied to sport.
In terms of the concept of resilience, like hardiness, it is seen as a part of
the larger construct of mental toughness. For example, all mentally tough
individuals are seen as resilient, but not all resilient individuals are seen as
mentally tough. Although both resilience and mental toughness share the
ability to bounce back from setbacks, mental toughness also includes an
optimistic and confident attitude. The core aspects of resiliency revolve
around the concepts of adversity and adaptation, whereas mentally tough
individuals see challenges and adversity as an opportunity and not a threat,
and have the positive approach to move forward with enhanced
performance and well-being. In essence, resiliency is focused on adversity,
whereas mental toughness is shown in a variety of situations (positive and
negative), not just dealing with adversity and difficult or even horrific
events (Weinberg & Gould, 2019)
What Are the Behaviors of Mentally Tough Individuals?

A fifth area of agreement is that the individuals who are considered
mentally tough exhibit certain types of behaviors in and around
competition. These behaviors do not define a mentally tough individual;
rather, they are representative of how a mentally tough individual behaves
(Connaughton et al., 2008). For example, Hardy et al. (2014) developed a
behavioral scale based on feedback by athletes including behaviors that
were thought to be consistently exhibited by mentally tough athletes. The
question stem was “an athlete is able to maintain a high level of personal
performance in competitive matches,” and some example responses
included “when the conditions were difficult,” “when the match is
particularly tight,” and “when teammates are struggling.” Similarly,
Anthony et al. (2018) defined specific behaviors that coaches were trying to
teach in developing mental toughness. Examples of behaviors included
adapts to changing situations, exhibits positive body language following a
personal or team mistake, and displays decisive actions in pressure
situations that are effective.
Table 6.1 Five Key Reading in Mental Toughness in Sports
Design
Gucciardi Narrative Different definitions and conceptualizations of mental toughness
(2017) review were discussed before the latest definition, considering previous
research was offered.
Hardy et al. Test Being mentally tough results in certain behaviors/outcomes
(2014) construction opposed to one’s psychological attributes.
Horsburgh et Twin study Mental toughness has both genetic and environmental influences
al. (2009) methodology and thus can sometimes be taught and sometimes be caught.
Jones et al. Qualitative Mental toughness is multidimensional, being composed by a
(2002) interviews variety of psychological attributes.
Strycharczyk Correlations Mental toughness encompasses hardiness and resilience, and
& Clough coaches learn how to build mental toughness.
(2015)

While mental toughness research has achieved consistency in some
conceptual areas, as noted earlier, there are still some issues surrounding the
construct that future research needs to address. In this section of the chapter
we will discuss some of these pertinent issues where our knowledge base
and understanding are less consistent.
1. Theoretical Question: How Stable Is Mental Toughness?

2. Theoretical Question: Are There Different Types of Mental
Toughness?
Two main questions are raised in this section, the first being whether mental
toughness is stable or unstable, and the second, which is somewhat
connected, being whether there are different types of mental toughness for
different situations. To continue to develop the conceptual clarity of mental
toughness, it is important to consider whether mental toughness is more of a
personality disposition (i.e., trait-like), which tends to be stable over time
and situations, or whether it is more unstable (i.e., state-like), and thus
changes across different situations. In support of viewing mental toughness
as more of a personality disposition, some earlier research studies have
suggested that mental toughness consists of various attributes (e.g.,
confidence, determined, optimistic, handling pressure) that make
performers mentally tough in general and across situations (e.g.,
Connaughton et al., 2008; Gucciardi et al., 2009a; Weinberg et al., 2011).
Quantitative studies and the subsequent development of different models of
mental toughness have also highlighted specific attributes that are assumed
to make performers mentally tough (e.g., 4Cs model; cf. Clough et al.,
2002). Within these models it is typically hypothesized that the
psychological attributes or personal resources allow individuals to perform
effectively across a wide variety of situations, especially when these
situations involve coping with pressure or adversity.
Other research studies have found that mental toughness is relatively
unstable (i.e., state-like) across (and even within) situations, suggesting that
it might be determined by the constraints and requirements of specific
situations. That is, some sport-specific research has reported that the
requirements of different sports seem to require a different set of mentally
tough attributes. Examples of this research can be found in Australian
football (Gucciardi et al., 2008), soccer (Thelwell et al., 2005), cricket (Bull
et al., 2005), and elite soccer referees (Slack et al., 2014). Moving beyond
sport-specific attributes and exploring situational mental toughness,
Weinberg et al. (2017) explored tennis players’ perceived shifts in mental
toughness within and between matches. Findings indicated that athletes’
mentally tough behaviors, cognitions, and affect varied across situations
and at times many athletes were not able to sustain “being mentally tough.”
These research findings offer support for the state-like nature of mental
toughness, indicating that depending on the situation and athletes’
perceptions of the situation, mental toughness can fluctuate. It is
recommended that researchers continue to identify the specific situations
and athletes’ perceptions of situations that elicit behaviors that are (or are
not) mentally tough. This research should lead to the development of
appropriate interventions that teach coping skills to elicit the most effective
cognitions, affects, and behaviors for different situations. For example,
gaining an understanding of competitive situations that could potentially
evoke fluctuations in mental toughness (i.e., mental weakness) can be
integrated into athletes’ training environments to help prepare them better
for performing in competition and critical moments.
Within the broader issue of stability and situational mental toughness,
there is a continued need to explore the different types of mental toughness.
In particular, one question that remains is whether different situations
require different types of mental toughness rather than being mentally tough
in general. As noted earlier, there might be a specific set of attributes
necessary for particular sports (e.g., soccer vs. golf), but preliminary
research regarding situations within sports (e.g., Weinberg et al., 2017; Bull
et al., 2005) would tentatively indicate that certain types of mental
toughness are required for certain situations that occur within sport. Being
able to identify and assess different types of mental toughness would enable
specific mental toughness training programs to be designed to help athletes
develop the psychological and physical attributes that are necessary to be
successful in their particular sport.
3. Applied Question: Does Mental Toughness Depend on Physical

Toughness?
The second issue within mental toughness research that remains uncertain is
the role of physical toughness and whether it is an attribute of mental
toughness. In some qualitative research, physical toughness (i.e.,
conditioning, physical fitness) has been reported as being essential for
mental toughness to be displayed (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 2009a; Weinberg et
al., 2011). That is, physical toughness was not considered an attribute of
mental toughness per se, but rather, a necessary platform for individuals to
demonstrate the mental attributes such as handling pressure and having
strong belief. In an earlier quantitative study that was conducted (Crust &
Clough, 2005), results revealed a linkage between mental toughness and
physical endurance in which higher levels of mental toughness would
“push” individuals to pursue their physical training. Taken together, these
findings indicate that there is a connection between mental toughness and
physical toughness, although scant research has focused on empirically
investigating the relationship.
In a classic model on “toughness,” Dienstbier (1991) demonstrated a
specific physiological response to stress termed “toughness” or
“physiological toughness.” In summary, the research highlights the changes
in specific biomarkers that are associated with better or poorer performance
and also the relationship to positive psychological reactions such as lower
anxiety, greater emotional stability, greater adaptability to stress, and
enhanced mental/cognitive abilities—many of which are found to be
attributes of mental toughness. Taking a psychophysiological approach to
further understand mental toughness in the sporting context could be a
fruitful line of research, especially when taking into account athletes’
perceptions of threat or challenge in response to stressful situations and the
mediating role that mental toughness could play. In addition, future research
is still needed to explore whether creating pressurized training
environments in sport enhance mental toughness. Some research in this area
has identified that exposing athletes to certain training demands (e.g.,
manipulating task, environment) combined with training consequences
(e.g., manipulating judgment, forfeit) can increase athletes’ perceptions of
pressure and cognitive anxiety intensity and directional interpretation
(Stoker et al., 2019). However, the role of mental toughness in relation to
pressure training and performance needs to be investigated.
4. Theoretical Question: What Is the Relationship Between

Mental Toughness, Mental Health, and Physical Health?
The third issue in mental toughness research where questions remain relates
to athletes’ mental and physical health. In recent years there has been an
increased emphasis on the mental health of athletes, and one question being
asked is whether mental toughness and mental health are contradictory
concepts, especially in elite sport. An editorial by Bauman (2016) brought
to light the potentially negative effects that being mentally tough might
have on the mental health of elite athletes. Specifically, he argues that the
culture of elite sport is one that encourages athletes to be “tough,” which in
part means not admitting to, reporting, or seeking professional help for
mental health issues. Furthermore, there is a stigma that is associated with
athletes reporting mental health issues, as they fear that they will be labeled
as “mentally weak,” or certainly not mentally tough. In response to this
editorial, Gucciardi, Hanton, and Fleming (2017) conducted a narrative
review to investigate the assertion that mental toughness and mental health
are contradictory concepts in elite sport. While no empirical published
research investigating the relationship of mental toughness to mental health
in elite athletes was found, they did find some studies linking mental
toughness and mental health in nonelite sport performers as well as
performers in other contexts. For example, several studies with adolescent
and adult athletes (e.g., Gucciardi & Jones, 2012) and military personnel
(Arthur et al., 2015) have found mental toughness to be positively related to
positive affect and enhanced performance, while negatively related to
burnout, depression, stress, and anxiety. Therefore, based on some limited
research with adolescent athletes, students, and military personnel, an
argument can be made that mental toughness appears to represent a positive
indicator of mental health, and that it in fact helps to facilitate positive
mental health. Future research is needed to determine the relationship
between mental toughness and positive mental health, and longitudinal
intervention research could also offer more definitive conclusions.
Despite some limited positive contributions, there is other research and
anecdotal reports suggesting that mental toughness might be in conflict with
physical health and well-being. Gucciardi et al. (2017) reported that athletes
typically underutilize mental health services because of the perceived
stigma that might emanate from others. Thus, it is plausible that being
known as a mentally tough player would likely just exacerbate the feeling
that they would be perceived as mentally weak (especially by teammates
and coaches) if they sought out psychological help. It is clear that this is one
area in need of empirical research, and further understanding the reasons
athletes often underutilize mental health services and whether mental
toughness plays a mediating role is a starting point.
In a related line of physical health and well-being research, questions
continue to be raised on whether mentally tough athletes are more likely to
play through injury and pain because this is one important behavior that
signals that an athlete is mentally tough. Indeed, Coulter, Mallett, and
Singer (2016) explored mental toughness in the Australian Football League
and found that players who played through injury, pain, and fatigue were
seen as mentally tough and were held in high esteem compared to those
players who did not conform to these standards. However, empirical
research is limited in this area and it is also possible that other personality
and/or external factors influence whether an athlete tries to participate while
injured. Along these lines, it is also important to consider the culture
surrounding specific sports. Specifically, in relation to Australian football,
Gucciardi and colleagues (2017) noted the extent to which subcultural
beliefs, norms, and values of being mentally tough foster an idealized form
of hypermasculinity and make it less likely that athletes will seek out
professional psychological help. It is possible that this sort of competitive
culture will likely provide norms to which athletes of different ages and
gender adhere, as well as athletes playing sports varying in physical contact
(e.g., football vs. tennis). Collectively, from reviewing the literature
available, there is clearly a need for further empirical research to be
conducted on mental toughness, sport culture, and athletes performing
while feeling mentally well. Overall, research findings do emphasize that
mental toughness (e.g., self-belief, focus, handling pressure,
competitiveness) is an important psychological characteristic for athletes to
develop, and this is supported across the wide range of literature focused on
developing talented athletes. Future research should consider exploring
optimal environments specific to sports and how these environments can
appropriately engender mental toughness attributes at various athlete career
stages.
5. Methodological Question: How to Identify Mental Toughness?

The final issue in mental toughness research where questions remain relates
to measuring mental toughness and identifying who is mentally tough.
While qualitative research has typically focused on determining what
constitutes mental toughness and generating applied and often sport-
specific frameworks, it is on the quantitative measurement (questionnaires)
and, more specifically, the psychometric rigor of these measures that
questions continue to be raised.
One generic measure that has been used more than others but is also one
that is often criticized is the Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (MTQ-48;
Clough et al., 2002). The MTQ-48 was developed in conjunction with the
4Cs framework (as discussed earlier in this chapter) and as such was
generated from the construct of hardiness in health psychology, with the
addition of confidence. One of the main concerns raised regarding the 4Cs
framework was its suitability for use in the sport setting and thus the
validity of the MTQ-48 was questioned. Nonetheless, the MTQ-48 has been
used in research within academic (e.g., Stock et al., 2018) and sport settings
(e.g., Slack et al., 2015). However, while the MTQ-48 shows promise as a
measure of mental toughness, future research utilizing appropriate larger
samples and confirmatory factor analysis processes is advised. With
equivocal findings surrounding the MTQ-48, alternative measures could be
considered for future research. Two such measures offering potential
include the Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI) (cf. Middleton et al., 2011)
and the Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ; Sheard et al.,
2009). The SMTQ was designed and tested with a range of athletes and
could well be suited for research with athletes of varying abilities (i.e.,
development, collegiate), while the MTI, following preliminary construct
validation results, seems most suitable for research with elite athletes. The
MTI is certainly considered a more robust measure than the early
Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI; Loehr, 1986), which was also
designed with elite athletes in mind, but research examining the PPI
psychometric properties has not yet supported its factorial validity (e.g.,
Golby et al., 2007).
As an alternative to generic measures discussed previously, some
researchers have developed sport-specific measures. As discussed earlier in
this chapter, one question remains as to whether some of the mental
toughness attributes are sport specific and therefore require a sport-specific
quantitative measure. With this in mind, Gucciardi and colleagues have
developed the Australian football Mental Toughness Inventory (AfMTI;
Gucciardi et al., 2009b) as well as the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory
(CMTI; Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009). Both measures demonstrate the
applied benefits of capturing sport-specific dimensions of mental toughness,
and future research might consider developing more context-specific
measures especially given the limitations of existing generic measures
available. Nonetheless, the concern for these sport-specific measures is
whether or not they are appropriate outside of that context. Thus, further
development and testing are needed to perhaps identify whether sport-
specific measures can be adapted to other similar sports (e.g., invasion
games vs. aesthetic sports). It is also possible that a mixed approach can be
taken to measuring mental toughness in the future so that a generic measure
is not used on its own. As one example, mental toughness behaviors can be
observed and measured in addition to using one of the multidimensional
measures such as the MTQ-48 or the MTI. Bell, Hardy, and Beattie (2013)
utilized this approach in their study with elite cricketers, which involved
developing and measuring mental toughness behaviors. Originally a 15-
item scale was developed and then statistically (factor analysis) it was
reduced to an 8-item scale measuring specific behaviors (as opposed to
psychological qualities). These behaviors related to maintaining a high level
of performance when a match is particularly tight, when the conditions are
difficult, when teammates are relying on one player to perform well, when a
player is struggling with an injury, and when there are a large number of
spectators present.
Conclusion
Although we have learned a lot about mental toughness from empirical
data, there is still a great deal that needs to be done to better understand the
different aspects of mental toughness. The purpose of this chapter was to
highlight consistent areas of research regarding mental toughness as well as
areas that need further research and clarification. Specific areas for future
study were offered to help move the field forward in terms of both research
and practice. Hopefully, this chapter will stimulate researchers to continue
to study the many aspects of mental toughness that need further clarification
so both researchers and practitioners can better understand the cognitions,
affects, and behaviors that are associated with mental toughness.
References
Anthony, D., Gordon, S., Gucciardi, D., & Dawson, B. (2018). Adapting a behavioral coaching
framework for mental toughness development. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 9, 1–32.
doi:10.1080/21520704.2017.1323058
Arthur, A., Fitzwater, J., Hardy, L., Beattie, S., & Bell, J. (2015). Development and validation of a
military training mental toughness inventory. Military Psychology, 27, 232–241.
Bauman, N. (2016). The stigma of mental health in athletes: Are mental toughness and mental health
seen as contradictory in elite sport? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50, 135–136.
Bell, J., Hardy, L., & Beattie, S. (2013). Enhancing mental toughness and performance under
pressure in elite young cricketers: A 2-year longitudinal intervention. Sport, Exercise &
Performance Psychology, 2, 281–297. doi:10.1037/a0033129
Bull, S., Shambrook, C., James, W., & Brooks, J. (2005). Towards an understanding of mental
toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 209–227.
Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In I.
Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32–45). Thomson.
Connaughton, D., Hanton, S., Jones, G., & Wadey, R. (2008). The development and maintenance of
mental toughness: Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of Sport Sciences, 28, 699–716.
Coulter, T., Mallett, C., & Singer, J. (2016). A subculture of mental toughness in an Australian
football league. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 98–113.
Crust, L., & Clough, P. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 192–194.
Dienstbier, R. (1991). Behavioral correlates of sympathoadrenal reactivity: The toughness model.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, 846–852.
Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Van Wersch, A. (2007). Evaluating the factor structure of the psychological
performance inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 309–325.
Gucciardi, D. (2017). Mental toughness: Progress and prospects. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16,
17–23.
Gucciardi, D., & Gordon, S. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the cricket mental
toughness inventory. Journal of Sport Sciences, 27, 1293–1310.
Gucciardi, D., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. (2008). Towards an understanding of mental toughness in
Australian football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 261–281.
Gucciardi, D., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. (2009a). Advancing mental toughness research using
personal construct psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 54–72.
Gucciardi, D., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. (2009b). Development and preliminary validation of a
mental toughness inventory for Australian football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 201–
209.
Gucciardi, D., Hanton, S., & Fleming, S. (2017). Are mental toughness and mental health
contradictory concepts in elite sport? A narrative review of theory and evidence. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 20, 307–311.
Gucciardi, D., & Jones, M. (2012). Beyond optimal performance: Mental toughness profiles and
development success in adolescent cricketers. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34, 16–
36.
Hardy, L., Bell, J., & Beattie, S. (2014). Preliminary evidence for a neuropsychological model of
mentally tough behavior. Journal of Personality, 82, 69–81.
Harmison, R. (2011). A social-cognitive framework for understanding and developing mental
toughness in sport. In D. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Developments
in theory and research. Routledge.
Horsburgh, V., Schermer, J., Veselka, L., & Verson, P. (2009). A behavioral genetic study of mental
toughness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 100–105.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mental toughness?: An
examination of elite sport performers. Sport Psychologist, 14, 205–218.
Loehr, J. E. (1986). Mental Toughness Training for Sports: Achieving Athletic Excellence. Lexington,
MA: Stephen Greene Press.
Middleton, S., Martin, A., & Marsh, H. (2011). Development and validation of the mental toughness
inventory. In D. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Developments in theory
and research (pp. 91–107). Routledge.
Sheard, M., Golby, J., & Van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validation of the sport
mental toughness questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25,
186–193.
Slack, L. A., Butt, J., Maynard, I. W., & Olusoga, P. (2014). Understanding mental toughness in elite
football officiating: Perceptions of English Premier League referees. Sport and Exercise
Psychology Review, 10, 4–24.
Slack, L. A., Maynard, I. W., Butt, J., & Olusoga, P. (2015). An evaluation of a mental toughness
education and training program for early-career English Premier League referees. Sport
Psychologist, 29, 237–257.
Stock, R., Lynam, S., & Cachia, M. (2018). Academic success: The role of mental toughness in
predicting and creating success. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3, 429–433.
Stoker, M., Maynard, I. W., Butt, J., Hays, K., & Hughes, P. (2019). The effect of manipulating
individual consequences and training demands on experiences of pressure with elite disability
shooters. Sport Psychologist, 33, 1–26.
Strycharczyk, D., & Clough, P. (2015). Developing mental toughness: Coaching strategies to
improve performance, resilience and wellbeing (2nd ed.). Kogan Page Ltd.
Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Greenlees, I. (2005). Defining and understanding mental toughness
within soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 326–332.
Weinberg, R., Butt, J., & Culp, B. (2011). Coaches’ view of mental toughness and how to build it.
Weinberg, R., Butt, J., Mellano, K., & Harmison, R. (2017). The stability of mental toughness across
situations: Taking a social-cognitive approach. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 48, 1–
23.
Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (2019). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. Human Kinetics.
7
Expert Performance
Joe Baker and Brad Young
Where does exceptionality begin? How do we define and measure it? What
is the role of the environment in promoting or inhibiting the development of
expertise? Despite being critical elements of philosophy for at least two
millennia, empirical examinations of the origins and development of human
exceptionality are relatively recent. It was not until Francis Galton’s work
in the mid-1800s that discussions of genius, talent, and, eventually,
expertise evolved from hypothetical and theoretical arguments to well-
defined hypotheses. The rise of empiricism, especially in areas of
measurement, experimentation, and statistics, meant these hypotheses could
now be tested. Sport eventually became a ripe domain for questions related
to precursors, determinants, developmental conditions, and mechanisms
attributed to talented performance.
State of the Art

As a field of study, expertise (i.e., the study of those who have attained the
highest levels of attainment) has expanded nearly exponentially since it was
founded (arguably, Chase & Simon, 1973, represents the first study in this
field). It is not possible to adequately summarize the current developments
in this field, so instead, we will direct the reader to key texts that summarize
this research (e.g., Baker & Farrow, 2015; Ericsson et al., 2018). This field
is incredibly active, ranging from evaluations of different applied
perceptual-cognitive training interventions for fast-tracking skill acquisition
in athletes (Schorer et al., 2015) to assessments of diverse forms of athletic
engagement during extensive periods of talent development (Memmert et
al., 2010).
In the sections that follow, we explore notable and current questions from
the field of expert performance in sport, ranging from (a) theoretical issues
such as how best to conceptualize the influence of myriad nature-and-
nurture variables on athlete development, to (b) measurement issues
including how to best determine the value of specific forms of practice or
replicate the unique constraints of the performance environment in
laboratory settings, to (c) practical issues regarding how to best engage
athlete development stakeholders to research the next series of “unknowns”
in expert performance. Table 7.1 offers a list of key articles relating to these
questions that provide further reading.
Table 7.1 Five Key Readings in the Science of Expert Performance
Design
Baker et al. Conceptual There are limits to the deliberate practice framework (e.g., the need
(2020) review for clear operational definitions and more sophisticated conceptual
models) that need to be acknowledged and overcome if it is going to
be a comprehensive approach to expert performance.
Johnston et Systematic Our understanding of talent is incomplete due to limited evidence
al. (2018) review regarding predictors of talent identification and the relevance of
these factors in long-term talent development.
Macnamara, Meta-analysis The value of deliberate practice and early specialization, as stated in
et al. (2016) the deliberate practice framework, has been overstated. Other
factors need to be explored in models of expertise development.
McCardle, Systematic Self-regulated learning may play a key role in understanding how
et al. (2019) review and why experts devote extensive time and energy to practice.
Pinder et al. Conceptual Proposes and explains the notion of “representative learning design”
(2011) review (i.e., creating practice environments that closely reflect learning
requirements of the competition setting) as a critical element in skill
acquisition and expert performance.

1. Theoretical Question: What Is Talent, and Is It Relevant for
Understanding Expert Performance?
Although seemingly straightforward, this question belies real difficulties in
how researchers, practitioners, and policymakers see the concept of talent
(see Baker et al., 2019). Yet, operationally and empirically defining talent is
central to understanding expert performance. In its simplest form, talent is
seen as referring to “nature” in the nature-versus-nurture dichotomy and
reflects biological predispositions to attain achievement (conversely, the
nurture side reflects the determining role of the environment). From this
perspective, talent is a highly stable variable whose influence does not
change much over time. Early discussions of the development of
perceptual-motor behavior and athletic performance focused on the role of
latent “abilities” in determining success (Fleishman, 1958; McCloy, 1934),
which were generally thought to represent talent-like capacities (i.e., fixed,
stable predictors of performance). In the 1950s, the popular concept of a
“general motor ability” similarly reflected the notion that individuals have
different, innate capacities to perform motor activities like sports. This
notion was akin to the concept of intelligence, which is widely described as
reflecting an individual’s general potential for cognitive activities.
Despite the appeal of the general motor ability concept and the notion
that stable abilities might underpin an individual’s capacity to develop
sporting expertise, the evidence for these positions is not strong. In a classic
study, Drowatzky and Zuccato (1967) examined performances within and
between individuals on six different balance tasks. Correlations among the
balance tests indicated little association even across tests derived from the
same skill set (i.e., balancing), defying the notion of a singular ability.
Fleishman and Rich (1963) were able to identify and group abilities that
correlated with overall performance on various motor tasks (that involved
manipulating types of apparatus), implying that particular individual
differences in patterns of abilities should facilitate performance on some
criterion tasks (sports) more than others. The ease of such an implication,
however, was largely confounded by findings revealing that the pattern of
abilities important to performance success changes over the course of
practice, over time, and with increasing skill. This changing pattern is likely
different for every type of criterion performance, and correlations of
abilities with criterion performance are often quite low. They also noted
that, over time, less variance in a criterion performance was attributed to
fixed abilities, but instead to experience or practice at a criterion task.
Further evidence against a strict interpretation of the abilities perspective
comes from research on the specificity of perceptual-cognitive adaptations
emphasizing that adaptations are highly specific to the type of training and
experience undertaken by developing athletes (e.g., see Loffling et al.,
2012).
Evidence for the nurture argument appears stronger. For instance, the
deliberate practice framework (Ericsson, 2003; Ericsson et al., 1993)
emphasizes the singular importance of high-quality training for explaining
skill differences between individuals. The relationship between practice and
skill is one of the strongest ever found in psychology, and the deliberate
practice framework brings the importance of “nurture” back to the forefront
of discussions of expertise. That said, it still positions practice and
experience at one end of a dichotomy, with biological, ability, or nature-
related factors at the other end. This dichotomy is almost certainly too
simple to adequately explain the factors affecting the long-term skill
acquisition that lead to expertise. More recent conceptions have focused on
talent as emergent over time and highly influential to environmental
influences. This would reconcile the disparate research areas that highlight
the genetic influences on performance (e.g., Eynon et al., 2013) with the
psychological research on the importance of practice (Ericsson et al., 1993).
The notion of abilities has not disappeared—indeed, there is research that
suggests abilities are fundamental to precocious performance and early
interest in an achievement domain, and that individual differences in
patterns of abilities may limit the ultimate performance that aspiring
performers might reach (e.g., Ackerman, 2014). For example, following
experimental laboratory work involving various memory tasks, Campitelli
and Gobet (2011) suggested that patterns of abilities could predict
performance above and beyond variance explained by deliberate practice,
and that not all individuals benefit equally from deliberate practice.
Although these notions insinuate a role for abilities, only prospective,
longitudinal examinations of practice behaviors will ultimately inform our
understanding of the interplay of practice and individual differences over
time and at escalating levels of expertise.
2. Applied Question: Can We Identify Who Will Be Successful in

the Future?
The evidence suggests that, up to now, we are poor evaluators of future
success. From the perspective discussed previously, talent is highly unstable
and emergent, which makes predicting it extremely difficult. This jibes with
research evaluating the accuracy of talent predictions (Koz et al., 2012).
The issue may be that traditional approaches focus on modeling variables as
if they are stable and direct influences (e.g., Johnston et al., 2018), with few
studies considering how these variables change over time and/or interact
with other variables.
The solution may require a different approach to conceptualizing talent.
Instead of focusing on single or limited lists of variables, approaches should
consider collections of variables that could interact to result in an outcome.
For instance, recent work on athlete development has focused on
understanding the complexity of psychological factors underpinning long-
term and/or optimal engagement in practice (Baker et al., 2017; Tedesqui &
Young, 2018). If we can understand the range of variables that predict an
individual’s engagement in high-quality, intensive practice for extensive
durations, we might be able to predict their likelihood of future success.
One variable that is emerging is an individual’s capability to self-regulate
their own learning. Self-regulated learning (SRL) relates to the extent to
which athletes actively control activities during their own practice, by
enacting pertinent metacognitive and motivational processes to optimize
skill acquisition. In two different studies (Jonker et al., 2010; Toering et al.,
2009), SRL was found to differentiate between skilled and less skilled
groups of athletes. More recent works by Bartulovic et al. (2017) and
McCardle et al. (2017, 2018) show how SRL processes can distinguish skill
groups, with particular emphasis on the role of specific self-processes (e.g.,
self-monitoring), and focus on understanding how they discriminate
between groups on challenging tasks during practice.
Ultimately, focusing on variables that might predict one’s engagement
over time shifts the focus from looking at talent as a stable, fixed, and uni-
dimensional factor to ones that evolve across development. This promotes a
focus on constructing the optimal developmental environment that ensures
athletes’ needs are met and that appropriate challenge, support, and
feedback are being integrated into training activities. Such integration likely
involves self-appraisal and self-integration by athletes to complement the
traditional notion that astute coaches heavily inform athletes’
developmental process.
3. Theoretical and Methodological Question: Does Practice Need

to Always Be Deliberate?
After the emergence of the deliberate practice framework, a body of sport
literature attempted to understand how cumulative amounts of practice
related to skill level status. Generally, research supported the notion that
escalating skill groups (i.e., provincial versus national versus international
level) could be significantly distinguished by amounts of training that
approximated deliberate practice (for a review see Baker & Young, 2014).
However, almost none of the studies portending to assess deliberate practice
were quantifying deliberate practice per se. According to its definition,
deliberate practice is a highly explicit form of practice that requires focused
attention on the task, cognitive processes of error detection and correction,
oftentimes with support/feedback from a coach. However, the proxy
measure for deliberate practice used in most of those studies related to
amounts of technical and/or tactical, sport-specific training. Other studies
used indices that were operationalized in a hodgepodge of ways (e.g., see
MacNamara et al., 2016, p. 336). The lack of a consistently operationalized
definition of deliberate practice, and the failure to use a valid definition as
the measurement in studies of amounts of practice, is a vulnerability in
deliberate practice research. True understanding of the effects of amounts of
deliberate practice depends on a more critical interrogation of its
assessment in self-report (Tedesqui et al., 2018) and alternative
methodologies (e.g., Coughlan et al., 2013), commensurate with a
consensual definition.
There are many unanswered questions: How will this definition remain
consistent so that it can be used across samples in different
sports/achievement domains? At the same time, how will this definition
remain sufficiently agile (i.e., temporally valid) so that it can be applied for
measurement purposes over the course of a developmental trajectory? In
other words, how can the characteristics of deliberate practice that are
assessed remain operationally constant while the content (i.e., the
constituent activities) comprising it changes across context or over time?
The dialogue around deliberate practice has begun to evolve, with
increasing calls for determining qualities of practice and their effects on
skill acquisition, rather than focusing on practice amounts. Moreover, in
contrast to the definition of deliberate practice, literature on implicit
learning suggests athletes can learn very effectively without attention
directed to facets of a task, with little knowledge of rule structures
governing mechanics of movements, and with only very broad scaffolding
from a coach (Masters, 2000). Abernethy et al. (2003) noted that implicit
learning may be the norm, and explicit learning like deliberate practice may
actually be the exception for the acquisition of movement skills.
This leads to questions such as how much of expert skill acquisition can
be attributed to implicit learning, and how does one design a research
protocol to begin to disentangle explicit versus implicit learning to inform
conditions of expert development? In essence, there remains the question of
how much practice needs to be deliberate? Intertwined with this is the
question of how does deliberate practice effectively translate to automatic
processing in a competitive arena? If the ultimate competitive arena where a
performer must apply their skills is pressured (by time/environmental
factors), will deliberate practice have created a habitual form of explicit,
cognitive processing of one’s actions that could impede the free-flowing,
automatic processing and execution required of expert competitors? If
athletes are switched on to explicit processing during deliberate practice,
how do they toggle to an “off” switch to automatically execute during
competition? Thus, there remains the question of when and how do expert
transition from explicit to automatic processing in service of learning and
competitive application, respectively?
There is also the question of whether play can serve as a deliberate form
of preparation that facilitates skill acquisition. Proponents of “deliberate
play” have suggested it critically contributes to expertise development,
directly at younger stages of athlete development, and latently, by setting
the foundation for internalized perceptions of fun that direct athletes
through more difficult training later in their trajectory (Hornig et al., 2016).
Furthermore, in sporting roles that require motor creativity or tactical
improvisation, deliberate play may be the very type of preparation needed
to reach the highest performance levels (Memmert et al., 2010).
Finally, there is an important need to address whether incidental learning
occurs from engaging in different sport activity contexts, and whether
acquired mechanisms underpinning expertise in a target domain (e.g.,
soccer) can be refined by or transferred from sampling other sports (e.g.,
athletics, cycling, tennis). Research pertaining to team sport players in
Australia showed that more sport sampling in the early years of
development was associated with less requisite deliberate practice to
achieve the most elite status (Baker et al., 2003). Côté and Fraser-Thomas’s
(2011) modeling of developmental trajectories in youth sport posited that
the likelihood of acquiring elite performance was enhanced by involvement
in several sports up to age 12, and delayed focus on one sport until age 15.
Recent popular discourse in bestsellers like Range (Epstein, 2019) has
favored notions of sport diversification, epitomized by Roger Federer, over
early sport specialization (i.e., in one sport), epitomized by Tiger Woods. In
light of this, and prevailing anti-early specialization sentiment encapsulated
in many long-term athlete development guides, we need to better
understand specialization versus diversification trends as they relate to
eventual expert status. Such research would be timely considering
contrarian works that suggest (a) early intensive investment in one sport
may be beneficial for expertise as long as it does not preclude recreational
involvement in other activities (Ford et al., 2009), and (b) links between
specialized sport activity and burnout could be overstated, and that presence
of an autonomy-supportive context may be more important (Larson et al.,
2019).
If expertise research is to inform praxis related to coaching and
programming of practice, the next frontier of research will need to
interrogate the aforementioned questions related to explicit versus implicit
learning, the role of play and competition, how different qualities and types
of practice are effectively afforded to athletes, and the contribution of
specialized and diversified activity.
4. Methodological Question: Can We Recreate the Expert

Performance Environment in the Lab?
Much of the work discussed previously makes the assumption that we
adequately capture the essential nuances of expert performance in empirical
or experimental settings. However, the very act of attempting to divide an
expert’s performance into its component parts (e.g., by separating the act of
anticipating an opponent’s serve from the action required to intercept it)
may compromise some elements of expertise. For example, the expert
performance approach (Ericsson, 2003; Ericsson & Smith, 1991) guiding
many lab-based efforts has adequate internal validity for the mechanistic
examination of elite athletes’ various modes of perceiving, deciding, and
acting in notable (i.e., replicable) sport-specific scenarios. It does a
satisfactory job of dictating procedures for how to discriminate elites from
less skilled peers on indices of information processing and other cognitively
informed aspects of performance. However, it is unclear whether such a
mechanistic approach can account for expert performances in novel (i.e.,
not necessarily replicable) circumstances, for example, when a pre-eminent
performer surprises, surpasses, recreates, or deceives in their manufacture
of responses.
The relevant issue here is external validity (particularly, ecological
validity—the extent to which a study’s results apply in “real world”
contexts) in the way representative tasks are set up in measurement settings.
Discussions have focused on issues such as the need for “perception-action
coupling” (i.e., the need to couple the specific perceptual-cognitive
demands with motor execution elements of the task), which is essential in
most sporting tasks. As pointed out by Mann et al. (2007, p. 180), “when
perception and action are combined, the complexity of the interaction
induces different effects to when cognition is detached from motor
performance.”
The rise of “ecological dynamics” centers on the notion that performers
are inseparable from the environments in which they perform (Pinder et al.,
2011). It posits that performers respond in unconscious ways to constraints
and conditions in their surrounding environment, with little to no cognitive
address of cues or schema/representations. In keeping with considerations
of automaticity mentioned in the prior section, this begs the question: if
expert performance is more than what is accessed in working memory, or
more than what experts can be reliably prompted to think about, then why
does the field of expert performance continue to rely extensively on
cognition-based models for assessment? There is a need for more fulsome
consideration of ecological approaches that contrast expert with less expert
cohorts in settings that faithfully represents the constraints of actual
execution.
Finally, much of the work on individual differences in practice amounts
and/or personality variables has relied on self-report. Self-report data
relating to a person’s disclosure on a phenomenon/construct are then
submitted to analyses for expert-novice discrimination. With the advent of
new technologies and big data capture approaches, it remains to be seen
how algorithms (formulae for understanding behavioral data and
demographic profiling indices inherent in large datasets) will affect studies
of expertise, particularly on efforts to identify key markers, conditions, and
behaviors that forecast talent.
5. Applied Question: Are the Pursuit of Expertise and the

Processes Driving Talent Identification Ethically Defendable?
One of the most significant changes over the past half century relates to
how sport, and high-performance sport in particular, is viewed in most
countries worldwide. The increased professionalization of sport from youth
to elite levels reflects the increased cultural, political, and individual value
it has compared to other vocations or leisure pursuits. Commensurately, the
past decade has seen increased attention to issues of athlete maltreatment
(Kerr & Stirling, 2017) and mental health (Poucher et al., 2019) among
other concerns (International Olympic Committee, 2005). In light of these
examples of prominent studies of negative developmental facets of elite
participation, it may be important to scrutinize whether expertise and the
processes driving elite sport systems (e.g., talent identification) are ethically
justifiable.
It could be contended that expertise broadly holds less cache and/or is
misunderstood in contemporary study. For example, expertise and
excellencism are often unfairly misappropriated as perfectionism, and this
conflation perpetuates among the general public and influences praxis
(Gaudreau, 2019). This type of misunderstanding makes it easier for
academics and stakeholders to shun expertise research. This is further
compounded by the fact that the sport systems in most countries can
reasonably be described as exclusionary, because they involve the
deselection of the majority of youth from elite development programs so
that a small minority can be retained. This landscape is the backdrop against
which the value of sport expertise is judged. Indeed, when research on the
precursors and developmental conditions of expertise is conveyed to
policymakers and stakeholders, the end users may very well (and
justifiably) ask whether application will compromise efforts at inclusion.
The realm of expertise is inherently exclusive—not everyone can reach a
mantle among the very best. Expertise is the study of inequalities. That
said, developmental conditions associated with expertise need not be
inequitable, though in practice they are. Studies of talent development hold
promise for underscoring pertinent and timely access to resources,
infrastructure, coaching, and supports for expertise, and are critical for
highlighting inequities associated with such supports. A way forward may
be treating empirical perspectives on expertise to interrogate which groups
are unfairly advantaged (and to socially critique privilege), and determining
the interactions of inequities with practice effects. Two prospective goals
are (a) to adequately account for inequitable opportunities to privilege in
order to determine the extent to which individual strivings are uniquely
responsible for high-level development in an achievement domain and (b)
modeling the landscape of expert development (i.e., developmental
trajectories, broadly with cohorts) should early inequities regarding access
to resources/supports be resolved. Testing the first goal would empirically
treat the objectivist tenant, to explain an individual’s capacity in reaching
their ultimate potential by pursuing self-rationalized and self-interested
ends. Modeling the second goal would test the assumption of what would
happen if everyone could have equal and free access to the expertise
“marketplace.”
What makes this a critical “next step question” is that there has been
comparatively little discussion of the value of the pursuit of expertise. It is
not possible to weigh the negatives without some comparison to the
perceived positives of this pursuit. There are important social
considerations associated with this issue, evidenced in parallel discussions
for whether a focus on experts during the Olympics affects mass
participation through “trickle down” effects (e.g., Potwarka & Leatherdale,
2016). Moreover, there are potentially positive social implications if the
narrative on early talent identification switches from it being a conduit for
directing young people to a focus on early specialization to a conduit for
directing young people to avenues for which they will self-actualize and be
highly competent, while swaying them from pursuits where they may be
constrained.
More broadly, many questions about our species can only be answered by
understanding the process of expertise development. For instance, what is
the ultimate level of performance to which we can aspire? How does our
environment affect the development of this performance? These questions
and many others can only be explored using expert performance paradigms.
In sum, it is important that discussions of athlete development are framed
using knowledge of both positives and negatives. In our experience, such
nuanced discussions are rare in the sport literature.
Conclusion
The past few decades have seen tremendous growth in our understanding of
expert performance. However, key questions remain, from specific
methodological challenges (e.g., how to replicate performance
environments in controlled settings) to broader philosophical questions
(e.g., whether the pursuit of expertise is ethically defendable). Most of the
questions we have reviewed are not new, but recent advances in technology
and theory suggest solutions or at least resolution may be close. This is an
exciting time, as reflected in the growth of work in this area.
References
Abernethy, B., Farrow, D., & Berry, J. (2003). Constraints and issues in the development of a general
theory of expert perceptual-motor performance: A critique of the deliberate practice framework. In
J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport
expertise (pp. 349–370). Human Kinetics.
Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert performance: Talent and
individual differences. Intelligence, 45, 6–17.
Baker, J., Côté, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Sport specific training, deliberate practice and the
development of expertise in team ball sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 12–25.
Baker, J., & Farrow, D. (2015). The Routledge handbook of sport expertise. Routledge.
Baker, J., Wattie, J., & Schorer, J. (2019). A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport: The first
step in a long and winding road. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 43, 27–33.
Baker, J., & Young, B. W. (2014). 20 years later: Deliberate practice and the development of
expertise in sport. International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 7, 135–157.
Baker, J., Young, B. W., & Mann, D. (2017). Advances in athlete development: Understanding
conditions of and constraints on optimal practice. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16(August), 24–
27.
Baker, J., Young, B. W., Tedesqui, R. A. B., & McCardle, L. (2020). New perspectives on deliberate
practice and the development of sport expertise. In R. Ecklund & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (4th ed., pp. 556–577). Wiley.
Bartulovic, D., Young, B. W., & Baker, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning predicts skill group
differences in developing athletes. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 31, 61–69.
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2011). Deliberate practice: Necessary but not sufficient. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 280–285.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.
Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2011). Youth involvement and positive youth development in sport. In
P. Crocker (Ed.). Sport psychology: A Canadian perspective. Pearson.
Coughlan, E. K., Williams, A. M., McRobert, A. P., & Ford, P. R. (2013). How experts practice: A
novel test of deliberate practice theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
& Cognition, 40, 449–458.
Drowatzky, J. N., & Zuccato, F. C. (1967). Interrelationships between selected measures of static and
dynamic balance. Research Quarterly, 38, 509–510.
Epstein, D. (2019). Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world. Riverhead Books.
Ericsson, K. A. (2003). Development of elite performance and deliberate practice: An update from
the perspective of the Expert Performance Approach. In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.),
Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 49–83). Human
Kinetics.
Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (2018). The Cambridge handbook
of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: An
introduction. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects
and limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press.
Eynon, N., Hanson, E. D., Lucia, A., Houweling, P. J., Garton, F., North, K. N., & Bishop, D. J.
(2013). Genes for elite power and sprint performance: ACTN3 leads the way. Sports Medicine, 43,
803–817.
Fleishman, E. A. (1958). Dimensional analysis of movement reactions. Journal of Experimental
Fleishman, E. A., & Rich, S. (1963). Role of kinesthetic and spatial-visual abilities in perceptual-
motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 6–11.
Ford, P. R., Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2009). The role of deliberate practice and
play in career progression in sport: The early engagement hypothesis. High Ability Studies, 20, 65–
75.
Gaudreau, P. (2019). On the distinction between personal standards perfectionism and excellencism:
A theory elaboration and a research agenda. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 197–215.
Hornig, M., Aust, F., & Güllich, A. (2016). Practice and play in the development of German top-level
professional football players. European Journal of Sport Science, 16, 96–105.
International Olympic Committee. (2005). IOC consensus statement on training the elite child
athlete. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1016.pdf
Johnson, K., Wattie, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Talent identification in sport: A systematic
review. Sports Medicine, 48, 97–109.
Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2010). Differences in self-regulatory skills
among talented athletes: The significance of competitive level and type of sport. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 28, 901–908.
Kerr, G., & Stirling, A. (2017). Issues of maltreatment in high performance athlete development:
Mental toughness as a threat to athlete welfare. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, & N. Wattie
(Eds.), Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport (pp. 409–420).
Routledge.
Koz, D., Fraser-Thomas, J., & Baker, J. (2012). Accuracy of professional sports drafts in predicting
career potential. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 22, e64–e69.
Larson, H. K., Young, B. W., McHugh, T. L. F., & Rodgers, W. M. (2019). Markers of early
specialization and their relationships with burnout and dropout in swimming. Journal of Sport &
Loffing, F., Schorer, J., Hagemann, N., Lotz, S., & Baker, J. (2012). On the advantage of being left-
handed in volleyball: Further evidence of the specificity of skilled visual perception. Attention,
Perception & Psychophysics, 74, 446–453.
Macnamara, B. N., Moreau, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). The relationship between deliberate
practice and performance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11,
333–350.
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 457–478.
Masters, R. S. W. (2000). Theoretical aspects of implicit learning in sport. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 31, 530–541.
McCardle, L., Young, B. W., & Baker, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning and expertise development
in sport: Current status, challenges, and future opportunities. International Review of Sport &
McCardle, L., Young, B. W., & Baker, J. (2018). Two-phase evaluation of the validity of a measure
for self-regulated learning in sport practice. Frontiers in Psychology: Movement Science & Sport
Psychology, 9, 2641.
McCloy, C. H. (1934). The measurement of general motor capacity and general motor ability.
Research Quarterly, 5(Supp. 1), 46–61.
Memmert, D., Baker, J., & Bertsch, C. (2010). Play and practice in the development of sport-specific
creativity in team ball sports. High Ability Studies, 21, 3–18.
Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Representative learning design and
functionality of research and practice in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 146–
155.
Potwarka, L. R., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2016). The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and leisure-time
physical activity rates among youth in Canada: Any evidence of a trickle-down effect? Leisure
Studies, 35, 241–257.
Poucher, Z., Tamminen, K. A., Kerr, G., & Cairney, J. (2019). A commentary on mental health
research in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 33, 60–82.
Schorer, J., Loffing, F., Rienhoff, R., & Hagemann, N. (2015). Efficacy of training interventions for
acquiring perceptual-cognitive skill. In J. Baker & D. Farrow (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport
expertise (pp. 456–464). Routledge.
Tedesqui, R. A. B., McCardle, L., Bartulovic, D., & Young, B. W. (2018). Toward a more critical
dialogue for enhancing self-report surveys in sport expertise and deliberate practice research.
Movement & Sport Sciences—Science & Motricité, 102, 5–18.
Tedesqui, R. A. B., & Young, B. W. (2018). Comparing the contribution of conscientiousness, self-
control, and grit to key criteria of sport expertise development. Psychology of Sport & Exercise,
34, 110–118.
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009). Self-regulation and
performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27,
1509–1517.
8
Decision-Making
Itay Basevitch and Gershon Tenenbaum
State of the Art

Decision-making (DM) is the act of selecting an action from several action
possibilities (Tenenbaum, 2003). DM plays a crucial role in achieving goals
proficiently and is one of the main determinants of reaching expertise
(Araújo et al.; Bar-Eli et al., 2011; Raab et al., 2019).
Several approaches in studying DM in sport were carried out contrasting
deterministic versus probabilistic in nature (see Bar-Eli et al., 2011) and
static versus dynamic in temporal character (Araújo et al., 2011). However,
research in DM in sport must consider a more dynamic perspective
accounting for both cognition and action (Bar-Eli & Raab, 2009),
particularly when the DM process is complex and dynamic in nature
(Araújo et al., 2006). Thus, one of the critical challenges in the study of DM
in sport is to capture the task constraints and conditions that validly
represent the essential characteristics of various skill performances within
specific sport contexts (Ericsson, 2020), and the functional patterns of
behavior that emerge during performance (Davids & Araújo, 2010).
Moreover, the reliability, validity, and representativeness of capturing DM
have been of great concern in recent years (Ericsson, 2020).
Though DM refers to the action choice and its execution in the form of
motor action, most of the DM researchers referred to the perceptual,
cognitive, and constraint characteristics that precede DM and its
manifestation in a motor action. In this vein, Tenenbaum (2003) introduced
a conceptual model whereby DM refers to several perceptual-cognitive
components such as visual attention (i.e., attention allocation), selective
attention (i.e., which environmental cues to pay attention and which to
ignore), anticipation (i.e., what events are expected to follow given the
current constrains; what the associated probabilities are for such events),
information processing (i.e., which units of information to forward for
elaboration and response retrieval), long-term working memory (LTWM;
how much information can be delivered, stored, and retrieved via working
memory), response selection (i.e., DM), temporal and special
considerations (i.e., where to place the body and the timing of DM
execution), and decision alteration (the capability to make changes under
extremely demanding temporal conditions when the preferred DM option
has been made). Most of these components were considered as facets of
DM and were extensively researched separately as eliciting the novice-
expert perceptual-cognitive differences and as determinants and
prerequisites of skill-level performance (Mann et al., 2007).
An additional aspect of DM in sport that was not given enough attention
was the linkage between the DM process and emotions, which evidently
affects DM quality. DM was studied in isolation from the stressful and
emotion-evoking context in which it had been taking place. To close this
gap, Tenenbaum et al. (2009) introduced a unified conceptual framework,
which integrates the structural components of human performance, such as
affective processes (i.e., feelings, mood), cognition (e.g., knowledge
architecture, long-term working memory), motor processes (e.g.,
coordination), and the neurophysiologic foundation of these structural
components (i.e., activation of cortical areas). The unified conceptual
framework refers to a complex integration among the systems that operate
harmonically and automatically under given circumstances by high-skill-
level performers who in some cases “choke” under constraints, which
interferes with the system’s adaptation to the environmental conditions.
Tenenbaum et al. (2009) compiled concepts and research findings from
various fields, such as intelligence, problem solving, emotions and emotion
regulation, action and the motor system, and expertise, and made
comprehensive claims regarding the underlying mechanisms of human
performance. Specifically, Tenenbaum et al. (2009) claimed that once these
mechanisms are uncovered, applied guidelines can be advanced to enhance
performance. The authors maintained that response selection depends on
the capacity to solve problems and consequently adapt to the environment.
Cognitive processes and mental operations are used for this purpose. The
effectiveness of these processes consists of the richness and variety of
perceptions processed at a given time, that is, the system’s capacity to
encode (i.e., store and represent) and access (i.e., retrieve) information
relevant to the task being performed (Tenenbaum, 2003). The perceptual-
cognitive process develops via the accumulation of task-specific
knowledge. The knowledge is stored in the long-term memory in the form
of four levels: mental representation, mental control, sensorimotor
representations, and sensorimotor control. Each of these levels maintains a
specific function in producing motor actions (Schack, 2004). Mental control
is induced intentionally, while sensorimotor control is induced perceptually.
Thus, perception-action coupling runs automatically and is self-organized,
but mental control relies on mental representations governing the
perceptual-cognitive sequence that precedes DM and the decision
execution.
According to Tenenbaum et al. (2009), emotions are a form of mental
state whereby they can motivate, organize, and guide perception and
thought processes, and mobilize action toward a behavioral purpose.
Positive or pleasant emotions expand the behavioral and thought repertoire
to face a given situation (Fredrickson, 1998), which enhances the
perceptual-cognitive process along with expanding the action possibilities
and intellectual and social resources preceding DM. In contrast, negative
emotions such as anxiety can result in both positive and negative outcomes
(Carver & Scheier, 1988). Anxiety can alert the system but can negatively
affect the perceptual and cognitive systems (e.g., attention narrowing and
thought interference) and interfere with the operational function. The
linkage between specific emotions and DM is not yet clear enough and
must be comprehensively studied. Moreover, the effect of DM self-efficacy
is related to the emotional state of the performer and has a substantial effect
on the DM and execution phases of the motor action (for a review see
Tenenbaum, 2003). In fact, DM self-efficacy is the confidence one
maintains in scanning the environment, selecting the relevant cues,
processing the information, retrieving the right response, and executing it.
Thus, self-efficacy must be studied as a mediator between perceptual-
cognitive skills and the motor system actions.
The perceptual-cognitive processes of the performer are reflected by the
cerebral cortical activity during skilled visuo-motor performance. The more
skillful the performer is, the more relaxed are the nonessential areas of the
brain and the less is the communication between the thinking and the motor
regions of the brain (Hatfield, 2018). Similarly, Haufler et al. (2000)
observed less activation in the frontal, central, temporal, parietal, and
occipital regions in expert shooters relative to novices. The skill difference
was of greatest magnitude in the left temporal region and revealed a
temporal asymmetry in the experts. The relationship between skill level,
cortical activation, and order formation in long-term memory is of outmost
importance. To learn more about these interactions and networks, one must
combine the neurophysiological methods, like electroencephalography
(EEG)-coherence measures (Deeny et al., 2003), and methods for
measuring the structure of mental representation (Schack, 2004), and
integrate them into a meaningful operational system. Systematic study of
cortical activation in perception of object and motor action must shed more
light on the perception-action linkage. The growing research on the linkage
among the emotional-perceptual-cognitive-motor systems will shed more
light on the underlying mechanisms that account for the expert
performance, which is so much dependent on the DM process and outcome.
A review of current and important literature in the domain for further
reading is presented in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Five Key Readings in Decision-Making
Design
Basevitch Expert-novice The authors examined skill-level differences of anticipation and
et al. paradigm, situational assessment skills using the temporal occlusion paradigm
(2020) between (i.e., in soccer. Higher level players anticipated the action more accurately
skill level) and and generated less irrelevant options compared to lower level
within (i.e., players. Furthermore, anticipation and situational assessment skills
temporal were positively and moderately correlated.
occlusion and
cued/noncued
conditions)
group analyses
Hadlow et Narrative A review of paradigms and technology used to train perceptual-
al. (2018) review of the cognitive skills is presented, emphasizing their strengths and
literature limitations. Based on the review, a modified perceptual training
framework is presented with the purpose of identifying the most
efficient training methods based on three continuums: (a) the
perceptual-cognitive skill (i.e., lower order to higher order), (b)
stimuli presentation (i.e., general-domain specific), and (c) response
format (i.e., general-domain specific).
Raab et al. Review and A historical overview of judgment and decision-making research in
(2019) future directions the past 50 years in the sport domain is presented. Specifically, four
theoretical perspectives (i.e., cognitive, ecological dynamics,
economical, and social-cognitive) that have shaped and guided
research in the domain are explored and future challenges are
identified.
Tenenbaum Theoretical A multilevel and integrated conceptual framework (i.e., the emotion-
et al. framework cognition-linkage model) is developed and presented consisting of
(2009) emotional, cognitive, motor, and neural processes. Furthermore, the
relationships among the various levels of processes are examined to
provide a holistic and unified perspective on human performance
emphasizing the regulation and representation of these processes.
Wimshurst Expert-novice The authors examined behavioral (i.e., response) and brain activity
et al. paradigm, (i.e., fMRI) differences using the occlusion paradigm of hockey and
(2016) between (i.e., nonhockey players on a video-based occlusion paradigm anticipation
skill level) and task that included hockey (i.e., domain-specific) and badminton (i.e.,
within (i.e., domain-general) scenes. Findings indicated that hockey players
occlusion time anticipated better than nonhockey players only on the domain-
and sport type) specific (i.e., hockey) task. The fMRI data revealed main effects for
group analyses expertise across tasks. Specifically, hockey players recruited more
brain areas, and more activity was identified in a few regions such as
the rostral inferior parietal lobule and left posterior cingulate.
fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging.

1. Theoretical Question: What Can We Learn From the
Neurophysiological Level of Analysis About the Decision-
Making Process in Sports?
What. Most of the researchers examining DM in sports considered a
cognitive and/or behavioral perspective (Araújo et al., 2006). Some of the
leading theories and models in the area adopted either an information
processing, ecological dynamic, or economic approach (Raab et al., 2019).
These theories vary on a continuum that consists of high- (e.g., perceptual-
cognitive processes) to low-level (e.g., self-organization and perception-
action coupling) brain processes. However, research measuring the neural
and biological components of the brain (i.e., the neurophysiological level)
during the DM process in sports and performance domains is relatively
scarce (Hatfield, 2018).
Why. It is important to examine the various levels of analysis of the DM
process to better capture the underlying mechanisms leading to expert DM
(Raab et al., 2019). Findings from previous research in the area indicated
that some of the main underlying mechanisms leading to expert DM include
(a) a large and efficiently organized knowledge base, (b) the ability to
attend to crucial cues in the environment, (c) advanced anticipation skills
characterized by early and accurate predictive abilities, and (d) generation
of fewer irrelevant options, thus reducing “brain busyness” (i.e., quiescence
state) and leading to quicker and better DM (Basevitch et al., 2020;
Hatfield, 2018; Mann et al., 2007). Some of the brain activities related to
these processes have been studied in various performance domains, such as
identifying the areas of the brain that are active when a pattern has been
recognized in chess (Bilalić et al., 2010), the speed at which the stimuli
presented elicits a brain response in fencers (e.g., event-related potential
[ERP]; Taddei et al., 2012), and the changes in the neurophysiological
patterns of DM with experience and as players develop in field hockey
(Wimshurst et al., 2016).
How. With the advancement of technology in neurophysiology, the
ability to measure brain waves and activity in specific brain regions has
developed and is more accessible and mobile. With the use of technology
such as EEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), these
variables can be measured, detected, and interpreted with relatively minor
noise and more automated systems. Thus, with EEG technology, the speed
of identifying a familiar situation (e.g., patterns of players in soccer) and the
ERP can be measured and contrasted among players of different levels.
Furthermore, with the development of mobile dry EEGs, brain waves can
be measured during the DM process in real-world situations, such as during
a golf swing or during a penalty situation (Stone et al., 2019). Another area
to examine is the brain activity that takes place in various brain regions
when making quick decisions under time pressure, compared to analytical
decisions when more time is available (Basevitch et al., 2020). With the use
of fMRI and consideration of the expert-novice paradigm, brain activity
(i.e., spatial and temporal activation of brain areas) can be examined and
linked to various DM-related processes, such as anticipation and detection
of deceptive actions (Bishop et al., 2013). However, fMRI measures are less
ecologically valid than typical EEG measures, and researchers using fMRI
will be required to use video-based paradigms (or similar lab-based
methods).
2. Theoretical Question: What Processes Are Involved in Team

Decision-Making and How Are They Developed?
What. Most of the athletes compete in team sports, where the market size
and viewership is the largest (https://www.grandviewresearch.com).
However, research in the sport science domain (e.g., athlete development)
centered merely on individual athletes (Ward et al., 2008). Interestingly, the
study of the developmental processes in teams, specifically related to DM,
remains limited (Basevitch et al., 2020).
Why. Most of the DM research was devoted to individual sports (e.g.,
tennis) or individual events within team sports (e.g., penalty in hockey or
soccer; Ward et al., 2008). Thus, the generalization of these findings to the
team unit of analysis is limited. Team processes that are essential for the
team’s function must be further studied (e.g., communication and
coordination among teammates). For example, findings from individual
settings indicate that sometimes, under time pressure situations, decisions
are made intuitively (Raab & Johnson, 2007). Does this finding transfer to
team sports, where a decision of a player (e.g., such as a pass in soccer) is
part of a larger team process? Thus, examining how teams make decisions
in sync is essential for capturing the team DM process and its
implementation.
How. Methods that have been used to examine DM in individual settings
can be adapted to team settings. For example, a process tracing method that
has been examined extensively in individual settings, such as penalty
kicking in soccer, is gaze behavior (Kredel et al., 2017). Findings indicate
that expert and successful goal keepers gaze at different body parts (and at
different temporal points) of the player kicking the penalty than lower level
and less successful goal keepers (Kredel et al., 2017). Adapting this
research method to the team setting, it would be imperative to study gaze
behavior of two or more teammates (as well as the opponent) from both
attacking and defensive perspectives. Similarly, spatial and temporal
occlusion paradigms (Ward et al., 2009) can be used in team settings by
asking several players to simultaneously anticipate upcoming events (i.e.,
an anticipation measure) either from the perspective of the player who
makes the decision or from the perspective of the teammate’s playing
position (e.g., the player receiving the pass). In addition to adapting
individual research methods to the team setting, including team process
measures such as agreement level among teammates and team mental
models (e.g., shared and distributed knowledge; Filho et al., 2014) can
provide a more comprehensive understanding of team DM. Additional
variables of interest are team demographic factors such as time playing
together, position of players throughout their career, and cultural (e.g.,
variability of nationalities) and age (e.g., young team) characteristics.
3. Applied Question: What Are the Most Effective Methods to

Train and Develop Decision-Making Skills?
What. Most of the research pertaining to the DM domain centered on
measuring various DM skills (e.g., anticipation and situational assessment;
Mann et al., 2007). Research findings examining the development and
training of DM skills indicated that experience and specifically practice
(e.g., deliberate practice) are necessary for acquiring advanced DM skills
(Ward et al., 2009). However, knowledge on how to accelerate the
acquisition of DM skills and the type of practice that is the most beneficial
in each domain remains scarce.
Why. One must examine and develop measurement and assessment tools
prior to investigating training and development methods (Ward et al., 2009).
To measure skills accurately, validly, and reliably requires capturing the
developmental processes over time (e.g., compare baseline to posttraining
measures; Ward et al., 2008). Although some studies focused on training
DM skills, the majority focused on measuring these skills (Mann et al.,
2007; Ward et al., 2009). There are various methods that capture
anticipation, option generation, and DM skills reliably and validly such as
the occlusion paradigm (Basevitch et al., 2020). Following this rationale,
we must move the field forward and further examine the development and
training of these skills.
How. Several limitations must be addressed to expand the research of
training DM skills, including (a) increasing ecological validity, (b)
improving training paradigms, (c) exploring expert training, and (d)
bridging the gap between research and practice. Regarding ecological
validity in DM research, to date, most of the measurement and training
tools are video and/or lab based (Ward et al., 2009). The transfer of findings
to the field and real-world environment has rarely been examined (for an
exception see Williams et al., 2002). Furthermore, innovative methods
deemed to measure and train DM skills on the field, in addition to more
efficient use of advanced technology (e.g., virtual reality) where the
presentation of and response to stimuli are more realistic must be
implemented (Hadlow et al., 2018).
With respect to enhancing DM training methods, findings from the
expert-novice paradigm have shaped the field. Specifically, the strategies
used by experts (e.g., gaze behavior) were used to train novice and
intermediate athletes (e.g., the expert performance approach; Ward et al.,
2009). However, we cannot assume that designing expert-type training is
efficient for training novice athletes. Thus, other paradigms must be
examined for training DM skills. For example, studying the strategies of
expert athletes retrospectively at different stages of their development and
using those strategies for training novice athletes should be investigated.
Furthermore, exploring expert training is vital given that most of the
training literature in DM focuses on the development of novice and
intermediate athletes’ skills and ignores training skills once athletes reach
the level of expertise. In addition, the expert-novice paradigm assumes that
the expert skills are the most refined. This might be true in most cases, but
more research must examine methods aimed to improve and stretch the
limits of expert skills like the innovative Fosbury jump technique, which
expanded the limits of the high jump )Bar-Eli et al., 2008). Finally, there is
a large body of literature on theoretical, measurement, and applied aspects
of DM skills. However, there are very few coaches, clubs, and organizations
that implement the knowledge in the area in their practices, training, and
analytics in a systematic and effective manner. More applied research (e.g.,
Shipherd et al., 2018) must be devoted to move the DM field forward.
4. Methodological Question: How Can We Effectively Measure

Creativity and Improvisation in the Sport Domain?
What. Creativity is the ability to perform a task in a unique and effective
manner (Memmert, 2011). Improvisation is considered a creativity
dimension and consists of motor tasks that are performed spontaneously
(Coste et al., 2019). Creativity was studied extensively in various domains
such as science, music, and business (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015; Memmert,
2011), while improvisation has been studied mostly in the performing arts
(e.g., jazz; Coste et al., 2019). Both creativity and improvisation were given
less attention in the sport domain (Coste et al., 2019).
Why. Advanced DM skills provide a major advantage in performing
motor tasks (Tenenbaum, 2003). Although decisions of experts are efficient
and lead to successful actions, a creative decision is a specific type of DM
skill that only few players possess and by definition is rare and unique
(Memmert, 2011). An interaction between the player and the environment
is required for a creative decision to be made (Vaughan et al., 2019), and
thus constraining and limiting the environment (as opposed to providing
freedom) can help develop creativity and improvisation skills (Torrents et
al., 2021). However, more research must be conducted to capture the
essence of creativity in players such as Messi in soccer and Rondo in
basketball.
How. A widely used method in many domains (e.g., education) to
measure creativity skill is the divergent thinking task (Fürst, 2020). Tasks
incorporating video clips, similar to the occlusion paradigm, were used to
measure divergent thinking. Accordingly, a developing play is stopped at a
certain point in the sequence and players must generate possible action
options (Memmert, 2011). Fluency (i.e., number of options), flexibility (i.e.,
variability of options), and originality (i.e., uniqueness of the options) are
assessed by experts in the area and a creativity score is generated. One of
the criticisms of this method relates to the lack of distinction between
creative cognitive (e.g., a through pass that crosses several defenders) and
motor (e.g., a heel touch) decisions (Coste et al., 2019). Furthermore, a
measure of how much the situation (as opposed to the player) lends itself to
creative decisions is also important to obtain (Vaughan et al., 2019). Thus,
studies in the sport domain must adjust the divergent thinking task by
including both cognitive and motor creative measures and assessing the
situation (i.e., the environment), while considering the interaction between
the player and the situation.
5. Theoretical and Methodological Question: How Do Coaches

Make Effective Decisions and How Can We Assess Their
Decisions?
What. Most of the research on DM skills centered on athletes (Vergeer &
Lyle, 2009). Only recently has research been extended to other sports
personnel such as officials (Samuel et al., 2019). A missing area of research
on DM are coaches (Vergeer & Lyle, 2009). Specifically, more research
must be devoted to capture how coaches make effective decisions during
the game (or a break in the game), such as changing tactics and knowing
what to say to the players (and when and how to provide feedback in an
effective manner; Ford et al., 2009).
Why. Coaches play an important role in individual and team
performances during a game/match (Cloes et al., 2001). The limited
research on coaches’ DM skills varies from examining decisions related to
injured players (Vergeer & Lyle, 2009) to exploring DM styles during
practices (Kaya, 2014). Furthermore, coaches prepare the players and the
team for games by setting a strategy, making substitutions and tactical
changes during the game, and analyzing the game while providing feedback
to the players (Cloes et al., 2001). However, only few researchers have
examined the DM of coaches in general and specifically, during a game.
How. Theoretical frameworks have been proposed for coaching
effectiveness and proficient DM (Cloes et al., 2001; Côté & Gilbert, 2009;
Ford et al., 2009). One of the proposed frameworks follows the expert
performance approach, which was initially developed to examine players’
expertise and DM skills. Specifically, according to this approach, one must
identify and measure DM skills that are representative of coaches’ real-
world tasks (e.g., what decisions coaches make during the game and when).
Next, the underlying mechanisms leading to successful DM and expertise
must be identified and explored (e.g., knowledge of the game, tactical
creativity). Finally, how DM skills develop and how best to train them are
processes that must be studied (e.g., looking at practice histories; Côté &
Gilbert, 2009). Furthermore, studies that use the occlusion paradigm must
be conducted to explore coaches’ DM by asking coaches what instructions
or feedback (e.g., tactical) they would provide at a certain moment and
comparing their instructions to what actually happened in addition to
examining expert-novice differences of instructions (Basevitch et al., 2018).
Conclusion
DM has been examined for more than half a century in the sport domain
(Raab et al., 2019), mainly in individual settings. Future research in the
domain must be directed to avenues that will move the field forward and
extend the boundaries of current experts. Specifically, research must be
directed to the applied area and evidence-based training paradigms
developed that can and will likely be used by coaches. Furthermore,
theoretical research examining the mechanisms and processes related to
team performance and to the neurophysiology level of analysis is needed to
expand our understanding of the complexity of team dynamics and brain
processes during the DM process. Research on creativity and improvisation
in natural settings can identify the underlying mechanisms leading to such
rare and unique DM skills and, importantly, provide knowledge on how best
to implement training methods required for developing these skills. Finally,
a shift in research is also needed in the scope of personnel, specifically,
focusing on coaches who play a major role in determining players’ and
teams’ DM and performance.
References
Araújo, R., Afonso, J., & Mesquita, I. (2011). Procedural knowledge, decision-making and game
performance analysis in Female Volleyball’s attack according to the player’s experience and
competitive success. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 11(1), 1–13.
Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Hristovski, R. (2006). The ecological dynamics of decision making in
sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 653–676.
Bar-Eli, M., Lowengart, O., Tsukahara, M., & Fosbury, R. D. (2008). Tsukahara’s vault and
Fosbury’s flop: A comparative analysis of two great inventions. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 12, 21–39.
Bar-Eli, M., Plessner, H., & Raab, M. (2011). Judgment, decision-making and success in sport. John
Wiley & Sons.
Bar-Eli, M., & Raab, M. (2009). Judgment and decision making in sport and exercise: A concise
history and present and future perspectives. In D. Araujo, H. Ripoll & M. Raab (Eds.),
Perspectives on Cognition and Action in Sport: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Basevitch, I., Prosoli, R., Budnik-Przybylska, D., & Rossato, C. (2018). Anticipation and imagery
skill level differences of judo coaches. In Movement: Journal of Physical Education and Sports
Sciences: The 5th International Congress of Exercise and Sport Sciences: Book of Abstracts (pp.
228–229). Academic College at Wingate.
Basevitch, I., Tenenbaum, G., Filho, E., Razon, S., Boiangin, N., & Ward, P. (2020). Anticipation and
situation assessment skills in soccer under varying degrees of informational constraint. Journal of
Bilalić, M., Langner, R., Erb, M., & Grodd, W. (2010). Mechanisms and neural basis of object and
pattern recognition: A study with chess experts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
139, 728–742.
Bishop, D. T., Wright, M. J., Jackson, R. C., & Abernethy, B. (2013). Neural bases for anticipation
skill in soccer: An fMRI study. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35, 98–109.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1,
17–22.
Cloes, M., Bavier, K., & Piéron, M. (2001). Coaches’ thinking process: Analysis of decisions related
to tactics during sports games. In M. Chin, L. Hensley, & Y. Liu (Eds.), Innovation and application
of physical education and sports science in the new millennium - An Asia-Pacific perspective (pp.
329–341). Hong Kong Institute of Education Publisher.
Coste, A., Bardy, B. G., & Marin, L. (2019). Towards an embodied signature of improvisation skills.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2441.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, 307–323.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). The systems model of creativity. The collected works of Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi. Springer.
Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2010). The concept of “organismic asymmetry” in sport science. Journal
of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13, 633–640.
Deeny, S. P., Hillman, C. H., Janelle, C. M., & Hatfield, B. D. (2003). Cortico-cortical
communication and superior performance in skilled marksmen: An EEG coherence analysis.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 188–204.
Ericsson, K. A. (2020). Towards a science of the acquisition of expert performance in sports:
Clarifying the differences between deliberate practice and other types of practice. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 38, 159–176.
Filho, E., Gershgoren, L., Basevitch, I., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). Profile of high-performing college
soccer teams: An exploratory multi-level analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 559–568.
Ford, P., Coughlan, E., & Williams, M. (2009). The expert-performance approach as a framework for
understanding and enhancing coaching performance, expertise and learning. International Journal
of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, 451–463.
Fredrickson, B. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 3, 300–
319.
Fürst, G. (2020). Measuring creativity with planned missing data. Journal of Creative Behavior,
54(1), 150–164.
Hadlow, S. M., Panchuk, D., Mann, D. L., Portus, M. R., & Abernethy, B. (2018). Modified
perceptual training in sport: A new classification framework. Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport, 21, 950–958.
Hatfield, B. D. (2018). Brain dynamics and motor behavior: A case for efficiency and refinement for
superior performance. Kinesiology Review, 7, 42–50.
Haufler, A. J., Spalding, T. W., Santa Maria, D. L., & Hatfield, B. D. (2000). Neuro-cognitive activity
during self-paced visuospatial task: Comparative EEG profiles in marksmen and novice shooters.
Biological Psychology, 53, 131–160.
Kaya, A. (2014). Decision making by coaches and athletes in sport. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 152, 333–338.
Kredel, R., Vater, C., Klostermann, A., & Hossner, E. J. (2017). Eye-tracking technology and the
dynamics of natural gaze behavior in sports: A systematic review of 40 years of research.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1845.
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 457–478.
Memmert, D. (2011). Sports and creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (2nd ed.). Elsevier Academic Press.
Raab, M., Bar-Eli, M., Plessner, H., & Araújo, D. (2019). The past, present and future of research on
judgment and decision making in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 25–32.
Raab, M., & Johnson, J. G. (2007). Expertise-based differences in search and option-generation
strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 158–170.
Samuel, R. D., Galily, Y., Guy, O., Sharoni, E., & Tenenbaum, G. (2019). A decision-making
simulator for soccer referees. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 14, 480–489.
Schack, T. (2004). The cognitive architecture of complex movement. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 2, 403–438.
Shipherd, A. M., Basevitch, I., Filho, E., & Gershgoren, L. (2018). A scientist–practitioner approach
to an on-field assessment of mental skills in collegiate soccer student-athletes. Journal of Sport
Psychology in Action, 9, 1–10.
Stone, D. B., Tamburro, G., Filho, E., Robazza, C., Bertollo, M., & Comani, S. (2019).
Hyperscanning of interactive juggling: Expertise influence on source level functional connectivity.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 321.
Taddei, F., Bultrini, A., Spinelli, D., & Di Russo, F. (2012). Neural correlates of attentional and
executive processing in middle-age fencers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44,
1057–1066.
Tenenbaum, G. (2003). An integrated approach to decision making. In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson
(Eds.), Expert performance in sport: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 191–218).
Human Kinetics.
Tenenbaum, G., Hatfield, B. D., Eklund, R. C., Land, W. M., Calmeiro, L., Razon, S., & Schack, T.
(2009). A conceptual framework for studying emotions–cognitions–performance linkage under
conditions that vary in perceived pressure. Progress in Brain Research, 174, 159–178.
Torrents, C., Balagué, N., Ric, Á., & Hristovski, R. (2021). The motor creativity paradox:
Constraining to release degrees of freedom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15,
340–351
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-Felip, M. A. (2019). Developing
creativity to enhance human potential in sport: A wicked transdisciplinary challenge. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 2090.
Vergeer, I., & Lyle, J. (2009). Coaching experience: Examining its role in coaches’ decision making.
Ward, P., Farrow, D., Harris, K. R., Williams, A. M., Eccles, D. W., & Ericsson, K. A. (2008).
Training perceptual-cognitive skills: Can sport psychology research inform military decision
training? Military Psychology, 20, S71–S102.
Ward, P., Suss, J., & Basevitch, I. (2009). Expertise and expert performance-based training (ExPerT)
in complex domains. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7, 121–145.
Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Knowles, J., & Smeeton, N. J. (2002). Anticipation skill in a real-world
task: Measurement, training, and transfer in tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
8, 259–270.
Wimshurst, Z. L., Sowden, P. T., & Wright, M. (2016). Expert–novice differences in brain function of
field hockey players. Neuroscience, 315, 31–44.
9
Mind-Body Interaction in Sport Psychophysiology
Maurizio Bertollo, Marika Berchicci, and Selenia di Fronso
State of the Art

“The elucidation of the relationships between psychological states,
physiological responses, and human behaviour remains the discipline’s core
mission of psychophysiology” (Cooke & Ring, 2019, p 1). To understand
the mind-body relationship, it is crucial to study brain-heart and brain-
muscle interactions. These interactions can be assessed investigating
functional connectivity between the brain activity (i.e.,
electroencephalography [EEG]) and peripheral electrophysiological activity
(i.e., electrocardiography [ECG] and electromyography [EMG]) underlying
a specific performance, especially in ecological settings (di Fronso et al.,
2017; Teques et al., 2017).
Psychophysiological monitoring and intervention in sport has a long
tradition in lab settings. However, recent investigations in the applied field
of sport, exercise, and performance have improved our knowledge of the
mind-body dynamics during actual performance. Moreover, the adoption of
ecological tasks and the use of advanced brain-body technologies in
practice have helped to elucidate the underlying cognitive and brain
processes (e.g., attention, self-regulation, neural efficiency) involved in
performance execution (Bertollo et al., 2020). Nowadays, when adopting a
psychophysiological perspective, objective physiological measures (e.g.,
autonomic, cortical, somatic) can be recorded using dry electrodes and
lightweight wireless amplifiers during sport performance (di Fronso et al.,
2019). Consequently, modern psychophysiology has been used to conduct
rigorous ecological research aimed at capturing the complex processes
underpinning behavior in sport, exercise, and performance settings.
Historically, the first psychophysiological studies in sport were based on
the framework of cardiovascular psychophysiology and investigated the
cognitive processes (e.g., arousal and the cardiovascular activity modulated
by attention) related to cardiac deceleration during performance (Lacey,
1969). To this purpose, Lacey and Lacey (1978) developed the stimulus
intake-rejection hypothesis: predicting that stimulus intake (focused
attention) is associated with cardiac deceleration (bradycardia), while
stimulus rejection (cognitive function excluding distracting or aversive
environmental stimuli) is accompanied by cardiac acceleration
(tachycardia). Specifically, the first studies on this topic date back to the
1960s and 1970s with the foundation of the Society for
Psychophysiological Research and the publication of its official journal:
Psychophysiology. In the first issue of this journal, according to John Stern
(1964, p. 90), psychophysiology was defined as the field “where
behavioural variables are manipulated, and the effects of these independent
variables are observed on physiological measures as dependent variables.”
Differently, previous articles in the last decades of the 19th and the first half
of the 20th century distinguished the psychophysiological approach based
on the topic of the studies, as follows: (a) electro-dermal responses and their
sensitivity to psychological processes, (b) emotion and autonomic control,
and (c) conditioning of autonomic and visceral responses (for a review see
Cooke & Ring, 2019). During the last three decades of the 20th century,
there has been a growing interest for the discipline of sport
psychophysiology, especially because neuroscience became a useful
approach to study the mind-body relationship. Nowadays, the main interest
is represented by the investigation of higher level cognitive and
psychological processes associated with peak (optimal) performance
(Hatfield, 2018).
Peak (optimal) sport performance is the ultimate goal that athletes and
applied sport psychologists strive to achieve and maintain. The main
questions related to performance optimization (see Table 9.1), and
addressed using the psychophysiological approach, concern (a) the neural
efficiency and proficiency in experts, that is, reduced and specialized neural
activity (Bertollo et al., 2016; Hatfield, 2018); (b) the neural markers of
sport performance (Cheron et al., 2016); (c) both cortical and cardiac
indices of preparation for action in sport (Cooke, 2013); and (d) the cortico-
muscular and the cortico-cardiac coherence (Martínez-Aguilar & Gutiérrez,
2019). A closely related field pertains to bio- and neurofeedback
interventions and the trans-electrical stimulation of brain regions. These
intervention approaches have been developed to enhance performance,
particularly through the increase of awareness and self-regulation in athletes
(for a review see Bertollo et al., 2020).
One of the unexplored links in sport science and, more specifically, in
sport psychology is the heart-brain interaction (for a general review see
Thayer & Lane, 2009), despite the early work by Lacey and Lacey (1978)
and the application of idiosyncratic approaches in elite athletes (Bertollo et
al., 2012). Indeed, the bidirectional communication between the heart and
the brain is of great importance and represents the prominent ground for
many of the psychophysiological theories today. With the aim to better
study optimal performance and its mechanisms, the following five major
questions could move the field of heart-brain interaction/integration
forward.
Table 9.1 Five Key Readings in Brain-Body Communication in Sport Settings
Design
Bertollo Within subjects Proficiency is an active and qualitative process that involves the
et al. interaction between the efficiency of human processing and the
(2016) efficacy of performance. Event-related synchronization brain activity
is mainly associated with optimal-automatic performance in
accordance with the neural efficiency hypothesis. Event-related
desynchronization is more related to optimal-controlled performance
in conditions reflecting neural adaptability and proficient use of
cortical resources.
Cheron et Review Theta band (4–8 Hz) can serve as a biomarker of eye-head-body
al. (2016) movement, navigation, episodic memory, sensorimotor integration,
goal setting, network coordination, motor control, emotion, and dream
recall. Alpha band (8–15 Hz) can serve as a biomarker of a global
resting state, selective attention, cognitive performance, inhibition and
gating, and consolidation of new motor sequences. Beta band (15–30
Hz) can serve as a biomarker of binding, sensorimotor association,
sensory discrimination, fatigue, ANS regulation, and motor imagery.
Cooke Review Superior performance of experts in golf can be explained by experts
(2013) engaging in greater external information processing than their less
skilled counterparts, which is reflected by a greater heart rate
deceleration and may also be associated with a greater negative
amplitude of the readiness potential and reduced EEG alpha power
during aiming. The increased accuracy of experts compared to novices
in both shooting and golf may be further explained by a reduction in
verbal-analytic information processing during preparation for action.
This could be reflected by a progressive increase in EEG alpha power
during preparation for the trigger pull in shooting and a reduction in
EEG alpha power coherence between the left temporal and frontal
midline regions of the brain during preparation for action in both
shooting and golf.
Hatfield Review According to the psychomotor efficiency hypothesis, the association of
(2018) areas of the cerebral cortex become progressively quiescent with
practice and enhanced skill level. Expert brain processes reveal the
recruitment of fewer resources compared to novices when they
accomplish the same task.
Cognitive load of the brain processes progressively diminishes with
motor skill acquisition. Brain activation is cautiously recruited in the
best performers even when the overall level of performance is rising.
LORETA analyses confirmed noisy brain during performance under
competitive stress and suggest elevated source activations and
influential interactions between motor and nonmotor areas.
Martínez- Within subjects Significant changes exist in the maximum cortico-muscular coherence
Aguilar in the beta brain rhythm as the exercise progresses and fatigue
& develops. Significant changes exist in the maximum cortico-cardiac
Gutiérrez coherence in the beta band, from the beginning to the end of an
(2019) exercise protocol in cycling.
ANS, autonomic nervous system; EEG, electroencephalography; LORETA, low resolution
electromagnetic tomography.
1. Methodological Question: How Can We Collect Reliable
Psychophysiological Measures on the Heart-Brain Relationship,
Especially in Ecologically Valid Environments?
In ecologic and dynamic settings, one of the most used techniques to
quantify brain activities is the EEG. Scientists mainly investigated brain
rhythms (i.e., delta, theta, alpha, beta, gamma) when the onset of the
movement was difficult to define and detect, like during cyclic and
continuous movements (e.g., cycling, running, walking); when brain
activities can be triggered to a specific event, like during discrete
movements (e.g., shooting and throwing), event-related potential (ERP) and
event-related desynchronization analyses are performed. A class of ERPs
linking brain and heart is called heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs),
because this biosignal is measured by time-locking the ERP to the R-wave
spikes of the ECG waveform. Thus, to calculate the HEP, a simultaneous
recording of both EEG and ECG is needed. Most of the paradigms used to
investigate HEP have implicated heart-related attention (e.g., counting,
tapping, and synchronizing attention to heartbeats), as this potential
represents the cortical processing of the heartbeats and a neural correlate of
interoception (Petzschner et al., 2019). Another measure taken from the
ECG and related to the heart-brain relation is the heart rate variability
(HRV), which is the sequence of time intervals between heartbeats. HRV
was also proposed as a measure of the organic capacity to functionally and
flexibly adapt to the environment (see Thayer & Lane, 2009).
The employment of heart-brain measures is needed to determine the
cortical and subcortical regions implicated in skilled motor performance
during differ+ent cardiovascular loads and its contribution during the
recovery period to develop idiosyncratic behavioral and integrated mind-
body interventions. Indeed, experimental and clinical studies have
illustrated a complex network, known as the central autonomic network
(Benarroch, 1997), characterized by several highly interconnected cortices,
subcortical forebrain structures, and brain stem areas (Tahsili-Fahadan &
Geocadin, 2017), which together process and control cardiovascular
function. Key regions are the insula, the amygdala, and the prefrontal cortex
(PFC): the insula is implicated in physiological regulation during exercise
and the cognitive representation of perceptions (i.e., visual, auditory,
bodily); the amygdala seems to modulate the effects of emotional stimuli on
the heart; the PFC regulates the vagally mediated cardiac functions (HRV)
and, at the same time, the executive function and the affective processing
(Thayer & Lane, 2009).
Physiological measures able to quantify the degree to which central and
autonomous systems are orchestrated and modulated by specific sport
training are warranted. Nowadays, by means of new mobile devices and dry
electrodes, it is feasible to integrate heart-brain data in the same amplifier
during dynamic tasks in the real-world environment. Collecting data in the
field setting would allow monitoring the contribution provided by both
systems to sport performance. Following this approach, objective
psychophysiological measures will be developed to improve and inform
motor skills training. For example, if the motor performance is affected by
enhanced activity of the PFC and high HRV, then training these
physiological processes underpinning executive functions would benefit the
athlete. Again, if the insula is implicated during recovery, then the
modulation of this activity together with heartbeats by means of mind-body
interventions would decrease the time to recovery. Further mind-body
interventions based on psychophysiological recordings are needed to
improve the provision of tailored skill-training programs for athletes.
2. Theoretical Question: How Can Heart-Brain Interactions

Explain Both Self-Regulation Processes in Athletes and the
Arousal-Emotion-Attention-Performance Linkage?
Understanding the arousal-emotion-attention-performance linkage and self-
regulation processes related to performance optimization have been some of
the main challenges in sport psychology. Self-regulation involves a
complex mix of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive processes, which in
turn influence the physiological processes underpinning optimal
performance states. Moreover, arousal is the physiological and
psychological state of activation, involving both the central and the
autonomous nervous systems; it is a condition of sensory alertness,
mobility, and readiness to respond (e.g., Weinberg, 2019, p. 16). For this
reason, arousal is important in regulating attention, alertness, and
information processing during performance in sport settings. Moreover,
according to the attentional control theory, arousal is modulated by the
attentional control in the context of anxiety and cognitive performance
(Eysenck et al., 2007). Therefore, it is important for athletes to find their
individual zones of optimal functioning so that they can learn to self-
regulate (by using biofeedback methods) their psychophysiological states,
including heart-brain interactions. Furthermore, self-regulation is related to
HRV, and arousal induction can affect the cortical processing of heartbeats
(Luft & Bhattacharya, 2015). Therefore, investigating the interaction
between the brain and heart is essential to advance research on performance
optimization and self-regulation processes in sports.
Different models proposed that self-regulation processes—involving
cognition, emotion, and arousal—influence performance. For instance, the
neurovisceral integration model (Thayer & Lane, 2009) proposes that
cognitive, affective, and physiological regulation processes may be related
to each other in the service of goal-directed behavior. Another model, the
predictive coding (Seth et al., 2012), suggests that the perception of the
body and the world—interoception and exteroception—involves
intertwined processes of inference, learning, and prediction. The
intertwined nature of exteroceptive and interoceptive processes is based on
the assumption that the brain actively constructs a generative model of its
sensory inputs (from its external environment or from its own body), inverts
this model to determine the causes of its sensations (inference),
continuously updates the model (learning) based on new sensory
information, and forecasts future inputs (prediction). In this framework,
Petzschner et al. (2019) showed that the focus of attention can modulate
HEP, as attention gates the influence of sensory information on perception.
These authors observed that the HEP is significantly higher during
interoceptive compared to exteroceptive attention, suggesting that it is
modulated by pure attention. In future studies, especially in precision sport
contexts, HEP should be adopted as a neural correlate of interoceptive
predictive errors, and its amplitude modulation should be employed to
understand when attention is directed toward or away from the heart
(Petzschner et al., 2019).
Furthermore, Ribeiro and Castelo-Branco (2019) identified an
association between neural modulation of the heart and other cognitive
processes, such as perceptual decision-making. Drawing on this association,
future studies should envisage protocols enhancing the complexity of sport
performance tasks by increasing the number of possible responses. This
procedure would also increase the amplitude of the preparatory cardiac
deceleration. Such studies would allow verifying, in the sport context,
whether the modulation of preparatory cardiac deceleration by the
manipulation of task demands can predict the ability to maintain responses
and facilitate decision-making as well as attentional control.
3. Theoretical Question: How Can the Heart-Brain Connection

Explain Interoception and Neuromuscular Fatigue?
Interoception provides the representation of the physiological condition
coming from the body and combining the crosstalk between the central and
autonomous nervous systems (Tahsili-Fahadan & Geocadin, 2017). Thus,
interoceptive signals play a crucial role in homeostatic regulation during
sport performance, enabling peak performance in different kinds of
disciplines. Interoceptive abilities (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, and
awareness) benefit from sport and, at the same time, facilitate the regulation
of emotion and behavior during sport performance (Georgiou et al., 2015).
As mentioned earlier, a reliable measure of interoceptive sensitivity is the
HEP. Interoception is then related to homeostatic regulation and decision-
making, which is a cognitive processing under the PFC control and highly
implicated in motor performance (Craig, 2002). In high-stress situations, for
example, when neuromuscular fatigue occurs, both interoception and
decision-making are affected. Indeed, neuromuscular fatigue is a
multidimensional concept combining psychophysiological and
psychological aspects; it is an individual’s experience that includes altered
sensations about tasks being more difficult or taking more effort than
expected (Søgaard et al., 2006).
Moreover, individuals’ perception of effort is thought to be modulated by
the potential motivation, which is the maximum amount of effort that a
person is willing to exert to succeed in the task (de Morree et al., 2012).
Motivation drive states are generated by a core set of neural structures,
particularly within the medial PFC (Thayer & Lane, 2009). They allow for
a successful adaptation to the changing environment and to
psychophysiological demands (integration between the internal homeostasis
and signals from the environment). Indeed, it was proposed that during
prolonged physical exercise, the neuromuscular integrity is managed by
brain mechanisms using the symptoms of fatigue as key regulators to ensure
that the exercise is completed without threatening the homeostatic stability
(Noakes, 2012). Available neuroimaging data (Hilty et al., 2011) showed an
increased thalamo-insular activation during fatiguing tasks, which was
interpreted as a central mechanism mediating the termination of the task to
protect the integrity of the organism. Indeed, the thalamus, the anterior
cingulate cortex, the insular cortex, and the medial PFC are involved in
sensations of discomfort; these brain areas alert the organism to urgent
homeostatic imbalance, thus playing a key role in the regulation of
autonomic states and in the regulation of efforts during prolonged physical
exercise (Noakes, 2012). These brain regions are the link between
psychological stress (mind) and health-related physiology (body) (see
Gianaros & Wager, 2015).
Future studies should investigate the dynamic interaction between the
heart and brain during different stress-induced cardiovascular situations,
like prolonged physical exercise, marathon, altitude, underwater, and heat.
Indeed, in these conditions the heart-brain interaction needs to be highly
flexible to adapt to the demands of the environment and could be an
important reference for improving sport training. For example, how is the
PFC activity modulated by increasing efforts and cardiovascular loads? Do
the central and autonomic systems recover at the same time? Is there a
relationship between HEP and insula activity? The response to these and
other related questions would advance current knowledge on the
psychophysiological processes underpinning recovery after exhaustion.
Thus, the capacity to manage interoception and neuromuscular fatigue and
to provide mind-body interventions is essential to reach and sustain peak
performance.
4. Applied Question: Which Applied Interventions Integrating the

Heart and Brain Are Useful to Improve and/or Optimize
Performance?
The development of useful interventions for modulating HEP is at the core
of an applied point of view for sport psychology/psychophysiology experts.
For example, attention to interoceptive stimuli (i.e., attention directed
toward the heart) could play a prominent role in the precision of
interosensory information, thereby increasing the likelihood of error
detection and prediction, in comparison to an attentional focus on
exteroceptive stimuli (Auksztulewicz & Friston, 2015; Petzschner et al.,
2019). Accordingly, attention training and HEP recordings could turn into
useful tools to better study anxiety and performance-related anxiety. Indeed,
some forms of anxiety (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder) are related to
overly salient sensory signals from the body. HEP is also sensitive to
arousal. Specifically, situations or conditions with higher intrinsic levels of
arousal, both cognitive and physiological, are associated with a larger HEP
(Petzschner et al., 2019). This effect is especially evident over the right
temporoparietal regions, which play a key role in modulating autonomic
and behavioral aspects of emotion-related arousal. Consequently, future
studies and interventions should use arousal induction methods to promote
emotion regulation, which is one of the most important factors for
successful performance in sport (e.g., di Fronso et al., 2020).
Furthermore, when using emotion induction processes in association with
HRV biofeedback, HEPs can be used to identify the specific mechanism of
afferent input from the heart to the brain. These afferent inputs could have
an impact on the activity of higher brain centers involved in perceptual,
cognitive, and emotional processing, thereby affecting several aspects of
motor performance experiences (McCraty et al., 2009). Moreover, the same
inputs may affect the homeostatic regulatory centers in the brain, such as
the central autonomic network, which is connected to other brain networks
devoted to the modulation of executive functions, affective responses, and
attentional-oriented behavior. A common reciprocal inhibitory cortico-
subcortical neural circuit contributes to regulate not only autonomic but
also emotional and cognitive functions. Despite being more invasive, the
use of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) in association with HRV biofeedback
and HEP can be considered as a further potential intervention to target the
function of the afferent pathways of the autonomic nervous system.
Specifically, VNS may serve as a useful tool to better study the
neuromodulation of cognitive processes (e.g., emotional memory) that can
be crucial to explain how individuals reach and sustain optimal
performance. VNS (or neurofeedback) can also be used to stimulate brain
areas related to cardiac deceleration (e.g., frontal areas) and serve as a
technique to improve, for example, aiming or simple balance performance.
Also, the integrated use of EEG/ECG would allow to better investigate
sympathetic/parasympathetic balance, which is important for both sport and
health reasons. To this purpose, scholars could use EEG electrodes
positioned in and around the ear, while heartbeat artifacts generally present
in EEG recordings (e.g., R waves of the QRS complex) could be used to
simultaneously record ECG data and to analyze HRV. This methodological
approach provides accurate measures also during movements (as opposed to
static data collection), and it is characterized by a portable technology that
is comfortable to participants performing daily activities and, most
importantly, allows for fast and integrated biofeedback interventions
(Bleichner & Debener, 2017).
5. Applied Question: How Can Neuro-Visceral-Cognitive

Interventions Enhance Performance?
The best neuro-visceral-cognitive interventions that can improve
performance are represented by bio- and neurofeedback training. Specific
protocols (e.g., cardiac modulation, EEG cortical asymmetries) can help
individuals to self-regulate, thereby creating physiological coherence, a
scientifically measurable state characterized by increased order and
harmony in our mind, emotions, and body (McCraty et al., 2009).
Moreover, virtual reality can enrich the perception of the actual
environment, as individuals can be immersed in different scenarios and be
involved in the three types of illusions of virtual reality: place illusion,
plausibility illusion, and embodiment (Colombetti & Thompson, 2008).
More precisely, place illusion is the sensation of being in a real place,
plausibility illusion is the illusion that the scenario depicted is actually
occurring, and embodiment refers to the sense of concrete representation of
the scenario (e.g., di Fronso et al., 2020). In the context of virtual reality, it
is possible to include also psychophysiological indices derived from EEG
(e.g., alpha peak frequency) and ECG (e.g., HRV indices); thus, individuals
can interact with ecological scenarios, learning how to modulate heart-brain
interactions during induced cognitive and emotional states, with the aim of
improving performance. From an applied point of view, for example, the
use of specific smart glasses can simultaneously display real-time
performance data (e.g., speed and pacing), ocular metrics (e.g., fixation,
saccades, and gaze), brain rhythms (e.g., alpha and theta waves), and
cardiovascular responses (e.g., HRV). In other words, smart glasses can
lead to an augmented reality, while enhancing the measurement and
trainability of neurocognitive components, emotional responses, and
individual performance metrics. Also, specific helmets or visors (e.g.,
Oculus rift) that provide 3D feedback modulated by brain and heart
activities could be useful in increasing heart-brain interaction/integration.
The main challenge for the future is to implement heart-brain coherence
protocols that can be integrated within brain-computer interface (BCI)
systems. In turn, BCI systems can be integrated into new software like
neuromore (https://www.neuromore.com), which is a platform enabling
anyone to create connected and emotionally intelligent applications. The
use of other neurocognitive tools, such as NeuroTracker
(https://neurotracker.net/), can be used to further enhance cognitive
processes related to attention and performance, thereby also influencing
heart-brain interaction. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that heart-
brain interactions and executive functions can be modulated by
cardiovascular load (Crowe et al., 2020). This could be essential to the
development of novel performance optimization training protocols,
especially in sports like biathlon or modern pentathlon, which combine high
precision in shooting and endurance during skiing (biathlon) or running
(pentathlon).
Regarding endurance sports, it has been suggested that brain endurance
training could be considered as a further neurocognitive visceral
intervention for performance optimization (Marcora et al., 2015).
According to this kind of training, developed within the psychobiological
model of fatigue framework (see de Morree & Marcora, 2015), practitioners
could use acute mental fatigue as a stimulus to induce chronic reduction in
fatigue during physical tasks. For instance, cognitive tasks, such as the
Flanker or Stroop test, could be administered during cycling practice. In this
way, sport professionals could cautiously increase training load in
endurance athletes without compromising their musculoskeletal system.
All the technologies and interventions mentioned need to be integrated
into a holistic perspective including different methodologies, such as
mindfulness, yoga, or other behavioral techniques aimed at developing
and/or enhancing adaptable self-regulation strategies and heart-brain
interaction/integration.
Conclusion
The investigation of mind-body interaction/integration can benefit from
recent psychophysiology and neuroscience developments. From a
methodological point of view, the miniaturization of devices and the
development of new algorithms for studying neurovisceral functional
connectivity can contribute to the creation of new ecological paradigms in
which scholars can study the psychophysiological features underpinning
athletes’ expert behavior by using a holistic approach. From a theoretical
point of view, it is important to understand not only the role played by
heart-brain communication in self-regulation and attentional control but
also the role of interoception in optimal performance experiences. From an
applied point of view, integrated interventions targeting heart-brain
interactions can help athletes learning how to up/down-regulate peripheral
(e.g., HRV) and central (brain rhythms) physiological responses linked to
optimal performance in sports. In conclusion, a better understanding of the
mind-body-behavior communication can advance interventions for
performance optimization in the field of sport psychology. Specifically,
going back to the future, heart-brain integration in sport performance should
be investigated.
References
Auksztulewicz, R., & Friston, K. (2015). Attentional enhancement of auditory mismatch responses:
A DCM/MEG study. Cerebral Cortex, 25(11), 4273–4283. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu323
Benarroch, E. E. (1997). Central autonomic network: Functional organization and clinical
correlations. Futura Publishing Company.
Bertollo, M., Di Fronso, S., Filho, E., Conforto, S., Schmid, M., Bortoli, L., & Robazza, C. (2016).
Proficient brain for optimal performance: The MAP model perspective. PeerJ, 4, e2082.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2082
Bertollo, M., Doppelmayr M., & Robazza C. (2020). Using brain technology in practice. In G.
Tenembaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp 666–693), 4th edition.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Blackwell.
Bertollo, M., Robazza, C., Falasca, W. N., Stocchi, M., Babiloni, C., Del Percio, C., Marzano, N.,
Iacoboni, M., Infarinato, F., Vecchio, F., Limatola, C., & Comani, S. (2012). Temporal pattern of
pre-shooting psycho-physiological states in elite athletes: A probabilistic approach. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 13(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.005
Bleichner, M. G., & Debener, S. (2017). Concealed, unobtrusive ear-centered EEG acquisition:
CEEGrids for transparent EEG. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 163.
https://doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00163
Cheron, G., Petit, G., Cheron, J., Leroy, A., Cebolla, A., Cevallos, C., Petieau, M., Hoellinger, T.,
Zarka, D., Clarinval, A.-M., & Dan, B. (2016). Brain oscillations in sport: Toward EEG
biomarkers of performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 246.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00246
Colombetti, G., & Thompson, E. (2008) The feeling body: Towards an enactive approach to emotion.
In W. F. Overton, U. Müller, & J. Newman (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on embodiment and
consciousness (p. 4568). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cooke, A. (2013). Readying the head and steadying the heart: A review of cortical and cardiac
studies of preparation for action in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
6(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.724438
Cooke, A., & Ring, C. (2019). Psychophysiology of sport, exercise, and performance: Past, present,
and future. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 8(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000156
Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the
body. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 3(8), 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn894
Crowe, E. M., Wilson, M. R., Harris, D. J., & Vine, S. J. (2020). Eye tracking and cardiovascular
measurement to assess and improve sporting performance. In M. Bertollo, P. Terry, & E. Filho
(Eds.), Advancements in mental skill training (pp. 135–148). Routledge.
de Morree, H. M., Klein, C., & Marcora, S. M. (2012). Perception of effort reflects central motor
command during movement execution. Psychophysiology, 49, 1242–1253.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01399.x
de Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2015). Psychobiology of perceived effort during physical tasks.
In G. Gendolla, M. Tops, & K. Sander (Eds.), Handbook of biobehavioral approaches to self-
regulation (pp. 255–270). Springer doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1236-0_17
di Fronso, S., Fiedler, P., Tamburro, G., Haueisen, J., Bertollo, M., & Comani, S. (2019). Dry EEG in
sports sciences: A fast and reliable tool to assess individual alpha peak frequency changes induced
by physical effort. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 982. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00982
di Fronso, S., Robazza, C., Bortoli, L., & Bertollo, M. (2017). Performance optimization in sport: A
psychophysiological approach. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 23(4), e1017138.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1980-6574201700040001
di Fronso, S., Werthner, P., Christie, S., & Bertollo, M. (2020). Using technology for self-regulation
in sport. In M. C. Ruiz & C. Robazza (Eds.), Feelings in sport theory, research, and practical
implications for performance and well-being. Taylor & Francis.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-
3542.7.2.336
Georgiou, E., Matthias, E., Kobel, S., Kettner, S., Dreyhaupt, J., Steinacker, J. M., & Pollatos, O.
(2015). Interaction of physical activity and interoception in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
502. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00502
Gianaros, P. J., & Wager, T. D. (2015). Brain-body pathways linking psychological stress and
physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 313–321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415581476
Hatfield, B. D. (2018). Brain dynamics and motor behavior: A case for efficiency and refinement for
superior performance. Kinesiology Review, 7(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2017-0056
Hilty, L., Jäncke, L., Luechinger, R., Boutellier, U., & Lutz, K. (2011). Limitation of physical
performance in a muscle fatiguing handgrip exercise is mediated by thalamo-insular activity.
Human Brain Mapping, 32, 2151–2160.
Lacey, B. C., & Lacey, J. I. (1978). Two-way communication between the heart and the brain:
Significance of time within the cardiac cycle. American Psychologist, 33, 99–113.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.2.99
Lacey, J. I. (1969). Autonomic indices of attention, readiness, and rejection of the external
environment. In D.P. Kimble (Ed.), Readiness to remember (pp. 511–610). Gordon & Breach.
Luft, C. D. B., & Bhattacharya, J. (2015). Aroused with heart: Modulation of heartbeat evoked
potential by arousal induction and its oscillatory correlates. Scientific Reports, 5, 15717.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15717
Marcora, S. M., Staiano, W., & Merlini, M. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of Brain Endurance
Training (BET) to reduce fatigue during endurance exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 47(5S), 198. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000476967.03579.44.
Martínez-Aguilar, G. M., & Gutiérrez, D. (2019). Using cortico-muscular and cortico-cardiac
coherence to study the role of the brain in the development of muscular fatigue. Biomedical Signal
Processing and Control, 48, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2018.10.011
McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Tomasino, D., & Bradley, R. T. (2009). The coherent heart: Heart-brain
interactions, psychophysiological coherence, and the emergence of system-wide order. Integral
Review: A Transdisciplinary & Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, & Praxis, 5(2),
11–115.
Noakes, T. D. (2012). Fatigue is a brain-derived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to
ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis. Frontiers in Physiology, 3, 82.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00082
Petzschner, F. H., Weber, L. A., Wellstein, K. V., Paolini, G., Do, C. T., & Stephan, K. E. (2019).
Focus of attention modulates the heartbeat evoked potential. Neuroimage, 186, 595–606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.11.037
Ribeiro, M. J., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2019). Neural correlates of anticipatory cardiac deceleration
and its association with the speed of perceptual decision-making, in young and older adults.
Neuroimage, 199, 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.004
Seth, A. K., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. D. (2012). An interoceptive predictive coding model of
conscious presence. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00395
Søgaard, K., Gandevia, S. C., Todd, G., Petersen, N. T., & Taylor, J. L. (2006). The effect of
sustained low-intensity contractions on supraspinal fatigue in human elbow flexor muscle. Journal
of Physiology, 573, 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2005.103598
Stern, J. A. (1964). Toward a definition of psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 1(1), 90–91.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1964.tb02626.x
Tahsili-Fahadan, P., & Geocadin, R. G. (2017). Heart-brain axis. Effects of neurologic injury on
cardiovascular function. Circulation Research, 120, 559–572.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308446
Teques, P., Araújo, D., Seifert, L., del Campo, V. L., & Davids, K. (2017). The resonant system:
Linking brain–body–environment in sport performance. In M. R. Wilson, V. Walsh, & B. Parkin
(Eds.), Progress in brain research (pp. 33–52). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.001
Thayer, J. F., & Lane, R. D. (2009). Claude Bernard and the heart-brain connection: Further
elaboration of a model of neurovisceral integration. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,
33(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.004
Weinberg, R. (2019). Arousal. In D. Hackfort, R. J. Schinke, & B. Strauss (Eds.), Dictionary of sport
psychology: Sport, exercise, and performing arts (p. 337). Academic Press.
10
Genetics
Sigal Ben Zaken
In the year 1896, Gregor Mandel, the founding father of genetics, was
deceased and terms such as gene, DNA, and chromosomes were
nonexistent. Yet, at the 1896 Olympic Games, humanity admired sport
performance at its finest. Today, more than 120 years later, genetic
knowledge has been vastly developed, the human genome is decoded, and
advanced applications in genetic engineering have been developed. Yet,
many questions regarding the genetic basis of sport, exercise, and
performance remain unanswered.
Genetics is the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in living
organisms. Most human traits, including psychological and behavioral
traits, are heritable and are based on biological mechanisms. The
heritability of traits such as mental toughness, motivation, and self-
regulation, which are important concepts in sport psychology, is
approximately 50% to 60% (Li et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2017; Willems et al.,
2019), meaning that 50% to 60% of the variability seen in these traits may
be attributed to genetic variability. Yet, these heritability estimations are
based on research conducted on the general population and have not
necessarily been applied to sport, exercise, and physical activity. Research
on the heritability of mental toughness, motivation, and self-regulation in
relation to sport and exercise are rare. Heritability studies are common in
the field of behavioral genetics. Behavioral genetics investigate the nature
and origins of individual differences in behavior mainly by using twin and
family research paradigms.
While heritability estimates the proportion of variability attributed to
genetics, molecular genetics is the field that explores the sources of genetic
variability by studying the structure and function of genes at a molecular
level. The study of molecular genetics in the physiological domain of sport,
exercise, and performance has made large progress during the last decades
along with the general progress in molecular genetic methods. However,
parallel progress in the psychological domain of sport and exercise has not
been made. Thus, it is only natural to assume that behavioral genetics and
molecular genetics will meet at the sport, exercise, and performance
domain, which combines both psychological and physiological traits.
However, this integration has not happened yet, leaving many research
questions open. The present chapter will review some of these questions
and possible future directions.
State of the Art
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

—Aristotle
Sport Performance: More Than the Sum of Traits

Every time we witness an athlete score a goal, win a trophy, or perform an
extraordinary drill of physical prowess, we find ourselves asking the
question: how? What makes this individual great? Is this achievable by
ordinary individuals or is it a God-given gift? Questions such as these
encompass the ancient argument of nature versus nurture as it pertains to
competitive sports and athletic performance (Davids & Baker, 2007;
Johnson & Tenenbaum, 2006; Tucker & Collins, 2012).
The “nurture” side of the debate claims that performance is inseparable
from training, repetition, and perseverance as described in the deliberate
practice theory (Ericsson, 2007). The direct derivative from this theory is
that, fundamentally, any individual (given enough time) who is willing to
“put in the time” can achieve greatness should they pursue a correct training
regime. However, the “nature” point of view advocates that this is not a
realistic possibility, as people are fundamentally different from one another
in many traits (e.g., height, flexibility, mental toughness, training
responsiveness) that show distribution across the population regardless of
their individual efforts. This defining variability of the human race stems, at
least partially, from interpersonal genetic variability.
In this sense, one must point out that athletic performance is not an
attribute, a quality, or a trait. Performance, such as winning a competition,
scoring a goal, and so forth, is more of an “occurrence.” For an athlete to
achieve this occurrence, several conditions must be met, and the athlete
needs a specific combination of skills, attributes, and traits. Yet, sport
performance is too dynamic, multidimensional, and complex (Tenenbaum et
al., 2009) and cannot be simplified as the sum of traits.
The sport performance model that we have previously suggested (Ben-
Zaken et al., 2019) is composed of four layers: (a) the genotype layer
represents the genetic predisposition determined at fertilization and is
unchanged during life; (b) the trait layer represents the level of a specific
trait (out of many) related to performance, with the level of the trait
representing a gene-environment interaction that might vary in time; (c) the
environment layer can range from supportive to nonsupportive; and (d) the
performance layer is the outcome of all other layers. All the layers interact
in a dynamic way, enabling various pathways that can lead to high
performance.
Basic Terms: Learn the Biological Language

You can never understand one language until you understand at least two.
—Geoffrey Willans
As in every scientific field, genetics has its own language. In this sense it is
important to emphasize the difference between several interrelated terms
such as trait, inheritance, genetic, DNA, and chromosomes. A trait is a
distinct characteristic variant of an organism; it may be internal or external,
physiological or psychological (Violle et al., 2007). Traits can be
categorized in many ways, for example, “body related” versus “mind
related,” or “inherited” versus “acquired.” Two main constructs compose
the field of genetics: (a) heredity/inheritance, the study of passing traits
from parents to offspring, and (b) molecular genetics, which centers on the
genes’ structure and function and on the way genes and genetic variants
result in traits and trait variability.
Other important terms are gene expression and epigenetics. Gene
expression is the process by which information from a gene is used in the
synthesis of a functional gene product, mainly protein. Epigenetics is the
study of heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes)
that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA, which in turn affect
how cells read the genes. When it comes to the discussion about the role of
genetics in sport performance, one must keep in mind the following:
1. Most human traits, including psychological and behavioral traits, are multifactorial traits and
result from the complex combination of genetic factors, environmental factors, and the
interaction between them (Rice & Reich, 1985).
2. Almost every trait, including psychological traits, relies on biological mechanisms (Kosslyn et
al., 2002) and is facilitated by proteins (such as transporters, neurotransmitters, and receptors).
Therefore, genes play a pivotal role in determining the trait, and genetic variability may result
in trait variability, and hence performance variability.
3. Athletic performance–related traits are sport dependent. Agility, for instance, may be critical
in a certain field and irrelevant in another. While the anatomical/biomechanical/motoric
demands vary from one sport to another, mental requirements such as motivation, grit, and
determination pertain to most if not all sports.
4. Adaption to training is characterized by changes at the cellular and molecular levels, and
therefore by changes in protein synthesis. However, adaption to training is characterized not
only by physiological changes but also by the subjective-affective experience of training and
the psychosocially conditioned training motivation (Bryan et al., 2011). Therefore, changes in
gene expression might be expected also in psychological mechanisms related to initiation,
acceptance, and maintenance of training.
Why Are Genetics and Sport Psychology Mutually Estranged?

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) and Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911) were born
in the same year but never met and were not aware of the works of each
other. In our day, with the perspective views of their tremendous work, it is
clear that the integration of their domains is necessary to forward research
in the psychology of sport performance to the next level.
Gregor Mendel followed the inheritance of seven traits in pea plants for 8
years before he described his conclusions in a two-part paper, “Experiments
on Plant Hybridization” (Mendel, 1865). Mendel’s conclusions were largely
ignored until they were rediscovered decades after his death and he was
crowned as the founding father of modern genetics (Henig, 2000). Detailed
descriptions of his experiments can be found in every genetic textbook, and
his three foundational principles of inheritance—the law of segregation, law
of independent assortment, and law of dominance—laid the foundation to
what later became known as modern genetics.
Galton, the founding father of eugenics and behavioral genetics (Gillham,
2001), coined the famous phrase “nature vs. nurture” (Gillham, 2001) and
was influenced by the book On the Origin of Species written by his half-
cousin, Charles Darwin (Fancher, 2009). The book, dealing with the
diversity and evolution of life on Earth, led Galton to be interested in the
factors that determine what he called human “talent and character” and its
hereditary basis. He constructed his own theory of inheritance in which
nature and not nurture plays the leading role. Ironically, Galton and Darwin
were not aware that their contemporary, Gregor Mendel, had already solved
the problem that puzzled Darwin the most—the lack of an explanation for
heredity.
From that point on, these two domains evolved almost separately, with
only few intersection points. While molecular genetics employs methods of
molecular biology and provides insight into genetic variation, behavioral
genetics uses family and twin models to investigate the nature and origins
of individual differences in behavior. While the name “behavioral genetics”
connotes a focus on genetic influences, the field broadly investigates
genetic and environmental influences.
It is only natural to assume that behavioral genetics and molecular
genetics will meet at the athletic performance domain. Athletic/sport
performance is a field coalescing both psychological and physiological
traits influenced by the interrelated relations and interactions of genetic and
environmental factors. However, integration of behavioral genetics and
molecular genetics in the study of sport performance is scarce.
The research on the genetic basis of human athletic performance has
increased dramatically since the early 1990s, as can be seen in the yearly
human gene map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes,
which was first published in 2001(Rankinen et al., 2001) and has been
published almost yearly since then (Sarzynski et al., 2016). Parallel to the
extensive research conducted to identify specific genes and genetic variants
related to physiological traits of sport performance, the research aimed at
identifying the genetic basis of psychological traits of sport performance is
substantially meager. The lack of genetic research in the psychological-
behavioral domain of sport and exercise is surprising considering the
extensive research in general (Munafò et al., 2003) and in clinical
psychology (Noble, 2000). Variables/traits such as motivation, emotion
regulation, information processing, decision-making, and other
psychological traits are crucial for athletic performance and yet not
sufficiently studied.
Suggested Reading
To fully capture the complexity and multidimensional character of
questions regarding the genetics and psychology of motor performance, I
suggest the readings listed in Table 10.1, although many others might be
enlightening as well.
Table 10.1 Five Key Readings in Genetics in the Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
Domain
Design
Wang et al. Review; Hypothesis-free genome-wide approaches will provide
(2016) summarizes current comprehensive coverage and in-depth understanding of the
and future biology underlying sports-related traits and related genetic
directions in mechanisms. Large, collaborative projects with sound
exercise genetics experimental designs (e.g., clearly defined phenotypes,
and genomics considerations and controls for sources of variability, and
necessary replications) are required to produce meaningful
results.
Valeeva & Book chapter; To date, 16 psychogenetics-specific genetic markers have been
Rees prospective view of reported to be associated with predisposition to specific sports
(2019) the up-to-date (via case-control designs), and 12 markers have been linked with
genetic personality traits (via genotype-phenotype designs) in athletes.
polymorphisms Future genetic research with large cohorts of athletes, with further
related to validation and replication, will substantially contribute to the
psychological traits discovery of causal genetic variants, which may partly explain the
among athletes heritability of athlete status and related psychological phenotypes.
Johnson et Original research, Though this research is not sport oriented, it provides one of the
al. (2016) association study; first polygenic examinations of behavioral traits. Its main finding
explores relations is that BDNF is related to threat sensitivity, and OPRM1 is related
between genetic to reward sensitivity. The findings support the merit of a
polymorphisms and combined psychological and genetic approach.
behavioral
inhibition
system/behavioral
activation system
(BIS/BAS)
Gottschling Original research, Though this research is not sport oriented, it emphasizes that
et al. twin study; genetic mediation analyses can contribute to our understanding of
(2016) comparison phenotypic mediation in personal and self-regulation, and the
between relationship between neuroticism and stress resistance
monozygotic and
dizygotic twins
Ben-Zaken Book chapter; The chapter contributes to the ongoing nature-nurture debate by
et al. narrative view on emphasizing the role of genetics in expertise development and
(2019) the gene- suggests a dynamic model for the gene-environment paradigm in
environment sport expertise.
paradigm
1. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Can We Optimize
Personalized Training With the Help of Genetic Knowledge?
The 21st century has been characterized by a constant push toward genetic
knowledge–based personalization in medicine (Hamburg & Collins, 2010)
and nutrition (Drabsch & Holzapfel, 2019). It is just natural to assume that
sport and exercise training will also be part of this paradigm. Evidence has
emerged that large interindividual variation exists regarding the magnitude
and direction of adaption following exercise (Bamman et al., 2007; Hubal et
al., 2005). Yet, only a small number of studies have been conducted to
identify biological/genetic factors responsible for interpersonal variability
in training responses.
The goal of most training programs is to maximize the dose/response
specific to the long-term objective(s). A number of studies have revealed
important aspects of how cells respond to exercise (Neufer et al., 2015), but
very little is known as to how these molecular responses ultimately translate
to the individual’s physiological, metabolic, and behavioral response. This
in turn limits the ability to prescribe the desired dose required for optimal
long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, the variation in psychological aspects
related to training responsiveness is usually ignored, though it is well
established that both cognition and mental factors contribute to
performance. Recently, several research findings indicated that individual
trainability can change during the life course due to external factors such as
nutrition or stress (Mann, Lamberts, & Lambert, 2014). This is where
epigenetics comes into play. Again, epigenetics deals with processes that
alter gene expression patterns without affecting the DNA sequence. Though
individualization is a well-established key principle in periodization of
sports training, to date, this kind of individualization does not incorporate
genetic variables into the individualization procedure. Therefore, future
interdisciplinary work in the field of individualized training will have to
integrate epigenetics, sociology, and psychology into reasonable research
programs.
Therefore, future research in the field of genetically based individualized
training needs to take into account two main aspects: intraindividual
repetition of measurements including the systematic combination of group-
based and individual information and the joint consideration of multiple
explanatory variables including psychological, genetic, and epigenetic
variables. While these two fundamental considerations are based on
statistical principles, their full implementation is beset with many practical
difficulties. Therefore, from an applied perspective, the ways of
implementing personalized training will differ considerably depending on
the specific task and the framework conditions (Hecksteden & Meyer,
2018).
2. Applied and Methodological Question: How Can We Bridge

the Gap Between Biology and Psychology Scaling?
One of the reasons that genetics and psychology evolved as separated
domains is the scale differences. While genetic researchers focus on genes,
which are fractures of cells, psychology researchers focus primarily on
human behavior. It seems that biology and psychology stand at opposite
ends of a continuum scale ranging from molecular to behavioral. This
continuum can be seen from two perspectives: as a transformational system
and as a reactive system. According to the transformational system
approach, the genomic DNA information is translated into a diversity of
expressed proteins (the proteome). The proteome then fashions the traits
that define the functioning organism. The genome, from such a viewpoint,
appears as the master plan that encodes the organism (Mayr, 1961). The
explanation of the living system, from this viewpoint, is obtained by
reducing its complexity to an orderly, sequential transformation of
information from genes to traits (Cohen & Harel, 2007). According to the
reactive system approach (Harel, 2004), the system does not behave
according to a preprogrammed chain of linked instructions. Rather, such a
system reacts in parallel to many concurrent inputs. A reactive system
expresses a dynamic narrative in which the DNA code is one of the many
formative inputs and the environment of the living system is a critical
source of information (Cohen & Harel, 2007). To promote our
understanding of behavior in general, and sport psychology in particular, we
must shift from a transformational approach, in which biology and
psychology represent two different scales, to a reactive approach, in which
biology and psychology are parts of a holistic system.
An emergent property of a system is its behavior, taken as a whole, that is
not expressed by any one of the lower scale components that compose it.
Life, for example, is an emergent property; none of the molecule
components of a cell are alive—only a whole cell is alive. Sport
performance is also an emergent property, in which none of its components
(e.g., motivation, muscle structure) is the sport performance per se.
Therefore, sport performance emerges only when you step back—“zoom
out”—and look at the performer at an appropriate scale (Cohen, 2000).
Future research should take into consideration broad continuous scale
measures including genomic, proteomic, and behavioral variables. This
requires deep understanding of the biological mechanism underlying sport
behavior as well as a multidisciplinary approach incorporating genetics,
neuroscience, and behavior.
3. Applied and Methodological Question: How to Best

Incorporate Genetics Into a Multidisciplinary Approach in the
Study of Sport Performance?
Sport disciplines, such as biomechanics, performance analysis, physiology,
psychology, and sociology, are interdisciplinary perspectives that provide a
broad and in-depth view of the variables leading to successful
performances. The European College of Sport Science (ECSS), which was
founded in 1995, regards sport science as the integrator of knowledge of
human movement acquired in all these disciplines and subdisciplines
(Balagué et al., 2017). The search for minimum principles that explain the
maximum number of phenomena is an implicit goal of all sciences, but
tremendous growth in sport science has mostly produced further
specialization and fragmentation (Hristovski, 2013). This is because each
discipline focuses on different levels of organization of matter. An
interdisciplinary approach is defined as more than one area of sport and
exercise science working together in an integrated and coordinated manner
to solve a problem (MacLeod, 2018).
It is undeniable that a multidisciplinary approach to sport psychology is
essential to move the field forward. When it comes to very different
disciplines such as genetics and psychology, there is a need for
multidisciplinary scientists from both disciplines not only to become
familiar with the language of the other discipline but also to shift their point
of view to a more holistic perspective (Carr, Loucks, & Blöschl, 2018).
Moreover, interdisciplinary research does not occur automatically by
bringing together several disciplines in a research project. Extra effort is
needed to promote the formation of a cohesive research team involving
researchers from different disciplines, to combine expertise from several
knowledge domains, and to overcome communication problems among
researchers from different disciplines (Tobi & Kampen, 2018). Future
research designs should integrate insights from psychology, neuroscience,
and genetic domains into increasingly complex and dynamic explanatory
mechanisms gathered around a well-defined problem.
4. Theoretical and Methodological Question: How to Address the

Complicated Interactions and Relations Between Genes and
Environment?
All sport performance–related traits are multifactorial traits that result from
a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Specific
genetic make-up does not necessarily ensure elite athletic performance,
which results from the gene-environment interactions. The term gene-
environment interaction refers to situations in which the effect of genes
depends on the environment, and/or the effect of the environment depends
on genotype (Halldorsdottir & Binder, 2017). Gene-environment
interactions account for the reason people respond differently to
environmental factors. In motor proficiency, gene-environment interactions
account for people’s variation in responding to exercise (Bouchard &
Rankinen, 2001). Though this phenomenon is quite known in sport, it
usually is attributed to physiological genetic predisposition.
Gene-environment interaction has two main meanings: substantial
meaning and statistical meaning. The substantial meaning implies that
when it comes to psychological, physiological, and other traits, both genes
and the environment are important. In statistical terms, it means that there
are main effects of the environment and main effects of genes, but the effect
of one variable cannot be understood without taking into account the other
variable, since their effects are not independent. Genes and the environment
are interrelated entities. Although some environmental influences may be
largely random, such as experiencing a natural disaster, many
environmental influences are not entirely random (Kendler et al., 1993). For
example, individuals are genetically predisposed toward sensation seeking,
and this makes them more likely to be attracted to extreme sports such as
skiing (a gene-environment interaction), which increases their chance to
become an elite skier. Are the predisposing sensation-seeking genes or the
environment the causal agent? In actuality, the question is debatable—they
both play a role; it is much more informative to try to understand and model
these interactive pathways than to ask whether the genes or the environment
was the critical factor in the outcomes and behaviors. Therefore, future
research should take into consideration the complex interactions between
genes and the environment, and hence adopt the view that they are not
separate entities. Accordingly, researchers and practitioners should move
from traditional paradigms seeking the causes and the influence of genetic
or environmental factors to new paradigms seeking the best pathways to
improve and develop an interactive approach. Future research designs
should take into consideration that every human being is a unique
combination of genes and the environment that cannot be treated as separate
factors.
5. Methodological Question: How to Design Research in the

Relatively New and Upcoming Field of Sport Psychogenetics?
Behavioral genetics was based almost entirely on twin and family studies.
Those studies made a strong case for the importance of genes in behavior,
but the connection always remained loose and statistical. Moreover, those
studies were conducted in the general population; therefore, their
conclusions do not necessarily apply to the sport domain.
Only in rare cases could a direct connection between a particular gene or
set of genes and a particular behavior be made. New research disciplines in
the field of genetics such as bioinformatics and genetic engineering allow
researchers to measure, analyze, and manipulate genetic material rapidly
and easily. These techniques have changed the composition of the field of
behavioral genetics, engaging the interest of new groups of researchers
beyond psychology, such as molecular biologists, who had previously seen
behavior as too slippery for biological research.
Today, it is clear that a single gene for a complex phenomenon such as
sport performance is unlikely to exist, let alone be found, even with the
most sophisticated methods. Complex behavioral traits, which are
fundamental in the field of sport psychology, are influenced by tens if not
hundreds of genes, each interacting with the environment and each other in
unpredictable ways. Nonetheless, behavioral genetics continues to hold
promise for a better understanding of the biological basis of behavior.
This flood of data accompanying the Human Genome Project means that
the ability to gather, organize, and analyze biological information is
increasingly critical. Therefore, incorporating bioinformatics in research
design and results analysis is necessary. Moreover, case-control association
study, which is the basic research design in the study of genetics and sport,
is limited. However, it is important to keep in mind that even with the most
advanced research techniques and designs, there is no simple answer to a
complex question. The deeper scientists delve into the genetics of complex
behaviors, the more they find that such behaviors are influenced by tens or
hundreds of interacting genes, each accounting for only a small portion of
the overall variance. Moreover, it is not genes alone, but rather genes in
interaction with the environment that produce complex behaviors.
New techniques may help researchers overcome at least some of those
challenges. One particularly promising area is the combination of
behavioral genetics with visualization tools in biology. In living animals,
including humans, functional magnetic resonance imaging and other brain
imaging techniques are providing increasingly high-resolution maps of
large-scale neural activity. Meanwhile, in cells, molecular techniques such
as tagging enzymes with green fluorescent protein are allowing researchers
to watch changes in gene expression as they occur. These techniques may
bring behavioral geneticists one step closer to the very important goal:
discovering how neurons, shaped by interactions between genes and the
environment, give rise to behavior.
Conclusion
It seems that it is almost impossible to capture the complexity and
multidimensionality of sport performance in a simplified way. Any study on
the genetic basis of motor performance must incorporate the psychological
domain and the complicated interaction between psychological and
physiological traits as well as the continuous interaction with the
environment.
References
Balagué, N., Torrents, C., Hristovski, R., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2017). Sport science integration: An
evolutionary synthesis. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(1), 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2016.1198422
Bamman, M. M., Petrella, J. K., Kim, J., Mayhew, D. L., & Cross, J. M. (2007). Cluster analysis tests
the importance of myogenic gene expression during myofiber hypertrophy in humans. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 102(6), 2232–2239. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00024.2007
Ben-Zaken, S., Richard, V., & Tenenbaum, G. (2019). Genetics and the psychology of motor
performance. Routledge.
Bouchard, C., & Rankinen, T. (2001). Individual differences in response to regular physical activity.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(6 Suppl), S446–S451; discussion S452–S453.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11427769
Bryan, A. D., Magnan, R. E., Nilsson, R., Marcus, B. H., Tompkins, S. A., & Hutchison, K. E.
(2011). The big picture of individual differences in physical activity behavior change: A
transdisciplinary approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(1), 20–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSYCHSPORT.2010.05.002
Carr, G., Loucks, D. P., & Blöschl, G. (2018). Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and
education programmes: A framework for evaluation. Research Policy, 47(1), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.010
Cohen, I. R. (2000). Tending Adam’s garden: Evolving the cognitive immune self. Academic Press.
Cohen, I. R., & Harel, D. (2007). Explaining a complex living system: Dynamics, multi-scaling and
emergence. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(13), 175–182.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0173
Davids, K., & Baker, J. (2007). Genes, environment and sport performance: Why the nature-nurture
dualism is no longer relevant. Sports Medicine, 37(11), 961–980.
Drabsch, T., & Holzapfel, C. (2019). A scientific perspective of personalised gene-based dietary
recommendations for weight management. Nutrients, 11(3), 617.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11030617
Ericsson, K. A. (2007). Deliberate practice and the modifiability of body and mind: Toward a science
of the structure and acquisition of expert and elite performance. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 38.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3b1e/28f4b2b22f801e8bf2f4451a2f434bf3571e.pdf
Fancher, R. E. (2009). Scientific cousins: The relationship between Charles Darwin and Francis
Galton. American Psychologist, 64(2), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013339
Gillham, N. W. (2001). Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics. Annual Review of Genetics,
35(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090055
Gottschling, J., Hahn, E., Maas, H., & Spinath, F. M. (2016). Explaining the relationship between
personality and coping with professional demands: Where and why do optimism, self-regulation,
and self-efficacy matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 49–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2016.03.085
Halldorsdottir, T., & Binder, E. B. (2017). Gene × environment interactions: From molecular
mechanisms to behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 215–241.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044053
Hamburg, M. A., & Collins, F. S. (2010). The path to personalized medicine. New England Journal
of Medicine, 363(4), 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1006304
Hecksteden, A., & Meyer, T. (2018). Personalized sports medicine – Principles and tailored
implementations in preventive and competitive sports. Deutsche Zeitschrift Für Sportmedizin,
2018(3), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.5960/dzsm.2018.323
Henig, R. M. (2000). The monk in the garden: The lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the
father of genetics. Houghton Mifflin.
Hristovski, R. (2013). Synthetic thinking in (sports) science: The self-organization of the scientific
language. Research in Physical Education Sport and Health, 2(1), 27–34.
Hubal, M. J., Gordish-Dressman, H., Thompson, P. D., Price, T. B., Hoffman, E. P., Angelopoulos, T.
J., Gordon, P. M., Moyna, N. M., Pescatello, L. S., Visich, P. S., Zoeller, R. F., Seip, R. L., &
Clarkson, P. M. (2005). Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance
training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37(6), 964–972.
Johnson, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (2006). The roles of nature and nurture in expertise in sport. In D.
Hackfort & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Essential processes for attaining peak performance (pp. 26–52).
Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Johnson, S. L., Carver, C. S., Joormann, J., & Cuccaro, M. L. (2016). Genetic polymorphisms related
to behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition scales. Personality and Individual Differences,
88, 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2015.09.024
Kendler K.S., Neale M., Kessler R., Heath A., & Eaves L. (1993) A twin study of recent life events
and difficulties. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 50(10), 789–796.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820220041005. PMID: 8215803.
Kosslyn, S. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Davidson, R. J., Hugdahl, K., Lovallo, W. R., Spiegel, D., & Rose,
R. (2002). Bridging psychology and biology: The analysis of individuals in groups. American
Psychologist, 57(5), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.5.341
Li, Z., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Cheung, E. F. C., Docherty, A. R., Sham, P. C., Gur, R. E., Gur, R. C., &
Chan, R. C. K. (2019). Inheritance of neural substrates for motivation and pleasure. Psychological
Science, 30(8), 1205–1217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619859340
Lin, Y., Mutz, J., Clough, P. J., & Papageorgiou, K. A. (2017). Mental toughness and individual
differences in learning, educational and work performance, psychological well-being, and
personality: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1345.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01345
MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain
specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-
016-1236-4
Mann, T. N., Lamberts, R. P., & Lambert, M. I. (2014). High responders and low responders: Factors
associated with individual variation in response to standardized training. Sports Medicine, 44(8),
1113–1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0197-3
Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134.3489.1501
Mendel, G. (1865). Experiments in plant hybridization P (1865). Meetings of the Brünn Natural
History Society. http://www.netspace.org./MendelWeb/
Munafò, M. R., Clark, T. G., Moore, L. R., Payne, E., Walton, R., & Flint, J. (2003). Genetic
polymorphisms and personality in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Molecular Psychiatry, 8(5), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001326
Neufer, P. D., Bamman, M. M., Muoio, D. M., Bouchard, C., Cooper, D. M., Goodpaster, B. H.,
Booth, F. W., Kohrt, W. M., Gerszten, R. E., Mattson, M. P., Hepple, R. T., Kraus, W. E., Reid, M.
B., Bodine, S. C., Jakicic, J. M., Fleg, J. L., Williams, J. P., Joseph, L., Evans, M., . . . Laughlin,
M. R. (2015). Understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of physical activity-induced
health benefits. Cell Metabolism, 22(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.05.011
Noble, E. P. (2000). Addiction and its reward process through polymorphisms of the D2 dopamine
receptor gene: A review. European Psychiatry, 15(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-
9338(0 0)00208-X
Harel, D. (2004). A grand challenge for computing: Towards full reactive modeling of a multi-
cellular animal. Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 559–568..
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812562494_0031
Rankinen T, Pérusse L, Rauramaa R, Rivera MA, Wolfarth B, Bouchard C. (2001). The human gene
map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 33(6), 855–867. doi:10.1097/00005768-200106000-00001.
Rice, J., & Reich, T. (1985). Familial analysis of qualitative traits under multifactorial inheritance.
Genetic Epidemiology, 2(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.1370020307
Sarzynski, M. A., Loos, R. J. F., Lucia, A., Pérusse, L., Roth, S. M., Wolfarth, B., Rankinen, T., &
Bouchard, C. (2016). Advances in exercise, fitness, and performance genomics in 2015. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(10), 1906–1916.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000982
Tenenbaum, G., Hatfield, B., Eklund, R. C., Land, W., Camielo, L., Razon, S., & Schack, K. A.
(2009). Conceptual framework for studying emotions-cognitions-performance linkage under
conditions which vary in perceived pressure. In M. Raab, J. G. Johnson, & H. Heekeren (Eds.),
Progress in brain research: Mind and motion-The bidirectional link between thought and action
(pp. 159–178). Elsevier.
Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018). Research design: The methodology for interdisciplinary research
framework. Quality and Quantity, 52(3), 1209–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0513-8
Tucker, R., & Collins, M. (2012). What makes champions? A review of the relative contribution of
genes and training to sporting success. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(8), 555–561.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090548
Valeeva, E. V., & Rees, T. (2019). Psychogenetics and sport. In D. Barh & I. Ahmetov (Eds.), Sports,
exercise, and nutritional genomics (pp. 147–165). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-816193-7.00007-5
Violle, C., Navas, M. L., Vile, D., Kazakou, E., Fortunel, C., Hummel, I., & Garnier, E. (2007). Let
the concept of trait be functional! Oikos, 116(5), 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-
1299.2007.15559.x
Wang, G., Tanaka, M., Eynon, N., North, K. N., Williams, A. G., Collins, M., Moran, C. N., Britton,
S. L., Fuku, N., Ashley, E. A., Klissouras, V., Lucia, A., Ahmetov, I. I., de Geus, E., Alsayrafi, M.,
& Pitsiladis, Y. P. (2016). The future of genomic research in athletic performance and adaptation to
training. Medicine and Sport Science, 61, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445241
Willems, Y. E., Boesen, N., Li, J., Finkenauer, C., & Bartels, M. (2019). The heritability of self-
control: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 100, 324–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2019.02.012
11
Group Dynamics
Edson Filho and Francisco Miguel Leo
State of the Art

Research on team dynamics in sport, exercise, and performance psychology
is vast. Overall, scholars concur that team dynamics is a complex and
multilayered process, as individual, team, and contextual factors interact
and together influence the development of high-performing and resilient
teams (Carron & Eys, 2012; Filho, 2019). Notably, previous research on
team dynamics has revolved around theoretical inquiry and instrument
development aimed at discriminating key team processes or attributes,
including cohesion, collective efficacy, and team cognition variables. To
this extent, the Group Environment Questionnaire (see Carron & Eys,
2012), which measures social and task cohesion at the individual and team
level of analyses, and the Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sports (see
Short et al., 2005), which measures efficacy beliefs at the team level, are
among the most used instruments in the field. Regarding team cognition
variables, a scale to measure transactive memory systems in sports (Leo et
al., 2018), and conceptual frameworks on team coordination (Eccles, 2010)
and team mental models (Filho & Tenenbaum, 2020) have been outlined in
attempts to describe and explain how teammates “think as a team” and learn
to be coordinated in space and time.
Recently, research on team dynamics has focused on meta-theoretical
work. Specifically, scholars have tried to understand how (a) successful
teamwork evolves and takes place in the natural world and (b) key team
processes are intertwined in a systematic fashion. Regarding the former,
McEwan and Beauchamp (2014) proposed the meta-theoretical idea of
teamwork in sports, which develops over time (i.e., episodic cycles) and
influences and is influenced by myriad individual, team, and contextual
factors. Regarding the latter, Filho and colleagues (Filho, 2019; Filho et al.,
2015; Leo et al., 2019) have been trying to evolve a parsimonious (best-fit)
input-throughput-output systemic theory of team dynamics by linking
cohesion, collective efficacy, team mental models, coordination, and
performance.
Contemporary research on team dynamics has also been focused on the
notion of “team resilience,” which pertains to the “dynamic, psychosocial
process which protects a group of individuals from the potential negative
effect of stressors they collectively encounter” (Morgan et al., 2013, p.
552). In other words, team resilience is a meta-theoretical (“umbrella”)
construct that encompasses several team attributes as well as individual
team members’ qualities. Accordingly, scholars have tried to understand the
team-level and individual-level qualities that make a team resilient (Fletcher
& Sarkar, 2016) and explore the factors that differentiate resilient (i.e.,
those capable of overcoming adversities) from vulnerable teams (Bowers et
al., 2017; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014).
Furthermore, research interest on big data analytics and the
psychophysiological markers of team processes has grown substantially
over the past decade. Specifically, scholars have been trying to analyze
large data sets on different variables (e.g., historical, physiological,
scouting, tracking) in order to study team dynamics and performance in
sport and exercise settings (see Rein & Memmert, 2016). Scholars have also
been trying to capture peripheral physiological (e.g., galvanic skin response,
heart rate, heart rate variability) and central neural markers (e.g., alpha,
beta, delta, and theta brain waves) of team processes (Hoyle et al., 2020;
Thorson et al., 2018). In other words, it is important to understand latent
variables, such as cohesion, team mental models, and other team processes
(e.g., leadership), and whether they have physiological and measurable
(manifest variables) neural correlates (e.g., Hoyle et al., 2020). Notably, this
line of research has been operationalized through the study of dyadic teams,
with previous research suggesting that changes in interbrain
synchronization across different frequency bands is linked to leadership
dynamics (leader-follower dichotomy) in duet guitar playing (e.g., Sänger et
al., 2013) and the emergence of team mental models (activation of shared
and complementary mental networks) in dyadic cooperative juggling (see
Filho & Tenenbaum, 2020).
Overall, current research on team dynamics has been geared toward
advancing (a) integrated (meta-theoretical) frameworks linking different
levels of analyses and team processes, (b) our understanding of team
resilience, and (c) big data analytics and the search for physiological and
neural markers of team processes. We believe more research on these fronts
is needed. Accordingly, we recommend a number of papers as a starting
point to the interested reader (see Table 11.1) and propose five open
questions on team dynamics in sport, exercise, and performance
psychology.
Table 11.1 Five Key Readings in Team Dynamics
Design
Filho Narrative This article outlines a generative class of models (“a model of
(2019) review models”) linking cohesion, team mental models, coordination,
collective efficacy, and team outcomes. Congruent with Popper’s
falsifiability principle, the author argues that scholars should test and
try to falsify several alterative models linking the aforementioned
team processes to evolve a parsimonious and integrated theory of
team dynamics.
Leo et al. Correlational- The authors study how socialization tactics influence team structure
(2020) longitudinal variables and cohesion in sport teams. Using structural equation
study modeling, they showed that socialization tactics influence task
cohesion, role clarity, and intentions to return to team. These
findings revealed that socialization tactics relate to a range of key
individual-level and team-level factors and highlight the importance
of additional studies on the relations targeting team structure
variables.
McEwan & Narrative The authors reviewed 29 models of teamwork and proposed an
Beauchamp review integrated framework to inform research on teamwork and team
(2014) effectiveness in sports. The proposed input-mediator-output model
considers the role of different team processes, levels of analysis, and
episodic cycles on teamwork and team effectiveness.
Morgan et Qualitative The authors explored the psychosocial enablers and strategies
al. (2019) (ethnography) associated with the development of team resilience within a high-
study level sports team. A season-long ethnography analysis revealed five
categories for team resilience development, thus providing
practitioners with a platform for designing team resilience
interventions in sport settings.
Sänger et Experimental This is a seminal study, wherein electroencephalography data from
al. (2013) (hyperbrain) pairs of guitarists playing a duet music piece were simultaneously
study recorded. Data analysis of the between-brain couplings revealed that
the guitarists’ interbrain networks were amplified during
coordination periods, and that the directionality of these interbrain
networks predicted leader-follower dynamics (i.e., who leads and
who follows) in guitar duets. These findings showed that hyperbrain
methods of analyses can be used to capture the neural markers of
team processes, such as team coordination and peer leadership.

1. Theoretical Question: What Are the Antecedents of Cohesion
and Other Team Processes?
Addressing this question will help advance our understanding of the
mechanisms anteceding the development of key team attributes. Indeed,
extant previous research has attested to the importance of cohesion and
other team attributes to successful performance (Benson et al., 2016; Eys et
al., 2019). In theory, a team showing high levels of cohesion, team mental
models, coordination, and collective efficacy is more likely to be successful
than a team lower on these team attributes (Filho, 2019). Hence, if we are
able to understand and optimize the mechanisms that make it possible for a
team to become cohesive, confident, and coordinated, then we can set the
conditions for the development of high-performing teams (Leo et al., 2019).
In this regard, Carron and Eys (2012) have outlined a series of background
factors that precede cohesion, namely (a) individual characteristics of the
players, (b) group environment, and (c) team structure.
Individual characteristics refer to the group composition (e.g., motor
abilities, social status) or the quantity, variability, and compatibility of
group resources (i.e., complementarity of skills between players). To this
extent, there is a need to advance research on team diversity. Recent studies
revealed that diversity in teams (e.g., number of players from different
nationalities) is positively associated with task cohesion (Godfrey et al.,
2020). Teammates with different backgrounds bring unique insights to the
execution and problem-solving of team tasks (Filho & Rettig, 2018). Hence,
further research is needed to understand the role of diversity in the
development of team processes and outputs, especially because we are
living in an increasingly globalized world wherein multicultural teams are
becoming more and more prevalent in sports and other domains (Godfrey et
al., 2020).
Group environment pertains to the contextual and group-level variables
that might impact the emergence and development of cohesion and other
team processes. To date, group size and competition level have been the
most studied group environment factors (Carron & Eys, 2012). There is
consensus that, as group size and competitive level increases, cohesion
levels tend to decrease (see Carron & Eys, 2012). Therefore, future research
should focus on other elements of group environment, including
environmental pressure in matches (i.e., created by opponents, fans, or
social media) and team and club structure (i.e., players’ tenure/time in the
team, role of managers or presidents, coach turnover), which have been
found to influence performance in sports (Juravich et al., 2017).
Team structure has been operationalized through the assessment of
coaches’ behaviors and athletes’ behaviors and roles (Eys et al., 2019).
Noteworthy, different theoretical approaches have been used to examine the
relationship between coach behaviors and team processes (Bosselut et al.,
2018; Leo et al., 2021). Regardless of the theoretical background used to
study team structure, scholars observed that cohesion levels depend, in part,
on coaches’ behaviors. Coaches who exhibit high task and social support
(Leo et al., 2021) and transformational leadership styles are more likely to
develop highly cohesive teams (Bosselut et al., 2018). Coaches who foster
task-oriented motivational climates (García-Calvo et al., 2014) and who are
perceived as competent and fair by their players are also successful in
developing highly cohesive teams (García-Calvo et al., 2019). Considering
this literature, we believe future research on this topic should focus on how
different behavioral leadership styles influence other team processes (e.g.,
team mental models, team coordination) through intervention programs
based on robust experimental studies.
Athlete leadership is also an important part of team structure (for a
review see Cotterill & Fransen, 2016). Specifically, the quantity and quality
of peer leaders within a team influence cohesion because peer leaders help
to integrate newcomers (Leo et al., 2020) and to develop a task-oriented
motivational climate (García-Calvo et al., 2014). Given that peer leaders
foster the development of high-performing teams, future research on peer
leadership should aim to develop intervention programs to capacity peer
leaders (e.g., Mertens et al., 2020). Research on the relationship between
peer leaders and team coaches might also yield new insights into the nature
of high-performing teams.
Noteworthy, players’ roles within the team have also been studied under
the “team structure umbrella.” Individuals with clear roles and who commit
to their roles help to improve team dynamics (Bosselut et al., 2012;
Coleman et al., 2020; Eys et al., 2020). To advance knowledge on this area,
scholars should investigate how (a) the integration of new players occurs
(e.g., how veteran players feel about the signings of new players) and (b)
competition between players with the same role impacts team dynamics
(see Leo et al., 2020). Noteworthy, research on these fronts should target the
beginning of the season, as this phase is a crucial period during which team
roles are established (Leo et al., 2020).
In summary, variables related to the individuals, the environment, and the
structure of teams influence overall team functioning, performance, and
satisfaction (Carron and Eys, 2012). Hence, it is important that scholars
keep on asking questions about group structure to develop high-functioning
teams, wherein myriad team processes (e.g., cohesion, collective efficacy,
coordination, transactive memory systems, and team mental models)
positively influence one another (Filho, 2019; Leo et al., 2019).
2. Theoretical Question: What Is the “Best Fit” Input-

Throughput-Output Model Linking Team Processes and
Outcomes?
Across domains, scholars work toward theoretical integration by combining
models and testing for alternative solutions. Accordingly, to advance theory
and practice in the field, we need to evolve an integrated model of team
dynamics. Foremost, advancing an integrated theory of team dynamics
would help to evolve best-practice guidelines for team building.
Specifically, practitioners would be clear on the unique properties (i.e.,
discriminant validity) of cohesion, team mental models, and collective
efficacy and understand the reciprocal linkages among these team
processes. As such, Filho (2019) has urged scholars to test a series of
models linking key team processes, namely cohesion, team mental models,
coordination, collective efficacy, and team outcomes (e.g., performance and
satisfaction).
Filho (2019) posits that scholars should test for alternative solutions until
a best-fit and parsimonious model is reached. For instance, pursuing this
research line would allow to clarify whether team cognition variables (e.g.,
team mental models and transactive memory systems) lead to the
development of collective efficacy, or if team cognition and collective
efficacy develop simultaneously (see Filho et al., 2015; Leo et al., 2019).
Future research should also consider the role of moderating variables,
representing different levels of analyses (e.g., age, gender, leadership
behaviors), on the linkage among the aforementioned team processes and
outcomes.
Multiwave data collection studies are also needed to advance our
understanding of time effects on specific team processes (e.g., cohesion,
collective efficacy) and team dynamics at large. Specifically, cross-lagged
and longitudinal growth and modeling should be used to examine how the
linkage among team processes and outcomes varies over time. Multicase
studies comparing changes in the aforementioned team processes and across
teams of different levels are also worth pursuing. Multicase studies can help
to clarify (a) the role of contextual factors (e.g., club structure) in the
development of high-performing teams and (b) how fluctuations in a given
team process (e.g., cohesion) can yield different outcomes in different
teams. Finally, experimental and quasi-experimental studies manipulating
different team processes (e.g., team mental models, collective efficacy) are
needed to clarify input-output relations among different team processes.
Overall, working toward an integrated model of team dynamics will allow
practitioners to develop high-performing and resilient teams.
3. Applied Question: What Are the Individual and Team-Level

Mechanisms Associated With the Development of Resilient
Teams?
Competitive sport teams must overcome numerous performance challenges,
which inevitably influence team dynamics. Put plainly, for a team to be
successful, it must be able to maintain a positive and self-reinforcing
linkage among team processes (e.g., cohesion, team mental models,
collective efficacy) during times of difficulty (Filho, 2019). That is, the
ability to remain resilient in the face of difficulties is a characteristic of
high-performing teams (López-Gajardo et al., 2020).
It follows that longitudinal studies targeting different sports and
performance contexts are needed to clarify whether team processes are
reflective indicators of team resilience (Bowers et al., 2017; Filho, 2019). In
this regard, Bowers et al. (2017) proposed a theoretical model
conceptualizing team resilience as a second-order emergent state.
Specifically, Bowers et al. (2017) posited that team resilience is the
combined result of several team-level emergent states, such as group
cohesion, collective efficacy, and shared mental models. Filho (2019) has
also suggested that team resilience is a meta-theoretical concept,
encompassing a team’s levels of cohesion, team mental models, collective
efficacy, and team coordination. As such, multiwave studies are needed to
clarify whether team resilience is indeed reflected by teammates’ perceived
levels of different team processes over the course of a season. Alternatively,
and perhaps counterintuitively, high levels of some team processes (e.g.,
high social cohesion) might hinder rather than facilitate team resilience (i.e.,
“too much of a good thing effect”), as is the case with groupthink, for
instance.
The synthesis of different theoretical models is another ripe area for
future research on team resilience, especially given that several models of
team resilience have been proposed recently. For instance, Gucciardi et al.
(2018) identified nine key areas for development of team resilience,
including individual, group, and contextual areas. Morgan et al. (2013)
suggested that team resilience is composed of four subfactors (i.e., group
structure, team learning, social capital, and collective efficacy) and related
to transformational leadership, shared leadership, team learning, group
social identity, and positive emotions. Morgan, Fletcher, and Sarkar (2019)
have also suggested that team resilience is related to a series of “contextual
enablers,” including the development of a system of responsibility among
the team members and a strong team identity. While we understand that
team resilience is a multilevel and multidimensional construct (López-
Gajardo et al., 2020), we echo the notion that scholars should work to
falsify their models until an integrated and parsimonious model can be
achieved.
We thus call scholars to juxtapose these several models of team resilience
to evolve a parsimonious and integrated model of team resilience. This can
be done through the use of structural equation modeling aimed at (a)
capturing the reflective and formative indicators of team resilience and (b)
contrasting alternative models of team resilience until a “best-fit model” is
achieved. Advancing an integrated and parsimonious model of team
resilience will allow for the development of evidence-based team building
at large and team resilience in particular. Theoretical clarity on team
resilience will also facilitate meta-analytical work on the relationship
between team resilience and other team processes and outcomes.
4. Methodological Question: How Can We Use Big Data

Analyses and Psychophysiological Monitoring to Study Team
Processes and Outcomes?
To date, the bulk of research on team dynamics in sport, exercise, and
performance psychology is based on cross-sectional and survey data and
qualitative inquiries. A promising area of future research pertains to the use
of big data methodologies and intrateam psychophysiological monitoring to
study team processes and outcomes. Specifically, the use of tracking (e.g.,
GPS, online video analysis), physiological (e.g., heart rate and heart rate
variability), and scouting data (e.g., percentage of successful passes,
number of fouls) can help to explain team coordination and performance
(see Rein & Memmert, 2016). For instance, Müller and Lindenberger
(2011) have shown that the cardiovascular responses of choir members
involved in cooperative singing tend to be synchronized, which in turn
suggests that team coordination hinges on physiological synchronization.
Previous research has also shown that big data analysis of historical events
can be used to predict team performance in professional sports (e.g., Filho
& Rettig, 2018).
Notably, scholars interested in using big data and psychophysiological
monitoring methods to study team processes and outcomes must consider
whether their data was collected before, during, or after team practice and
performance (Thorson et al., 2018). Importantly, data collected during
actual practice and performance must be “locked in time”; that is, the data
from all participants must be collected simultaneously (for a review see
Thorson et al., 2018). Regardless of the time window of interest, we
encourage scholars to propose and test ways to use big data analytics and
psychophysiological monitoring to understand emergent team processes and
team dynamics. For instance, researchers can use GPS data to examine
whether more cohesive and coordinated teams run more or better (i.e.,
distributed effort) than less cohesive teams. Similarly, more confident teams
might show similar levels of heart rate variability before a “big match,” in
comparison to teams with lower levels of collective efficacy.
Overall, team processes are emergent states; that is, they emerge from
“the team as a whole” rather than from individual team members (Filho &
Tenenbaum, 2020; Thorson et al., 2018). As such, big data analytics and
team-level psychophysiological monitoring can help to further understand
well-studied team processes in sports (e.g., cohesion, collective efficacy), as
well as other group-level constructs such as compliance, networking, and
team fatigue and burnout, to name but a few. Intrateam psychophysiological
monitoring can also shed light on the neural markers of team processes, as
elaborated upon next.
5. Methodological Question: How Can We Use Hyperbrain

Methods to Study Team Dynamics?
Research on hyperbrains (when two or more brains are measured
simultaneously) is needed to move the field forward. In this regard, recent
advancements in electroencephalography (EEG) methods, including the
development of portable systems, have allowed for the simultaneous
monitoring of two or more brains engaged in joint motor action. Previous
research in this area has focused on hand-to-hand mimics, dyadic juggling,
dyadic guitar playing, cooperative video-game playing, and simulated
flights involving pilot and copilot interactions (for a review see Filho &
Tenenbaum, 2020). We invite scholars to continue studying these joint
motor tasks and to advance other experimental designs to advance
knowledge of interbrain interactions.
Advancing hyperbrain methodologies is essential to further our
understanding of the neural correlates of team processes and team learning.
As aforementioned, previous research on interbrain interactions has been
used to study coordination, team mental models, and leadership in dyadic
teams (Filho & Tenenbaum, 2020; Hoyle et al., 2020). Hyperbrain research
with dyadic teams is a good starting point because a dyad is the smallest
team possible, and because every larger team can be broken down into
subteams of two individuals (Filho, in press). Studying triads and quartets
teams and subteams (e.g., spine players, including the goalkeeper, defender,
center midfield, and offensive player in soccer; the center, quarterback, and
wide receiver in American football) is a natural next step for research on
this front.
Noteworthy, hyperbrain research with dyads and triads can also be used
to study the recently proposed notion of the shared zones of optimal
functioning (SZOF) framework (see Filho, in press). In a nutshell, the
SZOF framework purports that dyadic teams or subteams share a
psychophysiological state linked to optimal and suboptimal performance
experiences. The synchronous monitoring of two or more brains engaged in
joint motor action can put to test this theorizing and help develop shared
bio- and neurofeedback interventions aimed at bringing teammates to a
shared psychophysiological state linked to optimal performance.
Overall, by engaging in the simultaneous monitoring of multiple brains
while manipulating individual (e.g., skill-level), team (e.g., historicity—
time practicing together), task (e.g., complexity level), and context (e.g.,
high and low environmental pressure) variables, scholars can examine how
within-brain and between-brain rhythms influence team dynamics and
performance. Such research will most certainly move our field forward and
lead to the development of bio- and neurofeedback interventions targeting
the team level of analyses.
Conclusion
In summary, we believe that future research should explore the antecedents
of key team processes and seek to evolve an integrated and parsimonious
theory of team dynamics and team resilience. Furthermore, we suggest that
novel research using big analytic and psychophysiological monitoring
methods is needed to advance our understanding of physiological and
neural markers of team processes and outcomes. Finally, we propose that
advancing research on multibrain monitoring will allow for the
development of shared (multiperson) bio- and neurofeedback interventions.
References
Benson, A. J., Šiška, P., Eys, M., Priklerová, S., & Slepička, P. (2016). A prospective multilevel
examination of the relationship between cohesion and team performance in elite youth sport.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 39–46. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.07.009
Bosselut, G., Boiché, J., Salamé, B., Fouquereau, E., Guilbert, L., & Serrano, O. C. (2018).
Transformational leadership and group cohesion in sport: Examining the mediating role of
interactional justice using a within-and between-team approach. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching, 13, 912–928. doi:10.1177/1747954118801156
Bosselut, G., McLaren, C. D., Eys, M. A., & Heuzé, J. P. (2012). Reciprocity of the relationship
between role ambiguity and group cohesion in youth interdependent sport. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 13, 341–348. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.002
Bowers, C., Kreutzer, C., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Lamb, J. (2017). Team resilience as a second-order
emergent state: A theoretical model and research directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1360.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01360
Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Coleman, T., Godfrey, M., López-Gajardo, M. A., Leo, F. M., & Eys, M. A. (2020). Do it for the
team: Youth perceptions of team cohesion and role commitment in interdependent sport. Sport,
Exercise, and Performance Psychology. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cotterill, S. T., & Fransen, K. (2016). Athlete leadership in sport teams: Current understanding and
future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 116–133.
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2015.1124443
Eccles, D. (2010). The coordination of labour in sports teams. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 3, 154–170. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2010.519400
Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M., Godfrey, M., Dawson, K., Loughead, T., & Schinke, R. (2020). Role
commitment and acceptance in a sport context. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 42, 89–
101. doi:10.1123/jsep.2019-0057
Eys, M. A., Bruner, M. W., & Martin, L. J. (2019). The dynamic group environment in sport and
exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 40–47. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.001
Filho, E. (2019). Team dynamics theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental
models, coordination, and collective efficacy. Sport Sciences for Health, 15, 1–20.
doi:10.1007/s11332-018-0519-1
Filho, E. (in press). Shared zones of optimal functioning (SZOF): A framework to capture peak
performance, momentum, psycho-bio-social synchrony and leader-follower dynamics in teams.
Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology.
Filho, E., & Rettig, J. (2018). The road to victory in the UEFA women’s Champions League: A
multi-level analysis of successful coaches, teams, and countries. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
39, 132–146. oi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.012
Filho, E., & Tenenbaum, G. (2020). Team mental models: Theory, empirical evidence, and applied
implications. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C. Eklund, & B. Nataniel (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology
(4th ed., pp. 611–631). John Wiley & Sons.
Filho, E., Tenenbaum, G., & Yang, Y. (2015). Cohesion, team mental models, and collective efficacy:
Towards an integrated framework of team dynamics in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33, 641–
653. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.957714
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2016). Mental fortitude training: An evidence-based approach to
developing psychological resilience for sustained success. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action,
7, 135–157. doi:10.1080/21520704.2016.1255496
García-Calvo, T., Leo, F. M., & González Ponce, I. (2019). Coach justice and competence in football.
In E. Konter, J. Beckmann, & T. M. Loughead (Eds.), Football psychology: From theory to
practice (pp. 138–149). Routledge.
García-Calvo, T., Leo, F. M., Gonzalez-Ponce, I., Sánchez-Miguel, P. A., Mouratidis, A., &
Ntoumanis, N. (2014). Perceived coach-created and peer-created motivational climates and their
associations with team cohesion and athlete satisfaction: Evidence from a longitudinal study.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1738–1750. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.918641
Godfrey, M., Kim, J., Eluère, M., & Eys, M. A. (2020). Diversity in cultural diversity research: A
scoping review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 128–146.
doi:10.1080–1750984x.2019.1616316
Gucciardi, D. F., Crane, M., Ntoumanis, N., Parker, S. K., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Ducker, K. J.,
Peeling, P., Chapman, M. T., Quested, E., & Temby, P. (2018). The emergence of team resilience:
A multilevel conceptual model of facilitating factors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 91, 729–768. doi:10.1111/joop.12237
Hoyle, B., Taylor, J., Zugic, L., & Filho, E. (2020). Coordination cost and super-efficiency in
teamwork: The role of communication, psychological states, cardiovascular responses, and
rhythms. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 45, 323–341. doi:10.1007/s10484-020-
09479-8
Juravich, M., Salaga, S., & Babiak, K. (2017). Upper echelons in professional sport: The impact of
NBA general managers on team performance. Journal of Sport Management, 31, 466–479.
doi:10.1123/jsm.2017-0044
Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., García-Calvo, T., Sánchez-Oliva, D., & Filho, E. (2019). The
relationship among cohesion, transactive memory systems, and collective efficacy in professional
soccer teams: A multilevel structural equation analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 23, 44–56. doi:10.1037/gdn0000097
Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., Pulido, J. J., López-Gajardo, M. A., & García-Calvo, T. (2021).
Multilevel analysis of coach leadership, group cohesion and collective efficacy in semiprofessional
football teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology.
Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Pulido, J. J., & García-Calvo, T. (2018).
Adaptation and validation of the Transactive Memory System Scale in Sport (TMSS-S).
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13, 1015–1022.
Leo, F. M., López-Gajardo, M. A., González-Ponce, I., García-Calvo, T., Benson, A. J., & Eys, M.
(2020). How socialization tactics relate to role clarity, cohesion, and intentions to return in soccer
teams. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 50, 101735. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101735
Lopez-Gajardo, M. A., Pulido, J. J., Flores-Cidoncha, A., Tapia-Serrano, M. A. & Leo, F. M. (2021).
Do teams with greater characteristics of team resilience perceive higher performance at the end of
the season? A multi-level analysis in sport teams. Manuscript in preparation.
McEwan, D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2014). Teamwork in sport: a theoretical and integrative review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 229–250.
Mertens, N., Boen, F., Steffens, N. K., Cotterill, S. T., Haslam, S. A., & Fransen, K. (2020). Leading
together towards a stronger “us”: An experimental test of the effectiveness of the 5R Shared
Leadership Program in basketball teams. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 23, 770–775.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.01.010
Morgan, P. B. C., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Defining and characterizing team resilience in
elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 549–559.
doi:10.1016/J.PSYCHSPORT.2013.01.004
Morgan, P. B. C., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2019). Developing team resilience: A season-long study
of psychosocial enablers and strategies in a high-level sports team. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 45, 101543. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101543
Müller, V., & Lindenberger, U. (2011). Cardiac and respiratory patterns synchronize between persons
during choir singing. PloS One, 6(9), e24893.
Rein, R., & Memmert, D. (2016). Big data and tactical analysis in elite soccer: Future challenges and
opportunities for sports science. Springer Plus, 5, 1410. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-3108-2
Sänger, J., Müller, V., & Lindenberger, U. (2013). Directionality in hyperbrain networks
discriminates between leaders and followers in guitar duets. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7,
1–14. doi:10.3389/ fnhum.2013.00234
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Psychological resilience in sport performers: A review of stressors
and protective factors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1419–1434.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.901551
Short, S. E., Sullivan, P., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Development and preliminary validation of the
collective efficacy questionnaire for sports. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 9, 181–202. doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee0903_3
Thorson, K. R., West, T. V., & Mendes, W. B. (2018). Measuring physiological influence in dyads: A
guide to designing, implementing, and analyzing dyadic physiological studies. Psychological
Methods, 23, 595–616. doi:10.1037/met0000166
12
Athlete Leadership
Todd M. Loughead, Krista J. Munroe-Chandler, Matthieu M. Boisvert, and
Katherine E. Hirsch
State of the Art

To those involved in sport, leadership is viewed as a key element to
achieving team success. Coaches are often seen as the leader of their
respective teams. This is not surprising since an important role of coaches as
leaders is to assist their athletes in improving performance levels. Coaches
have a plethora of duties to perform and may not be able to attend to all of
their players’ needs. Consequently, athletes also seek leadership from their
teammates to help ensure that their needs are being satisfied. This source of
leadership has been termed athlete leadership. Consequently, athlete
leadership is defined as an athlete who occupies a formal or informal
leadership role within the team and influences team members to achieve a
common goal (Loughead et al., 2006). To some extent, this definition
challenged the traditional characterization of leadership as a unidirectional,
hierarchical system and replaced it with a fluid, inclusive, and interactive
form of leadership. As such, the definition implies that multiple athletes can
perform leadership. This is evidenced by the fact that athletes can occupy
formal leadership roles (i.e., designated to a leadership position within a
team such as a team captain) or an informal leadership role that emerges
based on athletes’ interactions and communications with their teammates.
Therefore, athlete leadership can be viewed as a form of shared or
distributed leadership among teammates. The terms shared and distributed
leadership have been used interchangeably and refer to leadership emanating
from those holding formal leadership roles but also enacted by multiple
individuals on the team. For instance, team members can deliver leadership
when they feel it is appropriate and warranted and then step back in other
moments to allow others to lead. In doing so, athlete leadership becomes a
shared dynamic team process composed of mutual influence and shared
responsibility among team members, who lead each other toward the
achievement of team goals (Loughead et al., 2019).
In the last 15 years, there has been a steady increase of research in the area
of athlete leadership utilizing both qualitative and quantitative research
designs (see Table 12.1 for key readings in this field). From a qualitative
research perspective, a central research theme has been the characteristics
required for effective athlete leadership. For instance, through the use of
semistructured interviews, Bucci et al. (2012) found coaches viewed
effective athlete leaders as those players who possessed a strong work ethic,
were a positive role model for their teammates, and were able to follow the
coaching staff’s instructions. Other characteristics of effective athlete leaders
were being generous, being honest, and showing a concern for teammates’
well-being. Similarly, Dupuis, Bloom, and Loughead (2006) conducted
semistructured interviews with six former intercollegiate male hockey
captains that were viewed by their coaches as being exceptional athlete
leaders. They showed that effective leaders needed to have emotional
control, be strong communicators, remain positive in front of teammates,
and be respectful toward both teammates and the coaching staff. Additional
characteristics of effective athlete leaders include being trustworthy,
generous, selfless, and respectful, and having good interpersonal skills. In
addition to these characteristics, Camiré (2016) interviewed a professional
hockey captain who believed that being an effective leader required him to
be open to learning, be a positive role model, lead by example, have a strong
work ethic, and work collectively with the other team leaders. In their
examination of shared mental models, Filho et al. (2014) used a case study
approach to investigate a volleyball captain’s perceived leadership role at the
individual and team levels. The captain noted that at the individual level,
communicating both on and off the court, being a motivator to her
teammates, and coordinating defensive roles were critical responsibilities for
her to fulfill. At the team level, the captain believed that having team routine
behaviors (pregame, after each point) mentally helped them be prepared.
Further, the captain also felt that the team shared a similar match philosophy
toward volleyball that included being committed to the team’s game plan,
having common team goals, and supporting each other during the game.
Taken together, these studies highlight the numerous characteristics that are
required for effective leadership.
When applying a quantitative research perspective, researchers have
utilized two general approaches. The first approach has been the use of
traditional self-report questionnaires such as the Leadership Scale for Sports
(LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and the Differentiated Transformational
Leadership Inventory (DTLI; Callow et al., 2009) to measure the frequency
of athlete leadership behaviors. The LSS measures five leadership behaviors
that include training and instruction (teaches the skills and tactics of the
sport), democratic behavior (encourages participation in the decision-
making process), autocratic behavior (stresses personal authority), social
support (shows concern for the welfare of teammates), and positive feedback
(recognizes and rewards good performance). The DTLI assesses seven
dimensions that include six transformational and one transactional leadership
behaviors. The six transformational leadership dimensions are inspirational
motivation (provides meaning and challenge to teammates), individual
consideration (demonstrates acceptance of teammate differences, needs, and
goals), intellectual stimulation (finds new ways to old problems),
appropriate role modeling (leads by example), fostering acceptance of group
goals and promoting teamwork (encourages cooperation among teammates
toward a common goal), and high-performance expectations (creates an
atmosphere by encouraging high-performance standards). The lone
transactional leadership behavior is contingent reward (rewards teammates
for performing well).
To date, numerous outcomes, at both the individual and team levels, have
been examined in relation to athlete leadership behaviors. At the individual
level, athlete transformational leadership behavior was positively related to
the outcomes of sport enjoyment and intrinsic motivation (Price & Weiss,
2013). That is, athlete leaders who frequently used the leadership behaviors
of inspiration, motivation, enhanced creativity, and problem-solving had
teammates that enjoyed their sporting experience and were motivated to
pursue challenging tasks and learn skills. At the team level, cohesion (i.e.,
teams sticking together and remaining united) is arguably the most studied
construct. In their examination of intercollegiate athletes, Vincer and
Loughead (2010) found the athlete leadership behaviors of social support
and positive feedback (measured via the LSS) were associated to both task
and social cohesion, while democratic behavior was positively related to task
cohesion and autocratic behavior was negatively related to both task and
social cohesion. Similarly, Callow et al. (2009), using the DTLI to measure
athlete leadership behaviors, found that fostering acceptance of group goals
and promoting teamwork, individual consideration, and high-performance
expectations were positively related to task cohesion, while fostering
acceptance of group goals and promoting teamwork were associated with
social cohesion.
The second quantitative approach has been the use of social network
analysis (SNA). The advantage of SNA, compared to questionnaires such as
the LSS and DTLI, is that it assesses athlete leadership between team
members. That is, SNA is a research method that aims to examine the
relationships that individuals and teams form with each other. While there is
a small number of studies that have used this quantitative approach, it can be
said that (a) over the course of a season there were increases in the overall
amount of task and social leadership (Duguay et al., 2020), (b) the leadership
responsibilities on a team are shared by numerous athletes (Fransen et al.,
2015a), (c) teammates feel more socially connected to their team when high-
quality leadership is available (Fransen et al., 2015b), and (d) and having
high-quality athlete leadership was positively associated with stronger
feelings of team cohesion (Loughead et al., 2016).
Table 12.1 Five Key Readings in the Field of Athlete Leadership
Design
Callow et Cross-sectional Use of a transformational leadership inventory to measure athlete
al. (2009) leadership behaviors. Found a positive relationship with task and social
cohesion.
Duguay Intervention A theoretically grounded, season-long athlete leadership development
et al. program that enhanced leadership behaviors, athlete satisfaction, and
(2016) peer-motivational climate from pre- to postintervention.
Fransen Social network This study highlighted the presence of shared athlete leadership. The
et al. analysis shared nature of athlete leadership was distributed among formal and
(2015a) informal leaders.
Loughead Cross-sectional One of the first studies to show that coaches and athlete leaders display
& Hardy varying amounts of leadership behaviors. Specifically, coaches and
(2005) athlete leaders used differing amounts of the five leadership behaviors
assessed by the Leadership Scale for Sports.
Loughead Cross-sectional This study advanced a definition of athlete leadership. It found that
et al. athlete leaders performed task, social, and external leadership functions.
(2006)

1. Theoretical Question: Is There a Need to Advance an Athlete
Leadership Framework?
To help answer this question, it is important to examine the frameworks that
have been previously used to study athlete leadership. The two primary
models emanate from sport coaching and organizational psychology.
Chelladurai’s (2007) multidimensional model of leadership (MML), from
sport coaching, is a linear model composed of antecedent variables that
influence the throughput of leadership behaviors, which in turn influence the
consequences. The antecedents are categorized into three factors that include
situational characteristics, leader characteristics, and member characteristics.
The situational characteristics refer to factors such as group goals, task type
(e.g., individual versus team, closed versus open tasks), and the social
context of the team. The leader characteristics include personal
characteristics of the leader such as age, gender, or experience. Lastly,
member characteristics include factors such as personality (e.g., need for
achievement, need for affiliation, cognitive structure) and ability to perform
the specific task. According to Chelladurai, the throughput refers to
leadership behaviors and is viewed along three types: required (leadership
behaviors needed to meet the situational demands), actual (leadership
behaviors that are displayed), and preferred (leadership behaviors favored by
team members). The final component in the model is the consequences.
Originally, Chelladurai identified two outcomes: satisfaction and
performance. However, Chelladurai noted that the consequences could
encapsulate more than these two identified outcomes.
Avolio’s (1999) full range leadership model (FRLM) is another
framework that has been used to study athlete leadership. Similar to the
MML, this model encapsulates a broad range of leadership behaviors that
can be classified from least to most effective: laissez-faire, transactional, and
transformational forms of leadership. Laissez-faire is a form of leadership
that is described as nonleadership or an absence of leadership (Avolio,
1999). Transactional leadership is characterized by an exchange relationship
between the leader (e.g., athlete leader) and follower (e.g., teammates) to
meet their own self-interests through the use of reward and recognition.
While transactional leadership is an effective form of leadership through the
use of positive and corrective forms of feedback, to evaluate followers to
achieve more, leaders need to supplement these transactional behaviors with
transformational leadership behaviors. Transformational leadership is about
inducing the follower past their own self-interests, making followers more
aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, and engaging them in
thinking about the higher order needs for the good of the team. Augmenting
these two theoretical frameworks (MML and FRLM), another useful
paradigm that has been alluded to in several athlete leadership studies and in
the definition of athlete leadership is the notion of shared leadership. Zhu et
al. (2018) noted three key characteristics of shared leadership: (a) lateral
influence among peers (i.e., teammates), (b) emergent team phenomenon
(leadership roles are distributed among teammates), and (c) leadership roles
and influence are distributed among team members (i.e., teammates). Based
on these three characteristics, the sport team is a natural context for shared
leadership to occur. Consequently, there is no unified theoretical model that
explains the emergence and consequences of shared athlete leadership.
To help guide researchers in the field of athlete leadership, we advance a
working framework drawing from the extant literature (see Figure 12.1). At
the heart of the model is shared athlete leadership, wherein numerous
athletes exhibit leadership and do so using a wide variety of behaviors
(Duguay et al., 2018). Similar to other sport leadership models (Beauchamp
et al., 2019; Chelladurai, 2007; Horn, 2008; Smoll & Smith, 1989), athlete
leadership is also shaped by antecedent factors that include characteristics of
athlete leaders, teammates, and/or coaches (e.g., age, experience,
personality) as well as situational characteristics (e.g., task type, level of
competition, practice, competition), team characteristics (e.g., team size,
ability, maturity, diversity), and team culture (e.g., values, beliefs). Further,
the relationship between characteristics of athlete leaders, teammates,
and/or coaches and shared athlete leadership will be moderated by the
psychological factors of athlete leaders, teammates, and/or coaches (e.g.,
motivational orientation, efficacy beliefs, self-esteem, behavioral intentions).
The situational factors, team characteristics, and team culture will directly
impact shared athlete leadership. Shared athlete leadership will impact both
individual (e.g., athlete satisfaction, motivational orientation, self-efficacy,
individual performance) and team-level (e.g., cohesion, collective efficacy,
intrateam communication, team performance) outcomes. There is a feedback
loop from individual and team-level outcomes to shared athlete leadership.
Athlete leaders are likely to alter their behaviors based on the relative
achievement of the outcome variables.
Figure 12.1. A working model for the study of athlete leadership.
2. Methodological Question: Is There a Need for an Athlete

Leadership Behaviors–Specific Questionnaire?
As noted earlier, the LSS (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and the DTLI (Callow
et al., 2009) have been primarily used to measure athlete leadership
behaviors. Both of these inventories were originally developed to assess
sport coaching and military contexts, respectively. A comment that we have
received from reviewers when publishing our research findings is whether
these two inventories are appropriate when measuring athlete leadership
behaviors. Confirmatory factor analysis of the LSS and DTLI have shown
both inventories to be valid and reliable (see Callow et al., 2009; Vincer &
Loughead, 2010). Further evidence supports the usefulness of measuring the
athlete leadership behaviors contained in these two inventories. Specifically,
Duguay et al. (2018) asked athletes to rate on a 5-point scale how important
(higher scores reflect greater importance) it was for their athlete leaders to
exhibit these leadership behaviors. For eight of the 11 leadership behaviors,
scores were above 4, and the other three were above 3 on the 5-point scale.
Taken together, the results showed that the leadership behaviors contained
within the LSS and DTLI are important for athlete leaders to exhibit.
However, two caveats should be noted. First, if the LSS and DTLI are
retained as inventories, an analysis of the items should be conducted to
determine whether they are appropriate for measuring athlete leadership. For
instance, the LSS item “Encourages team members to make suggestions for
ways of conducting practices” may be attributed more to coaches than
athlete leaders since the latter may not have the ability or authority to dictate
practices or training sessions. Second, Avolio (1999) noted that it is possible
that other aspects of leadership have not yet been discovered. In fact, we
have conducted in-depth interviews with athletes asking them about what
behaviors would constitute effective athlete leadership. While these
preliminary results have shown that the leadership behaviors from both the
LSS and DTLI are present, we have found that other leadership behaviors
unique to athlete leadership have emerged, such as fostering cohesion and
team norms (Loughead & Munroe-Chandler, 2020). Thus, to capture the full
extent of athlete leadership behaviors, a specific questionnaire should be
developed by researchers.
3. Methodological Question: How Can the Field of Athlete

Leadership Be Advanced in Terms of Research Methodology?
To answer this question, we must first look to the type of research published
most often in the area. To say that most of the research has been cross-
sectional in nature would be an understatement. A survey of the research
conducted for this chapter showed that approximately 70% of the articles
published in the area of athlete leadership have employed a cross-sectional
design, thus allowing for adequate description and generalization. Through
survey (e.g., Callow et al., 2009; Loughead & Hardy, 2005) and SNA
methodologies (e.g., Fransen et al., 2015a; Loughead et al., 2016), various
samples have been recruited with respect to sport, age, and gender (e.g.,
intercollegiate athletes, youth athletes, soccer players, frisbee players).
However, these studies have provided a mere snapshot of athlete leadership
at one moment in time. Granted, cross-sectional designs allow for many
variables to be examined simultaneously (e.g., athlete leadership, cohesion,
and athlete satisfaction) and are oftentimes more convenient to implement
than longitudinal or experimental designs. Consequently, they fail to account
for changes over time at the group and/or individual level, and it is difficult
to determine causation.
Researchers (Duguay et al., 2020; Fransen et al., 2018) have used SNA to
examine athlete leadership over time (longitudinal). Using this type of
analysis, answers can be sought to such questions as (a) Does leadership
change over the course of an athletic season? (b) What are the antecedents
and consequences of these changes over time? (c) How do these changes
over time impact team processes and outcomes such as cohesion and
performance? Answers to these questions not only advance the literature on
athlete leadership but also provide coaches and sport psychology
practitioners with information leading to a better understanding of the
leadership processes in teams.
To date (and to the authors’ knowledge), there have been no studies in the
area of athlete leadership that have used an experimental design. Several
studies (e.g., Duguay et al., 2016; Voight, 2012) have delivered athlete
leadership interventions with one team over the course of a season, but none
have included a control group. Notwithstanding the time and the cost
required to conduct experimental studies, it is often difficult to find coaches
and athletes who are open to participating in a no-treatment control group. A
researcher may consider using a matched experimental and control repeated-
measures design wherein the control group will receive the intervention
(e.g., leadership training) at the end of the study (waitlist control).
Experimental studies are desperately needed to generate causal knowledge
that will inform policy and applied practice.
4. Theoretical Question: What Can We Do to Disentangle the Use

of “Leader” and “Leadership”?
As noted earlier, researchers have examined the characteristics of athlete
leaders (e.g., ideal number of athlete leaders present on a team) and
determinants of effective and ineffective leadership (e.g., being a positive
role model). While the main responsibility of a leader is to provide effective
leadership, a leader and leadership do not inherently produce the same
behaviors and outcomes. Given the incongruence in behaviors and
outcomes, researchers should be careful to use “leader” and “leadership” as
distinct, noninterchangeable terms.
The distinction in verbiage may sound minor at first glance, but making
the distinction between leader and leadership is necessary because a leader is
a person, whereas leadership is a process. Leadership has been identified as a
shared process among team members (Duguay et al., 2019) wherein it is
exhibited by athletes who are informal or formal leaders. However, athlete
leaders can behave in ways that are not characteristic of good leadership
(e.g., being selfish), thereby demonstrating that mere presence of athlete
leaders does not quantify the amount of effective leadership that is shown or
present on a team. By disentangling “leader” and “leadership” terminology,
we can better understand how leaders operate as individuals and how
leadership functions as a process without confusing the person and the
process.
As researchers and practitioners, we can take a number of steps to resolve
this issue. First, be attentive of our own understanding and use of the terms
leader and leadership. Second, be mindful of articles, studies, and
questionnaires on leaders and leadership. It is important that the objective of
the study (e.g., to analyze leadership) matches the survey tools to measure
that objective (e.g., leadership behavior questionnaire) and that the language
remains consistent throughout the manuscript such that leader language is
used to describe a person exhibiting leadership or given the title as athlete
leader. In contrast, leadership language should be used to describe the
process of leaders’ actions and thoughts as they affect the team. Third,
improve the congruence between leaders and leadership on the team by
developing leadership skills of all team members. When all team members
possess effective leadership skills, the outcomes of having a high number of
leaders who are doing leadership on a team will be similar.
5. Applied Question: What Must Be Addressed in the Field of

Athlete Leadership Development?
Coaches and athletes alike have frequently identified a lack of leadership as
a problem among athletes. For example, Voelker, Gould, and Crawford
(2011) found that high school captains did not receive any type of leadership
training, did not feel prepared to be a leader, and could not clearly articulate
how they developed their leadership capabilities. This lack of focus on
leadership can be attributed to the erroneous belief that sport participation
automatically fosters leadership development (Extejt & Smith, 2009). While
coaches recognize the importance of athlete leadership (Bucci et al., 2012),
many coaches do not have the knowledge or the resources necessary to
develop leadership in their athletes. In fact, Trottier and Robitaille (2014)
interviewed 24 high school and community coaches and asked which life
skills they felt comfortable teaching their athletes. Interestingly, only three
coaches mentioned leadership. Given the importance attributed to leadership,
there is a need to create additional learning opportunities that directly and
explicitly target the development of leadership among athletes.
The research dedicated to the study of athlete leadership development is
limited. To our knowledge, only eight published articles have reported on the
development of athlete leadership behaviors. This lack of evaluation is
surprising given the proliferation of empirical evidence (e.g., meta-analyses)
on the effectiveness of leadership development in several general leadership
studies (e.g., Avolio et al., 2009; Collins & Holton, 2004). Leadership
interventions were found to have moderately positive effects regardless of
organization type (i.e., profit, not for profit, military) and were beneficial
regardless of the theories used in the leadership development intervention
(i.e., operationalized as newer and traditional leadership theories). While the
results from the general leadership literature are promising, research in sport
should address the lack of knowledge and exposure to athlete leadership
development.
Research examining leadership theories and models best suited for the
study of athlete leadership development is currently lacking. Many of these
articles simply stated that the program was grounded in leadership research
without any insight or information into which theories were used to develop
the leadership development program. The lack of studies on athlete
leadership development is partly due to the fact that many of the athlete
leadership development programs have been conducted face to face (i.e.,
researcher physically present). While this method of delivery has been
effective (e.g., Cotterill, 2017; Gould & Voelker, 2010; Voight, 2012), it is
limited in the number of athletes it can reach. When we have presented our
research findings at conferences, the main recommendation from
administrators, coaches, and athletes is to expand the access of leadership
development programs to more athletes.
One way that we can expand accessibility is through the use of internet-
based platforms. There are two types of communication for online learning,
synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous learning refers to real-time
online communication that includes the use of technology (e.g.,
videoconferencing). Synchronous communication can enhance people’s
sense of social presence so that communication feels real, even though it is
mediated by technology (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). In contrast,
asynchronous learning is commonly facilitated through media such as online
learning modules when participants cannot be online at the same time.
Asynchronous learning provides many benefits for learners (e.g.,
convenience and flexibility) but also has drawbacks (e.g., impersonal, lack
of interaction with others such as the facilitator). Whether it is synchronous
or asynchronous, these technologies offer significant advantages in terms of
reach, convenience, cost savings, and eco-friendliness.
Conclusion
Although the field of athlete leadership is still in its infancy, researchers,
over the last 15 years, have been steadily publishing research findings
utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The five questions
forwarded in this chapter are important for advancing our knowledge in this
field and are important for establishing athlete leadership as an emerging
field of inquiry. The use of different methodologies has allowed for the
examination of various research questions. We see this as a strength and
encourage researchers to continue using a combination of methodologies in a
quest to further understand the complexities of athlete leadership. To grow
the field of athlete leadership, it will be important to use fundamentally
sound theoretical frameworks. We have advanced a working framework to
encourage researchers to examine the components of our model but more
importantly stimulate thoughts and ideas on conceptualizing a framework
that is unique to athlete leadership. To assist in the examination of the
relationships contained within our working framework, the development of
an athlete leadership–specific inventory is required. Further, we have
distinguished between a leader and leadership, which can be used to assist
researchers in clarifying the focus of their research questions. Is the focus of
a particular study concerned with the leader or with elements of the
leadership process? Finally, there are relatively few studies examining the
development of athlete leadership. Typically, most interventions have used
face-to-face methods of delivery, which can be limiting in terms of reach. To
provide universal access, the use of online technologies should be examined
to determine their effectiveness. By highlighting questions that require
investigation, we hope this will encourage researchers to critically examine
those questions with the goal of expanding knowledge and application.
References
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic
review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 764–784.
Beauchamp, M. R., Jackson, B., & Loughead, T. M. (2019). Leadership in physical activity contexts.
In T. S. Horn & A. L. Smith (Eds.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–
170). Human Kinetics.
Bucci, J., Bloom, G. A., Loughead, T. M., & Caron, J. (2012). Ice hockey perceptions of athlete
leadership. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 243–259.
Callow, N., Smith, M., Hardy, L., Arthur, C., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of transformational
leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport
Camiré, M. (2016). Benefits, pressures, and challenges of leadership and captaincy in the National
Hockey League. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 10, 118–136.
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of
sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 111–135). John Wiley and Sons.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a
leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34–45.
Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development
programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
15, 217–248.
Cotterill, S. T. (2017). Developing leadership skills in sport: A case study of elite cricketers. Case
Studies in Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 16–25.
Duguay, A. M., Hoffmann, M. D., Guerrero, M. D., & Loughead, T. M. (2020). An examination of the
temporal nature of shared athlete leadership: A longitudinal case study of a competitive youth male
ice hockey team. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 672–686.
Duguay, A. M., Loughead, T. M., & Cook, J. M. (2019). Athlete leadership as a shared process: Using
a social network approach to examine athlete leadership in competitive female youth soccer teams.
The Sport Psychologist, 33, 1–43.
Duguay, A. M., Loughead, T. M., & Munroe-Chandler, K. J. (2016). The development,
implementation, and evaluation of an athlete leadership development program with female varsity
athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 30, 154–166.
Duguay, A. M., Loughead, T. M., & Munroe-Chandler, K. J. (2018). Investigating the importance of
athlete leadership behaviors and the impact of leader tenure. Journal of Sport Behavior, 41, 129–
147.
Dupuis, M., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2006). Team captains’ perceptions of athlete
leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 60–78.
Extejt, M. M., & Smith, J. E. (2009). Leadership development through sports team participation.
Journal of Leadership Education, 8, 224–237.
Filho, E., Gershgoren, L., Basevitch, I., Schinke, R., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). Peer leadership and
shared mental models in a college volleyball team: A season long case study. Journal of Clinical
Fransen, K., Delvaux, E., Mesquita, B., & Van Puyenbroeck, S. (2018). The emergence of shared
leadership in newly formed teams with an initial structure of vertical leadership: A longitudinal
analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54, 140–170.
Fransen, K., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Loughead, T. M., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., Broek, G. V., &
Boen, F. (2015a). Who takes the lead? Social network analysis as a pioneering tool to investigate
shared leadership within sports teams. Social Networks, 43, 28–38.
Fransen, K., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Loughead, T. M., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., Broek, G. V., &
Boen, F. (2015b). The art of athlete leadership: Identifying high-quality athlete leadership at the
individual and team level through social network analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Gould, D., & Voelker, D. K. (2010). Youth sport leadership development: Leveraging the sports
captaincy experience. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1, 1–14.
Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 239–267). Human Kinetics.
Loughead, T. M., Duguay, A. M., & Hoffmann, M. D. (2019). Athlete leadership in football. In E.
Konter, J. Beckmann, & T. M. Loughead (Eds.), Football psychology: From theory to practice (pp.
91–100). Routledge.
Loughead, T. M., Fransen, K., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Hoffmann, M. D., De Cuyper, B., Vanbeselaere,
N., & Boen, F. (2016). An examination of the relationship between athlete leadership and cohesion
using social network analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34, 2063–2073.
Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2005). An examination of coach and peer leader behaviors in sport.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 303–312.
Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of athlete leadership. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 29, 142–159.
Loughead, T. M., & Munroe-Chandler, K. J. (2020). [Leadership behaviors used by athlete leaders].
Unpublished raw data.
McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a
sense of community. Educational Technology and Society, 7, 73–81.
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. E. (2013). Relationships among coach leadership, peer leadership, and
adolescent athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of transformational leadership theory.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 265–279.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research
paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522–1551.
Trottier, C., & Robitaille, S. (2014). Fostering life skills development in high school and community
sport: A comparative analysis of the coach’s role. The Sport Psychologist, 28, 10–21.
Vincer, D. J. E., & Loughead, T. M. (2010). The relationship among athlete leadership behaviors and
cohesion in team sports. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 448–467.
Voelker, D. K., Gould, D., & Crawford, M. J. (2011). Understanding the experience of high school
sport captains. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 47–66.
Voight, M. (2012). A leadership development intervention program: A case study with two elite teams.
The Sport Psychologist, 26, 604–623.
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review
and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 834–852.
SECTION 2
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
13
Mental Health
Brad Donohue, Gavin Breslin, and Shane Murphy
The importance of systemically addressing athletes’ mental health is

increasingly being recognized around the globe. However, studies continue
to show that athletes of all levels of competitiveness are rarely provided
evidence-supported mental health programming, particularly programs that
have been developed to fit sport culture (Breslin & Leavey, 2019). Poor
adoption of mental health programming in sport appears to be influenced by
a general lack of awareness of mental health issues, limitations in policy,
availability of services, ethical guidelines, and legal requirements governing
appropriate scope of practice in this area. This chapter underscores
important scientific contributions to mental health in athletes, including
answers to five critical questions that are specific to advancing mental
health practice with athletes and highlighting exemplary studies that are
likely to move the field forward (see Table 13.1).
Prevalence.
The true prevalence of diagnosable psychiatric disorders in athletes is
undetermined, particularly in youth athletes (Donohue, Gavrilova, &
Strong, 2020). Adult athletes have usually been found to experience about
the same severity of symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and
eating and substance use disorders relative to the general population (Rice
et al., 2016). However, symptom severity rates vary greatly across studies
due to differences in methodological rigor, population characteristics, study
year, instrumentation, and so on. For instance, rates of symptoms associated
with mood disorders have ranged from 4% (Schaal et al., 2011) to 68%
(Hammond et al., 2013). Thus, well-designed studies specific to athletes’
mental health disorder prevalence are warranted.
Mental health awareness programs.
There is a need to enhance awareness of the continuum of mental health and
its management in athletes, including psychological skills training aimed at
reducing stigma and other barriers associated with the pursuit of mental
health care and improving help-seeking behaviors. Implementation
guidelines and evaluation of mental health awareness programs in nonelite
contexts are especially crucial because they are relevant to the vast majority
of sport participants worldwide. Examples of these programs are
summarized by Breslin and Leavey (2019), who highlighted considerable
program heterogeneity in sports settings, athlete populations, mental health
problems, and evaluations. As reported, awareness programs that are
sensitive to sport culture are recommended. Notable awareness programs
include Ahead of the Game (Liddle et al., 2019), State of Mind Ireland
(Breslin et al., 2019), and online applications (Gulliver et al., 2012; for a
systematic review see Breslin et al., 2017). These programs are innovative
and often incorporate modern technology. For instance, in one program
video, case studies of former student-athletes struggling with mental illness
are utilized to facilitate discussion of mental health (Kern et al., 2017). Van
Raalte et al. (2015) developed an interactive multimedia website
(http://www.supportforsport.org/) to assist athletes in making mental health
referrals and improving their knowledge about mental health.
Implementation of Help Out a Mate (HOAM; Liddle et al., 2019) was
demonstrated to increase youth athletes’ intentions to provide help to other
athlete friends and increase knowledge of the signs of mental illness.
Mental health intervention engagement strategies in collegiate athletes have
also been evaluated in controlled trials (Donohue et al., 2004, 2016;
Gulliver et al., 2012). These programs have assisted in the development of
athletes’ positive perspectives of mental health interventions but have not
significantly improved attendance to mental health intervention. In response
to the emergence of mental health awareness in sport programs, an
international group was established (Breslin et al., 2019) to provide
consensus recommendations for program designers and deliverers,
policymakers, and commissioners with respect to terminology that can be
operationalized when promoting mental health awareness, program design
principles, and methods of evaluation.
Sport-specific mental health screening and assessment.

Several extant mental health screening and assessment measures have been
psychometrically developed for use in athlete populations. Screens help to
identify athletes who are likely to benefit from mental health services. The
Athlete Psychological Strain Questionnaire (APSQ) is appropriate for
professional athletes (Rice et al., 20191) and includes three factors (Self-
regulation, Performance, External coping). Clinical cutoff scores may be
used to determine high psychiatric distress, and scores are inversely
correlated with well-being. The Student Athlete Relationships Inventory
(SARI; Donohue, Miller, et al., 2007) assesses sport-specific relationship
problems with teammates, family, and coaches. The SARI has demonstrated
strong internal consistency and concurrent validity in high school athletes
(Donohue, Miller, et al., 2007). Family scale items have been found to
predict psychiatric symptoms, and psychiatric clinical cutoff scores are
available (Hussey et al., 2019). The Sport Interference Checklist (SIC;
Donohue, Silver, et al., 2007) assesses common interferences with sport
performance in training and competition, and the extent to which athletes
are motivated to pursue a sport performance professional for assistance in
these areas. The SIC has been indicated to predict psychiatric
symptomology in collegiate athletes, and psychiatric cutoff scores are
available (Donohue et al., 2019). When assessment is desired along the
continuum of mental wellness, other validated assessments should be
considered, including the Sport Mental Health Continuum Short Form
(SMHC; Foster & Chow, 2019) and the Sport Psychology Outcomes and
Research Tool (SPORT; Hansen et al., 2019). The SMHC includes three
scales specific to well-being, and the SPORT includes Athlete Wellbeing,
Self-Regulation, Performance Satisfaction, and Sport-Related Distress
scales. Each of these scale scores has evidenced excellent internal
consistency and concurrent validity.
Sport-specific psychological interventions.

These interventions have almost exclusively included components of
mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and outcome study
evaluations of these programs are predominately uncontrolled evaluations
of athletes who have not been formally assessed for mental health disorders.
While showing promise, most of these studies have been underpowered,
and all of them have resulted in at least some outcomes being
nonsignificant. Traditional CBT interventions include reconstruction of
maladaptive thoughts to be more objective and positive, and behavioral
skills training to facilitate greater positive interactions within their sports
environment. Using traditional CBT, Gabana (2017) conducted an
uncontrolled case trial in a female collegiate rower with major depressive
disorder, and Didymus and Fletcher (2017) performed an innovative well-
controlled multiple baseline study with four female hockey players who
were not assessed for mental health diagnoses. The female rower was
reported to evidence improvements in process measures, while the hockey
players’ appraisals of organizational stressors were enhanced. Internet-
based CBT has been shown to decrease symptoms of depression and
anxiety relative to a waitlist condition in a pilot randomized controlled trial
(RCT) involving eight youth athletes who were not assessed for mental
health conditions (Sekizaki et al., 2019). The Bodies in Motion program
(Voelker et al., 2019) has been found to decrease athletes’ risk for eating
disorders in female collegiate athletes. This program focuses on behavioral
strategies to manage sociocultural and sport-specific body image pressures,
as well as promote mindful self-compassion. Utilizing quasi-experimental
methodology, this program was shown to improve internalized thin
appearance more so than waitlist control. Sport-specific rational emotive
behavior therapy (REBT) is designed to restructure irrational beliefs to be
more objective. Turner and colleagues, both in uncontrolled (Davis &
Turner, in press; Turner et al., 2018) and controlled multiple baseline trials
(Cunningham & Turner, 2016; Turner & Barker, 2013), have consistently
demonstrated the efficacy of REBT in reducing irrational beliefs, anxiety
symptoms, and factors that negatively influence sport performance in
athletes who have not been assessed to evidence mental health disorders.
The Optimum Performance Program in Sports (TOPPS) is a family
behavior therapy intervention that includes contingency management, goal
inspiration, communication skills training, self- and environmental control,
appreciation exchanges, functional analysis, job development, and financial
management. The program has been evaluated in two controlled (Chow et
al., 2015; Donohue, Gavrilova, Galante, Gavrilova, et al., 2018) and five
uncontrolled clinical trials (Donohue et al., 2015; Galante et al., 2019;
Gavrilova et al., 2017; Pitts et al., 2015; Donohue et al., in press) involving
collegiate athletes and youth formally assessed for mental health disorders.
Up to 8 months postbaseline, implementation of TOPPS has consistently
decreased the factors of general psychiatric symptoms and depression that
reportedly interfere with sport performance, and has improved
relationships, particularly as mental health diagnostic severity increases.
This intervention has not improved safe sexual activity and has only
decreased substance use up to 4 months postbaseline, relative to traditional
campus counseling in a randomized clinical trial. Lastly, mindfulness-
acceptance-commitment (MAC) is focused on achieving nonjudgmental
presence while performing the task at hand (Gross et al., 2016). Cognitive
skills are taught utilizing psychoeducation, behavioral skills training, and
mindfulness exercises. Gross et al. (2016) evaluated MAC and
psychological skills training (PST) in a RCT with 1-month follow-up in 18
female collegiate athletes who were not assessed for mental health
diagnosis. Results showed that MAC was more efficacious than PST in
reducing substance use and hostility, and both programs demonstrated
improvements in most outcome measures. Mindful sport performance
enhancement (MSPE; Kaufman et al., 2009) is similar to mindfulness-based
stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy with an emphasis
on sport scenarios. In an amateur baseball team (n = 21), Chen et al. (2018)
determined that MSPE did evidence pre/post improvements and 1-month
follow-up in flow state, quality of sleep, and eating disorder symptoms, but
not general anxiety and depression.
Table 13.1 Five Key Readings in the Advancement of Mental Health in Athletes
Design
Breslin Systematic 10 studies included from 1,216 studies retrieved: four comprising
et al. review coaches or service providers, one with officials, four with athletes, and
(2017) one involving a combination of coaches and athletes. A range of
outcomes were used to assess indices of mental health awareness and
well-being. Mental health referral was improved in six studies, while
three reported an increase in knowledge about mental health disorders.
Seven studies did not report effect sizes, limiting interpretation. There
was substantial heterogeneity and limited validity in outcome measures
of mental health knowledge and referral efficacy. Seven studies
demonstrated a high risk of bias. A need for well-designed controlled
intervention studies was found.
Donohue Randomized 74 collegiate athletes assessed for mental health diagnostic severity
et al. controlled using a structured interview were randomly assigned to The Optimum
(2018) clinical trial Performance Program in Sports (TOPPS) or campus psychological
services as usual (SAU) after baseline. Preintervention expectancy
effects, demographics, and outcome measures were equivalent between
interventions. Blind assessors administered measures of psychiatric
symptomology, mood, factors affecting sport performance in training
and competition, substance use, unsafe sex, happiness in relationships,
and relationships affecting sport performance. Intervention integrity
was high. Repeated-measures analyses showed participants in TOPPS
demonstrated significantly better outcomes than SAU up to 8 months
postrandomization on all measures except days of sex without a
condom at 4 and 8 months postbaseline and substance use at 8 months
postbaseline, particularly as diagnostic severity increased (i.e., no
diagnosis, single diagnosis, multiple diagnosis). Attendance and
consumer satisfaction were significantly higher for participants in
TOPPS.
Rice et Two-stage Stage 1: 1,007 Australian elite male athletes randomly partitioned into
al. psychometric calibration and validation samples. Exploratory factor analysis on
(2019) evaluation calibration sample supported three factors (Self-Regulation,
Performance, External Coping). Confirmatory factor analysis supported
a similar factor model. Differential item functioning analysis indicated
item equivalence relative to athletes’ level of education and ethnicity.
Currently injured athletes evidenced poorer Performance than injured
athletes.
Design
Turner Multiple Multiple-baseline across-participants design. Rational emotive behavior
& baselines across therapy (REBT) was sequentially administered; participant 1
Barker four youth introduced to intervention in week 6 of off-season training, participant
(2013) cricketer 2 in week 7, participant 3 in week 8, and participant 4 in week 10.
participants Social desirability instructions administered prior to each data
collection to limit response bias. Validated outcome measures used.
REBT guided by workbook. Visual analytical techniques and Cohen’s d
showed that effects occurred for participants immediately after
intervention was implemented. For irrational beliefs, participant 1
showed a 9% decrease, participant 2 showed a 34% decrease,
participant 3 showed an 11% decrease, and participant 4 showed a 38%
decrease from pre- to postintervention phases. For cognitive anxiety,
participant 1 showed a 9% decrease, participant 2 showed a 16%
decrease, participant 3 showed a 23% decrease, and participant 4
showed a 13% decrease from pre- to postintervention phase. Social
validation assessed for participants, parents, and coaches after study.
Vella Systematic Reports findings from relatively extant field of mental health within
(2019) review organized youth sport, including clear definitions of mental health and
wellness, advantages and disadvantages of addressing youths’ mental
health through sport, and theoretical and empirical support for sport-
based mental health intervention in youth athletes. Research
recommendations are offered based on gaps in the literature, such as the
need to perform longitudinal research to determine whether sport does,
indeed, enhance youths’ mental health, controlled intervention outcome
studies, and development of methods of preventing abuse in youth
sport. Practice recommendations are offered, such as need to develop
policy that supports development and implementation of evidence-
supported programs.

1. Theoretical Question: Do Athletes Experience Mental Health
Disorders Differently Than Nonathletes?
Epidemiological and prevalence studies comparing mental health
symptomatology of demographically similar athlete and nonathlete cohorts
utilizing validated diagnostic interviews have yet to occur; and extant
studies that have examined prevalence of mental health symptomology
utilizing retrospective reports of clinic attendance, nondiagnostic
interviews, and self-report measures of symptomatology associated with
mental health conditions vary considerably in methodological approach,
rigor, population demographics and number, level of athletes’ expertise,
instrumentation, recruitment, and so on. If athletes and nonathlete peers
experience mental health symptomatology similarly, including response to
mental health intervention, there may be no need to establish evidence-
supported mental health programming that is adapted to address sport
culture. On the other hand, if athletes do evidence mental health
symptomology differently than nonathlete peers, it may be necessary to
alter mental health programs to address culture, activities, relationships, and
other factors that are unique to sport, and perhaps justify greater mental
health resources to athletes (particularly if it is reliably determined in future
research that sport performance is associated with improved mental health).
To answer this question, it will be necessary to develop psychometrically
sound measures of mental health symptomatology that are capable of
distinguishing patterns of behavior and cognition that are dysfunctional
from those that are functional within the context of sport. For instance,
depression scales typically include item stems that may be normal in
athletes due to demanding competitions, physical training regimes, or
intense scheduling (e.g., “I sleep a lot more than usual”; “I am too tired or
fatigued to do a lot of things I used to do”; Beck Depression Inventory II;
Beck et al., 1996). Thus, athlete responses to existing mental health
assessments may lead to false symptomology rates. Assuming valid
measurement, it is important that investigators conduct large-scale
prevalence studies where youth and adult athletes and their nonathlete
cohorts are randomly selected from larger representative populations, and
that validated diagnostic measures are used to comprehensively assess all
mental health conditions concurrently. Such studies ensure appropriate
comparisons and should incorporate full-time elite and professional athlete
populations. Given the limited access sport psychologists have typically had
with professional sports organizations, such research would suggest
cooperation among national and international sport psychology and sport
medicine organizations and the owners/commissioners/leaders of
professional sport franchises.
2. Applied Question: Is It Necessary to Adapt Evidence-

Supported Mental Health Interventions That Have Been Found to
Be Effective in Nonathlete Clinical Populations to Fit Sport
Culture When Treating Athletes?
If there are no substantial benefits in adjusting established mental health
interventions to optimally fit athletes, this would permit the larger
workforce of practitioners who are not familiar with sport to be justifiably
leveraged in service provision. A critical consideration in research
addressing this question is consumer acceptance, which could be partially
assessed by studying treatment participation rates. Thus far justification for
sport-specific mental health intervention development has been limited to
findings that athletes have reported relatively high rates of mental health
symptomatology for particular disorders (e.g., eating disorders, anxiety
disorders), perceived stigma in their pursuit of mental health intervention,
and perceived stressors that are somewhat unique to sport settings. This
question, however, must be answered in controlled clinical trials involving
athletes, comparing interventions that have been found to ameliorate mental
health disorders in nonathlete populations with sport-specific adaptations of
these interventions. In this way sport-specific adaptations can be assessed
for cost-effectiveness, rates of participation, and mental health symptom
reduction. There needs to be a greater number of RCTs involving athletes
who are formally assessed for mental health diagnoses utilizing structured
interviews during baseline. Standards of clinical trial methodology in
athlete populations need to improve, including assessors who are blind to
experimental assignment and receive supervision that is independent of
treatment providers, and assessment and control of intervention expectancy
effects and outcome measure scores between participants in experimental
intervention conditions at baseline. Other research practices to encourage
include utilization of protocol checklists to guide intervention
implementation, assessment of intervention integrity/adherence, intent to
treat management of missing data, assessment of consumer satisfaction and
social validation postintervention, and assessment of various interaction
effects (e.g., diagnostic severity, gender). Where RCTs are difficult to
implement (e.g., professional athletes), we recommend utilization of
controlled multiple baseline methods across teams/participants or
behaviors. Until these methods are widely adopted, the benefits of sport-
specific mental health interventions will remain only promising.
Studies consistently indicate family members are reported by athletes to
be critically important to their sport performance, and family-based
treatments in nonathlete populations, particularly in youth, have yielded
large effect sizes. Therefore, it is important to expand intervention
development and evaluation of family-based approaches, and for youth
athletes, within school systems. Given the likely association between sport
performance and mental health, it would be prudent on both humanitarian
and financial grounds if professional sport organizations and foundations
allocated significant resources to the empirical development of sport-
specific mental health interventions (i.e., programming as usual vs.
experimental methods). Partnerships between university research teams and
community stakeholders need to occur to permit cost-effective, top-notch
evaluations while demonstrating commitment to the welfare of athletes.
3. Applied Question: How Can Perceptions of Mental Health

Stigma in Youth Athletes Be Reduced?
While the prevalence of stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors varies among
societal groups beyond sport, there is an urgent need to understand the
psychology of stigma from the perspective of athletes to facilitate practical
and effective support, particularly in youth. For instance, researchers have
highlighted a gap in that youth perspectives of mental health are not
typically examined in wellness programs. This oversight is problematic
because youth have different views and interpretations of the world than
adults and are often unaware of or unmotivated to pursue mental health
options. Indeed, outside of the sport context, adolescents often lack medical
health care knowledge specific to practitioners’ expertise, role, and
willingness to treat psychological problems, with many adolescents
mistrusting practitioners, or perceiving them to be insensitive to their needs
(Leavey et al., 2011). These attitudes to some extent have also been found
in adult athletes. We believe empirical efforts are needed specific to
exploring the role family has in decreasing perceived mental health stigma
of athletes, including help seeking through family activities and
relationships. Families impact the psychological health of the young athlete
through the attitudes and beliefs of members. Theory-guided research in
this area, particularly in youth, is needed. One approach that has been
assumed to be effective with young athletes is the use of role models
testifying to their struggles with mental health and normalizing the use of
mental health services. This approach should be empirically evaluated to
ascertain benefits and possible iatrogenic considerations in specific
populations of youth (e.g., LGBT, ethnic minority).
4. Applied Question: Should Performance Enhancement and
Mental Health Services Be Delivered to Athletes via the Same
Platforms and Providers, or Should Different Professionals Work
With Athletes on Performance and Mental Health Issues?
This topic has been debated in the field since the inception of applied sport
psychology (Newburg, 1992). It is important that we study this issue as it
involves several interrelated areas of applied sport psychology, including
the proper licensure/certification of professionals working with athletes, the
scope of practice for mental health/performance enhancement professionals
working with athletes, the necessary education and training for those
working in this area, and the expectations and satisfaction of athletes when
receiving psychological services. It has been proposed that mental health–
focused interventions can be the foundation of most athlete psychological
interventions and will improve performance (Morgan, 1985), that
unnecessary mental health interventions may be detrimental to athletic
performance (Danish & Hale, 1981), and that psychotherapy can be one of
many tools utilized in a holistic approach to applied sport psychology
(Murphy & Murphy, 2012). Outcome research utilizing random assignment
comparative trials of both approaches (mental health and performance
addressed together and addressed separately) utilizing results for both
performance and mental health indices is urgently needed but currently
lacking. In the aforementioned Donohue, Gavrilova, Galante, Gavrilova, et
al. (2018) RCT, doctoral students with no clinical practicum experience
other than workshop training and ongoing supervision could implement
TOPPS with demonstrated integrity while improving athletes’ self-reported
performance in sport and mental health. This suggests that the level of
training necessary to successfully implement at least basic levels of
behavioral therapies for athletes while under supervision may not be as
stringent as required for independent psychological practice. It should be
noted that this issue poses different implications in the United States, where
the title “psychologist” is strictly regulated, versus some countries in
Europe, where the term “sport psychologist” also includes sport
performance professionals who are not clinical/mental health professionals
(Sanchez et al., 2005). A potential model to consider in the United States is
that of doctoral-level clinical/counseling psychologists working in a team
setting overseeing the mental health considerations of athletes engaged in
performance consulting with professionals who may have a variety of
backgrounds, credentials, and training experiences. This competency-based
team approach has become common, and perhaps best practice, in many
areas of mental health, and research on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness,
and client satisfaction of such an approach should be a priority
consideration in sport psychology research (Kaslow et al., 2012). A
potential benefit of a team-based approach incorporating service provision
by nondoctoral clinicians is that it could meet the rapidly increasing mental
health needs of professional sports teams and organizations; universities,
colleges, and schools; and national, state, and community sports
organizations.
5. Applied Question: What Can Administrators in School Systems

Do to Optimize Delivery of Mental Health Services for Athletes?
Division I National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) universities in
the United States have arguably developed the most advanced systems of
mental health care for athletes, often employing clinical or counseling sport
psychologists (and their supervisees) within traditional counseling centers
or athletic departments. Within these systems, sport psychologists ideally
work with sport performance professionals (usually at the master’s level)
and participate in team meetings with physicians, physical trainers, and
certified experts in nutrition and strength and conditioning. Having a team
of mental health professionals within one system that is directed by a
licensed psychologist trained in both sport performance and mental health is
an optimum milieu. Within these systems, we recommend systemic
administration of validated mental health screens to identify suicide and
other mental health disorders, implementation of evidence-supported
workshops aimed at facilitating a culture of encouragement for mental
health help-seeking behavior, and implementation of mental health
optimization programming that is explicitly adapted to address sport
culture. These procedures establish mental health baseline scores and
reduce future liability through efficient monitoring and utilization of
evidence-supported treatments. Moreover, in this system athletes are more
likely to comply with professional recommendations, reducing costs
associated with false responding and premature termination of mental
health programming. It is imperative that these protocols are implemented
seamlessly from screening to treatment and formally monitored to ensure
high standards in evidence-supported intervention integrity, and that the
directors of these mental health teams are licensed sport psychologists with
specialized training and proficiency in mental health. These directives are
fundamentally possible in Division II and III NCAA universities in the
United States, as well as in universities around the globe where sport clubs
operate independently from universities. However, funding is required
through applied clinical trial research grants, foundations, donors, and long-
term governmental initiatives as reported by experts in various consensus
statements and U.S. Presidential Executive Order #13824 (see the National
Youth Sports Strategy). Governmental support for sport-specific mental
health programming is warranted due to the strong association between
societal costs, mental and physical health, and accruing evidence supporting
specialized mental health programming in athletes who participate in
organized sport (which includes half of all adolescents; see Donohue,
Gavrilova, & Strong, in press). We believe it is especially important to
initiate such systems in grade schools serving children and adolescents,
particularly those in low-income communities due to their disproportionate
utilization of health care. Schools provide an excellent backdrop in which to
create sport-specific, evidence-supported mental health care systems (Vella,
2019), such as the one outlined previously. In such systems athletes act as
mental health care models for nonathletes. Creating the aforementioned
mental health system would require a paradigm shift, as mental health
professionals in most grade schools for children and adolescents currently
do very little mental health prevention and intervention and are not focused
on sport.
Conclusion
Although there has been increased interest in athletes’ mental health,
athletes continue to underutilize mental health care services. To address
poor service utilization, mental health awareness and engagement
interventions have been developed. Several programs have been indicated
to reduce stigma associated with the pursuit of mental health care. Mental
health screening tools and mental wellness assessment measures have been
psychometrically developed in college student and professional athletes,
and sport-specific mental health interventions (exclusively CBT and
mindfulness based) have been found to improve psychiatric symptomology
in college athletes. However, these programs have yet to be implemented in
practice settings.
References
Beck, Steer, & Beck. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory—II. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Breslin, G., & Leavey, G. (2019). Mental health and well-being interventions in sport: Research
theory and practice. Routledge.
Breslin, G., Shannon, S., Haughey, T., Donnelly, P., & Leavey, G. (2017). A systematic review of
interventions to increase awareness of mental health and well-being in athletes, coaches and
officials. Systematic Reviews, 6(177), 1–15.
Breslin, G., Smith, A., Donohue, B., Donnelly, P., Shannon, S., Haughey, T. J., Vella, S. A., Swann,
C., Cotteril, S., Macintyre, T., Rogers, T., & Leacey, G. (2019). International consensus statement
on the psychosocial and policy-related approaches to mental health awareness programmes in
sport. BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Medicine, 5(1), e000585.
Chen, J.-H., Tsai, P.-H., Lin, Y.-C., Chen, C.-K., & Chen, C.-Y. (2018). Mindfulness training
enhances flow state and mental health among baseball players in Taiwan. Psychology Research
and Behaviour Management, 12, 15–21.
Chow, G., Donohue, B., Pitts, M., Schubert, K., Loughran, T., Gavrilova, Y., & Diaz, E. (2015).
Utilising the Optimum Performance Programme in Sports (TOPPS) to enhance relationships,
mental strength and stability, and avoidance of unsafe sexual activity and substance misuse:
Results of single case-controlled trial. Clinical Case Studies, 14, 191–209.
Cunningham, R., & Turner, M. J. (2016). Using rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) with
mixed martial arts (MMA) athletes to reduce irrational beliefs and increase unconditional self-
acceptance. Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 34(4), 289–309.
Danish, S. J., & Hale, B. D. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sport psychology.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 90–99.
Davis, H., & Turner, M. J. (2020). The use of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) to increase
the self-determined motivation and psychological well-being of triathletes. Sport, Exercise, and
Performance Psychology, 9, 495–505. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000191
Didymus, F. F., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Effects of a cognitive-behavioural intervention on field hockey
players’ appraisals of organisational stressors. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 173–185.
Donohue, B., Chow, G., Pitts, M., Loughran, T., Schubert, K., Gavrilova, Y., & Allen, D. N. (2015).
Piloting a family-supported approach to concurrently optimise mental health and sport
performance in athletes. Clinical Case Studies, 14, 299–323.
Donohue, B., Dickens, Y., Lancer, K., Covassin, T., Hash, A., Miller, A., & Genet, J. (2004).
Improving athletes’ perspectives of sport psychology consultation: A controlled evaluation of two
interview methods. Behaviour Modification, 28, 181–193.
Donohue, B., Galante, M., Maietta, J., Lee, B., Paul, N., Perry, J. E., Corey, A., Allen, D. N. (2019).
Empirical development of a screening method to assist mental health referrals in collegiate
athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13, 561–579.
Donohue, B., Gavrilova, E., & Strong, M. (2020). A sport-focused optimization approach to mental
wellness for youth in low-income neighborhoods. European Physical Education Review, 26(3),
695–712.
Donohue, B., Gavrilova, Y., Galante, M., Burnstein, B., Aubertin, P., Gavrilova, E., Funk, A., Light,
A., & Benning, S. D. (2020). Empirical development of a screening method for mental, social, and
physical wellness in amateur and professional circus artists. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity
and the Arts, 14, 313–324. doi:10.1037/aca0000199
Donohue, B., Gavrilova, Y., Galante, M., Gavrilova, E., Loughrana, T., Scott, J., Chow, G., Plant, C.,
& Allen, D. A. (2018). Controlled evaluation of an optimisation approach to mental health and
sport performance. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 12, 234–267.
Donohue, B., Miller, A., Crammer, L., Cross, C., & Covassin, T. (2007). A standardized method of
assessing sport specific problems in the relationships of athletes with their coaches, teammates,
family, and peers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, 375–397.
Donohue, B., O’Dowd, A., Plant, C. P., Phillips, C., Loughran, T. A., & Gavrilova, Y. (2016).
Controlled evaluation of a method to assist recruitment of participants into treatment outcome
research and engage student athletes into substance abuse intervention. Journal of Clinical Sport
Donohue, B., Phrathep, D., Stucki, K., Kowal, I., Breslin, G., Cohen, M., White, S., Jefferson, L.,
White, T., Irvin, J., Reese, G., Kessler, FHP, Kieslich da Silva, A., Gabriel Santos da Silva, F.,
Fothergill, M., Robinson, G., Allen, H., Light, A., & Allen, D. A. (in press). Adapting an
Evidence-Supported Intervention to Optimize Mental Health and Sport Performance for Collegiate
Athletes to Fit Youth from Ethnic/Racial Minority and Low-Income Neighborhoods: A National
Institutes of Health Supported Stage Model Feasibility Study. The International Journal of
Psychiatry in Medicine. doi:10.1177/00912174211006547
Donohue, B., Silver, N. C., Dickens, Y., Covassin, T., & Lancer, K. (2007). Development and
psychometric evaluation of the Sport Interference Checklist. Behaviour Modification, 31, 937–957.
Foster, B. J., & Chow, G. M. (2019). Development of the Sport Mental Health Continuum—Short
Form (Sport MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13(4), 593–608.
Gabana, N. (2017). A strengths-based cognitive behavioural approach to treating depression and
building resilience in collegiate athletics: The individuation of an identical twin. Case Studies in
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 4–15.
Galante, M., Donohue, B., & Gavrilova, Y. (2019). The optimum performance programme in sports:
A case of bulimia nervosa in a lean sport athlete. In G. Breslin & G. Leavy (Eds.), Mental health
and well-being interventions in sport: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 9–30). Routledge.
Gavrilova, Y., Donohue, B., & Galante, M. (2017). Mental health and sport performance
programming in athletes who present without pathology: A case examination supporting
optimisation. Clinical Case Studies, 16(3), 234–253.
Gross, M., Moore, Z. E., Gardner, F. L., Wolanin, A. T., Pess, R., & Marks, D. R. (2016). An
empirical examination comparing the mindfulness-acceptance-commitment approach and
psychological skills training for the mental health and sport performance of female student
athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(4), 431–451.
Gulliver, A., Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to mental health
help-seeking for young elite athletes: A qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry, 12, 1.
Hammond, T., Gialloreto, C., Kubas, H., & Davis, H. (2013). The prevalence of failure-based
depression among elite athletes. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 23, 273–277.
doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e318287b870
Hansen, A. A., Perry, J. E., Lace, J. W., Merz, Z. C., Montgomery, T. L., & Ross, M. J. (2019).
Development and validation of a monitoring instrument for sport psychology practice: The Sport
Psychology Outcomes and Research Tool (SPORT). Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13(4),
543–560.
Hussey, J. E., Donohue, B., Barchard, K. A., & Allen, D. N. (2019). Family contributions to sport
performance and their utility in predicting appropriate referrals to mental health optimisation
programmes. European Journal of Sport Science, 19(7), 972–982.
Kaslow, N. J., Falender, C. A., & Grus, C. L. (2012). Valuing and practicing competency-based
supervision: A transformational leadership perspective. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 6(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026704
Kaufman, K. A., Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (2009). Evaluation of Mindful Sport Performance
Enhancement (MSPE): A new approach to promote flow in athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 3(4), 334–356.
Kern, A., Heininger, W., Klueh, E., Salazar, S., Hansen, B., Meyer, T., & Eisenberg, D. (2017).
Athletes connected: Results from a pilot project to address knowledge and attitudes about mental
health among college student-athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 11(4), 324–336.
Leavey, G., Rothi, D., & Paul, R. (2011). Trust, autonomy and relationships: The help-seeking
preferences of young people in secondary level schools in London (UK). Journal of Adolescence,
34(4), 685–693.
Liddle, S. K., Hurley, D., Schweickle, M., Sewann, C., & Vella, S. A. (2019). In G. Breslin & G.
Leavey (Eds.), Mental health and well-being interventions in sport: Research theory and practice.
Routledge.
Morgan, W. P. (1985). Selected psychological factors limiting performance: A mental health model.
In D. H. Clarke & H. M. Eckert (Eds.), Limits of human performance. Human Kinetics.
Murphy, S. M., & Murphy, B. P. (2012). Preface. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
sport and performance psychology (pp. xix–xxiv). Oxford University Press.
Newburg, D. (1992). Performance enhancement - Toward a working definition. Contemporary
Thought on Performance Enhancement, 1, 10–25.
Pitts, M., Donohue, B., Schubert, Chow, G., Lougrhan, T., & Gavrilova, Y. (2015). A systematic case
examination of The Optimum Performance Programme in Sports (TOPPS) in a combative sport.
Clinical Case Studies, 14, 178–190.
Rice, S. M., Parker, A. G., Mawren, D., Clifton, P., Harcourt, P., Lloyd, M., Kountouris, A., Smith,
B., McGorry, P. D., & Purcell, R. (2019). Preliminary psychometric validation of a brief screening
tool for athlete mental health among male elite athletes: The Athlete Psychological Strain
Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–16.
Rice, S. M., Purcell, R., Silva, S. D., Mawren, D., McGorry, P. D., & Parker, A. G. (2016). The
mental health of elite athletes: A narrative systematic review. Sports Medicine, 46(9), 1333–1353.
Sanchez, X., Godin, P., & De Zanet, F. (2005). Who delivers sport psychology services? Examining
the field reality in Europe. Sport Psychologist, 19, 81–92.
Schaal, K., Taet, M., Nassif, H., Thibault, V., Pichard, C., Alcotte, M., et al. (2011). Psychological
balance in high level athletes: Gender-based differences and sport-specific patterns. PLoS ONE, 6,
e19007. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019007
Sekizaki, R., Nemoto, T., Tsujino, N., Takano, C., Yoshida, C., Yamaguchi, T., Katagiri, N., Ono, Y.,
& Mizuno, M. (2019). School mental healthcare services using internet-based cognitive behavior
therapy for young male athletes in Japan. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 13, 79–85.
Turner, M., & Barker, J. (2013). Examining the efficacy of rational emotive behaviour therapy
(REBT) on irrational beliefs and anxiety in elite youth cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 25(1), 131–147.
Turner, M. J., Ewen, D., & Barker, J. B. (2018). An idiographic single-case study examining the use
of rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) with three amateur golfers to alleviate sport
performance phobias. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1496186
Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A. E., Andrews, S., Diehl, N. S., & Brewer, B. W. (2015). Mental health
referral for student-athletes: Web-based education and training. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 9(3), 197–212.
Vella, S. A. (2019). Mental health and organized youth sport. Kinesiology Review, 8, 229–236.
Voelker, D. K., Petrie, T. A., Huang, Q., & Chandran, A. (2019). Bodies in motion: An empirical
evaluation of a programme to support positive body image in female collegiate athletes. Body
Image, 28, 149–158.
1 This scale is included in Table 13.1 due to its model use of psychometric evaluation
methodology.
14
Affective Responses to Exercise
Panteleimon Ekkekakis and Mark E. Hartman
State of the Art

Investigations into how exercise influences the way people feel were the
original seed that, over the past 50 years, led to what has become the prolific
scientific field of exercise psychology. The overarching conclusion from this
research, as echoed in contemporary textbooks, is that “exercise makes
people feel better.” While there is compelling evidence that the exercise-
induced “feel better” effect is indeed possible, there are also reasons to
question the generalizability of this phenomenon. The main reason is the fact
that few people are found to perform the minimum recommended amount of
physical activity when activity is measured by mechanical devices rather
than self-reports. For example, in the United States, fewer than 10% of the
adult population participate in at least moderate-intensity physical activity
for at least 150 minutes per week (Tucker et al., 2011). If exercise, in fact,
made most people feel better, one would expect a higher level of
participation.
This apparent inconsistency prompted a relaunch of research into how
exercise makes people feel in the last two decades. Most early studies
involved one assessment of a small sample of distinct constructs, such as
state anxiety or certain components of mood (e.g., tension, depression,
anger, fatigue, vigor) before the start of a session of exercise (typically
performed at a “midrange” intensity, such as 60% to 70% of maximal heart
rate) and one or more additional assessments after the end of the session.
Especially when the participants are young, healthy, active, and physically
fit college students, this methodology reliably yields postexercise scores that
are more positive than the pre-exercise ones (e.g., Ensari et al., 2015; Reed
& Ones, 2006). While this general methodology was used in hundreds of
studies and evidently seemed uncontroversial for decades, a critical
reconsideration of its various aspects uncovered possible problems (see
Ekkekakis et al., 2019). Contemporary research examining affective
responses to exercise and physical activity is based on a new methodological
platform, characterized by the following innovations.
First, the target construct has been identified as core affect, the primordial
component of consciousness that characterizes all valenced (pleasant or
unpleasant) states, including emotions and moods (Ekkekakis, 2013). The
content domain of core affect is defined by two orthogonal and bipolar
dimensions, namely affective valence (pleasure vs. displeasure) and
perceived activation (high vs. low). Thus, major variants of core affect
include such states as energy and excitement (pleasant high activation),
tension and nervousness (unpleasant high activation), calmness and
relaxation (pleasant low activation), and tiredness and lethargy (unpleasant
low activation).
Second, because core affect is theorized to be closely tied to homeostatic
regulation and the physiological condition of the body, a bout of exercise can
be reasonably expected to entail dynamic changes in the dimensions of
valence and activation. Therefore, rating scales of valence and activation are
administered not just before and after exercise but repeatedly, before, during,
and after the bout, to obtain a faithful representation of the full trajectory of
the affective response over time.
Third, given the theorized link of core affect to homeostasis, studies have
adopted a painstaking approach to the standardization of exercise intensity.
Following guidelines from exercise physiology (Mezzani et al., 2013), the
range of exercise intensity is divided into three domains, each with distinct
implications for homeostasis and the ability to continue exercise. The range
of moderate intensity extends to the lactate threshold, the highest intensity
that can be maintained without an accumulation of lactate. Because the
measurement of lactate requires the sampling of blood, the gas-exchange
ventilatory threshold (VT) is typically used as a less invasive alternative
index. Moderate-intensity exercise permits the maintenance of physiological
steady state and thus entails minimal homeostatic perturbation. Importantly,
most hunting, gathering, and other subsistence activities that were
predominant in the daily energy budget of humans during the Pleistocene
were performed within the moderate range of intensity (Raichlen et al.,
2017). The domain of heavy intensity extends from the lactate threshold to
the level of critical power, the highest level of intensity that permits the re-
establishment of a physiological steady state (also coincident with the
maximal lactate steady state). Because the precise determination of critical
power is labor-intensive, it is often approximated by the respiratory
compensation point (RCP), determined through the analysis of gas exchange
data. Finally, the domain of severe intensity extends from critical power to
the intensity associated with peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak). In the severe
domain, even if speed or resistance remains constant, physiological
parameters, such as oxygen uptake and blood lactate, rise continuously and
exercise is terminated within a few minutes.
Fourth, in contemporary research, there is increased appreciation for
individual differences in affective responses and the possible psychological
underpinnings of such differences (Ekkekakis et al., 2005). Importantly,
while individual differences in response to a given treatment often entail
variations only in the degree of response (e.g., smaller or larger increases),
individual differences in affective responses to the same exercise stimulus
may manifest themselves as “feel better” responses in some individuals but
“feel worse” responses in others. In such cases, analyses of change at the
level of the group aggregate (sample mean) can produce misleading results,
since an unchanged average score may conceal two divergent response
patterns and may fail to accurately model the pattern of change of individual
participants. Therefore, more recent studies on affective responses to
exercise report changes not only in means but also in individuals and
subgroups.
Using this new methodological platform, researchers have been able to
decipher the complex relation between exercise intensity and affective
responses (Ekkekakis et al., 2011, 2020). Specifically, within the domain of
moderate intensity, most individuals report improved affective valence or
continue to report positive valence. At the other end of the spectrum, in the
domain of severe intensity, all or nearly all individuals report declines in
affective valence. Between these two extremes, in the domain of heavy
intensity, there is substantial interindividual variability, with some
individuals reporting improvements and others declines in valence (Figure
14.1).
Figure 14.1. Overview of the dose-response relation between exercise intensity and affective
responses. The three panels show affective valence responses of hypothetical participants during
exercise performed in the moderate, heavy, and severe domains of intensity, respectively. The inserts
show the pattern of oxygen uptake in the three domains of intensity. CP, critical power; LT, lactate
threshold; MLSS, maximum lactate steady state; RCP, respiratory compensation point; VT, ventilatory
threshold.
These findings paint a more nuanced picture of the relationship between

exercise and affect than what was implied by “exercise makes people feel
better.” While the “feel better” effect is possible, it is neither automatic nor
universal but rather conditional and thus less prevalent than originally
thought. Five landmark studies in this line of research are summarized in
Table 14.1. Next, we propose a research agenda by highlighting five high-
priority questions that can propel this line of investigation forward.
Table 14.1 Five Key Readings on Affective Responses to Exercise
Authors Methodology and Design Key Findings
Ekkekakis et al. Within-subjects experiment, Running below the VT did not lower ratings on
(2008): What is the with three 15-minute a scale of affective valence, whereas running at
shape of the dose- treadmill conditions: below, and above the VT did, with the decline above
response relation at, above VT. VT being quadratic.
between exercise
intensity and
affective responses?
Jones et al. (2018): Cross-sectional, correlational Discriminant analysis showed that individual
What individual study. Affective responses differences in preference for low versus high
characteristics were recorded during a exercise intensity and sex predicted group
distinguish between graded treadmill test. membership in 71% of cases. Negative
individuals who feel Depending on changes responders had lower preference scores and
worse and those between the VT and the RCP, were more likely to be men.
who feel the same participants were categorized
or better in response as negative responders or
to exercise at the neutral/positive responders.
“heavy” range of
intensity (i.e.,
between VT and
RCP)?
Parfitt et al. (2012):8-week randomized The training group showed 23.2% improvement
Would exercise that controlled trial, with a in the time needed to reach VT during a graded
feels “good” result control and a training group. exercise test from pre- to postintervention
in fitness gains? Participants in the training (258.5 to 318.5 seconds), whereas the control
group were instructed to group showed a 6.9% decline (266.7 to 248.3
regulate their intensity to feel seconds).
“good” during three 30-
minute sessions per week
(two supervised, one
unsupervised). Control
participants were instructed
to continue with their normal
routine.
Rose & Parfitt Within-subjects experiment, When instructed to exercise at an intensity that
(2008): What with eight 20-minute made them feel “good” or “fairly good,”
physiological treadmill sessions, four with sedentary women intuitively selected intensities
intensity is achieved the instruction to regulate close to their ventilatory threshold and within
when we use a intensity to feel “good” and the range the American College of Sports
rating scale of four with the instruction to Medicine recommends for the enhancement and
affective valence to feel “fairly good.” maintenance of cardiorespiratory fitness (64 ±
prescribe exercise 2% and 68 ± 3% of maximal heart rate,
that feels “good” or respectively).
“fairly good”?
Authors Methodology and Design Key Findings
Williams et al. 6-month randomized Affective valence was assessed via ecological
(2016): Is there a controlled trial, with one momentary assessment. Participants in the self-
mediational relation group instructed to select paced group averaged slightly higher ratings of
connecting a their own pace (but not to affective valence and a higher composite score
prescription for self- exceed 76% of maximum of exercise behavior (combining the duration of
paced exercise, heart rate) and the other each session and the latency, in days, from the
affective responses, group instructed to maintain
previous session). There was modest support for
and exercise intensity within the range of
a mediational model linking self-paced exercise
adherence? 64% to 76% of maximum to exercise adherence via affective responses (f2
heart rate. = 0.10, where 0.02 is small, 0.15 is medium,
and 0.35 is a large effect).
RCP, respiratory compensation point; VT, ventilatory threshold.

1. Theoretical Question: What Are the Mechanistic Bases of the
“Feel Better” and “Feel Worse” Effects?
Research on the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms underlying
affective responses to exercise is not only of academic interest but also can
serve as a valuable guide for interventions (e.g., by specifying conditions
under which an intervention targeting a particular mediator may be more or
less effective). Earlier mechanistic research was based on the assumption
that the relation between exercise and affect was limited to the “feel better”
effect. However, new evidence pointing to a complex relation necessitates an
updated approach to the question of mechanisms. Mechanistic investigations
should address the sources of individual differences in affective responses to
an identical exercise stimulus, the dose-response relation between exercise
intensity and affective responses, and the mechanistic bases of “feel worse”
effects. Some of the mechanisms previously hypothesized to account for the
“feel better” effect may be relevant to certain, more circumscribed, aspects
of this phenomenon. For example, self-efficacy may be related to the
maintenance of pleasure when the intensity of exercise presents a challenge
and triggers self-doubt about one’s ability to continue in the face of rising
displeasure. Likewise, endorphins may be related not to feeling better per se
but to the postexercise sense of relief, following a bout that was experienced
as unpleasant while it lasted (Saanijoki et al., 2018).
At present, the underlying processes driving both the relatively
homogeneous improvements in affect during exercise below the VT and the
universal declines in affect above the RCP remain enigmatic. Below the VT
(e.g., during a self-paced walk), most individuals report feeling better
(especially a sense of energy), but there is no clear evidence linking this
positive response to any of the mechanisms commonly discussed as
explaining the “feel better” effect (e.g., there is no supporting evidence for
self-efficacy, endorphins, or endocannabinoids). At the other end of the
spectrum, when exercise intensity exceeds the RCP, the dominant response is
affective decline, with limited individual variability. It has been proposed
that this effect reflects a combination of two factors, namely the
intensification of peripheral physiological symptoms related to metabolic
strain and a decline in prefrontal cortical activity, which is theorized to limit
the ability to cognitively regulate the rising displeasure (Ekkekakis, 2009).
Declines in prefrontal cortical activity have been found to correlate with
affective declines above the RCP (Tempest et al., 2014), but more research is
needed. If the decrease in prefrontal activity is linked to the inability to
regulate displeasure at this intensity, this finding would imply that cognitive
techniques (such as attentional dissociation or cognitive reappraisal) may be
of limited value for individuals exercising near the limit of their capacity.
2. Applied Question: How Can We Reliably Improve the Affective

Experience of Exercise?
As noted in the introduction, a “feel better” effect associated with exercise,
while possible, is conditional rather than automatic, since it appears to occur
mainly within the range of moderate intensity for most individuals and
within the range of heavy intensity for some. In practice, the “feel better”
effect may prove to be rare. This is because the unprecedented combination
of high body mass and low cardiorespiratory fitness is narrowing the range
of intensity likely to be accompanied by affective improvements (and,
conversely, extending the range likely leading to affective declines). The
average adult in the United States today has a body mass index of 29.39
kg/m² (Han et al., 2019), does only 45 minutes of moderate-intensity and 19
minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week (Tucker et al.,
2011), and has an aerobic capacity relative to body mass that has declined by
approximately one metabolic equivalent unit since the late 1960s
(Lamoureux et al., 2019). In addition to numerous adverse cultural and
social-psychological influences, these factors raise the probability that
exercise and physical activity would reduce pleasure (Ekkekakis et al.,
2018).
The affective response to exercise is a multilayered phenomenon and, as
such, presents opportunities for intervention at multiple levels (Figure 14.2).
While a body of evidence is being amassed on the role of certain factors
(e.g., exercise intensity, audiovisual stimulation, perceived autonomy), little
is known on other factors (e.g., the cultural context, the “emotional baggage”
of physical education, cognitive reappraisal, the behavior of exercise
leaders). Of critical importance is the “pragmatism” of future studies; the
participants and the settings to be investigated should facilitate the
translation of research to practice guidelines.
Figure 14.2. Opportunities for interventions to improve affective responses, illustrating the multiple
levels that can be targeted (from cultural and policy shifts to how exercise is implemented).
3. Theoretical Question: How Do Affective Experiences Shape

Memories and Affective Valuations of Exercise?
The theories used to understand, predict, and change exercise and physical
activity over the past 50 years (e.g., the health belief model, the theory of
planned behavior, the social-cognitive theory, the transtheoretical model)
were adopted from health and social psychology. While they differ in their
specifics, these theories converge on the fundamental assumption that
behavior follows from cognitive appraisals (e.g., of benefits vs. barriers,
self-efficacy, autonomy, relatedness). Recently, new exercise-specific
theories acknowledge the role of relevant appraisals but postulate that past
affective experiences associated with exercise and physical activity are also
influential in shaping behavior (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018; Conroy & Berry,
2017). A common assumption in these theoretical proposals is that repeated
experiences of pleasure or displeasure during previous episodes of exercise
or physical activity (e.g., in physical education, in the gym, in the
rehabilitation clinic) leave a valenced “imprint” in memory (called “affective
valuation” in affective-reflective theory by Brand and Ekkekakis, 2018).
Subsequent activation of the stimulus-concept of “exercise” also
automatically recalls the pleasure or displeasure associated with exercise,
and therefore triggers the urge to either approach or avoid this behavior,
respectively.
While this general idea has conceptual precedents and some empirical
support in other contexts (such as addictions; Bechara & Damasio, 2005),
important aspects remain unexplored. A crucial question pertains to how
affective experiences of exercise and physical activity are encoded in
memory. For example, would the displeasure experienced during a strenuous
bout or the pleasure embedded in the sense of pride and accomplishment that
is felt postexercise be more influential in how the bout is later remembered?
At present, the evidence suggests that affect ratings obtained during exercise
are more closely related to subsequent physical activity than those obtained
postexercise (Rhodes & Kates, 2015).
As another example, in some studies, researchers have opted to represent
the affective response to a bout of exercise as the overall average of ratings
obtained during and after exercise, even though ratings do not remain stable
over this period. Alternatively, research from the field of behavioral
economics has shown that the strongest determinant of how an episode will
be remembered, and whether the experience will influence subsequent
behavior, is neither the average nor the total amount of pleasure reported
during the episode. Instead, a “snapshot model” posits that what weighs
most heavily on how an episode is remembered is the affect experienced at
certain critical moments, namely the end of the episode and at the most
pleasant or most unpleasant peak (Kahneman, 2000). This “peak-end rule”
may also have implications for how exercise sessions are remembered
(Zenko & Ekkekakis, 2019). Identifying the most consequential aspects of
affective responses is a prerequisite to designing studies investigating the
links between these affective responses and subsequent behavior (Figure
14.3).
Figure 14.3. Multiple ways to operationalize the affective response to a bout of exercise, from
averages (during exercise and recovery), to the slope of change, to (positive and negative) “peaks” and
“end.”
4. Applied Question: Can Affect-Related Messages Supplement

the Focus on Health in Activity Promotion Campaigns?
The promise of disease prevention has been and continues to be the
centerpiece of public health campaigns to promote exercise and physical
activity. This argument (i.e., be active now to reduce the risk of chronic
disease, disability, and early death in the future) is based on the assumption
that humans, being rational creatures, are interested in their health and will,
therefore, seek, remember, and use relevant information in making
behavioral decisions, such as decisions on how to allocate their discretionary
time. Accordingly, it is believed that, if humans are given adequate, accurate,
and compellingly presented information about the health benefits of exercise
and physical activity, positive behavior change should naturally ensue.
Health and exercise psychology adopted this “rationality assumption,” as it
was fundamentally compatible with the dominant conceptual paradigm of
cognitivism.
That human behavior deviates in systematic and predictable ways from
rationality was first demonstrated in studies of economic behavior and, more
recently, in the context of exercise (Zenko et al., 2016). The bounded nature
of human rationality is now acknowledged in medicine and public health,
with authors conceding that “[providing] risk information is a weak
intervention” and that “information-based approaches to changing behavior
are based on partial models of human behavior” (Marteau, 2018, p. 4). The
persistent failure to change the percentage of the population in industrialized
countries that is regularly physically active is prompting similar
acknowledgments in the field of exercise science. Perhaps most prominently,
the international Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group recognized
that “the traditional public health approach based on evidence and
exhortation has—to some extent—been unsuccessful so far” (Hallal et al.,
2012, p. 254). The diplomatic qualifiers “to some extent” and “so far”
notwithstanding, this statement is a paradigm-shifting concession that the
modus operandi of the past 50 years was misguided.
While a successor paradigm will probably take a while to emerge,
promoting exercise and physical activity on the basis of immediate rewards,
such as pleasure, enjoyment, and a sense of fulfillment, appears as the most
conceptually defensible candidate. According to Shrank and Choudhry
(2012), “perhaps we need to find a way to make doing the right thing ‘feel
good’ to patients” (p. 264). This could be accomplished if we could
somehow establish a “very basic, subconscious connection between happy
feelings and certain behavior” (p. 265). However, at present, comparative
evaluations of the current approach based on appeals to rationality (i.e.,
promising future health benefits) and an approach emphasizing immediate
affective rewards are still lacking (Figure 14.4).
Figure 14.4. Alternative ways to promote exercise and physical activity. The left panel is an example
of typical appeals to rationality (i.e., promise of future health benefits using specific numerical
information). The right panel is aimed, through repetition, to establish a connection between physical
activity and pleasure, without words or numbers.
5. Theoretical Question: How Do Affective and Reflective

Processes Interact in Shaping Exercise Behavior?
Emerging theories of exercise and physical activity behavior (Brand &
Ekkekakis, 2018; Conroy & Berry, 2017) postulate that these behaviors
result from the interaction of two categories of processes, one (called “Type
1”) with past affective experiences at its core and another (called “Type 2”)
with reflective cognition at its core. Predictions when the two categories are
concordant are straightforward (i.e., avoidance of exercise when negative
reflective evaluations co-occur with negative past affective experiences).
The situation is more complex when the two are discordant (e.g., when one
believes that exercise will benefit health but is burdened by negative
affective experiences).
The interactions between the affective and reflective processes probably
cannot be reduced to deriving the algebraic sum of two opposing vectors.
The affective-reflective theory (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018) postulates that
the availability of self-control resources may act as a moderator, allowing
reflective processes to impose willful plans in the presence of negative urges
associated with affective processes (e.g., a person determined to implement a
New Year’s resolution after years of efforts halted by pain, exhaustion, or
embarrassment). On the other hand, when self-control resources are
diminished (e.g., under conditions of stress, cognitive load, time pressure),
affective processes seize control of behavior. Similar complex interactions
are posited by dual-process models proposed in other contexts, such as food
choice (e.g., Shiv et al., 2005; Wirz et al., 2018). Within exercise
psychology, early studies investigating dual-process models have mostly
dealt with the question of whether the addition of “Type 1” processes
accounts for unique variance in exercise or physical activity beyond the
variance accounted for by “Type 2” processes. The challenge for this line of
research is to move beyond models of these two categories of processes
acting in parallel to complex, dynamic models that incorporate multiple
moderating factors and conditions. A prerequisite to bringing this type of
research to fruition is to improve the measurement of “Type 1” processes,
such as the affective associations of exercise and physical activity (Zenko &
Ekkekakis, 2019).
Conclusion
Over the past two decades, the study of affective responses to exercise has
made considerable advances from the days of reiterating the “exercise makes
people feel better” mantra. The overhaul of the methodological platform has
enabled researchers to delineate the shape of the dose-response relation
between exercise intensity and affect. In turn, this has opened the door to
investigations and theoretical models that attempt to link the affective
experiences of exercise to subsequent behavior. This line of research has the
potential to reshape not only exercise psychology (by proposing theoretical
models that offer an expanded view of the mechanisms underlying exercise
and physical activity behavior) but also exercise science in general (by
changing the principles that underlie exercise prescriptions and physical
activity recommendations). Certainly, considerable work remains. Hopefully,
the questions we have identified here will inspire a new generation of
investigators to become involved.
References
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic
decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010
Brand, R., & Ekkekakis, P. (2018). Affective–reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise:
Foundations and preliminary evidence. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 48(1), 48–
58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-017-0477-9
Conroy, D. E., & Berry, T. R. (2017). Automatic affective evaluations of physical activity. Exercise
and Sport Sciences Reviews, 45(4), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1249/JES.0000000000000120
Ekkekakis, P. (2009). Illuminating the black box: Investigating prefrontal cortical hemodynamics
during exercise with near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(4),
505–553. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.4.505
Ekkekakis, P. (2013). The measurement of affect, mood, and emotion: A guide for health-behavioral
research. Cambridge University Press.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2005). Variation and homogeneity in affective
responses to physical activity of varying intensities: An alternative perspective on dose-response
based on evolutionary considerations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(5), 477–500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021492
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2008). The relationship between exercise intensity and
affective responses demystified: To crack the 40-year-old nut, replace the 40-year-old nutcracker!
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9025-z
Ekkekakis, P., Hartman, M. E., & Ladwig, M. A. (2020). Affective responses to exercise. In G.
Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed., pp. 233–253). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119568124.ch12
Ekkekakis, P., Ladwig, M. A., & Hartman, M. E. (2019). Physical activity and the “feel-good” effect:
Challenges in researching the pleasure and displeasure people feel when they exercise. In S. R. Bird
(Ed.), Research methods in physical activity and health (pp. 210–229). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158501-20
Ekkekakis, P., Parfitt, G., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2011). The pleasure and displeasure people feel when
they exercise at different intensities: Decennial update and progress towards a tripartite rationale for
exercise intensity prescription. Sports Medicine, 41(8), 641–671. https://doi.org/10.2165/11590680-
000000000-00000
Ekkekakis, P., Zenko, Z., & Werstein, K. M. (2018). Exercise in obesity from the perspective of
hedonic theory: A call for sweeping change in professional practice norms. In S. Razon & M. L.
Sachs (Eds.), Applied exercise psychology: The challenging journey from motivation to adherence
(pp. 289–315). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203795422-23
Ensari, I., Greenlee, T. A., Motl, R. W., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2015). Meta-analysis of acute exercise
effects on state anxiety: An update of randomized controlled trials over the past 25 years.
Depression and Anxiety, 32(8), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22370
Hallal, P. C., Andersen, L. B., Bull, F. C., Guthold, R., Haskell, W., & Ekelund, U. (2012). Global
physical activity levels: Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet, 380(9838), 247–257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1
Han, L., You, D., Zeng, F., Feng, X., Astell-Burt, T., Duan, S., & Qi, L. (2019). Trends in self-
perceived weight status, weight loss attempts, and weight loss strategies among adults in the United
States, 1999–2016. JAMA Network Open, 2(11), e1915219.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15219
Jones, L., Hutchinson, J. C., & Mullin, E. M. (2018). In the zone: An exploration of personal
characteristics underlying affective responses to heavy exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 40(5), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2017-0360
Kahneman, D. (2000). Evaluation by moments: Past and future. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.),
Choices, values, and frames (pp. 693–708). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803475.039
Lamoureux, N. R., Fitzgerald, J. S., Norton, K. I., Sabato, T., Tremblay, M. S., & Tomkinson, G. R.
(2019). Temporal trends in the cardiorespiratory fitness of 2,525,827 adults between 1967 and 2016:
A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 49(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1017-y
Marteau, T. M. (2018). Changing minds about changing behavior. Lancet, 391(10116), 116–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33324-X
Mezzani, A., Hamm, L. F., Jones, A. M., McBride, P. E., Moholdt, T., Stone, J. A., Urhausen, A.,
Williams, M. A., European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, American
Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, & Canadian Association of Cardiac
Rehabilitation. (2013). Aerobic exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiac
rehabilitation: A joint position statement of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention
and Rehabilitation, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and
the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology,
20(3), 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312460484
Parfitt, G., Alrumh, A., & Rowlands, A. V. (2012). Affect-regulated exercise intensity: Does training
at an intensity that feels “good” improve physical health? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,
15(6), 548–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.01.005
Raichlen, D. A., Pontzer, H., Harris, J. A., Mabulla, A. Z., Marlowe, F. W., Josh Snodgrass, J., Eick,
G., Colette Berbesque, J., Sancilio, A., & Wood, B. M. (2017). Physical activity patterns and
biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk in hunter-gatherers. American Journal of Human Biology,
29(2), 10.1002/ajhb.22919. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.22919
Reed, J., & Ones, D. S. (2006). The effect of acute aerobic exercise on positive activated affect: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(5), 477–514.
Rhodes, R. E., & Kates, A. (2015). Can the affective response to exercise predict future motives and
physical activity behavior? A systematic review of published evidence. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 49(5), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9704-5
Rose, E. A., & Parfitt, G. (2008). Can the Feeling Scale be used to regulate exercise intensity?
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(10), 1852–1860.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817a8aea
Saanijoki, T., Tuominen, L., Tuulari, J. J., Nummenmaa, L., Arponen, E., Kalliokoski, K., &
Hirvonen, J. (2018). Opioid release after high-intensity interval training in healthy human subjects.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 43(2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2017.148
Shiv, B., Fedorikhin, A., & Nowlis, S. M. (2005). Interplay of the heart and the mind in decision-
making. In S. Ratneshwar & D. G. Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and
desires (pp. 166–184). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481295-15
Shrank, W. H., & Choudhry, N. K. (2012). Therapy: Affect and affirmations — A “basic” approach to
promote adherence. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 9(5), 263–265.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2012.35
Tempest, G. D., Eston, R. G., & Parfitt, G. (2014). Prefrontal cortex haemodynamics and affective
responses during exercise: A multi-channel near infrared spectroscopy study. PLoS ONE, 9(5),
e95924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095924
Tucker, J. M., Welk, G. J., & Beyler, N. K. (2011). Physical activity in U.S. adults: Compliance with
the physical activity guidelines for Americans. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(4),
454–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.016
Williams, D. M., Dunsiger, S., Emerson, J. A., Gwaltney, C. J., Monti, P. M., & Miranda, R., Jr.
(2016). Self-paced exercise, affective response, and exercise adherence: A preliminary investigation
using ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(3), 282–
291. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0232
Wirz, L., Bogdanov, M., & Schwabe, L. (2018). Habits under stress: Mechanistic insights across
different types of learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20, 9–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.009
Zenko, Z., & Ekkekakis, P. (2019). Internal consistency and validity of measures of automatic exercise
associations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 4–15.
Zenko, Z., Ekkekakis, P., & Kavetsos, G. (2016). Changing minds: Bounded rationality and heuristic
processes in exercise-related judgments and choices. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,
5(4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000069
15
Health Behavior and Exercise Adherence
Selen Razon and Michael Sachs
State of the Art

Behavioral compliance or adherence is a fundamental problem in health
care settings in general (Osei-Frimpong, 2017) and within exercise settings
in particular (Picha & Howell, 2018). The discipline of exercise psychology
is concerned with the biopsychosocial bases of exercise behavior (Razon &
Sachs, 2018). The purpose of this chapter is first to review the literature
related to theories and research concerning the discipline of exercise
psychology. Next, we identify five major unanswered questions within the
discipline. These questions revolve around the most commonly studied and
least well-understood aspects of exercise behavior and the problem of
sustaining adherence to exercise behavior. Specifically, we examine main
topic areas related to the antecedents, determinants, consequences,
individual differences, and measurement in exercise behavior and exercise
adherence. The importance of effectively answering these questions will be
discussed in light of the knowledge that low levels of physical activity (PA)
are a global concern (Condello et al., 2017) and physical inactivity remains
the greatest public health problem of the 21st century (Piggin & Bairner,
2016).
First, regarding the literature in exercise psychology, antecedents (i.e.,
what precedes) of exercise behavior have been equated to multiple
contributors operating at different levels of influence. As such, it is
conceptualized that exercise behavior is influenced by social (e.g., social
support), biological (e.g., genetic makeup), demographic (e.g., age,
education levels, socioeconomic status [SES]), and psychological (e.g.,
motivational) factors (Teixeira et al., 2012). Particularly relevant to the field
of exercise psychology, research on exercise motivation from the
perspective of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) has
bourgeoned in recent years. Briefly, SDT postulates that two types of
motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, regulate individuals’ behaviors. To that
end, intrinsic motivation governs activities that one does because of their
inherent rewards. When intrinsically motivated, the individual feels a sense
of enjoyment, excitement, and mastery (Deci & Ryan, 2010). For instance,
one can exercise for the associated feelings of enjoyment or for the
challenge of participating in an exercise when they are intrinsically
motivated. In contrast to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation governs
activities that are done for instrumental gains, or to achieve some outcome
that is separated from the activity itself. For example, one can exercise to
earn a tangible or social reward or to avoid disapproval of others when they
are extrinsically motivated (Teixeira et al., 2012). Additionally, SDT has
introduced the notion of basic psychological needs. Specifically, SDT
argues that individuals possess three basic psychological needs: (a) a need
for autonomy (i.e., feelings of self-sufficiency vs. being controlled), (b) a
need for competence (i.e., perception of mastery over a task), and (c) a need
for relatedness (i.e., perceptions of personal connection with others). All of
these needs are considered essential for the development of intrinsic
motivation. As seen in Table 15.1, research has shown consistent support
that a sense of autonomy and competence, along with intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, distinctly contributes to initial exercise behavior as well as its
long-term sustenance (Teixeira et al., 2012).
Next, with regard to major determinants (i.e., most decisive life factors)
of exercise behavior and its long-term adherence, researchers have
investigated the role of a large array of lifestyle determinants across several
age groups. As seen in Table 15.1, findings suggest that while previous
history of activity is positively associated with exercise behavior, other
factors such as screen use, smoking, language difficulties, gestation,
childrearing, and lack of time are negatively associated with it (Condello et
al., 2017).
Of the psychological consequences of exercise behavior, research has
mainly revolved around the consequences of exercise on mood states and
cognitive functioning. To that end, with regard to anxiety disorders, which
are the most prevalent mental disorder (World Health Organization [WHO],
2017), exercise is considered an evidence-based alternative for improving
anxiety symptoms among individuals suffering from anxiety disorders
(Stubbs et al., 2017; see Table 15.1). With regard to its cognitive effects,
research findings indicate that especially at higher intensities (VO2max),
acute bouts of exercise result in positive effects on long-term memory
consolidation; hence, high-intensity exercise is recommended for
preventing cognitive impairments in older adults (Labban & Etnier, 2018).
A recent review has also summarized experimental evidence demonstrating
the positive effects of exercise on cognitive function (Etnier et al., 2019).
These advances are important because, with one new dementia diagnosis
every 3 seconds, cognitive decline in the elderly is a key public health
concern worldwide (WHO, 2017).
Another important component of this literature pertains to the linkage
between exercise behavior research and individual differences. To that end,
an underpinning theory is that individuals may feel greater motivation to
engage in exercise depending on their personality traits (see Table 15.1).
Consequently, drawing upon the classic “Big Five” or the five-factor model
(McCrae & John, 1992), personality traits including extraversion (e.g.,
talkative, assertive, energetic), openness to experience (e.g., intellectual,
creative), and conscientiousness (e.g., orderly, responsible, dependable)
have been associated with high levels of exercise behavior (Allen et al.,
2017).
Last but not least, within the field of exercise psychology,
psychometrically sound measures are key for the establishment of effective
inferences and the advancement of additional inquiries. It is important to
note that sport and exercise psychology is a theoretical and applied
discipline at the intersection of psychology and kinesiology/exercise
science. As such, measurements used by scientists and applied practitioners
are diverse and are either physiological (e.g., heart rate, heart rate
variability, power output, galvanic skin response) or psychological in nature
(e.g., questionnaires, interviews, observations). Subsequently, perhaps due
to its unique position of drawing upon distinct fields, measurement and
overall scientific rigor within the field have at times come under scrutiny.
For instance, a recent critical review concerning the measurement of
exercise behavior and its contributing factors revealed that a large number
of published works have failed to follow appropriate measurement and
reporting guidelines (Zenko & Ekkekakis, 2019). Ultimately, the authors
have advanced recommendations to facilitate better practices in the field
(see Table 15.1).
Table 15.1 Five Key Readings in Exercise Psychology
Design
Allen et A sample of Conscientiousness and openness to experience predicted increases in
al. (2017) 10,227 adults exercise behavior. Findings indicated that personality is important in
completed self- considering exercise behavior.
report measures
of physical
activity and
personality in
2006 (Time 1),
2010 (Time 2),
and 2014 (Time
3).
Condello Systematic In preschoolers and children, screen use was negatively associated
et al. review of 17 with overall exercise behavior; the higher the screen use in
(2017) empirical studies preschoolers and children, the less physically active they were. In
published from children and adolescents, previous history of exercise was positively
January 2004 to associated with overall exercise behavior. In adolescents, current
April 2016. A physical education classes and school sports were positively
systematic associated with overall exercise behavior. In adults, baseline exercise
literature review levels were positively associated with overall exercise behavior.
and meta-analysis Language difficulties were negatively associated with overall
of observational exercise behavior. In older adults, smoking was negatively
studies that associated with overall exercise behavior. Across all ages,
investigated the transitioning into an institution (i.e., middle school, high school,
behavioral college), gestation, childrearing, and lack of time were negatively
determinants of associated with overall exercise behavior.
exercise behavior
were conducted.
Stubbs et Meta-analysis of Exercise significantly decreased anxiety symptoms in experimental
al. (2017) articles published groups with respect to control. Exercise is effective in improving
up to December anxiety symptoms in people with a current anxiety disorder
2015. Altogether, diagnosis.
six randomized
control trials
including 262
adults were
analyzed.
Design
Teixeira Systematic Perceptions of autonomy predict initial exercise participation and
et al. review of 66 long-term exercise adherence across a range of samples and settings.
(2012) empirical studies Well-internalized extrinsic motivations, such as personally valuing
published until certain outcomes of exercise (e.g., becoming healthier), are
June 2011, particularly important for initial adoption of exercise. Intrinsic
including motivation (i.e., valuing the actual experience of exercise) is
experimental, particularly important for long-term adherence to exercise.
cross-sectional,
and prospective
studies that have
measured the link
between exercise
motivation and
short-term and
long-term
exercise behavior.
Zenko & Critical review of Of the 37 studies, 27 (73%) did not include a justification for the
Ekkekakis 37 studies in measure chosen. Additional problems included the nonreporting of
(2019) which automatic psychometric information (e.g., validity, internal consistency, test-
associations (i.e., retest reliability) and the lack of standardized procedures. The
implicit attitudes) authors emphasized the need to select measures based on theory,
to sedentary psychometric validity, and reliability, as well as the importance of
behavior, physical using standardized measurement protocols.
activity, and/or
exercise were
measured.

1. Applied Question: What Is the Potential of Exercise-Related
Technologies and Technology-Supported Exercise Programs to
Instill Motivation and Adherence for Long-Term Exercise
Behavior?
In light of the information that motivation is a primary antecedent of health
behavior change (Suarez & Spaccarotella, 2019), this is the first important
question to be addressed in future research. Recently, the use of
technologies for exercise has seen a substantial increase (Razon, Wallace, et
al., 2019). Today, commercially available wearable physical activity
tracking devices and exergaming remain practical tools designed to improve
exercise habits (Filho et al., 2018; Filho & Tenenbaum, 2018). To that end,
the new generation of activity trackers features properties of both
pedometers and accelerometers. They also provide individuals with an easy
and affordable way to monitor activity and energy expenditure (Dominick
et al., 2016). Similarly to wearable physical activity tracking devices,
exergames are technologies that aim to increase individuals’ physical
activity by requiring them to be physically active in the course of game
playing. Therefore, exergames or exergame programs come with gaming
qualities (e.g., use of exercise equipment; tailoring to individual’s fitness
level) that differ from casual video games and aim to promote exercise
behavior (Vazquez et al., 2018). However, the evidence with regard to the
effectiveness of these technologies to generate/support the motivation
needed for long-term exercise behavior change or exercise adherence is
mixed at best (Suarez & Spaccarotella, 2019).
From a practical standpoint, it is important to explain whether these
technologies instill motivation for long-term exercise behavior. Specifically,
evidence-based practice requires decision-making through careful use of the
best available evidence gathered from numerous sources to improve the
prospect of a positive outcome (Barends et al., 2017). Thus, practitioners
who are expected to follow evidence-based practice guidelines are in need
of additional evidence regarding the effectiveness of these new tools for
long-term behavior change. Furthermore, previous research indicates that
the uninformed use of these technologies in exercise interventions may not
only preclude individuals from meeting their exercise goals but also result
in amotivation and reduced self-efficacy with regard to their exercise
behavior (Kerner & Goodyear, 2017).
While these technologies are promoted as ways to motivate people to be
active, there is a scarcity of research data about the effectiveness of these
approaches to influence exercise motivation for true behavior change
(Kerner & Goodyear, 2017). Therefore, consistent with the most recent calls
for additional research on the topic (Gell et al., 2020), further large sample
size investigations, including individual qualitative approaches for
gathering real-person experiences that assess the motivational component of
multiple technologies, would best help address the question (Farnell &
Barkley, 2017). While doing this, it would also be important to further
consider how these technologies impact other perceptions such as self-
esteem and self-confidence (Kerner & Goodyear, 2017), all of which exert
indirect effects on motivation and behavior change (Bruning & Kauffman,
2016).
2. Applied Question: What Are the Best Strategies to Help
Individuals Exercise Initially and Then Exercise Regularly?
The second question for exercise psychology addresses advancing practical
applications. This question relates to the determinants of exercise behavior.
As previously outlined, amid multiple lifestyle factors (e.g., screen time,
previous levels of activity, and smoking) that influence exercise behavior
and exercise adherence, can we develop effective and time-efficient
strategies to increase exercise behavior? In fact, as recently proposed by the
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), there is a need to help
exercise and health professionals provide practical, innovative, and
effective recommendations to individuals who struggle to find ways to
exercise (Cohen & Sachs, 2021; Ferguson-Stegall & Robb, 2019).
This is important to address because exercise is a fundamental human
need and physical activity interventions typically fail (Guest et al., 2020). In
fact, with the ever-increasing prospects of more people becoming sedentary,
finding ways to integrate exercise into one’s daily life can present
substantial challenges. This is perhaps not surprising considering that the
percentage of adults getting adequate amounts of exercise remains quite
low. Particularly in the United States, recent reviews have reported that only
about 20% of adults engage in the recommended amounts of exercise
(Clarke et al., 2017). Furthermore, this percentage is known to decrease
with age, with about 13% of those 65 years or older engaging in the
recommended amounts of physical activity (Clarke et al., 2017).
From a scientist-practitioner standpoint, the best way to address this
question is to design practical exercise interventions and test the short- and
long-term effectiveness of these interventions in increasing exercise
behavior and exercise adherence in sedentary individuals. To that end,
consistent with some recent promptings (Ferguson-Stegall & Robb, 2019),
practical interventions could focus on setting more realistic goals and
helping individuals build less intimidating but workable exercise plans. For
instance, for individuals who are busy at work, approaches such as breaking
exercise into short bouts and using active workstations, including under-the-
desk ellipticals, standing desks, treadmill desks, or even bicycle desks, can
facilitate light exercise during the workday—these can all be tested.
Similarly, to make time at home more active, interventions to help include
exercise into downtime, as well as into a number of household chores,
should be tested. These practical interventions to increase active time at
home can be diverse, such as taking brisk walks, doing push-ups or squats
for every 30 minutes of screen time, holding wall-sits while doing laundry,
and having activity challenges and competitions between household
members (Cohen & Sachs, 2021). Finally, as an alternative to more
traditional forms of exercise, the effectiveness of engaging in and
maintaining nontraditional but (to some potentially) more enjoyable forms
of exercise such as yoga, active commuting, and active recreation, including
age-group sports and partner/social dancing, should be examined.
3. Applied Question: What Are the Preferred Exercise Types That

Lead to the Optimal Dose-Response Relationship Between
Exercise Practice and Biopsychosocial Effects?
This question addresses the consequences of exercise behavior, in view of
practical considerations encompassing the nature of the dose-response
relationship. Dose-response relationship can be defined as the relationship
between the frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise and its desired
biopsychosocial effects (Lox et al., 2016). Specifically, there is now
considerable evidence that exercise exerts positive effects on mood states
(Stubbs et al., 2017) and cognition (Labban & Etnier, 2018). Nevertheless,
data are still lacking to confirm what type of exercise, as well as its
regularity and intensity and duration, are needed to achieve desired
outcomes on mental health and cognitive functioning (Chen et al., 2018).
This is important to address because issues such as mood disorders and
cognitive decline are prevalent (McIntyre & Carvalho, 2016). Nearly 10%
of adults experience a mood disorder in any given year in the United States
(National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], 2017), and almost half of
them experience severe symptoms. The prevalence of cognitive decline is
11.1%, or one in nine adults in the United States (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). Cognitive decline costs close to
$300 billion per year (Cuyler, 2019). Further complicating the matter, the
pharmacological therapy that is typically prescribed for these conditions is
associated with multiple negative side effects (Fink et al., 2018).
Consequently, exercise therapy that is low in cost and with minimal to no
negative side effects could become a viable alternative to conventional
therapies. Nevertheless, to best help individuals achieve the psychological
benefits associated with exercise, there is a need for clearer guidelines
drawn from well-defined dose-response relationships.
Consistent with our previous recommendations, from an evidence-based
practice standpoint, additional research is needed to help address this
question. Specifically, there is a need for further rigorous studies to test the
effectiveness of exercise either as a main or adjunct treatment to mood
disorders and cognitive decline. To that end, while keeping in mind that,
most likely, a balance between aerobic and anaerobic exercise would
provide the most health benefits, research is still needed to determine the
most effective type, duration, frequency, and intensity of exercise for
individuals with these conditions. Studies should also test personalized
exercise strategies, since it is possible that different individuals will benefit
more from specific types and duration of exercise and, thus, advancing
recommendations based upon one’s clinical features and individual
responses could boost treatment efficacy in these conditions. Prospective
studies with follow-up, including a large number of participants, are
essential to clarify the effects of particular exercise prescriptions
specifically with regard to clinical populations (Teixeira et al., 2012).
4. Applied Question: How to Prescribe the Best Exercise

“Training” According to Personal Characteristics?
With regard to individual characteristics and the influences they exert on
exercise behavior, another key practical question is how to best combine the
numerous individual variables each person presents and provide people
with prescriptions that will maximize their exercise participation and
adherence. Individual characteristics include, but are not limited to, gender,
age, SES, educational level, religion, race/ethnicity, relationship status,
employment status, comorbidities, children, past experience with/adherence
to exercise, and perhaps even personality traits such as introversion,
extroversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and contentiousness.
Subsequently, there is a considerable challenge to synthesize all of this
information into one meaningful prescription that will work for people in
both acute and chronic terms. Ideally, research would allow us to advance
more refined algorithms that would enable plugging in data on these various
factors to establish an exercise prescription for a given individual. However,
it is unlikely we will see this in the near future.
Nevertheless, this is still an important question to address because these
differences can affect perceived barriers and motivations for participation
and adherence (Cohen & Sachs, 2021; Razon & Sachs, 2018). Furthermore,
given the low adherence rates to exercise even in highly structured clinical
rehabilitation settings (Jansons et al., 2017), there may be a need to
reconsider the priorities that guide the conventional ways to prescribe
exercise and how much of the individual and their uniqueness to consider.
Perhaps the idea of an advanced individualized exercise prescription could
be best understood in light of recent approaches in medicine. Individualized
precision medicine that is gaining popularity (Klein & Foroud, 2017)
considers one’s unique genetic makeup and genetic expression as well as
their map of hormones prior to prescribing therapies (Moyer et al., 2019).
Similarly to precision medicine, more advanced personalized exercise
prescriptions can consider a number of factors such as individuals’
genotype, phenotype, current training status, and nutritional intake (Swinton
et al., 2018).
Furthermore, clinicians and practitioners may assume a more active role
in administering a concise demographic intake initially and following up
with prompts related to the person’s preferences, history of exercise
adherence, and current circumstances related to work, family, children,
child care, financial resources, etc., and attempt to maximize the
effectiveness of exercise recommendations. To that end, rather than
overcomplicating matters, one could even simply inquire about what the
person likes in terms of physical activity because, in exercise as well,
individuals stick with what they like to do. Additionally, focusing on the
term physical activity, especially physical activities that are fun for the
individual, may likely serve as the basic/critical element to increase
exercise participation and adherence. Such an approach would also prevent
practitioners from getting “in trouble” by focusing too much on the terms
exercise and sport, which may be negatively value laden for some
individuals (Ciaccio & Sachs, 2018). In summary, drawing upon this
question/need, with exercise being a volitional activity for most individuals
(Ryan & Deci, 2017), practitioners would maximize effectiveness for
increasing exercise behavior by recommending activities that people enjoy
but that also align with their unique characteristics.
5. Methodological Question: What Are the Best Methods to

Conduct Applied Research in the Exercise and Physical Activity
Domain?
The last question that needs to be addressed is a methodological one. To
that end, it is important to note that, to bridge the research-practice gap, the
field of sport and exercise psychology typically conducts applied research
(Keegan et al., 2017). Applied research aims to solve specific, practical
problems affecting an individual or a group (e.g., does mental imagery
improve exercise performance?). Basic research, on the other hand, is a
systematic methodology that aims to further the understanding of
fundamental aspects of a phenomenon and of observable facts (e.g., which
neural pathways are involved in mental imagery during exercise?) (Thomas
et al., 2015). This said, experimental research commonly favors controlled
environments with carefully manipulated variables and well-designed
conditions that relate to the phenomena under consideration. Nevertheless,
the world of applied research can be complex and rather disorganized, since
it involves real-life situations, with uncontrolled and weakly defined
variables. As a result, with applied paradigms, researchers often witness
variables that behave in ways that challenge the basic assumptions of
research (Keegan et al., 2017). In light of this information, an imminent
question to address is how to conduct high-quality and rigorous applied
research in the field.
To reiterate, this is an important question to address because applied
researchers may need to operate within a messy environment with limited
control. Nevertheless, research that is messy and with limited scientific
rigor is reckless (Hofseth, 2018). To that end, problems of rigor are not new
to the field of sport and exercise psychology. A number of recent inquiries
have called upon the ever-increasing need to improve rigor within the field
(Razon, Lebeau, et al., 2019; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Consequently, it
is only through increased rigor and high-quality research that we could (a)
improve applied practices to deliver positive outcomes, (b) enrich training
of applied practitioners, (c) enhance the field’s liability and transparency
and, ultimately, (d) increase the credibility of the field as a whole (Keegan
et al., 2017).
The best way to address this question is by following recent
recommendations for increasing rigor in research coming from the field.
For instance, in qualitative frameworks, recent recommendations
(McGannon et al., 2019) for increasing rigor have strongly suggested that
researchers in the field should (a) acknowledge that exploring one’s
experiences can be done through more than just interviews and that the field
needs to go beyond individual interviews and use additional qualitative
research methods, such as focus groups, narrative inquiry, and case studies;
(b) go beyond interrater reliability and member checking by considering
other rigor methods (e.g., social reliability, critical friends, peer review,
intercoder guidelines, member reflections, synthesized and dialogic member
checking); and (c) ensure that epistemologies also align with contemporary
forms of rigor and trustworthiness with regard to the notion of
epistemological coherence. Lastly, consistent with the general
recommendations for strengthening the practice of scientific research in
exercise and sport sciences (Halperin et al., 2018), quantitative research in
the field would benefit from (a) increased validity of used measures, (b)
more longitudinal designs, (c) further replication of previous findings, and
(d) higher reporting of trivial and/or nonsignificant results.
Conclusion
Although the psychology of exercise must be considered to gain a greater
understanding of the human experience of exercise, including response to
exercise and associated outcomes, investigation and application of this
knowledge are still in a bourgeoning stage. From a broader perspective,
while there is a general understanding in terms of how the psychological
and biological interact to influence each other over the course of exercise,
there are still many questions we have to address. We are confident that
through the habit of scientific inquiry and an evidence-based mindset,
researchers and practitioners will come to address these questions and help
advance the understanding of the psychology of exercise.
References
Allen, M. S., Magee, C. A., Vella, S. A., & Laborde, S. (2017). Bidirectional associations between
personality and physical activity in adulthood. Health Psychology, 36, 332–336.
https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000371
Barends, E., Villanueva, J., Rousseau, D. M., Briner, R. B., Jepsen, D. M., Houghton, E., & Ten
Have, S. (2017). Managerial attitudes and perceived barriers regarding evidence-based practice:
An international survey. PloS ONE, 12(10), e0184594. doi:10–1371/journal.pone.0184594
Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D. (2016). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In
C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 160–173).
The Guilford Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). Subjective cognitive decline: A public
health issue. https://www.cdc.gov/aging/data/subjective-cognitive-decline-brief.html
Chen, F. T., Etnier, J. L., Wu, C. H., Cho, Y. M., Hung, T. M., & Chang, Y. K. (2018). Dose-response
relationship between exercise duration and executive function in older adults. Journal of Clinical
Medicine, 7, 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7090279
Ciaccio, J. B., & Sachs, M. L. (2018). A rose by any other name . . . . In S. Razon & M. L. Sachs
(Eds.), Applied exercise psychology: the challenging journey from motivation to adherence (pp.
Clarke, T. C., Norris, T., & Schiller, J. S. (2017). Early release of selected estimates based on data
from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey. National Center for Health Statistics.
http://www.bobmorrison.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cdc-report-on-uninsured-and-other-
population-stats.pdf
Cohen, B., & Sachs, M. L. (2021). Excusercise: Inexcusable excuses for not exercising. Excusercise
Publications.
Condello, G., Puggina, A., Aleksovska, K., Buck, C., Burns, C., Cardon, G., Carlin, A., Simon, C.,
Ciarapica, D., Coppinger, T., Cortis, C., D’Haese, S., De Craemer, M., Di Blasio, A., Hansen, S.,
Iacoviello, L., Issartel, J., Izzicupo, P., Jaeschke, L., . . . Boccia, S. (2017). Behavioral
determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “determinants of diet and physical
activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14, 58. https://doi.org–10.1186/s12966-017-0510-2
Cuyler, R. (2019). Estimating the direct and indirect costs of dementia. Care, planning, lifestyle
research. https://braincheck.com/blog/costs-of-dementia
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Intrinsic motivation. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.),
The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 1–2). John Wiley & Sons.
Dominick, G. M., Winfree, K. N., Pohlig, R. T., & Papas, M. A. (2016). Physical activity assessment
between consumer-and research-grade accelerometers: A comparative study in free-living
conditions. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4, e110. doi:10.2196/mhealth.6281
Etnier, J. L., Drollette, E. S., & Slutsky, A. B. (2019). Physical activity and cognition: A narrative
review of the evidence for older adults. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 156–166.
Farnell, G., & Barkley, J. (2017). The effect of a wearable physical activity monitor (Fitbit One) on
physical activity behavior in women: A pilot study. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 12,
1230–1237. doi:10.14198/jhse.2017.124.09
Ferguson-Stegall, L., & Robb, J. D. (2019). Effective strategies to increase physical activity in the
working years. ACSM’s Health and Fitness Journal, 23, 26–33.
doi:10.1249/FIT.0000000000000508
Filho, E., di Fronso, S., Robazza, C., & Bertollo, M. (2018). Exergaming. In S. Razon & M. L. Sachs
(Eds.), Applied exercise psychology: The challenging journey from motivation to adherence (pp.
Filho, E., & Tenenbaum, G. (2018). Advanced technological trends in exercise psychology. In S.
Razon & M. L. Sachs (Eds.), Applied exercise psychology: The challenging journey from
motivation to adherence (pp. 111–121). Routledge.
Fink, H. A., Jutkowitz, E., McCarten, J. R., Hemmy, L. S., Butler, M., Davila, H., Ratner, E., Calvert,
C., Barclay, T. R., Brasure, M., Nelson, V. A., & Kane, R. L. (2018). Physical activity
interventions to prevent cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and clinical Alzheimer-type
dementia: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168, 30–38. doi:10.7326/M17-1528
Gell, N. M., Grover, K. W., Savard, L., & Dittus, K. (2020). Outcomes of a text message, Fitbit, and
coaching intervention on physical activity maintenance among cancer survivors: A randomized
control pilot trial. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 14, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-
00831-4
Guest, C., Guest, D. D., & Smith-Coggins, R. (2020). How to care for the basics: Sleep, nutrition,
exercise, and health. In L. W. Roberts (Ed.), Roberts academic medicine handbook (pp. 571–580).
Springer.
Halperin, I., Vigotsky, A. D., Foster, C., & Pyne, D. B. (2018). Strengthening the practice of exercise
and sport-science research. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13, 127–
134.
Hofseth, L. J. (2018). Getting rigorous with scientific rigor. Carcinogenesis, 39, 21–25.
https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgx085
Jansons, P. S., Haines, T. P., & O’Brien, L. (2017). Interventions to achieve ongoing exercise
adherence for adults with chronic health conditions who have completed a supervised exercise
program: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 31, 465–477.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516653995
Kerner, C., & Goodyear, V. A. (2017). The motivational impact of wearable healthy lifestyle
technologies: A self-determination perspective on Fitbits with adolescents. American Journal of
Health Education, 48, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2017.1343161
Klein, C. J., & Foroud, T. M. (2017). Neurology individualized medicine: When to use next-
generation sequencing panels. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 92, 292–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.09.008
Labban, J. D., & Etnier, J. L. (2018). The effect of acute exercise on encoding and consolidation of
long-term memory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 40, 336–342.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2018-0072
Lox, C. L., Ginis, K. A. M., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2016). The psychology of exercise: Integrating
theory and practice. Routledge.
Keegan, R. J., Cotteril, S., Woolway, T., Appaneal, R., & Hutter, V. (2017). Strategies for bridging
the research-practice “gap” in sport and exercise psychology. Revista de Psicología del Deporte,
26, 75–80.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
McGannon, K. R., Smith, B., Kendellen, K., & Gonsalves, C. A. (2019). Qualitative research in six
sport and exercise psychology journals between 2010 and 2017: An updated and expanded review
of trends and interpretations. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1–
21.https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1655779
McIntyre, R. S., & Carvalho, A. F. (2016). Mood disorders and general medical comorbidities:
Shared biology and novel therapeutic targets. Current Molecular Medicine, 16, 104–105.
Moyer, A. M., Matey, E. T., & Miller, V. M. (2019). Individualized medicine: Sex, hormones,
genetics, and adverse drug reactions. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 7, e00541.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). (2017). Any mood disorders.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/any-mood-disorder.shtml
Osei-Frimpong, K. (2017). Patient participatory behaviors in healthcare service delivery: Self-
determination theory (SDT) perspective. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27, 453–474.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2016-0038
Picha, K. J., & Howell, D. M. (2018). A model to increase rehabilitation adherence to home exercise
programs in patients with varying levels of self‐efficacy. Musculoskeletal Care, 16, 233–237.
https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1194
Piggin, J., & Bairner, A. (2016). The global physical inactivity pandemic: An analysis of knowledge
production. Sport, Education and Society, 21, 131–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.882301
Razon, S., Lebeau, J. C., Basevitch, I., Foster, B., Akpan, A., Mason, J., Boiangin, N., & Tenenbaum,
G. (2019). Effects of acute exercise on executive functioning: Testing the moderators.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1349821
Razon, S., & Sachs, M. L. (Eds.). (2018). Applied exercise psychology: The challenging journey from
motivation to adherence. Routledge.
Razon, S., Wallace, A., Ballesteros, J., Koontz, N., Judge, L. W., & Montoye, A. H. (2019).
Perceptions of physical activity tracking devices: A survey analysis. Physical Educator, 76, 258–
284. doi:10.18666/TPE-2019-V76-I1-8470
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and
opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 11, 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
Stubbs, B., Vancampfort, D., Rosenbaum, S., Firth, J., Cosco, T., Veronese, N., Salum, G. A., &
Schuch, F. B. (2017). An examination of the anxiolytic effects of exercise for people with anxiety
and stress-related disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 249, 102–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.12.020
Suarez, E., & Spaccarotella, K. (2019). Effects of Fitbit use on physical activity in cardiac
rehabilitation patients. Graduate Journal of Sport, Exercise & Physical Education Research, 10,
26–36.
Swinton, P. A., Hemingway, B. S., Saunders, B., Gualano, B., & Dolan, E. (2018). A statistical
framework to interpret individual response to intervention: Paving the way for personalized
nutrition and exercise prescription. Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, 41.
Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical
activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78
Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2015). Research methods in physical activity (5th
ed.). Human Kinetics.
Vazquez, F. L., Otero, P., García-Casal, J. A., Blanco, V., Torres, A. J., & Arrojo, M. (2018). Efficacy
of video game-based interventions for active aging. A systematic literature review and meta-
analysis. PloS ONE, 13(12), e0208192. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208192
World Health Organization. (2017). Global action plan on the public health response to dementia:
2017–2025. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB140/B140_28-en.pdf?ua=1
Zenko, Z., & Ekkekakis, P. (2019). Critical review of measurement practices in the study of
automatic associations of sedentary behavior, physical activity, and exercise. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 41, 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2017-0349
16
Mindfulness in Exercise Psychology
Sarah Ullrich-French and Anne E. Cox
State of the Art

Mindfulness is a popular construct currently applied in a wide variety of
contexts to support health behaviors and general well-being. Empirical
evidence supports many health benefits of mindful movement (e.g., yoga,
tai chi) and is beginning to support the role that mindfulness may play in
exercise motivational processes and behavior (Cox, Ullrich-French, &
Austin, 2020). As such, mindfulness is emerging as a potential pathway to
positive exercise experiences. Mindfulness is increasingly used as a strategy
to support sport performance, and this also represents an important area of
research (e.g., Noetel et al., 2019) but falls outside the scope of this chapter.
This chapter addresses current research on mindfulness within the context
of exercise.
When defining mindfulness, there is general consensus on two key
aspects (Bishop et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The first reflects attention
to and awareness of the present moment. Awareness reflects consciousness
of both internal and external stimuli. Internal awareness can include the
breath, thoughts, emotions, or muscular engagement while moving.
Perceiving one’s environment via sensory input reflects external awareness.
Within awareness, one may focus or concentrate on one particular stimulus
or allow many stimuli to pass in and out of awareness. The second key
element is an attitude of openness, receptivity, curiosity, nonjudgment, and
acceptance. Awareness and attention that are nonreactive and accepting
create an optimal state of vividness and clarity that allows for optimal
psychological functioning (Brown & Ryan, 2003).
Mindfulness can be considered as a generalized trait or as a state. Trait
mindfulness reflects a tendency or disposition toward being mindful across
a range of daily activities and over time. State mindfulness reflects the
degree of mindfulness in a specific situation. Thus, there are interindividual
differences in trait mindfulness and intraindividual differences in state
mindfulness across situations or over time. Trait and state mindfulness have
been distinguished empirically by differential prediction of well-being
outcomes (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and motivation variables in the context of
physical activity (Cox, Ullrich-French, & Austin, 2020).
The majority of mindfulness research in the context of exercise has
examined the role of trait mindfulness. Overall, this research has
demonstrated consistent associations between trait mindfulness and
exercise-related cognitions and emotions (see Schneider et al., 2019). For
example, higher trait mindfulness is linked to higher autonomous forms of
motivation (Kang et al., 2017; Ruffault et al., 2016) and satisfaction with
physical activity (Tsafou et al., 2016, 2017). The relationship between trait
mindfulness and exercise behavior has been less consistent (Kang et al.,
2017; Kangasniemi et al., 2015) but has shown small effects with self-
reported physical activity (Tsafou et al., 2017) and physical activity
maintenance (Ulmer et al., 2010).
Mindfulness within the context of exercise may hold more relevance to
exercise-related experiences compared to trait mindfulness due to being
more proximal to the outcomes of interest, such as exercise-related affect,
cognitions, and motives. Because state mindfulness varies across activities
(Brown & Ryan, 2003), Tsafou et al. (2016) created the Mindfulness in
Physical Activity Scale (“When I am doing physical activity, I am aware of
what I am doing”). Mindfulness contextualized to physical activity was
moderately and positively related to physical activity, while trait
mindfulness was not (Tsafou et al., 2016). In a follow-up study, mindfulness
contextualized to physical activity was found to mediate the relationship
between trait mindfulness and physical activity (Tsafou et al., 2017). In both
studies, contextual mindfulness was positively associated with satisfaction
with physical activity. However, there is no evidence supporting the
psychometric properties of the contextualized measure nor other examples
of exercise-contextualized assessments of mindfulness.
The degree to which individuals are mindful while engaging in a specific
physical activity is a more precise window into exercise experiences than
either trait or contextualized mindfulness. Using two items to assess state
mindfulness, Yang and Conroy (2018) found that within-person affective
experiences assessed through ecological momentary assessment varied as a
function of state mindfulness, specifically that lower negative affect was
reported while moving and being more mindful than while sitting or
reporting less mindfulness. However, these results were based on two items
from a general measure of state mindfulness not designed for exercise. To
address the need for measurement designed for the physical activity
context, the State Mindfulness Scale for Physical Activity (SMS-PA; Cox,
Ullrich-French, & French, 2016) was developed. The SMS-PA, based on
Tanay and Bernstein’s (2013) State Mindfulness Scale, originally assessed
mental (e.g., thoughts, emotions) and physical (e.g., physical sensations)
targets of mindfulness. The SMS-PA expanded the number of items
capturing awareness of bodily movement and sensation to increase salience
to physical activity. The SMS-PA can be used as a single score or as two
subscales reflecting mindfulness of the mind and mindfulness of the body.
Findings are most consistent for the state mindfulness of the body scale,
including robust associations with higher intrinsic motivation for physical
activity, psychological need satisfaction, and body appreciation and lower
body appearance concerns (Cox, Ullrich-French, & French, 2016; Cox,
Ullrich-French, Cole, & D’Hondt-Taylor, 2016; Cox, Ullrich-French, &
Austin, 2020). The SMS-PA has also been shown to successfully
discriminate mindfulness conditions as a manipulation check in
experimental studies (Cox, Ullrich-French, Tylka, et al., 2020; Cox, Ullrich-
French, Hargreaves, & McMahon, 2020). Given the infancy of this work, it
is clear that the ability to adequately assess a hierarchy of trait, contextual,
and state mindfulness will be helpful for furthering this research (Yang &
Conroy, in press).
There has been inconsistent and often no use of theory in mindfulness-
based research relative to physical activity or exercise. However,
mindfulness aligns well with several popular theories that are used to
explain motivation and positive exercise experiences, including self-
determination theory (SDT) and dual-process models. Articulation for how
mindfulness can facilitate autonomous motivation was introduced over 40
years ago by Deci and Ryan (1980), who described how characteristics of
mindfulness disrupt maladaptive automatic and reactive patterns and allow
an individual to make decisions aligned with values, needs, and interests
that support psychological needs for competence and autonomy. Empirical
tests of specific SDT theoretical propositions are limited. Dual-process
models (e.g., Brand & Ekkakakis, 2018) addresses the distinction between
explicit (cognitive) and implicit (affective) processes and suggest that
implicit processes will dominate when sufficient self-regulation is lacking.
Evidence supports significant predictive capability of implicit processes
(e.g., pleasure experienced during an activity) leading to increasing
emphasis on understanding the quality of the physical activity experience
and strategies for maximizing pleasure during exercise. Dual-process
models provide a framework for better understanding how state and trait
mindfulness support positive affective experiences during exercise.
Mindful movement is a deliberate practice of fully experiencing physical
activity through “whole practice,” where one objectively self-observes core
elements of physical movement, breathing, feelings, and thoughts (Asztalos
et al., 2012). Combining mindfulness with movement is found in activities
such as yoga, tai chi, qigong, and Feldenkrais. One of the most popular
forms of mindful movement is yoga (Clarke et al., 2018), where intentional
cues often direct nonjudgmental attention to the physical and psychological
experience, thereby supporting emotional regulation and distress tolerance.
Strong evidence supports positive outcomes of yoga that encompass both
physical and psychological wellness (Chu et al., 2016; Cox, Ullrich-French,
Tylka, Cook-Cottone, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2020; Cox, Ullrich-French,
Cole, & D’Hondt-Taylor, 2016; Klatte et al., 2016) even over and above
mindful practice without movement (Hunt et al., 2018).
The positive associations between mindfulness and exercise-related
variables as well as the positive outcomes of mindful movement have led to
a wide variety of mindfulness-based interventions. There is robust support
for the effectiveness of incorporating mindfulness into acceptance-based
interventions (e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction [MBSR], acceptance
and commitment theory [ACT], and self-compassion) to positively
influence exercise behavior (Meyer et al., 2018; Palmeira et al., 2017).
However, there are wide inconsistencies in intervention duration, session
length, delivery, content, and follow-up. In a recent systematic review of the
role of mindfulness in physical activity, 40 studies were included, 19 were
cross-sectional, and only one received a quality rating as “strong”
(Schneider et al., 2019). The review revealed more consistent effects of
mindfulness on psychological outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, motivation,
affect) than on physical activity behaviors (Schneider et al., 2019).
Mindfulness and physical activity behavior may be indirectly associated
with and mediated by other psychological or physiological factors. More
rigorous methodology and application of theory will be needed to establish
reliable effects of mindfulness interventions and understanding of
mechanisms of influence.
There is growing interest in mindfulness, including in exercise contexts.
The research evidence is supportive of the use of mindfulness as a strategy
to enhance exercise-related outcomes as well as mindful movement to play
a key role in enhancing mindfulness skills and positive well-being (see
Ullrich-French & Cox, 2020, for a review). Table 16.1 identifies five key
readings; however, there is much to learn about mindfulness in exercise and
we pose some key questions to move our understanding forward.
Table 16.1 Five Key Readings in Mindfulness Related to Exercise Psychology
Design
Cox et al. Longitudinal cohort Increases in state mindfulness predict increases in autonomous
(2020) design (16-week motivation directly and indirectly through psychological need
yoga class) satisfaction.
Hunt et Randomized All active treatments resulted in decreased anxiety compared to
al. (2018) control; five inactive control. Both yoga alone and combined with mindfulness
treatment groups training led to the most adaptive responses to a stress challenge.
with active and
inactive control
groups
Ruffault Cross-sectional Trait mindfulness moderates (strengthens) the positive relationship
et al. study between intrinsic motivation for exercise and self-report physical
(2016) activity.
Schneider Systematic review Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) do not conclusively lead
et al. to increased physical activity behavior. Future MBIs should be
(2019) physical activity specific and target psychological factors that
sustain physical activity using rigorous longitudinal and
experimental designs.
Yang & Smartphone-based Lower momentary negative affect was reported while moving and
Conroy 14-day experience being more mindful than when sitting or being less mindful.
(2018) sampling design
across life contexts

1. Theoretical Question: What Are the Processes by Which State
and Trait Mindfulness Support Physical Activity Behavior?
Although a number of studies have now shown that state and trait
mindfulness associate positively with exercise-related cognitions,
motivation, and behavior, they are often lacking a clear theoretical
foundation or deeper exploration of the processes explaining the
connection. It is critical to understand different processes because they will
inform appropriate mindfulness interventions that are aimed at supporting
positive exercise experiences. For example, this knowledge will help
answer the question of whether time is best spent cultivating general
mindfulness skills that will enhance dispositional mindfulness or creating
contexts that facilitate state mindfulness during exercise. The pathways by
which trait and state mindfulness support exercise behavior may be
independent, overlap to some degree, or interact with one another.
Investigating these pathways will require studies grounded in theory that
systematically build upon each other.
Dual-mode models, monitor and acceptance theory (MAT), and SDT are
but a few frameworks with which to begin these investigations. For
example, bringing attention to present-moment exercise experiences may
help individuals gain awareness of the naturally pleasant sensations of
exercising, supporting the implicit processes in dual-mode models.
Consistent with MAT (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017), the acceptance part of
state mindfulness may also help lower affective reactivity, allowing
individuals to be more accepting of unpleasant physical or mental
experiences while exercising. Heightened attention coupled with lower
reactivity may then afford individuals the mental space and clarity to make
decisions during their exercise session that best support their feelings of
competence and autonomy, critical antecedents of intrinsic motivation
according to SDT. These theoretical perspectives provide a springboard
from which to conduct future examinations of how state mindfulness during
exercise supports positive exercise experiences and behavior.
Trait mindfulness, on the other hand, may facilitate exercise behavior for
the very simple reason that it leads to more frequent state mindfulness while
exercising, demonstrating overlapping. There is some evidence for this
relationship in the general psychology literature and in the context of
physical activity (Cox et al., 2020). On the other hand, although trait
mindfulness may increase the experience of state mindfulness during
exercise, one can experience state mindfulness even in the absence of
strong trait mindfulness, demonstrating independent pathways. In addition,
state mindfulness may have differential effects for those higher or lower in
trait mindfulness, reflecting an interaction effect. There may also be unique
pathways connecting trait mindfulness to exercise behavior and
experiences. For example, greater mindfulness in everyday life may
increase one’s awareness of the desire to exercise and the clarity with which
to meet one’s physical needs in this way and make the decision to exercise.
Trait mindfulness may also associate with the types of goals that facilitate
exercise behavior (e.g., more internalized goals). Finally, we need to
examine how trait mindfulness impacts state mindfulness during exercise
and how being mindful during exercise impacts trait mindfulness over time.
Conducting theoretically grounded studies that are intentional about
investigating state or trait mindfulness or both will better illuminate the
processes by which mindfulness facilitates positive exercise experiences.
2. Theoretical Question: What Are the Key Moderators of

Mindfulness?
We know that mindfulness is a complex, multidimensional construct. We
also know that constructs do not exist in a vacuum, but exist alongside a
host of other psychological, social, physical, and contextual factors. While
research consistently reports on adaptive associations and effects of
mindfulness on psychological factors related to physical activity, there are
examples of null and mixed findings, particularly for behavioral outcomes,
that suggest there are confounding or moderating factors to consider
alongside mindfulness. It is imperative to consider who may benefit more
or less from mindfulness intervention. Neuroticism (Norris et al., 2018) and
distress tolerance (Hsin Hsu et al., 2013) have been found to moderate the
effects of mindfulness interventions and support the need for more
exploration of moderators of mindfulness in the context of exercise.
Moderators can be used to explain how exposure to mindfulness may not
lead to the same benefits for all. Studies have begun to explore mediators to
explain the effects of mindfulness on physical activity, such as satisfaction
and stress (Tsafou et al., 2017). However, exploration of potential
moderators of the effect of mindfulness on exercise outcomes is lacking.
One potential moderating variable pertains to the experience of the
person relative to physical activity broadly or the specific activity being
examined. For example, those with more experience with yoga or
meditation report higher state mindfulness during exercise (e.g., Cox,
Ullrich-French, & French, 2016). Furthermore, those who participate in
more physical activity report higher state mindfulness compared to those
who do none to occasional activity (Ullrich-French et al., 2017). Whether
there are only differences in level of mindfulness or whether mindfulness
may associate differently with outcomes has yet to be explored in an
exercise context. One assumption requiring testing is that more experience
being physically active and more experience practicing a particular skill
should lead to better body awareness and insight and may thus set the stage
for stronger effects of mindfulness. Some evidence suggests trait
mindfulness could be a moderator of the relationship between intrinsic
motivation and physical activity behavior (Ruffault et al., 2016). However,
we have not found being higher in trait mindfulness to be a necessary
component for achieving the motivational benefits of being mindful during
exercise (Cox et al., 2020). Research specifically testing whether trait
mindfulness moderates the effects of a mindfulness intervention is needed.
Drawing from research in other contexts (e.g., Norris et al., 2018; Hsin Hsu
et al., 2013), there likely are inter- and intraindividual differences that may
moderate the effects of mindfulness on exercise.
To more fully understand the unique role of mindfulness in physical
activity, we need to consider what the primary moderating variables are that
may dampen or magnify the impact of mindfulness. Consideration of such
factors is important to more reliably understand the role of mindfulness and
to better design interventions and practical applications of mindfulness. To
accomplish this, several types of studies will be necessary. First, descriptive
work that explores a wide range of potential moderators will need to take
place to provide foundational descriptive evidence for which moderators to
explore more deeply. Next, well-planned rigorous experimental studies with
strong measurement will be needed that properly assess the relevant aspects
of mindfulness as well as the moderator. Such research will need adequate
power to detect moderation and capture adequate variability in both
mindfulness and the respective moderator.
3. Methodological Question: What Considerations Need to Be

Taken When Designing Studies to Test the Role of Mindfulness
During Exercise?
Despite quickly expanding research on mindfulness in exercise, there are
relatively few rigorous study designs (Schneider et al., 2019). For example,
an increasing number of studies are employing experimental designs to test
the effect of state mindfulness during exercise on a variety of outcomes. In
doing so, there are a number of study design elements that need to be
carefully considered because they impact the conclusions we can draw from
such studies and ultimately impact both theory and practice. There are no
clear-cut answers for the best experimental design; however, carefully
considering why, what, who, where, when, and how questions will help
researchers make the most informed decisions.
A good starting place is considering why state mindfulness would have
an impact on the dependent variable of interest. This requires a conceptual
or theoretical rationale. Perhaps aligned with MAT, greater state
mindfulness during exercise is hypothesized to support more positive
affective responses because it will reduce affective reactivity. The why will
then lead to what to focus on. Given the multifaceted nature of mindfulness
and the infinite number of mindfulness practices available, one must
carefully consider what aspects of mindfulness they wish to induce in their
experiment: awareness, attention, acceptance, or all three. Next, where
should those qualities of mindfulness be directed? The mind, the body, the
environment, or all three? In this example, it would be critical to include
acceptance in a mindfulness manipulation since it is theorized to reduce
affective reactivity according to MAT. The why and the what answers will
guide the researcher to the specific type of mindfulness manipulation or
intervention (how and when) they wish to test.
Another important what question is what the mindfulness intervention or
manipulation will be compared to. Within-person and between-person
designs offer flexibility for comparison. Using a quasi-experimental design
in a more naturalistic setting may require hunting for a good comparison
group, whereas true experimental designs will use a more traditional control
or active control group. For example, if you are manipulating mindfulness
to test if it enhances affect during exercise, then you may choose to
compare it to an exercise condition that is somewhat neutral (e.g., listening
to a podcast) or one that is known to support positive affect (e.g., listening
to music). To test if moving while mindful is a superior strategy for
decreasing anxiety compared to a seated mindfulness practice, the control
group may be a seated form of mindfulness rather than a second exercise
condition.
The next question is who the participants are. It is important to consider
that participants’ experiences while exercising will be influenced by a host
of factors not related to mindfulness such as their fitness level, physical
activity history, and tolerance for exertion. Participant response to a
mindfulness manipulation will also be shaped by their levels of trait
mindfulness and experience engaging in both static and movement-based
mindfulness practices. Whether and how to control for these factors of
course depend on the research question, but they should be considered
nonetheless. Final considerations include where an experiment should take
place (e.g., lab or naturalistic setting) and how/when mindfulness should be
experimentally induced (e.g., providing instructions at the beginning or
listening to an audio mindfulness script). Every decision involves a tradeoff,
but systematically working through these questions will lead to a well-
informed study design.
4. Methodological Question: How Do You Assess Mindfulness

During Exercise?
The multifaceted nature of mindfulness gives rise to a wide variety of
mindfulness measures. However, to meaningfully move our understanding
and application of mindfulness during exercise forward, more thought
needs to be given to appropriate assessment. Most measures are self-report,
and the vast majority assess trait mindfulness. The wide variety of trait
measures that capture different aspects of mindfulness lead to difficulty in
making comparisons across studies. The importance of capturing specific
aspects of mindfulness depends on the research goals, but most often
researchers rely on a total score and fail to attend to the differences between
global mindfulness and specific aspects of mindfulness. Additionally,
evidence suggests that state and contextualized mindfulness are more
salient to exercise-related outcomes. As noted by Yang and Conroy (2019),
there is a need to capture a hierarchy of mindfulness to account for the
global (trait), contextual, and specific situational (state) levels of
mindfulness.
Moving toward the goal of capturing a broader hierarchy of mindfulness
means more work needs to be done in the exercise context. There are only a
few examples of research assessing mindfulness at the context (Tsafou et
al., 2016, 2017) or state level during physical activity (SMS-PA; Cox,
Ullrich-French, & French, 2016). In addition, these contextualized and state
measure of mindfulness for physical activity do not adequately capture the
two key elements of mindfulness. The SMS-PA captures attention and
awareness but lacks adequate representation of the nonjudgment and
acceptance qualities of attention, which may be especially important to
capture as they are proposed to be critical explanatory mechanisms for
positive outcomes of mindfulness according to MAT (Lindsay & Cresswell,
2017).
Researchers should consider moving beyond using self-report
instruments to assess state mindfulness in particular. Self-reports have
inherent limitations, including that such assessments require consciousness
of complex and nuanced mindfulness processes. More objective tools of
neuroimaging can provide new insight into the mechanisms of mindfulness
and complement self-report measures. As application of these technologies
increases, there is growing understanding of the neural mechanisms
underlying mindfulness (see Tang et al., 2015). For example, the use of
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography
(EEG) have revealed the brain regions that are activated while being
mindful and even shown differences in gray matter for those who practice
mindful meditation (e.g., Desbordes et al., 2012). Despite being useful for
testing neuroplasticity following mindfulness interventions, these
techniques have limited ability to capture mindfulness while moving in
complex real-world exercise or physical activity contexts and are not an
accessible option for many researchers. Triangulated assessment from more
subjective self-report and more objective neuroimaging instruments at the
trait, context, and state levels will provide a more complete picture of
mindfulness and physical activity.
To test the mechanisms of mindfulness, adequate measurement is needed
that addresses the appropriate level, the triangulation of forms of
assessments, as well as capturing the critical elements of both monitoring
(awareness) and acceptance (nonjudgment). The ability to empirically
distinguish the qualities and degree of mindfulness within the context of
movement will be critical in gaining more fine-grained testing of the
mechanisms of mindfulness during exercise. This information will assist
development of the most effective interventions fostering strategies to
increase mindfulness skills.
5. Applied Question: What Forms of Physical Activity Are Suited

(or Not) to Mindfulness Interventions?
Some forms of physical activity or settings may be more conducive to being
mindful while moving. Mindful movement practices including yoga, tai chi,
and Pilates actively incorporate mindfulness within the physical practice.
For example, the instructor may direct participants to notice their breath and
physical sensations. Another type of movement that may be particularly
well suited to incorporating mindfulness is walking. Walking has been used
in studies testing the effects of mindful exercise (Cox, Ullrich-French,
Hargreaves, & McMahon, 2020; Yang & Conroy, 2018) and is a primary
vehicle for practicing mindfulness in various programs (e.g., MBSR).
Walking is appealing because it is accessible, inexpensive, and flexible and
affords the opportunity to easily apply guided mindfulness practices to a
well-practiced movement (e.g., directing attention to the sensations of the
engagement of muscles). It is clear that various forms of mindful movement
and walking offer ideal contexts within which to practice mindfulness;
however, we know far less about many other popular forms of exercise.
This is where the work lies.
Many forms of mindful movement are lower intensity activities. What is
not clear is what happens at higher intensities of exercise, such as exercise
at or above the ventilatory threshold (VT). This is a critical question
because exercise above the VT is almost universally unpleasant and results
in negative affective experiences (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018). We do not yet
know whether drawing attention, even with acceptance and nonjudgment, to
the inevitably uncomfortable interoceptive cues (e.g., muscle pain,
perspiration, increased heart rate and respiration) will have a positive or
negative impact on affective experiences and in turn long-term behavioral
choices.
Likewise, the mode of activity is an important consideration for the
application of mindfulness. Because limited modes of physical activity have
been examined, it will be necessary to test and compare different activity
modes and contexts. The constrained action hypothesis suggests that
internal focus of attention interferes with automatic processes of motor
control (McNevin et al., 2003). We do not know how being mindful during
physical activity, particularly focusing internally, will impact different types
of motor behaviors. There may be some types of physical activity or
exercise that are not conducive to mindfulness strategies. Additionally, at
early stages of learning, mindfulness may not facilitate safe or appropriate
motor skill execution. However, walking and perhaps other well-practiced
motor skills such as running or biking may provide an ideal mind-body
movement pair. It is necessary to focus attention on the appropriate cues
needed to safely execute some exercises, especially when learning new
and/or complex motor coordination patterns (e.g., safe weightlifting
technique). While attention and awareness may facilitate such tasks, it is
unknown how mindful qualities of openness and curiosity play a role in
performance or motor skill execution.
Research that tests different intensity levels, modes of exercise, and
stages of learning is needed to better understand the most appropriate ways
to incorporate mindfulness into physical activity and exercise. Another
unexplored area is to what degree an exerciser’s goals align with mindful
practice. There may be contexts that are not appropriate for incorporating
mindfulness. Determination of appropriate application of mindfulness
across physical activities cannot be made until there is adequate replication
across different types of exercise and exercisers.
Conclusion
The potential for applying mindfulness in the exercise context for
enhancing positive outcomes is clear, but there is a lot of work yet to be
done. Gaps in our knowledge include what modes of exercise, for whom,
and how is mindfulness best applied to exercise. Employing rigorous study
designs, applying the appropriate level and mode of assessment, and
identifying moderators will increase the precision of conclusions made,
particularly for identifying mechanisms for the effects of mindfulness and
the application of effective interventions. The questions identified
previously serve as a starting place and demonstrate the breadth of
theoretical, methodological, and applied issues that have yet to be
systematically pursued.
References
Asztalos, M., Wijndaele, K., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Philippaerts, R., Matton, L., Duvigneaud, N., &
Cardon, G. (2012). Sport participation and stress among women and men. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 13, 466–483.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., & Devins, G. (2004).
Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11,
230–241.
Brand, R., & Ekkekakis, P. (2018). Affective–reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise.
German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 48, 48–58.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.
Chu, P., Gotink, R. A., Yeh, G. Y., Goldie, S. J., & Hunink, M. M. (2016). The effectiveness of yoga
in modifying risk factors for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome: A systematic review
and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 23,
291–307.
Clarke, T. C., Barnes, P. M., Black, L. I., Stussman, B. J., & Nahin, R. L. (2018). Use of yoga,
meditation, and chiropractors among US adults aged 18 and over. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health
Statistics.
Cox, A. E., Ullrich-French, S., & Austin, B. (2020). Testing the role of state mindfulness in
facilitating autonomous physical activity motivation. Mindfulness, 11, 1018–1027.
Cox, A., Ullrich-French, S., Cole, A., & D’Hondt-Taylor, M. (2016). The role of mindfulness during
yoga in predicting self-objectification and reasons for exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
22, 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.10.001
Cox, A., Ullrich-French, S., & French, B. (2016). Validity evidence for state mindfulness scale scores
in a physical activity context. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 20, 38–
49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2015.1089404
Cox, A. E., Ullrich-French, S., Hargreaves, E., & McMahon, A. (2020). The effects of mindfulness
and music on affective responses to self-paced treadmill walking. Sport, Exercise, and
Performance, Psychology, 9, 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000192
Cox, A. E., Ullrich-French, S., Tylka, T., Cook-Cottone, C., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2020).
Examining the effects of mindfulness based yoga instruction on positive embodiment and affective
responses. Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 458–475.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). Academic
Press.
Desbordes, G., Negi, L. T., Pace, T. W., Wallace, B. A., Raison, C. L., & Schwartz, E. L. (2012).
Effects of mindful-attention and compassion meditation training on amygdala response to
emotional stimuli in an ordinary, non-meditative state. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 292.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292
Hsin Hsu, S., Collins, S. E., & Marlatt, G. A. (2013). Examining psychometric properties of distress
tolerance and its moderation of mindfulness-based relapse prevention effects on alcohol and other
drug use outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 38, 1852–1858.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.11.002
Hunt, M., Al-Braiki, F., Dailey, S., Russell, R., & Simon, K. (2018). Mindfulness training, yoga, or
both? Dismantling the active components of a mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention.
Mindfulness, 9, 512–520. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0793-z
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.
Kang, Y., O’Donnell, M. B., Strecher, V. J., & Falk, E. B. (2017). Dispositional mindfulness predicts
adaptive affective responses to health messages and increased exercise motivation. Mindfulness, 8,
387–397.
Kangasniemi, A. M., Lappalainen, R., Kankaanpää, A., Tolvanen, A., & Tammelin, T. (2015).
Towards a physically more active lifestyle based on one’s own values: The results of a randomized
controlled trial among physically inactive adults. BMC Public Health, 15, 260.
Klatte, R., Pabst, S., Beelmann, A., & Rosendahl, J. (2016). The efficacy of body-oriented yoga in
mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International,
113(12), 195.
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and
acceptance theory (MAT). Clinical Psychology Review, 51, 48–59.
McNevin, N., Shea, C., & Wulf, G. (2003). Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention
enhances learning. Psychological Research, 67, 22–29.
Meyer, J. D., Torres, E. R., Grabow, M. L., Zgierska, A. E., Teng, H. Y., Coe, C. L., & Barrett, B. P.
(2018). Benefits of 8-wk mindfulness-based stress reduction or aerobic training on seasonal
declines in physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 50, 1850.
Noetel, M., Ciarrochi, J., Van Zanden, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2019). Mindfulness and acceptance
approaches to sporting performance enhancement: A systematic review. International Review of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 139–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1387803
Norris, C. J., Creem, D., Hendler, R., & Kober, H. (2018). Brief mindfulness meditation improves
attention in novices: Evidence from ERPs and moderation by neuroticism. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 12, Article 315. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00315
Palmeira, L., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Cunha, M. (2017). Exploring the efficacy of an acceptance,
mindfulness and compassionate-based group intervention for women struggling with their weight
(Kg-Free): A randomized controlled trial. Appetite, 112, 107–116.
Ruffault, A., Bernier, M., Juge, N., & Fournier, J. F. (2016). Mindfulness may moderate the
relationship between intrinsic motivation and physical activity: A cross-sectional study.
Mindfulness, 7, 445–452. doi:10.1007/s12671-015-0467-7
Schneider, J., Malinowski, P., Watson, P. M., & Lattimore, P. (2019). The role of mindfulness in
physical activity: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 20, 448–463. doi/abs/10.1111/obr.12795
Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State mindfulness scale (SMS): Development and initial
validation. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1286–1299. doi: 10.1037/a0034044
Tang, Y.-Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16, 213–225.
Tsafou, K. E., De Ridder, D. T., van Ee, R., & Lacroix, J. P. (2016). Mindfulness and satisfaction in
physical activity: A cross-sectional study in the Dutch population. Journal of Health Psychology,
21, 1817–1827.
Tsafou, K. E., Lacroix, J. P., Van Ee, R., Vinkers, C. D., & De Ridder, D. T. (2017). The relation of
trait and state mindfulness with satisfaction and physical activity: A cross-sectional study in 305
Dutch participants. Journal of Health Psychology, 22, 1221–1232.
Ullrich-French, S., & Cox, A. E. (2020). Mindfulness and exercise. In D. Hackfort & R. J. Schinke
(Eds.), Routledge international encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical
and methodological concepts (pp. 303–321). London https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187228
Ullrich-French, S., González Hernández, J., & Hildago Montesinos, M. D. (2017). Validity evidence
for the adaptation of the state mindfulness scale for physical activity (SMS-PA) in Spanish youth.
Psicothema, 29, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.204
Ulmer, C. S., Stetson, B. A., & Salmon, P. G. (2010). Mindfulness and acceptance are associated with
exercise maintenance in YMCA exercisers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 805–809.
Yang, C. H., & Conroy, D. E. (2018). Momentary negative affect is lower during mindful movement
than while sitting: An experience sampling study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37, 109–116.
Yang, C., & Conroy, D. E. (2019). Mindfulness and physical activity: A systematic review and
hierarchical model of mindfulness. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1611901
17
Exercise and Aging
Michel Audiffren and Nathalie André
State of the Art

Cognitive performance generally declines with aging, but a high
interindividual variability can be observed in the population, with some
individuals declining more quickly than others (Hertzog et al., 2009).
Genetic and lifestyle factors explain a large part of this interindividual
variability. Lifestyle factors include physical activity (PA) and food habits.
For instance, epidemiological studies show that practicing PA regularly
reduces the risk of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline
with aging (e.g., Rockwood & Middleton, 2007). However, maintaining a
new healthy habit for a long period, such as the regular practice of physical
activity, requires higher cognitive functions, such as executive functions
(Hall & Fong, 2015). This chapter focuses on the bidirectional relationship
between chronic exercise (i.e., planned, structured, and repeated bouts of
PA) and cognitive health in the elderly. In this introductory section, we first
describe the causal link between chronic exercise and cognitive
performance in older adults. Then, we discuss the causal link between the
efficiency of high-level cognitive functions, such as executive functions
(e.g., planning), and adherence to exercise. In the second section, we
present five major questions related to this topic that need to be addressed
to advance the field forward.
The causal relationship between exercise and cognitive aging has been
extensively studied during the last 50 years. Randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) are the only valid protocols allowing to establish this causal link.
Recent meta-analyses of RCTs revealed that there is a small to moderate
positive effect of chronic exercise on cognition in older adults (e.g., Sanders
et al., 2019). Arthur Kramer and his team were the first to propose that this
positive effect of chronic exercise is selective rather than general; that is,
brain regions mostly affected by the deleterious effect of aging benefit
mostly from chronic exercise (e.g., Colcombe et al., 2003). In a well-known
meta-analysis on chronic exercise and cognitive performance in older adults
(Colcombe & Kramer, 2003), results indicated that the effect size is larger
for executive functions (e.g., inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility) than
for other cognitive functions (e.g., speed of information processing,
visuospatial processes).
Executive functions (EFs) can be conceived as an umbrella of high-level
top-down cognitive functions requiring effortful control and the activation
of a large frontoparietal network. Core EFs include maintenance and
updating of relevant information in working memory; controlled inhibition
of prepotent impulses, intrusive thoughts, awkward emotions, or automatic
motor responses; and mental set shifting, also known as cognitive
flexibility. Other high-level cognitive functions such as volition, planning,
sustained attention, and self-regulation have also been considered
intrinsically linked to EFs. Executive functions play an important role in
daily living, allowing individuals to mentally shift through ideas, to reason
before acting, to cope with novel and unexpected challenges, to resist
temptations, and to stay focused on a specific goal (Diamond, 2013). In the
domain of sport and exercise, EFs seem to be crucial for the process of
successful pacing regulation (Hyland-Monks et al., 2018).
Today, the efficacy and effectiveness of exercise programs aimed to slow
down cognitive aging and improve EFs have been largely supported. The
current questions in debate concern the type of exercise and program that
lead to the largest effect size and the explanatory mechanisms that underpin
these positive effects. In RCT studies demonstrating a causal link between
chronic exercise and cognition, researchers generally compare cognitive
performances before the beginning and after the end of the exercise
program in a treatment and a control group. The control group generally
participates in light-intensity exercises, such as stretching exercises, balance
exercises, toning exercises, or a combination of all or part of these different
categories of exercise. These exercises generally induce null or small
positive effects when comparing cognitive performances of the control
group before and after the program. By contrast, several types of exercise
programs led to a moderate to large improvement of cognitive functions in
the treatment group. The meta-analysis of Colcombe and Kramer (2003)
suggests that programs combining aerobic exercise (e.g., jogging, Nordic
walking, cycling) and resistance exercises and lasting more than 6 months
give the largest positive effects. In addition, coordination exercises seem to
have a beneficial effect on cognitive functions but through different
mechanisms depending on the intervention, such as the training of EFs
(Voelcker-Rehage et al., 2011).
Different mechanisms have been proposed to explain these positive
effects of chronic exercise on cognitive aging. The cardiovascular
hypothesis (Tarumi & Zhang, 2015) suggests that cardiovascular
adaptations to endurance exercise ameliorate brain oxygenation and
consequently brain functions through attenuation of age-related arterial
stiffness and/or endothelial dysfunction. The neurotrophic hypothesis
(Cotman & Berchtold, 2002) proposes that voluntary exercise can increase
brain levels of several neurotrophic factors, such as the brain-derived
neurotrophic factor (BDNF), leading to a stimulation of neurogenesis and
angiogenesis, an increased resistance to brain insult, and an improvement of
learning and cognitive performance. The inflammatory hypothesis (Petersen
& Pedersen, 2005) assumes that the production and releasing of cytokines,
such as interleukin-10 (IL-10), during skeletal muscle fiber contractions
induces a protective and anti-inflammatory effect against chronic diseases
associated with brain tissue inflammation. The effort hypothesis (Audiffren
& André, 2019) propounds that regular practice of effortful exercises
initiates a virtuous circle linking PA and effortful control in a bidirectional
way. On the one hand, chronic exercise leads to an improvement of EFs and
effortful control. On the other hand, gains in EFs and effortful control
effectiveness lead to a reciprocal facilitation of the maintenance of PA over
time. It is important to note that these four mechanisms are thought to occur
synergistically rather than antagonistically.
As mentioned earlier, EFs play a crucial role in self-regulating exercise
pace. In addition, they play a determinant role in adherence to exercise. For
instance, it can be hypothesized that aging people who have a high efficacy
in planning (i.e., the ability to plan actions until their completion) and in
remembering planned actions just before they have to be completed (i.e.,
prospective memory) will have a higher efficacy in maintaining a healthy
behavior, such as regularly practicing physical activity. In the same way, it
can be hypothesized that older adults who have a performant-controlled
inhibition (i.e., the ability to stop or repress prepotent impulses, unwanted
and intrusive thoughts, embarrassing emotions, or automatic responses) will
have a higher capacity to resist the desire to stop exercise when the feeling
of discomfort, pain, or fatigue is too high. McAuley and his coworkers
(2011) conducted the first study that showed a causal link between efficacy
of EFs and adherence to exercise in older adults. More precisely, they have
shown significant indirect effects of executive function on adherence via
self-efficacy. More recently, Best, Nagamatsu, and Liu-Ambrose (2014)
showed that the gain in EFs induced by an exercise program predicts the
adherence to PA during the 1-year follow-up period in an elderly
population. Table 17.1 summarizes five key studies that contributed greatly
to the advancement of the field and posited the positive effect of chronic
exercise on cognitive aging as evidence based. In the following section, we
will present five major questions that need to be addressed in the future to
advance theory and methodology in the field and improve future
interventions targeting older adults.
Table 17.1 Five Key Readings in Exercise and Cognitive Aging
Design
Best et al. Intervention The higher the gain in executive functions following a 12-month
(2014) study Latent resistance exercise training in the elderly, the higher the adherence to a
growth curve subsequent exercise routine over a 1-year period
analysis
Colcombe Cross-sectional Cortical areas negatively affected by aging are positively impacted by
et al. study Structural exercise.
(2003) MRI
Colcombe Intervention A program of 6 months of aerobic exercises in older adults led to
et al. study Structural
significant increases in gray and white matter volume of the anterior
(2006) MRI cingulate cortex and the superior temporal gyrus, two key structures
involved in effortful control.
Colcombe Meta-analysis The effect size of the positive effect of chronic exercise on cognitive
& Kramer functions is larger for executive functions compared to other cognitive
(2003) functions in aging people.
Erickson Intervention A program of 12 months of aerobic exercise increased hippocampal
et al. study Structural volume of the elderly by 2%.
(2011) MRI

While research in the area of exercise psychology has made significant
advances in the comprehension of the bidirectional relationship between
exercise and cognition, certain questions remain unanswered. In this
section, we present five of these unanswered major questions.
1. Theoretical and Applied Question: What Is the Specific

Contribution of Each Explanatory Mechanism to the Link
Between Exercise and Cognition?
The first question relates to theoretical and practical issues and concerns the
real contribution of the four main plausible mechanisms presented earlier in
this chapter to the positive effect of chronic exercise on cognitive aging. We
previously explained that each of these four mechanisms (i.e., neurotrophic
hypothesis, inflammatory hypothesis, effort hypothesis, and cardiovascular
hypothesis) could contribute synergistically to the benefits of exercise on
cognitive functions. Nevertheless, some questions remain unanswered:
Does one of these mechanisms induce larger effects than the others? Are the
effects of these four mechanisms additive or overadditive? Answering these
two questions could help researchers and trainers to optimize exercise
programs aiming to enhance cognition. In this perspective, if one of the four
mechanisms explains a large part of variance of the gain in cognitive
performance (e.g., 70%), preference should be given to the type of exercise
mostly soliciting this mechanism. For instance, if the inflammatory
hypothesis explains the largest part of variance of the phenomenon, it could
be interesting to focus on exercises leading to a higher releasing of
myokines. By contrast, if the neurotrophic mechanism interacts positively
with the effort mechanism, it could be judicious to conceive exercise
programs that simultaneously stimulate releasing of neurotrophic factors
and effortful control in order to magnify the effects of chronic exercise on
cognition.
The best way to address this question would be to conduct a series of
intervention studies satisfying three criteria. First, each intervention study
should allow to compare several types of exercise programs (e.g., aerobic,
resistance, and coordination exercises, and different combinations of these
three types of exercise). Second, the principal outcome related to cognitive
health (e.g., a battery of cognitive tasks tapping EFs and effortful control)
and mediating variables reflecting a specific mechanism should be assessed
before and after the end of the intervention program. For instance, the
plasmatic concentration of IL-10 cytokines could be viewed as a mediator
of the relation between exercise and cognition regarding the inflammatory
hypothesis. In the same way, the serum level of BDNF could be used as a
mediator with regard to the neurotrophic hypothesis and the maximal
oxygen uptake during incremental exercise (VO2max) as a mediator
concerning the cardiovascular hypothesis. Finally, considering the effort
hypothesis, the connectivity within the salience network underpinning
effortful control could be conceived as a mediator of the linkage between
exercise and cognition. Third, results of these intervention studies should be
analyzed through structural equation modeling, allowing to determine the
weight of each plausible mechanism in the causal relationship between
exercise and cognition.
2. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Do Individual

Characteristics Help to Address Theoretical and Practical Issues?
The second question relates to theoretical and practical issues and concerns
the moderating effect of individual characteristics on the magnitude of the
effect of chronic exercise on cognitive aging. Relevant participant
characteristics include polymorphism genotypes, neurological status,
chronological age, and gender. Individual characteristics moderating the
effects of chronic exercise on high-level cognitive functions, such as EFs
and declarative memory, are particularly relevant for two main reasons.
First, the interaction between a moderating variable, such as the
neurological status, and an intervening variable, such as the type of exercise
program, on cognitive functions has theoretical value. The observation of
such an interaction would suggest that the brain mechanism negatively
affected by the neurological problem shares commonalities with the
neurophysiological mechanism positively impacted by chronic exercise
(i.e., when two factors interact); as such, it could be inferred that these two
factors influence the same mechanism. However, this inference could be
made if, and only if, there is no ceiling or floor effect; that is, the
combination of both effects does not reach an upper or lower limit.
Second, identifying the older population groups that are more sensitive to
the positive effect of chronic exercise on cognition also presents a practical
interest. This information can help public policies to ameliorate prevention
programs aiming to improve the well-being and the cognitive health of
older adults by targeting more subtly specific populations (e.g., frail
elderly). However, it is important to use a pertinent protocol to observe the
expected interaction.
The majority of the studies that examined interaction effects between a
moderating variable associated with an individual characteristic and the
effect of chronic exercise on cognitive aging used cross-sectional or
longitudinal studies. The main problem of these protocols is that they do not
allow to evidence the causal relationship between exercise and cognition.
Consequently, results can be interpreted in two ways: a group of older
adults presenting a specific characteristic (e.g., valine homozygous for the
BDNF gene) can be either more sensitive to the effects of chronic exercise
on cognitive functions, more capable to practice physical exercises
regularly, or both. In addition, the “State of the Art” section presents some
arguments suggesting that the two relationships exist. Only RCT
intervention studies can demonstrate the direction of the causal link, even in
specific populations. Consequently, we need more intervention studies
examining interactions between a specific individual characteristic (e.g.,
postmenopausal women with and without hormone treatment) and a
specific exercise program (e.g., stretching vs. aerobic exercises) to identify
the mechanism explaining the interaction and to delineate the
subpopulations more positively impacted by the chronic effect of exercise.
3. Methodological Question: How Best to Examine the Intention-

Exercise Relationship?
The third question relates to methodological issues and concerns the weak
predictive power of health models regarding behavioral change in older
adults. The reflection around this question is definitely an epistemological
concern and criticizes the use of global conceptual models, such as the
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Such models refer to a structured
sequential scheme that serves as either a causal chain of determinants or a
sequential chain of states for a given human behavior.
Global conceptual models of behavioral change poorly predict change in
older adults for two main reasons. First, the expected behavior is generally
a new behavior, which has to dislodge or supersede competing customary
behaviors, change habits, remove impediments, and accommodate to life
context, all elements that are strongly rooted in older adults. Second and
closely related to the first reason, almost all the conceptual models used in
health and social sciences are banked on intention, while no published
experimental demonstration can be found that intention is first among all
possible determinants of behavior.
Some insightful debates have been held on the legitimacy of global
conceptual models in health and social psychology (e.g., Schwarzer, 2014)
by questioning their usefulness for the understanding of human behavior
and their effectiveness for predicting and controlling behavior change. In
fact, the validity of a global conceptual model is seldom examined through
the validity of its individual components, the psychometric soundness of its
observed variables, or the appropriateness of statistical tools used for
validation. The proposed approaches, such as expanding the model (e.g.,
Kosma, 2014; Park et al., 2017) or using auxiliary assumptions (i.e.,
assumptions that link the theory to an actual observation; see Trafimow &
Earp, 2016), are not always suitable to models based on behavior change
because of the inherent irrationality of certain behaviors and their low
reproducibility. It would be more appropriate and heuristic to use
observation-based predictive conceptual models, rather than
prescriptive/descriptive models, as the experimental evidence of the latter is
quite problematic (André & Laurencelle, 2020). Indeed, researchers usually
use confirmatory approaches, whose goal is to methodologically reconcile
the initial hypothesized model with the emerging (best-fit) statistical model.
This upward reconciliation is fostered by the supporters of confirmatory
statistical techniques (confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation
modelling) and authorized by their leniency for imperfect models. This
approach leads to confirm the original model to the detriment of actual
observed differences, which might nevertheless contain important
information. For this reason, scholars should elaborate competing models
and bank on their predictive validity.
The intention-behavior relationship could be the first to be
experimentally examined to verify the role of intention in behavior change
when the past behavior is determined mainly by routine behaviors (e.g., van
Bree et al., 2013). Moreover, there is a need to identify determinants
negatively related to behavior change such as resistances to change or past
failures.
4. Theoretical Question: How to Clarify the Role of High-Level

Cognitive Functions in the Behavior Change Process?
The fourth question relates to theoretical issues and concerns the crucial
role of high-level cognitive functions in maintenance of exercise in elderly.
As mentioned earlier, changing behavior is complex because it relies on
high-level cognitive functions (e.g., EFs), which decline with aging. More
and more research is showing that high-level cognitive functions, such as
controlled inhibition for physical activity (e.g., Best et al., 2014) or
prospective memory in medication prescription (e.g., Insel et al., 2016),
predict the maintenance of a new behavior. However, the relationship
between high-level cognitive functions and maintenance of exercise
remains underexplored. Consequently, there is a need to answer the
following question: does the improvement of EFs, effortful control, and
prospective memory through training help aging people to maintain durably
a new behavior, such as exercising regularly?
The best way to address this question is to examine the complexity of the
behavior that needs to be changed and maintained. It is frequently
mentioned that the higher the complexity of the targeted behavior, the lower
the likelihood of successful behavioral change (e.g., Rothman, 2000).
However, what is a complex behavior? For instance, is smoking cessation
more complex than starting to exercise? We assume here that it is not the
complexity of the target behavior itself that must be questioned but rather
the nature of the cognitive change involved. A new perspective on the study
of behavior change is considered here by distinguishing behaviors that
primarily target stopping an unhealthy behavior (e.g., smoking, drug abuse,
alcohol consumption, video game playing, gambling, sex addiction, or
binge eating) from those that primarily focus on starting a new healthy
behavior (exercising, following a medication treatment, self-examination,
diet regimen, or condom use).
It is reasonable to assume that stopping a behavior requires the use of the
controlled inhibition function many times a day to resist the desire to
express this specific behavior, which requires effortful control. In another
respect, a sedentary senior who would like to start a new behavior, such as
practicing physical activity several times a week, would also have to exert
an inhibitory control over the desire to stop exercising when the feeling of
discomfort or fatigue is too high. However, the individual certainly exerts
this inhibitory control less frequently than when stopping a strong habit
(Audiffren & André, 2015). In addition, someone who wants to start a new
behavior must plan this new activity and remember to begin at the
appropriate time (prospective memory), two higher cognitive functions
directly related to self-regulation and EFs. A first interesting approach
would be to examine whether the two categories of behavioral change (i.e.,
stopping a habit or starting a new behavior) require the same executive
components and in which percentage of involvement. A second interesting
approach would be to understand how a substitution behavior (e.g., a
pleasant healthy behavior with a low perceived cost, such as jogging at the
preferred speed) could help stop an unhealthy behavior, such as smoking, in
order to help maintenance.
5. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Best to Examine the

Complete Virtuous Circle Linking Exercise and Cognition?
The fifth and last question focuses on examining the bidirectional causal
relationship between exercise and cognition (i.e., the complete virtuous
circle) in a single protocol. As discussed in the previous sections, practicing
physical exercise regularly improves memory and EFs. Symmetrically,
improvement of EFs and prospective memory facilitates adherence to
exercise programs. To our knowledge, only one intervention-based study
(Best et al., 2014; see Table 17.1) examined the complete virtuous circle
linking exercise and cognition. However, a theory needs more support to be
substantiated. Consequently, there is a need for more intervention studies in
the area, including a follow-up period of at least 12 months to test the
hypothesis of the virtuous circle.
The validity of the virtuous circle has a very important practical purpose
regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of physical exercise–based
rehabilitation programs for vulnerable populations with physical
deconditioning such as patients with low back pain and fragile older adults.
It would be interesting to test the efficacy and effectiveness of intervention
programs using physical exercises, cognitive exercises, and a combination
of both types of exercise. These programs could be conceived to induce
gains in EFs and prospective memory and to examine if these gains increase
physical activity maintenance in the 12 months postintervention. Two
categories of cognitive exercises could be used separately or in
combination: (a) strategy-based exercises that train people to learn
strategies to better store information in episodic and prospective memory,
leading to improved organization of their activities, and focus of attention,
and (b) process-based exercises that train people to perform cognitive tasks
repeatedly, selectively tapping EFs and prospective memory.
Another important question concerns the transferability of cognitive
function gains to other domains of behavior change (e.g., changes in food
habits toward healthy eating), with the hypothesis that varying exercise
types (e.g., physical and cognitive, strategy based and process based) within
a training program would facilitate such far-transfer effects, which need to
be examined in such intervention studies.
Conclusion
The positive effect of chronic exercise on cognitive aging is no more
debated in the scientific and medical literature. It can be viewed as a far-
transfer effect of exercise on cognitive functions, and more particularly on
executive control. What needs to be improved in the future is the
understanding of the synergistic effects of the different mechanisms leading
to these positive effects in order to propose more effective exercise
programs and magnify their effects at the behavioral level. In addition, it
seems crucial to identify moderators of this causal relationship in order to
tailor these exercise programs to individual characteristics. Finally, theory-
driven behavioral change techniques based on cognitive processes must be
elaborated to increase compliance and adherence of the older participants to
the exercise programs.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
André, N., & Laurencelle, L. (2020). Where do the conceptual models for behaviour change come
from, and how are they used? A critical and constructive appraisal. Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, 16(1), 1–8.
Audiffren, M., & André, N. (2015). The strength model of self-control revisited: Linking acute and
chronic effects of exercise on executive functions. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4, 30–46.
Audiffren, M., & André, N. (2019). The exercise-cognition relationship: A virtuous circle. Journal of
Sport and Health Science, 8, 339–347.
Best, J. R., Nagamatsu, L. S., & Liu-Ambrose, T. (2014). Improvements to executive function during
exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Frontiers in
Human Neurosciences, 8(353), 1–9.
Colcombe, S. J., Erickson, K. I., Raz, N., Webb, A. G., Cohen, N. J., McAuley, E., & Kramer, A. F.
(2003). Aerobic fitness reduces brain tissue loss in aging humans. Journal of Gerontology:
Medical Sciences, 58A(2), 176–180.
Colcombe, S. J., Erickson, K. I., Scalf, P. E., Kim, J. S., Prakash, R., McAuley, E., Elavsky, S.,
Marquez, D. X., Hu, L., & Kramer, A. F. (2006). Aerobic exercise training increases brain volume
in aging humans. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 61A(11), 1166–1170.
Colcombe, S., & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A
meta-analytic study. Psychological Science, 14(2), 125–130.
Cotman, C. W., & Berchtold, N. C. (2002). Exercise: A behavioral intervention to enhance brain
health and plasticity. Trends in Neurosciences, 25(6), 295–301.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
Erickson, K. I., Voss, M. W., Prakash, R. S., Basak, C., Szabo, A., Chaddock, L., Kim, J. S., Heo, S.,
Alves, H., White, S. M., Wojcicki, T. R., Mailey, E., Vieira, V. J., Martin, S. A., Pence, B. D.,
Woods, J. A., McAuley, E., & Kramer, A. F. (2011). Exercise training increases size of
hippocampus and improves memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7),
3017–3022.
Hall, P. A., & Fong, G. T. (2015). Temporal self-regulation theory: A neurobiologically informed
model for physical activity behavior. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 117.
Hertzog, C., Kramer, A. F., Wilson, R. S., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Enrichment effects on adult
cognitive development: Can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced?
Psychological Sciences in the Public Interest, 9(1), 1–65.
Hyland-Monks, R., Cronin, L., McNaughton, L., & Marchant, D. (2018). The role of executive
function in the self-regulation of endurance performance: A critical review. Progress in Brain
Research, 240, 353–370.
Insel, K. C., Einstein, G. O., Morrow, D. G., Koerner, K. M., & Hepworth, J. T. (2016). Multifaceted
prospective memory intervention to improve medication adherence. Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 64, 561–568.
Kosma, M. (2014). An expanded framework to determine physical activity and falls risks among
diverse older adults. Research on Aging, 36(1), 95–114.
McAuley, E., Mullen, S. P., Szabo, A. N., White, S. M., Wójcicki, T. R., Mailey, E. L., Gothe, N. P.,
Olson, E. A., Voss, M., Erickson, K., Prakash, R., & Kramer, A. F. (2011). Self-regulatory
processes and exercise adherence in older adults: Executive function and self-efficacy effects.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(3), 284–290.
Park, J. Y., Chiu, W., & Won, D. (2017). Sustainability of exercise behavior in seniors: An
application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Journal of Physical Education and Sport,
17(1), 342–347.
Petersen, A. M. W., & Pedersen, B. K. (2005). The anti-inflammatory effect of exercise. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 98, 1154–1162.
Rockwood, K., & Middleton, L. (2007). Physical activity and the maintenance of cognitive function.
Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 3, S38–S44.
Rothman, A. J. (2000). Toward a theory-based analysis of behavioural maintenance. Health
Sanders, L. M. J., Hortobagyi, T., la Bastide-van Gemert, S., van der Zee, E. A., & van Heuvelen, M.
J. G. (2019). Dose-response relationship between exercise and cognitive function in older adults
with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS ONE, 14(1),
e0210036.
Schwarzer, R. (2014). Life and death of health behavior theories. Health Psychology Review, 8, 53–
56.
Tarumi, T., & Zhang, R. (2015). The role of exercise-induced cardiovascular adaptation in brain
health. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 43(4), 181–189.
Trafimow, D., & Earp, B. D. (2016). Badly specified theories are not responsible for the replication
crisis in social psychology: Comment on Klein. Theory and Psychology, 26, 540–548.
van Bree, R. J. H., van Stralen, M. M., Bolman, C., Mudde, A. N., de Vries, H., & Lechner, L.
(2013). Habit as moderator of the intention–physical activity relationship in older adults: A
longitudinal study. Psychology and Health, 28(5), 514–532.
Voelcker-Rehage, C., Godde, B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2011). Cardiovascular and coordination
training differentially improve cognitive performance and neural processing in older adults.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 26.
18
Youth Sport
Daniel Gould and Michael Mignano
A better understanding of sport for children and youth is a topic of

paramount importance in the field of sport psychology for a number of
reasons. First, millions of children are involved in sport worldwide
(Tremblay et al., 2014). Second, it has been demonstrated that sport
participation has a number of important physical, social, and psychological
consequences for children and youth (e.g., Eime et al., 2013). Many of
these consequences have been shown to be beneficial (e.g., improved
health, learned life skills such as emotional regulation, and teamwork).
However, other outcomes of youth sport have been shown to be negative
(e.g., physical injury, stress, and burnout). Third, children participate in
sport during important developmental periods of their lives where being
physically active can influence long-term physical and mental health and
development. Fourth, society sees sport as an important avenue for both
achievement and the development of young people.
Given the importance of sport participation for children, it is not
surprising that sport psychology researchers have been interested in the
topic since the late 1970s (Smith et al., 1979). Interest in the area has grown
over the years with studies conducted on a variety of topics such as
motivation for participation, moral development, sport parenting, and
effective coaching. We now have entire books (e.g., Knight et al., 2017) and
special issues of journals like Kinesiology Review (e.g., Smith & Gould,
2019) devoted to the subject. A growing and devoted group of researchers
around the world also focus their agendas on youth sport issues.
While we have learned much about sport psychology for young athletes,
more questions remain unanswered than have been answered. Therefore,
this chapter focuses on what is unknown about sport psychology research
concentrated on youth sports. That is, what are key questions for the field
moving forward and what are the best ways to address those questions? We
will begin by first summarizing five exemplary research studies that have
appeared in the youth sport literature and identifying what made them so
impactful. Then, five key questions facing the field moving forward are
addressed. In doing so, we will discuss why each question is important and
the most effective ways to study that question.
State of the Art

Based on our knowledge of the youth sports research, five key studies have
been identified that capture the state of the art of youth sport psychological
research. The design and key findings of these exemplary studies are
summarized in Table 18.1.
The first study is Smith, Smoll, and Curtis’s (1979) investigation of youth
sport coaches, which was one of the first intervention studies conducted in
the area. This seminal work has also spawned several extensions and
replications (e.g., Smith et al., 2007) as well as practical publications and
programs.
The second study is one of the first author’s and his colleagues (Gould et
al., 1996) and was part of a series of mixed-method studies designed to
examine burnout in young athletes. We chose the second qualitative study
in the series and included it because this work was one of the few studies to
date that actually identified burned-out young athletes, as opposed to
assessing burnout in active participants.
The third study is Vella, Cliff, and Okely’s (2014) longitudinal
quantitative analysis of youth sport motivation and dropout using a national
data set in Australia. It is one of the few studies to distinguish between sport
dropout and sport transfers and was guided by a comprehensive
socioecological model.
Visek and colleagues’ (2015) mixed-method study examining how fun is
defined in youth sport is the fourth study identified. We liked its
comprehensive nature and focus on developing a fun integration theory.
Finally, Weiss, Bolter, and Kipp’s (2016) mixed-method evaluation of the
First Tee life skills–based golf program was included. It is an example of a
well-conducted evaluation of a youth sport program.
An examination of these five studies revealed that they were guided by
theory or focused on theory development, were methodologically sound,
and asked questions of practical importance. These studies often included
mixed methods using the appropriate method for the question being posed
and reflect how quantitative and qualitative methods can augment one
another, providing unique information.
Table 18.1 Five Key Readings in the State of the Youth Sport Literature
Gould et Qualitative; second phase of a study Better understanding of burnout to help prevent
al. that conducted interviews of 10 highly and provide strategies for tennis players and
(1996) burned-out junior elite tennis players; junior athletes. The researchers showed and
used an integrated working model of labeled categories based on the hierarchical
burnout and semistructured interview content analysis, including signs, symptoms, and
approach; Profile and Hierarchical characteristics of burnout; factors leading to
Content Analysis burnout; and advice for preventing future
burnout.
Smith et Experimental; coach effectiveness Trained coaches showed more positive behaviors
al. training intervention with 34 male and were viewed more favorably than the control
(1979) Little League coaches; experimental (untrained) coaches group. Young athletes who
coach group was exposed to a played for trained coaches showed significant
preseason training program utilizing increases in self-esteem and higher levels of
empirically derived effective intrateam attraction, despite no differences in
guidelines and compared to control won-lost records. Seminal research in
coaches in the same leagues who did understanding youth sport coaches’ use of
not experience such training encouragement, punishment, and technical
methods of instruction.
Vella et Quantitative; data set from the Found seven socioecological predictors of sports
al. Kindergarten (K) cohort of the participation in organized sports and four
(2014) Longitudinal Study of Australian predictors of burnout. Study distinguished
Children (LSAC), an examination of between complete sport dropout and sport
the social, environmental, and transfers. Overall, girls, children of lower
economic impacts on development and socioeconomic backgrounds, and children who
well-being; 4,042 child participants of receive low parental support were found to
a nationally representative sample; encounter the highest risks of low sport
measured sports participation with participation and high sport dropout rates.
social-ecological predictors
Visek et Mixed methods; concept mapping and The fun integration theory was developed from
al. structured group data collection; youth this study using the framework of fun using a
(2015) soccer athletes (n = 142), parents (n = novel mixed-methods assessment of participants
57), and coaches (n = 37) were in sport (FUN MAPS). Overall, 81 fun-
interviewed using brainstorming, determinants were found and categorized into 11
sorting, and rating activities related to themes such as positive team dynamics, trying
fun in sports hard, positive coaching, learning, and improving.
Weiss et Mixed methods; program evaluation of Studies added to the positive youth development
al. First Tee, a national youth life skills framework and evaluated the impact of a youth
(2016) organization; two-part study; Study 1’s sport life skills organization to determine
purpose was to compare First Tee with program efficacy; significantly contributed to the
other organized activities on life skills existing knowledge base by using essential
transfer and developmental outcomes. research design features such as a comparison
Study 2’s purpose was to assess life group, statistical analysis, longitudinal phase,
skills transfer across 3 years; further and validity of a life skills transfer measure.
validity of the Life Skills Transfer
Survey.

1. Applied Question: How Can the Professionalization of Youth
Sports Be Curbed?
The professionalization of youth sport is a worldview that occurs when
youth sport coaches and parents adopt, often implicitly, an elite
entertainment model of sport that places heavy emphasis on competitive
success, early sport specialization, intensive training, and the pursuit of
extrinsic rewards like receiving trophies and earning rankings (Gould,
2009). The professionalized model of youth sport can be contrasted with a
more holistic child-focused view that places primary emphasis on fostering
the physical, psychological, and social development of the child. The goals
of holistic youth sports should be for every child to have a positive
experience, engage in healthy physical activity, learn social skills and
values, and have fun (Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness &
Committee on School Health, 2001).
Addressing the professionalization of youth sports via applied
interventions is important because it is thought to lead to a range of
problematic behaviors. These include coaches focusing most of their
attention only on the most skilled children, coaches and parents yelling at
children for not performing well, increased early sports specialization,
intense year-round training, parental pressure on children to win or achieve
results, and the berating of officials and various unethical behaviors (e.g.,
violating rules, use of performance-enhancing drugs).
Given that professionalization of youth sport is a sociocultural issue, it
must be addressed at that level. Some organizations in the United States, for
example, such as the Positive Coaching Alliance and Aspen Foundation
Project Play, have been trying to shift the narrative away from this model to
a more child-centered holistic approach through nationwide social
messaging, engaging stakeholders, and bringing media attention to the
issue. In addition, national sport governing bodies such as USA Hockey and
the United States Tennis Association have reorganized their youth sport
programs to better align with a holistic child development versus a
professionalized model. This has involved such initiatives as modifying the
rules and teachings of the games at the entry levels so that they are more
developmentally appropriate and eliminating rankings and national
competitions. While these initiatives are laudable and encouraging, few, if
any, efforts have been made to evaluate their effectiveness. Evaluation
research is needed to determine if these efforts are effective in achieving
their goals and what specific elements of the programs are effective. It is
also important to note that there is an entirely separate body of evaluation
research theories, methods, and knowledge that exists. Thus, investigators
interested in assessing if efforts to shift youth sport stakeholders from
professionalized to more holistic views should use this body of evaluation
scientific knowledge and methods to guide their research efforts (e.g.,
Patton, 2014). Moreover, programs designed to shift the youth sport
narrative could be designed, implemented, and evaluated by using existing
research dissemination and communication models, like diffusion theory,
which explains how new ideas and technology spread through a social
system (Dearing & Kerr, 2012). Specifically, these models suggest that
targeting persuasive information toward key influencers in specific social
settings (e.g., respected and influential youth sport coaches) is more
effective than mass appeals.
2. Theoretical and Methodological Question: Does Youth Sport

Participation Influence Short- and Long-Term Physical Activity
and Health-Enhancing Behaviors?
With the growth and expansion of technology around the world and
increasingly sedentary lifestyles, physical inactivity and obesity levels have
risen in children and youth. For example, in the United States, only one in
four children aged 6 to 15 years meets minimum physical activity
guidelines (Dentro et al., 2014). This is important because a lack of physical
activity is associated with a variety of health problems in both children and
adults (Pfeiffer & Wierenga, 2019). Moreover, sport participation is
assumed to be a major vehicle for combatting physical inactivity in young
people. However, this assumption has rarely been tested, and there is some
evidence that children who play sports do not meet minimal physical
activity guidelines (Leek et al., 2011). Not only are children less physically
active because of factors like the decline of unstructured or free play, but
also many young people lack fundamental physical literacy skills like
jumping, throwing, and skipping that serve as the building blocks of
movement throughout their lives (Tremblay et al., 2018).
Given current high rates of physical inactivity in young people, an
important question related to applied interventions, theory, and
methodological development is to examine how youth sport participation
influences short- and long-term physical activity and health-enhancing
behaviors in children and youth. Specifically, what role does sport
participation play in helping children reach minimum physical activity
guidelines, become adults who remain physically active, and engage in
positive health-oriented behaviors? Identifying mechanisms to explain why
some individuals engage in physical activity while others do not is an
additional topic of importance.
Relative to the short-term effects of the role sport can play in meeting
physical activity requirements, observational or accelerometer studies that
assess the amounts of time young athletes spend being physically active in
practices and games are needed. These are important because some studies
have shown that children, especially in entry-level sport programs, are not
meeting minimal physical activity requirements (Leek et al., 2011), despite
the fact that many of these programs have enhanced physical activity as a
goal. Randomized intervention protocols like the one described by
Guagliano and colleagues (2012) provide an excellent example for
conducting future studies examining whether training youth coaches
influences the amount of physical activity their athletes experience during
practices and games.
In terms of the study of long-term physical activity effects, after
reviewing the literature, Pfeiffer and Wierenga (2019) identified two key
methodological approaches. These included retrospective recall and
longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies have been more common in the
literature and consist of short-term studies that look across short periods of
time like the 4 years of high school (e.g., Pfeiffer et al., 2006) and long-
term studies that track sport participants anywhere from 9 to 40 years (e.g.,
Kjønniksen et al., 2009). Reviewers have concluded that most of these
studies found a positive relationship between youth sport participation and
future physical activity levels. However, effect sizes were small (Trost et
al., 2002).
Moving forward in this area, Pfeiffer and Wierenga (2019) offered
several recommendations for researchers to examine. First, relationships
may differ across geographic regions and cultural contexts (e.g., European
sport club system vs. U.S. school-based sport system). Second, questions
specific to the type, intensity, and frequency of youth sport involvement (vs.
general physical activity levels) should be added to existing large-scale
national physical activity and health surveillance studies. Third, more short-
term longitudinal studies should be conducted so that dose-response
relationships can be examined to determine if relationships are stronger
across different periods of life. Finally, examining how the relationship
between sport participation and physical activity participation might vary
across different life transitions is critical (e.g., middle to high school, high
school to college, college to post–college graduation). Researchers should
also begin to assess potential factors that might influence the youth sport
participation and adult physical activity relationship like type of sport
played (e.g., golf vs. wrestling), the participant’s level of sport engagement,
motivation for participation (e.g., intrinsic vs. extrinsic), and quality of
coaching. Cluster analytic studies that compare those who go on to stay
physically active versus those who do not could be very useful. With the
increase in anterior cruciate ligament and other serious injuries in young
athletes and the correlation between having these injuries and the early
onset of arthritis (Lohmander et al., 2004), understanding how youth sport
injury history influences future physical activity involvement is important.
To date, the focus in this area of research has been on predicting how
youth sport participation relates to future physical activity participation.
However, researchers should begin to look at other health-enhancing
outcomes by examining the relationship between youth sport participation
and adult nutritional patterns and weight management. Finally, more
emphasis needs to be placed on deriving explanations for why youth sport
participation is related to later physical activity participation. For example,
do young athletes develop habits of being physically active? Do they
develop an intrinsic love for physical activity and moving, or are messages
of living a healthy lifestyle internalized? There is a need to pursue
theoretical explanations for these relationships.
3. Theoretical and Methodological Question: How Does Youth

Sport Participation Influence the Mental Health and Well-Being
of Children and Youth?
Mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse are
on the rise in children and youth (Bor et al., 2014; Twenge et al., 2018),
with the rates of anxiety disorders being highest among youth aged 15 to 19
years when compared to all age groups (World Health Organization, 2017).
It has also been reported that over half of all mental issues have an onset
before the age of 14 years (Kessler et al., 2005). Clearly, facilitating mental
health in young people must be a global priority as both the financial and
moral costs of not doing so are enormous.
With sport being such a pervasive and important childhood activity and
mental health issues increasing in children and youth, the role that sport can
play in facilitating the mental health of young people is a critical theory and
methodology development question needing study. This is an especially
important question in light of findings showing that sport participation has
the potential to be both facilitative (e.g., higher self-esteem, lower anxiety,
increased resilience, fewer mental health problems) and debilitative (e.g.,
increased stress and burnout, harassment, and maltreatment) when it comes
to children’s mental health (Vella, 2019).
Many types of studies are needed in this area. First, because the evidence
linking youth sport participation to both facilitative and debilitative mental
health has typically been cross-sectional and noncausal, research needs to
address causality. This might involve comparisons of sport versus nonsport
participants longitudinally while controlling for other factors like
socioeconomic status and participation in other youth activities. Vella
(2019) has also indicated that identifying mediating and moderating factors
influencing the youth sport participation–mental health link is important.
Such factors as program dosage, type of sport, engagement level of the
participants, and participant characteristics should be considered. Finally,
more intervention development and evaluation studies are needed like those
conducted by Vella and colleagues (2018) to assess the effectiveness of the
Ahead of the Game (https://aheadofthegame.org.au, 2019) program, an
intervention designed to both improve mental health knowledge and prevent
or reduce the impact of mental health problems in adolescents through
community sport clubs.
4. Theoretical and Applied Question: What Does Effective

Coaching Look Like for Children of Different Ages and in
Different Sport Contexts?
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that coaches and coaching behaviors
have important influences on a range of outcomes including young athletes’
motivation, continued participation, stress, anxiety levels, and burnout (e.g.,
see Gould, 2016). While researchers have certainly learned a great deal
about effective youth sport coaching, they have not looked at this question
developmentally and considered the sport context. There is a need to
examine what effective coaching looks like for children of different ages
and in different sport contexts. This question has important theoretical and
applied implications and will need varied methods to be answered.
It is important for future researchers to examine this topic because
developmental psychologists have found that children of various ages are
not alike, but rather differ in many important cognitive, emotional, and
social ways. For example, important stages of child development have been
identified such as early (ages 1 to 8 years) and late childhood (ages 9 to 11)
as well as early (ages 12 to 14), middle (ages 15 to 17), and late stages of
adolescence (ages 18 to 21; see Eccles, 1999; Sanders, 2013). While
researchers have conducted studies on children of various ages, few
investigations have systematically looked at how effective coaching
practices might be similar and/or different depending on the age and
development level of the young athletes involved.
Horn (2019), in reviewing the literature specifically on coaches’
feedback patterns and young athletes’ psychosocial well-being, suggested
that researchers should examine how to best provide young athletes with
coaching feedback during critical transitions such as from elementary to
middle school and from high school to college. She recommended that
coaching feedback differences accompanying athlete transitions from
recreation to competitive sport programs be examined. Furthermore, Horn
(2019) stressed the need for researchers not only to examine how coaches’
feedback patterns differ across critical development and sport environment
transitions but also to make efforts to better understand why coaches behave
the way they do, as well as how variables such as emotional intelligence or
assumptions related to Dweck’s (2006) theory of implicit abilities influence
their coaching.
This research topic is best approached using multiple methods.
Observational studies using existing coaching assessment instruments
would be useful in identifying how coaches behave in varying contexts with
children of different ages. Traditional surveys that assess perceptions of
their coaches’ styles and behaviors could be administered to large groups of
young athletes of different ages and from varied contexts to identify more
versus less effective and/or preferred coaching styles. Of course, this might
be difficult to do with children younger than 8 years of age, where different
methods might be employed. Finally, case studies of exemplary coaches of
children of varying ages and in varying contexts could be employed, and
these might involve observations and in-depth interviews.
5. Theoretical Question: When, Under What Conditions, and How

Are Life Skills Developed in Youth Sports and Do These Life
Skills Transfer Beyond Sport?
A topic of considerable interest to both sport psychology and youth
development researchers that has theory development, methodological, and
applied implications is determining if, when, how, and under what
conditions life skills are developed in young athletes. Life skills have been
defined as “those internal personal assets, characteristics and skills such as
goal setting, emotional control, self-esteem, and hard work ethic that can be
facilitated or developed in sport and are transferred for use in non-sport
settings” (Gould & Carson, 2008, p. 60). Life skills can be developed
through sport participation, although most researchers have concluded that
they typically are not an automatic by-product of participation, but are best
developed when explicitly fostered by coaches (Turnnidge et al., 2014).
Life skills are also more likely to be developed when a caring sport climate
is created and when participants are highly engaged in their sport (Gould et
al., 2012).
While much has been learned about life skills development through sport,
more needs to be known. These include the conditions under which they are
developed and if and how those life skills developed through sports transfer
beyond sport to other areas of young people’s lives. This is an important
issue to study because developing life skills can not only help young
athletes have more enjoyable sport experiences but also provide
opportunities to learn characteristics and skills that can help them be more
effective and civically engaged adults. However, while it is often assumed
that life skills learned in sport transfer to other domains, this is not always
the case (Martinek et al., 2001). More needs to be known about if and when
transfer occurs, what factors cause life skills transfer, and the reasons
transfer takes place. Pierce, Gould, and Camiré (2016) developed a
comprehensive model outlining how transfer might occur as well as
predicting relationships between key variables.
There are several avenues for future research related to life skills transfer
and positive youth development through sport. Scholars need to not only
investigate how life skills are developed in sport but also examine if they do
indeed transfer to nonsport settings (e.g., school, home, work). This could
be done in several ways. First, retrospective interviews could be conducted
with former athletes relative to the life skills they felt they developed in
sport and later transferred to nonsport settings. The advantage of this
approach is that the person would have time to actually implement any life
skills learned in sport to other aspects of their life. A second approach
would be to conduct longitudinal studies that track life skills developed in
sport over time including one’s postathletic career to determine what skills
transferred beyond sport. It would be especially interesting to compare the
sport participants to children who take part in other nonsport activities as
well as to children who did not take part in sport or extracurricular
activities. This would help determine what unique contributions sport might
make to life skills development and transfer. Studies are also needed to test
some of the proposed relationships that Pierce and his colleagues (2016)
forwarded in their life skills model. For example, are life skills more likely
to transfer when the sport context they are learned in is similar to the
conditions in the transfer context? Do life skills transfer more often when
sport coaches emphasize doing so and reinforce such transfer? Finally, do
the concepts of near transfer (transferring between very similar contexts)
versus far transfer (transferring to different contexts) help explain life skills
transfer?
Conclusion
Helping children gain the many physical, psychological, and social benefits
of sport participation is one of the most important areas of research in the
field of sport and exercise psychology. Youth sport offers a unique
opportunity to positively influence millions of children across the globe. To
do this, however, researchers must ask questions that will have major
impact and use the most appropriate and advanced methods for addressing
those questions. We hope this chapter will help both current and future
youth sport researchers to do so.
References
Bor, W., Dean, A. J., Najman, J., & Hayatbakhsh, R. (2014). Are child and adolescent mental health
problems increasing in the 21st century? A systematic review. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 606–616.
Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness & Committee on School Health. (2001). Organized sports
for children and preadolescents. Pediatrics, 107(6), 1459–1462.
Dearing, J. W., & Kerr, K. F. (2012). Historical roots of dissemination and implementation science.
In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, & E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation
research in health: Translating science to practice (pp. 55–71). Oxford University Press.
Dentro, K. N., Beals, K., Crouter, S. E., Eisenmann, J. C., McKenzie, T. L., Pate, R. R., Saelens, B.
E., Sisson, S. B., Spruijt-Matz, D., Southern, M. S., Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2014). Results from the
United States’ 2014 report card on physical activity for children and youth. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, 11(s1), S105–S112.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of Children, 9(2), 30–44.
Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of
the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents:
Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 98–112.
Gould, D. (2009). The professionalization of youth sports: It’s time to act! Clinical Journal of Sports
Medicine, 19(1), 81–82.
Gould, D. (2016). Quality coaching counts. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 13–28.
Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: Current stands and future
directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 58–78.
Gould, D., Flett, M. R., & Lauer, L. (2012). The relationship between psychological development
and the sports climate experienced by underserved youth. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 13(1),
80–87.
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II.
Qualitative analysis. Sport Psychologist, 10(4), 341–366.
Guagliano, J. M., Lonsdale, C., Kolt, G. S., & Rosnekrantz, R. R. (2012). Increasing girls’ physical
activity during an organised youth sport basketball program: A randomised controlled trial
protocol. BMC Public Health, 14, 383.
Horn, T. S. (2019). Examining the impact of coaches’ feedback patterns on the psychosocial well-
being of youth sport athletes. Kinesiology Review, 8, 244–251.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime
prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity
Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593–602.
Kjønniksen, L., Anderssen, N., & Wold, B. (2009). Organized youth sport as a predictor of physical
activity in adulthood. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19(5), 646–654.
Knight, C. J., Harwood, C. G., & Gould, D. (Eds.). (2017). Sport psychology for young athletes.
Routledge.
Leek, D., Carlson, J. A., Cain, K. L., Henrichon, S., Rosenberg, D., Patrick, K., & Sallis, J. F. (2011).
Physical activity during youth sports practices. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
165(4), 294–299.
Lohmander, L. S., Östenberg, A., Englund, M., & Roos, H. (2004). High prevalence of knee
osteoarthritis, pain, and functional limitations in female soccer players twelve years after anterior
cruciate ligament injury. Arthritis & Rheumatism: Official Journal of the American College of
Rheumatology, 50(10), 3145–3152.
Martinek, T., Schilling, T., & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and social responsibility of
underserved youth to the classroom. Urban Review, 33(1), 29–45.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Pfeiffer, K. A., Dowda, M., Dishman, R. K., McIver, K. L., Sirard, J. R., Ward, D. S., & Pate, R. R.
(2006). Sport participation and physical activity in adolescent females across a four-year period.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(4), 523–529.
Pfeiffer, K. A., & Wierenga, M. J. (2019). Sport for all: Promoting physical activity through youth
sports. Kinesiology Review, 8, 204–210.
Pierce, S., Gould, D., & Camiré, M. (2016). Definition and model of life skills transfer. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 186–211.
Sanders, R. A. (2013). Adolescent psychosocial, social, and cognitive development. Pediatric Review
American Academy of Pediatrics, 34(8), 354–358.
Smith, A. L., & Gould, D. (2019). Contemporary youth sport: Critical issues and future directions.
Special Issue. Kinesiology Review, 8(3).
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention
for coaches on young athletes’ sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral
approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 1(1), 59–75.
Tremblay, M. S., Gray, C. E., Akinroye, K., Harrington, D. M., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Lambert, E.V., . . .
Prista, A. (2014). Physical activity of children: A global matrix of grades comparing 15 countries.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(s1), S113–S125.
Tremblay, M. S., Longmuir, P. E., Barnes, J. D., Belanger, K., Anderson, K. D., Bruner, B., . . .
Kolen, A. M. (2018). Physical literacy levels of Canadian children aged 8–12 years: Descriptive
and normative results from the RBC Learn to Play–CAPL project. BMC Public Health, 18(2),
1036.
Trost, S. G., Owen, N., Bauman, A. E., Sallis, J. F., & Brown, W. (2002). Correlates of adults’
participation in physical activity: Review and update. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
34(12), 1996–2001.
Turnnidge, J., Côté, J., & Hancock, D. J. (2014). Positive youth development from sport to life:
Explicit or implicit transfer? Quest, 66, 203–217. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.867275
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive
symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after 2010 and links
to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17.
Vella, S. A. (2019). Mental health and organized youth sports. Kinesiology Review, 8, 229–236.
Vella, S. A., Cliff, D. P., & Okely, A. D. (2014). Socio-ecological predictors of participation and
dropout in organized sports during childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 11, 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-11-62
Vella, S. A., Swann, C., Batterham, M., Boydell, K. M., Eckermann, S., Fogarty, A., . . . Noetel, M.
(2018). Ahead of the game protocol: A multi-component, community sport- based program
targeting prevention, promotion and early intervention for mental health among adolescent males.
BMC Public Health, 18(1), 390–401.
Visek, A. J., Achrati, S. M., Mannix, H., McDonnell, K., Harris, B. S., & DiPietro, L. (2015). The
fun integration theory: Toward sustaining children and adolescents sport participation. Journal of
Physical Activity & Health, 12, 424–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0180
Weiss, M. R., Bolter, N. D., & Kipp, L. E. (2016). Evaluation of The First Tee in promoting positive
youth development: Group comparisons and longitudinal trends. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 87(3), 271–283.
World Health Organization. (2017). Depression and other common mental disorders: Global health
estimates. WHO reference number: WHO/MSD/MER/2017.2.
19
Career Transitions and Change
Roy David Samuel
Over the last decade, the athlete’s career transition literature has shifted
from a deterministic (or linear) to a probabilistic (nonlinear) perspective.
Athletes’ careers can be perceived as a roller coaster ride, shaped by
transitions, change-events, appraisals, decision-making, coping, and
environmental influences. Transitions are turning phases in athletes’ career
development, associated with a set of specific demands. They can be
classified as normative, nonnormative, and quasi-normative. Change-events
are distinct events or longitudinal processes that disrupt the athletic
engagement status quo and create emotional and cognitive imbalance and
initiate a demand for change (Stambulova & Samuel, 2020).
Athletes can enjoy a fruitful and meaningful career as long as they
positively adapt to the various transitional periods and changes
encountered, potentially creating multiple career pathways. Furthermore,
research has expanded to additional sport performers, such as e-sport and
extreme sports athletes, coaches, and referees. Finally, the lives of sport
performers have considerably changed in the past decade as a result of the
globalization process, social media, and migration, requiring career
researchers to modify existing conceptualizations. This chapter, therefore,
provides a critical examination of the recent developments in the career
transition and change literature, mainly focusing on critical questions to be
asked and a prospective view of this field.
State of the Art

Several key conceptual and research developments have been integrated in
the past decade in the sport career literature (for an overview see
Stambulova et al., 2020): (a) a within-career transition and change
perspective (Drew et al., 2019; Samuel, Stambulova, & Ashkenazi, 2020;
Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova, 2016), (b) a dual-career
perspective (Stambulova & Wylleman, 2019), and (c) the cultural praxis of
athletes’ careers (Ryba et al., 2018; Ryba et al., 2016). In addition, research
attention is still given to examining adaptation to athletic retirement (Park et
al., 2013) as well as to the effectiveness of career transition
support/intervention programs (Samuel, 2013; Stambulova, 2016; Pummell
& Lavallee, 2019). Finally, there are a few research attempts focused on the
career transitions of additional sport performers, such as soccer referees
(Samuel et al., 2017) and coaches (Knight et al., 2015; Samuel, Basevitch,
et al., 2020). Table 19.1 presents five highlighted publications within these
areas of research. Largely, these readings suggest that various types of
transitions and change-events shape athletes’ careers, with multiple factors
potentially affecting athletes’ adaptation. Furthermore, a nonlinear and
highly dynamic transitional experience is evident.
Change-events. Proposing a dynamic and probabilistic view of the
athlete’s career, Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) presented the scheme of
change for sport psychology practice (SCSPP). The novelty of this
framework is in emphasizing athletes’ cognitive appraisals and decision-
making in response to a wide range of change-events (Stambulova et al.,
2020). This perspective suggests that both “positive” and “negative” types
of change-events can lead to change: instability in athletes’ careers and
mindset, which deserve adequate consideration. Several studies provided
support for the basic tenets of the SCSPP (Knowles & Lorimer, 2014;
Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b, 2013; Samuelet al., 2016). For example, a
recent cross-national study concerning the modifications of regulations and
refereeing in competitive judo since 2013 indicated that these modifications
were perceived rather negatively by athletes and coaches. Participants’
decision-making mostly involved consulting with others and making a
conscious decision to change, mainly focusing on adjusting tactical skills.
The participants’ motivation decreased following these modifications.
Finally, there were cross-cultural differences in how participants responded
to this change-event, emphasizing the importance of context in change-
event studies (Samuel, Basevitch, et al., 2020).
Recently, the SCSPP was integrated with the athletic career transition
model (see Stambulova, 2016) to explain complex, multiphase transitions,
such as the cultural transition of the Israeli men’s U18 national handball
team that migrated to Germany for a full season to train and compete in a
high-level environment (Samuel, Stambulova, et al., 2020). This integrated
career change and transition framework (ICCT) portrays an interplay
among perceived transition demands, resources, and barriers in the
transition appraisals, decision-making, and coping, and provides a
probabilistic view on transition pathways (Samuel, Stambulova, et al.,
2020).
Junior-to-senior transition. The junior-to-senior transition (JST) is the
most researched within-career transition in sport (Drew et al., 2019). It
might last from several months to a few years and is considered a highly
challenging period in athletes’ careers, involving increases in competition
intensity, season duration, level of opponents, and intensified on- and off-
court demands. As a result, only 20% to 30% of athletes manage to adapt,
while most athletes either drop out or move to a recreational level of
sport/exercise (Stambulova & Samuel, 2020). Recent JST research is
focused on the role of the environment in nurturing athletes’ development.
For example, Henriksen et al. (2014) presented a case study of a golf team
in a sport academy in Denmark with limited success in effective JST. This
struggling environment was characterized by a lack of supportive training
groups and role models, little understanding from the nonsport
environment, no integration of efforts among different parts of the
environment, and an incoherent organizational culture.
In addition, Pehrson et al., (2017) validated an empirical model called
“phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players” among professional
coaches and players. This model proposes four phases—preparation,
orientation, adaptation, and stabilization—containing specific demands,
barriers, resources, coping strategies, and outcomes. This study confirmed
the longitudinal nature of the JST and the idea of moving back and forth
between phases (i.e., nonlinear individual JST trajectories).
Nonnormative and quasi-normative transitions. In addition to the JST,
other types of transitions also received research attention. Nonnormative
transitions (e.g., injuries, deselection; Blakelock et al., 2016; Ivarsson et al.,
2018; McEwen et al., 2018) are less predictable and are risky in terms of a
crisis outcome (Stambulova & Samuel, 2020). For example, Blakelock et
al. found that elite adolescent English soccer players (aged 15 to 18) who
were released (i.e., 23% of the players) from their clubs experienced
meaningful psychological distress at relatively high rates, both 1 week and
3 weeks following deselection. Additionally, quasi-normative transitions are
predictable for a particular category of athletes (Stambulova & Samuel,
2020), such as Olympic athletes who transition to Olympic training centers
(Poczwardowski et al., 2014) or participate in the Olympic Games (Schinke
et al., 2015).
Other sport performers. A few studies have also examined career
changes of additional sport performers, such as soccer referees and coaches.
For example, Samuel et al. (2017) found that Israeli soccer referees
experienced a highly dynamic career, comprising multiple types of
transitions and change-events. The most significant ones were receiving an
international badge, changing to the assistant referee group, a transition to
a higher league, and a transition to a lower league. Knight et al. (2015)
initially interviewed Canadian coaches regarding the work-environment
factors that influence coach transitions. Four higher order themes describing
reasons coaches transitioned between positions were identified: (a)
interpersonal considerations, (b) work demands, (c) career concerns, and (d)
positive coaching experiences. In a subsequent study, they (Knight et al.,
2015) identified two overarching themes depicting reasons (i.e., “push” and
“pull”) for transitions: seeking opportunities to be more successful and
leaving a negative or challenging work environment.
Table 19.1 Five Key Readings in the Area of Transitions and Change in the Sport Career
Design
Drew et al. A meta-study of Four overarching themes were identified: individual factors,
(2019) qualitative studies on external factors, cultural factors, and intervention strategies. The
the JST; a total of 27 JST is a complex and dynamic process occurring over varying
qualitative studies time periods underpinned by multiple factors. Synthesizing the
were included (n = findings, the individual, external, cultural model of the JST was
261) presented, with three underpinning features: transition
preconditions, transition variables, and transition outcomes.
Park et al. A systematic review 15 variables associated with the quality of end-of-career
(2013) of studies on the transitions were identified: athletic identity, demographic issues,
transition out of the voluntariness of retirement decision, injuries/health
sport; 126 qualitative problems, career/personal development, sport career
(44%), quantitative achievement, educational status, financial status, self-perception,
(44%), and mixed- control of life, relationship with a coach,
model (12%) studies disengagement/dropout, time passed after retirement, life
were reported (n = changes, and balance of life. Athletic identity, injuries/health
13,511) problems, and a conflict with a coach were associated with
negative adjustment.
Ryba et al. 15 professional The cultural transition process was constituted in social
(2016) athletes with practices and shifting modes of participation within and between
transnational sport/work and other contexts. The experiences of the athletic
experience; a life transition rather than transition to a new society dominated
story method was participants’ stories, with a belief in the universal language of
used in a two-step sport in all cultures. The three-phase cultural transition model is
interview process; suggested. It represents the developmental tasks throughout the
thematic, structural, transition phases and underlying psychological mechanisms
and performative facilitating cultural adaptation.
data analyses were
applied
Samuel & A cross-sectional Athletes experience multiple types of change-events in their
Tenenbaum and retrospective careers, with different profiles of perception, emotional reaction,
(2011b) design; 338 athletes and coping. Athletic identity correlates positively with the
representing five perceived significance of the change-event
professional levels
and various sports;
measures: change-
event experiences,
athletic identity
Schinke et The Canadian Six meta-transitions within the Olympic cycle 2013–2016 are
al. (2015) Olympic boxing identified: (a) entering the National Team Program, (b) entering
team members’ major international tournaments, (c) Olympic qualification, (d)
meta-transitions focused preparation for the Olympics, (e) to the Olympic
through the Olympic podium, and (f) to the post-Games. Each meta-transition is
quadrennial period described in terms of its demands, resources, barriers, coping
are discussed process/strategies, possible pathways, and outcomes relevant to
athletes’ preparation, performance, and development.
JST, junior-to-senior transition.
In this section, five critical questions are formulated, suggesting areas of
thought and study to advance this field. Each question is initially stated,
then the importance of addressing that question is explained, and then the
best ways to address the question are specified. The initial four questions
are mostly conceptual-methodological, whereas the final one presents
applied challenges.
1. Theoretical Question: What Is the Interplay Between Career

Development and Career Transitions?
Currently, there are two parallel lines of research in the athlete’s career area.
The career development (CD) research, typically conceptualized using the
holistic athletic career model (Wyllemanet al., 2013), suggests a
predetermined career route from childhood to retirement, with structured
normative transitions (Stambulova et al., 2020). The career transition (CT)
research, typically conceptualized by the athletic career transition model
(Stambulova, 2016) and the SCSPP (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a),
proposes a highly dynamic view, with various transitions and change-events
being perceived as driving forces in shaping career pathways (Stambulova
& Samuel, 2020). Research indicates a highly complex athlete-environment
interaction, manifested in both developmental processes (e.g., Henriksen et
al., 2014, Samuel, Stambulova, et al., 2020; Schinke et al., 2015) and
transitional experiences (e.g., Poczwardowski et al., 2014; Ryba et al.,
2016; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b; Samuel et al., 2015, 2016). Thus, an
integrated perspective for the study of an athlete’s career is suggested to
advance the field.
An integrated development-transition framework should be developed
and tested, identifying the potential pathways athletes might experience as a
result of within-career transitions. Furthermore, the range of factors that
might influence athletes’ adaptation to various transitions and the effects on
their development need to be explored. Special consideration should be
given to the athlete-environment interactions, acknowledging that there is
no “perfect” environment for athletes’ development. In addition, much of
the research to date applied retrospective designs, which might lead to bias
in athletes’ narratives when describing decision-making processes and
adaptation to career transitions. Thus, research should adhere to
longitudinal designs, capturing the athletes’ responses to various change-
events and transitions concurrently, as well as the athletes’ adaptation and
the effects on their career pathways. Also, it is important to capture the
views of coaches and other stakeholders (see Henriksen et al., 2014).
2. Theoretical Question: How Are Athletes’ Careers Shaped by

Transitions and Change-Events?
To date, the JST received almost exclusive research attention. Research
suggested, however, that additional change-events (e.g., joining a training-
abroad program, deselection, a dispute with a coach, participation in the
Olympic Games [OGs]) are perceived as highly significant in athletes’
careers (Blakelock et al., 2016; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b, Samuel et al.,
2016; Samuel, Stambulova, et al., 2020). These change-events received
limited empirical consideration, mostly using cross-sectional and
retrospective designs. Two longitudinal studies of injured athletes (Samuel
et al., 2015) and handball players who underwent a cultural transition
(Samuel, Stambulova, et al., 2020) are unique in this context, as they
provided an in-depth analysis of the athletes’ experiences and how they
influenced their career pathways. Still, it remains unclear whether
additional, yet to be identified, transitions or change-events are meaningful
in athletes’ careers, and what are their unique characteristics. A good
example would be the 2020 coronavirus pandemic and the associated global
repercussions, such the postponement of the Tokyo OGs (Schinke et al.,
2020). Preparing athletes and coaches for potential significant change-
events, thereby assuming a proactive standpoint toward athletes’ careers,
would allow more efficient support during these situations.
To best address this question, it is vital that researchers expand the
horizons beyond the normative transitions such as the JST. Moreover, while
athletes can experience multiple types of change-events in their careers,
certain ones might influence career trajectories more significantly.
Considering the potential transitional experiences, researchers should be
aware of the unique sportive as well as cultural contexts within which the
athlete is engaged (Stambulova et al., 2020). For instance, student-athletes
and professional athletes likely experience unique change-events and
transition experiences, and tennis players and soccer players have
idiosyncratic (e.g., sport-specific) challenges in their career pathways.
Likewise, the change-events shaping Chinese athletes might not parallel
those experienced by American or European athletes.
Researchers should be aware that athletes tend to experience several
concurrent transitions. Existing measurements, such the change-event
inventory (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b), might capture only part of the
full transitional experience. A need remains to develop measurements that
allow an accurate evaluation of a broader range of the transition experience,
as well as direct comparison among various types of transitions and change-
events. In addition, advancement can be achieved by adopting a mixed-
methods longitudinal approach, aimed at capturing a more comprehensive
transitional experience, within a specified context (e.g., see Stambulova &
Samuel, 2020). Rather than stating general arguments about “the way”
athletes develop in their careers, this area calls for a specification of career
pathways contextualized within sport discipline environments (see Drew et
al., 2019; Henriksen et al., 2014), which are further contextualized within
unique sociocultural environments (see Ryba et al., 2018).
3. Theoretical Question: How Do Athletes Adapt During

Transitions and Change-Events?
According to the athletic career transition model (Stambulova, 2016), the
transition process is defined as “coping with a set of transition
demands/challenges using relevant coping strategies and taking into
consideration internal (person-related) and external (environment-related)
resources and barriers” (p. 257). This suggests that coping is an inherent
aspect of athletes’ transitional experiences. However, the model does not
specify what coping essentially is, other than the application of coping
strategies. It is also unclear whether coping occurs implicitly or with
conscious intention. Furthermore, the term coping is used to explain both
the predictor and the outcome of the transitional experience. In cultural
transition research (e.g., Ryba et al., 2016), the term coping is not used, and
the common terms are psychological adjustment and adaptation. Therefore,
it seems that an important factor of the transitional experience has not been
well defined, both conceptually and methodologically.
Identifying this shortcoming, the SCSPP (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a,
2011b) was developed, in part to account for what actually constitutes an
effective coping process, in terms of psychological change, when athletes
are facing disruptions of their career status quo. Within the change process,
a distinction is made between the perceived effectiveness of coping, the
perceived satisfaction of coping, and the perceived outcome of the change
process (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2013; Samuel et al., 2016). It is further
suggested that athletes make conscious decisions (i.e., an initial strategic
decision and a secondary decision to change) in response to a change
process, as part of their personal adaptation. These ideas received empirical
support regarding various types of change-events (Knowles & Lorimer,
2014; McEwen et al., 2018; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2013; Samuel et al.,
2015, 2016; Samuel, Stambulova, et al., 2020). Samuel and Tenenbaum
(2013) also acknowledged the role of coping strategies usage as part of
athletes’ change processes. Specifically, it was found that acceptance and
instrumental support predicted athletes’ likelihood of making a decision to
change.
To best address this question, researchers should first conceptualize what
coping is, acknowledging the separate effects of coping effectiveness and
coping satisfaction on the transition outcome and athletes’ motivation,
respectively. Moreover, a range of coping strategies frameworks (e.g.,
problem focused and emotion focused, adaptive and maladaptive) and
associated measurements are currently used. This diversity creates difficulty
in systematically and theoretically comparing among studies in this area. It
is important to assess both athletes’ decision-making processes (e.g., Park et
al., 2013; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b) and transition-specific coping
strategy usage (e.g., Stambulova et al.,2012). This would provide a more
accurate account of the adaptation process.
4. Theoretical Question: How Do Social Media and Globalization

Shape Generation Z Athletes’ Careers?
Career researchers should acknowledge the unique characteristics of
Generation Z (Gen Z) athletes (Gould et al., 2020). Born after 1996, these
athletes are living in a world heavily influenced by social media and
globalization processes. They do not necessarily hold the long-term focus
required to develop as athletes because they tend to be more focused on
short-term outcome goals rather than the training process (Gould et al.,
2020). As a result, they might experience high rates of transitions between
several sport disciplines at the early stages of their sport development. They
also find it difficult to organize their schedules so might feel overwhelmed
by the number of daily/weekly tasks. This, in turn, can affect their dual-
career development and lead to overcentralizing the sport dimension of
their lives. Thus, Gen Z athletes might experience intensified emotional
reactions to various change-events (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a) and
when dealing with adversity (Gould et al., 2020). Furthermore, these young
individuals tend to have high achievement expectations (Gould et al., 2020),
thereby increasing the risk of being too outcome oriented and experiencing
burnout.
Gen Z athletes are also preoccupied with social media, having a constant
“fear of missing out” (Gould et al., 2020). It is unclear, however, how social
media influence their career decision-making. For example, who are the
social agents and what are the underlying mechanisms affecting their
motivation, aspirations, and choices? Also, how do social media affect
athletes’ reactions to various change-events such as winning a gold medal,
losing in the first round of a major championship, or getting injured?
Gen Z individuals are also considered less independent in terms of
obtaining a driver’s license and moving out of the home (Gould et al.,
2020). This might influence their ability to make autonomic career
decisions and implement them effectively. At the same time, athletes
nowadays are expected to engage in transnational mobility (Ryba et al.,
2018). Thus, researchers are encouraged to examine how Gen Z athletes
feel about leaving home for short- and long-term periods.
Currently, only a few studies examine Gen Z characteristics, not
necessarily from a career transition perspective (e.g., David et al., 2018;
Gould et al., 2020). Here, focus groups and anthropological designs are
effective, as many of these characteristics are apparent in social interactions
and might not surface when an athlete is examined individually.
Researchers should be aware that much of the “psychological world” of
Gen Z athletes can be found in social media, yet it influences their behavior
in the real world; for example, how do they respond to critical posts and
tweets on social media? (e.g., David et al., 2018). Being technologically
savvy and speaking “Gen Z language” are imperative to effectively
communicate with today’s young athletes and provide effective support.
5. Applied Question: Is Current Career Support Tailored to Sport

Performers’ Needs?
Stambulova (2016) proposed the assistance in career transitions (ACT)
model as a set of guidelines on how to plan a career transition intervention,
including (a) foundations, (b) client’s characteristics and relevant contexts,
(c) goals, (d) contexts to work in, (e) time frames, (f) basic methods, (g)
perspectives and content, and (h) assessment. The preventive/supportive
perspective covers interventions aimed at enhancing athletes’ awareness of
the forthcoming/current transition demands and aiding in timely
development of all the necessary resources for effective coping. The
crisis/negative consequences coping perspective covers interventions that
help athletes assess their crisis/traumatic situations and find the best
available ways to cope.
It is important to re-evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of present
career support programs and interventions. Practitioners are encouraged to
adopt a whole-person approach, considering the various levels of
development (Wylleman et al., 2013). In addition, practitioners should be
aware of the concurrent transitions or change-events the athlete is
experiencing (e.g., a JST accompanied by the change of a coach; see
Samuel, 2013). Cultural and sport subcultural contexts are central in
accurately assessing athletes’ situations. Furthermore, evaluating the
athlete’s perception is important, as two athletes might perceive similar
career situations differently. Conceptually, it is important to assess the stage
of the transition. Some transitions (e.g., injuries, OG participation) progress
through distinct stages, and this might influence the athlete’s decision-
making and adaptation.
Most importantly, the focus of counseling athletes in transitions should
be on their adaptation to change, potentially through an emphasis on
decision-making and implementation, supported by coping strategies (e.g.,
Samuel, 2013; Samuel, Stambulova, et al., 2020). Practitioners should not
assume that athletes automatically cope with transitions, or that coping is
effective, and acknowledge the difference between coping (satisfaction and
effectiveness) and perceived outcome. Furthermore, it is important to be
aware of the unique Gen Z characteristics and how global processes such as
social media usage and international migration affect their responses to
transitions and change-events. Evaluating the specific transitional
experiences and unique contexts of other sport performers, such as referees
and coaches, is critical to be able to provide them with adequate career
support.
There are only a few intervention studies or case studies related to
supporting athletes during transitional experiences, especially within career
and in crisis. Some of the work was published in the early 2000s and might
be out of context for today’s Gen Z athletes who operate in complex sport
environments. Thus, applied practice research is much needed, integrating
the new developments of this field, considering aspects such as concurrent
transitions, dual careers, cultural contexts, and Gen Z characteristics.
Longitudinal designs (e.g., Pummell & Lavallee, 2019) are important;
however, it is imperative to evaluate the actual effects of such interventions
on athletes’ long-term adaptation and transition pathways (e.g., Samuel,
Stambulova, et al., 2020).
Conclusion
This chapter critically reviewed the recent developments in the area of
career transitions and change in sport. Although many of these
developments are attuned to the global human developments we witness
nowadays (e.g., globalization, dual careers), researchers still are challenged
to identify the complex contexts within which athletes are developing their
careers. Considerable conceptual and empirical efforts are required to
portray the careers of athletes (and other sport performers) and how
transitions and change-events play a significant role in shaping career
pathways. Both researchers and practitioners should be more critical when
evaluating adaptation and coping in the context of transitional experiences.
Finally, it is critical to acknowledge that as this field moves forward, so do
the lives of sport performers; they have unique characteristics and
“psychological worlds” that need to be carefully considered to effectively
support them in their career pathways.
References
Blakelock, D. J., Chen, M., & Prescott, T. (2016). Psychological distress in elite adolescent soccer
players following deselection. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 10, 59–77.
doi:10.1123/jcsp.2015-0010
David, J. L., Powless, M. D., Hyman, J. E., Purnell, D. M., Steinfeldt, J. A., & Fisher, S. (2018).
College student athletes and social media: The psychological impacts of Twitter use. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 11, 163–186. doi:10.1123/ijsc.2018-0044
Drew, K., Morris, R., Tod, D., & Eubank, M. (2019). A meta-study of qualitative research on the
junior-to-senior transition in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, Article 101556.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101556
Gould, D., Nalepa, J., & Mignano, M. (2020). Coaching Generation Z athletes. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 32(1), 104–120. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1581856
Henriksen, K., Larsen, C. H., & Christensen, M. K. (2014). Looking at success from its opposite
pole: The case of a talent development golf environment in Denmark. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 134–149. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2013.853473
Ivarsson, A., Stambulova, N., & Johnson, U. (2018). Injury as a career transition: Experiences of a
Swedish elite handball player. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 365–
381. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2016.1242149
Knight, C. J., Rodgers, W. M., Reade, I. L., Mrak, J. M., & Hall, C. R. (2015). Coach transitions:
Influence of interpersonal and work environment factors. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 4, 170–187. doi:10.1037/spy0000036
Knowles, A., & Lorimer, R. (2014). A case study of an athlete’s experience of multiple change-
events moving between team and individual sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26, 197–
210. doi:10.1080/10413200.2013.819393
McEwen, C. E., Hurd Clarke, L., Bennett, E. V., Dawson, K. A., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2018). “It’s this
thing of being an Olympian that you don’t get from anything else”: Changing experiences of
Canadian individual-sport athletes with Olympic team selection. Sport Psychologist, 32, 81–92.
doi:10.1123/tsp.2016-0152
Park, S., Lavallee, D., & Tod, D. (2013). Athletes’ career transition out of sport: A systematic review.
doi:10.1080/1750984X.2012.687053
Pehrson, S., Stambulova, N., & Olsson K. (2017). Revisiting the empirical model “Phases in the
Junior-to-Senior Transition of Swedish Ice Hockey Players”: External validation through focus
groups and interviews. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 12, 747–761.
doi:10.1177/1747954117738897
Poczwardowski, A., Diehl, B., O’Neil, A., Cote, T., & Haberl, P. (2014). Successful transitions to the
Olympic Training Center, Colorado Springs: A mixed-method exploration with six resident-
athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26, 33–51. doi:10.1080/10413200.2013.773950
Pummell, E. K. L., & Lavallee, D. (2019). Preparing UK tennis academy players for the junior-to-
senior transition: Development, implementation, and evaluation of an intervention program.
Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 40, 156–164. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.007
Ryba, T. V., Schinke, R. J., Stambulova N., & Elbe, A-M. (2018). ISSP Position Stand:
Transnationalism, mobility, and acculturation in and through sport. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 16, 520–534. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2017.1280836
Ryba, T. V., Stambulova, N. B., & Ronkainen, N. J. (2016). The work of cultural transition: An
emerging model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 427. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00427
Samuel, R. D. (2013). Counseling athletes in career change-events: Applying the Scheme of Change
for Sport Psychology Practice. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4, 152–168.
doi:10.1080/21520704.2013.804015
Samuel, R. D., Basevitch, I., Wildikan, L., Prosoli, R., & McDonald, K. (2020). Please stop changing
the rules! The modifications of judo regulations as a change-event in judokas’ and coaches’
careers. Sport in Society, 23(4), 774–794. doi:10.1080/17430437.2019.1669911
Samuel, R. D., Galily, Y., & Tenenbaum, G. (2017). Who are you, ref? Defining the soccer referee’s
career using a change-based perspective. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
15, 118–130. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2015.1079792
Samuel, R. D., Stambulova, N., & Ashkenazi, Y. (2020). Cultural transition of the Israeli men’s U18
national handball team migrated to Germany: A case study. Sport in Society, 23(4), 697–716.
doi:10.1080/17430437.2019.1565706
Samuel, R. D., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011a). The role of change in athletes’ careers: A scheme of
change for sport psychology practice. Sport Psychologist, 25, 233–252. doi:10.1123/tsp.25.2.233
Samuel, R. D., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011b). How do athletes perceive and respond to change events:
An exploratory measurement tool. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 392–406.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.03.002
Samuel, R. D., & Tenenbaum, G. (2013). Athletes’ decision-making in career change-events. Sport
Psychologist, 27, 78–82. doi:10.1123/tsp.27.1.78
Samuel, R. D., Tenenbaum, G., & Gil Bar-Mecher, H. (2016). The Olympic Games as a career
change-event: Israeli athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of London 2012. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 24, 38–47. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.01.003
Samuel, R. D., Tenenbaum, G., Mangel, E., Virshuvski, R., Chen, T., & Badir, A. (2015). Athletes’
experiences of severe injuries as a career change-event. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 6,
99–120. doi:10.1080/21520704.2015.1012249
Schinke, R., Papaioannou, A., Henriksen, K., Gangyan, S., Zhang, L., & Haberl, P. (2020). Sport
psychology services to high performance athletes during COVID-19. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(3), 269–272.. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2020.1754616
Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., Trepanier, D., & Oghene, O. (2015). Psychological support for the
Canadian Olympic Boxing Team in meta-transitions through the National Team Program.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2014.959982
Stambulova, N. (2016). Theoretical developments in career transition research: Contributions of
European sport psychology. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A-M. Elbe, & A. Hatzigeorgiadis
(Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research: From theory to practice (pp. 251–268) Elsevier.
Stambulova, N., Franck, A., & Weibull, F. (2012). Assessment of the transition from junior to-senior
sports in Swedish athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 79–95.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2012.645136
Stambulova, N. B., Ryba, T. V., & Henriksen, K. (2020). Career development and transitions of
athletes: The International Society of Sport Psychology Position Stand revisited. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2020.1737836
Stambulova, N., & Samuel, R. D. (2020). Career transitions. In D. Hackfort & R. Schinke (Eds.), The
Routledge international encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 119–133).
Routledge.
Stambulova, N. B., & Wylleman, P. (2019). Psychology of athletes’ dual careers: A state-of the-art
critical review of the European discourse. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 74–88.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.013
Wylleman, P., Reints, A., & De Knop, P. (2013). A developmental and holistic perspective on athletic
career development. In P. Sotiaradou & V. De Bosscher (Eds.), Managing high performance sport
(pp. 159–182). Routledge.
20
Fatigue, Overtraining, and Burnout
Robert C. Eklund and J. D. DeFreese
State of the Art

Sport is an ideal environment for the study of human physiological and
psychosocial responses to the physical, mental, and social demands of
intensive training and competition. Fatigue, overtraining, and burnout are
important biopsychosocial outcomes of intensive sport involvement sharing
overlapping territory that are too frequently conflated. Nonetheless, these
constructs also represent key areas of focus for theoretical and applied
research and intervention. The goal of this chapter is to synthesize the
current state of the literature as well as to provide a roadmap to inform
future research and practice efforts of sport scientists.
In this chapter, a brief overview and synthesis of extant theories and
supporting research is provided on fatigue, overtraining, and burnout.
Various theoretical perspectives are alluded to on the development of
athlete burnout, but Smith’s (1986) psychosocial stress and coping model is
primarily focused upon because of its encompassing nature. An emphasis is
placed on critical historical research milestones by reference to five key
readings that have advanced sport science knowledge on these topics. Five
major questions are also overviewed, the answers to which will have great
informative value for advancing the knowledge base. After a literature
review, these questions frame the remainder of the chapter.
Athlete biopsychosocial responses to the demand of sport and sport
training have long been an area of interest for sport scientists, coaches,
sport psychology practitioners, and the athletes themselves. The network of
variables mediating and/or moderating athlete training load responses is
complex and ranges across matters relating to individual differences in
fitness and strength training, skill development, psychosocial stress,
emotional regulation, and so on. Fatigue is the most acute and transient
issue of the three outcomes defining this chapter. It is a relatively acute
response to training load/demands that can be monitored via athlete self-
perceptions, autonomic nervous system responses, physical performance,
and biochemical/hormonal/immunological function (Thorpe et al., 2017;
Van Cutsem et al., 2017). Fatigue is an expected normative response to
training and competition, but exposure to those stresses also has the
potential to result in more maladaptive responses such as overtrained states
and/or burnout.
Overtraining, an imbalance between training and recovery, can involve
maladaptive responses that can be exacerbated by the presence of
psychosocial stressors. Athletes undergoing overreach training (i.e.,
knowing engagement in a training regime resulting in short-term reductions
in training performance to spur adaptations resulting in improved
performance after a tapering period) to an excessive degree can experience
the overtraining syndrome (OTS, decrements in performance and feelings
of exhaustion that can be resistant to attenuation even with training load
reductions or the introduction of periods of rest). This chronic condition
involves, at its core, systemic (e.g., neurologic, endocrinologic, and
immunologic) maladaptive responses to chronic training stress. Prolonged
periods of rest are often implicated in recovery elicitation (Meeusen et al.,
2013).
Athletes can also experience burnout as a maladaptive response to the
chronic exposure to psychosocial stress in training and competition (Eklund
& DeFreese, 2020). Evidence suggests that burnout may be driven in some
degree by training load, but it can occur in its absence. This occurrence
represents a consequence of individualized cognitive and affective
responses in the experience of chronic psychosocial stress in sport. Athlete
burnout has been conceptualized as a cognitive-affective syndrome
characterized by symptomatic dimensions of emotional and physical
exhaustion, reduced accomplishment, and sport devaluation (Raedeke &
Smith, 2009). This maladaptive experiential state has been associated with
deleterious affective and motivational states in sport participation (Eklund
& DeFreese, 2020; Goodger et al., 2007). Altogether, athlete responses to
training and competition can be complex, and differentiation of fatigue
from OTS and/or athlete burnout can be difficult for coaches and athletes—
and sport scientists as well. The sport stress literature, with a focus on
burnout, has differentiated among these concepts, as indicated in five key
readings (see Table 20.1).
Answering a warranted call by sport scientists for definitional and
conceptual clarity, Smith (1986) drew upon Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)
theoretical contentions on the stress process to conceptualize athlete
burnout as a chronic experiential state resulting from prolonged exposure to
psychosocial stress. Specifically, burnout was posited to be a result of
psychological stress arising from the physical and mental demands of sport
training and/or competition. Athletes unable to cope with this stress
successfully were posited to experience myriad potential outcomes
including heightened perceptions of stress, maladaptive mood states, and, in
some instances, athlete burnout. Factors posited to be relevant in Smith’s
model included individual differences in motivation, social perceptions
(e.g., social support), and personality (e.g., perfectionism). It is certainly not
the only prominent conceptualization of processes leading to athlete
burnout, as issues relating to identity and control (Coakley, 1992) and
fundamental psychological need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 1985) have also
been posited—neither of which are meaningfully incompatible with Smith’s
perspective. Ultimately, this model has been important to the study of
burnout to date and is well positioned to inform this chapter as its particular
focus on psychosocial stress aids in the differentiation of athlete burnout
from fatigue and OTS. Moreover, it represents a potential synergy with the
emerging sport science area of recovery science (Kellmann et al., 2018). In
the extant body of literature, athlete burnout has been positively associated
with athlete perceptions of psychological stress and negatively associated
with perceptions of social support (Goodger et al., 2007). Four seminal
psychological stress-based studies are reviewed with a focus on athlete
burnout, psychological stress, and how each adds to our discussion of these
experiences relative to fatigue, overtraining, and (potentially) recovery.
Considering psychological stress and athlete motivation, both factors
relevant to the psychosocial stress and coping model, DeFreese and Smith
(2014) completed a prospective, longitudinal study of collegiate
swimming/diving and track and field athletes (N = 465). They examined
temporal associations of social support and negative social interactions with
athlete burnout and life satisfaction across a competitive season after
accounting for psychological stress, sport motivation, and dispositional
factors. Social support was found to be an inverse predictor of athlete
burnout, while negative social interactions were a positive predictor of
athlete burnout over time. Importantly, the psychosocial stress and coping
framework of burnout was expanded in this study to include social
perceptions.
Personality factors such as perfectionism were also identified as
potentially contributing to athlete burnout in the psychosocial stress and
coping model—a matter considered by Madigan, Stoeber, and Passfield
(2016) in a longitudinal investigation of motivation, perfectionism, and
burnout. Their study involved the collection of data from a sample of junior
sport academy athletes (N = 141) at three time points over a 6-month period
of active training. Autonomous motivation was found to mediate the
negative relationship between perfectionistic strivings and burnout at both
the between- and within-person levels of analysis. Controlled motivation,
however, mediated the positive relationship between perfectionistic
concerns and burnout only at the between-person level. This study
highlighted the potential role of perfectionism in athlete burnout
development.
Individual difference factors such as age and gender also have relevance
to the development of athlete burnout within the stress and coping model—
matters considered by Isoard-Gautheur et al. (2015) in their multilevel
growth curve analysis examination of trajectories of development of
individual burnout dimensions at the beginning, middle, and end of a 2-year
period. They obtained data from an initial sample of 895 adolescent French
handball athletes. Unique patterns in the development of burnout
perceptions among adolescents were observed over time, with some
trajectories differing across genders (see Table 20.1 for additional details),
suggesting the need to consider gender and age when examining
developmental patterns in burnout.
Meta-analyses have also been instrumental in synthesizing and
benchmarking the current state of literature on athlete burnout. Pacewicz,
Mellano, and Smith (2019), for example, conducted a recent meta-analysis
of post-2000 quantitative studies focused on the association between social
constructs and athlete burnout. Results provided indications that positive
social perceptions may mitigate the experience of athlete burnout, while
negative social perceptions (albeit based on relatively few studies, n = 20)
may promote this aversive experiential state.
As may be inferred from the studies highlighted, few of the strongest
historical studies of athlete burnout development have considered fatigue
and/or overtraining variables. We posit three reasons for this empirical
discrepancy: (a) problems of differentiating burnout from overtraining
because of the shared implication of fatigue and similarities in some areas
of symptomology, (b) a poor interface in scholarship across sport scientists
focused on either physiological or psychological responses to training load
and psychosocial stress, and (c) the lack of a unifying framework to guide
such work. We posit that recovery science may represent a suitable unifying
framework.
Recovery science is focused on an active, multifaceted (i.e.,
physiological and psychological) approach to athlete recovery in terms of
restoring individual athlete biopsychosocial fitness. Recovery science
provides a nuanced view of the process that extends beyond viewing
recovery as merely a matter of rest or training load reduction/cessation
(Kellmann et al., 2018). Athlete recovery is about far more than sleeping or
taking time off from training. Both qualitative (Eccles & Kazmier, 2019)
and quantitative (Balk et al., 2017) sport science data support the potential
utility of this framework in guiding the assessment of athlete rest and
recovery. We feel this framework has potential to unite the research areas on
fatigue, overtraining, and burnout in sport.
Table 20.1 Five Key Readings in Fatigue, Overtraining, and Burnout
Design
DeFreese Prospective, Social support (negative relationship) and negative social interactions
& Smith longitudinal (positive relationship) are significant predictors of athlete burnout over
(2014) a competition season when stress, sport motivation, and personality
factors are accounted for.
Isoard- Prospective, Reduced accomplishment dimension of burnout decreases occurred
Gautheur longitudinal over time, with the strongest effects for girls. A quadratic relationship
et al. for emotional and physical exhaustion occurred for age, with initial
(2015) increases followed by decreases at older ages. Sport devaluation
increased to a greater degree among girls than boys studied.
Madigan Prospective, Autonomous motivation mediated the negative relationship between
et al. longitudinal perfectionistic strivings and burnout at both the between- and within-
(2016) person levels. Controlled motivation mediated the positive relationship
between perfectionistic concerns and burnout at the between-person
level.
Pacewicz Meta-analysis Positive social perceptions mitigate athlete burnout, while negative
et al. social perceptions promote it.
(2019)
Smith Conceptual Athlete burnout should be considered as one potential outcome of the
(1986) review psychosocial stress and coping model.

In accordance with the theme of the book, the remainder of the chapter is
guided by five major questions addressing important areas of applied
intervention, theory, or methodology. We have sought to provide cogently
stimulating answers to each of these major questions by addressing the
what, why, and how of each. We begin with two applied questions, follow
up with two theory questions, and conclude with one methodology
question.
1. Applied Question: What Interventions Are Best Suited to

Prevent and/or Ameliorate Maladaptive Responses to the Sport
Experience Including (Unrelenting) Fatigue, Overtraining
Syndrome, and Athlete Burnout?
What. One of the primary reasons for conducting prospective, longitudinal
studies of athlete burnout (and overtraining) is so that a deeper
understanding of variables potentially impacting development of these
maladaptive states can inform intervention development. We propose,
therefore, a detailed discussion of potential interventions. Answering this
question, in our opinion, remains the biggest science-to-practice need in the
athlete burnout literature because, at present, conjecture remains the
primary contour of a course of action for intervention.
Why. Burnout has recently been characterized as an “occupational
phenomenon” for workers (World Health Organization, 2019).
Unsurprisingly, social scientists are much further ahead in the topic relative
to the burnout of working professionals. Yet, the sport science knowledge
base is well positioned to “catch up” relative to intervention development.
Intervention research does not need to come at the expense of collecting
additional data on burnout and overtraining predictors including fatigue.
Specifically, interventions combined with monitoring provide an
opportunity to collect additional data to further refine predictive algorithms
while simultaneously promoting athlete health and well-being.
How. A variety of athlete burnout predictors have been well established
in cross-sectional research and subsequently borne out in (limited)
longitudinal research. Blending the psychosocial stress and coping
perspective and recovery science, interventions educating training athletes
on stress management and coping strategies as well as active recovery
processes (i.e., nutrition, hydration, dynamic stretching, mindfulness) may
represent reasonable target points. Moreover, the social dynamics of sport,
including social support and negative social interactions/conflict with
various sport-based social actors (i.e., teammates, coaches, parents), have
been shown to be important predictors of burnout (Barcza-Renner et al.,
2016; Cresswell & Eklund, 2006a) and may also represent key starting
points for burnout prevention. The fit between workers and their
organizational structures has been an area of interest in workplace burnout
intervention efforts. Some preliminary evidence (albeit cross-sectional and
descriptive in nature) presented by DeFreese and Smith (2013) suggests
promise for this perspective in athlete populations. Variables within this
“areas of worklife” framework (Leiter & Maslach, 2004) include workload,
control, reward, community, fairness, and values. These variables represent
targets for intervention that have potential utility for interfacing well with
the recovery science framework. Properly construed for relevance to the
sport setting (a task in need of future empirical efforts), they may well help
athletes rebound from unrelenting fatigue while also helping to prevent
overtraining. Finally, while there are no clinical diagnostic criteria for
athlete burnout, interventions can be created to uniquely target athletes who
are experiencing relatively severe burnout symptoms. There is certainly
utility in exploring whether additional intervention foci and/or duration may
be needed by this population as compared to athletes experiencing low to
moderate symptom levels. All aforementioned work would be more
effective if these interventions included a robust safety monitoring and
evaluation plan.
2. Applied Question: How Will Novel Theory-Based Intervention

Strategies Be Effectively Evaluated to Ensure Their Efficacy,
Safety, and Effectiveness in Athlete Populations?
What. Successful intervention should be theory based, be well designed,
adhere to American Psychological Association guidelines, and be carefully
evaluated. The thorough evaluation of intervention impact requires that all
topics are assessed so continued intervention development is properly
informed.
Why. Interventions need to improve patient efficacy in a safe manner to
be effective. Moreover, interventions must be feasible so as to promote
athlete adherence. Finally, intervention outcomes of burnout, overtraining,
and fatigue symptom counts are certainly necessary. Outcomes consistent
with recovery science measures including heart rate variability, physical
performance, neuromuscular function, and markers of inflammation also
represent novel outcomes to target within specified interventions.
How. Psychometric assessment of athlete burnout, overtraining, and
athlete fatigue exists in varying degrees of adequacy. These subjective, self-
report assessments, however, should be triangulated with data from other
observers of athlete psychosocial health including sports medicine
providers (i.e., athletic trainers, team physicians), coaches, and parents.
Additionally, the availability of neuro-bio-psycho-social marker data on
fatigue may present a major opportunity for knowledge about burnout to be
moved forward. These data may provide opportunities for insight on how
this cognitive-affective syndrome links with athlete physiology and perhaps
provide opportunities to positively impact athlete performance. Overall, the
use of recovery science as a guide to merge psychological markers of
burnout with physiological markers may provide innovative possibilities
crucial to intervention assessment and a move toward better understanding
of the physiological burden associated with this psychologically
maladaptive state. Ultimately, a merging of psychosocial perspectives on
burnout with recovery science, along with a blend of subjective and
objective assessments, will be of utilitarian benefit to future research on
fatigue, overtraining, and burnout in athlete populations.
3. Theoretical Question: Is There a Theoretical Conceptualization

That Characterizes and Differentiates Fatigue, Overtraining, and
Burnout?
What. Consideration of the extant literature makes apparent that conceptual
understanding of the similarities and differences among the constructs of
fatigue, overtraining syndrome, and burnout has been an issue from the
beginning of the study of these constructs in sport (Eklund & DeFreese,
2015, 2020). The need for such a conceptualization represents an important
conceptual step in future work aiming to understand athlete burnout
development.
Why. The answer to this question is crucial to future basic and applied
research efforts seeking to understand and/or intervene upon variables
important to athlete performance and psychosocial health. For researchers
to accomplish any of these important goals (and, moreover, to do so in the
most effective ways possible), the constructs of fatigue, overtraining, and
burnout must be clearly and distinguishably defined and accurately assessed
to afford opportunities to pose meaningful research questions and design
potentially meaningful intervention studies. Psychometric advancements in
assessment and clear operational definition of constructs will be crucial for
applied research efforts targeting these constructs individually or
concomitantly.
How. Clear, theory-based methodological approaches are needed that
examine the sequelae of training and competitive stress among competitive
athletes relative to the constructs of fatigue, overtraining, and athlete
burnout. Such approaches should afford the use of complex longitudinal
analyses to predict these variables at both the between- and within-athlete
levels using variables with discriminatory potential relative to their
development. These may include variables relating to athlete perceptions of
stress and fatigue, coping, sport motivation, training load, and demographic
(e.g., gender) and personality (e.g., perfectionism) constructs as well as
potential indicators of systemic maladaptive responses relating to
neurologic, endocrinologic, and/or immunologic function. Such work may
also provide grist for advanced factor analytic or discriminant function
analytic strategies to advance clearer differentiation among the constructs
and their predictors, as well as their shared territory. The Athlete Burnout
Questionnaire (ABQ; Raedeke & Smith, 2009) has, historically, proven to
be a valid and reliable psychometric instrument to this point, but the
availability of similarly sound psychometric indices of fatigue and
overtraining have yet to be employed in sport psychology at this point. The
Recovery-Stress Questionnaire (RESTQ-Sport) represents one potential
psychometric measure to aid in such important work (Kellmann & Kallus,
2016; Nicolas et al., 2019). Assessment of theoretically relevant markers of
these psychobiological states (e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2007; Van Cutsem
et al., 2017) will also be needed to afford advances in understanding of
shared territory and key discriminators. Future prospective longitudinal
studies of fatigue, overtraining, and burnout symptoms in athletes will
require careful consideration of guiding theory as well as advances in and
integration of psychometric and biomarker assessment.
4. Theoretical Question: Does Recovery Science Represent a

Useful Conceptual Model to Guide the Next Decade of Topical
Research on Fatigue, Overtraining, and Athlete Burnout?
What. Theoretical/conceptual frameworks in sport science that are germane
to understanding and supporting athlete health and well-being exist.
However, the extent to which they have been used to monitor and
understand more distal physiological and psychological sequelae of training
and competitive stress (i.e., overtraining syndrome, burnout) among athletes
is limited. Based on our review of the literature and its utility to inform both
research and practice, we propose recovery science as an informative
framework to guide research to advance knowledge in this area. Recovery
science is a burgeoning topic in sport science with clear links to fatigue and
clear conceptual links to overtraining as a result of its focus on active
strategies to optimize mental and physical recovery from training. The
integration of athlete burnout into this perspective represents a logical
potential next conceptual step forward.
Why. The efforts to focus on intervention relative to athlete burnout and
overtraining in sport have been limited and largely without overarching and
unifying conceptual grounding. Research examining burnout in the
workplace has made greater strides toward this aim (Maslach & Leiter,
1997). An innovative focus on athlete recovery provides a needed
opportunity to shift the focus on maladaptive sequelae to training and
competitive stress among athletes further yet into the world of intervention
under the guidance of a clear conceptual framework.
How. Recovery science involves an emphasis on measurement with a
primary focus on monitoring fatigue relative to both external load (i.e.,
work completed by the athlete regardless of internal response
characteristics) and internal load (i.e., physiological strain resulting from
external demands; see Halson, 2014). This can involve athlete self-report
measures as well as biomarkers of the autonomic nervous system (i.e.,
submaximal heart rate, heart rate variability, heart rate recovery), physical
performance (i.e., neuromuscular function, joint range of
motion/flexibility), and biochemical/hormonal/immunological function
(i.e., creatine kinase, inflammation markers, cortisone, testosterone).
Though some of these measures have been investigated in relation to athlete
burnout in small pilot studies (e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2007), these
common markers of recovery science have not been included in an
overarching study of athlete burnout development. Many sport teams at
various levels of competition have already begun to monitor external and
internal training load; accordingly, adding consistent assessment of athlete
burnout to such protocols would be fruitful. The creation of large-scale
athlete data sets of markers of recovery, overtraining, and burnout
symptoms would represent a major step in our understanding and effective
monitoring of these markers with primary implications for the design of
safe and effective interventions to optimize athlete mental and physical
health. Specifically, algorithms could be created from such data sets that
identify individual or combinations of recovery variables best suited for
prevention of overtraining syndrome and/or burnout as well as promotion of
athlete recovery.
5. Methodological Question: What Research Designs Represent

Scientifically Efficacious and Ethical Ways to Concomitantly
Investigate the Development of Fatigue, Overtraining, and/or
Burnout in Athletes?
What. A need exists for well-designed research studies well suited to using
theory to answer the aforementioned research questions. Cross-sectional
research designs were frequently used in early studies of athlete burnout,
but longitudinal studies aimed at understanding burnout development have
increasingly emerged over the last decade. Going forward, longitudinal
research design should continue to be prioritized to further advance
knowledge about interrelationships among fatigue, overtraining, and
burnout. Certainly, this question in and of itself suggests the need for multi-
time-point designs because of the emphasis on development. However,
myriad seasonal (or out-of-season) windows for the assessment points as
well as developmental windows (i.e., linked to chronological or biological
age) for assessment represent key considerations going forward.
Why. Research design is an extremely important, yet too often
underrated, aspect of the conceptual brainstorming required to move
knowledge forward on a topic. To date, the number of and duration between
time points in longitudinal studies of overtraining and burnout, and
recovery science-driven studies of fatigue and training load have varied
wildly. Assessment windows have ranged from being across seasons and
years of developing athletes’ careers to multiple in-season time points
ranging from weeks to months apart to even a subset of weeks within a
training or competition period (e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2005, 2006b;
Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2015). The use of more systematic designs for work
in these areas to afford both comparability and efficient contrast of
developmental time frames will represent a potentially important innovation
for the advancement of the knowledge base.
How. Recovery science may again be helpful to the creation of more
standardized windows for the assessment of the development of
overtraining and burnout symptoms. Specifically, a focus on parameters for
assessing daily and/or weekly internal and external training load could also
be used to assess overtraining and burnout symptom development. Lemyre,
Treasures, and Roberts (2006) conducted a study of burnout, motivation,
and affect during collegiate swimming training that may represent a guide
for continued development work in this area. At minimum, the assessment
protocols of relevance for competitive seasons, off-seasons, and cross-
training time points probably differ. Additionally, multiyear designs to look
at athlete burnout over time should involve more than one assessment per
year. Ultimately, a standardization of monitoring windows relative to
training load (e.g., periodized training phases) and athlete outcomes will be
useful for advancing knowledge about overtraining and burnout
development as well as being informative for translation of resultant
knowledge into interventions to prevent and treat overtraining and burnout
among athletes. Importantly, the epidemiology of burnout and overtraining
syndrome (i.e., prevalence as one marker) is still unknown in any
meaningful way despite years of research (Eklund & DeFreese, 2015,
2020).
Conclusion
Overall, this chapter presents a synthesis and roadmap for the next decade
of sport science research with the goal to advance the scope of knowledge
on these three important sport psychology topics. The concepts of fatigue,
overtraining, and burnout are conceptually complex, but that complexity
provides sport science scholars with many exciting opportunities to be
innovative on applied, theoretical, and methodological accounts. It will take
interdisciplinary scholarship to continue to define and differentiate these
constructs. The use of relevant theory and appropriate designs to understand
the shared and unique components of their development should be revealing
in ways that will allow successful intervention and meaningful evaluation to
promote athlete health and well-being. We feel recovery science represents
a conceptual framework that, along with relevant theory and extant athlete
burnout research, could provide a valuable guide for the use of the
prospective, longitudinal, and theoretically informed interventions best
suited for answering these complex questions. Ultimately, we hope this
chapter provides a useful guide to researchers who, like ourselves, are
interested in furthering knowledge on these important topics of fatigue,
overtraining, and burnout in sport.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge and thank the members of the recently created Burnout in
Sport Network for their gracious and thoughtful suggestions on topical
ideas for this chapter.
References
Balk, Y. A., de Jonge, J., Oerlemans, W. G. M., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2017). Testing the triple-match
principle among Dutch elite athletes: A day-level study on sport demands, detachment and
recovery. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 1–17.
Barcza-Renner, K., Eklund, R. C., Morin, A., & Habeeb, C. (2016). Controlling coaching behaviors
and athlete burnout: Investigating the mediating role of perfectionism and motivation. Journal of
Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social problem?
Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271–285.
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Changes in athlete burnout over a 12-week league
tournament. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37, 1957–1966.
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2006a). Changes in athlete burnout over a 30-wk “rugby year.”
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 125–134.
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2006b). The nature of player burnout in rugby. Journal of Applied
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2007). Athlete burnout and immune function. New Zealand
Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 5–11.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determined human behavior. Plenum
Press.
DeFreese, J. D., & Smith, A. L. (2013). Areas of worklife and the athlete burnout–engagement
relationship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 180–196.
DeFreese, J. D., & Smith, A. L. (2014). Athlete social support, negative social interactions, and
psychological health across a competitive sport season. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
36, 619–630.
Eccles, D. W., & Kazmier, A. W. (2019). The psychology of rest in athletes: An empirical study and
initial model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 44, 90–98.
Eklund, R. C., & DeFreese, J. D. (2015). Athlete burnout: What we know, and what we should be
finding out about. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 27, 63–75.
Eklund, R. C., & DeFreese, J. D. (2020). Athlete burnout. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.),
Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed.). Wiley.
Goodger, K., Gorely, T., Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. (2007). Burnout in sport: A systematic review.
Sport Psychologist, 21, 127–151.
Halson, S. L. (2014). Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Medicine, 44,
S139–S147.
Isoard-Gautheur, S., Guillet-Descas, E., Gaudreau, P., & Chanal, J. (2015). Development of burnout
perceptions during adolescence among high level athletes: A developmental and gendered
perspective. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 436–448.
Kellmann, M., Bertollo, M., Bosquet, L., Brink, M., Coutts, A.J., Duffield, R., Erlacher, D., Halson,
S. L., Hecksteden, A., Heidari, J., Kallus, K. W., Meeusen, R., Mujika, I., Robazza, C., Skorski, S.,
Venter, R., &Breckman, J. (2018). Recovery and performance in sport: Consensus statement.
International Journal of Sports & Physiology and Performance, 13, 240–245.
Kellmann, M., & Kallus, K. W. (2016). The recovery-stress questionnaires: User manual. Pearson
Assessment.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2004). Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational
predictors of job burnout. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress
and well-being (pp. 91–134). Elsevier.
Lemyre, P.-N., Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (2006). Influence of variability in motivation and
affect on elite athlete burnout susceptibility. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 32–48.
Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Motivation mediates the perfectionism-burnout
relationship: A three-wave longitudinal study with junior athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal
stress and what to do about it. Josey-Bass.
Meeusen, R., Duclos, M., Foster, C., Fry, A., Gleeson, M., Nieman, D., . . . Urhausen, A. (2013).
Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: Joint consensus statement of the
European College of Sport Science (ECSS) and the American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM). European Journal of Sport Science, 13, 1–24.
Nicolas, M., Vacher, P., Martinent, G., & Mourot, L. (2019). Monitoring stress and recovery states:
Structural and external stages of the short version of the RESTQ sport in elite swimmers before
championships. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 8, 77–88.
Pacewicz, C. E., Mellano, K. T., & Smith, A. L. (2019). A meta-analytic review of the relationship
between social constructs and athlete burnout. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 43, 155–164.
Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, A. L. (2009). The Athlete Burnout Questionnaire manual. West Virginia
University.
Smith, R. E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport
Thorpe, R. T., Atkinson, G., Drust, B., & Gregson, W. (2017). Monitoring fatigue status in elite team-
sport athletes: Implications for practice. International Journal of Sport Physiology and
Performance, 12, S227–S235.
Van Cutsem, J., Marcora, S., De Pauw, K., Bailey, S., Meeusen, R., & Roelands, B. (2017). The
effects of mental fatigue on physical performance: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 47,
1569–1588.
World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International
Classification of Diseases. https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/
21
Injury and Concussion
Leslie Podlog, Stefanie Podlog, and Jeffrey G. Caron
State of the Art

In the 1980s, scholars began paying increased attention to the psychological
aspects of sport injury. Much of the research since that time has focused on
intrapersonal (e.g., stress, motivation, self-efficacy beliefs) and
interpersonal (e.g., patient-practitioner relationships, social support) factors
associated with injury risk, rehabilitation, and return to sport (Brewer &
Redmond, 2017). In summarizing the research, we briefly highlight
conceptual models guiding inquiry in this area. Table 21.1 highlights five
seminal studies on the psychosocial aspects of sport injury.
Factors Influencing Injury Risk

The majority of research on psychological risk factors for acute injury has
been guided by Williams and Andersen’s stress-injury model (1988;
revised, 1998). The researchers suggest that athletes’ cognitive appraisals of
potentially threatening sport situations elicit a stress response—
characterized by attentional deficits (i.e., peripheral narrowing and
distraction) and deleterious physiologic implications (e.g., fatigue, reduced
timing and coordination)—the strength of which increases or decreases the
likelihood of injury risk. Further, although findings generally support the
hypothesized contention that personality traits, history of stressors, and
coping resources all moderate the stress response and subsequent injury
risk, a meta-analysis (Ivarsson et al., 2017) indicated that relationships
between personality traits (r = .01, 80% confidence interval [CI] [–.01,
.03]), history of stressors (r = .13, 80% CI [.11, .15]), coping resources (r =
–.07, 80% CI [–.10, –.03]), and injury were marginal to small at best. Some
support has also been found for the proposed mediators, specifically, that
athletes with high life event stress may be more susceptible to attentional
disruptions and subsequent injury (Ivarsson et al., 2017). Although much
has been learned about the psychological factors predictive of
musculoskeletal injury, virtually no research exists examining psychosocial
variables that predict concussion or chronic injury. A concussion is a type
of traumatic brain injury that results from direct or indirect blows to the
face, head, or elsewhere on the body (McCrory et al., 2017). The
neurological impairment that accompanies a concussion is often transient
(i.e., 2 weeks for adults and 30 days for children and adolescents younger
than 18 years of age). A concussed individual may experience one or more
of the following: symptoms (somatic, cognitive, emotional), physical signs,
behavioral changes, balance and cognitive impairment, and sleep
disturbance. In an effort to target injury risk factors, researchers have also
examined the effects of multimodal, cognitive behavioral interventions. A
recent meta-analysis demonstrated that interventions focused on stress
management and relaxation techniques had a large effect on reducing the
number of injuries among athletes (Ivarsson et al., 2017).
Rehabilitation
In examining factors influencing rehabilitation, scholars have consistently
used Wiese-Bjornstal and colleagues’ (1998) integrated model of response
to sport injury. The central assumption of the model is that the same
individual and situational variables that influence injury risk also influence
athletes’ postinjury responses. In particular, a host of personal (e.g., injury-
specific, psychological, demographic, physical) and situational (e.g., sport
types, social, environmental) factors are posited to influence cognitive (e.g.,
goals, self-perceptions, injury attributions), emotional (e.g., frustration,
grief), and behavioral responses to injury (e.g., adherence to rehabilitation,
malingering) in a cyclical fashion, all of which are suggested to influence
recovery outcomes (i.e., physical and psychological). In support of the
model, numerous personal (e.g., self-motivation, pain tolerance, self-
efficacy) and situational variables (e.g., social support, patient-practitioner
rapport) have been associated with athletes’ cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral responses throughout the rehabilitation time frame (Brewer &
Redmond, 2017). For instance, Caron and colleagues (2013) described the
deleterious implications of repeated concussion on former National Hockey
League players’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral/interpersonal
functioning. Athletes articulated feelings of alarm and distress associated
with the physical symptoms of concussion (e.g., vision impairments,
headaches), experiences of isolation and withdrawal, profound emotional
upheaval (e.g., anxiety and depression), and changing self-perceptions
during their transition out of professional sport. The importance of
situational factors, namely social support, in coping with concussion and
retirement was also described (Caron et al., 2013).
Psychological interventions such as imagery, relaxation, goal setting, and
written emotional disclosure have been shown to improve emotional
response, rehabilitation adherence, pain, and functional ability (Brewer &
Redmond, 2017). Recent interdisciplinary efforts focused on understanding
the mechanisms of intervention effects demonstrate that interventions such
as imagery or relaxation may expedite the recovery process through
neurophysiological changes, such as increased motor-force generation in
the cortex and improved programming and planning in the motor system
(Clark et al., 2014). For example, in their experimental study, Clark et al.
(2014) found that mental imagery training attenuated the loss of muscle
strength and voluntary activation (the nervous systems ability to fully
activate muscle) by ∼50% (23.8 ± 5.6% and 12.9 ± 3.2% reductions,
respectively). Scholars have also found that interpersonal interventions
focused on social support and positive patient-practitioner rapport can
improve athlete rehabilitation adherence and well-being (Brewer &
Redmond, 2017). Additional well-powered, experimental studies are
needed, however, to support efficacy claims for various interventions such
as imagery (Zach et al., 2018), social support, and emotional disclosure.
Return to Sport
The return-to-sport time frame refers to the period when athletes transition
from rehabilitation to sport-specific training and competition. Evidence
suggests that intrinsic or personally valued reasons for returning to sport
(e.g., a love of the game) predict a greater likelihood of return to sport,
more positive return-to-sport outcomes (e.g., greater sport appreciation,
increased mental toughness), and more positive appraisals and emotions
regarding an upcoming return to sport (Ardern et al., 2013; Podlog &
Eklund, 2010). Substantial research also highlights the fact that competence
(e.g., reinjury anxieties, worries about postinjury performance), autonomy
(e.g., pressures to return to sport, a lack of control over rehabilitation
progress), and relatedness (e.g., feelings of isolation from one’s teammates)
issues are pertinent as athletes’ re-enter the competitive arena (Ardern et al.,
2013). For instance, a key competence-based concern—reinjury anxiety—
has been shown to delay or prevent a return to sport, increase attentional
distraction, and adversely impact athletes’ postinjury performances (e.g.,
Ardern et al., 2013; Gray, 2015). Gray (2015) found experimental evidence
that injured expert position baseball players (n = 10) who received medical
clearance to return to sport but had not yet begun playing competitively
performed significantly worse on a simulated batting task compared to
noninjured experts (n = 10). Moreover, comparisons between injured and
noninjured experts on a secondary judgment task involving perceptions of
one’s knee angle while swinging the bat revealed that injured experts were
more aware of their knee angles while at bat compared to their noninjured
counterparts. The latter finding indicated that injury induced an internal
focus of attention, which may have in part accounted for performance
decrements on the simulated batting task.
Although there is evidence of greater interdisciplinary collaboration,
traditionally, research on the psychosocial aspects of sport injury has been
siloed and/or limited in focus. We believe there are several explanations for
this. First, pragmatic considerations such as the need to obtain a particular
sample size for statistical analyses and the challenges inherent in
objectively assessing performance across a variety of sports (e.g., effective
postinjury performance in swimming may be different than in rugby) have
typically led researchers to retrospectively examine whether one perception
(e.g., motivations to return to sport) correlates with another perception (e.g.,
postinjury performance). In doing so, researchers have ultimately limited
the types of postinjury outcomes (e.g., objective performance, movement
patterns, reinjury rates) that have been examined and precluded the need for
interdisciplinary collaboration. Limited and competitive funding for
research focused on injured athlete populations has also restricted the
likelihood that researchers examine the types of questions that necessitate
interdisciplinary methods, for example, examining the influence of
psychological factors (e.g., cognitive or emotional response to injury) on
physiological (e.g., hormonal) or motor performance behaviors. A final
explanation for siloed research in this area may pertain to interest in
collaborating across disciplinary lines. While caution is warranted in
making broad generalizations, researchers in the physical sciences (e.g.,
physiology, biomechanics) have traditionally viewed nonexperimental
approaches—such as qualitative and cross-sectional designs typically
employed in the psychology of sport injury—as “soft science” and may,
therefore, be less interested in working with psychology of sport injury
researchers. Despite these challenges, theoretical, methodological, and
practical advances in sport injury research may be gained through further
interdisciplinary research. In the next section, we articulate five questions
spanning the three phases—preinjury, rehabilitation, and return to sport—
that are best addressed from an interdisciplinary perspective. An
interdisciplinary approach is one in which the expertise of scholars from
different disciplines is brought to bear on the research problem in question.
Table 21.1 Five Key Readings in Psychosocial Aspects of Sport Injury
Design
Caron et Qualitative—a National Hockey League players described how concussion
al. focus on the symptoms adversely affected their professional careers, personal
(2013) rehabilitation and relationships, and quality of life.
retirement phases
Clark et Experimental—a Imagery can reduce muscle weakness and mitigate voluntary
al. focus on the activation. The neocortex may have an important impact on muscle
(2014) rehabilitation strength.
phase
Gray Experimental—a Injury induces an internal focus and results in diminished motor
(2015) focus on the performance.
return-to-sport
phase
Ivarsson Meta-analysis—a Stress is a consistent predictor of increased injury risk. Psychosocial
et al. focus on the interventions can mitigate injury risk.
(2017) preinjury phase
Podlog Experimental—a Greater self-determination in the return to competition resulted in
& focus on the more positive appraisals (increased desirability, reduced threat,
Eklund return-to-sport unfairness, ego damage) and enhanced positive affect (greater
(2010) phase happiness and excitement).

1. Applied and Theoretical Question: Which Biopsychosocial
Risk Factors Predict Chronic Injury?
Why Is It Important to Address the Question?

The vast majority of research has focused on antecedents of acute sport
injury. Acute injuries occur suddenly, typically following traumatic
confrontation of the physical body. Conversely, overuse injuries result from
repeated exposure to physical training (Heidari et al., 2017). Although
psychological factors such as stress have been shown to increase pain or
acute injury risk (Ivarsson et al., 2017), it seems likely that chronic injury
may be more a by-product of an interaction between biological factors,
psychological variables (e.g., personality traits, repetitive behaviors), and
sociocultural factors (e.g., norms promoting pushing through pain) that
encourage sport participation at the expense of health and well-being. While
evidence highlights the role of physical and biomechanical factors
(inadequate tissue repair, maladaptive movement patterns, anatomic
misalignment) in chronic injury (Paterno et al., 2013), much less support
has been garnered for the role of psychosocial factors in chronic injury. In
one of the only studies examining psychological factors and chronic injury,
Rip, Fortin, and Vallerand (2006) found that obsessive passion for dance
(controlled engagement in an activity characterized by contingent feelings
of self-worth) was associated with prolonged suffering from chronic
injuries.
Research examining predictors of chronic injury is important for several
reasons. First, mounting evidence suggests that chronic injuries are
increasingly commonplace among athletes of all levels, including youth
participants (Paterno et al., 2013). Such injuries may deny younger athletes
the opportunity to reap the benefits of long-term sport involvement. Second,
chronic injuries may take a particularly insidious toll on athlete well-being,
given the uncertain nature of recovery progressions and the indeterminacy
of symptom resolution. Third, an understanding of the biopsychosocial
factors involved in injury risk can help maximize the quality of athletes’
training environments through the development of optimal workout
programs and motivationally healthy climates. Overall, research on this
topic can lay the foundation for applied interventions aimed at reducing
chronic injury occurrence. In so doing, athletes may avoid the debilitating
experience of chronic injury and continue to pursue their athletic
aspirations.
What Is the Best Way to Address the Question?

In examining chronic injury, we advocate examination of the interaction
between biological, psychological, and social factors. For example,
sociocultural factors such as sport norms encouraging athletes to deny or
disrespect pain may influence athletes’ psyches (e.g., beliefs about
playing/training through pain) and behaviors (e.g., excessive or prolonged
practice), as well as their biological functioning (e.g., tissue repair, immune
functioning) or biomechanics (e.g., maladaptive movement patterns).
Collectively, these factors may influence the development of chronic
injuries. Toward this end, physiologists, biomechanists, sport psychologists,
and sociologists may combine their expertise to consider relationships
between potentially relevant injury risk factors. From an analytic
standpoint, it may be that a conjunctive analysis of factors may provide a
stronger prediction equation of chronic injury. In particular, person-centered
analyses such as latent profile analysis (i.e., a model-based approach to
identifying clusters of individuals by providing probability estimates of
group membership and fit indices to differentiate between multiple possible
cluster solutions) may be valuable in examining individual profiles of
biopsychosocial risk factors of chronic injury.
2. Methodological and Applied Question: Does Use of

Smartphone Apps Help Reduce Injury Risk and Facilitate
Effective Rehabilitation or Return to Sport?

As indicated previously, a variety of cognitive behavioral interventions
have demonstrated efficacy in reducing injury occurrence (Ivarsson et al.,
2017). Moreover, empirical evidence supports the value of several sport
psychology interventions (e.g., goal setting, imagery, social support,
communication training, role models) in facilitating sport injury
rehabilitation (Brewer & Redmond, 2017). Such interventions, however,
have generally been conducted by qualified researchers or psychologists in
relatively controlled contexts. With the exception of well-funded collegiate
or professional sport teams, many sport teams do not have access to sport
psychology practitioners. Furthermore, training and practice time is often
limited and coaches may be reluctant to “give away” their valuable training
time for inclusion of psychological skill interventions or other work that
may be perceived as peripheral to the physical training and preparation of
athletes. Finally, training facilities may be crowded, or space issues may
preclude opportunities to carry out face-to-face interventions. Given these
circumstances, novel approaches in the delivery of psychological skill
interventions for reducing injury and enhancing sport injury rehabilitation
are needed.

One potentially valuable method for introducing psychological skill
interventions that circumnavigate issues associated with traditional skill
delivery is the use of smartphone applications—commonly termed apps.
Smartphone apps may be valuable in the delivery of skills for several
reasons. First, apps are commonly used among millions of individuals
worldwide (Islam & Mazumder, 2010). Second, and related to point one,
individuals spend substantial amounts of time on their phones (e.g., an
average of 5 hours per day among college students; Lepp et al., 2013).
Third, injured athletes may be reluctant to seek help as it may be perceived
as a sign of weakness or vulnerability. Use of phones and apps helps avoid
such stigma by allowing athletes to engage with content in a confidential
manner and at a convenient time and location.
To examine the effectiveness of apps in reducing sport injury occurrence
and facilitating recovery, several steps are required. First, the development
of apps requires the knowledge and skills of an interdisciplinary team,
namely app developers as well as content experts in the psychology of sport
injury and rehabilitation providers (e.g., sport medicine professionals).
Additionally, extramural funding to support the development of content
(e.g., videos) is needed. The content should target known risk factors for
injury and/or factors shown to influence the effectiveness of injury
rehabilitation. Second, once the apps are developed, there is a need to beta-
test their effectiveness with regard to accessibility across various
devices/platforms and to ensure they are appealing, engaging, and user-
friendly. Third, well-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to test
whether the apps are effective in reducing injury rates and enhancing injury
recovery and return-to-sport outcomes. Researchers should also assess
dose-response effects, that is, to examine how much app usage is required
to reduce injury risk or elicit injury recovery benefits (e.g., expedited
recovery times). Development and testing of apps have broad
methodological implications for the effective delivery of psychological
interventions aimed at reducing injury risk and facilitating effective injury
rehabilitation.
3. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Can Concussion

Education Make a More Meaningful Impact on Athletes’ and
Coaches’ Concussion Attitudes and Reporting/Management
Behaviors?

Concussion education has been disseminated in the form of printed
educational materials, web-based platforms (e.g., websites, social
networking sites), and, to a lesser extent, targeted interventions. Despite
these efforts, researchers have reported that athletes and coaches report a
lack of knowledge regarding signs, symptoms, and management of the
recovery process (Nanos et al., 2017). A further problem is that even when
athletes and coaches are equipped with sufficient knowledge of
concussions, such knowledge may—in and of itself—be insufficient in
initiating concussion prevention measures or safer decision-making, such as
reporting possible concussions (Delaney et al., 2018). For example,
Delaney and colleagues (2018) found that of the 106 professional football
players (23.4% of the 454 athletes surveyed) who believed they had
suffered a concussion in the previous season, 82% (87/106) reported that
they did not seek medical attention despite their awareness of the potential
adverse short- and long-term health implications associated with the injury.
Such findings suggest that educational interventions focused solely on
improving knowledge of concussion symptoms and consequences are
unlikely to result in meaningful changes in attitudes (i.e., about the severity
of the concussions) and behaviors (e.g., reporting concussions, avoiding
dangerous contact and collisions).

Psychological theories provide researchers with a roadmap for
understanding behavior by hypothesizing relationships between a set of
variables and behaviors of interest (Michie et al., 2014). To date, health
behavior interventions have mostly been unsuccessful because they have
traditionally focused on disseminating knowledge to participants, which
assumes that individuals will act rationally once they are made aware of the
negative implications of engaging in an unhealthy/problematic behavior
(Kelly & Barker, 2016). Researchers have found that among the health
behavior interventions that have purported to use theory, the majority have
only been inspired by theory and not grounded in theory (Conner &
Norman, 2017). For an intervention to be grounded in theory, each
intervention component must be directly linked to each component of a
psychological theory (Michie et al., 2014). As such, grounding concussion
education interventions in theory appears to be a useful strategy for
researchers to balance messaging about concussion knowledge with theory-
driven strategies that will improve athletes’ concussion-related attitudes and
help them understand how to engage in safer on-field behaviors.
Developing sound educational interventions should involve
interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, public health researchers,
communication scholars, and sport medicine providers should be involved
in the development of concussion education interventions.
4. Theoretical and Methodological Question: What Are the Key

Attributes of “Readiness” to Return to Sport and Can a
Comprehensive Measure of Readiness to Return to Sport Predict
Return-to-Sport Outcomes?

Traditionally, athletes’ clearance to return to sport following
musculoskeletal injury has been based on assessment of physical function,
or in the case of concussion, tests such as neurocognitive assessment,
gait/balance testing, reaction time, and oculomotor screening (McCrory et
al., 2017). The assumption underlining such tests is that athletes who pass
them are ready to perform at or exceed previous performance levels and are
less likely to incur reinjury or a new injury. Unfortunately, increasing
evidence suggests that such assumptions may be unwarranted. A growing
body of science indicates that an exclusive reliance on test batteries of
physical or neurocognitive function alone may be insufficient for assessing
athletes’ readiness to resume sport participation following musculoskeletal
and concussive injury (Webster & Hewett, 2019). For example, in their
meta-analytic examination of the validity of return-to-sport tests after
anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery, Webster and Hewett (2019) found
that only one out of 18 studies showed that passing return-to-sport (RTS)
test batteries led to greater RTS rates. Moreover, two studies revealed that
passing RTS test batteries did not significantly reduce the risk of a further
knee injury (risk ratio [RR] = .28 [95% CI .04–.94], p = .09), while five
studies showed that passing RTS test batteries did not reduce the risk for all
subsequent ACL injuries (RR = .80 [95% CI .27–2.30], p = .70).
Counterintuitively, passing an RTS test battery actually increased the risk
for a subsequent contralateral ACL injury (RR = 3.35 [95% CI 1.52–7.37],
p = 0.003]. These findings suggest that commonly employed tests (e.g.,
agility, strength, muscle mass/size) designed to assess athletes’ readiness to
resume sport participation and avoid reinjury or new injury may be
inadequate or incomplete. As such, more comprehensive and/or sensitive
tools are needed to assess athletes’ readiness to resume sport participation.

In an effort to address neglected dimensions of readiness to return, scholars
have in recent years developed survey instruments focused on the
psychological aspects of readiness. Perhaps the most widely used inventory
to date is Glazer’s (2009) Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport
(I-PRRS) Scale. However, equating confidence with “readiness” to return to
sport after musculoskeletal injury may be incomplete (Podlog et al., 2015).
Furthermore, given the unique pathophysiology of concussions, its
symptomology, and the uncertain timeline for symptom resolution,
measures sensitive to addressing the unique nature of concussion may be
needed to address readiness among concussed athletes. Consequently, we
argue here that the development of a biopsychosocial approach is needed to
fully capture the dimensions of readiness. Presumably, a more holistic
measure of readiness would be composed of perceptions of one’s biological
healing, psychological (e.g., confidence, emotions), and social elements
(e.g., perceptions of trust/value in the expertise of care providers, social
support). Further work is also needed to better understand whether
“readiness” is about the relative absence of negative states (e.g., reinjury
anxiety) or about experiencing the presence of particular states of mind.
The creation of a biopsychosocial assessment tool of readiness to return to
sport should ideally be established based on interactions between sport
science/sport medicine practitioners with a knowledge of the biological
aspects of healing (e.g., physiatrists, physiotherapists) and the psychosocial
aspects of injury (e.g., rehabilitation and sport psychologists) likely to
influence readiness perceptions.
5. Applied Question: Does the Development and Implementation

of a Standardized Return-to-Learn Protocol Impact the Reduction
of Concussion Symptomology?

Concussed learners are a major public health concern, since they are likely
to miss more days of school than those with a musculoskeletal injury
(Romm et al., 2018). Incidence data suggest that up to 1.9 million youth are
affected by sports- and recreation-related concussions each year (Chrisman
et al., 2019). Given the tendency of learners to underreport their symptoms,
such figures may be conservative (Asken et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is
estimated that 5% of students participating in contact sports such as football
may sustain concussion each season (Chrisman et al., 2019).
To avoid exacerbation of symptoms following a concussion, cognitive
rest for a period of 24 to 48 hours has been advocated before resuming
symptom-limited scholarly activities (McCrory et al., 2017). Unfortunately,
premature return to learning poses a number of potential problems for the
learner. For example, attempts to keep pace with course requirements may
exacerbate concussion symptoms such as insomnia, concentration, and
memory. Additionally, athletes who return to learning environments too
soon have reported a variety of complaints including headaches, an inability
to keep up with homework requirements, poor performance, and fatigue
(Iverson & Gioia, 2016). Given these issues, there is a need for intervention
strategies to help concussed athletes resume cognitive and academic
activities without aggravating symptoms.

One approach that has been proposed is a graduated four-step return-to-
learn (RTL) strategy (McCrory et al., 2017). The RTL strategy emphasizes
rest following concussion and a gradual resumption of activities. Stage 1
focuses on gradual resumption of typical activities at home (e.g., reading,
screen time), while in stage 2, individuals attempt to increase tolerance of
cognitive work. Stage 3 is characterized by an increase in academic
activities and a return to school part time. If symptoms are not exacerbated,
individuals can progress to stage 4, in which scholastic engagements can be
gradually resumed until a full day is tolerated. Ideally, the RTL process
would be individualized based on the concussed learner’s needs and involve
input and communication between health care providers, school personnel
(e.g., teachers), and, if or when needed, parents. This process requires a
constructive and interprofessional relationship between school and health
care providers who manage the RTL process.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have reviewed research focused on the psychosocial
aspects of musculoskeletal injury and sport-related concussion. Our review
synthesized scholarship spanning three phases of the injury experience,
namely psychological antecedents, rehabilitation, and the return to sport
following rehabilitation. In examining this body of work, we argued that
research on the psychology of sport injury has traditionally been siloed
from other disciplines. In articulating five questions pertaining to sport
injury, our goal has been to inspire further interdisciplinary work. By
utilizing interdisciplinary teams, researchers may better understand nuanced
interactions and connections between mind and body that influence injury
risk, recovery, and return to sport. Ultimately, such understanding can
inform evidence-based practice and clinical intervention with injured
athletes.
References
Ardern, C. L., Taylor, N. F., Feller, J. A., & Webster, K. E. (2013). A systematic review of the
psychological factors associated with returning to sport following injury. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 47, 1120–1126. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091203
Asken, B. M., McCrea, M. A., Clugston, J. R., Snyder, A. R., Houck, Z. M., & Bauer, R. M. (2016).
“Playing through it”: Delayed reporting and removal from athletic activity after concussion
predicts prolonged recovery. Journal of Athletic Training, 51, 329–335. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-
51.5.02
Brewer, B. W., & Redmond, C. (2017). Psychology of sport injury. Human Kinetics.
Caron, J. G., Bloom, G. A., Johnston, K. M., & Sabiston, C. M. (2013). Effects of multiple
concussions on retired national hockey league players. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
35, 168–179.
Chrisman, S. P., Lowry, S., Herring, S. A., Kroshus, E., Hoopes, T. R., Higgins, S. K., & Rivara, F. P.
(2019). Concussion incidence, duration, and return to school and sport in 5- to 14-year-old
American football athletes. Journal of Pediatrics, 207, 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.11.003
Clark, B. C., Mahato, N. K., Nakazawa, M., Law, T. D., & Thomas, J. S. (2014). The power of the
mind: The cortex as a critical determinant of muscle strength/weakness. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 112, 3219–3226.
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2017). Health behaviour: Current issues and challenges. Psychology and
Health, 32, 895–906. doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1336240
Delaney, J. S., Caron, J. G., Correa, J. A., & Bloom, G. A. (2018). Why professional football players
chose not to reveal their concussion symptoms during a practice or game. Clinical Journal of
Sports Medicine, 28, 1–12. doi:10.1097/JSM.0000000000000495
Glazer, D. D. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the Injury-Psychological Readiness
to Return to Sport (I-PRRS) Scale. Journal of Athletic Training, 44, 185–189.
Gray, R. (2015). Differences in attentional focus associated with recovery from sports injury: Does
injury induce an internal focus? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 607–616.
Heidari, J., Hasenbring, M., Kleinert, J., & Kellmann, M. (2017). Stress-related psychological factors
for back pain among athletes: Important topic with scarce evidence. European Journal of Sport
Science, 17, 351–359.
Islam, R., & Mazumder, T. (2010). Mobile application and its global impact. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 10, 72–78.
Ivarsson, A., Johnson, U., Andersen, M. B., Tranaeus, U., Stenling, A., & Lindwall, M. (2017).
Psychosocial factors and sport injuries: Meta-analyses for prediction and prevention. Sports
Medicine, 47, 353–365.
Iverson, G. L., & Gioia, G. A. (2016). Returning to school following sport-related concussion.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 27, 429–436.
doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2015.12.002
Kelly, M. P., & Barker, M. (2016). Why is changing health-related behaviour so difficult? Public
Health, 136, 109–116. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.03.030
Lepp, A., Barkely, J. E., Sanders, G. J., Rebold, M., & Gates, P. (2013). The relationship between cell
phone use, physical and sedentary activity, and cardiorespiratory fitness in a sample of U.S.
college students. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 79.
McCrory, P., Meeuwisse, W., Dvorak, J., Aubry, M., Bailes, J., Broglio, S., . . . Vos, P. E. (2017).
Consensus statement on concussion in sport—The 5th international conference on concussion in
sport held in Berlin, October 2016. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51(11), 838–847.
Michie, S., Atkins, L., & West, R. (2014). The behaviour change wheel: A guide to designing
interventions. Silverback Publishing.
Nanos, K. N., Franco, J. M., Larson, D., Mara, K., & Laskowski, E. R. (2017, December). Youth
sport-related concussions: Perceived and measured baseline knowledge of concussions among
community coaches, athletes, and parents. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 92, 1782–1790.
doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.10.003
Paterno, M. V., Taylor-Haas, J. A., Myer, G. D., & Hewett, T. E. (2013). Prevention of overuse sports
injuries in the young athlete. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 44, 553–564.
doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2013.06.009
Podlog, L., Banham, S. M., Wadey, R., & Hannon, J. C. (2015). Psychological readiness to return to
competitive sport following injury: A qualitative study. Sport Psychologist, 29, 1–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0063
Podlog, L., & Eklund, R. C. (2010). Returning to competition following a serious injury: The role of
self-determination. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 819–831. doi:10.1080/02640411003792729
Rip, B., Fortin, S., & Vallerand, R. J. (2006). The relationship between passion and injury in dance
students. Journal of Dance Medicine and Science, 10, 14–20.
Romm, K. E., Ambegaonkar, J. P., Caswell, A. M., Parham, C., Cortes, N. E., Kerr, Z., . . . Caswell,
S. V. (2018). Schoolteachers and administrators perceptions of concussion management and
implementation of return-to-learn guideline. Journal of School Health, 88, 813–820.
doi:10.1111/josh.12687
Webster, K. E., & Hewett, T. E. (2019). What is the evidence for and validity of return-to-sport
testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Medicine, 49, 917–929.
Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., Shaffer, S. M., & Morrey, M. A. (1998). An integrated model
of response to sport injury: Psychological and sociological dynamics. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 10, 46–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209808406377
Williams, J. M., & Andersen, M. B. (1998). Psychosocial antecedents of sport injury: Review and
critique of the stress and injury model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 5–25.
doi.org/10.1080/10413209808406375
Zach, S., Dobersek, U., Filho, E., Inglis, V., & Tenenbaum, G. (2018). A meta-analysis of mental
imagery effects on post-injury functional mobility, perceived pain, and self-efficacy. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 34, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.09.011
22
Moral Behavior and Doping
Vassilis Barkoukis and Anne-Marie Elbe
State of the Art

Doping, considered to be one of the greatest threats to modern sports, is
defined as the occurrence of one or more antidoping rule violations set forth
in the Code of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA, 2019). The most
common anti-doping rule violations are the presence in an athlete’s urine or
blood sample or the use, attempted use, or possession of prohibited
substances or methods as outlined in WADA’s list of prohibited substances
and methods. Doping is problematic because it endangers the health of
athletes, goes against the integrity of sport, destroys the idea of a “level
playing field,” and does not set a good example for young athletes (Kayser
et al., 2007). Moral and ethical factors have been identified as contributing
to the understanding of why athletes involved in competitive sports dope.
Morality refers to personal principles or habits with respect to right or
wrong conduct (Gert, 2005). These principles are defined individually and
are determined by culture and society. Moral factors that have been
investigated with regard to doping are sportspersonship orientations, moral
atmosphere, moral identity, and moral disengagement. Sportspersonship
orientations reflect the individual differences in the predisposition to act
morally. Moral atmosphere refers to norms regarding moral action, that is,
the type of behavior considered acceptable in a group by its members.
Moral identity refers to the cognitive schema people hold about their moral
character; moral disengagement refers to cognitive mechanisms that
individuals use to justify their choices and minimize anticipated negative
affect (e.g., guilt, shame) when engaging in transgressive behavior
(Bandura, 2002).
Studies on the association between doping and moral constructs indicate
that the factors listed previously have a strong association with doping
intentions and behaviors (Ntoumanis et al., 2014). Sportspersonship
orientations have been found to be negatively associated with doping
intentions. This association was mediated by negative anticipated emotions
and was stronger for non-doping users, thus highlighting the strong
protective role sportspersonship orientations can play. However, athletes
with high or low levels of sportspersonship orientations did not differ in
their doping behavior or intentions for doping in the future (Ntoumanis et
al., 2014).
With respect to moral atmosphere, past evidence suggests that an
environment favoring doping is associated with more positive beliefs
toward this behavior. For instance, beliefs that the social environment (i.e.,
coaches, peers, support personnel, family) approves doping were positively
related to higher doping intentions (Lazuras et al., 2015). Similarly, moral
identity has been found to influence the doping related decision-making
process through moral disengagement and anticipated negative emotions
(Kavussanu, Yukhymenko-Lescroart, et al., 2019).
In past research, moral disengagement has been the most extensively
studied moral variable. Qualitative data confirmed that moral
disengagement mechanisms are evident in amateur and competitive athletes
(Boardley et al., 2015). This evidence revealed that athletes tend to
rationalize and justify their choice and circumvent the health and moral-
related concerns about doping. With respect to the prediction of doping
behavior, research evidence consistently suggests that moral disengagement
is strongly associated with doping behavior and doping intentions. Its effect
on intentions and behavior is typically exerted through doping-related
cognition such as attitudes and anticipated negative emotions (Ring &
Hurst, 2019). Furthermore, Ntoumanis et al. (2017) concluded that moral
disengagement mediates the effect of motivational variables (i.e.,
controlling motivational climate and basic psychological needs frustration)
on doping intentions and behavior.
There is markedly less research with regard to the ethical aspects of
doping. Ethics refers to the rules of conduct recognized in a particular group
or culture (Solomon, 1984) and they are determined externally (e.g., by
WADA, 2019). Ethical decision-making refers to the process of evaluating
and choosing among alternatives in a manner consistent with ethical
principles, whereas ethical climate refers to the climate within an
environment/organization that captures the individuals’ perceptions of the
ethical policies, practices, and procedures (Martin & Cullen, 2006). To this
extent, Elbe and Brand (2015) investigated athletes’ ethical decision-
making skills with regard to doping and showed that ethical decision-
making training was successful in breaking up athletes’ stereotypical style
of reasoning about doping. Furthermore, Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells
(2017) outlined that ethical climate is relevant for understanding and
investigating ethical issues and sport scandals related to doping.
In sum, morality has been extensively studied in the context of doping.
Social-cognitive approaches have dominated research (e.g.,
sportspersonship orientations, moral atmosphere and identity, and moral
disengagement). We provide a list of key readings on the topic of sport and
moral behavior in Table 22.1. The evidence suggests that moral-related
variables can predict doping behavior and doping intentions and therefore
serve in the fight against doping. In contrast, there is less research related to
ethical aspects and doping. Despite the large amount of research on
morality and doping, many questions warrant further research, as discussed
next.
Table 22.1 Five Key Readings in Moral Behavior and Doping
Design
Barkoukis et Qualitative Coaches and peers develop a social environment that may influence
al. (2019) study an athlete’s decision to dope.
Elbe & Longitudinal Ethical decision-making training was successful in breaking up
Brand study athletes’ stereotypical style of reasoning about doping.
(2015)
Gucciardi et Literature Provides an overview of social desirability research with regard to
al. (2015) review doping.
Hemphill Theoretical A critical examination of the ethical foundations and arguments
(2009) against doping.
Ntoumanis Meta-analysis Morality and self-efficacy to refrain from doping had the strongest
et al. (2014) negative association with doping intentions and behaviors.

1. Theoretical Question: Is Doping an Immoral Behavior or an
Ethical Issue?
One could argue that doping is a performance enhancement aid like many
others (e.g., nutritional supplements, high-altitude training, hypobaric
chambers), and using doping substances is simply a violation of rules and,
thus, an ethical issue. Others argue that doping is against the essence of the
so-called “Spirit of Sport” and, thus, constitutes a moral problem (Loland &
McNamee, 2019). The official approach of anti-doping authorities (i.e.,
WADA) assumes that doping is a moral problem for sports, whereas Elbe
and Brand (2015) have shown that athletes and coaches perceive doping as
an ethical issue.
This ambiguity has resulted in scattered research, the development of
modestly effective anti-doping education, uncertainty in the prevalence of
doping use (a range from approximately 3% to 57%; Sagoe et al., 2014;
Ulrich et al., 2018), and concerns about the legitimacy of the anti-doping
system. Resolving this ambiguity and determining whether doping is an
ethical and/or moral problem is expected to impact research, the content
and the type of anti-doping education, and policy making in the future. In
terms of research, endorsing the notion that doping is a moral problem
reflects the notion that those who dope hold low moral values and may have
encountered problems in their moral development process. Therefore,
research could focus on the core human values and their association with
doping, aiming to enhance our understanding of whether people lacking
strong morals are more susceptible to doping. This also entails investigating
whether there are core human values and if they are determined by culture.
It has been argued that the Spirit of Sport values are based on a Western
culture of predominantly White males (Loland & McNamee, 2019).
Endorsing the notion that doping is an ethical problem assumes that sport
and anti-doping authorities are legitimate in developing and implementing
the anti-doping regulations. In this sense, future research could focus on the
legitimacy of anti-doping authorities and procedures and the rights of the
athletes. It would provide data that could be used to alter the anti-doping
regulations and procedures. Importantly, this approach would allow (a) for a
more thorough and unbiased discussion of a common rule of conduct for
athletes (irrespective of moral issues) and (b) to establish whether
legalization of doping could be appropriate and just, and thus resolve the
related ethical concerns.
In terms of education, an approach endorsing doping as immoral
behavior would result in the development of interventions targeting
concepts such as the Spirit of Sport, values of sport, moral reasoning, and
moral development. On the other hand, if doping is conceptualized as an
ethical issue, anti-doping education could focus on teaching what the
common rules of conduct among athletes are, and which sanctions should
be expected when the rules are broken. Resolving the morality versus ethics
problem would help anti-doping authorities establish more effective
prevention programs and policies against doping (see Hemphill, 2009;
Loland & Hoppeler, 2012).
2. Theoretical Question: Whether and How Are Moral Factors

(e.g., Moral Development, Moral Judgment) and Doping
Behaviors Intertwined?
Morality is among the cornerstones of the fight against doping; however, to
date, the study of morality and doping has been restricted to a small number
of moral constructs. Thus, in terms of theory development, the quest for a
robust theoretical approach will allow us to effectively understand the link
between moral factors and doping behavior. More specifically, so far the
doping literature has been dominated by social-cognitive theory and the
concept of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002). Extensive literature has
shown that moral disengagement is closely associated with maladaptive
beliefs about doping, such as positive doping attitudes and intentions, as
well as doping behavior (Kavussanu, 2015). This line of research advanced
our understanding of how athletes’ justifications influence their decision to
engage in an otherwise irrational behavior. In addition, past evidence has
revealed that sportspersonship may also influence doping-related beliefs
and cognitions (Ntoumanis et al., 2014). However, this social-cognitive
approach limits our understanding of moral judgment about one’s decision
to dope, as it describes such decision on a static level and investigates the
decision-making process at a single point in time. Furthermore, social-
cognitive studies are reduced to a narrow set of cognitive variables and
determinants of the decision-making process underpinning a “moral”
behavior. Accordingly, future research should involve a wider set of
variables and a longer time frame of investigation. For example, Hauw
(2013) showed that the decision to dope is not a spur-of-the-moment
decision, but rather a long and dynamic process.
Additional constructs providing a comprehensive conceptual framework
to understand such moral development processes include moral competence
and basic human values. Moral competence has been defined by Kohlberg
(1964, p. 425) as “the capacity to make decisions and judgments which are
moral (i.e. based on internal principles) and to act in accordance with such
judgments.” He further argued that people develop their moral competence
through six stages (i.e., obedience and punishment orientation, self-interest
orientation, interpersonal accord and conformity, authority and social-order-
maintaining orientation, social contract orientation, and universal ethical
principles) that require a long period of time to establish. If this is the case,
this reinforces the notion that longitudinal designs would be warranted to
investigate how athletes develop this competence. Schwartz (1992)
identified 10 basic values (i.e., self-direction, stimulation, hedonism,
achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence, and
universalism) that serve as trans-situational goals with varying importance
that largely guide the behaviors of a person or group. An investigation of
these values as related to sport might also advance our understanding of the
moral basis of doping (see Ring et al., 2020). However, even if these values
are endorsed by most athletes at the abstract level, they can become
challenged by concrete real-life situations that athletes encounter. The gap
between these abstract values (e.g., fair play) and the daily quest of
performing better poses challenges to athletes’ values.
3. Theoretical Question: What Is the Role of the Athletes’

Entourage in Defining Moral Atmosphere and Ethical Climate?
In the extensive doping literature, the individual athlete has been the focus
of investigation and intervention. However, athletes are not alone in the
sporting environment, and their decisions are largely influenced by other
social agents, such as parents, coaches, and peers. Hence, the role of the
athlete’s entourage in defining the moral atmosphere and ethical climate
that can be associated with the decision to dope needs to be determined.
Existing evidence indicates that athletes’ entourage can influence their
beliefs and doping behaviors (see Barkoukis et al., 2019). However, there is
scarce evidence about how this influence is exerted over athletes. That is,
previous research has not identified social environment aspects that can
trigger doping-related beliefs, as well as the underlying processes that can
affect athletes’ decisions to dope. Recently, Barkoukis et al. (2019)
demonstrated that coaches and peers (teammates and opponents) can
influence the decision-making process through their interpersonal
communication and impact on the overall team atmosphere. In this respect,
an autonomy-supportive motivational climate is expected to deter doping
behavior (Ntoumanis et al., 2017). Yet, the aspects of a “safe” environment
and the situations that may trigger the decision to dope have not been
clearly identified. Furthermore, the role of other social agents, such as
parents, support personnel (e.g., trainers, doctors, physiotherapists), and
media, in influencing athletes has not been fully addressed in the literature
so far.
As our knowledge of the role that athletes’ entourage play on the
established moral atmosphere and athletes’ decision to dope is limited, anti-
doping efforts (e.g., doping controls and prevention interventions) remain
focused on the athletes and largely neglect their entourage. In other words,
anti-doping efforts neglect a wide range of people that may influence an
athlete and who should be educated about doping. Furthermore, the lack of
understanding on how athletes’ entourage influences their doping behaviors
limits the content and reach of educational interventions targeting athletes’
support personnel and social environment. WADA’s ADeL (Anti-Doping e-
Learning) and project CoachMADE are notable exceptions as they provide
anti-doping education for support personnel and coaches. Still, their
effectiveness has not been ascertained, and thus interventions should be
developed, implemented, and tested for their effectiveness. Specifically,
future studies investigating the role of support personnel and other social
agents in the development of moral atmosphere and the athletes’ decisions
to dope would allow for the development of evidence-based interventions
promoting healthy moral atmospheres. In turn, the education of athletes’
support personnel is expected to better safeguard those who wish to
“compete clean” and to deter those who contemplate doping.
4. Methodological Question: How to Best Measure Doping

Prevalence and Variables (e.g., Morality/Ethics, Attitudes, and
Susceptibility of Doping) Related to the Decision to Dope?
Official WADA reports show that the percentage of athletes who dope is
less than 2%. However, self-report surveys with elite athletes revealed that
the prevalence of doping among athletes ranges from 3% to 15% (Sagoe et
al., 2014). In addition, studies using indirect approaches, such as
randomized response technique (RRT), yield much higher prevalence rates.
Ulrich et al. (2018) suggested that the doping use prevalence may be
between 39.4% and 57.1%. Assuming that these indirect measures are
reliable, there is a large proportion of athletes who deliberately cheat when
responding to survey questions concerning either their past or current
doping use or their beliefs related to future use. This “cheating” might relate
not only to questions about actual doping behavior but also to attitudes
toward doping, doping susceptibility, and doping-related moral variables.
Possible reasons for this might be the development of stereotypes about
doping users, the stigmatization of doping as an “immoral” behavior, the
strict penalties for those who dope, and social desirability (Gucciardi et al.,
2015). If this is indeed the case, scientific evidence about doping prevalence
and related variables so far may have been biased. Consequently, evidence-
based interventions might not have been based on the most appropriate
constructs.
For scientific research on doping to provide valuable information to
practitioners, reliable data must be gathered. A key action to resolve the
lack of trustworthy data would be to deal with social desirability in survey
research targeting doping-related variables. Gucciardi et al. (2015)
suggested the use of both proactive and post hoc approaches. More
specifically, developing new scales utilizing techniques to prevent social
desirability bias during scale completion (e.g., ensuring anonymity and
confidentiality, bogus pipeline technique) has been proposed as a useful
proactive approach. Furthermore, utilizing statistical techniques (e.g.,
common shared variance, bogus items) can assist in identifying unreliable
data. Also, Wolff, Schindler, and Brand (2015) suggested that indirect
methods (e.g., the doping brief implicit association test) may be useful in
measuring athletes’ doping attitudes and in identifying fake answers to
doping-related surveys.
Another aspect to consider to increase the reliability of research on
doping in sports consists of applying sport-specific measurement
instruments. There is a research call in sport psychology to measure sport
phenomena with sport-specific rather than general psychological
instruments to decrease measurement error in sport-related research
(Kellmann & Beckmann, 2003). In terms of morality, so far, two scales
measuring doping-related moral disengagement have been developed
(Kavussanu et al., 2016; Mallia et al., 2016). The use of hypothetical
scenarios, vignettes, implementation intentions, behavioral expectations,
and doping willingness (e.g., susceptibility and likelihood) is expected to
increase the variance in participants’ responses, thus allowing for a better
understanding of the decision-making process anteceding doping behavior.
Overall, the measurement reliability of the prevalence of doping should be
improved through the inclusion of social-desirability-reducing techniques in
survey assessments and the development of novel measures to provide
valuable information about participants’ beliefs and behaviors toward
doping. By using correctly developed and sport-specific measures, we can
understand the exact magnitude of the problem and investigate the
effectiveness of preventive interventions.
5. Applied Question: What Is the Most Effective Content,

Delivery Mode, and Target Groups for Moral-Based and Ethical
Intervention?
The most common approach to tackling doping use has been that of regular
doping controls and punishments for positive tests, which can also be
termed a detection and deterrence approach (Mazanov & McDermott,
2009). However, this approach has been deemed ineffective in lowering the
prevalence of doping. Furthermore, a number of education campaigns, such
as WADA’s APLHA and ADeL, and SATURN (Student Athlete Testing
Using Random Notification; Goldberg et al., 2007), have focused on
increasing awareness of doping control procedures. This approach,
however, does not assist in the prevention of doping. The deterrence
approach therefore has been complemented by a prevention approach, and
many respective education programs have been launched (Barkoukis,
2015). Past evidence has shown that education-based interventions were
modestly effective in changing athletes’ beliefs toward doping (Ntoumanis
et al., 2014). The majority of these interventions (e.g., Laure’s educational
intervention, ATLAS, ATHENA, Doping e-Learning Tools [DELTS])
focused on the health consequences of doping, whereas morality was
underdeveloped or ignored.
So far, there are only a few interventions targeting the moral and ethical
aspects of doping. The ethical decision-making training composed of moral
dilemmas is a notable exception. The training resulted in a small decrease in
negative attitudes toward doping and was successful in breaking up
athletes’ stereotypical style of reasoning about doping (Elbe & Brand,
2015). Projects HEROES and VIRTUE consisted of an intervention
targeting moral disengagement and were found to be modestly effective in
changing doping-related beliefs and cognition (Hurst et al., 2019;
Kavussanu, Hatzigeorgiadis, et al., 2019). Hence, at the present moment,
although there is educational material to inform athletes about the negative
health effects of doping and the doping control procedure (e.g., the WADA
code), morality-related educational material is rather scarce. Therefore,
athletes generally hold a negative stance toward doping, but they cannot
support it effectively as they lack knowledge and arguments about the
moral aspects and hazards of doping. This makes them vulnerable to
unreliable information and maladaptive influences (Barkoukis et al., 2019).
Regardless of whether doping is immoral or unethical, effective
moral/ethical interventions should be developed in the future. In this
respect, the content of the intervention, the targeted constructs, the delivery
mode of the intervention, the target groups (e.g., athletes, support personnel,
students), level of participation, gender, and cultural issues should be taken
into account (Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2015).
Conclusion
In conclusion, our chapter illustrates that there are numerous unanswered
research questions regarding moral behavior and doping that pertain to
theoretical, methodological, and applied aspects. It is our hope that by
researching these questions a contribution to a deeper understanding of the
relationship between morality, ethics, and doping and an accurate
assessment of doping prevalence can be made. This knowledge could then
be applied when developing educational interventions aimed at tackling one
of the greatest threats of modern sports.
References
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of
Moral Education, 31, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322
Barkoukis, V. (2015). Moving away from penalization: The role of education-based campaigns. In V.
Barkoukis, L. Lazuras, & V. Tsorbatzoudis (Eds.), Psychology of doping in sport (pp. 241–255).
Routledge.
Barkoukis, V., Brooke, L., Ntoumanis, N., Smith, B., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2019). The role of the
athletes’ entourage on attitudes to doping. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(21), 2483–2491.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1643648
Boardley, I. D., Grix, J., & Harkin, J. (2015). Doping in team and individual sports: A qualitative
investigation of moral disengagement and associated processes. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 7(5), 698–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2014.992039
Burton, L. J., Welty Peachey, J., & Wells, J. E. (2017). The role of servant leadership in developing
an ethical climate in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 31(3), 229–240.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0047
Elbe, A.-M., & Brand, R. (2015). Ethical dilemma training – A new approach to doping prevention.
In V. Barkoukis, L. Lazuras, & V. Tsorbatzoudis (Eds.), Psychology of doping in sport (pp. 165–
180). Routledge.
Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its nature and justification. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, L., Elliot, D. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Moe, E. L., Kuehl, K. S., Yoon, M., Taylor, A., &
Williams, J. (2007). Outcomes of a prospective trial of student-athlete drug testing: The Student
Athlete Testing Using Random Notification (SATURN) study. Journal of Adolescent Health,
41(5), 421–429.
Gucciardi, D., Jalleh, G., & Donovan, R. (2015). Substantive and methodological considerations of
social desirability for doping in sport. In V. Barkoukis, L. Lazuras, & V. Tsorbatzoudis (Eds.),
Psychology of doping in sport (pp. 78–92). Routledge.
Hauw, D. (2013). Toward a situated and dynamic understanding of doping behaviors. In J. Tolleneer,
S. Sterckx, & P. Bonte (Eds.), Athletic enhancement, human nature and ethics (pp. 219–235).
Springer.
Hemphill, D. (2009). Performance enhancement and drug control in sport: Ethical considerations.
Sport in Society, 12(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802673668
Hurst, P., Kavussanu, M., King., A., Barkoukis, V., Skoufa, L., & Ring, C. (2019). Preventing doping
in sport: The VIRTUES project. Conference of the European Society of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, Muenster, Germany.
Kavussanu, M. (2015). Moral disengagement and doping. In V. Barkoukis, L. Lazuras, & H.
Tsorbatzoudis (Eds.), Routledge research in sport and exercise science: The psychology of doping
in sport (pp. 151–164). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A.-M., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagement in
doping scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24, 188–198.
Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Hurst, P., Galanis, E., & Ring, C. (2019). Preventing doping in
sport: The HEROES project. Conference of the European Society of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, Muenster, Germany.
Kavussanu, M., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, A. M., Elbe, A.-M., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2019).
Integrating moral and achievement variables to predict doping likelihood in football: A cross-
cultural investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47, 101518.
Kayser, B., Mauron A., & Miah A. (2007). Current anti-doping policy: A critical appraisal. BMC
Medical Ethics, 8, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-8-2
Kellmann, M., & Beckmann, J. (2003). Research and intervention in sport psychology: New
perspectives on an inherent conflict. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1,
13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671701
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W.
Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 381–431). Russel Sage
Foundation.
Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2015). Toward an integrative model of doping use:
An empirical study with adolescent athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0232
Loland, S., & Hoppeler, H. (2012). Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle and the
biology of performance enhancement. European Journal of Sport Science, 12(4), 347–353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566374
Loland, S., & McNamee, M. J. (2019). The “spirit of sport,” WADAs code review, and the search for
an overlapping consensus. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11, 325–339.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2019.1581646
Mallia, L., Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Brand, R., Baumgarten, F., Tsorbatzoudis, H., Zelli, A., &
Lucidi, F. (2016). Doping use in sport teams: The development and validation of measures of
team-based efficacy beliefs and moral disengagement from a cross-national perspective.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.04.005
Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-
9084-7
Mazanov, J., & McDermott, V. (2009). The case for a social science of drugs in sport. Sport in
Society, 12, 276–295.
Ntoumanis, N., Barkoukis, V., Gucciardi, D. F., & Chan, D. K. C. (2017). Linking coach
interpersonal style with athlete doping intentions and doping use: A prospective study. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0243
Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y. Y., Barkoukis, V., & Backhouse, S. (2014). Personal and psychosocial
predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 44, 1603–
1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0240-4
Ring, C., & Hurst, P. (2019). The effects of moral disengagement mechanisms on doping likelihood
are mediated by guilt and moderated by moral traits. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40, 33–41.
Ring, C., Kavussanu, M., & Gürpınar, B. (2020). Basic values predict doping likelihood. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 38(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1700669
Sagoe, D., Molde, H., Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., & Pallesen, S. (2014). The global
epidemiology of anabolic-androgenic steroid use: A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.
Annals of Epidemiology, 24(5), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.01.009
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Solomon, R. C. (1984). Ethics: A brief introduction. McGraw-Hill.Tsorbatzoudis, H., Lazuras, L., &
Barkoukis, V. (2015). 16 Next steps in doping research and prevention. In V. Barkoukis, L.
Lazuras, & H. Tsorbatzoudis (Eds.), Psychology of doping in sport (pp. 230–243). Routledge.
Ulrich, R., Pope, H. G., Cleret, L., Petroczi, A., Nepusz, T., Schaffer, J., Kanayama, G., Comstock, R.
D., & Simon, P. (2018). Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-
response surveys. Sports Medicine, 48, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4
WADA. (2019). The World Anti Doping Code. https://www.wada-
ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_anti-
doping_code_2019_english_final_revised_v1_linked.pdf
Wolff, W., Schindler, S., & Brand, R. (2015). The effect of implicitly incentivized faking on explicit
and implicit measures of doping attitude: When athletes want to pretend an even more negative
attitude to doping. PLoS ONE, 10(4), Article e0118507.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118507
SECTION 3
CULTURAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
23
Ethics
Jack C. Watson II, Brandonn S. Harris, and Megan Byrd
State of the Art

Ethics can be thought of as a moral philosophy or code that guides the
behaviors of an individual or group, based upon the values and moral
principles of that individual or group and society at large. Ethical codes
outline regulatory guidelines for behavior and often deal with complex
dilemmas faced by those individuals functioning within a specific
professional domain. Ethical codes often consist of ethical principles that
are aspirational and promote the highest level of professional behavior and
ethical standards that are more regulatory and specify what is and is not
appropriate behavior within the profession.
The study of ethics is essential to the promotion of any profession, as
ethics guide the behaviors of those within the profession based upon the
values of that profession and help to educate practitioners and users of those
services about appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, setting the
guidelines for how professional relationships are intended to be structured.
As technology and a profession evolve, new challenging dilemmas emerge
and must be considered if professionals are to remain true to the values and
moral principles espoused by their profession. Rarely are ethical issues
straightforward and easy to identify or adjudicate. In most situations, the
ethical issues faced by practitioners are more subtle and impacted by many
factors that influence the dynamics of the situation. Research pertaining to
ethical issues and decision-making is necessary to help individuals identify
potential ethical issues and resolve them effectively before they have a
negative impact upon their professional responsibilities and relationships.
The field of sport, exercise, and performance psychology (SEPP) is unique
from general psychology and other helping professions in that the
responsibilities and scope of work in itself create potential ethical issues,
thus requiring ethical codes specific to the field.
In SEPP most ethical issues are associated with the three major domains
of work in which professionals engage: teaching, research, and practice.
Given the diverse activities that SEPP professionals are engaged in, several
organizations have developed codes of ethics to help guide and support the
work of their members. For example, the Association for Applied Sport
Psychology (AASP) adopted a code of ethics in 1996 to outline the
responsibilities of AASP members to the public. The ethics code was
developed based on the American Psychological Association’s Ethical
Principles of Psychologists code (1992). This code has since been modified
slightly to account for the ever-changing role of technology within
professional practice. More recently, the International Society of Sport
Psychology produced and disseminated their own code of ethics to support
the work of members across the international communities of the field
(Quartiroli et al., 2020). These codes of ethics are connected to professional
organizations and are intended to provide guidance to their members for
dealing with the difficult work-related behaviors often encountered by
professionals working in the field of SEPP.
Although writings related to ethical practices within the field of SEPP
existed prior to the 1990s (e.g., Nideffer, 1981; Rotella & Connelly, 1984;
Zeigler, 1987), a more consistent focus upon this work began in the early
1990s with the development of presentations, books, and articles focused on
ethics from research, best practices, and case study perspectives (e.g.,
Berger, 1993; Henschen, 1991; Heyman, 1990; Petitpas et al., 1994; Sachs,
1993; Singer, 1993). These titles often utilized more descriptive
methodologies and provided reviews aiming to identify the type and
frequency of ethical dilemmas professionals found themselves encountering
in practice and provided suggestions for those working in these specific
areas. Since the early 1990s, presentations, articles, and book chapters
related to ethics, ethical behaviors, and ethical decision-making in SEPP
have become much more common.
While reviews are still published in the related literature (e.g., Watson et
al., in press), more recently, attention has been given to more applied ethics
in which normative ethics (e.g., theories and associated codes) are applied
to dilemmas seen across the teaching, research, and practice domains. Yet
SEPP is still thought of as a unique profession (Aoyagi & Portenga, 2010)
because practitioners often interact with clients outside of traditional
psychology practice settings to conform with the constraints commonly
placed upon athletes because of their complex travel, meeting, and practice
schedules as well as other systemic demands associated with the athletic
culture (Brown & Cogan, 2006). Although the ethical principles guiding
sport psychology practitioners and licensed “sport” psychologists intersect,
there are unique situations outside of a traditional clinical setting that a
licensed psychologist may find difficult to navigate due to the nature of
their training, conflicting ethical codes and laws, and complex nature of the
culture of sport. These nontraditional interactions often lead to an increased
opportunity for practitioners to find themselves in unanticipated ethically
challenging situations. The differences associated with practice between
licensed and nonlicensed practitioners in the sport domain have made it
essential for ethics codes to be written specifically for those working in
applied SEPP, and for researchers to write articles specific to this domain.
Further, to increase the chance of making ethically sound decisions under
pressure, authors have developed and encouraged the utilization of ethical
decision-making models within SEPP settings (see Harris et al., 2009).
With the origins of ethics research in the profession and its subsequent
development over the past three decades, certain scholarly works have had
important influences on the ethics of research and practice in SEPP. Further,
while not exhaustive, these writings have also helped professionals answer
important questions within the profession of SEPP as well as highlighting
the areas that are in direct need of future attention. The authors highlight
five of these works (see Table 23.1) as well as address the following areas:
(a) the most common ethical challenges faced by SEPP practitioners, (b)
how SEPP practitioners make decisions when faced with ethical dilemmas,
(c) how competent SEPP practitioners are at recognizing ethical dilemmas
and acting appropriately upon those judgments, (d) the methodologies
needed to comprehensively examine ethics in SEPP, and (e) what structural
issues within the field of SEPP commonly lead to the development of
ethical issues for practitioners.
Table 23.1 Five Key Readings in Ethics in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology (SEPP)
Design
Aoyagi Review of literature Identifies SEPP challenges associated with multiple
& with practical relationships, confidentiality, and self-regulation. Supports a
Portenga suggestions positive and virtue ethics approach to ethics education.
(2010) Encourages constant evolution and introspection of personal
values and beliefs.
Brown Review of literature Focuses on ethical challenges for licensed psychologists
& and ethical codes to working in sport. Highlights issues of confidentiality, ethical
Cogan provide practical diagnosing and third-party billing, competence and marketing,
(2006) solutions and boundaries. Provides suggestions for maintaining ethics
while working with athletes.
Etzel et Descriptive survey of Surveyed SEPP practitioners about ethical beliefs and behaviors.
al. Association for Ethical dilemmas reflected currently identified ethical dilemmas
(2004) Applied Sport (i.e., multicultural issues and tele-mental health). When
Psychology members’ compared to previous studies, fewer behaviors were indicated as
ethical training and controversial.
beliefs
Harris et Review of literature Outlines the importance of ethics codes and ethical decision-
al. with practical making models within SEPP. Use of ethical decision-making
(2009) suggestions models improves the chance of making ethically sound decisions
under pressure. A decision-making model is presented for use in
SEPP.
Watson Review of literature Review of the ethical issues associated with teaching, research,
et al. (in with practical and practice. Attention given to areas often neglected in other
press) suggestions writings. Includes examples and recommendations for
addressing issues in each of these professional domains.

1. Applied Question: What Are the Most Common Ethical
Challenges Faced by SEPP Practitioners?
This question is very important for helping advance applied SEPP
interventions. SEPP practitioners must understand the common ethical
challenges faced by those working in the profession if they are going to be
mindful of how, why, and in what situations ethical challenges often evolve,
and be able to develop effective strategies for dealing proactively with
difficult situations.
Although not always the case, SEPP is often viewed as a luxury service.
We often hear about clients making snap judgments about the entire
profession based upon interactions with one professional. For example, a
bad interaction with a SEPP practitioner may be viewed as an indictment of
the entire profession. To the contrary, a bad interaction with a dentist is
often perceived as an indication that the dentist is not someone you want to
work with but is not reason to reject the entire profession. SEPP is also
often viewed as a boutique industry, making it essential that practitioners
take every opportunity to meet the highest standards of professionalism.
Taking a positive, virtue ethics approach to SEPP practice not only helps
practitioners avoid problems with ethics committees and the law but also
does so by promoting an approach whereby practitioners utilize ethical
codes to improve upon their practice and reach their full potential as a
practitioner by focusing on their own personal character and who they want
to be as a practitioner (Aoyagi & Portenga, 2010). Therefore, it is essential
that SEPP practitioners identify who they are and want to be, as well as
their professional aspirations for practice. The answers to these questions
will help them to develop proactive plans to deal effectively with common
ethical challenges, as well as handle the unexpected challenges that they are
faced with.
Although SEPP practitioners face many of the same challenges as more
traditional mental health professionals, the unique nature of their consulting
brings with it many situations and challenges that appear to be more
exclusive to this profession (Aoyagi & Portenga, 2010). To better
understand and identify the common ethical challenges facing SEPP
practitioners, the two most sensible approaches to research would entail a
survey of practitioners similar to those conducted to identify the ethical
beliefs and behaviors of sport psychology practitioners (Etzel et al., 2004;
Petitpas et al., 1994) and an inductive qualitative study designed to better
understand the common ethical challenges facing SEPP practitioners and
how they handle them.
Survey methods designed to answer this question should attempt to
overcome common sampling concerns associated with previous studies
such as low response rates, use of practitioners associated with one
professional organization, lack of practitioners from different training
backgrounds, and working in different settings (Etzel et al., 2004; Petitpas
et al., 1994). At present, survey methods in SEPP have primarily utilized
professional listservs that are highly subscribed to by students and rarely
subscribed to by those working as applied practitioners. Response rates
have been very low, and the surveys have often been completed more
frequently by academics and students than full-time SEPP practitioners
(Etzel et al., 2004; Petitpas et al., 1994). It is essential that such surveys use
sampling methods that maximize their respondents’ professional
experiences by reaching full-time practitioners who have different training
backgrounds (i.e., sport sciences and mental health), holding different
certifications and licensures, and working across different settings (e.g.,
private practice, collegiate sport, professional sport, military). Such surveys
also need to reach practitioners working in different countries and within
different cultures. These same considerations for maximum variation
sampling are also important for effective qualitative research methods.
2. Applied Question: How Do Practitioners Make Decisions

When Faced With Ethical Dilemmas?
This question is very important for helping advance applied SEPP
interventions, but also important for the development of an ethical decision-
making model in SEPP. SEPP is different from other mental health
professions because of the unique setting in which practitioners work.
Within this setting, it is sometimes difficult to identify the client,
performance can be difficult to define, and practitioners often interact with
clients in public settings and at nontraditional hours (Aoyagi & Portenga,
2010). Therefore, understanding how practitioners make ethical decisions
and identifying an appropriate ethical decision-making process would be
beneficial.
To better understand how practitioners make ethical decisions, two
sequential approaches should be considered. The first approach is intended
to answer this question at face value. Although a survey technique could
effectively answer this question, it would be best to use qualitative methods
to interview practitioners and identify their ethical decision-making
processes. However, it is important to go beyond figuring out how
practitioners make ethical decisions and look to identify a decision-making
approach that would be specific and appropriate for SEPP using a Delphi
method to reach consensus among practitioners.
It is first important for SEPP practitioners to understand the ethical
decision-making processes of others. An inductive, qualitative study is
proposed. This qualitative study should bring together a diverse group of
practitioners and ask them: “What do you consider to be common ethical
dilemmas in the practice of applied SEPP?” and then “What factors and
approach do you use when making decisions regarding ethical dilemmas
faced in SEPP practice?” The results of this study will be helpful in
identifying the factors that are most commonly considered by SEPP
practitioners when faced with ethical dilemmas and help to identify
appropriate decision-making models.
Although knowledge of the most important factors to consider when
faced with an ethical dilemma is important, it would be more important to
identify an actual ethical decision-making model that is appropriate for
SEPP. To answer this question, use of the Delphi method is suggested.
Using the Delphi method, a group of expert SEPP practitioners would be
identified. These experts should be practitioners from a variety of
backgrounds who have been identified as knowledgeable about ethics and
have avoided ethical problems throughout their careers. Results of the
previous studies on ethical decision-making would then be used to structure
a questionnaire related to ethical decision-making considerations. Several
rounds of questionnaires would be sent to this group with the goal of
providing a summary of the group response from previous rounds of
questionnaires to respondents, allowing them to interpret these responses
and adjust their own responses with the goal of developing consensus on
how ethical decisions should be made.
Once an ethical decision-making model has been developed, future
research should examine decision-making of individuals who use the model
and those who do not. To examine this question along with the impact of
other factors such as mood, educational level, training background, and
culture on ethical decision-making, experimental studies could be
developed that utilize ethical scenarios with different groups to evaluate
between group ethical decision-making.
3. Applied Question: How Competent Are SEPP Practitioners at

Recognizing Ethical Dilemmas and Acting Appropriately Upon
Those Judgments?
A critical area associated with ethics in sport psychology involves
competence. Indeed, a great deal of attention has been given to the
importance of competent professionals in the field within teaching,
research, and applied practice settings (see Moore, 2003). Further, relevant
ethics codes of governing bodies (i.e., AASP, 1996) include specific
principles and standards pertaining to competent work in SEPP.
Interestingly, competence as it pertains to the ability to recognize and
appropriately address ethical dilemmas in the field remains an area that has
yet to be examined in sport psychology, which would advance our
knowledge of the areas of graduate training and intervention work among
professionals in the field.
The ability to recognize and address ethical dilemmas as a competency in
sport psychology represents an important area of attention given the various
dilemmas that can surface in teaching, research, and applied practice
settings. Further, while these dilemmas may mirror those of other related
fields (e.g., military psychology, counseling psychology), Aoyagi and
Portenga (2010) also suggest additional challenges may exist that are
unique to sport psychology settings. Thus, the idea of competent practice
within teaching, research, and service provision must also include the
ability of professionals to accurately recognize and manage any number of
ethical dilemmas that can surface within each of the primary domains of the
sport psychology profession.
A number of methodologies could be employed to better assess and
understand this particular area of ethics in sport psychology. From a
quantitative standpoint, survey methods could be advantageous for
facilitating a more comprehensive examination of how competent decision-
making is addressed globally in the field across graduate programs and
practitioners within and outside of academia using such resources as
listservs, the Directory of Graduate Programs in Applied Sport Psychology
(Burke et al., 2018), AASP’s Certified Mental Performance Consultant
finder, and the International Society for Sport Psychology’s Practitioner
Registry. Experimental designs that involve ethical decision-making
education as an intervention could address the effectiveness of such
training. Further, the use of case scenarios with forced-choice responses
querying appropriate decision-making and/or action steps based on each
case could be addressed. It should be noted that methodologies have been
known to encounter common limitations. These can include low response
rates, the inclusion of practitioners who are affiliated with only one
professional organization, and the lack of generalizable findings due to
sampling methods that may not include practitioners and academics who
come from different training backgrounds, work in different settings, or
reside in different regions of the world. Qualitative methodologies that
involve semistructured interviews of graduate students and
faculty/supervisors could also provide more detailed feedback regarding
perceptions of what abilities and skill sets make up competent ethical
decision-making and how/if ethical decision-making is taught in graduate
training programs.
4. Methodological Question: What Methodologies Are Needed to

Comprehensively Examine Ethics in SEPP?
Advancements in SEPP teaching and applied practice generally stem from
sound scientific processes and research methodologies. Interestingly, many
codes of ethics have relatively little information within their standards and
principles that address measurement and assessment for research and/or
applied practice (Watson et al., 2012). With a great deal of importance
placed on assessment, measurement, and research in the field, conducting
such scholarship in an ethical manner remains a significant challenge and
endeavor for professionals. An interesting extension of this involves
examining ethics in SEPP given little is known about what methodologies
would be most effective for the study of this area in the profession. Thus,
this represents an area in which methodological approaches in sport
psychology could be advanced.
The selection of a research methodology represents an important decision
for SEPP professionals. Indeed, different methods require variable
resources to carry out, as well as contain varied strengths and limitations in
terms of the type of data obtained and question(s) that can be answered as a
result. For ethics-related research, selecting and implementing appropriate
methodologies is of importance, as the results of this area of research can
influence graduate training as well as the care and safety of clients in
applied settings.
A number of methodologies including quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed-method designs would be critical in advancing the study of ethics in
SEPP. For example, quantitative designs can help address questions
pertaining to student and professional perceptions related to ethical
behavior and frequencies associated with encountering and managing
ethical dilemmas, as well as assess interventions designed to increase one’s
competence or ability to make ethical decisions. Similar to previous
research in ethics, quantitative designs can sometimes be limited by lower
response rates and an inability to generalize findings given varying
sampling methods. These methods often do not result in a comparable
number of practitioners and academics who come from different training
backgrounds and work settings. To help overcome these common response
rate and sampling concerns, perhaps one solution might involve the
development of a centralized research database within the profession. Such
a database could allow for improved communication between professional
organizations around the world by allowing individuals to list themselves
on a research database that categorizes each person based upon several
different demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, training background, and
practice status).
It is also possible that depending on the aspect of ethics being examined,
participants may not feel comfortable disclosing experiences navigating
ethical dilemmas if such experiences would involve admitting to having
engaged in unethical behavior. Thus, social desirability and accuracy of
findings remain a challenging aspect associated with this body of research
regardless of methodology utilized. Safeguards designed to maintain the
anonymity of research participants are of importance, as it is essential to
protect the identity of respondents to help encourage more honest and
accurate responses. Qualitative designs would allow for case examples,
anecdotes, and experiences from participants to be explored in more detail
as well. Perhaps the most comprehensive approach would include both
methodologies in which select participants from a quantitative study are
asked to engage in follow-up interviews in which more detailed information
can be gathered to better understand an ethics-related question in SEPP.
5. Applied Question: What Structural Issues Within the Field of

SEPP Commonly Lead to the Development of Ethical Issues for
Practitioners?
Organizational ethics codes are created and adopted to guide users to
engage in ethical behaviors deemed appropriate by the values and welfare
of society. Practitioners may interpret ethical dilemmas differently based on
several external issues including organizational, legal, and sport governing
body regulations. These structural issues may influence perception of
ethical dilemmas as well as one’s decision-making process. If a practitioner
belongs to more than one organization and the ethical codes for a certain
behavior conflict (e.g., appropriateness of multiple relationships, consulting
in nontraditional settings), a potential dilemma is created for ethical
decision-making in that area. Similarly, practitioners must navigate the legal
requirements bestowed upon them by their certification or licensure (i.e.,
psychologist) in addition to ethical codes. Regarding sport governing
bodies, practitioners may find themselves in situations in which their ethical
duty to their client may conflict with the rules and regulations of the
governing body or the laws in their jurisdiction (e.g., client confidentiality
vs. a coach’s desire to know what is impacting an athlete’s performance).
The AASP Ethics Code Standard 24 addresses this conflict and states that
“if the demands of an organization with which AASP members are
affiliated conflict with the Ethics Code, members clarify the nature of the
conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and to the
extent feasible, seek to resolve the conflict in a way that permits the fullest
adherence to the Ethics Code” (AASP, 1996). After consulting this ethical
standard, the practitioner would still need to decide on their course of action
following a potential ethical issue or dilemma. The course of action the
practitioner decides to take may be impacted by structural issues.
Understanding the structural issues that can impact ethical decision-making
will help with the development of ethical theories and influence applied
interventions.
In addition to navigating ethics codes from organizations and laws,
practitioners may also have internal structural issues that influence their
own standards, such as cultural, bias, moral, and personal factors. A
person’s demographic profile, including influences from personal,
situational, and significant others such as support or institutional values
(Hadjistravropoulos & Malloy, 2000), may influence how one
conceptualizes and understands an ethical decision, thus influencing how
they work to resolve the issue. By considering the important structural
issues impacting a situation or the interpretation of that situation, one can
consider the complexities of people and situations, which are reflected in
the complex nature of ethical issues.
To answer this question about the structural issues that may exist and lead
to ethical issues, several methodologies may be employed to advance
current understanding of structural issues. To further the knowledge of the
role of internal and external issues surrounding ethical dilemmas, a
qualitative approach may be best. Practitioners who operate under multiple
ethical codes could be prefaced with a vignette describing a common ethical
belief or behavior as identified by previous studies (i.e., Etzel et al., 2004)
and asked to discuss the congruence or dissonance between their ethical
requirements in resolving this conflict. Probing questions from the
researcher would specifically address potential internal structures, such as
culture and morality. For example, the researcher may ask, “What led you
to determine an ethical issue existed in this scenario?” or “What role do you
believe culture plays in conceptualizing this scenario?”
To address the external structures that may influence ethical dilemmas, it
is first necessary to identify which sport governing body regulations and
restrictions are incongruent with ethical codes of SEPP practitioners. This
knowledge could be acquired by asking practitioners to identify situations
in which they have had to navigate this predicament, or through a document
analysis of regulations to classify where potential discrepancies exist. It
would be important to include decision-makers within sport organizations
in this research to further understand why certain regulations exist.
Conclusion
A paucity of literature focused on the assessment of ethical issues in SEPP
existed prior to the turn of the 21st century. More recently the literature
written on this topic has focused primarily upon the provision of practical
suggestions to help practitioners address ethical issues while working in the
field, with very few empirically based studies focused on ethics. In most
cases, the practical suggestions in the literature stemmed from reviews of
SEPP ethical standards that have been derived from the parent field of
psychology. As suggested by Aoyagi and Portenga (2010), a stronger focus
upon positive and virtue ethics within the profession could have the added
benefit of encouraging students and practitioners to strive to find the best
practitioner versions of themselves.
Ethics research in SEPP has also suffered from several methodological-
and sampling-related issues. For instance, consistently low response rates
within research focused on ethical issues often limit the generalizability of
the findings. Thus, the suggestions within this chapter focused on the
development of a more empirically based study of ethics in the field and
identified suggested modifications to the research methodologies used.
There is also a need to empirically understand the internal and external
structural issues within the field that are commonly associated with ethical
concerns, the common ethical beliefs and behaviors of practitioners, and the
methods used by practitioners to make ethical decisions from a variety of
methodological designs. These research questions are essential to the
development of a better understanding of the ethical issues impacting
professional behavior in SEPP. With an improved understanding of
important and common ethical issues and how experienced practitioners
navigate these issues and the factors that impact their decisions, we will be
in a much better position to educate future practitioners relative to their
ethical practices and behaviors.
References
Aoyagi, M. W., & Portenga, S. T. (2010). The role of positive ethics and virtues in the context of
sport and performance psychology service delivery. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 41, 253–259.
Association for Applied Sport Psychology. (1996). AASP code of ethical principles and standards.
http://www.appliedsportpsych.org/ethics/code2002.html
Berger, B. (1993). Ethical issues in clinical setting: A reaction to ethics in teaching, advising, and
clinical services. Quest, 45, 106–119.
Brown, J. L., & Cogan, K. D. (2006). Ethical clinical practice and sport psychology: When two
worlds collide. Ethics and Behavior, 16(1), 15–23.
Burke, K. L., Sachs, M. L., & Tomlinson, R. (2018). Directory of graduate programs in applied sport
psychology. Association for Applied Sport Psychology.
Etzel, E. F., Watson, J. C., & Zizzi, S. (2004). A web-based survey of AAASP members’ ethical
beliefs and behaviors in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 236–250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200490485595
Hadjistravropoulos, T., & Malloy, D. C. (2000). Making ethical choices: A comprehensive decision-
making model for Canadian psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 41(2), 104–115.
Harris, B. S., Visek, A. J., & Watson, J. C. (2009). Ethical decision-making in sport psychology:
Issues and implications for professional practice. In R. Schinke (Ed.), Contemporary sport
psychology (pp. 217–232). Nova Science Publishers.
Henschen, K. (1991). Critical issues involving male consultants and female athletes. The Sport
Psychologist, 5(4), 313–321.
Heyman, S. (1990). Ethical issues in performance enhancement approaches with amateur boxers. The
Sport Psychologist, 4, 48–54.
Moore, Z. (2003). Ethical dilemmas in sport psychology: Discussion and recommendations for
practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 601–610.
Nideffer, R (1981). The ethics and practice of applied sport psychology. Mouvement.
Petitpas, A., Brewer, B., Rivera, P., & Van Raalte, J. (1994). Ethical beliefs and behaviors in applied
sport psychology: The AAASP ethics survey. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 135–151.
Quartiroli, A., Harris, B. S., Brückner, S., Chow, G. M., Connole, I. J., Cropley, B., Fogaça, J.,
Gonzalez, S. P., Guicciardi, M., Hau, A., Kao, S., Kavanagh, E. J., Keegan, R. J., Li, H. Y., Martin,
G., Moyle, G. M., Noce, F., Peterson, K., Roy, J., Rubio, V. J., Wagstaff, C. R. D., Wong, R.,
Yousuf, S., & Zito, M. (2020). The International Society of Sport Psychology Registry (ISSP-R)
ethical code for sport psychology practice. International Journaly of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 0, 1–22. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2020.1789317
Rotella, R., & Connelly, D. (1984). Individual ethics in the application of cognitive sport psychology.
In W. Straub & J. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 102–112). Sport Science
Association.
Sachs, M. (1993). Professional ethics in sport psychology. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, & K. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook on research in sport psychology (pp. 921–932). Macmillan.
Singer, R. (1993). Ethical issues in clinical services. Quest, 45, 88–105.
Watson II, J. W., Etzel, E. F., & Vosloo, J. (2012). Assessment and measurement in sport and exercise
psychology. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and
exercise psychology (pp. 169–176). Human Kinetics.
Watson II, J. W., Harris, B. S., & Baille, P. (in press). Ethics in sport psychology. In G. Tenenbaum &
R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology. Wiley.
Zeigler, E. F. (1987). Rationale and suggested dimensions for a code of ethics for sport psychologists.
Sport Psychologist, 1(2), 138–150.
24
Cross-Cultural, Multi-Cultural, and Intercultural
Issues
Thierry R. F. Middleton, Robert J. Schinke, Brennan Petersen, and Cole E. Giffin
State of the Art

During the 1990s, some sport psychology researchers began to call for an
examination of how knowledge was generated (e.g., Dewar & Horn, 1992).
One issue brought to the fore was the lack of diversity present in much of
the work being conducted by sport psychology researchers (Duda &
Allison, 1990). The development of cultural sport psychology (CSP) as a
genre of research within sport psychology has brought attention to issues
such as identity, equity, and cultural diversity within sport (Roper, 2016;
Schinke, Blodgett, et al., 2019). We have chosen to highlight the diverse
modes through which research around cultural issues may be conducted by
focusing on one issue that has recently gained attention from researchers:
the role of sport as an integrative context for newcomers.
With the focus from various governments on sport as an integrative tool
(e.g., Canadian sport policy: Provincial/Territorial Governments of Canada,
2012; the European Commission’s white paper on sport: European
Commission, 2007), researchers have begun to explore the mechanisms by
which sport may facilitate the successful integration of newcomers
(Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2013). Integration, as conceptualized by
psychological researchers, entails newcomers (i.e., asylum seekers,
refugees, and immigrants; Canadian Council for Refugees [CCR], 2010)
maintaining their ethnic (i.e., home culture) identity while at the same time
engaging in cultural learning with members of the host culture.
Multicultural receiving communities (i.e., those willing to engage in a
shared learning process with newcomers) have been found to be the most
conducive to fostering the integration of newcomers (Berry & Hou, 2016).
Cross-cultural studies providing evidence for the aforementioned
positions have largely been conducted using Berry’s (2005) two-factor
model of acculturation in which adaptation to a new society is measured
through changes to newcomers’ food preferences, language acquisition and
proficiency, and the adoption of receiving communities’ form of dress and
social norms (Chirkov, 2009). Recently, sport researchers in Europe have
come together on a research initiative using Berry’s theoretical
conceptualization of integration to examine factors that may help regulate
the integrative power of sport for both host and newcomer communities
(Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2013). Using the 18-item 5-point Likert-scale
Ethnic/Cultural Identity Salience Questionnaire, researchers found that
being supportive of sport participants’ autonomy, focusing on building a
task-oriented motivational climate, and fostering team cohesion are
important factors for sport to become an integrative context (Elbe et al.,
2018). Further, using the 12-item 5-point Likert-scale Host Community
Acculturation Scale to measure host individuals’ attitudes and perceptions
in relation to newcomers, European researchers also found that host
community adolescents who participated in sport showed a more accepting
attitude toward interacting with newcomers in their community (Morela et
al., 2017).
While the European research team provided generalized insight into how
sport may be an integrative context, scholars using various qualitative
methodologies have argued that the process of acculturation is one that is
dynamic, negotiated, and not always under the control of the individual, as
it is embedded within sociopolitical and historical forces (e.g., Chirkov,
2009). Burrmann et al. (2017) provided an example of the idiographic
nature of newcomers’ identity development as they navigate two (or more)
cultural divides. Their case studies of four newcomers’ journeys in
Germany provide insight into how sport can provide newcomer youth with
an avenue to build connections with members of their new community. The
potential for sport to be an integrative context is shown as dependent on
newcomer youths’ willingness to learn unfamiliar cultural norms, their
connection to their home culture, and the context-specific presence of
perceived discrimination and prejudice in their local sport environment.
Through interviews conducted with 15 professional and semiprofessional
athletes, Ryba, Stambulova, and Ronkainen (2016) proposed examining
athletes’ acculturative journeys as a series of transitions. Their cultural
transition model proposes that the acculturation journey is composed of a
pretransition phase, an acute cultural adaptation phase, and a sociocultural
adaptation phase. While presented as a sequential process, Ryba and
colleagues (2016) noted that they believe each transition is negotiated in a
dynamic, subjective, and relational manner. The insights provided by
athletes willing to share their stories have highlighted the need for
newcomer athletes to be involved in the research process so that they may
feel in control of sharing the stories they see as important. Schinke and
colleagues (see Middleton et al., 2020; Schinke et al., 2016) have embraced
a social constructionist approach to their research and aimed to become
more reflexive in their consideration of how their subjective positions have
contributed to either the empowerment or marginalization of the athletes
they work with. Using arts-based and mobile methods of data collection,
athletes have been encouraged to share the stories they feel are important to
them. The stories shared through this work have brought to life the dynamic
and perpetual nature of acculturation, which is the process of developing
and maintaining a sense of connection to varying cultural backgrounds
dependent on context, time, and others who are present. One aspect that has
been found to emanate from newcomer athletes’ stories is the presence of
family members and their role in providing support. Family member
support has been storied as particularly important during the early stages of
the acculturation process (Ronkainen et al., 2019; Schinke et al., 2016).
Although athletes have spoken about navigating a divergence between their
priorities and those of their parents at varying times during their journey,
they have also noted that sharing success with their family members was
made more meaningful due to obstacles they had to overcome together
(Middleton et al., 2020). Notably, a key factor from the stories shared by
both Burmann and colleagues (2017) and Middleton and colleagues (2020)
was newcomer athletes’ level of athletic ability and talent, which brought
recognition from their receiving community and family, leading to an
increase of self-efficacy and confirmation of their athletic identity in their
new community.
CSP researchers have provided insight into how we can derive lessons
from different forms of research (see Table 24.1 for five key readings).
Newcomers’ acculturation journeys should be explored and understood
throughout premigration, during migration, and postmigration (see Ryba et
al., 2016). At different times during the acculturative process sport may
serve different purposes dependent on where newcomer youth come from
and the cultural context to which they are adapting (Elbe et al., 2018). What
is clear is that sport provides individuals from different cultural
backgrounds an opportunity to find a common interest through which to
learn more about each other, potentially leading to a greater opportunity for
cultural exchanges to occur (Agergaard, 2017; Morela et al., 2017). The
onus is on those in positions of power to develop culturally integrative sport
programs, rather than merely assume newcomers will be able to
successfully “integrate” into existing sport structures (Jeanes et al., 2015).
Table 24.1 Five Key Readings in Cross-Cultural, Multicultural, and Intercultural Issues
Design
Burmann et al. Case studies Sport clubs may provide newcomer youth with a place to belong.
(2017) Experience of efficacy is the main mechanism through which
youth can develop a long-lasting identification with sport and
formation of affective bonds with those they train/compete with.
Experiences of belonging are tied to personal and social
conditions.
Elbe et al. Cross-sectional Societal context and team composition can impact integrative
(2018) multivariate potential of sport. Prosocial, supportive environments can help
analysis newcomers feel comfortable in expressing their heritage and
ethnic (i.e., home culture) identity. Autonomy support and a task-
oriented motivational climate can help foster an integrative
context.
Hatzigeorgiadis Review Sport by itself may not foster integration, but participation in a
et al. (2013) team context where personal development is promoted, the needs
of the individual are valued and appreciated, and socio-moral
values are fostered can help integration and multiculturalism
flourish. Researchers examining the topic of integration have
primarily employed qualitative methodologies; more quantitative
research work could increase our understanding. The nature and
type of sport may play an influential role in the integrative power
of sport.
Ryba et al. Position stand Regardless of form of migration, newcomers all face the
(2018) challenge of maintaining their ethnic identity (i.e., home culture)
and developing their cultural identity (i.e., host culture).
Knowledge should be produced that benefits both newcomers
and host society members. Qualitative and quantitative research
methodologies are needed.
Schinke, Review Cultural sport psychology is meant to be open, inclusive, and
Blodgett, et al. pliable, rather than restricted to certain topics and
(2019) methodologies. Decolonizing approaches can be used in research
and practice to allow for work to be grounded in emancipatory
action(s) and provide opportunity for increased athlete mental
health.
There remains much to be understood about how newcomers and host
community members may be supported through a shared learning process
(i.e., integration). The move to qualitative methodologies has brought about
new knowledge that can provide transferable lessons for researchers and
nonresearchers to learn from (Smith, 2018). With our belief that research
should strive to bring about change to problems that face our community (at
any level), the following five unknown questions provide guidance that we
propose further this aim.
1. Theoretical Question: How Have Diverse Identities Been

Accounted for Within Emerging Scholarship and How Might
These Theoretical Orientations Be Expanded?
Feminist scholars in the early 1990s (e.g., Oglesby, 1993) began to voice
their concern over the aim of many sport psychology researchers to find
universal and objective laws that determined what “normal” was. Similarly,
Duda and Allison (1990) cited an increasingly diverse community as a
reason for researchers to begin to consider race and ethnicity as variables
within their research. While progress has been made in bringing attention to
the limitations of searching for universal theories, scholars need to continue
to strive to work within multicultural frameworks that recognize the
presence of multiple, intersecting identities and how these are impacted by
power relations so that we may move forward to a more socially just
manner of conducting sport (Gill, 2017). For example, working from an
intersectional lens allows athletes’ identities to be explored and understood
as multiple, fluid, ever-changing, and not limited to success as an athlete,
helping to ensure their mental health and holistic development (Schinke et
al., 2017).
One common way that researchers have worked to understand athletes’
identities has been through listening to and analyzing athletes’ lives through
the stories that they tell (Douglas, 2009). Using qualitative data collection
methods intended to empower athletes to tell stories that are meaningful to
them (e.g., arts-based methods) allows researchers to remain sensitive to the
uniqueness of each individual story. However, the next step is to explore
how researchers wishing to use quantitative methodologies can move
beyond merely including certain variables at a surface level. One manner
may be through conducting multistage research projects where in-depth
qualitative methods with a smaller sample of athletes inform the variables
used in the quantitative methods employed with a larger group of athletes.
However, how these research methodologies and their underlying
assumptions come together to deepen our theoretical understanding of the
unique identities of the athletes we work with remains largely unexplored.
2. Methodological Question: How Have Researchers Accounted

for Their Subjective Positions Within the Research Process and
How Might These Methods Be Expanded to Augment Research
Through Properly Executed Reflective and Reflexive Practice?
Concurrent to the broadening of research to include athletes’ diverse
identities is the critique of researchers working under the assumption that
they can deliver objective, valid, and reliable accounts of the research
participants they work with (Denzin, 2017). Qualitative researchers, who
have been at the forefront of acknowledging their subjective position in
relation to work they conduct, have begun to generally choose to engage in
either reflective or reflexive practice, two terms that are often conflated
(D’Cruz et al., 2007). Reflective practice is when a researcher develops an
awareness of their own position in relation to gender, age, sexual
orientation, and past personal experiences (among others) but does not
assume that these impact the knowledge generated through the research
process, merely their interpretation of that knowledge (D’Cruz et al., 2007).
Reflexivity moves beyond the development of reflective practice to
recognizing one’s role in the co-construction of knowledge through the
choices one makes during the research process (Schinke et al., 2012).
Generally, researchers have begun to situate themselves within their
manuscript by including a section in which they provide brief, relevant
details about themselves in relation to the research that was conducted.
More recently, some researchers have begun to expand on reflexive
approaches by including themselves within the stories that they share to
bring to light their role in the co-construction of knowledge (i.e., authorial
presence; Seoane & Hundt, 2018). Both reflective and reflexive practice
can enhance our ability to bring about cultural understanding within sport,
but this is still a relatively new progression in research, as evidenced by the
continuing conflation of terms. Researchers should be encouraged to
continue developing their ability to understand the role they play
throughout their research so that they may critically analyze the information
that is shared with them.
3. Methodological Question: What Can We Learn From

Indigenous Decolonizing Research Practices and How Can These
Be Transferred to Research Conducted Within the Sport Context?
One way in which researchers can ensure that the knowledge produced by
their research will be meaningful to those they work with is to engage in
decolonizing research practices. Stemming from work by Indigenous
researchers such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith, a prominent Maori scholar,
decolonizing research practices aim to move knowledge production beyond
academic boundaries (Smith, 2012). These research practices were
developed in response to Indigenous people’s mistrust of researchers, as
historically they were White, male researchers who came into Indigenous
communities, gathered information they deemed valuable, and then
disappeared. One form of research methodology that has developed from
this desire to decolonize the research process is community-based
participatory action research (CBPAR). This methodology calls for the
academic researchers to reflexively work to shift power to community
members throughout the research process from beginning to end, with the
aim of generating knowledge in a collaborative manner (Kral, 2014).
Schinke, Middleton, and colleagues (2019) described a project conducted
with a Canadian Indigenous tribe to explore how community sport
programming on their reserve may become more culturally sensitive. By
working to include community members throughout the research process,
the project resulted in generating meaningful answers to community-
generated research questions, in turn leading to successful sport programs
that have continued on past academic involvement. While this research
project provides insight into how research may be decolonized to become
culturally relevant to those we work with, there remain questions as to how
this approach may translate to work with newcomer populations. While
certain lessons such as building community capacity through the inclusion
of community members in the research team have been adopted, ensuring
that the research process continues to centralize community members is an
ongoing and dynamic process (Schinke, Middleton, et al., 2019). The
dynamic nature of the process entails researchers continuously work to
understand who they are, what their intentions are and develop their ability
to work with the communities that they become immersed in (Smith et al.,
2019). There remains much to be learned from Indigenous researchers and
much left to be understood about how the research process can further
become decolonized.
4. Applied Question: How Can We Ensure That Findings Are

Relevant for Those Working in the Field With Newcomers and
Relevant to Differing Communities? How Can We Make Our
Findings Concrete Rather Than Vague and Inaccessible?
Chirkov (2009) contended that researchers’ overarching aim of finding
generalizable results related to the process of acculturation through the use
of quantitative methods did not translate into the production of useful
knowledge for culturally diverse populations navigating unique
acculturative journeys. Some researchers have responded to such criticism
by employing qualitative methodologies with the aim of understanding the
unique and detailed life stories told by newcomers (e.g., life story
approaches; Ryba et al., 2016). Schinke, Middleton, and colleagues (2019)
advocated for qualitative methodologies to be used by those working with
immigrant athletes, as they allowed researchers to develop and demonstrate
a genuine interest in learning about the immigrant athletes’ home cultures,
helping to build trust and aid in the acculturation process. However,
qualitative research approaches lack generalizability as understood by
researchers who work within a realist, positivist standpoint and are more
comfortable with an objective, statistical-probabilistic generalizability
approach (Smith, 2018). Nonetheless, this does not mean that qualitative
findings cannot be generalized. For example, some qualitative researchers
have strived for naturalistic generalizability, where the aim is to help
readers recognize similarities and/or differences between the research and
their lives. This can be done by using techniques such as creating short
videos and songs (e.g., Douglas & Carless, 2017) and composite storying
methods such as vignettes (e.g., Schinke et al., 2016) and moving stories
(e.g., Middleton et al., 2020) to represent data in a way that resonates more
with the reader (Smith, 2018).
We propose that researchers continue to strive to use different data
representation techniques that resonate with the audiences they aim to
interact with, as these may also enhance the inferential generalizability (i.e.,
transferability) of research findings. As Smith (2018) outlined, for
researchers whose work is underpinned by epistemological assumptions
that there are multiple realities that are constructed and subjective in nature,
generalizability does not necessitate that contexts be congruent, but rather
that those reading a report feel that what they have learned may transfer to
their own situation. To further make research findings accessible, we
propose that researchers look to create partnerships with local organizations
and create social media platforms from which knowledge may be
disseminated to a nonacademic audience, in particular those individuals
working with newcomer athletes. For example, the authors of this chapter
have collaborated with a community agency to create a Facebook page
dedicated to their work with newcomer youth athletes in their community
(https://www.facebook.com/Activitypageforforcedimmigrantyouth).
However, just as with the development of knowledge in relation to
acculturation, methods of data representation and dissemination continue to
develop. We encourage researchers to continue to push the boundaries in
relation to making research relevant and accessible to those they work with,
while remaining committed to grounding their work in the stories told by
their research participants and broader findings shared by the research
community. Researchers should also strive to be transparent and clear in the
strengths and limitations of conducting qualitative research.
5. Applied Question: How Can We Engage in Context-Driven

Practice With Sport Participants From a Specific Cultural
Background, and How Might Such Approaches Transfer Into
Work With Sport Participants From Other Cultural Backgrounds?
Context-driven practice entails informing and developing one’s practice
through immersing oneself, and reflecting upon, “relevant cultural/sub-
cultural contexts when planning and implementing sport and exercise
psychology interventions” (Stambulova & Schinke, 2017, p. 131). One way
that researchers and practitioners may engage in context-driven practice is
through self-reflexivity (further detailed earlier in question 2; Schinke et al.,
2012). Employing reflexive strategies can help ensure that understanding
the differences between one’s own cultural background and that of the sport
participants one works with come to the fore. Reflexivity, in contrast to
reflection, involves drawing attention to power issues within relationships
and continuously examining these prior to, during, and following
interactions with athletes (Schinke et al., 2012). The constant awareness and
appreciation of our differences relative to the athletes we work with can
help reposition athletes as coparticipants in a shared learning process. This
may require researchers and practitioners to engage in practices that may be
uncomfortable for them. For Thierry, one such situation was relinquishing
control over a planned individual interview process during his work with
refugee youth sport participants (see Schinke, Middleton, et al., 2019).
Recognizing that the refugee youth and their families were the experts of
their own stories, Thierry readily accepted the families’ invitations to
conduct the interviews within their homes. Each interview was conducted
with family members present and accompanied by coffee and a variety of
food dishes, many of which he had not tasted before. Conducting interviews
in this way allowed him to learn more about the cultural backgrounds of the
youth he was working with than if the interviews had been conducted in an
academic office setting. This was particularly impactful on helping Thierry
appreciate the importance that family played in the lives of refugee youth.
Engaging in context-driven practices such as sharing a meal can be
beneficial for both athletes and consultants, as it can help consultants make
their interventions more efficient, reduce their work stress, and increase
their job satisfaction, while acknowledging the complex identities of
athletes (Stambulova & Schinke, 2017). Learning from athletes from one
cultural background may not necessarily directly relate to the understanding
of athletes from other cultural backgrounds; however, this learning process
can help consultants develop their ability to engage in reflective/reflexive
practices, become more open to different ways of thinking and more
comfortable in being uncomfortable by acknowledging that they do not
always have an immediate right answer. Although developing a diverse
cultural skill set may be challenging, it will allow consultants to better
deliver context-relevant and effective interventions for the athletes they
work with.
Conclusion
Our aim in this chapter has been to highlight five unknowns related to
cultural, cross-cultural, and intercultural issues in sport. The first of these is
the need for further theoretical frameworks that enable researchers to
recognize and explore the impact of athletes’ multiple, intersecting
identities. One proposal is for an exploration of how quantitative and
qualitative methods may provide complementary knowledge in research
examining how appreciating and empowering of athletes’ diverse identities
may contribute to their holistic development. Second, recognizing that
researchers and practitioners also have diverse life stories, we encourage
them to undertake a reflective/reflexive approach to understanding their
position in relation to the athletes they are working with so that cultural
differences may be acknowledged and brought to the fore through
discussion. Third, conducting research in a reflexive manner can aid
researchers in ensuring that their work is meaningful to the athletes they
work with, which, fourth, may require researchers to critically interrogate
how they represent their findings in a manner that is relevant and accessible
to the athletes they work with. Presenting these methods in a transparent
manner will help qualitative sport and exercise psychology researchers
continue to develop innovative representation methods. Finally, ensuring
that our work is grounded in the needs and desires of the athlete requires
engaging in context-driven practices. Developing the skills needed to work
with athletes from diverse cultural backgrounds in a reflexive and
contextually-driven manner can help reposition the athletes we work with
as partners in the research process. This is important as it recognizes
athletes as experts of their own needs and desires, which should be a key
determinant of the foci and approaches to research. Following the theme of
the book, we encourage researchers and practitioners to take the unknowns
we have posed as a starting point as they transfer our suggestions to their
own practice and research. We look forward to the development and sharing
of new creative methods through which we may best learn from those we
work with.
References
Agergaard, S. (2017). Learning in landscapes of professional sports: Transnational perspectives on
talent development and migration into Danish women’s handball around the time of the financial
crisis, 2004–2012. Sport in Society, 20, 1457–1469.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1221068
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013
Berry, J. W., & Hou, F. (2016). Immigrant acculturation and wellbeing in Canada. Canadian
Psychology, 57, 254–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000064
Burrman, U., Brandmann, K., Mutz, M., & Zender, U. (2017). Ethnic identities, sense of belonging
and the significance of sport: Stories from immigrant youths in Germany. European Journal for
Sport and Society, 14, 184–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2017.1349643
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). (2010). Refugees and immigrants: A glossary.
https://ccrweb.ca/en/glossary
Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it,
when we investigate acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 94–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social
work: A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 73–90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bc1001
Denzin, N. K. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 8–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864
Dewar, A., & Horn, T. S. (1992). A critical analysis of knowledge construction in sport psychology.
In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 12–22). Human Kinetics.
Douglas, K. (2009). Storying myself: Negotiating a relational identity in professional sport.
Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1(2), 176–190.
https://doi.org/1080/19398440902909033
Douglas, K., & Carless, D. (2017, August 1). We crossed the Tamar [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4EGRN_bIw8
Duda, J. L., & Allison, M. T. (1990). Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and sport psychology: A
void in the field. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 114–131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.12.2.114
Elbe, A-M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Morela, E., Ries, F., Kouli, O., & Sanchez, X. (2018). Acculturation
through sport: Different contexts different meanings. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 2, 178–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1187654
European Commission. (2007). White paper on sport. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52007DC0391
Gill, D. L. (2017). Gender and cultural diversity in sport, exercise, and performance psychology.
Oxford Research Encylopedia of Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.148
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Morela, E., Elbe, M. A., Kouli, O., & Sanchez, X. (2013). The integrative role of
sport in multicultural societies. European Psychologist, 18, 191–202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000155
Jeanes, R., O’Connor, J., & Alfrey, L. (2015). Sport and the resettlement of young people from
refugee backgrounds in Australia. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 39, 480–500.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193723514558929
Kral, M. J. (2014). The relational motif in participatory qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20,
144–150. http://dx.doi/org/10.1177/1077800413510871
Middleton, T. R. F., Schinke, R. J., Oghene, O. P., McGannon, K. R., Petersen, B., & Kao, S. (2020).
Navigating times of harmony and discord: The ever-changing role played by the families of elite
immigrant athletes during their acculturation. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(1),
58–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spy0000171
Morela, E., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Sanchez, X., Papaioannou, A., & Elbe, A-M. (2017). Empowering
youth sport and acculturation: Examining the hosts’ perspective in Greek adolescents. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 30, 226–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.03.007
Oglesby, C. A. (1993). Changed or different times – what’s happening with “women’s ways” of
sport? Journal of Physical education, Recreation, & Dance, 64, 60–62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1993.10606732
Provincial/Territorial Governments of Canada. (2012). Canadian sport policy 2012.
https://canadiansporttourism.com/sites/default/files/docs/csp2012_en_lr.pdf
Ronkainen, N. J., Khomutova, A., & Ryba, T. V. (2019). “If my family is okay, I’m okay”: Exploring
relational processes of cultural transition. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
17, 493–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1390485
Roper, E. A. (2016). Cultural studies in sport and exercise psychology. In R. J. Schinke, K. R.
McGannon, & B. Smith (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of sport psychology (pp. 272–
285). Routledge.
Ryba, T. V., Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., & Elbe, A-M. (2018). ISSP position stand:
Transnationalism, mobility, and acculturation in and through sport. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 5, 520–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1280836
Ryba, T. V., Stambulova, N. B., & Ronkainen, N. J. (2016). The work of cultural transition: An
emerging model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00427
Schinke, R. J., Blodgett, A. T., McGannon, K. R., & Ge, Y. (2016). Finding one’s footing on foreign
soil: A composite vignette of elite athlete acculturation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 36–
43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.04.001
Schinke, R. J., Blodgett, A. T., Ryba, T. V., Kao, S. F., & Middleton, T. R. F. (2019). Cultural sport
psychology as a pathway to advances in identity and settlement research to practice. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 42, 58–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.09.004
Schinke, R. J., McGannon, K. R., Parham, W. D., & Lane, A. M. (2012). Toward cultural praxis and
cultural sensitivity: Strategies for self-reflexive sport psychology practice. Quest, 64, 34–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2012.653264
Schinke, R. J., Middleton, T., Petersen, B., Kao, S., Lefebvre, D., & Habra, B. (2019). Social justice
in sport and exercise psychology: A position statement. Quest, 71, 163–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1544572
Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., Si. G., & Moore, Z. (2017). International society of sport
psychology position stand: Athletes’ mental health, performance, and development. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(6), 622–639.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2017.1295557
Seoane, E., & Hundt, M. (2018). Voice alternation and authorial presence: Variation across
disciplinary areas in academic English. Journal of English Linguistics, 46, 3–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0075424217740938
Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities, and
recommendations for the sport and exercise science. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and
Health, 10, 137–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1393221
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Otago
University Press.
Smith, L. T., Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2019). Introduction. In L. T. Smith, E. Tuck, & K. W. Yang
(Eds.), Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education: Mapping the long view (pp. 1–23).
Routledge.
Stambulova, N. B., & Schinke, R. J. (2017). Experts focus on the context: Postulates derived from
the authors’ shared experiences and wisdom. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 8, 131–134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2017.1208715
25
Supervision
David Tod, Martin Eubank, Hayley E. McEwan, Charlotte Chandler, and Moira
Lafferty
Trainee sport psychologists often display anxieties about their initial

attempts to help clients. They appreciate support from their supervisors.
Equally, supervisors sometimes question their abilities to help trainees, and
they may search the literature, hoping to find direction from the discipline’s
bank of knowledge. Some supervisors realize, however, that they need to
expand their search into related disciplines, such as counseling and clinical
psychology. Although counseling and clinical psychologists have a long
history of discussing supervision, their sporting brethren are still becoming
familiar with the topic and still grappling with how to translate the
knowledge into practice. The first sport-related articles on supervision
appeared in the mid-1990s (e.g., Andersen, 1994; Andersen et al., 1994),
but they did not trigger research programs on the topic. Additional research
will help individuals learn to supervise practitioners stepping into service
delivery.
Supervision involves an interpersonal relationship in which supervisors
help supervisees examine their perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors about their client interactions to achieve desirable outcomes (Van
Raalte & Andersen, 2000). Primary outcomes include safeguarding clients’
welfare; ensuring athletes receive effective and ethical services; and helping
supervisees develop as humane, skillful, informed, and self-aware
practitioners. In this chapter, we review existing research and propose
avenues to advance knowledge, allowing professionals in the discipline to
address challenges within supervision.
State of the Art

The earliest discussion on supervision appears to be a presentation at the
1992 Association for Applied Sport Psychology conference (Carr et al.,
1992). Andersen and his colleagues published the initial empirical and
theoretical articles on supervision in sport psychology (e.g., Andersen,
1994; Andersen et al., 1994). Since these seminal articles, researchers have
seldom positioned supervision as the primary focus of their investigations.
Instead, supervision is typically a side dish to the main meal and appears in
studies focused on topics such as trainee learning experiences (Tod et al.,
2007), ethics (Etzel et al., 2004), practitioner development (McEwan et al.,
2019), and career outcomes (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Table 25.1 presents
five studies in which supervision was the main meal, and these
investigations represent the major topics researchers have focused on.
The studies in Table 25.1 illustrate the breadth of the area researchers
have explored. They have provided data on the types and amount of
supervision occurring in the field (e.g., Watson et al., 2004), although given
the age of these studies, the information is now likely outdated.
Investigators have explored trainees’, practitioners’, and supervisors’
perceptions and experiences related to supervision (Fogaca et al., 2018;
Foltz et al., 2015; Sharp et al., 2021). Also, researchers have identified what
trainees wish to learn in supervision (Hutter et al., 2015). When reviewing
these studies with a primary focus on supervision, several key observations
emerge.
There are few studies on any one topic, knowledge is fragmented, and
many gaps exist across the terrain. For example, prevailing studies typically
focus on the supervision of trainee sport psychologists. Such dyads have an
inherent power imbalance, because the supervisor is typically an
experienced and qualified practitioner, who is evaluating the supervisee’s
competence and acting as a gatekeeper to practice. Different types of
relationships exist in supervision. Peer consultation is another type of
relationship, involving colleagues of equal standing. Meta-supervision is a
relationship where an individual supervises another person supervising a
practitioner (Barney & Andersen, 2014a). Investigations on peer
consultation and meta-supervision are lacking, but if conducted they would
help guide practice.
More broadly, there is much scope for explorers to open up the
supervision territory and stake a claim. The existing discipline-specific
knowledge often rests on single studies, limiting our confidence in the
transferability, credibility, and robustness of what we believe we know. We
lack answers to many descriptive questions, such as what supervision is
happening? Who is supervising and who is supervised? Why do people
engage with or avoid supervision? When is supervision most likely to
happen? How do people learn to supervise? What occurs during effective
and healthy supervision?
Without a clear picture of the supervision that happens in the field,
professionals need to draw on literature and research external to the
discipline to advance theory and practice. Some professionals have drawn
on counselor supervision and development theory to inform their research
and help them suggest applied implications (Fogaca et al., 2018; McEwan
et al., 2019). To date, sport psychologists have drawn primarily on
Rønnestad and Skovholt’s (2013) and Stoltenberg’s (Stoltenberg &
McNeill, 2009) theories when researching and discussing practitioner
development and supervision. Evidence supports parallels between these
counselor supervision and development theories and the findings on how
sport psychologists mature and evolve (e.g., McEwan et al., 2019; Tod et
al., 2011). Counselor psychologist supervision and development theories
(and those from other helping professions) can enlighten sport psychology
research and literature but best serve as a starting point because they are not
tailored towards understanding the journey of the sport psychologist. For
example, they do not document the specific demands that sport
psychologists face as trainees or autonomous practitioners. Discipline-
specific studies will uncover the contexts and cultures shaping supervision
in sport psychology and represent an avenue of work that can lead to
concrete and specific applied implications.
Supervision has emerged, however, as a theme in research focused on
other topics. The most visible body of related work in which the topic arises
is practitioner development. Practitioners, for example, rate supervision as
one of the most influential learning activities in their growth as sport
psychologists (McEwan & Tod, 2015; Tod et al., 2007). Longitudinal
studies reveal ways in which supervision contributes to consultants moving
from being practitioner-led problem solvers to client-led collaborators
(McEwan et al., 2019; Tod et al., 2011).
Despite the lack of research, professionals have not ignored supervision
completely. Authors have written opinion pieces, reflective articles, review
papers, and case studies addressing topics such as challenges, benefits, and
logistics associated with supervision (Van Raalte & Andersen, 2000). In
recent years, reflective articles have discussed the role of mindfulness in
enhancing the supervision relationship (Andersen et al., 2016; Barney &
Andersen, 2014b). Nevertheless, researchers need to answer many
questions before a complete understanding of supervision emerges that is
grounded in empirical data.
Table 25.1 Five Key Readings on Supervision in Sports
Fogaca Mixed-method study of nine • Supervisees’ growth occurred when supervision
et al. supervision dyads involving the involved regular meetings, close relationships,
(2018) Consulting Skills Inventory, feedback, opportunities for trainee self-
semistructured interviews, and reflection, and supervisors adapting their
reflective journals guidance to students’ developmental levels.
• Supervisee background (e.g., knowledge,
education, and previous experience) and the
placement context (e.g., client variety, number,
and interactions, and intern structure) also
influence supervisee growth.
Foltz et Qualitative analysis of • Data clustered into domains on program factors,
al. semistructured interviews with supervision process, and supervision content.
(2015) nine trainee sport psychologists • Program factors described elements shaping
about their supervision experiences supervision experience such as structure of
supervision, modalities of delivery, inclusion of
multiple perspectives, and the lack of an
articulated model of supervision.
• Supervision process reflected aspects of the
supervisory relationship contributing to a
positive and effective experience, including
desired supervisor qualities, development of
trust, receiving guidance, and collaboration.
• Supervision content reflected factors needing to
be addressed in supervision and included
boundaries and roles, ethical and clinical
competency, operating within sport
environments, performance and mental health
issues, and multiculturally relevant supervision.
Hutter et Content analysis of the central • The two higher themes were know-how and
al. issue 14 trainee sport psychologists professional development.
(2015) wished to address, as self-reported • Know-how focused on learning how to act, with
in written supervision preparation lower order themes related to (a) intake, (b)
assessments treatment planning, and (c) execution of
interventions, evaluation, and termination.
• Professional development focused on trainees’
growth as practitioners, with lower order themes
related to self-reflections, working principles,
and coping with dilemmas.
Sharp et Qualitative analysis of • Practitioners believed that supervision is
al. semistructured interviews with 10 essential.
(2021) experienced sport psychologists • Supervision enabled consultants to monitor
about the ethical challenges they boundaries.
have experienced and their • Supervision helped practitioners feel supported.
engagement with supervision • Supervision helped consultants get to know and
care for themselves.
Watson Quantitative survey of 171 • A greater proportion of students received
et al. professional and 142 student supervision than professionals (and received
(2004) members of the Association for weekly supervision).
Applied Sport Psychology, using a A greater proportion of students received
self-generated inventory supervision about program design and delivery
•
than professionals.
• The majority of professional members were not
providing supervision and had received no
training in supervision.
• A minority of professionals received
supervision, with no licensed certified
individuals being supervised.
• No differences emerged between sport science-
based and psychology-based participants on
supervision amount, frequency, or content.

1. Theoretical and Applied Question: What Are the Amounts and
Types of Supervision Practitioners Receive?
Professional bodies, such as the Association for Applied Sport Psychology
(AASP, in the United States), the British Psychological Society (BPS, in the
United Kingdom), and the Australian Psychological Society (APS, in
Australia), prescribe the minimum hours and types of applied work and
supervision students must achieve for certification or registration. The
community, however, does not know if these requirements are being
achieved or the quality of the contact. Some investigators have examined
these questions when exploring sport psychology graduates’ early career
plans and outcomes, but these studies are largely dated (Andersen et al.,
1997; Fitzpatrick et al., 2016; Williams & Scherzer, 2003). Understanding
current supervision practices and graduates’ career outcomes will help
researchers to build theories that provide an accurate picture of the current
supervision landscape and will help professional bodies and educators
design and deliver supervisor training effectively.
Investigators could use quantitative surveys to describe the amount and
types of current supervision practices and compare results against
prescribed standards. Reliable surveys will emerge if professional bodies
and universities collaborate to avoid errors associated with surveys. For
example, education providers could detail the number and types of
individuals enrolling and completing postgraduate qualifications leading to
registration or certification. These data will define the population of trainees
to help eschew coverage, sampling, and nonresponse errors (Ponto, 2015).
In countries where professional bodies accredit or oversee the quality of
education programs, communities could standardize data collection
methods to evade measurement errors that erode confidence when pooling
data from different training providers.
To complement these surveys, investigators can examine participants’
experiences of supervision. Both quantitative and qualitative studies are
relevant. Qualitative work could examine how people perceive, interpret,
and structure their supervision experiences. Quantitative studies could
explore the frequency of participants’ perceptions and interpretations, along
with identifying correlates. For example, investigators could assess if a
greater proportion of neophyte trainees prefer supervisors to provide direct
guidance than their advanced comrades. Further, researchers could also
check if preferences for supervisor behavior correlate or predict trainees’
levels of anxiety and confidence. These specific suggestions speak to
models of supervision, another area where research will advance
knowledge.
2. Theoretical and Applied Question: What Are the Optimal Ways

to Match Models of Supervision With Trainees’ Development
Needs?
Supervisors can draw from several models to tailor their assistance towards
supervisees’ needs (Van Raalte & Andersen, 2000). Examples include
behavioral, cognitive behavioral, phenomenological, psychodynamic, and
developmental models. Beginning trainees may benefit from behavioral
models, because the focus is on skill development and supervisors offer
direct answers to specific questions. Seasoned practitioners may profit from
phenomenological or psychodynamic models where the emphasis is on
inter- and intrapersonal dynamics and supervisors collaborate with
supervisees to explore issues arising in client sessions (Van Raalte &
Andersen, 2000). Researchers have not explored, however, these
conjectures in sport and exercise psychology contexts or even if supervisors
are aware of supervision models.
These conjectures assume that learning to help clients begins with
mastering communication skills before gaining insights into relationships
and human interactions. Skills and insights, however, are intertwined. For
example, insights about human interaction inform decisions about how to
apply particular communication skills. Numerous communication skills
exist, and relationships involve an endless variety of interactions. Both
trainees’ and autonomous practitioners’ competencies in these numerous
communication skills vary considerably, along with their abilities to
interpret interactions with clients. Rather than stating that behavioral
models suit trainees or that psychodynamic theories suit seasoned
practitioners, a helpful suggestion is for supervisors to recognize the
trainees’ current needs, strengths, and situations before tailoring any
guidance to ensure it is effective. This suggestion assumes supervisors can
tailor their assistance and they have developed the competence to do so.
The sport psychology literature does not contain evidence to help people
decide when to apply, or move among, specific supervision models.
Researchers who examine the role of supervision models in sport and
exercise psychology will help stimulate the development of theories tailored
to the discipline and provide data to ensure that applied practice is based on
a solid foundation of evidence.
Longitudinal qualitative case studies describing supervision will allow
for evidence-based decision-making. Researchers conducting longitudinal
case studies will explore how supervisor skills and attributes, such as
flexibility, humility, and ability to manage power, enhance trainee growth.
The contributions that longitudinal case studies yield will be proportional to
the extent they provide rich description of the supervision dyads examined.
Fogaca and colleagues’ (2018) longitudinal mixed-method study of nine
supervision dyads illustrates the type of investigation that can advance
theory. They employed interviews, participant diaries, and a quantitative
inventory, and they were able to propose a theoretical understanding of
supervision grounded in data. Researchers who provide rich and evocative
descriptions will enhance the transferability of knowledge in ways that
allow readers to reflect on their circumstances and theorists to paint
comprehensive landscapes. Detailed maps of supervision will serve well
those mentors wishing to learn how to guide their protégés and those
professional bodies wanting to design supervisor training curricula.
3. Applied Question: How Can Educators Train Supervisors

Effectively?
Few countries have formal training pathways for sport psychology
supervisors, and currently most trainee education rests on the implicit
assumption that qualified practitioners make suitable supervisors. Just as
elite athletes do not always make helpful coaches, effective sport
psychologists may not be useful or constructive supervisors. Some
practitioners will be outstanding supervisors, whereas others will need
support and training to gain supervision skills and knowledge. Research
focused on how to prepare supervisors optimally will contribute to applied
psychoeducational interventions or training programs that enhance the
quality and effectiveness of supervision.
Supervisor training will yield individuals capable of establishing,
maintaining, repairing, and terminating relationships with trainees. Various
challenges exist that individuals need to navigate to ensure trainees benefit
from supervision. Examples of these challenges include determining the fit
between trainee and supervisor; the handling of personal and ethical
boundaries; the cost of the supervisor’s time and help; the frequency,
duration, mode, and content of supervision meetings; and the way
supervisors and supervisees handle disagreements.
Although professionals have not examined sport psychology supervisor
training, research exists in related fields, such as clinical psychology,
counseling, teaching, and coaching. An initial port of call for sport
psychology researchers may be to conduct systematic reviews of supervisor
training in related fields. Systematic review methodology has diversified in
recent years (Tod, 2019), and scope exists to examine the supervisor
training literature from multiple perspectives. Reviews of the topic in other
disciplines will help sport psychology investigators from digging ground
others have already plowed (e.g., Wheeler & Richards, 2007). It may be
possible to gather the fruit from seeds others have sown.
The yields from reviews of other disciplines will complement empirical
studies of supervisor training. Action research designs (Coghlan & Brydon-
Miller, 2014), for example, will advance knowledge but also assist
practitioners, professional bodies, educators, and researchers in
implementing and assessing principles, strategies, and programs associated
with supervisor training. Participative action research designs allow for
researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders to collaborate, helping
ensure that training programs fit well with local landscapes and that
relevant people have faith in the interventions (e.g., that diversity is
celebrated; Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014).
4. Theoretical Question: What Are the Active Ingredients in

Supervision?
Active ingredients are variables allowing people to benefit from helping
relationships (Tod et al., 2019). Few researchers have examined factors
ensuring trainees benefit from supervision (Fogaca et al., 2018). In light of
the limited number of studies in the area, research on the active ingredients
in supervision will fuel theory development. Also, professionals will profit
in several ways from studies exploring the topic. Supervisors, for example,
will gain insights into facilitating supervision relationships, so that trainees
have opportunities to grow as practitioners. Professional bodies will be able
to develop evidence-based policies, guidelines, and supervisor training
pathways. The benefits practitioners and professional organizations accrue
may foster high levels of supervision that underpin trainee and consultant
growth, which may contribute to improved athlete-client outcomes and
service delivery relationships.
Investigators can advance knowledge about the active ingredients in
supervision by conducting quantitative experiments and qualitative studies
underpinned by narrative analysis. Experiments, especially randomized
controlled trials, will let researchers address the question “Which variables
cause positive outcomes in supervision?” A dismantling study is a useful
experiment to conduct. Dismantling studies help researchers assess which
elements in a supervision package cause change (Behar & Borkovec, 2003).
Investigators randomly assign some participants to receive all components
in a supervision package, whereas other individuals receive only some
components. A principal advantage is that researchers hold many variables
constant across the conditions, and dismantling studies control threats to
internal validity, such as maturation, repeated testing, and regression to the
mean.
Investigations underpinned by narrative analysis will examine the stories
people tell about supervision. Researchers will gather data about the
content, structure, and performance of supervision stories. The data will
document how participants interpret their supervision experiences and the
influence of cultural and social scripts. Through narrative analysis,
investigators will generate understanding about individuals’ beliefs
regarding the active ingredients in supervision and how their stories shape
their future behaviors.
5. Applied Question: How Do Culture and Context Shape

Supervision?
In the parlance of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory on ecological systems,
the previous questions have focused on the microsystem in which trainees
interact directly with their supervisors. The supervision relationship exists
within a wider context (i.e., the macrosystem), which impinges on and
colors the processes within it. Across the world, for example, in Australia,
New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom, there are
different ways to achieving recognition as a psychologist (with or without
an endorsement in sport psychology), certified mental performance
consultant, or accredited sport and exercise scientist. Further, within some
countries (e.g., the United Kingdom), there are multiple pathways to
attaining professional recognition. These different pathways vary in their
structure, content, delivery, supervision requirements, and minimum
number of work-experience hours. While training pathways are designed to
ensure that regulators’ standards and competencies are met, researchers
could examine if the variations across the pathways (e.g., supervised work-
experience hours) are associated with the knowledge and skills graduates
attain, their career outcomes, and client satisfaction. Research on this topic
will lead to applied interventions or educational programs that prepare
practitioners optimally for satisfying and meaningful careers.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) macrosystem level indicates that social and
cultural values influence a person’s development. The cultures of the sports
and education environments where trainees operate may shape their
development and supervision experiences. Researchers who explore
cultural and social variables associated with supervision will provide
knowledge that contributes to supervisor training and helps trainees and
supervisors manage any such influences. For example, by understanding
their own ethical, ethnic, cultural, sexual, and gender biases and prejudices,
both supervisors and supervisees can become aware of the lenses through
which they experience supervision and client interactions.
Ethnographies can provide detailed knowledge about the contexts and
cultures associated with supervision. Although ethnography is still an
emerging research method in sport psychology, investigators have used it to
explore practitioner development and identity (Champ et al., 2020). The
long-term engagement associated with ethnography will likely contribute to
the understanding of several of the aforementioned questions, and not just
about the influence of culture and context. Equally, although we have
tethered specific research methods to each of the five major questions
included, our suggestions do not preclude investigators from matching
study designs to questions in ways that suit their needs, circumstances, and
philosophies (we do not wish to encourage methodolatry). The lion’s share
of the research on supervision has employed descriptive quantitative
surveys and qualitative studies with a realist aroma. Investigators who
adopted alternative methods, such as those presented earlier, will help build
a broader and more detailed knowledge base than might otherwise result
from reliance on just two designs.
Conclusion
The supervisor-supervisee relationship can be a rewarding vehicle to ride
when running smoothly. Both parties can learn about themselves, about
each other, and about how to help athletes. They can also find time to enjoy
the scenery as they navigate the twists and turns in the road. If, however, the
fan belt breaks, a tire blows out, or oil levels drop to critical, then the
individuals can lose their way, their momentum, and their goodwill towards
each other. When learning how to drive, maintain, or even restore a car,
drivers can often locate help from a manual tailored to their vehicle. In
comparison, few manuals on sport psychology supervision exist.
Nevertheless, helpful studies have been published that shine their headlights
on avenues of future research. We present some avenues that, if upgraded
into highways, would allow trainees and their professional elders to access
the larger supervision territory. Increased access to the territory would pave
the way for a well-maintained supervision superhighway or autobahn.
Sound running supervision will lead to trainees with the skills, insights, and
competencies to assist clients and benefit the wider profession.
References
Andersen, M. B. (1994). Ethical considerations in the supervision of applied sport psychology
graduate students. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 152–167.
doi:10.1080/10413209408406291
Andersen, M. B., Barney, S. T., & Waterson, A. K. (2016). Mindfully dynamic meta-supervision: The
case of AW and M. In J. G. Cremades & L. S. Tashman (Eds.), Global practices and training in
applied sport, exercise, and performance psychology: A case study approach (pp. 330–342).
Routledge.
Andersen, M. B., Van Raalte, J. L., & Brewer, B. W. (1994). Assessing the skills of sport psychology
supervisors. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 238–247. doi:10.1123/tsp.8.3.238
Andersen, M. B., Williams, J. M., Aldridge, T., & Taylor, J. (1997). Tracking the training and careers
of graduates of advanced degree programs in sport psychology, 1989 to 1994. The Sport
Psychologist, 11, 326–344. doi:10.1123/tsp.11.3.326
Barney, S. T., & Andersen, M. B. (2014a). Meta-supervision: Training practitioners to help others on
their paths. In J. G. Cremades & L. S. Tashman (Eds.), Becoming a sport, exercise, and
performance psychology professional: A global perspective (pp. 339–346). Psychology Press.
Barney, S. T., & Andersen, M. B. (2014b). Mindful supervision in sport and performance
psychology: Building the quality of the supervisor-supervisee relationship. In Z. Knowles, D.
Gilbourne, B. Cropley, & L. Dugdill (Eds.), Reflective practice in sport and exercise sciences:
Contemporary issues (pp. 147–159). Routledge.
Behar, E. S., & Borkovec, T. D. (2003). Psychotherapy outcome research. In J. A. Schinka & W. F.
Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 2, Research methods in psychology (pp. 213–
240). Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press.
Carr, C. M., Murphy, S. M., & McCann, S. (1992, October). Supervision issues in clinical sport
psychology. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Advancement of
Sport Psychology, Colorado Springs, CO.
Champ, F., Ronkainen, N. J., Nesti, M. S., Tod, D., & Littlewood, M. A. (2020). “Through the lens of
ethnography”: Perceptions, challenges, and experiences of an early career practitioner-researcher
in professional football. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 12, 513–529.
doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1638444
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research. Sage.
Etzel, E. F., Watson, J. C., II, & Zizzi, S. (2004). A web-based survey of AAASP members’ ethical
beliefs and behaviors in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 236–250.
doi:10.1080/10413200490485595
Fitzpatrick, S. J., Monda, S. J., & Wooding, C. B. (2016). Great expectations: Career planning and
training experiences of graduate students in sport and exercise psychology. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 28, 14–27. doi:10.1080/10413200.2015.1052891
Fogaca, J. L., Zizzi, S. J., & Andersen, M. B. (2018). Walking multiple paths of supervision in
American sport psychology: A qualitative tale of novice supervisees’ development. The Sport
Psychologist, 32, 156–165. doi:10.1123/tsp.2017-0048
Foltz, B. D., Fisher, A. R., Denton, L. K., Campbell, W. L., Speight, Q. L., Steinfeldt, J., & Latorre,
C. (2015). Applied sport psychology supervision experience: A qualitative analysis. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 27, 449–463. doi:10.1080/10413200.2015.1043162
Hutter, R. I. V., Oldenhof-Veldman, T., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2015). What trainee sport
psychologists want to learn in supervision. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 101–109.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.003
McEwan, H. E., & Tod, D. (2015). Learning experiences contributing to service-delivery competence
in applied psychologists: Lessons for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
27, 79–93. doi:10.1080/10413200.2014.952460
McEwan, H. E., Tod, D., & Eubank, M. (2019). The rocky road to individuation: Sport
psychologists’ perspectives on professional development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45,
Article 101542. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101542
Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and evaluating survey research. Journal of the Advanced
Practitioner in Oncology, 6, 168–171. doi:10.6004/jadpro.2015.6.2.9
Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2013). The developing practitioner: Growth and stagnation of
therapists and counselors. Routledge.
Sharp, L.-A., Hodge, K., & Danish, S. (2021). “I wouldn’t want to operate without it”: The ethical
challenges faced by experienced sport psychology consultant’s and their engagement with
supervision. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 33, 259–279.
doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1646838
Stoltenberg, C. D., & McNeill, B. W. (2009). IDM supervision: An integrative developmental model
for supervising counselors and therapists (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Tod, D. (2019). Conducting systematic reviews in sport, exercise, and physical activity. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tod, D., Andersen, M. B., & Marchant, D. B. (2011). Six years up: Applied sport psychologists
surviving (and thriving) after graduation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 93–109.
doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.534543
Tod, D., Hardy, J., Lavallee, D., Eubank, M., & Ronkainen, N. (2019). Practitioners’ narratives
regarding active ingredients in service delivery: Collaboration-based problem solving. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 43, 350–358. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.04.009
Tod, D., Marchant, D., & Andersen, M. B. (2007). Learning experiences contributing to service-
delivery competence. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 317–334. doi:10.1123/tsp.21.3.317
Van Raalte, J. L., & Andersen, M. B. (2000). Supervision I: From models to doing. In M. B.
Andersen (Ed.), Doing sport psychology (pp. 153–165). Human Kinetics.
Watson, J. C., II, Zizzi, S. J., Etzel, E. F., & Lubker, J. R. (2004). Applied sport psychology
supervision: A survey of students and professionals. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 415–429.
doi:10.1123/tsp.18.4.415
Wheeler, S., & Richards, K. (2007). The impact of clinical supervision on counsellors and therapists,
their practice and their clients: A systematic review of the literature. British Association for
Counselling & Psychotherapy.
Williams, J. M., & Scherzer, C. B. (2003). Tracking the training and careers of graduates of advanced
degree programs in sport psychology, 1994 to 1999. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15,
335–353. doi:10.1080/10413200390238013
Afterword
Itay Basevitch and Edson Filho
Wow, what a process! We definitely enjoyed it—well, at least most of it!

After more than 10 years from idea to conclusion, we finally made our
dream a reality. We have gathered leading experts in various areas in the
sport, exercise, and performance psychology domain to share their
knowledge and thoughts about the most pressing questions that will help
move the field forward and direct the interested readers to the state-of-the-art
literature in the domain. One way to consider and use this book is as a
database of the most important questions and literature outputs in the field.
Essentially, this book is a primary source for scholars and researchers at
various levels and an effective guide toward research endeavors.
First, a bit of statistics and numbers. There are 125 questions in the book.
The largest number of questions are applied in nature, N = 45, followed by
questions addressing theoretical underpinnings, N = 34, and questions
focusing on measurement and methodological issues, N = 21. The additional
questions have a dual focus, N = 25, combining two closely related research
aspects (Figure A.1).
Figure A.1 Number of questions found in the book by question type (i.e., theory, applied, and/or
method).
Furthermore, the book consists of 125 essential literature outputs, and the
majority, 62%, have been published within the past 5 years (Figure A.2). The
literature outputs are varied with 77 research articles and 48 review articles
or book chapters (i.e., meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or narrative
reviews), as illustrated in Figure A.3.
Figure A.2 Number of literature outputs found in the book by year published.
Figure A.3 Percentage of literature output types represented in the book.
Similar to a dictionary being an encompassing source of words and their

definitions (Hackfort et al., 2019), we view this book as a comprehensive
source of topics with key questions and readings in the domain. This is the
first edition and volume of the book, and although it includes some of the
most important and researched areas in the domain, we recognize that there
are many other areas that are missing such as imagery (Filgueiras et al.,
2018) and motivation (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). We hope to edit future
volumes that will include additional research topics. Additionally, because
the domain is growing rapidly and new information is generated daily (Sly et
al., 2020), revised editions of the topics will be updated periodically.
To do this we kindly ask you to keep us (and the chapter authors) updated
with any new research findings and information related to each of the topics.
It is our intention to have a parallel web-based platform (please visit
http://bit.ly/SP-Book-Forumto access the online forum and start engaging
with the community) that will enable communication among the authors,
scholars, researchers, and readers on each topic for several purposes: (a) to
ask the authors questions about research in their expert topic area (e.g., what
measurement tool should be used), (b) to discuss and share issues related to
the topic area, (c) to update the authors when a research question has been
addressed, and (d) to flag a research question that has yet to be addressed
and is essential to move the field forward. We believe that there are many
benefits of having both a book and a web-based platform, allowing readers
to engage with the content of the chapters and with the authors as well,
making the book a dynamic and interactive resource (Ye et al., 2015). We
hope you take advantage of these features and we look forward to meeting
you in the online forum.
Finally, whether you are a scholar, a researcher, an educator, a practitioner,
or just a casual reader, we hope you enjoyed the structure and content of the
book and found it beneficial for your purposes.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
—Albert Einstein
References
Filgueiras, A., Conde, E. F. Q., & Hall, C. R. (2018). The neural basis of kinesthetic and visual
imagery in sports: An ALE meta− analysis. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 12(5), 1513–1523.
Hackfort, D., Schinke, R., & Strauss, B. (2019). Dictionary of sport psychology. Sport, exercise and
performing arts. Elsevier.
Sly, D., Mellalieu, S. D., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2020). “It’s psychology Jim, but not as we know it!”: The
changing face of applied sport psychology. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(1), 87–
101.
Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., . . . Lonsdale, C.
(2020). Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1444.
Ye, H. J., Feng, Y., & Choi, B. C. (2015). Understanding knowledge contribution in online knowledge
communities: A model of community support and forum leader support. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 14(1), 34–45.
Index
For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion,
appear on only one of those pages.
Tables and figures are indicated by t and f following the page number
AASP Ethics Code Standard 24, 332–33

AASP’s Certified Mental Performance Consultant finder, 330
ABQ (Athlete Burnout Questionnaire), 286
acceptance, 162–63, 223, 228, 233
acclimatization, 35–36, 38–39
acculturation, 336–38, 343–44
ACT (assistance in career transitions), 273–74
action research designs, 358
activity trackers, 212–13
ADeL (Anti-Doping e-Learning), 314, 316
Adler, A.B., 65t
adolescents, 14, 69–70, 186. See also Youth
adversity, 79, 154, 272
aerobic capacity, 199
affective reactivity, 228, 231
affective-reflective theory, 204
affective responses to exercise
activity promotion campaigns and, 202–3, 203f
dose-response relation, 196f, 215–16
exercise intensity and, 194–95, 198–99
“feel better” effect, 193, 195, 198–99
improvements in, 199–200, 200f, 209–10
individual differences in, 195, 216
key readings in, 196t
memories and, 200–1
operationalizing methods, 202f
peak-end rule of, 201
pragmatism of future studies on, 199–200
reflective processes, interactions in, 204
snapshot model of, 201
state of the art on, 193–95
type of exercise and, 215–16, 234
underlying mechanisms of, 198–99
valuations of exercise and, 200–1
affective states, efficacy and, 4, 6
affective valuation, 200–1
AfMTI (Australian football Mental Toughness Inventory), 86
age. See also Youth
cognitive health with, 238 (see also Exercise and aging)
developmental windows and, 258, 288
mental skills training and, 68, 69t
agent-based modeling (ABM), 12
Ahead of the Game, 177–78, 257–58
Allen, M.S., 211t
ALPHA, 316
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), 214
American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists, 324
amygdala, 122–23
analytical tools, 10
Andersen, M.B., 350–51
anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, 302–3
anticipation
decision-making and, 104–5, 109, 110–11
externally-paced skills and, 38
in team settings, 110–11
antidoping efforts, 308, 311–12, 314
anxiety
attention and, 33, 126–27
choking and, 32–34, 35–36, 38–39
exercise and, 209–10
during flow and clutch states, 55
injuries and, 295–96
interventions for, 35–36, 38–39
outcomes of, 106
anxiety disorders, 209–10, 257
Aoyagi, M.W., 325t
applied ethics, 324–25
applied research, 217–18
APS (Australian Psychological Society), 354–55
APSQ (Athlete Psychological Strain Questionnaire), 178–79
arousal, 4, 123–24, 126–27
arts-based methods, 337–38
AASP (Association for Applied Sport Psychology), 324
Aspen Foundation Project Play, 254
assistance in career transitions (ACT), 273–74
Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP), 324, 330, 332–33, 350–51, 354–55
asynchronous communication, 171
Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ), 286
athlete development
deliberate play and, 96
engagement and, 94–95
environment and, 100, 266, 269
inequalities in, 99–100
specialization versus diversification and, 96–97
talent and, 94–95
athlete leadership
antecedent factors of, 166–67
behaviors of, 162–63
behavior-specific questionnaire for, 167–68
characteristics of, 162
defined, 161–62
development of capabilities, 170–71
distinction from leaders, 169–70
frameworks for, 165–67
need for framework advancement, 165–67
qualitative approaches, 162
quantitative approaches, 162–64
questionnaires on, 162–63
research methodology advancement, 168–69
roles and, 161–62
shared form of, 161–62, 166–67
styles of, 165–66
team structure and, 152
working model for study of, 166f
Athlete Psychological Strain Questionnaire (APSQ), 178–79
athletes
career transitions (see Sport career transitions)
deselection from teams, 266
development of (see Athlete development)
with disabilities, 69t
efficacy (see Self-efficacy)
environmental interactions, 269
Generation Z, 272–73, 274
identity, 33–34, 42, 340–41
injuries, playing through, 84–85
maltreatment, 99
mental health of (see Mental health issues)
newcomers, 336–40, 343–44
relationships with coaches, 13
retirement, 69t, 264–65
transnational mobility, 273
athletes’ entourage, 313–14
athletic career transition model, 269, 271
attention. See also Visual attention
anxiety and, 33, 126–27
arousal and, 123–24
defined, 18
during flow and clutch states, 55, 56
internal/external focus of, 19–20, 23–24, 295–96
internal validity of studies of, 25
learning stage of learner and, 23–24
neural processes involved in, 26–27, 28–29
overt versus covert, 24–25
overview of, 18
state of the art on, 18
task and, 23–24
technology for studies of, 24, 28–29
attentional control theory, 123–24
attentional instructions
brain activity and, 27
ecological validity of, 28
overview of, 18
performance and, 23–24
augmented reality, 128
Australian football, 81
Australian Football League, 84–85
Australian football Mental Toughness Inventory (AfMTI), 86
Australian Psychological Society (APS), 354–55
authentic chameleon, 70
autocratic behavior, 162–63
automatic processes, 19, 96
autonomic arousal, 4
autonomous nervous system, 125
autonomy, 295–96
Avolio, B.J., 165–66
awareness, 223
Baker, J., 91t

Bandura, A., 3–4, 5, 8
Barkoukis, V., 310t
Basevitch, I., 107t
basketball, 12, 18–19, 25–26
Baumeister, R.F., 31, 32
BCI (brain-computer interface), 128–29
BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor), 240, 242–43
Beauchamp, M.R., 7t
Beckmann, J., 37t
behavioral genetics, 133, 136, 137
behavior change
complexity of behavior and, 246
exercise-related technologies and, 212–13
global conceptual models of, 244–45
health education and, 301–2
motivation and, 212–13
rationality assumption of, 202–3
role of high-level cognitive function in, 245–46
substitution and, 246
transferability of, 247
Behnke, M., 65t
Beilock, S.L., 37t
Ben-Zaken, S., 138t
Bereitschaftspotential, 27
Berry, J.W., 336–37
Bertollo, M., 120t
Best, J.R., 241t
bias, 62–63, 72, 269
big data analytics, 149
biofeedback, 119–20, 127, 128
bioinformatics, 144
Bodies in Motion program, 179–80
body mass index, 199
Bortoli, L., 48–50, 50t
BPS (British Psychological Society), 354–55
brain activity, 106–7, 109, 118, 122
brain-body processes. See Mind-body interaction
brain-computer interface (BCI), 128–29
brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), 240, 242–43
brain endurance training, 129
brain imaging techniques, 144
brain potentials, 27
Brams, S., 22t
Breslin, G., 181t
British Psychological Society (BPS), 354–55
Bronfenbrenner, U., 359–60
Brown, J.L., 325t
Burmann, 339t
Burmann, U., 339t
burnout
assessment of symptom development, 286, 289
conceptualization of, 137, 279–80
differentiating from fatigue and overtraining, 279–80, 281, 285–86
factors in, 279–80
individual differences and, 281
interventions, evaluation of, 284–85
interventions for, 283–84
markers of, 285, 286
as occupational phenomenon, 283
perfectionism and, 280–81
prevention, 283–84, 287–88
recovery science and, 281–82, 287–88, 289
research designs for, 288–89
social perceptions and, 281
social support and, 279–80, 283–84
state of the art on, 278, 279–80
in youth sport, 251
Callow, N., 164t

cardiac deceleration, 119, 124, 127
cardiovascular hypothesis of aging, 240, 242–43
cardiovascular studies, 119, 122–23, 124
career transitions. See Sport career transitions
Caron, J.G., 297t
case conceptualization, 66, 67
case-control association study, 144
case studies, 177–78, 218–19, 259, 330, 356–57
CBPAR (community-based participatory action research), 342–43
CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy), 179–80
central autonomic network, 122–23
central nervous system, 125
Certified Mental Performance Consultant finder, 330
change events, 264, 265. See also Sport career transitions and change
Chelladurai, P., 165
Cheron, G., 120t
choking under pressure
cognitive processes underlying, 39–40
definitions of, 32
factors involved in, 40–41, 105
interventions for, 35–36, 38–39
key readings on, 37t
mental health issues and, 42
“micro-choking,” 19–20
models of, 33–34
neurophysiological correlates of, 34–35, 39–40
overview of, 31
personality characteristics of, 32–33, 38–39
repeated episodes of, 38–39, 42
in specific sports, 38
of teams, 36, 40–41
chronic chokers, 38–39, 42
chronic injury. See injuries
Clark, B.C., 297t
clinical trial methodology, 184–85
clutch performances, 48, 53–54
clutch states
clutch performance and, 53
defined, 48
flow, integrated model with, 48–50, 49f, 57–58
maximization of, 55–56
measurement of, 52
occurrence, how and why of, 54–55
psychophysiological effects of, 56
transitions between flow and, 48–50, 55, 56
CMTI (Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory), 86
coaches
career transitions of, 266–67
decision-making by, 113–14
feedback from, 113–14, 258–59
implicit abilities of, 258–59
leadership style of, 152
relational efficacy, 13
team cohesion and behaviors of, 152
of youth sport, 251, 258–59
coaching science, 61
CoachMADE, 314
code of ethics. See Ethical codes
Code of the World Anti- Doping Agency (WADA), 308
cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), 179–80
cognitive decline, 209–10, 215–16, 238
cognitive exercises, 247
cognitive health and exercise. See Exercise and aging
cognitive processes
arousal and, 123–24
choking under pressure and, 39–40
effectiveness of, 105–6
executive functions, 238–39, 240–41
self-efficacy and, 4, 240–41
cognitivism, 202
coherence (neural communication), 34, 35, 39–40
Colcombe, S.J., 241t
collective collapse, 36, 40–41
collective efficacy
“contagion” and, 12
data analysis issues, 5–6
defined, 4
dispersion within teams, 6, 10–11
as factor in modeling team dynamics, 153
group cohesion and, 11
key research on, 4–6, 7t
overview of, 3–5
teamwork and, 11–12
Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sports, 148
collegiate athletes, 177–80, 188–89
Collins, D., 65t
community-based participatory action research (CBPAR), 342–43
competitive pressure, 31, 76–77, 96, 151–52
concussions
attitudes about, 301
behavior change and, 301
education on, 301–2
implications of repeated injury, 294–95
reporting, 301, 304
return-to-learn and, 304–5
return-to-sport testing, 302–3
risk factors, 293–94
symptoms, 293–94
Condello, G., 211t
confirmatory statistical techniques, 244–45
conscious control, 19, 23, 33
constrained action hypothesis, 19–20, 234
context-driven practice, 344–45
controlled inhibition, 245–46
Cooke, A., 120t
coping
burnout and, 279–80
with career transitions, 271–72, 274
mental toughness and, 76–77
psychosocial stress and coping model, 278, 280–81
core affect, 194–95
core values, 311
coronavirus pandemic, 62–63, 270
cortico-cardiac coherence, 119–20
cortico-muscular coherence, 119–20
COVID-19 pandemic, 62–63, 270
Cox, A.E., 227t
Cox, Anne E., 224–25
creativity, 112–13
Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory (CMTI), 86
cross-cultural issues. See Cultural issues
cross-sectional designs, 168
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 47, 48
4Cs model of mental toughness, 80–81, 85–86
cultural backgrounds, 154, 344–45
cultural issues. See also Sociocultural factors
context-driven practice and, 344–45
diverse identities and, 340–41
in doping, 311
Indigenous decolonizing research and, 342–43
in mental skills training, 71–73
newcomers and, 336–40, 343–44
reflective and reflexive practice and, 341–42
relevance of research findings and, 343–44
supervision and, 359–60
teams diversity and, 151
cultural norms, 337–38
cultural sport psychology, 336
cultural transitions, 265–66, 270, 271, 337–38, 343–44
culture, term, 71–72
cusp catastrophe regression, 10
cytokines, 242–43
Darwin, Charles, 137

data analysis, 10–11, 149, 155–56
data collection. See also Survey methods
during movement, 127
multiwave, 153–54
technology for, 24, 27, 109–10, 127
decision-making
assessment of decisions in, 113–14
in change process, 271–72
by coaches, 113–14
creativity and, 112–13
on doping behavior, 312, 313–16
emotions and, 105, 106
ethics in, 309–10, 316–17, 328–29, 332–33
fatigue effects on, 125
improvisation and, 112–13
interoception and, 125
moral judgments in, 312
neurophysiological level of analysis of, 106–7, 108–10
perceptual-cognitive components, 104–6
response selection and, 104–6
self-efficacy and, 106
skill measurement, 111
skills training in, 111–12
in sport contexts, 104
in teams, 110–11
temporal considerations, 104–5
unified conceptual framework for, 105
DeFreese, J.D., 282t
deliberate play, 96
deliberate practice, 93, 95–97, 134
Delphi method, 328, 329
dementia, 209–10, 238
democratic behavior, 162–63
depression. See Mental health issues
DeRue, D.S., 6, 7t, 10–11
Differentiated Transformational Leadership Inventory (DTLI), 162–63, 167–68
Directory of Graduate Programs in Applied Sport Psychology, 330
disabilities, 69t
discrimination, 337–38
Dishman, R.K., 14
dismantling studies, 358–59
distal methods, 35–36
distractions
choking and, 33, 35–36, 38, 39–40
flow and, 55
distress tolerance, 229
distributed leadership, 161–62
divergent thinking tasks, 113
diversity, 151, 336, 340–41
Donohue, B., 181t
doping
decision variables for, 312, 313–16
defined, 308
detection and deterrence approach to, 316
educational approaches to, 311–12, 316
ethical decision-making and, 309–10
as immoral behavior versus ethical issue, 310–12
legalization of, 311
legitimacy of antidoping regulations, 311
measuring prevalence of, 314–16
moral factors in, 308–9, 312–13
overview of problem, 308
prevention approach to, 316
role of athletes’ entourage in, 313–14
social desirability bias and, 314–15
dose, 64
Drew, K., 267t
DTLI (Differentiated Transformational Leadership Inventory), 162–63, 167–68
dual-process models, 204, 225–26, 228
dual task interventions, 35–36
Duguay, A.M., 164t
Dweck, C.S., 258–59
dyadic relationships, 149, 156–57
dynamic handgrip intervention, 35–36, 40
ECG (electrocardiography), 118, 122

ecological dynamics, 98
ecological systems, 359
ecological tasks, 118
ecological validity
of attentional studies, 25, 27, 28
on decision-making skills, 111–12
of expert performance in labs, 98
of heart-brain relationship measures, 122–23
virtual reality and, 14
ECSS (European College of Sport Science), 141–42
Ede, A., 7t
educational interventions
for concussions, 301–2
on doping, 311–12, 314, 316
EEG (electroencephalography), 26–27, 34, 35, 109–10, 122, 156–57
efficacy. See Collective efficacy; Relational efficacy; Self-efficacy
effort hypothesis of aging, 240, 242–43
Ekkekakis, P., 196t
Elbe, A.-M., 310t
Elbe, A-M., 339t
electrocardiography (ECG), 118, 122
electroencephalography (EEG), 26–27, 34, 35, 109–10, 122, 156–57, 233
electromyography (EMG), 118
elite sport, 42, 83–84, 99
emergent properties, 141, 156
EMG (electromyography), 118
emotional contagion, 36
emotional disclosure, 295
emotions
core affect and, 194
decision-making and, 105, 106
regulation of, 126–27
empirical evidence, 62–63, 90
endorphins, 198
endurance sports, 129
environmental cues, 18–19, 109
environments
dynamic settings, 18–19, 122
ecological issues (see Ecological validity)
ethical climate in, 309–10, 313–14
genetics and, 135, 142–43
interaction with athletes, 266, 269
lab settings, 97–98
moral atmosphere of, 308, 309, 313–14
performance and, 135
epigenetics, 135, 139–40
epistemological coherence, 218–19
Erickson, K.I., 241t
ERPs (event-related potentials), 122
error monitoring, 34
ethical climate, 309–10, 313–14
ethical codes, 323, 324, 329–30, 331, 332–33
ethical decision-making
doping and, 309–10, 316–17
model of, 328–29
by SEPP practitioners, 328–29, 332–33
ethical dilemmas
action on by practitioners, 329–30
common issues in SEPP, 324, 326–28
versus immorality of doping, 310–12
recognition of by practitioners, 329–30
structural issues causing, 332–34
ethics
athlete rules of conduct and, 311–12
key readings in SEPP, 325t
key readings on doping and, 310t
overview of, 309–10, 323
research methodologies for SEPP, 331–32
Ethnic/Cultural Identity Salience Questionnaire, 336–37
ethnographies, 360
Etzel, E.F., 325t
eugenics, 137
European College of Sport Science (ECSS), 141–42
event-related potentials (ERPs), 122
executive functions, 35, 247
exercise
adherence (see Exercise adherence)
affective responses to (see Affective responses to exercise)
aging and (see Exercise and aging)
antecedents of behavior, 208–9
behavior and reflective cognition, 204
best methods for applied research in, 217–19
cognitive effects of (see Exercise and aging)
dose-response relationships, 196f, 215–16
efficacy research in, 5
health benefits of, 202
individual differences and, 210
initiation, 214–15
intensity, 194–95, 234
mindfulness and (see Mindfulness)
participation levels, 193, 214
promotion campaigns, 202–3, 203f
rewards and, 203, 209
valuations of, 200–1
exercise adherence
antecedents of behavior, 208–9
consequences of exercise and, 209–10
dose-response relationship, 215–16
executive functioning effects on, 240–41
individual differences and, 210, 216–17
lifestyle determinants of, 209, 214
motivation and, 208–9, 210, 212–13
overview of, 208
personalized training and, 216–17
strategies for, 214–15
technology and, 212–13
exercise and aging
causal link between, 238–39, 240–41, 243–44
complete virtuous cycle, examination of, 247
exercise intensity and, 209–10
exercise type and, 215–16
individual characteristics and, 243–44
intention-exercise relationship, examination of, 244–45
intervention studies on, 243–44
mechanisms of link between, 240, 242–43
neurophysiological status as moderating variable, 243
role of high-level cognitive function in behavior change, 245–46
type of exercise and, 239
exercise-based rehabilitation programs, 247
exercise prescription, 216–17
exercise psychology. See also Exercise adherence
field of, 193, 204–5
measurement in, 210
mindfulness in (see Mindfulness)
exercise science, 204–5
exergames, 212–13
experimental designs, 10, 12–13, 14, 62–63, 169, 217–18, 230–31
expert-novice paradigm, 98, 112
expert performance
abilities and, 92–93
athlete development and, 94–95, 96–97, 99–100
attentional focus in, 21, 28–29
cortical activation in, 106–7
decision-making and, 104, 114
discriminating from novices, 98
ethics and, 99–100
explicit versus automatic processing, 96
inequality and, 99–100
in lab environment, 97–98
overview of, 90
practice and, 93, 95–97
prediction of future success, 94–95
pursuit of, 100
social considerations, 100
sport specialization versus sampling, 96–97, 100
talent and, 92–93, 99–100
exploratory factor analysis, 52
external attentional focus, 19–20, 23–24
exteroception, 124
extrinsic motivation, 208–9
eye tracking, 21, 24, 26, 27
Facebook, 344
fatigue
decision-making and, 125
differentiating from burnout and overtraining, 279–80, 281, 285–86
heart-brain connection and, 125–26
markers of, 285, 286, 287–88
monitoring of, 278–79, 287–88
psychobiological model of, 129
recovery science and, 281–82, 287–88
Federer, Roger, 96–97
feedback. See also Biofeedback; Neurofeedback
from coaches, 113–14, 258–59
flow and, 48, 54
as leadership behavior, 162–63
in mental skills training, 68
self-efficacy and, 4
feminist scholars, 340
fencing, 109
fidelity, 64
field hockey, 109
Filho, E., 150t
First Tee life skills–based golf program, 251
Flanker test, 129
flexibility, measurement, 113
flow
clutch states, integrated model with, 48–50, 49f, 57–58
framework, traditional, 47, 57–58
maximization of, 55–56
measurement of, 48, 52
occurrence, how and why of, 54–55
overview of, 46–48
physiological marker of, 56
psychophysiological effects of, 56
transitions between clutch states and, 48–50, 55, 56
types of, 48–50
Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2), 48, 52
fluency, measurement, 113
fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), 109–10, 233
focused concentration, 76–77
focus groups, 41
Fogaca, J.L., 353t
Foltz, B.D., 353t
football players, 301, 304
Fosbury jump technique, 112
foveal spot, 24–25
foveal vision, 24, 28–29
Fransen, K., 164t
FRLM (full range leadership model), 165–66
FSS-2 (Flow State Scale-2), 48, 52
full range leadership model (FRLM), 165–66
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 109–10, 233
Galton, Francis, 90, 136, 137

gaze anchors, 24–25
gaze behavior
measurement of, 24, 27
performance and, 20–21, 28–29
strategies, 24–25
in teams, 25–26
gender differences, 62, 69t, 281
gene-environment interaction, 142–43
gene expression, 135, 136
general motor ability, 92
Generation Z athletes, 272–73, 274
genetic predisposition, 135
genetics
basic terms in, 135–36
heritability studies, 133–34
history of, 136–37
key readings in, 138, 138t
of mental toughness, 77
in multidisciplinary approach to performance, 141–42
new techniques in, 143–44
personalized training and, 139–40
reactive system approach, 140–41
scale differences with psychology, 140–41
sport performance and, 134–35
sport psychology and, 133, 136–37
transformational system approach, 140–41
genome, 140–41
Glazer, D.D., 303
global conceptual models, 244–45
globalization, athlete careers and, 272–73
goals
clutch states and, 55
decision-making and achievement of, 104
efficacy and behavior toward, 3–4, 8
mental skills training and, 66, 71
golf, 23–24, 251, 266
Gottschling, J., 138t
Gould, D., 252t
graduate programs, 330, 359
Gray, R., 297t
group cohesion, 11, 151–53
group dynamics
antecedents of team processes, 151–53
“best fit” input-throughput-output model, 148–49, 153–54
big data analyses on, 149, 155–56
hyperbrain methodologies to study, 156–57
overview of, 11
psychophysiological monitoring of, 149, 155–56
group environment, 151–52
Group Environment Questionnaire, 148
groupthink, 154
Gucciardi, D., 80t, 310t
habits, 246
Hadlow, S.M., 107t
handgrip intervention, 35–36, 40
hardiness, 78–79, 85–86
Hardy, L., 80t
Harris, B.S., 325t
Hatfield, B.D., 120t
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., 339t
health-enhancing behaviors, 14–15, 256–57, 301–2
health psychology, 78–79
heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs), 122, 124, 125, 126–27
heart-brain interactions
arousal-emotion-attention-performance linkage and, 123–24
interoception and, 124, 125–26
neuromuscular fatigue and, 125–26
neuro-visceral-cognitive interventions and, 128–29
overview of, 118, 120
performance optimization and, 126–27
psychophysiological measures on, 122–23
self-regulation and, 123–24
heart rate variability (HRV), 122, 123–24
Help Out a Mate, 177–78
Hemphill, D., 310t
heredity, 135, 137. See also Genetics
heritability studies, 133–34
HEROES, 316–17
high school athletes, 170, 178–79
holistic model of image perception, 21
homeostatic regulation, 125–26, 194–95
Horsburgh, V., 80t
Host Community Acculturation Scale, 336–37
Houge Mackenzie, S., 50t
human agency, 8–9
Human Genome Project, 144
Hunt, M., 227t
Hutter, R.I.V., 353t
hyperbrain methodologies, 156–57
identity, 33–34, 42, 340–41

IL-10 cytokines, 242–43
imagery, 295
immigrants, 336–40, 343–44
implicit learning, 35–36, 95–96
improvisation, 96, 112–13
incidental learning, 96–97
Indigenous decolonizing research, 342–43
individual differences
in affective responses to exercise, 195, 216
burnout and, 281
in cognitive aging, 243–44
exercise behavior and, 210, 216–17
mental skills training and, 68–70, 69t
self-report data on, 98
team processes and, 151
in training responses, 139–40, 278–79
individualized medicine, 216–17
inequity, 99–100
inflammatory hypothesis of aging, 240, 242–43
information processing, 104–6
information reduction hypothesis, 21
inheritance, 135, 136–37. See also Genetics
injuries. See also Concussions
acute versus chronic, 298
as career change event, 270
interdisciplinary collaboration on, 296–97
key readings on psychosocial aspects of, 297t
mental skills training and, 69t
models related to, 293–95
playing through, 84–85
postinjury performance and, 295–96
psychological factors in, 293–94, 296–97, 298
psychological interventions, 293–94, 295, 299–300
rehabilitation phase, 294–95
reinjuries, 302–3
reinjury anxiety, 295–96
return-to-learn protocol, 304–5
return-to-sport phase, 295–97, 302–3
risk factors for, 293–94, 298–99
smartphone apps as intervention, 299–301
in youth, 256, 298–99
Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport (I-PRRS), 303
insula, 122–23
integrated career change and transition framework (ICCT), 265–66
Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch States, 46–47, 48–50, 49f, 52, 57–58
intellectual stimulation, 162–63
intercultural issues. See Cultural issues
internal attentional focus, 19–20, 23–24, 234, 295–96
internal validity, 25, 97–98, 358–59
International Society for Sport Psychology’s Practitioner Registry, 330
International Society of Sport Psychology, 324
interoception, 122, 124, 125–26
interview methods, 218–19, 260, 330, 344–45
intrinsic motivation, 208–9
inventories
on athlete leadership, 162–63, 167–68
mental health screening, 178–79
on mental toughness, 85–86
Isoard-Gautheur, S., 282t
Ivarsson, A., 297t
Jackman, P.C., 50t

Johnson, S.L., 138t
Johnston, K., 91t
Jones, G., 80t
Jones, L., 196t
junior-to-senior transition, 266
key readings, topics

affective responses to exercise, 196t
athlete leadership, 164t
attention, 22t
burnout, 282t
choking under pressure, 37t
clutch states, 50t
cultural issues, 339t
decision-making, 107t
doping, 310t
ethics, 310t, 325t
exercise and aging, 241t
exercise psychology, 211t
expert performance, 91t
fatigue, 282t
flow, 50t
genetics, 138t
group dynamics, 150t
injuries, psychosocial aspects of, 297t
mental health issues, 181t
mental skills, 65t
mental toughness, 80t
mind-body interaction, 120t
mindfulness, 227t
overtraining, 282t
self-efficacy (SE), 7t
sport career transitions and change, 267t
supervision, 353t
youth sport, 252t
Kirkpatrick’s model, 64
knowledge
base of, 109
generation of, 336
memory and, 105–6
task-specific, 105–6
Kohlberg, L., 312–13
lab environments, 97–98

lactate threshold, 194–95
laissez-faire leadership styles, 165–66
Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group, 202–3
latent profile analysis, 299
leaders
characteristics of, 162
versus leadership, 169–70
roles of, 161–62
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), 162–63, 167–68
leadership styles, 152, 165–66. See also Athlete leadership
learning
attention and, 19
deliberate practice and, 95–96
explicit versus implicit, 96
incidental, 96–97
of mental toughness, 77
online environments, 171
retention, 28
legal issues, 332–33
Leo, F.M., 150t
licensure, 186–87, 324–25
life skills, 259–60
life span, self-efficacy across, 14–15
life story approaches, 337–38, 340–41, 343–44
limbic system, 70
longitudinal designs, 218–19, 256, 269, 288, 356–57
long-term working memory, 21, 104–5
Loughead, T.M., 164t
LSS (Leadership Scale for Sports), 162–63, 167–68
MAC (mindfulness-acceptance-commitment), 180–81

Macnamara, B.N., 91t
macrosystems, 359–60
Madigan, D.J., 282t
Mann, D.T., 27
Martinez-Aguilar, G.M., 120t
masculinity, 84–85
MAT (monitor and acceptance theory), 228, 231, 232
maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), 194–95, 242–43
McCardle, L., 91t
McEwan, D., 150t
Medical Research Council, 63–64
meditation, 229–30
memory
affective responses to exercise and, 200–1
decision-making and, 104–5
exercise adherence and, 240–41
exercise effects on, 209–10
long-term working memory theory, 21
transactive systems, 148
Mendel, Gregor, 133, 136–37
mental control, 105–6
mental fatigue, 129
mental health issues. See also Anxiety
assessment of, 178–79
in athletes versus nonathletes, 183–85
awareness programs for, 177–78
with choking under pressure, 42
in elite sport, 99
exercise and, 215–16
family-based approaches, 185
governmental support for, 188–89
interventions, adapting to athletes, 183–85
prevalence, 177
programming in sport, 177
reporting of, 83–85
school-based services, 188–89
screening for, 178–79
service providers for, 186–87
stigma perception and, 186
in youth, 177–78, 185, 186, 257–58
mental imagery training, 295
mental skills. See also Mental skills training
interventions in, 63–64
measurement of, 62–64
mental skills training
for adolescents, 68–70
aim and design, link between, 66–67
case conceptualization in, 66, 67
cultural factors in, 71–73
delivery of, 63, 67–68
goals and, 66, 71
individual client factors in, 68–70, 69t
key factors affecting impact of, 68f
measurement of effectiveness, 62–64, 65
overview of, 61
practitioner knowledge in, 61
professional judgment and decision-making in, 61, 64, 67–68, 70
research design and, 62–63, 65
sociocultural factors in, 62
sport psychologist characteristics and, 70–71
working alliance in, 71
mental toughness
behaviors of, 79
4Cs model of, 80–81, 85–86
dimensionality of, 78
genetic versus learned aspects of, 77
hardiness and, 78–79
health and, 83–85
identification of, 85–86
overview of, 76
physical toughness and, 82–83
psychological attributes of, 76–77, 80–81
resilience and, 78–79
stability of, 80–81
types of, 82
Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI), 85–86
Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (MTQ-48), 85–86
mental welfare, 62
Mesagno, C., 32, 37t
metacognition, 56
meta-supervision, 351
“micro-choking,” 19–20
mind-body interaction. See also Heart-brain interactions
mindful movement, defined, 226
mindfulness
activity forms and, 233–35
assessment of during exercise, 224–25, 232–33
contextualized to physical activity, 224
defined, 223
key moderators of, 229–30
neuroimaging studies of, 233
processes supporting exercise behavior, 227–29
study designs on, 230–32
trait versus state of, 223–24, 227–29
mindfulness-acceptance-commitment (MAC), 180–81
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, 180–81
mindfulness-based stress reduction, 180–81
Mindfulness in Physical Activity Scale, 224
mindful sport performance enhancement (MSPE), 180–81
minority belief, 6
MLM (multilevel modeling), 6, 10–11
MML (multidimensional model of leadership), 165
mobile methods of data collection, 27, 337–38
moderate-intensity exercise, 193, 194–95, 199
modern genetics, 136–37. See also Genetics
molecular genetics, 133–34, 137
monitor and acceptance theory (MAT), 228, 231, 232
mood states. See Affective states; Mental health issues
Moore, G.F., 65t
moral atmosphere, 308, 309, 313–14
moral competence, 312–13
moral development, 311, 312–13
moral disengagement, 308, 309, 312, 315–17
moral identity, 308, 309
morality
defined, 308
versus ethics of doping, 310–12
factors in doping, 308–9, 312–13
role of athletes’ entourage in defining, 313–14
moral judgment, 312
Morgan, P.B.C., 150t
motivation
versus capability assessment, 9–10
exercise behavior and, 208–9, 210, 212–13
as leadership behavior, 162–63
mindfulness and, 225–26
perception of effort and, 125–26
self-efficacy and, 3–4
motivational climate, 152, 313–14
motor control, 61
motor skills. See Skilled motor performance
movement effectiveness, 19
movement efficiency, 19
MSPE (mindful sport performance enhancement), 180–81
MTI (Mental Toughness Inventory), 85–86
MTQ (Mental Toughness Questionnaire), 85–86
Multi-Action Plan Model, 48–50
multicase studies, 153–54
multi-cultural issues. See Cultural issues
multidimensional model of leadership (MML), 165
multidisciplinary approach, 141–42
multilevel modeling (MLM), 6, 10–11
multiwave data collection studies, 153–54
Myers, N.D., 6
narcissism, 32–33
narrative analysis, 358–59
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 188–89
National Hockey League, 294–95
nature versus nurture, 92–93, 134, 137. See also Genetics
neural markers, 149
neurofeedback, 27, 119–20, 127, 128
neuroimaging, 233
neuromuscular fatigue, 125–26
neurophysiological measures
of attentional processes, 26–27, 28–29
choking under pressure and, 34–35, 39–40
on heart-brain relationship, 122–23
perceptual-cognitive processes, 106–7
technology for, 27, 109–10, 127
neurophysiological status, 243
neuroticism, 229
NeuroTracker, 128–29
neurotrophic factors, 240, 242–43
neurotrophic hypothesis of aging, 240, 242–43
neurovisceral integration model, 124
newcomers, integration, 336–40, 343–44
nonlinear relationships, 5, 10
normative ethics, 324–25
norms, 299, 337–38
novices, attentional focus of, 21, 23
Ntoumanis, N., 310t
occlusion paradigm, 110–11, 114

older adults, 209–10, 243, 244, 247. See also Exercise and aging
Olympic athletes, 266
Olympic sport, 48–50, 72–73, 100, 270
online learning, 171
On the Origin of Species (Darwin), 137
optimal experiences, 46–47, 56–58, 119–20
OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning)
theory, 20
Optimum Performance Program in Sports (TOPPS), 180–81, 186–87
organizational behavior, 62
organizational settings, 11
originality, measurement, 113
other-efficacy, 6, 12–14
Oudejans, R.R.D., 37t
overreach training, 279
overtraining
assessment of symptom development, 289
differentiating from burnout and fatigue, 279–80, 281, 285–86
markers of, 286
prevention, 287–88
recovery science and, 281–82, 287–88, 289
state of the art on, 278, 279
overtraining syndrome, 279, 287–88, 289
overuse injuries, 298. See also Injuries
Pacewicz, C.E., 282t

parafoveal vision, 28–29
Parfitt, G., 196t
Park, J.L., 22t
Park, S., 267t
past performance, 4
peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak), 194–95
peer leadership, 152
peer supervision, 351
perception-action coupling, 98, 105–7
perception of effort, 125–26
perceptual-cognitive processes, 21, 92–93, 98, 104–5, 106
perfectionism, 99, 280–81
performance. See also Expert performance; Skilled motor performance
attentional focus and, 19
gaze and, 20–21
genetics and, 134–35
heart-brain integration and, 126–27
layered model of, 135
multidisciplinary approach to, 141–42
neuro-visceral-cognitive interventions and, 128–29
optimal experiences, 46–47, 56–58, 119–20, 126–27
psychological factors, 61
self-efficacy and, 8–11
underperformance, 32
video recordings of, 41
performance psychology, defined, 46
performant-controlled inhibition, 240–41
periodization, 67
peripheral physiological markers, 149
peripheral vision, 24–25
personality
Big Five traits, 210
burnout and, 280–81
choking under pressure and, 32–33, 38–39
mental toughness and, 78–79, 80–81
personalized training, 139–40
persuasive information, 4
phenotypes, 137
phsyiological traits, 137
physical activity. See also Exercise
across life span, 14
applied research in, 217–19
barriers to accomplishment in, 8–9
efficacy in, 6, 8–9, 14–15
socio-structural factors, 8–9
terms for, 217
youth levels, 255–57
physical health, mental toughness and, 83–85
physical inactivity, 208, 255
physical toughness, 82–83
physiological measures, 4, 118, 123
Pilates, 233–34
Pinder, R.A., 91t
PJDM (professional judgment and decision-making), 61, 64, 67–68
planning processes, 240–41
play, as practice, 96
Podlog, L., 297t
polynomial regression, 10
Positive Coaching Alliance, 254
positive feedback, 48, 54, 162–63
PPI (Psychological Performance Inventory), 85–86
practice
deliberate practice framework, 93, 95–97
play as, 96
psychological factors in, 94
qualities of, 95–96
skill and, 93, 95–97
practice-based evidence, 62–63
predictive coding, 124
prefrontal cortex, 35, 39–40, 70, 122–23, 198–99
preperformance routines, 35–36, 63
pressure training, 82–83
process evaluations, 63–64
process tracing method, 110–11
professional athletes, 14–15, 178–79, 301
professionalism, 326–27
professional judgment and decision-making, 61, 64, 67–68
professional recognition, 359
professional training pathways, 359
prospective memory, 240–41, 245–46, 247
proxy efficacy, 6
PST (psychological skills training), 180–81
psychological adjustment, 271
psychological factors
athlete leadership and, 166–67
injuries and, 293–94, 296–97, 298
performance and, 61
practice engagement and, 94
psychological interventions, 179–81
Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI), 85–86
psychological skills training (PST), 180–81
psychological traits, 137
psychology, scaling in, 140–41
psychometrics, 78–79, 178–79, 285, 286
psychophysiological monitoring
of group dynamics, 149, 155–56
mind-body interactions, 118–20
toughness measures and, 82–83
psychophysiology, field of, 119–20
Psychophysiology journal, 119
psychosocial stress and coping model, 278, 280–81
public health campaigns, 202–3
public policies, 243
qualitative research methods, 218–19, 330, 332, 343–44

quantitative research methods, 218–19, 331–32
quasi-experimental design, 231
questionnaires
on athlete leadership, 162–63, 164, 167–68
on burnout, 286
on clutch states/flow, 52
on ethnic/cultural identity, 336–37
on group environments, 148
for mental health screening, 178–79
on mental toughness, 85–86
on self-efficacy, 9–10
on team dynamics, 148
Quiet Eye, 27
Raab, M., 107t

randomized controlled trials, 62–63, 64, 238–39
randomized response technique (RRT), 314–15
Range (Epstein), 96–97
rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), 179–80
rationality assumption, 202
RCTs (randomized controlled trials), 62–63, 64, 238–39
reappraisal, 55
REBT (rational emotive behavior therapy), 179–80
recovery science, 281–82, 285, 287–88, 289
Recovery-Stress Questionnaire (RESTQ-Sport), 286
referees, 81, 264–65, 266–67
reflective practice, 341–42
reflexes, 19
reflexive practice, 341–42, 344–45
refugees, working with, 336–40, 343–45
rehabilitation
adherence to, 295
factors in recovery, 294–95
psychological interventions in, 293–94, 295
smartphone apps as intervention, 299–301
rehabilitation programs, 247
“reinvestment,” 35–36, 40
relatedness, 295–96
relational efficacy, 4–5, 6, 12–14
relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE), 6, 7t, 12–14
relaxation techniques, 293–94, 295
research
accessibility of findings, 344
bias in, 72
database of, 331–32
generalizability of, 72, 110, 330, 343–44
methodologies (see specific methods)
reliability in, 218–19, 315–16
rigor in, 218
resilience, 76–77, 78–79, 149, 154–55
respiratory compensation point (RCP), 194–95, 198–99
response selection, 104–6
RESTQ-Sport (Recovery-Stress Questionnaire), 286
retirement, 69t, 264–65
retrospective studies, 260, 269
return to sport
factors affecting outcomes, 295–96
outcome prediction measures, 302–3
readiness assessment, 302–3
reinjuries with, 302–3
smartphone apps and, 299–301
reversal theory, 48–50
rewards, 162–63, 203, 208–9, 253–54
Rice, S.M., 181t
RISE (relation-inferred self-efficacy), 6, 7t, 12–14
risky behaviors, 42
role models, 162–63, 186, 266
Rose, E.A., 196t
RRT (randomized response technique), 314–15
Ruffault, A., 227t
Ryba, T.V., 267t, 339t
safe environments, 313–14

sampling bias, 72
Samuel, R.D., 265, 267t
Sänger, J., 150t
SATURN (Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification), 316
scheme of change for sport psychology practice (SCSPP), 265–66, 271–72
Schinke, R., 267t
Schinke, R.J., 339t
school-based mental health services, 188–89
Schweickle, M., 50t
scientific rigor, 218–19
SCSPP (scheme of change for sport psychology practice), 265–66, 271–72
SCT (social cognitive theory), 3–4, 7t, 8, 312
SE. See Self-efficacy
selective attention, 104–5
self-belief, 76–77
self-confidence, 32–33, 213
self-control, 204
self-determination theory, 208–9, 225–26, 228
self-doubt, 5, 198
self-efficacy (SE)
across life course, 14–15
in affective response to exercise, 198
analytical tools for, 10
assessment issues, 9–10
basis of, 4
behavior prediction and, 8–9
cognitive processes and, 4, 240–41
data analysis issues, 5–6
defined, 3–4
functional properties of, 5
generality effects of, 15
key research on, 4–6, 7t
motivation and, 3–4
outcome expectations and, 8
overview of, 3–5
performance, predicting, 8–9
performance, relationship to, 5, 9–11
self-evaluative processing, 19–20
self-focus, choking and, 33, 34, 35–36, 38, 39–40
self-monitoring, 55
self-persuasion, 4
self-presentation model of choking, 33–34
self-regulated learning, 94
self-regulation
in adolescents, 70
brain architecture and, 70
clutch states and, 55
efficacy and, 5, 14
executive functions and, 239, 240–41
during flow and clutch states, 56
heart-brain interactions and, 123–24
self-regulatory processing, 19–20
self-reports, 98, 233, 314–15
self-system, neural activation, 19–20
self-talk, 55
semistructured interviews, 162
sensorimotor control, 105–6
SEPP practitioners. See also Sport psychologists
addressing ethical dilemmas, 329–30
competence of, 329–30
context-driven practice, 344–45
ethical challenges faced by, 326–28
ethical decision-making by, 328–29, 332–33
licensure, 324–25
professionalism of, 326–27
recognition of ethical dilemmas, 329–30
reflective and reflexive practice, 341–42
role of, 56–57
supervision (see Supervision)
surveys of, 327–28, 330
training, 330
work settings of, 328
shared efficacy, 6
shared goals, 25–26, 27, 28–29
shared leadership, 161–62, 165–67, 166f
shared zones of optimal functioning (SZOF), 157
Sharp, L., 353t
Sharp, L-A., 65t
shooters, 27, 48–50, 106–7
SIC (Sport Interference Checklist), 178–79
skill acquisition, 61, 93, 95–97
skilled motor performance. See also Expert performance
attention and, 18–20, 22t, 23–24
cortical activity with, 106–7
smart glasses, 128
smartphone apps, 299–301
SMHC (Sport Mental Health Continuum Short Form), 178–79
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 342–43
Smith, R.E., 252t, 278, 279–80, 282t
SMS-PA (State Mindfulness Scale for Physical Activity), 224–25, 232
SMTQ (Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire), 85–86
SNA (social network analysis), 164, 168–69
soccer, 81, 110–11
social cognitive theory (SCT), 3–4, 7t, 8–9, 312
social constructivism, 67
social factors
exercise behavior and, 208–9
injuries and, 298–99
in team collapse, 36
social media, athlete careers and, 272–73
social network analysis (SNA), 164, 168–69
social perceptions, 280, 281
social support
burnout and, 279–80, 283–84
coaches and, 152
coping with concussion, 294–95
leadership and, 162–63
Society for Psychophysiological Research, 119
Society for Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 46
sociocultural factors
in acculturative journeys, 337–38
body image pressures and, 179–80
chronic injury and, 298, 299
mental skills and, 62
in professionalization of youth sport, 254
socio-structural factors, 8–9
Sparks, C., 7t
special populations, 69t
specific traits, 135
Spirit of Sport, 310–12
sport
culture of, 83–85, 177–78, 183–84
diversification versus specialization in, 96–97
governing bodies, 254, 332–34
as integrative tool, 336–37
norms in, 299
professionalization in, 99
supervision and, 359–60
sport, exercise, and performance psychology (SEPP)
applied research in, 217–18
common ethical issues in, 324, 326–28
versus field of psychology, 323
practitioners in (see SEPP practitioners)
as profession, 324–25, 326–27, 328
research rigor in, 218
structural issues in, 332–34
sport career transitions and change
athlete adaptation to, 269, 271–72
career development and, 269
career trajectories and, 270–71
change events, 264, 265, 270–71
cultural transitions, 264–66
dual-career perspective, 264–65, 272
of Generation Z athletes, 272–73
globalization and, 272–73
junior-to-senior transition, 266
measurements of experiences, 270–71
mental skills training and, 69t
of nonathlete sport performers, 264–65, 266–67
non-normative and quasi-normative types of, 266
overview of, 264
retirement and, 69t, 264–65
social media and, 272–73
tailored support during, 273–74
transition process, 271
Sport Interference Checklist (SIC), 178–79
Sport Mental Health Continuum Short Form (SMHC), 178–79
Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), 85–86
sport psychogenetics, field of, 143–44
sport psychologists
addressing mental health issues, 186–87
characteristics, implications of, 70–71
ethics and, 324–25
knowledge areas, 61–62
role of, 61
in school settings, 188–89
service delivery, 63, 186–87
training of, 65, 351, 355–57 (see also Supervision)
working alliance, 71
work with adolescents, 69–70
sport psychology
accreditation programs in, 66
case conceptualization in, 66, 67
discipline of, 67
genetics, estrangement from, 136–37
interventions in, 63–64
issues in, 186–87
lack of diversity in, 336
mental skills and, 61
supervisor training in, 357
Sport Psychology Outcomes and Research Tool (SPORT), 178–79
sport psychophysiology, field of, 119–20
sport sampling, 96–97
sport science, 141–42
sportspersonship, 308–9, 312
SPORT (Sport Psychology Outcomes and Research Tool), 178–79
Stambulova, N.B., 273–74
state mindfulness, 223–26, 227–31, 233
State Mindfulness Scale for Physical Activity (SMS-PA), 224–25, 232
State of Mind Ireland, 177–78
statistical techniques, 10, 244–45
stigma
of doping, 314–15
injury reporting and, 300
of mental health issues, 83–84, 186
stimulus intake-rejection hypothesis, 119
stress
burnout and, 278, 279–80
coping strategies (see Coping)
heart-brain interactions during, 126
injuries and, 293–94, 298
mental toughness and, 78–79, 82–83
mindfulness-based stress reduction and, 180–81
tolerance, 229
stress-injury model, 293–94
Stroop test, 129
Strycharczyk, D., 80t
Stubbs, B., 211t
Student Athlete Relationships Inventory (SARI), 178–79
suicidal ideation, 42
supervision
active ingredients in, 358–59
amounts of, 354–55
context and, 359–60
culture and, 359–60
matching models to needs of trainees, 355–57
outcomes of, 350
overview of, 350
training of supervisors in, 357–58
types of, 351, 354–55
survey methods. See also Questionnaires
on doping, 314–15
sampling issues with, 327–28, 355
of SEPP practitioners, 327–28, 330
of youth, 259
Swann, C., 50t
synchronous communication, 171
SZOF (shared zones of optimal functioning), 157
tai chi, 233–34

talent. See also Expert performance
athlete development and, 94–95
identification, ethics of, 99–100
nature versus nurture and, 92–93
predictions of, 94
Tanay, G., 224–25
targeting tasks, 23
task-specific knowledge, 105–6
team atmosphere, 313–14
team captains, 162
team cognition, 148, 153
team culture, 72–73, 166–67
teams. See also Group dynamics
attention in, 25–26, 28–29
characteristics of, 166–67
choking under pressure, 36, 40–41
cohesion in, 11, 151–53, 163
collective efficacy in, 6, 10–11
coordination in, 148, 155–56
decision-making in, 110–11
demographic factors, 110–11
diversity in, 151
gaze behavior in, 25–26
mental models in, 110–11, 148, 153
resilience of, 149, 154–55
roles within, 152
situational characteristics, 166–67
structure of, 152
teamwork
collective efficacy and, 11–12
meta-theoretical model, 148–49
promotion of, 162–63
technology
in communications, 171
exercise adherence and, 212–13
for mobile data collection, 27, 109–10, 127
for neurophysiological measures, 27, 109–10, 127
smartphone apps and injuries, 299–301
use in studies of attention and performance, 24, 27
Teixeira, P.J., 211t
Tenenbaum, G., 107t
tennis players, 81, 254
theory of implicit abilities, 258–59
theory of planned behavior, 244
“think aloud” technique, 41
Toner, J., 22t
TOPPS (Optimum Performance Program in Sports), 180–81, 186–87
toughness, 82–83. See also Mental toughness
training. See also Practice; Professional training
adaptation, 136
evaluation, 64
genetic knowledge-based personalization of, 139–40
individual responses to, 278–79
load, 278–79, 281–82, 287–88
maladaptive responses to, 278–79
overreach training (see Overtraining)
periodization, 139–40
recovery and, 281–82, 285, 287–88, 289
trait mindfulness, 223–26, 227–30, 231–32
traits, 135, 136, 137
transactional leadership, 162–63, 165–66
transactive memory systems, 148
transformational leadership style, 152, 162–63, 165–66
traumatic brain injury. See Concussions
Tsafou, K.E., 224
Turner, M., 181t
twin studies, 77
unconscious processes, 19, 23

underperformance, 32. See also Choking under pressure
United States Tennis Association, 254
U.S. Presidential Executive Order #13824, 188–89
USA Hockey, 254
vagal nerve stimulation, 127

Valeeva, E.V., 138t
validity, 97–98, 218–19, 244–45. See also Ecological validity
values, 311, 312–13. See also Morality
Vater, C., 22t
Vella, S.A., 181t, 252t
ventilatory threshold (VT), 194–95, 198–99, 234
verbal persuasion, 4
vicarious experiences, 4
video-based studies, 41, 109–10, 111–12
virtual reality environments, 14, 27, 128
VIRTUE, 316–17
Visek, A.J., 252t
visual attention
decision-making and, 104–5
ecological validity of, 28
neural processes involved in, 26–27, 28–29
peripheral vision and, 24–25
in shared-goal situations, 25–26
visual pivot, 24–25
visual search, 20, 25
VNS (vagal nerve stimulation), 127
VT (ventilatory threshold), 194–95, 198–99, 234
WADA (World Anti- Doping Agency), 308

walking, 233–34
Wang, G., 138t
Watson, J.C., 353t
Watson, J.W., 325t
wearable technology, 212–13
WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), 72
Weiss, M.R., 252t
well-being, 298–99
Western culture, 311
Wiese-Bjornstal, D.M., 294–95
Williams, D.M., 7t, 196t
Williams, J.M., 293–94
Wimshurst, Z.L., 107t
Woods, Tiger, 96–97
World Anti- Doping Agency (WADA), 308
Wulf, G., 19–20, 22t
Yang, C., 227t

yoga, 226, 229–30, 233–34
youth
concussions in, 304
mental health issues among, 177–78, 185, 186, 257–58
obesity levels in, 255
physical inactivity in, 255
physical literacy, 255
refugees, 344–45
self-efficacy and physical activity in, 14, 15
stages of development, 258
surveys of, 259
youth sport
burnout in, 251
coaching of, 251, 258–59
demands of, 69–70
dropout in, 251
evaluation in, 251
fun and, 251
health-enhancing behaviors, effects on, 256–57
holistic approach to, 254
injuries in, 256, 298–99
life skills development and transfer in, 259–60
mental health and, 257–58
outcomes of, 250
physical activity levels, effects on, 255–57
professionalization of, 253–54
specialization versus diversification in, 96–97
state of the art on, 251
talent development, 99
Zenko, Z., 211t

Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology Research Directions To Advance The Field.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology Research Directions To Advance The Field.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology Research Directions To Advance The Field.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What topics are covered in the book?

What topics are covered in the book?

Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology

Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology

EDSON FILHO AND ITAY BASEVITCH

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2021

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

SECTION 1 PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING

SECTION 2 HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

SECTION 3 CULTURAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

125 Novel Research Questions to Guide Future Research

In Ancient Greece, thousands of people would visit the Temple of Delphi to

Socrates, the father of Western Philosophy, never ceased asking questions.

The rationalist Descartes taught us to use our reasoning to “doubt

Popperian Falsifiability and Kuhn’s Scientific Paradigm Shift: A

Karl Popper’s and Thomas Kuhn’s philosophical ideas are also an

What to Expect From This Book

Sport, exercise, and performance psychology researchers and practitioners

Nathalie André, PhD

Self-efficacy theory has been extensively studied as a cognitive explanation

State of the Art

Key Areas of Current Research

Questions to Move the Field Forward

3. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Might Teamwork

4. Methodological Question: How Can We Disentangle the

5. Theoretical and Methodological Question: What Do the

State of the Art

Attentional Instructions and Visual Attention

Internal/External Focus of Attention

Questions to Move the Field Forward

2. Applied and Theoretical Question: What Is the Role of

3. Applied and Theoretical Question: What Are the Mechanisms

4. Theoretical Question: What Are the Neural Correlates of

5. Applied and Methodological Question: What Do We Actually

State of the Art

Personality Characteristics of Choking

Neurophysiological Correlates of Choking

Collective Team Choking

1. Applied Question: How Do We Target Choking Interventions

2. Applied Question: How Do We Tailor Choking Interventions to

3. Theoretical and Applied Question: How Do

4. Applied Question: Which Social or Team-Related Factors

5. Applied and Methodological Question: Is There a Connection

The Society for Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology defines

State of the Art

The Integrated Model of Flow and Clutch States

Clutch performances have commonly been defined as “any performance

Questions to Move the Field Forward

2. Theoretical Question: What Is the Nature of Clutch

3. Theoretical Question: How and Why Do Flow and Clutch

4. Applied Question: Can Individuals Maximize Flow and Clutch

5. Applied Question: What Should Flow and Clutch State

State of the Art

Effective SP practice requires the ability to blend and balance knowledge

But Do We Measure What We NEED to Measure?

So How COULD We Measure It Better?