Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change [1 ed.] 0367223805, 9780367223809

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of illustrations
List of contributors
Foreword
Introduction: Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to
Positive Change
PART 1: Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives
1. Growth Following Adversity: A Conceptual Perspective
2. Growth Following Adversity: A Theoretical Perspective
3. Growth Following Adversity: A Methodological Perspective
4. “It’s Impacted Me Too”: Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In?
5. Growth, Resilience, and Thriving: A Jangle Fallacy?
PART 2: Cultural, Organizational, and Relational Perspectives
6. A Cultural Perspective on Growth Following Adversity: Using Autobiography to Understand Addiction Recovery through Sport
7. Can Sport Organizations Benefit from Adversity?: A Sensemaking Approach
.8 Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning in Sport?
9. Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport: The Parent–Child Relationship
10. Taking an Embodied Approach to Posttraumatic Growth Research and Sport
PART 3: Population Perspectives
11. Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences of Elite Sport Performers
12. Gender Differences in Athletes’ Experiences of Adversity and Growth
13. Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport Following Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Approach
14. Sport Injury-Related Growth: A Conceptual Foundation
15. Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth: Can Sport Play a Role in Growth Following Psychologically Traumatic Events?
PART 4: Applied Perspectives
16. Nurturing Growth in the Aftermath of Adversity: A Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice
17. Multilevel Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams: A Professional Practice Perspective
PART 5: Conclusion
18. Taking Stock and Making Hay: Growth Following Adversity Research in Applied Sport Psychology
Index

Citation preview

GROWTH FOLLOWING ADVERSITY IN SPORT

Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change is the first text to carefully consider the positive changes that may follow adverse experiences in sport at micro (e.g. individual), meso (e.g. dyadic, team), and macro levels (e.g. organizational, cultural). While remaining respectful of the despair and distress that can follow adversity, this comprehensive text aims to provide a narrative of hope to those who have experienced adversity in sport by showcasing the latest advances in research on growth following adversity. This book covers topics as diverse as: conceptual, theoretical, and methodological considerations; cultural, organizational, and relational perspectives; population-specific insights (e.g. gender, disability, youth); and applied implications (e.g. evidence-based, practice-based). Written and edited by a team of international experts and emerging talents from around the world, each chapter considers the nature and meaning of growth, contains a comprehensive review of empirical research or reflections from professional practice, and offers exciting, novel, and rigorous suggestions for future programs of research that aim to promote positive change in sport to support the safety, wellbeing, and welfare of the people who take part (e.g. athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers). Cutting-edge, timely, and comprehensive, Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change is essential reading for postgraduate students and scholars in the fields of sport psychology, injury and rehabilitation, sport theory and other related sport science disciplines. Ross Wadey is an Associate Professor in Sport Psychology at St Mary’s University, UK. Melissa Day is a Reader in Qualitative Sport Psychology at the University of Chichester, UK. Karen Howells is a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology at Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK.

GROWTH FOLLOWING ADVERSITY IN SPORT A Mechanism to Positive Change

Edited by Ross Wadey, Melissa Day and Karen Howells

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Taylor & Francis The right of Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-22380-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-05802-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

From Ross: To Becky, Phoebe, and George, for everything and forever. From Melissa: To Neal and Eddie, for everything you do. From Karen: To Ashleigh, Jess, and those amazing individuals who have supported me through the toughest of times.

CONTENTS

List of illustrations List of contributors Foreword Holly Bradshaw Introduction: Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

x xi xiii

xvi

PART 1

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives

1

1 Growth Following Adversity: A Conceptual Perspective Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

3

2 Growth Following Adversity: A Theoretical Perspective Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

19

3 Growth Following Adversity: A Methodological Perspective Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

34

4 “It’s Impacted Me Too”: Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

47

viii

Contents

5 Growth, Resilience, and Thriving: A Jangle Fallacy? Daniel J. Brown, Mustafa Sarkar, and Karen Howells

59

PART 2

Cultural, Organizational, and Relational Perspectives 6 A Cultural Perspective on Growth Following Adversity: Using Autobiography to Understand Addiction Recovery through Sport Kerry R. McGannon, Jenny McMahon, and McKenna L’Estrange 7 Can Sport Organizations Benefit from Adversity?: A Sensemaking Approach Christopher R. D. Wagstaff 8 Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning in Sport? Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

73

75

88 107

9 Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport: The Parent–Child Relationship Sam N. Thrower, Chris G. Harwood, and Kacey C. Neely

120

10 Taking an Embodied Approach to Posttraumatic Growth Research and Sport Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

131

PART 3

Population Perspectives

145

11 Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences of Elite Sport Performers Karen Howells

147

12 Gender Differences in Athletes’ Experiences of Adversity and Growth Kacey C. Neely, Katherine A. Tamminen, and Nicholas L. Holt

160

13 Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport Following Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Approach James Brighton

174

14 Sport Injury-Related Growth: A Conceptual Foundation Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

189

Contents ix

15 Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth: Can Sport Play a Role in Growth Following Psychologically Traumatic Events? William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

204

PART 4

Applied Perspectives

217

16 Nurturing Growth in the Aftermath of Adversity: A Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

219

17 Multilevel Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams: A Professional Practice Perspective Stephen D. Mellalieu

235

PART 5

Conclusion

255

18 Taking Stock and Making Hay: Growth Following Adversity Research in Applied Sport Psychology Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

257

Index

275

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1.1 Multilevel Model of Growth Following Adversity

11

Table

5.1 Current Understanding of the Relationships between Growth, Resilience, and Thriving

66

Boxes

17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4

239 242 245 248

CONTRIBUTORS

James Brighton, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK Daniel J. Brown, University of Portsmouth, UK Michael T. Chapman, Curtin University, Western Australia Melissa Day, University of Chichester, UK Ciara Everard, St Mary’s University, UK Daniel F. Gucciardi, Curtin University, Western Australia Chris G. Harwood, Loughborough University, UK Kate Hefferon, University of East London, UK Nicholas L. Holt, University of Alberta, Canada Karen Howells, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK Hanna Kampman, University of East London, UK McKenna L’Estrange, Laurentian University, Canada Laura Martinelli, Peter Symonds College, UK

xii List of contributors

William V. Massey, Oregon State University, USA Kerry R. McGannon, Laurentian University, Canada Jenny McMahon, University of Tasmania, Australia Stephen D. Mellalieu, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK Kacey C. Neely, University of Stirling, UK Mustafa Sarkar, Nottingham Trent University, UK Katherine A. Tamminen, University of Toronto, Canada Sam N. Thrower, University of Roehampton, UK Ross Wadey, St Mary’s University, UK Christopher R. D. Wagstaff, University of Portsmouth, UK Meredith A. Whitley, Adelphi University, UK

FOREWORD Holly Bradshaw

Holly Bradshaw, British pole vault record holder (indoor and outdoor), two-time Olympic finalist, European indoor and outdoor medalist, World Championship finalist. Like many other athletes, I have experienced considerable adversity throughout my ten-year career as a professional athlete. At the age of 18, after only having been in the sport of pole vault for six months, I suffered a major injury which resulted in surgery, meaning that I missed out on my first ever GB vest. I was representing Lancashire at one of the biggest sporting events I had ever attended (English Schools) when I heard a disconcerting snap in my foot during one of my jumps; I found out later that it was the navicular bone fracturing. This was totally heart-wrenching given how much my career was on the rise. I had dreamt my whole life that one day I might get the opportunity to represent my country and now I had actually achieved that, I was distraught that it was taken away. Sport always will be my passion! People have always called me a sport geek and it is so true, I am absolutely at my happiest when playing sport (especially pole vaulting), nothing else in the world seems to matters. So, when I have to miss even just one session it can be so hard mentally. During the years 2014–2017 I underwent four surgeries, watched the Commonwealth Games, World Championships, and European Championships from my sofa, and suffered months and months of disrupted training. In 2014, after struggling with back pain for nearly a year, I had to take a six month break from all physical activity to help the fracture in my back heal. At the time this was the hardest challenge I had ever faced; since the age of four years old, a week hasn’t gone by where I didn’t play some kind of sport! Little did I know at the time that the years following would challenge my relationship with sport in so many ways. After six months of torture, a scan revealed the fracture in my back hadn’t healed; surgery was my only option. This

xiv Foreword

was the fresh start I needed, I believed this would be the start of my return to the top, but in fact this surgery marked the start of a three-year struggle to get my body back on track. At every twist and turn when I thought things couldn’t get any worse, I would have a setback with a current injury or I would sustain a new injury. I experienced months and months of rehabilitation and days where I couldn’t walk pain-free. I questioned whether I wanted to do this anymore, whether all the physical and psychological pain was worth it. Over time I began to forget how good it felt to pole vault, what it was like to even enjoy training. Life felt bleak. The term adversity is synonymous with negativity, it is something most people actively try to avoid. I was quite successful as a young athlete and whenever I stumbled across adversity, whether injury, non-selection, sporting failure, it seemed like the world had ended and it was the worst thing ever! I used to struggle to think rationally and to see the light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how many people tried to explain the positives or try console me, I would just be an emotional wreck who would constantly think “what if?” Sporting failures were the worst for me to cope with, I remember one year I struggled at a World Championships finishing outside the medals in sixth place. I would just cry randomly. Even 72 hours after the competition when I was on a plane flying to Portugal, I would just randomly cry, people must have thought I was strange but I just couldn’t forget the trauma. However, as I grew older and more experienced at facing challenges, although adversity still sucked, I made it my mission to see it in a positive light and come out the other end stronger, my mum’s motto was “everything happens for a reason.” Despite suffering these negative events and low periods where I questioned both my body and my own abilities to get back to a world-class level, 2018 and 2019 were my most successful years to date in the sport. I truly believe it is the adversity I have faced along my journey that has shaped me and made me the successful athlete I am today. It has taken me over six years of my career to learn and accept that experiencing something negative doesn’t have to be doom and gloom. I am hopeful this book goes someway to helping others learn this process quicker, because if you approach a negative situation in a positive way, you can benefit and become a better athlete/person. When people ask what I would have done differently, I say “Nothing.” I don’t once regret or wish I hadn’t experienced any of my various adversities, as they have allowed me the opportunity to learn and develop as an athlete but also become a better person. Because of the situations I have faced, the knowledge I have of my body with regard to what I can and can’t do within a training session has improved, my communication skills, organization, and professionalism have developed dramatically; I now keep a very detailed daily training diary, a daily log of my wellbeing (e.g., heart rate, sleep, emotional state) and I have the confidence to speak out openly with my team about any concerns of mine. I have adopted a “no stone unturned” attitude, whereas before if something seemed labor-intensive I would avoid doing it and convince myself it won’t impact on my pole vault performance, when in fact with hindsight it did.

Foreword xv

When I had Achilles surgery for the second time in 2017, I knew I had overcome this very same surgery in 2016 and still managed to come out stronger, finishing fifth in the Rio Olympic Games. I took the view that I was faced with this injury again for a reason, not because was “unlucky” but because I had other areas that I needed to work on, so that’s exactly what I did, I worked on becoming the best version of myself – physical, mental, and behavioral. I learnt to listen to people’s constructive criticism and critique myself without being defensive, which is usually my default, and then set about making necessary changes. Throughout 2014–2016, when I would face adversity and have setbacks I would get jealous when witnessing people competing and I would feel physically sick looking through social media at their results. When I faced my injury problems in 2017, I could feel myself slipping back into this jealousy, but I caught myself and realized how embarrassed I was at the way I was behaving, so I made the effort to change! I read books on jealousy, listened to podcasts, did mindfulness most days until eventually after a month I got to a place where I enjoyed seeing my competitors jump well. I hated the way I felt when I was being jealous but was too immature to make a change, I just ignored the problem and hoped it would go away. I have learnt that if I am experiencing emotions in myself I don’t want, it is me that needs to make the change rather than hoping someone else will change. After finishing sixth in London at the age of 20 and fifth in Rio at still only 24 years old, I was left feeling incredibly down. Not being a medalist, I felt unimportant, like nobody cared! I returned to the UK from Rio on an aircraft where seats were allocated based on how the National Governing Body (NGB) deemed you performed, there was a team photo and Team GB events which only medalists were invited to, and while out and about and asked about the Olympics, I was greeted with “oh you didn’t win a medal … next time.” Finishing fifth in the biggest sporting event in the world didn’t feel like I had imagined, it was this heartache that sparked a passion to help highlight the post-Olympic blues and initiate changes so that a young athlete heading to the biggest sporting event on the planet isn’t left heartbroken. This same passion to help other athletes is what interested me in the growth following adversity topic area; surely highlighting to young, developing athletes that sport related negativity could be beneficial is crucial.

INTRODUCTION Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Growth following adversity is a bittersweet storyline that involves a shift away from dichotomous thinking (e.g., good versus bad, positives versus negatives) towards more dialectical thinking and an appreciation of paradox. The plot, “loss can produce gain” (Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018, p. 40), is synonymous with the philosophical work of Friedrich Nietzsche and his famous quote, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Put another way, amid the despair and distress that can often follow adverse experiences, individuals, relationships, teams, organizations, communities, and countries can also experience growth or positive change. For example, individuals can become more resilient, relationships can strengthen, teams can develop a more positive identity, organizations can improve their policies and practices, communities can galvanize a greater sense of connectedness, and countries can bring about greater social justice. Although adversity itself is never a good thing and no amount of growth can undo the pain of such experiences, the existence of growth can provide a narrative of hope to those who experience adversity. Given how research in applied sport psychology has recently portrayed the harsh reality of life for many involved in sport (viz. Cavallerio, Wadey, & Wagstaff, 2016; Feddersen, Morris, Littlewood, & Richardson, 2019; Kavanagh, Brown, & Jones, 2017; Owton, 2016; Kerr & Stirling, 2019), we believe the potential for growth following adversity in sport is timely. The purpose of this book, therefore, is to map the research landscape of growth following adversity to provide a platform for subsequent research that aims to promote positive change in sport to support the safety, wellbeing, and welfare of the people who take part (e.g., athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers). To be clear from the outset, our aim for this book is not to legitimize adversity and endorse the questionable acts of personnel, organizations, and countries on the underlying assumption that

Introduction xvii

adverse practices and conditions can be used to promote certain key performance indicators (e.g., heightened podium potentials, improved positioning in medal tables). We also do not recommend adversity as a pathway to growth; there are many other less painful ways to experience growth. Proactive efforts to inform policies and practices should be put in place to prevent adversity in sport wherever possible. However, it is important to recognize that not all adversity is avoidable; athletes will get injured, relationships will break down, teams will get relegated, sports will lose funding, and organizations will experience high staff turnover. Therefore, when adversity is unavoidable, we strongly believe the concept of growth can provide a powerful mechanism to create positive change at micro (i.e., individual), meso (i.e., dyadic, team), and macro levels (e.g., organizational, cultural). Given the current harsh reality of life for many involved in sport, it is important to stop, reflect, and learn from adverse experiences to carefully consider how we can create positive change. To illustrate, positive change following adversity in sport may involve prevention of avoidable future adversity by altering policies and practices (i.e., primary interventions), preparation for unavoidable adversity by building and strengthening personal and social resources (i.e., secondary interventions), and improved support to minimize the damaging consequences of adversity by helping individuals to manage more effectively in the aftermath (i.e., tertiary interventions). All in all, the concept of growth following adversity can provide a powerful mechanism to make sport a better place for all involved. Before we provide an overview of the chapters in this text, and given the numerous books on growth following adversity that are already available on the market (Akhtar, 2017; Berger, 2015; Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1999, 2006, 2013; Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2016; Joseph, 2011; Joseph & Linley, 2008; Park, Lechner, Antoni, & Stanton, 2009; Rendon, 2015; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995; Tedeschi & Moore, 2017; Tedeschi et al., 2018; Weiss & Berger, 2010), we first wanted to address the following question: Do we really need yet another book on growth following adversity? From our perspective, it is a resounding “yes.” This proposition is based on three grounds. First, research supports that growth following adversity is cultural (Weiss & Berger, 2010). Considering that sport has its own dominant cultures and within these macro-cultures are unique micro-cultures that vary across different sports, we believe a dedicated book on growth following adversity in sport is warranted. Second, many existing texts are exclusive rather than inclusive when it comes to what constitutes growth following adversity. For example, in the first sentence of Tedeschi et al.’s (2018) most recent text, Posttraumatic Growth: Theory, Research, and Applications, the authors conceptualize their meaning of growth, which sets the precedent for subsequent chapters. In this text, we have aimed to be more inclusive as we believe growth following adversity can mean different things to different individuals and that such diversity should be celebrated and encouraged because this will more likely lead to novel and exciting ways of understanding this phenomenon. Finally, growth following adversity has been conceptualized and theorized in previous texts as an individual (psychological) experience. For example, Jayawickreme and Blackie

xviii Introduction

(2016) in their text, Exploring the Psychological Benefits of Hardship: A Critical Reassessment of Posttraumatic Growth, delimit their conceptualization of growth to positive personality change (i.e., an enduring shift in the way people think, feel, and behave). This narrow perspective is surprising, especially given that adversity can be shared. Therefore, in this text, we believe it is important to consider how growth following adversity can be applied beyond an individual (psychological) experience (e.g., dyad, team, organizational, cultural growth). Aligning with the goal of the book and the preceding rationale, we sought to collate a series of chapters from world-renowned scholars and emerging talents to showcase the latest advances in growth following adversity in sport. The book is divided into five parts and comprises of 18 chapters that each consider the nature and meaning of growth, contain a comprehensive review of evidence-based practice or practice-based evidence, and offer exciting and novel future research directions to create positive change to support the safety, wellbeing, and welfare of the people who take part in sport (e.g., athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers). The first part, “Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives,” sets the scene for the book. The first three chapters written by us grapple with the various meanings of growth following adversity (Chapter 1); survey competing theories that seek to describe the factors influencing, and explain the processes underlying growth (Chapter 2); and consider the methodological choices available to researchers when conducting research on growth following adverse events (Chapter 3). Throughout these opening chapters, the resounding narrative is one of celebrating and encouraging diversity in how we conceptualize, theorize, and research growth following adversity. In Chapter 4, Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day expand our conceptual understanding even further by introducing the concept of vicarious growth and proposing a call for action for research to explore how growth might be experienced by others beyond those who have experienced the adversity directly. Chapter 5, written by Daniel Brown, Mustafa Sarkar, and Karen Howells, critically reflects on how growth relates to and differs from resilience and thriving. In doing so, the authors explore key features central to the formulation of the constructs (i.e., adversity, processes/mechanisms, levels of functioning) and encourage future researchers to further explore the relationships between them. The second part of this book, “Cultural, Organizational, and Relational Perspectives,” starts with Kerry McGannon, Jenny McMahon, and McKenna L’Estrange who, in Chapter 6, take a relativist and constructionist approach in their exploration of autobiographies as socioculturally constructed stories of life transformation through sport in relation to addiction as a form of adversity. In Chapter 7, Chris Wagstaff considers how sporting organizations can encounter substantial adversity. Drawing on the concept of organizational sensemaking, Chris considers the social process that occurs between individuals following organizational crises, whereby meaning is negotiated, contested, and mutually co-constructed. The chapter concludes by considering how organizational sensemaking can lead to organizational

Introduction xix

learning. Chapter 8, written by Michael Chapman and Daniel Gucciardi, considers collective experiences of adversity within sporting teams and how they can derail collective functioning as well as enhance certain qualities (e.g., team philosophy) and activities (e.g., corporation). The chapter further considers how shared adversity might promote these positive changes experienced by sporting teams. Sam Thrower, Chris Harwood, and Kacey Neely, in Chapter 9, consider shared and individual stressors experienced in youth sport by athletes and their parents. Adopting a dyadic perspective, the authors review studies that have explored how parent–child interactions following stressful events might facilitate dyad-level growth (e.g., enhanced parent–child relationship). The final chapter within this section by Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman, Chapter 10, considers trauma as an embodied experience. Informed by the theory of corporeal posttraumatic growth, the chapter focuses on corporeal elements of growth (e.g., new relationship with body) and situates these examples within sporting populations who have experienced significant adversity. The third part of the text addresses “Population Perspectives” of growth following adversity and starts with Karen Howells, who reviews the literature conducted with elite sport performers (Chapter 11). Drawing from her own systematic program of research and others, she considers the adversity experienced by elite athletes (i.e., during their childhood, early sporting experiences or as elite athletes). Following this, she considers the mechanisms (e.g., self-disclosure, social support) and indicators of growth (e.g., superior performance) in elite sport that extend the wider growth literature. In Chapter 12, Kacey Neely, Katherine Tamminen, and Nick Holt examine gender differences in athletes’ experiences of adversity and growth in sport. The evidence suggests that female athletes are at greater risk of certain types of adversity and experience more growth compared to their male counterparts. Reasons for these differences are suggested and novel avenues for future research are proposed. Chapter 13, written by James Brighton, draws on life history interviews with four athletes who became disabled following spinal cord injury (SCI). Taking the standpoint of story analyst, James considers the multiple storylines these individuals draw upon in their engagement in disability sport following SCI and how over time these cultural narratives enabled and/or constrained experiences of growth. Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard, in Chapter 14, start by reviewing research on growth following various sporting injuries. In doing so, they provide a conceptual foundation for this area of research moving forward. The authors then extend previous research by thematically synthesizing the qualitative findings and subsequently proposing four new dimensions of growth. The final chapter in this part by William Massey and Meredith Whitley, Chapter 15, reflects on the adverse experiences of children and youth. William and Meredith critically review research and practice on the role that sport and physical activity can play for children and youth who have experienced, or are currently experiencing, trauma to help ameliorate symptoms and nurture growth. Two organizations are profiled (Doc Wayne and Waves for Change) that take an evidence-informed approach in their work with children and youth affected by trauma. The chapter concludes outlining priority research areas within this domain.

xx Introduction

Part 4, “Applied Perspectives,” commences with Karen Howells and Ross Wadey, who provide a review of evidence-based interventions that aim to promote growth following adversity by synthesizing the wider growth literature (Chapter 16). From reviewing research outside of sport, recommendations are forwarded for the design (e.g., aim and scope) and content (e.g., types of interventions) of interventions in sport, as well as to identifying knowledge gaps for future research (e.g., interventions beyond intrapersonal outcomes). The authors also encourage adopting the principle of beneficence to promote a more critical and reflective approach to the uptake of growth following adversity research in sport. In Chapter 17, Stephen Mellalieu takes a professional-practice perspective and collates his observations and reflections on the adversity and growth witnessed while working within professional team sport environments in the United Kingdom over a 20-year period of sport psychology provision. Following an overview of his personal and professional background and personal consulting philosophy, he outlines the nature of adversity- and growth-related experiences he has witnessed across multiple levels. The narrative is also interspersed with vivid and rich descriptions to further illuminate his applied experiences to the reader. The chapter closes with considerations for future research, which, inter alia, includes the need for more practice-based models and ‘practical’ theories in relation to adversity and growth. The final part of the book is the “Conclusion.” In the final chapter, we close the book by taking stock of past work (i.e., first-wave research) with the goal of illuminating its strengths and shortcomings and suggesting how the strengths might be harnessed and the shortcomings alleviated to future work (i.e., secondwave research) on growth following adversity in sport (Chapter 18). We then consider how second-wave research can be more congruent with the broader objectives of the profession of applied sport psychology. Specifically, we consider how the concept of growth can support the (current) objectives of applied sport psychology to improve performance in sport and other domains, enhance health and wellbeing, and bring about social justice in and outside of sport.

References Akhtar, M. (2017). What is post-traumatic growth?London, UK: Watkins Media Limited. Berger, R. (2015). Stress, trauma, and posttraumatic growth: Social context, environment, and identities. New York, NY: Routledge. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1999). Facilitating posttraumatic growth: A clinician’s guide. New York, NY: Routledge. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2006). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2013). Posttraumatic growth in clinical practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Cavallerio, F., Wadey, R., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2016). Understanding overuse injuries in rhythmic gymnastics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2016.05.002.

Introduction xxi

Feddersen, N., Morris, R., Littlewood, M. A., & Richardson, D. J. (2019). The emergence and perpetuation of a destructive culture in elite sport in the United Kingdom. Sport In Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics. doi:10.1080/17430437.2019.1680639. Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. (2016). Exploring the psychological benefits of hardship: A critical reassessment of posttraumatic growth. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Joseph, S. (2011). What doesn’t kill us: A guide to overcoming adversity and moving forward. New York, NY: Basic Books. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2008). Trauma, recovery, and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic stress. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kavanagh, E., Brown, L., & Jones, I. (2017). Elite athletes’ experience of coping with emotional abuse in the coach-athlete relationship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 402–417. doi:10.1080/10413200.2017.1298165. Kerr, G., & Stirling, A. (2019). Where is safeguarding in sport psychology research and practice. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 367–384. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1559255. Owton, H. (2016). Sexual abuse in sport: A qualitative study. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Park, C., Lechner, S., Antoni, M. H., & Stanton, A. L. (2009). Medical illness and positive life change: Can crisis lead to personal transformation?Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rendon, J. (2015). Upside: The new science of post-traumatic growth. New York, NY: Touchstone. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Moore, B. A. (2017). The post-traumatic growth workbook: Coming through trauma wiser, stronger, and more resilient. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Weiss, T., & Berger, R. (2010). Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the globe. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

PART 1

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives

1 GROWTH FOLLOWING ADVERSITY A Conceptual Perspective Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Introduction As researchers who have heard countless stories of adversity in sport, as practitioners who have worked with sporting performers and practitioners to help manage the aftermath of adverse experiences, and as human beings who have encountered negative events in our own lives, we are convinced growth following adversity does exist. By growth, we broadly mean the potential to turn the most trying times around and developing as a result (e.g., athletes increasing their resilience, sporting teams working more collectively, organizations in sport improving policies and promoting social justice). However, as intuitive and enticing as the notion of growth following adversity may be to applied sport psychology researchers and practitioners, a closer inspection of the evidence base in sport reveals how it is peppered with conceptual ambiguity. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to take stock of the literature from a conceptual perspective by addressing a fundamental question: What is growth following adversity? The chapter is divided into two subsections, the first of which equips the reader with the multiple meanings of growth by unraveling the subtle differences in the various terms used to refer to the phenomenon (e.g., posttraumatic growth, stress-related growth, action-focused growth, benefit finding). Building upon this opening conceptual discussion, the second section critically considers two specific questions: “What is positive change?” and “Is growth more than an individual (psychological) experience?” Rather than striving for consensus on terminology, the chapter closes by celebrating and encouraging conceptual diversity in future research in applied sport psychology and beyond. But before addressing the purpose of this chapter, we first set the scene by providing a brief overview of the historical roots of growth following adversity to help contextualize and map the research landscape for readers who are unfamiliar with this area of research.

4 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

A Brief History Growth following adversity is not a new concept. For thousands of years, there have been stories written and told of the positive changes experienced by individuals and societies as a result of suffering and distress (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). To illustrate, the notion of growth has been referred to in the texts and teachings of many religions (e.g., Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam; Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018) and is reflected in many philosophical writings. The most cited philosophical work in this field of research is arguably that of Friedrich Nietzsche, perhaps because of his well-cited quotation: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” (see Joseph, 2012). Building upon these historical roots, several clinicians and scholars started to write about positive change following life crises in the twentieth century (e.g., Caplan, 1964; Dohrenwend, 1978; Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1961; Yalom, 1980) such as Viktor Frankl’s work on how he (a holocaust survivor) created meaning in the midst of significant trauma (Frankl, 1963). However, it was not until the 1990s that the first systematic programs of research on growth came to fruition (e.g., O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). Fueled by the emergence of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), research interest in the positive by-products of adversity accelerated in the twenty-first century and resulted in a voluminous and diverse body of literature. In an attempt to synthesize this burgeoning field of research, dedicated books (e.g., Joseph, 2012; Joseph & Linley, 2008; Park, Lechner, Antoni, & Stanton, 2009; Weiss & Berger, 2010), review papers (e.g., Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2009; Joseph & Linley, 2004; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), and journal commentaries (e.g., Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 56; European Journal of Personality, vol. 28; Psychological Inquiry, vol. 15) were published to help provide readers with a holistic understanding of the phenomena and to unravel several more nuanced and critical debates. But despite this increased research activity within several sub-disciplines of psychology, researchers in applied sport psychology were slow on the uptake to examine growth following adversity in sporting contexts. To illustrate, during this timeframe there were a few subtle suggestions and tentative findings that growth might be a recovery outcome following sport injury (e.g., Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Beck, 1997; Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, & LaMott, 1995) and that adversity could be a critical factor in talent development (e.g., Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008; Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). Building upon this early speculation, and a raised awareness of an everexpanding evidence base on growth in the wider literature, the next generation of scholars developed several dedicated programs of research in applied sport psychology in the twenty-first century that systematically investigated and theorized about whether adversity can indeed function as a catalyst for positive change. These included research on growth following adverse events with elite athletes (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016), injured athletes (e.g., Roy-Davis,

A Conceptual Perspective 5

Wadey, & Evans, 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2019), collegiate athletes (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012a, 2012b), and female athletes (e.g., Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2018), together with its implications for positive youth development (e.g., Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Massey & Whitley, 2016; Tamminen & Neely, 2016). However, while this increased research interest has led to a voluminous body of research (see Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017) and the phenomenon becoming a more established field of inquiry in applied sport psychology, there remains conceptual ambiguity about the meaning of growth following adversity. The following section takes stock of the literature from a conceptual perspective by clarifying the various terms that have been used to refer to the phenomenon.

Growth Following Adversity: What Is It? As in applied sport psychology research, a critical perusal of the wider literature on growth following adversity also reveals conceptual ambiguity. At a surface level, such ambiguity can be evidenced from the various labels that have been used to refer to the phenomenon including, inter alia, posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), stress-related growth (SRG; Park et al., 1996), and benefit finding (Affleck & Tennen, 1996). While some researchers have suggested these terms broadly refer to the same underlying phenomena (e.g., Joseph, Linley, & Harris, 2004), a closer inspection reveals subtle differences, which revolve around the severity of the adversity (e.g., traumatic versus stressful events), validity of growth reports (e.g., perceived versus actual growth), and the types of positive change experienced (e.g., cognitive, emotional, physical, behavioral). We now turn to unraveling the differences between these terms. One of the most commonly used and accepted terms in the literature is PTG. In 1995, Tedeschi and Calhoun coined the term and defined it as positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Specifically, PTG is reported to be concerned with seismic events (i.e., traumatic events that shatter a person’s assumptive world) that cause profound and transformative changes (i.e., actual and enduring growth) in cognitive and emotional life that are likely to have behavioral implications (Tedeschi et al., 2018). These changes have been identified to occur across five dimensions: relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual and existential change, and appreciation of life (see Tedeschi, Cann, Taku, Senol‐Durak, & Calhoun, 2017). The authors also delimited their definition of PTG by reporting how the concept is not concerned with less stressful events and changes that are not veridical or transformative in nature. Yet, how to operationalize what is (and is not) traumatic and veridical continues to vex researchers (e.g., Coyne & Tennen, 2010; Tennen & Affleck, 2002; Tedeschi et al., 2018). Alternative conceptual approaches taken by other researchers include reframing how PTG is conceptualized or proposing a new phenomenon that is distinguishable

6 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

from Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1995) original conceptualization. For example, Joseph and Linley (2004, 2005) argued PTG should be reframed as psychological (eudemonic) wellbeing. The authors proposed the five domains of PTG are equivalent to the six psychological wellbeing domains as conceptualized by Ryff (1989): self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy, and positive relationships with others. In contrast, other researchers have proposed new phenomena by constructing their own labels, definitions, and conceptualizations of growth. For instance, Park et al. (1996) were interested with negative events that are less stressful than “seismic” events and coined the term SRG, which was defined as veridical positive changes that are more common and less dramatic or radical than PTG (Park, 2009). Specifically, SRG is concerned with attempts to make meaning by reappraising stressors or one’s global beliefs and goals resulting in relatively permanent changes in personal resources, social relationships, and coping skills. For researchers less concerned with the severity of the adversity (e.g., seismic events, less stressful events), Affleck and Tennen (1996) coined two new terms: benefit finding (i.e., adaptive beliefs about the benefits of adversity) and benefit reminding (i.e., the use of knowledge from benefit finding as a deliberate strategy to cope during difficult times). Unlike PTG, for example, which is only concerned with profound and transformative changes (i.e., actual and enduring growth), benefit finding refers to perceptions of growth that are not always transformative (Davis & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009). In a similar vein, like benefit reminding, which is defined as a coping strategy,1 other researchers have also represented growth following adversity to be a coping strategy or style. For example, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) proposed a dimension of coping labelled “positive reinterpretation and growth,” which was defined as “construing a stressful transaction in positive terms” (p. 269). Another conceptual approach taken by researchers, who are more concerned with illusory reports of growth, was to extend Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1995) original conceptualization of PTG. This conceptual approach is predicated on the assumption that self-reported PTG does not always reflect authentic or real growth. To clarify, Maercker and Zoellner (2004) proposed PTG to have two sides: a functional, self-transcending, or constructive side (i.e., constructive PTG) as defined by Tedeschi and Calhoun and an illusory, self-deceptive, or dysfunctional side (i.e., illusory PTG). It is proposed that illusory PTG is self-perceived growth that is self-deceptive and used to avoid a painful reality. In the short term, it can make people feel good, albeit temporally, but may be maladaptive in the long term because the person is avoiding dealing with their new reality. A final way of conceptualizing growth in the literature has been to broaden or narrow the prior conceptualizations. For example, Park (2010) broadly defined growth as meanings made (i.e., the products of meaning-making processes), which encapsulate the five dimensions of PTG reported by Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) with other variables (e.g., sense-making, acceptance, reattributions). Other

A Conceptual Perspective 7

researchers who have taken a narrower perspective, for example, include: (a) Hobfoll et al. (2007), who advocated an action-focused approach to PTG that emphasizes behavioral change (rather than cognitive and emotional) as an indicator of actual and enduring growth; (b) Hefferon (2012) who proposed the concept of corporeal PTG (e.g., a new relationship with one’s body) that is a more embodied dimension of growth that accounts for the corporeality of traumas; (c) Jayawickreme and Blackie (2014) who defined PTG explicitly as personality change (i.e., an enduring shift in the way people think, feel, and behave following a traumatic event); and (d) Pals and McAdams (2004) who proposed that PTG is a revision in one’s life narrative. For example, McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, and Bowman (2001) coined the term redemptive narrative, which tells of a “transition from a bad, affectively negative life scene to a subsequent good, affectively positive life scene. The bad is redeemed, salvaged, mitigated, or made better in light of the ensuing good” (p. 474). Thus, according to this perspective, PTG could be an expression of a revision in one’s life narrative that can act as the catalyst for cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral changes. What we can learn from the diverse ways that growth has been labeled, defined, and conceptualized is that it clearly means different things to different researchers. Given this diversity, some researchers have argued for “consensus on terminology” (Park, 2009, p. 15), “a gold standard definition” (Joseph, Murphy, & Regel, 2012, p. 318), and “a concrete and agreed-upon definition of the construct” (Tennen, 2013; cited in Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014, p. 313). However, we disagree. For us, such diversity should be celebrated and encouraged because we believe this will more likely lead to novel and exciting ways of understanding the phenomenon. That said, this does not mean that anything goes. It is important that researchers are clear how they define and conceptualize growth following adversity in their programs of research. Heeding this recommendation ourselves, the rationale for employing the term growth following adversity for the title of this book and this chapter was for the benefit of inclusivity. Given the diverse chapters in this book, terms such as PTG, SRG, or benefit finding would have restricted the focus on the book to “seismic” events, less stressful events, or perceptions of change, respectively. In contrast, growth following adversity herein reflects the broadest sense of the term and encapsulates its multiple meanings. Furthermore, unlike PTG and SRG, which are concerned with event severity and infer a threshold (i.e., “seismic” and traumatic stressors or less stressful and more “ordinary” stressors, respectively), we employ the term adversity because it is less stringent and more concerned with the experience of the event rather than the event itself; as adversity is a relational state between an individual and their environment (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007).

Other Conceptual Considerations While the preceding discourse provides the reader with a broad understanding of the various meanings of growth, this section aims to take a more in-depth and critical analysis of the conceptualizations of growth following adversity. Considering

8 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

that various publications already exist on several pertinent conceptual issues such as the veracity of growth (e.g., Tennen & Affleck, 2002), whether growth is a process and/or an outcome (e.g., Tedeschi et al., 2018), the dimensionality of growth (e.g., Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014), and cultural conceptual considerations (e.g., Kashyap & Hussain, 2018), rather than just paraphrasing these well-articulated debates here, this section aims to critically consider two novel conceptual considerations that have received no attention in applied sport psychology and minimal attention in the wider growth literature: “What is positive change?” and “Is growth more than an individual (psychological) experience?” In doing so, we hope to provoke discussion, provide a platform for future research, and ultimately set up the remaining chapters in this book.

What Is Positive Change? Growth is fundamentally about positive change in the aftermath of adversity. Yet, the idea of positive change raises several intriguing questions: What does change mean? How much change is enough? What is deemed as positive? Regarding the meaning of change, it is interesting to observe how researchers view change because this has important theoretical and methodological implications. Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004), for example, reported that growth, “describes the experience of individuals whose development, at least in some areas, has surpassed what was present before the struggle with crisis occurred” (p. 4). By surpassed, Tedeschi and Calhoun view change as that which goes, “beyond what was the previous status quo. PTG is not simply a return to baseline – it is an experience of improvement that for some persons is deeply profound” (p. 4). Here, change is concerned with rebuilding life as we once knew it and moving beyond previous levels of functioning (e.g., out with the old, and in with the new), which is a view adopted by many scholars who are concerned with identifying new ways of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving following adversity (e.g., Hefferon et al., 2009; Linley & Joseph, 2004). However, for some, this view of change has been criticized to be overly restrictive (e.g., Aldwin & Levenson, 2004; Campbell, Brunell, & Foster, 2004; McMillen, 2004; Janoff-Bulman, 2004). Other researchers have adopted alternative views of change by recommending and/or identifying positive changes following adverse events that include a strengthening or reinforcing of pre-adversity beliefs and coping resources, a recalling of pre-adversity values or lessons learned from previous adversities and acting upon them, a heightened awareness of themselves and their pre-adversity capabilities, and slight modifications to one’s global beliefs and goals (e.g., Davis & NolenHoeksema, 2009; Janoff-Bulman, 2004; McMillen, 2004; Park & Folkman, 1997; Seery, Leo, Lupien, Kondrak, & Almonte, 2013; Wortman, 2004). These examples of change do not reflect the rebuilding of a person’s fundamental assumptions about themselves and their worlds that Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) refer to when describing PTG. Thus, these examples offer alternative ways of viewing

A Conceptual Perspective 9

change in the aftermath of adversity. However, it is likely that some might argue that these changes are less transformative than PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), which begs the following questions: How much change is enough to qualify as growth? Is one positive change enough? Should there be changes across all the assessed dimensions? Or might it be better to report that growth has occurred when, on balance, there have been more positive changes than negative changes? Answers to these questions are complex and warrant future research attention. To shed some light on these questions, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) originally proposed that to qualify as PTG the change should be transformative (i.e., a significant amount of change in one’s beliefs about the world and themselves), whereas other researchers have accounted for less significant and more transient minor positive changes, which are argued to be a more common experience (e.g., Davis & NolenHoeksema, 2009; Park & Folkman, 1997). Yet, distinguishing between magnitudes of change represents a challenge for researchers. One way of approaching this has been to theorize about the underlying processes of change (for a detailed theoretical discussion, see Chapter 2). For example, Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (2004) functional descriptive model hypothesizes that transformative change arises following “seismic” events. However, recent empirical evidence suggests that moderate (rather than severe) levels of adversity are more likely to lead to growth (e.g., Levine, Laufer, Hamama-Raz, Stein, & Solomon, 2008; Wadey, Evans, Hanton, Sarkar, & Oliver 2019). Another way of accounting for different magnitudes of change is to consider how the concept is operationalized. For example, the most commonly used measure of growth is the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). The PTGI required participants to indicate on a six-point Likert scale the degree to which they have positively changed from 0 (“I did not experience this change as a result of my crisis”) to 5 (“I experienced this change to a very great degree as a result of my crisis”). However, Wortman (2004) argued that no information is obtained from the PTGI to indicate whether this change is judged as significant or meaningful by the respondent. Furthermore, Tedeschi et al. (2018) recently reported there are no established cut-offs to signal how much change is enough to qualify as growth. How to operationally distinguish between differences in the magnitude of change therefore warrants further consideration. Adding further complexity to the conceptualization of this phenomenon is what counts as positive change. Following a review of research on positive changes stemming from encounters with trauma, the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) predetermines positive change to mean increased personal strength, positive changes in relationships, identification of new possibilities for one’s life, a greater appreciation of all things that life has to offer, and a stronger religious faith. Arguably, this perspective of positive change is concerned with what people gain from the experience. However, certain individuals might also interpret a loss as a gain or positive change. For example, a loss of faith or a termination of a destructive relationship has been interpreted by some as positive changes (Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2019). Looking at this debate from another perspective,

10 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Jayawickreme and Blackie’s (2014) conceptualization of PTG identifies positive change as comprising changes in personality. However, Tedeschi et al. (2018) questioned: What constitutes positive personality change? Is becoming more or less optimistic positive personality change? Is becoming more or less pessimistic positive personality change? Answers to these questions are complex and likely to be based on personal, contextual, cultural, and historical factors. To provoke further conceptual discussion on what counts as positive change, three considerations are offered here. First, researchers need to reflect on who decides what is positive. Is it the researchers themselves (i.e., a top-down perspective), the participants (i.e., a bottom-up perspective), or both? Second, researchers need to be reflexive about the inherent value judgments they and their participants are making by deeming a change following adversity to be positive. Where do these value judgments originate from? Finally, it might be that future researchers move away from more dichotomous thinking (i.e., positive versus negative) towards more dialectical thinking that involves holding opposing viewpoints simultaneously. This perspective is perhaps best articulated by Tedeschi et al. (2018): Perhaps there is growth in the realization and acceptance that bad things happen to good people, that sometimes bad people do well in life despite hurting others, that the world is not always fair and just, and that natural and manmade disasters both destroy lives. Just as there is no answer for what constitutes the right beliefs, there is probably no answer for what constitutes “positive” change that is applicable to all. (p. 197–198)

Is Growth More than an Individual (Psychological) Experience? The concept of growth following adversity has been conceptualized, theorized, measured, and studied primarily as an individual (psychological) experience. To illustrate, Jayawickreme and Blackie (2014) delimited their conceptualization of growth to positive personality change (i.e., an enduring shift in the way people think, feel, and behave), Joseph and Linley (2005) conceptualized growth as akin to increases in psychological wellbeing (e.g., self-acceptance, personal growth, autonomy), and Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) referred to growth as a personally transformative experience. This narrow perspective is surprising, especially given that adversity can be shared. To offer some sporting examples here, adversity has been identified to be experienced within dyads (e.g., interpersonal conflict; Wachsmuth, Jowett, & Harwood, 2018), teams (e.g., team relegation; Morgan, Fletcher, & Sarkar, 2017), organizations (e.g., high turnover of performance department staff; Wagstaff, Gilmore, & Thelwell, 2015), communities (e.g., Boston Marathon bombing; Timm, Kamphoff, Galli, & Gonzalez, 2017), and countries, such as the recent suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee from the Tokyo Olympic Games. Therefore, it is important to consider how the concept of growth could be

A Conceptual Perspective 11

applied beyond an individual (psychological) experience to help identify other ways of promoting positive change in sport. To help stimulate future research in a sport context and inform the remaining narrative in this subsection, Figure 1.1 presents a Multilevel Model of Growth Following Adversity, thereby extending the conceptualization of growth across five relational levels of analyses. The first level in this model is intrapersonal (see Chapters 10–15), which accounts for within person variation and delimits growth as an individual experience (viz. Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014; Joseph & Linley, 2005; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Some researchers have also divided this level of analysis into global (macro) and situational (micro) dimensions of growth (Linley, Andrews, & Joseph, 2007; Park, 2010). Arguably, theories on growth following adversity largely operate at this level of analysis (see Chapter 2). The second level is interpersonal and accounts for between-person variation and social networks (e.g., parent–athlete, coach–athlete). Here, growth could be experienced indirectly (i.e., vicarious growth; see Chapter 4) and at a dyad-level (i.e., shared experiences; see Chapter 9). Indeed, Berger (2015) reported that when people struggle together to overcome a significant adversity, they can report their relationship to have strengthened. Examples of preliminary studies that operate at this level include Mosher et al.’s (2017) research on patient–caregiver dyads, and Salim and Wadey’s (2019) gratitude intervention that facilitated dyad-level growth (e.g., spending more time together).

FIGURE 1.1

Multilevel Model of Growth Following Adversity

12 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

The third level operates at a team or group level of analysis (see Chapters 7 and 8). Given the few studies that have examined the concept of growth in sporting teams (e.g., athletic teams, sport science teams, sports medicine teams), future research in applied sport psychology at this level of analysis could consider the transferability of existing research on families. For example, Berger and Weiss (2009) expanded Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1995) functional descriptive model to a family-systems level, and proposed family-level growth dimensions: positive changes in the family’s identity and legacy, member’s relationships with each other and with extended family and friends, and the family’s belief system and priorities in life. Dimensions of team-level growth in sport warrants further investigation. The fourth level is concerned with organizational-level growth (see Chapter 7). Tedeschi et al. (2018) reported, Just as individuals can be stronger as a result of struggling with a potentially traumatic life event, both public and private organizations can be stronger (e.g., more sustainable, connected, productive) as a result of their crises, which may provide more opportunities to improve the work environment, foster work engagement, and build stronger relationships with community and other organizations. (p. 176) Given the recent increased volume of research dedicated to organizational psychology in sport (viz. Wagstaff, 2016), exploring growth at an organizational level represents an exciting avenue for future research. Examples of preliminary studies that operate at this level of analysis include Haque, TitiAmayah, and Liu’s (2016) study on the role of vision in organizational readiness for change and growth, and Wagstaff et al.’s (2015) study on organizational change that identified a four-phase model for change: anticipation and uncertainty, upheaval and realization, integration and experimentation, and normalization and learning (e.g., organizational growth). The final level of analysis is social-cultural growth (e.g., community, societies, and culture; see Chapters 6 and 18). Here, researchers might be interested in cultural narratives of growth that circulate in certain communities and societies that do things on, in, and for its members (e.g., redemptive narrative; McAdams et al., 2001); social-level descriptors of growth such as improved social justice (see Schinke et al., 2018) or an increase sense of connectedness among community groups, new opportunities that could have not been available without the crisis, and a sense of trust or confidence in the capability of the community (Tedeschi et al., 2018); or exploring the nature and meaning of growth across cultures (Weiss & Berger, 2010). To illustrate, growth dimensions have been found to vary crossculturally. For example, the original five-factor structure of the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) has been identified to have three-factors in the Turkish version (Dirik & Karanci, 2008), four in the Japanese version (Taku et al., 2007), and an alternative five-factor structure in the Greek version (Mystakidou, Tsilika, Parpa,

A Conceptual Perspective 13

Galanos, & Vlahos, 2008). Other researchers have also added additional dimensions that are more appropriate to their participants (e.g., patience; Abraído-Lanza, Guier, & Colón, 1998), and have found the same dimensions to mean different things across cultures. For example, Shakespeare-Finch and Copping (2006) identified that in the original PTGI, compassion is incorporated into the relating to others dimension, assuming having more compassion will relate to existing relationships with other people. However, for certain cultures, compassion can reflect a personal philosophy (see Weiss & Berger, 2010). Moving beyond an intrapersonal level of analysis represents unchartered terrain in applied sport psychology and the wider growth literature. We hope the introduction of the Multilevel Model of Growth Following Adversity (Figure 1.1) encourages researchers in applied sport psychology (and beyond) to move away from the prevailing examination of growth at an individual level, towards a more inclusive and multilevel conceptualization that spans micro (i.e., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro (e.g., organizational, social) dimensions. To be clear, this model is not intended to detract from the study of growth at an intrapersonal level, quite the contrary, but to reflect the various levels of growth that can help to provide a more critical and nuanced understanding of growth following adversity.

Conclusion This chapter has reviewed the multiple meanings of growth following adversity. Rather than striving for consensus on terminology, we believe these diverse meanings should be celebrated and encouraged rather than stifled. Certain researchers may be more concerned with personality change (e.g., Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014), some more interested in cultural narratives (Pals & McAdams, 2004), whereas others might consider how these multiple meanings relate to and affect one another. The point is that researchers need to be clear on how they define and conceptualize growth following adversity and be reflexive in the inherent value judgments made by deeming change following adversity to be positive.

Note 1 Benefit finding can also be construed as a coping strategy (Tennen & Affleck, 2002)

References Abraído-Lanza, A. F., Guier, C., & Colón, R. M. (1998). Psychological thriving among Latinas with chronic illness. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 405–424. doi:10.1111/j.15404560.1887.tb01227.x. Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (1996). Constructing benefits from adversity: Adaptation significance and dispositional underpinning. Journal of Personality, 64, 899–922. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00948.x.

14 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Aldwin, C., & Levenson, M. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: A developmental perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 19–22. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447195. Berger, R. (2015). Stress, trauma and posttraumatic growth: Social context, environment and identities. New York, NY: Routledge. Berger, R., & Weiss, T. (2009). The posttraumatic growth model: An expansion to the family system. Traumatology, 15(1), 63–74. doi:10.1177/1534765608323499. Campbell, W., Brunell, A., & Foster, J. (2004). Sitting here in limbo: Ego shock and posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 22–26. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/ 20447196. Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. Oxford, UK: Basic Books. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267. Collins, D., & MacNamara, A. (2012). The rocky road to the top: why talent needs trauma. Sports Medicine, 42, 907–914. doi:10.2165/11635140-000000000-00000. Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The development and maintenance of mental toughness: Perspective of elite performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 83–95. doi:10.1080/02640410701310958. Coyne, J. C., & Tennen, H. (2010). Positive psychology in cancer care: Bad science, exaggerated claims, and unproven medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39, 16–26. doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9154-z. Davis, C. G., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2009). Making sense of loss, perceiving benefits, and posttraumatic growth. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 641–649). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dirik, G. & Karanci, A. N. (2008). Variables related to posttraumatic growth in Turkish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 15, 193–203. doi:10.1007/s10880-008-9115-x. Dohrenwend, B. S. (1978). Social stress and community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00890095. Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: Revised and updated. New York, NY. WW Publisher. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012a). “It was hard, but it was good”: A qualitative exploration of stress-related growth in Division I intercollegiate athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3, 297–319. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.693524. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012b). Can good come from bad? An examination of adversarial growth in Division I NCAA athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 5, 199–212. doi:10.1123/jis.5.2.199. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic Champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. doi:10.1080/10413200290103482. Haque, M. D., TitiAmayah, A., & Liu, L. (2016). The role of vision in organizational readiness for change and growth. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 983–999. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-2015-0003. Hefferon, K. (2012). Bringing back the body into positive psychology: The theory of corporeal posttraumatic growth in breast cancer survivorship. Psychology, 3, 1238–1242. doi:10.4236/psych.2012.312A183.

A Conceptual Perspective 15

Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2009). Post-traumatic growth and life threatening physical illness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 343–378. doi:10.1348/135910708X332936. Hobfoll, S. E., Hall, B. J., Canetti-Nisim, D., Galea, S., Johnson, R., & Palmieri, P. A. (2007). Refining our understanding of traumatic growth in the face of terrorism: Moving from meaning cognitions to doing what is meaningful. Applied Psychology, 56, 345–366. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00292.x. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173–186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60, 1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2648.2007.04412.x. Janoff-Bulman, R. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Three explanatory models. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 30–34. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447198. Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. (2014). Posttraumatic growth as positive personality change: Evidence, controversies and future directions. European Journal of Personality, 28, 312–331. doi:10.1002/per.1963. Joseph, S. (2012). What doesn’t kill us: The new psychology of posttraumatic growth. New York, NY: Basic Books. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037%2F1089-2680.9.3.262. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2008). Trauma, recovery, and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic stress. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Joseph, S., Linley, P. A., & Harris, G. J. (2004). Understanding positive change following trauma and adversity: Structural clarification. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 83–96. doi:10.1080/15325020490890741. Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Regel, S. (2012). An affective-cognitive processing model of posttraumatic growth. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19, 316–325. doi:10.1002/cpp.1798. Kashyap, S., & Hussain, D. (2018). Cross-cultural challenges to the construct “posttraumatic growth.” Journal of Loss and Trauma, 23, 51–69. doi:10.1080/15325024.2017.1422234. Levine, S. Z., Laufer, A., Hamama-Raz, Y., Stein, E., & Solomon, Z. (2008). Posttraumatic growth in adolescence: Examining its components and relationships with PTSD. British Journal of Development Psychology, 21, 492–496. doi:10.1002/jts.20361. Linley, P. A., Andrews, L., & Joseph, S. (2007). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 12, 321–332. doi:10.1080/ 15325020601162823. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e.

16 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Maercker, A., & Zoellner, T. (2004). The Janus face of self-perceived growth: Toward a two-component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 41–48. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447200. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. Oxford, UK: Harpers. Massey, W. V., & Whitley, M. A. (2016). The role of sport for youth amidst trauma and chaos. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health, 8, 487–504. doi:10.1080/ 2159676X.2016.1204351. McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A. H., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and then relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 474–485. doi:10.1177/ 0146167201274008. McMillen, J. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: What’s it all about? Psychological Inquiry, 15, 48–52. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447201. Morgan, P, 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. Mosher, C. E., Adams, R. N., Helft, P. R., O’Neil, B. H., Shahda, S., Rattray, N. A., & Champion, V. L. (2017). Positive changes among patients with advanced colorectal cancer and their family caregivers: A qualitative analysis. Psychology & Health, 32, 94–109. doi:10.1080/08870446.2016.1247839. Mystakidou, K., Tsilika, E., Parpa, E., Galanos, A., & Vlahos, L. (2008). Post-traumatic growth in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 633–646. doi:10.1348/135910707X246177. Neely, K. C., Dunn, J. G. H., McHugh, T. F., & Holt, N. L. (2018). Female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following deselection in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 40, 173–185. doi:10.1123/jsep.2017-0136. O’Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in response to challenge: An opportunity for a paradigm shift in women’s health. Women’s Health, 1, 121–142. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9373376. Pals, J. L., & McAdams, D. P. (2004). The transformed self: A narrative understanding of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 65–69. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/20447204. Park, C. L. (2009). Overview of theoretical perspectives. In C. L. Park, S. C. Lechner, M. H. Antoni, & A. L. Stanton (Eds.), Medical illness and positive life change: Can crisis lead to personal transformation? (pp. 11–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effect on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257–301.doi:10.1037/a0018301. Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x. Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 30, 115–144. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.115. Park, C. L., Lechner, S. C., Antoni, M. H., & Stanton, A. L. (2009). Medical illness and positive life change: Can crisis lead to personal transformation?Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

A Conceptual Perspective 17

Roy-Davis, K., Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2017). A grounded theory of sport injury-related growth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 35–52. doi:10.1037/spy0000080. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2019). Using gratitude to promote sport injury-related growth. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1626515. Schinke, R. J., Middleton, T., Peterson, B., Kao, S., Lefebvre, D., & Habra, B. (2018). Social justice in sport and exercise psychology: A position statement. Quest, 71, 163–174. doi:10.1080/00336297.2018.1544572. Seery, M. D., Leo, R. J., Lupien, S. P., Kondrak, C. L., & Almonte, J. L. (2013). An upside to adversity? Moderate cumulative lifetime adversity in associated with resilient responses in the face of controlled stressors. Psychological Science, 7, 1181–1189. doi:10.1177%2F0956797612469210. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5. Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Copping, A. (2006). A grounded theory approach to understanding cultural differences in posttraumatic growth. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 11, 355–371. doi:10.1080/15325020600671949. Taku, K., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., Gil-Rivas, V., Kilmer, R. P., & Cann, A. (2007). Examining posttraumatic growth among Japanese university students. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 20, 353–367. doi:10.1080/10615800701295007. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002. Tamminen, K. A., & Neely, K. C. (2016). Positive growth in sport. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth development through sport (pp. 193–204). New York, NY: Routledge. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/ jts.2490090305. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R. G., Cann, A., Taku, K., Senol-Durak, E., & Calhoun, L. G. (2017). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: A revision integrating existential and spiritual change. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30, 11–18. doi:10.1002/jts.22155. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2002). Benefit-finding and benefit-reminding. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 584–597). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Timm, K., Kamphoff, C., Galli, N., & Gonzalez, S. P. (2017). Resilience and growth in marathon runners in the aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. The Sport Psychologist, 31(1), 42–55. doi:10.1123/tsp.2015-0053. Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to season-ending injuries. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 229–248. doi:10.1123/jsep.19.3.229.

18 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S., & Harwood, C. G. (2018). On understanding the nature of interpersonal conflict between coaches and athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36, 1955–1962. doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1428882. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Hanton, S., Sarkar, M., & Oliver, H. (2019). Can preinjury adversity affect postinjury responses? A 5-year prospective, multi-study analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 21, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01411. Wagstaff, C R. D. (2016). The organizational psychology of sport: Key issues and practical applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Wagstaff, C., Gilmore, S., & Thelwell, R. C. (2015). Sport medicine and sport science practitioners’ experiences of organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25, 685–698. doi:10.1111/sms.12340. Weiss, T., & Berger, R. (2010). Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the globe. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., & LaMott, E. E. (1995). A model of psychologic response to athletic injury and rehabilitation. Athletic Training: Sports Health Care Perspectives, 1, 16–30. Wortman, C. B. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Progress and problems. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 81–90. Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

2 GROWTH FOLLOWING ADVERSITY A Theoretical Perspective Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

Introduction Anecdotal evidence, religious doctrine, and philosophical writings collectively contribute to a powerful and pervasive cultural script about how individuals, dyads, teams, organizations, and societies “should” respond to adversity, and how they may manage and grow from the ensuing aftermath. An expectation that we can identify positive outcomes after adversity has been incorporated into in our collective consciousness, and internalized as part of our understanding of how we should respond to adversity. These messages are promulgated through a diverse range of media, from humorous internet memes to social media posts, and from religious canons to published memoirs. This pervasive cultural script of growth following adversity that is present across cultures has been appropriated by the wider sporting community – for example, in the published autobiographies of sporting champions (see Howells & Fletcher, 2015) – to explain how athletes, coaches, and support staff should manage adversity and subsequently identify positive outcomes (often performance-related) following these experiences. How this script is harnessed varies, but it is recognizable in narratives of: “no pain, no gain” (Mellalieu, 2017, p. 114), “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” (e.g., Wacquant, 1995), and the subjection of athletes to military-style training practices in the pursuit of mental toughness and enhanced performance (e.g., Bell, Hardy, & Beattie, 2013). Although sport psychology researchers have acknowledged the pervasiveness of this growth from adversity narrative, there is diversity in the literature about how growth is defined, explored or examined, and theorized. Drawing on the wider psychology and trauma literature, there are multiple theories and models, and a multitude of methodological choices (see Chapter 3) that sport psychology researchers have access to in order to develop and carry out their research. These

20 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

choices have resulted in a diverse range of published research studies that have created a rich and varied landscape of growth following adversity in sport. In Chapter 1 we argued that these diverse meanings across research studies should be celebrated rather than stifled. Theoretically informed research into growth following adversity will foster a rich and diverse understanding of the growth landscape that we have encouraged in this book. Furthermore, Howells, Sarkar, and Fletcher (2017) recommended that transparency and coherence in definitions and theory within research studies will be increasingly important for researchers investigating growth following adversity to consider, given the recent surge of growth research in competitive sport. However, even in spite of the need for diversity, transparency, and coherence, those familiar with the growth research may question the need for yet another chapter on the theory of growth. In the absence of sport-specific theory, what can this chapter offer that other theoretical explanations (e.g., Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018) are lacking? We explained in the introduction to this book that our intention was to provide a platform for research to inform future policies and practices to support the welfare of the people involved in sport who experience adversity. The growth researchers of tomorrow are the postgraduate sport psychology students and early career researchers of today; it is our hope that this chapter will provide them, and other interested readers, with a useful starting point to develop theoretically informed, high-quality research in the sporting domain. To facilitate this we provide (a) an overview of the theoretical paradigms that have informed the development of theories and models in the wider literature, as this is often absent from discussions around theory, and (b) a clear description and critique of each theory or model, which includes identification of how each of them has been used by sport psychology researchers to date.

Theoretical Paradigms Informing Growth Theory The shift in attention from a pathological response to adversity to the positive outcomes that co-exist following trauma or adversity resulted in an almost exponential intensification of academic interest in growth. It was such that Tennen and Affleck (2009) identified that more than 100 empirical studies published in the preceding decade involved the exploration of growth following a variety of distressing experiences, such as cancer (e.g., Arpawong, Richeimer, Weinstein, Elghamrawy. & Milam, 2013), sexual assault (e.g., Frazier, Conlon, & Glaser, 2001), bereavement (e.g., Currier, Mallot, Martinez, Sandy, & Neimeyer, 2013), sport injury (e.g., Wadey, Evans, Evans, & Mitchell, 2011), and substance abuse (e.g., McMillen, Howard, Nower, & Chung, 2001). Since Udry, Gould, Bridges, and Beck (1997) identified positive outcomes from season-ending injuries in elite skiers, growth has become an area of academic interest for researchers in sport psychology who have explored growth in both elite (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015; Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013; see Chapter 11) and non-elite populations (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012a, 2012b).

A Theoretical Perspective 21

In the general psychology and trauma literature, to facilitate a more evidence-based understanding of growth, a number of theories were developed to explain the concept. These theories were broadly influenced by three psychological theoretical paradigms: humanism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Humanism emphasizes understanding the individual as a whole, and rather than addressing individuals’ dysfunction, the paradigm has a focus on personal and societal thriving. Accordingly, humanism aligns well with positive psychology, which is concerned with the study of those aspects of human experience that make life worth living (see Seligman, 2002). One of humanism’s leading proponents, Abraham Maslow presented the argument that humans have an innate need to self-actualize, to achieve their potential, and that this potential (or growth) can only be achieved through a supportive and cooperative environment. Of particular relevance to our understanding of growth is Rogers’ (1959) theory of personality, which proposes an organismic valuing process involving the evaluation of subjective experiences to determine self-improvement. The influence of cognitivism, the explanation of subjective experience through cognitive processes is apparent in the roles that thought, rumination, and appraisal have in the development of growth, and has been widely integrated into the majority of growth models and theories. Cognitivism proposes that individuals have mental models, or schemas, about the world and of themselves. These mental models are used to interpret incoming information and to inform our understanding of our social world. Horowitz (1986) proposed that humans have an intrinsic drive to ensure our mental models are coherent with current information, this drive he referred to as the completion tendency. Finally, constructivism, which is based on the premise that learning and development (and therefore growth) are active, constructive processes whereby individuals create their own subjective representations of objective reality provides a basis for understanding how and why growth may occur. Of particular relevance in understanding the process of growth, is Piaget’s (1971) elaboration on Johann Herbart’s (1776–1841), equilibration theory. Equilibration theory explains knowledge as a quest to develop balance between the familiar and the novel, and introduces the principles of assimilation (distorting an experience to fit in with the familiar), and accommodation (modifying existing structures to include novel experiences). As the majority of models and theories of growth incorporate some aspects of these three traditions, it would be unproductive to compartmentalize the models into theoretical paradigms, rather we will address in each model or theory in turn and consider the extent to which they may be applicable to sport psychology research and practice.

Models and Theories of Growth In this section we provide readers with a clear description and critique of the most widely used theories and models of growth. Each account will provide an identification of how each of them has been used by sport psychology researchers

22 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

to date. Although there are multiple ways in which we could have categorized the models, we have chosen to first consider those theories and models that are fundamentally underpinned by the principle of a shattering of assumptions (see Janoff-Bulman, 1989), then consider those that approach growth as a coping process, and finally consider those that are underpinned by cognitive adaptation theory (see Taylor, 1983).

A Shattering of Assumptions In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the three most wellknown models and theories of growth (i.e., functional descriptive model of growth, Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995; organismic valuing theory of growth, Joseph & Linley, 2005; affective-cognitive processing model of growth, Joseph, Murphy & Regel, 2012) it is important to first recognize that each of these models or theories is underpinned by what has been termed a “shattering of assumptions” (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). For each of these models or theories, growth is an ongoing process that is dependent on the individual experiencing an adversity that is so traumatic that it shatters the individual’s schematic assumptions about themselves or their social world (see Janoff-Bulman, 1989). Each of these models or theories advocate that in the immediate aftermath of an experience or event, for example, repeated non-selection to a national team for an elite athlete (e.g., Sarkar, Fletcher, & Brown, 2015), or a sporting injury (e.g., Wadey et al., 2011) of an athlete with a high athletic identity (Brewer, Selby, Under, & Petitpas, 1999), an individual will question their current beliefs and values about themselves (i.e., non-selection to an Olympic team may cause an individual to question their elite identity). Where the appraisal of the experience is incongruent with current beliefs it has been argued that this causes a shattering of schematic assumptions (Janoff-Bulman, 1996). Janoff-Bulman proposed that, following a traumatic experience, individuals engage in a cognitive struggle to challenge their assumptive world. Through repetitive ruminations, which may be either intrusive or thoughtfully reflective (Lindstrom, Cann, Calhoun, & Tedeschi, 2013), an individual may engage in the active construction of a new reality (accommodation). For example, an athlete may no longer identify as an elite athlete but take on a new identity, perhaps as a mentor to less experienced athletes, and develop new beliefs about themselves that better reflect their new situation.

Functional Descriptive Model A shattering of previously held assumption, cognitive processing, and significant distress are fundamental aspects of the functional descriptive model of posttraumatic growth (FDM of PTG; Calhoun, Cann, & Tedeschi, 2010; Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995, 2004), with the authors crediting Janoff-Bulman’s (1989) work as being instrumental in its development. The

A Theoretical Perspective 23

model presents PTG as a process that commences when an individual experiences an event that is appraised as being so traumatic that it challenges the individual’s assumptive world (e.g., an individual’s beliefs about identity or their assumption that the world is benevolent and just). Importantly, only if the event is appraised as sufficiently distressing will the individual’s schematic assumptions be challenged; this distress is considered necessary to facilitate the cognitive processing required for growth. The initial response and the accompanying (considerable) distress involves automatic cognitive processing – in the form of intrusive thoughts and negative images – which leads to, “disengagement from previous goals and assumptions” (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004, p. 8). Positive benefits may then be identifiable if the rumination becomes more deliberate, the individual self-analyses and self-discloses, as the schema changes and the individual undergoes narrative revision. However, whether this occurs is partially dependent on individual personality characteristics, specifically an openness to experience, extraversion, and optimism (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996), and partially dependent on sociocultural influences that are both proximate (e.g., social support) and distal (e.g., cultural, societal). Drawing on a constructivist tradition, the likelihood of PTG is augmented if the individual is supported by compassionate and understanding others. Aligned with the model, the authors developed the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) which posits that growth is identifiable through five domains, namely: a greater appreciation of life and changed sense of priorities; warmer, more intimate relationships with others; a greater sense of personal strength; recognition of new possibilities or paths for one’s life; and spiritual-existential change (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Several studies published in the sport psychology literature refer explicitly to the FDM of PTG (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012a; Sarkar et al., 2015) but many others have implicitly adopted it as the underpinning model with the utilization of the PTGI to measure growth (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012b; Hammer et al., 2019) or using the five domains to indicate that growth may have occurred (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016). The model and the associated PTGI is a useful framework, particularly for sport performance researchers seeking to explore PTG in specific cohorts, and is particularly relevant for those who wish to pursue coherence in their conceptualization and measurement of growth within a study. However, the model may not suit all sport psychology research as the sporting context has an emphasis on the functionality of the body and performance outcomes (see Chapter 10) which is not accounted for in either the FDM or the associated PTGI. It has been argued that the five domains identified in the PTGI are not exhaustive; for example, Hefferon, Grealy, and Mutrie (2009) recommended the introduction of an additional domain which centers on a new awareness of the body, and Howells et al. (2017) suggested superior performance as an additional domain that is applicable in performance contexts. To date, neither of these suggestions have been explored in original sport psychology research.

24 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

Organismic Valuing Theory of PTG Despite an acknowledgment that the FDM provided a comprehensive theoretical explanation of growth, Joseph and Linley (2005) argued that the model did not explain how growth occurs. Consequently, implicitly influenced by Rogers’ (1961) organismic valuing process and explicitly arguing for a positive psychology that provides an integrative perspective on human experiences that illuminates both the positive and the negative, they proposed an alternative theory. The organismic valuing theory (OVT) of growth starts with the premise that each individual possesses the innate tendency to know how to pursue their own wellbeing and fulfilment. Whether an individual behaves in accordance with this organismic valuing process is determined in part by the extent that the social environment facilitates or hinders the individual’s needs (especially those needs that enable intrinsic motivation: autonomy, relatedness, competence), and the individual’s values and aspirations. When an event that is appraised as traumatic occurs, Joseph and Linley argue that the beliefs that the individual held before the event may be shattered and this prompts the individual to question what they believe to be true and to actively seek meaning in their experience. Individuals will then either go through a process of assimilation, where they seek to make the adversityrelated experience fit with their current beliefs, or through accommodation, where they reject their pre-existing beliefs. Accommodation may be in either a positive (posttraumatic growth) or negative direction (posttraumatic stress). To experience growth and be fully functioning (see Rogers, 1959), Joseph and Linley (2005) proposed four salient theoretical considerations which they argued were, “prerequisite to any integrative theory of positive adjustment following threatening events” (p. 272). They argued that models should comprise: (a) a drive towards completion (see Horowitz, 1986) which involves the cognitiveemotional integration of new trauma-related material; (b) an emphasis on the differences between assimilation (incorporating the new information into current worldview) and accommodation (development of new worldview to include new information; accommodation may be either in a negative or positive direction) (see Piaget, 1971) which occur as a result of cognitive-emotional processing. Importantly, positive accommodation requires a supportive environment both prior to and after experiencing adversity, that facilitates satisfaction of the basic needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence; (c) an appreciation of the differences between meaning as comprehensibility (i.e., why did the adversity happen?) versus meaning as significance (i.e., what does the adversity mean for the individual?); (d) the incorporation of both hedonic and eudemonic traditions of wellbeing. To elucidate this latter point, posttraumatic distress and PTG both relate to aspects of wellbeing, a subject area that is divided into two broad theoretical traditions: hedonic (subjective wellbeing; SWB) and eudemonic (psychological wellbeing; PWB). SWB refers to a person’s balance of affective states and overall satisfaction and happiness. PWB, which has traditionally been the focus of humanistic and

A Theoretical Perspective 25

existential psychologists, refers to an individual’s characterological strengths, meaning and purpose in life, and psychological maturity (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). Traditionally, it has been the role of clinicians to raise SWB in those individuals experiencing posttraumatic distress. Joseph and Linley argue that clinicians could seek to foster growth, that is, raise PWB, which in turn indirectly impacts on SWB in the long term. OVT has become a popular theory with researchers to explore growth (and posttraumatic stress) resulting from a range of adversities (e.g., HIV; Dibb, 2018). Yet, it is in the sport psychology literature where the theory has been used most prolifically. Many researchers (Day, 2013; Day & Wadey, 2016; Galli & Reel, 2012a; Salim, Wadey & Diss, 2015; Tamminen et al., 2013; Wadey, Podlog, Reel, & Mellalieu, 2016) have used the theory to inform our understanding of the growth-related experiences of athletes, specifically in respect of how the environment impacts on whether an individual will experience growth. Sport psychology researchers who have used OVT to inform their research have justified the use of the theory from different perspectives alluding to the malleability that OVT has for growth researchers in sport. With its humanistic underpinnings and focus on the role of the environment, OVT is well-suited to inform research alongside popular theories in sport (e.g., self-determination theory; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, two studies (e.g., Salim et al., 2015; Wadey et al., 2016) have explicitly explored the applicability of OVT to stressrelated growth (SRG) following sport injury and the relationship between need satisfaction after the adversity (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness), SRG, subjective wellbeing (Wadey et al. 2016), hardiness, and coping (Salim et al., 2015) among injured athletes.

Affective-Cognitive Processing Model (ACPM) of PTG Both the FDM and OVT contributed to an understanding of how growth arises out of the interaction of personality, coping, and social support variables, and stressed the importance of reflective rumination, specifically where rumination is intrusive and involves avoidance strategies. However, in the wider literature and in clinical practice, intrusion and avoidance are generally seen as symptoms of PTSD. In accordance with the determination of positive psychology to integrate negative and positive aspects of experience, Joseph et al. (2012) argued for a model that would consider the relationship between PTG and posttraumatic stress (PTS). They argued that the occurrence of intrusive and avoidant states can be conceptualized as the engine of posttraumatic growth. Their model, that appears to have been informed by the dual representation theory of PTSD (see Brewin, Dalgleish, & Joseph, 1996), proposes a cycle of feedback between cognitions and the individual’s emotional state, which continues indefinitely as the individual seeks meaning in their experience. When a traumatic event occurs, processing involves cognitive appraisal of the event through ruminative brooding (i.e., intrusive debilitative

26 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

thinking) or reflective pondering (i.e., deliberate facilitative thinking) at a conscious level, and the presence of intrusive dreams at an unconscious level. The individual’s emotional state will then be affected by how the event is appraised. As a consequence of, and depending on the emotional state, coping strategies are put in place which then may impact upon further cognitive appraisal. This cyclical process is influenced by the social environment, the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy, and levels of personality. Only one study in the sport psychology literature has explicitly utilized the ACPM of growth, Howells and Fletcher (2015) used the model to explain the process of growth experienced by Olympic swimming champions. The model’s relative obscurity in the sport psychology literature is perhaps surprising given that the ACPM represents the most up-to-date model for understanding growth experiences especially given that Sarkar et al. (2015) suggest, where appropriate, researchers should be informed by contemporary models. We suggest that the model has potential to contribute to our understanding of growth in the complex sport environment (see Howells & Fletcher, 2015) to help practitioners to understand the relationship between an athlete’s appraisal of an adverse event and their subsequent emotional responses. However, we make this suggestion with a caveat; the model presupposes a traumatic event that is so severe that it warrants consideration of both PTG and PTS and, therefore, the model may not be appropriate for use in studies where the event or experience is not appraised as being traumatic in nature.

Growth as a Coping Process Despite the dominant expectation of “shattering” that is central to the theories and models discussed so far, some researchers argue that in many instances there is little evidence to suggest that this occurs (Bonanno & Mancini, 2008) and rather posit that growth represents evidence of coping. The following models and theories of growth have had less exposure in the sport psychology domain but they provide an alternative theoretical approach to the identification of positive outcomes following adversity for those researchers who are interested in researching adversities that may not involve a “shattering” of prior assumptions (e.g., managing education–sport balance in student athletes).

Conceptual Model for Understanding Positive Outcomes of Life Crises and Transitions In 1992, Schaefer and Moos, acknowledged that many people are, “remarkably resilient in the face of adversity” (p. 149), and through recognition of the possibility of a new and better level of adaptation that goes beyond a return to the status quo, formulated a framework to consider the positive outcomes of life crises (e.g., physical injury, illness). Using a stress and coping framework, their

A Theoretical Perspective 27

conceptual model for understanding positive outcomes of life crises and transitions involved the organization of coping responses used by individuals to manage crises into three domains: appraisal-focused coping (i.e., challenging assumptions and modifying ways of thinking), problem-focused coping (i.e., directly addressing the crisis), and emotion-focused coping (i.e., reducing the negative emotions associated with the crisis). According to the model, these coping domains are moderated by environmental (e.g., institutional culture, socioeconomic status) and personal factors (e.g., individual characteristics, interpersonal qualities). Following coping responses, the authors identified that individuals were able to identify positive outcomes that can be organized into three general categories: (a) enhanced social resources, (b) enhanced personal resources, and (c) the development of new coping skills. In respect of these categories, they argued that there are four determinants of the positive outcomes: (a) the characteristics of the life crises, (b) environmental factors, (c) personal factors, and (d) appraisal and coping responses. The authors addressed a number of traumatic crises as being relevant to understand through the use of their model; for example, divorce, combat, captivity, terminal illness, and bereavement. No growth studies in the sport performance literature have explicitly been informed by this model but its influence is seen in a number of studies that have addressed the role of coping in the face of adversity. For example, McEwen, Hurd Clarke, Bennett, Dawson, and Crocker (2018) examined elite Canadian individual-sport athletes’ experiences with an Olympic team-selection process with a focus on those who were not selected. They found that athletes managed the disappointment of non-selection through positive reappraisal, athletic-goal adjustment, and accentuating other life goals and identities. Specifically, in respect of the categories identified by Schaefer and Moos (1992), the athletes invested more time and energy into the development of their social networks and associated resources. The authors did not report on the development of new coping skills. To date, no studies have considered the four determinants of positive outcomes, this model might therefore be valuable in prompting us to consider how positive outcomes may be influenced by the athletic environment.

Cognitive Adaption Theory Many theories that posit that growth may represent a coping process have been influenced by Taylor’s (1983) cognitive adaption theory of adjustment to threatening events, which was grounded in the experiences of cancer sufferers. Taylor’s theory presupposed that benefit finding was a consequence of the cognitive processes that represent coping mechanisms to relieve stress. She argued that adjustment following threatening events involves three premises: (a) a search for meaning in the experience, (b) an attempt to regain a sense of mastery, and (c) an attempt to restore self-esteem through self-enhancing evaluations. Searching for meaning for the cancer patients in her research involved the identification of causal attributions that individuals linked to their cancer (i.e., questioning why they developed cancer). However, she also

28 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

recognized that the patients went beyond seeking causal relationships, rather they sought for some significance in the experience by reflecting on the impact that the cancer had on their lives. Regaining a sense of mastery was represented by the patients’ beliefs about their self-control that they perceived as having been undermined by their illness. They attempted to restore a sense of mastery by adopting a positive attitude about a possible return of cancer, and being proactive to prevent the cancer from returning. Self-enhancement was a strategy employed by the patients to improve their perceptions of self and restore their self-esteem. The patients strived to identify positive as opposed to negative changes that occurred as a result of the cancer. In doing so the women involved employed downward comparisons with women less fortunate than themselves. Of importance to understanding the nature of growth, was the premise in the theory that these themes are partly dependent on illusions; the illusions are inherently positive and are interpreted as growth. The idea that growth may be based on at the same time self-deceptive and self-enhancing illusions is one that has been alluded to on several occasions in the sport performance literature (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2016). Whether growth represents motivated illusions is an important one, because although practitioners’ professional philosophies and researchers’ epistemological stance may align with constructivism, it is important that we do not naively accept that reports of growth are on their own sufficient to support that growth has occurred.

A Two-Component Model Some scholars in the wider literature have questioned the veridicality of growth experiences (e.g., Maercker & Zoellner, 2004; Park, 2004; Wortman, 2004; Zoellner & Maercker, 2006a) and have suggested that self-reports of growth are representative of motivated illusions (see Taylor, 1983) or adherence to a cultural script. These concerns have been replicated in the sport psychology literature, some researchers questioned whether growth actually occurs (e.g., Wadey et al., 2016), and raised the possibility of the illusion of growth as a coping strategy (e.g., Tamminen et al., 2013). To address these concerns, Maercker and Zoellner (2004) proposed a two-component model which addressed the conceptual distinction between functional (or constructive) growth and illusory growth. They likened growth to a Janus-faced character and proposed the Janus-face (or two-component) model of self-perceived growth which comprises a functional (or constructive) and an illusory side to growth. The functional, constructive, self-transcending side is analogous with the FDM proposed by Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004). However, the illusory or dysfunctional side (Maercker & Zoellner, 2004), they argued, involves self-deception and is associated with denial, avoidance, wishful thinking, self-consolidation, and palliation, which may occur following adversity. The identification of an illusory aspect to growth has its origins in Taylor’s (1983) theory of cognitive adaptation to threatening events and her theoretical explanation of positive illusions, and Filipp’s (1999) identification of

A Theoretical Perspective 29

attentive (viz. positive illusions, self-enhancing illusions, hope) and comparative (viz. social and temporal comparisons) coping processes. The model is distinct in that it acknowledges the existence of both components that are presumed to co-exist, although they explain that at any given time there may be more aspects of one component than the other (Zoellner & Maercker, 2006b). The authors stressed that the illusory side should not be interpreted as being a precursor to maladjustment. They argued that as a coping mechanism the illusory side may acts as a short-term palliative coping strategy that in itself has neither long-term negative or positive consequences. On the contrary, however, the constructive side of growth is positively associated with adjustment and wellbeing in the long term. Evidence supporting a two-component model of growth has been reported in victims of stressful life events (McFarland & Alvaro, 2000), parents of children treated for leukemia (Best, Streisand, Catania, & Kazak, 2001), cancer patients (Sumalla, Ochoa, & Blanco, 2009), motor vehicle accident survivors (Zoellner, Rabe, Karl, & Maercker, 2008), Olympic swimmers (Howells & Fletcher, 2016), and an experimental study that compared traumatic autobiographical events with a lesser traumatic events (Kastenmüller, Greitemeyer, Epp, Frey, & Fischer, 2012). This is an area that warrants further research in the sport psychology domain, as to date only one study has explored the concept of illusory growth in sport (Howells & Fletcher, 2016). Focusing on the two-component model can promote a more inclusive conceptualization of growth which may across time and individuals represent either palliative coping strategies or veridical growth.

Conclusion We hope that this chapter has provided sport psychology researchers and practitioners with enhanced knowledge relating to the theoretical underpinnings of growth (and associated terms), and a critical explanation of the theories and models of growth following adversity. Understanding the origins and philosophies of the models and theories can better inform their applicability in the context of sport. We acknowledge that the choice of an informing theory or model is determined by a multiplicity of factors that include the researchers’ epistemological and ontological stance, the research topic, and the population being studied. However, we recommend conceptual, theoretical, and methodological alignment to enhance the quality and credence of growth research in the sport psychology domain. In Chapter 3 we look at how the use of growth theories and models can guide our methodological choices, and how such research can continue to advance through methodological connoisseurship and creativity. Through consideration of both extant theory and methodological approaches, even while we acknowledge that growth in sport is still in its relative infancy, the contributors to this book demonstrate the interest in the topic and it is perhaps timely to consider the development of sport-specific models and theories.

30 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

References Arpawong, T. E., Richeimer, S. H., Weinstein, F., Elghamrawy, A., & Milam, J. E. (2013). Posttraumatic growth, quality of life, and treatment symptoms among cancer chemotherapy outpatients. Health Psychology, 32, 397–408. doi:10.1037/a0028223. Bell, J. J., Hardy, L., & Beattie, S. (2013). Enhancing mental toughness and performance under pressure in elite young cricketers: A 2-year longitudinal intervention. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2, 281–297. doi:10.1037/a0033129. Best, M., Streisand, R., Catania, L., & Kazak, A. E. (2001). Parental distress during pediatric leukemia and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) after treatment ends. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 299–307. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/26.5.299. Bonanno, G. A., & Mancini, A. D. (2008). The human capacity to thrive in the face of potential trauma. Pediatrics, 121, 369–375. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1648. Brewer, B. W., Selby, C. L., Under, D. E., & Petitpas, A. J. (1999). Distancing oneself from a poor season: Divestment of athletic identity. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 4, 149–162. doi:10.1080/10811449908409723. Brewin, C. R., Dalgleish, T., & Joseph, S. (1996). A dual representation theory of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Review, 103, 670–686. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.670. Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2010). The posttraumatic growth model: Sociocultural considerations. In T. Weiss & R. Berger (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the globe (pp. 1–14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Online Library. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1998). Posttraumatic growth: Future directions. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Theory and research on change in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 215–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Currier, J. M., Mallot, J., Martinez, T. E., Sandy, C., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2013). Bereavement, religion, and posttraumatic growth: A matched control group investigation. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 69–77. doi:10.1037/a0027708. Day, M. C. (2013). The role of initial physical activity experiences in promoting posttraumatic growth in Paralympic athletes with an acquired disability. Disability & Rehabilitation, 35, 2064–2072. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.805822. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dibb, B. (2018). Assessing stigma, disclosure regret and posttraumatic growth in people living with HIV. AIDS and Behavior, 22, 3916–3923. doi:10.1007/s10461-10018-2230-2232. Filipp, S. H. (1999). A three–stage model of coping with loss and trauma. In A. Maercker, M. Schützwohl, & Z. Solomon (Eds.), Posttraumatic stress disorder: A lifespan developmental perspective (pp. 43–78). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber. Frazier, P., Conlon, A., & Glaser, T. (2001). Positive and negative life changes following sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1048–1055. doi:10.1037/ 0022-006X.69.6.1048. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012a). “It was hard, but it was good”: A qualitative exploration of stress–related growth in division I intercollegiate athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 297–319. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.693524.

A Theoretical Perspective 31

Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012b). Can good come from bad? An examination of adversarial growth in Division I NCAA athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 5, 199–212. doi:10.1123/jis.5.2.199. Hammer, C., Podlog, L., Wadey, R., Galli, N., Forber-Pratt, A. J., & Newton, M. (2019). From core belief challenge to posttraumatic growth in para sport athletes: Moderated mediation by needs satisfaction and deliberate rumination. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(20), 2403–2411. doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1466203. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2009). Post‐traumatic growth and life threatening physical illness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 343–378. doi:10.1348/135910708X332936. Horowitz, M. J. (1986). Stress response syndromes. Northville, NJ: Jason Aronson. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity-and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 38, 173–186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113–136. doi:10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.113. Joseph, S., & Linley, A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.262. Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Regel, S. (2012). An affective–cognitive processing model of post– traumatic growth. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 316–324. doi:10.1002/cpp.1798. Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Epp, D., Frey, D., & Fischer, P. (2012). Posttraumatic growth: Why do people grow from their trauma? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 25, 477–489. doi:10.1080/10615806.2011.571770. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007. Lindstrom, C. M., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2013). The relationship of core belief challenge, rumination, disclosure, and sociocultural elements to posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma, 5, 50–55. doi:10.1037/a0022030. Maercker, A., & Zoellner, T. (2004). The Janus face of self–perceived growth: Toward a two-component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 41–48. McEwen, C. E., Hurd Clarke, L., Bennett, E. V., Dawson, K. A., & Crocker, P. R. (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. The Sport Psychologist, 32, 81–92. doi:10.1123/tsp.2016-0152. McFarland, C., & Alvaro, C. (2000). The impact of motivation on temporal comparisons: Coping with traumatic events by perceiving personal growth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 327–343. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.327. McMillen, C., Howard, M., Nower, L., & Chung, S. (2001). Positive by-products of the struggle with chemical dependency. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 69–79. doi:10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00151-3.

32 Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, and Melissa Day

Mellalieu, S. D. (2017). Sport psychology consulting in professional rugby union in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 8, 109–120. doi:10.1080/ 21520704.2017.1299061. Park, C. L. (2004). The notion of growth following stressful life experiences: Problems and prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 69–76. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science: Vol. 3. Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rogers, C. R. (1961). The actualizing tendency in relation to “motives” and to consciousness. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 11, pp. 1–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Salim, J., Wadey, R., & Diss, C. (2015). Examining the relationship between hardiness and perceived stress-related growth in a sport injury context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.12.004. Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., & Brown, D. J. (2015). What doesn’t kill me…: Adversity-related experiences are vital in the development of superior Olympic performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 475–479. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010. Schaefer, J. A., & Moos, R. H. (1992). Life crises and personal growth. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 149–170). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–9). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sumalla, E. C., Ochoa, C., & Blanco, I. (2009). Posttraumatic growth in cancer: Reality or illusion? Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 24–33. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.09.006. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002. Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.11.1161. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma & transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.10007/ BF02103658. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2009). Assessing positive life changes: In search of meticulous methods. In C. L. Park, S. C. Lechner, M. H. Antoni & A. L. Stanton (Eds.), Medical illness and positive life change (pp. 31–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

A Theoretical Perspective 33

Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to season–ending injuries. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 229–248. doi:10.1123/jsep.19.3.229. Wacquant, L. J. (1995). Why men desire muscles. Body & Society, 1, 163–179. doi:10.1177/1357034X95001001010. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Evans, K., & Mitchell, I. (2011). Perceived benefits following sport injury: A qualitative examination of their antecedents and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 142–158. doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.543119. Wadey, R., Podlog, L., Galli, N., Mellalieu, S. D. (2016). Stress-related growth following sport injury: examining the applicability of the organismic valuing theory. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/sms.12579. Wortman, C. B. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Progress and problems. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 81–90. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447207. Zoellner, T., & Maercker, A. (2006a). Posttraumatic growth in clinical psychology: A critical review and introduction of a two component model. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 626–653. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.01.008. Zoellner, T., & Maercker, A. (2006b). Posttraumatic growth and psychotherapy. In L.G. Calhoun & R.G. Tedeschi (Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth (pp. 334–354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zoellner, T., Rabe, S., Karl, A., & Maercker, A. (2008). Posttraumatic growth in accident survivors: Openness and optimism as predictors of its constructive or illusory sides. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 245–263. doi:10.1002/jclp.20441.

3 GROWTH FOLLOWING ADVERSITY A Methodological Perspective Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

Introduction The recent amelioration of growth research in the sports domain has illustrated the variety of methodological choices available to growth researchers. While some authors have focused their attention on measuring growth (e.g., Brewer, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Tennen, 2017), others have drawn from a wealth of more interpretive approaches including narrative inquiry (e.g., Day & Wadey, 2016), phenomenology (e.g., Crawford, Gayman, & Tracey, 2014), ethnography (e.g., Burke & Utley, 2013), and autobiographical analysis (Howells & Fletcher, 2015). Given the diverse range of approaches available, it is important that researchers can be reflexive in their methodological choices and the implications of their methodological decisions. Yet, while there are several reviews available to help researchers to consolidate their empirical knowledge (e.g., Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2009; Kampman, Hefferon, Wilson, & Beale, 2015), discussions of methodology are not commonplace, particularly in the sports growth literature. Where methods of researching growth are discussed in the growth literature, there has been a tendency to separate qualitative and quantitative methods. For example: Day and Wadey (2017) focused on qualitative perils and pitfalls; Tedeschi, ShakespeareFinch, Taku, and Calhoun (2018) endorsed the use of mixed methods but provided separate discussion on using qualitative methods; and Joseph and Linley (2008) recognized the need for more qualitative research alongside quantitative research, but directed their focus towards the advancement of measurement tools. While it is important to acknowledge the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to researching growth, the danger of reinforcing this binary is that one approach becomes privileged over the other. Thus, discussions become focused on the differences between approaches or on advancing one approach over the other while

A Methodological Perspective 35

obscuring common challenges and consequently missing the opportunity to cultivate shared knowledge and practice. Yet as Cassidy (2017) suggests “quality research, regardless of how it is categorized, contributes to our understanding of an issue, albeit different aspects of that issue” (p. 398). Rather than polarizing our understanding of growth, it is therefore important to unite our approach to research, recognizing the strengths and opportunities that a multitude of approaches may bring. Importantly as Whaley and Krane (2011) highlighted, as researchers we all aim for the same fundamental goal: to push the boundaries of our understanding of a phenomenon. Rather than separating this chapter into qualitative and qualitative research methods, instead we focus on two pertinent considerations that have received less research attention in the wider growth literature. First, we explore the use of theory in growth research, which allows us to consider the range of methodologies that have and could be used to apply, test, and build growth theory. Second, we consider the temporality of growth, which allows us to debate research design, including the use of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective designs. In discussing each of these areas we aim to identify the methodological challenges that researchers have faced as well as provide directions for future research practice.

The Use of Theory in Growth Research: Applying, Testing, and/or Building? Chapter 2 in this text provides a theoretical perspective, outlining the range of theories and models that have been used to explain or describe growth. We learn from this chapter how these theories and models add to our understanding of growth by providing an evidence-based framework that helps us to conceptualize growth. Importantly, Chapter 2 concludes by providing a call to action for the development of more sport-specific models and theories of growth. In order to answer this call to action, it is important to consider the existing ways in which theory has been used by growth researchers, how the use of growth theories has guided our methodological choices, and how such research can continue to advance through methodological connoisseurship and creativity. As Lawler, Mohrman, Mohrman, Ledford, and Cummings (1999) highlight, if research is to contribute to theory (and practice) it must be designed to accomplish this objective, we cannot simply presume that adhering to certain research principles will lead to valuable research. While our attention is often drawn to calls to build or develop theory (e.g., Joseph & Linley, 2008), there are numerous alternative ways in which theory can also be used by researchers, each of which will influence the methodology used. As Cassidy (2017) outlines, it is impossible to describe a universal process for the use of theory, but “theory can inform researchers’ work, and researchers can apply, test, as well as develop/build theory” (p. 400). Given these suggestions, how we use theory will have important implications for the methods that we choose. Thus, the following discussion considers how the use of theory has guided and could guide future research methods in the sport growth literature.

36 Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

Given the existing theoretical explanations of growth, it is perhaps unsurprising that the application of theory has often been at the forefront of sport research on growth. Researchers applying theory aim to make sense of participant experiences in order to generate meaningful, rich, and complex interpretations (Cassidy, 2017). Given this description, it is understandable that the application of theory is often most evident in narrative research with researchers using a theoretical lens to inform their work and interpretations. As Papathomas (2017) suggests, one of the key features of a narrative is the presence of plot and an overarching explanation or consequence of events. Put simply, this explanation of events often suggests that experience A leads to experience B, which culminates in experience C. Thus, connections may be made between specific themes raised by the participant and theoretical concepts. Such an approach is exemplified in Day and Wadey (2016) who connect the experiences of two men recovering from physical trauma with the concepts of assimilation and positive accommodation. Alternatively, Howells and Fletcher (2015) explore autobiographies of Olympic swimming champions, discussing growth-related experiences such as superior performance, enhanced relationships, and spiritual outcomes. Both of these narrative studies adopt the role of story analyst, extrapolating theoretical propositions and categories from storied data (Smith & Sparkes, 2009). In taking this approach, story analysts are able to explicitly tell readers what stories mean (Smith & Sparkes, 2009); consequently theory is connected to data in a way that allows the participant voice to be heard in a coherent context and with specific points in mind (Sparkes, 2002). While the strengths of adopting a story analyst role lie in the ability to theorize about growth, the focus of this approach is on telling rather than showing the role of growth theory. The alternative to this approach is to adopt the role of storyteller, showing a story and theory. As Smith and Sparkes (2009) question: “What, though, does showing mean? Showing aspires to create images in an audience’s body and imagination, whereas telling merely catalogues actions and emotions” (p. 282). Rather than extrapolating theory, storytellers assume that a good story is itself analytical and theoretical (Ellis, 2004), thus theory is not separated from story, it is shown through story. While the storyteller may have a theoretical point in mind this is shared with the reader through various tools of narrative, such as dialogue, verbs, characters, atmosphere, setting, plot, sequence and consequences of events, metaphor, theme, and sensory details like sight, smell, and sound (Smith & Sparkes, 2009). Despite the methodological possibilities that such an approach offers (e.g., the use of poetry, creative nonfiction) there is a dearth of research that has sought to apply growth theory in this way. This is somewhat surprising in a landscape where adversity and trauma have been well-represented by the storyteller. For example: Carless and Douglas (2017) describe the experiences of soldiers returning from war; Owton and Sparkes (2017) present one individual’s story of sexual abuse and grooming in sport; Quarmby, Sandford, Hooper, and Duncombe (2020) explore the role of sport and physical activity in the lives of care-experienced young people; and

A Methodological Perspective 37

Cavallerio, Wadey, and Wagstaff (2016) described the coach and athlete experience of overuse injuries in sport. As the above studies demonstrate, showing the story using creative analytical practices moves towards goals such as evocation, intimate involvement, engagement, and embodied participation in stories (Smith & Sparkes, 2008). That is not to say that the storyteller is superior to the analyst, but offers a different angle and serves a different purpose. Thus, researchers seeking to apply growth theory might question: What is the aim of this application – to tell or to show theory? Who is my intended audience? What resources do I have available? Alternatively, researchers may seek to apply theory through the use of self-report measures. During the 1990s, scientific interest in the topic of growth following adversity burgeoned, with the emergence of numerous psychometric self-report tools including the Changes in Outlook Questionnaire (CiOQ; Joseph, Williams, & Yule, 1993), Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996), Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996), Perceived Benefits Scale (PBS; McMillen & Fisher, 1998) and Thriving Scale (TS; Abraído-Lanza, Guier, & Colón, 1998). While these self-report tools may be valuable in measuring positive functioning, as Joseph, Murphy, and Regel (2012) have suggested, the main limitation of these early measures is that they lack a clear theoretical conceptualization of what actually constitutes growth after adversity. Thus, prior to selecting any self-report tool, researchers first need to consider whether their research will define growth as unidimensional or multidimensional (i. e., are there specific facets of growth to be investigated?) as some measures are unifactorial (e.g., SRGS), whereas others are multifactorial (e.g., PTGI). Second, researchers using self-report measures also need to consider whether their theoretical lens includes the need to assess negative changes as well as positive. Measures such as the CiOQ examine positive and negative changes, whereas the TS only indicates levels of growth. Finally, no sport-specific measure of growth exists, consequently, self-report measures are based on quite a broad sample of individuals who have experienced adverse and traumatic experiences. As Taku, Cann, Calhoun, and Tedeschi (2008) highlight regarding the PTGI, the broad sample used makes it difficult to determine if the factor structure of the PTGI might differ depending on specific characteristics of a sample or particular traumatic event that may be experienced. Despite these considerations, one study has used self-report measures to apply theory to specific sport adversity. Wadey, Podlog, Galli, and Mellalieu (2016) applied organismic valuing theory (OVT) to examine factors leading to stress-related growth in a sport injury context. In doing this, Wadey et al. were able to contribute to theory and practice by examining the means through which injured athletes may achieve stress-related growth. Yet, limited research has used self-report to apply any alternative theoretical perspectives to athletic populations and consequently, while OVT may be the most frequently cited theory in sport research, the potential value of other theories remains unknown (see Chapter 2).

38 Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

An alternative approach to applying existing theory is to test or build theory. Theory testing uses a deductive approach, using theory to formulate hypotheses before testing those hypotheses with observations. Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007) suggested that in order to make a high theoretical contribution, research testing theory should ground predictions for new data collection within existing models, diagrams, figures, or theory. One method for testing theories of growth may be through the use of case studies. Hodge and Sharp (2017) note that one common misunderstanding of case studies is that they are only useful for hypothesis generation. Yet seminal texts such as Yin (2014) have highlighted that case studies may be used to corroborate, modify, reject, or otherwise advance theoretical concepts. Indeed, Yin suggests that “you should think of it [case study] as the opportunity to shed empirical light about some theoretical concepts or principles” (p. 41). Despite these opportunities to test theory, there have been limited published case studies that focus on growth in athlete populations, and those that do (e.g., Day & Wadey, 2016) often focus on transferability rather making analytical generalizations. Distinctions between these forms of generalizability are important given that in analytical generalization it is the concepts or theories that are generalizable, rather than the specific context or populations (Smith, 2017). Thus, researchers using case studies to build or test growth theory might question, can my results be generalized to an established concept or theory? Finally, theory building is generally an inductive process, beginning with observations that are used to then build theory. While grounded theory may be ideally suited to theory building, this methodology has only been used to examine one specific sport adversity, sport injury-related growth (SIRG). Roy-Davis, Wadey, and Evans (2017) developed a grounded theory that explains the complex relationship between sport injuries and SIRG (see Chapter 14). Their work demonstrates how the theory of SIRG supports and contrasts existing growth theory, thereby advancing understanding in an area that had previously been largely atheoretical. To further advance this work, Roy-Davis et al. invite future researchers to extend, test, and modify this theory of SIRG. Alternatively, researchers might consider whether similar theory building using grounded theory may be warranted in understanding alternative types of adversity and growth, such as team or organizational growth. It is important to consider that grounded theory is not the only method of building theory. Indeed, an alternative example of theory building has taken place, through the work of Hefferon et al. (2009) who used qualitative meta-synthesis to find supportive evidence for a proposed sixth domain (new awareness of the body) of posttraumatic growth (see Chapter 10). Their work demonstrates how synthesis can be used to reveal new knowledge, by translating findings into themes, concepts, categories, or theories, that go beyond the findings in primary studies. Thus, where an existing body of work exists, researchers might consider the use of evidence synthesis such as meta-synthesis or meta-ethnography, both of which do not simply aggregate findings but provide new interpretation, model or theory, which goes beyond the findings of the individual studies synthesized (France et al., 2019; Williams & Shaw, 2017).

A Methodological Perspective 39

As our discussions highlight, there are a wealth of diverse ways in which theory may be applied, built on, and developed in the sport growth literature. Yet in summarizing this existing literature, what is notable is the limited practical application and use of theory to develop interventions and/or to reflect on applied practice. Researchers might consider that using theory to underpin interventions allows us to understand why interventions are effective or ineffective, thereby facilitating an understanding of mechanisms of change and providing a basis for refining and developing better theory (Michie & Prestwich, 2010). Given that the use of interventions or applied strategies to promote growth is an important future research direction (see Chapter 16), it is important for researchers to consider the advantages of applying theory to interventions, or to include process explanations of why growth did or did not occur that may align to existing theory.

Temporality and Growth Temporality is a fundamental dimension of human existence; everything is developed and signified in a timeframe. Yet as Stolorow (2003) writes in his vignettes on trauma and temporality “trauma destroys time” (p. 158). The question, Tedeschi et al. (2018) therefore ask is “How long we should wait until we ask a person about the possibility of experiencing PTG?” (p. 132). Tedeschi et al.’s question provides a key temporal consideration, impacting on qualitative and qualitative research on growth. Tedeschi et al.’s question highlights one key limitation of using cross-sectional design to research growth, that data are collected at a single point in time. If we are to use such research designs, how do we justify the time point used and is this justification applicable to all of our participants? Researchers might consider that the experience of growth may be dependent on personal characteristics (e.g., symptoms of distress), environmental characteristics (e.g., support available), and/or the nature of the trauma or adversity (e.g., acute versus chronic, expected versus unexpected, intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, or organizational, personal versus vicarious). Thus, while cross-sectional design may allow researchers to gather large data sets from a range of participants, adversity-related experiences are likely to be appraised in fundamentally different ways depending on these characteristics. The consequent danger is that data collection therefore relies on the subjective decisionmaking of researchers to ensure that data collection is neither too soon for some individuals or too reliant on retrospective recall. When reporting findings from cross-sectional design, researchers should therefore be cautious that different conclusions may be yielded in accordance with the time point used. The alternative to using cross-sectional design is to use a longitudinal approach to study growth. This approach recognizes that growth is fundamentally a process rather than an event, and consequently, numerous points of data collection may be used to examine the course of growth. Yet, temporality remains a central

40 Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

consideration for longitudinal researchers and using this approach does not silence the question of how long we should study growth for after an adverse event. In part, this question may be answered by considering the nature of the adverse event. Where adversity has involved a single, acute event, with a clear path to recovery (e.g., an athlete sustaining a moderate injury and receiving treatment), data has been collected at various time-points in the recovery process. For example, Brewer et al. (2017) used questionnaires measuring aspects of adversarial growth before anterior cruciate ligament surgery, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Yet many experiences of adversity are complex and chronic, involving ongoing psychological distress and permanent physical changes to the body. Consequently, what may be important is (a) the initial experiences and development of growth and (b) the longevity of growth. Authors such as McDonough, Sabiston, and French (2011) have provided valuable accounts of the initial experiences and development of growth, examining the involvement of breast cancer survivors participating in dragon boat racing over 19 months, while Pollard and Kennedy (2007) illustrate the longevity of growth in spinal cord injured patients, collecting data from 12 weeks post injury to ten years post hospital discharge. Although the use of longitudinal studies may be able to overcome some of the limitations associated with cross-sectional designs, Tedeschi et al. (2018) highlight a number of challenges associated with using longitudinal design to examine growth, including high rates of participant attrition, and the inability to control for events (e.g., injury) and influences of others (e.g., sport psychologist) that may occur between data collection time points. Further, Tedeschi et al. (2018) also highlight that changes in self-reported growth may not represent growth per se, but changes in the meaning and understanding of growth variables used in self-report measures. The use of qualitative methods may assist in overcoming some of these challenges by allowing researchers a more nuanced understanding of changes in the experience of growth. Yet problems such as attrition may remain, particularly given that authors such as Linley and Joseph (2004) suggest that growth may only become stable after three years. One final alternative is to use retrospective reports of growth, a method that has elicited debate in both qualitative and quantitative fields. Despite the number of validated self-report measures available, Coyne and Tennen (2010) provide a highly critical perspective on the use of these measures. They suggest that in order to report psychological change, for each item on a self-report measure the participant must (a) evaluate their current standing on that dimension of growth, (b) recall their previous standing on that dimension, (c) compare their current and previous standings, (d) assess the degree of change, and (e) consider how much of that change is a consequence of the stressful encounter. Coyne and Tennen therefore conclude that “people cannot combine the complex information required to judge that personal growth has occurred in response to a threatening encounter” (p. 24). Such suggestions have been rebutted by researchers such as Aspinwall and Tedeschi

A Methodological Perspective 41

(2010) who suggest that traumatic events set a clear temporal dividing line of life before and after trauma. For this reason, articulation of change using self-report measures is “possible, meaningful, and valuable” (p. 30). The use of retrospective descriptions of growth has been a common approach in the qualitative sports growth literature (e.g., Day, 2013; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2018; Salim, Wadey, & Diss, 2016; Wadey, Evans, Evans, & Mitchell, 2011) with a wealth of research demonstrating the value of this method of data collection. Yet retrospective qualitative methods have also fallen under criticism for their reliance on retrospective recall and snapshot perspectives. Despite these suggestions, it is possible for retrospective methods to go beyond the collection of synchronic data (i. e., data that lacks temporal dimensions). In particular, the use of time-line techniques have been used to add temporal insights during interview. For example, Savage, Collins, and Cruickshank (2017) asked participants to plot their perceived performance potential across time and to mark important events on their plotted line. They subsequently used this time line to prompt discussion during interview, exploring “lived” rather than “live” experiences (p.105). In doing this, Savage and colleagues suggested that retrospective perceptions are no less accurate and instead the use of retrospection provided the advantage of eliciting perceptions that had been critically reflected on over time. In addition to the use of specific techniques to collect temporal data, researchers might also consider that narrative methodologies are particularly well suited to the collection of diachronic data (i.e., data that contains temporal information about the sequential relationship of events). As Smith and Sparkes (2009) explain, narrative interviews encourage athletes to describe when an event/ events occurred, and the affect and/or effects of these events over time. Unlike other qualitative interview methods that may rely on categorical answers to questions put forward by an interviewer, narrative interviews encourage participants to tell stories, therefore including a historical and developmental dimension. Researchers considering the temporal aspects of growth have most often taken either an interval-contingent approach (e.g., using longitudinal methods or crosssectional design to collect data at particular time points) or an event-contingent approach (e.g., focusing on memorable or important experiences related to growth using retrospective methods). The result of these two approaches is that the focus is most often on “big” stories of important events or life-changing moments, rather than exploring daily experiences of living after adversity. Charmaz (1991) highlights that everyday life is guided by novel and fluctuating rules, rhythms, tempos, and time changes. Temporality is therefore not only key to considering when data should be collected, but also in ensuring that research seeks to understand these everyday moments. Day, Wadey, and Strike (2019) highlighted that everyday experiences have been explored in the field of health psychology through asking participants about the impacts of adverse health conditions on good and bad days (e.g., Cohen & Mount, 2000; Reibschleger, 2004), yet rarely do we consider the everyday experiences of growth. We might therefore use longitudinal methods to ask how growth is experienced on a day to day basis, the

42 Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

impact that this has on our everyday lives and daily tasks of living, both within and outside of sport. In considering this, we also need to consider methods that might allow us to access what might be seen as more mundane and less memorable moments. The use of written, audio, or visual (e.g., photograph or video) diaries may provide valuable participant reflections on everyday experiences (Day, 2017). Further, retrospective methods may also be valuable in understanding everyday experiences and researchers might also consider using prompts such as material objects to assist in recall and discussion, thereby providing insightful details into everyday life (Chamberlain & Lyons, 2017). Overall, in order to fully understand the nuanced process of growth, temporal factors should be a key consideration. While concerns have been voiced about participants’ abilities to articulate their experiences (through both self-report and descriptive methods), these arguments should be weighed up against the strength of methods used to collect data (e.g., validated measures, storied diachronic data collection). While temporality presents many challenges, the consideration of temporal aspects can also strengthen research design. For example, the use of longitudinal methods may allow for insights into both the initial development of growth and its stability over time, as well as allowing us to consider how subsequent adversities or life events influence growth. Thus, researchers should seek to embrace temporal aspects, considering how they may be used to inform and strengthen research design.

Conclusion In writing this chapter, we have had the opportunity to reflect on just some of the methodological considerations made by growth researchers. As we have begun to outline, the challenges for researchers are numerous and debates on “effective” methods are rife. To add to these difficulties, researchers face evergrowing pressures to produce research that is impactful, demonstrating accountability for research investment (Kay, 2017). At the same time, this chapter is written at a time when calls are being made for methodological connoisseurship and creativity (e.g., McGannon, Smith, Kendellen, & Gonsalves, 2019). Despite the common difficulties faced by researchers, as Bryman (2015) describes, “what we read in reports of research are often highly sanitised accounts of how the research was produced, without a sense of the sometimes difficult problems the researcher(s) had to overcome” (p. 15). We therefore close this chapter by encouraging researchers to recognize the importance of reflecting on, describing, and discussing these difficulties, thereby allowing others to learn and relate to their experiences, as well as opening up conversations about methodology. Researching growth can be demanding. It involves listening to stories of adversity, hearing gritty and emotional accounts of the difficulties faced both inside and outside of sport, it involves envisaging the lives of others while using skilled interviewing (or alternative) techniques to value stories of both adversity and growth. It makes us question and reflect on our own lives and cultures. Yet rarely

A Methodological Perspective 43

do we open up such conversations in our academic writing. Consequently, we end this chapter by encouraging growth researchers to share their challenges, reflections, and dilemmas of researching growth across a range of methodologies.

References Abraído-Lanza, A. F., Guier, C., & Colón, R. M. (1998). Psychological thriving among Latinas with chronic illness. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 405–424. doi:10.1111/j.15404560.1887.tb01227.x. Aspinwall, L.G., & Tedeschi, R.G. (2010). Of babies and bathwater: A reply to Coyne and Tennen’s views on positive psychology and health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39, 27–34. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9155-y. Brewer, B. W., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Tennen, H. (2017). Adversarial growth after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 134–144. doi:10.1123/jsep.2016-0210. Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, S. M., & Utley, A. (2013). Climbing towards recovery: Investigating physically injured combat veterans’ psychosocial response to scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 732–739. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.707743. Carless, D., & Douglas, K. (2017). When two worlds collide: A story about collaboration, witnessing, and life story research with soldiers returning from war. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 375–383. doi:10.1177/1077800416660579. Cassidy, T. (2017). The role of theory, interpretation and critical thought within qualitative sport and exercise research. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 397–408). London, UK: Routledge. Cavallerio, F., Wadey, R., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2016). Understanding overuse injuries in rhythmic gymnastics: A 12-month ethnography. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.05.002. Chamberlain, K., & Lyons, A. C. (2017). Using material objects and artifacts in research. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 164–176). London, UK: Routledge. Charmaz C. (1991). Good days and bad days: The self in chronic illness and time. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Cohen S. R., & Mount, B. M. (2000). Living with cancer: “Good” days and “bad” days – what produces them? Cancer, 89, 1854–1865. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20001015) 89:83.0.CO;2-C. Colquitt, J. A. & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five decade study of the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281–1303. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.28165855. Coyne, J. C. & Tennen, H. (2010). Positive psychology in cancer care: Bad science, exaggerated claims, and unproven medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39, 16–26. doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9154-z. Crawford, J. J., Gayman, A. M., & Tracey, J. (2014). An examination of post-traumatic growth in Canadian and American Parasport athletes with acquired spinal cord injury. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 399–406. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.008. Day, M. C. (2013). The role of initial physical activity experiences in promoting posttraumatic growth in Paralympic athletes with an acquired disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 2064–2072. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.805822.

44 Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

Day, M. C. (2017). Documents of life: From diaries to autobiographies to biographical objects. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 177–188). London, UK: Routledge. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2017). Researching growth following adversity in sport and exercise: Methodological implications and future recommendations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health, 9, 499–513. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1328460. Day, M. C., Wadey, R., & Strike, S. (2019). Living with limb loss: Everyday experiences of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ days in people with lower limb amputation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41, 2433–2442. doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1467502. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. New York, NY: Rowman Altamira. France, E. F., Uny, I., Ring, N. et al. (2019). A methodological systematic review of metaethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, 35. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2009). Posttraumatic growth and life-threatening physical illness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 343–378. doi:10.1348/135910708X332936. Hodge, K. & Sharp, L. (2017). Case studies. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 62–74). London, UK: Routledge. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity-and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2008). Psychological assessment of growth following adversity: A review. In S. Joseph & P. A. Linley (Eds.), Trauma, recovery, and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic stress (pp. 21–38). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Regel, S. (2012). An affective-cognitive processing model of posttraumatic growth. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 316–324. doi:10.1002/ cpp.1798. Joseph, S., Williams, R., & Yule, W. (1993). Changes in outlook following disaster: The preliminary development of a measure to assess positive and negative responses. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 271–279. doi:10.1002/jts.2490060209. Kampman, H., Hefferon, K., Wilson, M., & Beale, J. (2015). “I can do things now that people thought were impossible, actually, things that I thought were impossible”: A meta-synthesis of the qualitative findings on posttraumatic growth and severe physical injury. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56, 283–294. doi:10.1037/cap0000031. Kay, T. (2017). Knowledge not numbers: Qualitative research and impact in sport, exercise, and health. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp.424–437). London, UK: Routledge. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, A. M., Mohrman, S. A., Ledford, G. E., & Cummings, T. G. (1999). Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Lexington Books. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e. McDonough, M. H., Sabiston, C. M., & Ullrich-French, S. (2011). The development of social relationships, social support, and posttraumatic growth in a dragon boating team for breast cancer survivors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 627–648.

A Methodological Perspective 45

McGannon, K., 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. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2019.1655779. McMillen, J. C., & Fisher, R. H. (1998). The perceived benefits scales: Measuring perceived positive life changes after negative events. Social Work Research, 22, 173–187. doi:10.1093/swr/22.3.173. Michie, S., & Prestwich, A. (2010). Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology, 29, 1–8. doi:10.1037/a0016939. Neely, K. C., Dunn, J. G. H., McHugh, T. F., & Holt, N. L. (2018). Female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following deselection in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 40, 173–185. doi:10.1123/jsep.2017–0136. Owton, H., & Sparkes, A. (2017). Sexual abuse and the grooming process in sport: Learning from Bella’s story. Sport, Education, and Society, 22, 732–743. doi:10.1080/ 13573322.2015.1063484. Papathomas, A. (2017). From cardinal to marginal … and back? In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 37–48). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x. Pollard, C., & Kennedy, P. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of emotional impact, coping strategies and post-traumatic psychological growth following spinal cord injury: A 10year review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 347–362. doi:10.1348/ 135910707X197046. Quarmby, T., Sandford, R., Hooper, O., & Duncombe, R. (2020). Narratives and marginalised voices: Storying the sport and physical activity experiences of care-experienced young people. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. doi:10.1080/ 2159676X.2020.1725099. Reibschleger J. (2004). Good days and bad days: the experiences of children of a parent with a psychiatric disability. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 8, 25–31. doi:10.2975/28.2004.25.31. Roy-Davis, K., Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2017). A grounded theory of sport injury-related growth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 35–52. doi:10.1037/spy0000080. Salim, J., Wadey, R., & Diss, C. (2016). Examining hardiness, coping and stress-related growth following sport injury. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28, 154–169. doi:10.1080/10413200.2015.1086448. Savage, J., Collins, D., & Cruickshank, A. (2017). Exploring traumas in the development of talent: What are they, what do they do, and what do they require? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 101–117. doi:10.1080/10413200.2016.1194910. Smith, B. (2017). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10, 137–149. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1393221. Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. (2008). Narrative and its potential contribution to disability studies. Disability & Society, 23, 17–28. doi:10.1080/09687590701725542. Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. (2009). Narrative analysis and sport and exercise psychology: Understanding lives in diverse ways. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 279–288. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.012. Sparkes, A. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activity: A qualitative journey. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

46 Melissa Day, Karen Howells, and Ross Wadey

Stolorow, R. D. (2003). Trauma and temporality. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 20, 158–161. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.20.1.158. Taku, K., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. (2008). The factor structure of the posttraumatic growth inventory: A comparison of five models using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 158–164. doi:10.1002/jts.20305. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). Posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/ jts.2490090305. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Evans, K., & Mitchell, I. (2011). Perceived benefits following sport injury: A qualitative examination of their antecedents and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 142–158. doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.543119. Wadey, R., Podlog, L., Galli, N., & Mellalieu, S. (2016). Stress-related growth following sport injury: Examining the applicability of the organismic valuing theory. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/sms.12579. Whaley, D. E., & Krane, V. (2011). Now that we all agree, let’s talk epistemology: A commentary on the invited articles. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health, 3, 394–403. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2011.607186. Williams, T. L. & Shaw, R. L. (2017). Synthesizing qualitative research. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 274–288). London, UK: Routledge. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. London, UK: Sage.

4 “IT’S IMPACTED ME TOO” Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

Introduction The recent amelioration of research literature exploring growth in sport has provided a body of work that richly describes how growth may be experienced following trauma and/or adversity (for reviews see Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2009; Kampman, Hefferon, Wilson, & Beale, 2015). Such work has been a natural and intuitive progression where research focusing on a range of negative life events has also shown glimmers of growth (e.g., renewed perspectives on sport after injury; Bianco, Malo, & Orlick, 1999). Yet at present, this enhanced research momentum exploring growth in the sporting context has been strongly focused on the individual who has experienced trauma and/or adversity. Thus, the spotlight has been narrow, focusing only on the person at the center of the experience and thereby ignoring any potential ripple effect and impact on others. In this chapter our aim is to broaden the lens of growth, moving away from an individual perspective and instead exploring how the wider sports network may experience growth themselves through vicarious experiences. Before doing this, it is important to first clarify our own position on growth to ensure coherence throughout this chapter. We are both posttraumatic growth (PTG) researchers, working with populations who have experienced unexpected seismic events (e.g., life-changing injury, amputation). Consequently, we define PTG in accordance with Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, and Calhoun’s (2018) definition that growth entails “positive psychological changes experienced as a result of the struggle with traumatic or highly challenging life circumstances” (p. 3). Yet we also acknowledge the challenges associated with defining traumatic or highly challenging life circumstances. To clarify these terms in our research we have turned to definitions of posttraumatic stress used in the DSM-V which defines

48 Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

trauma as “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 271). This definition provided by the DSM-V also suggests that the exposure must result from either directly experiencing the traumatic event, witnessing the traumatic event in person, learning about the occurrence of the traumatic event to a close family member or friend, and/or repeated exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event. Thus, the suggestion here is that trauma may occur through vicarious experiences (i.e., witnessing trauma or listening to trauma accounts). Given this acknowledgment of the importance of vicarious trauma in defining traumatic experiences, this chapter considers whether vicarious trauma may also lead to growth. We hope that by demonstrating that glimmers of vicarious growth already exist in the current sports literature, this chapter will act as a call to action for future research on vicarious growth. To achieve this, our chapter considers three pertinent questions: (1) How are others currently represented in the trauma and adversity literature? (2) How is vicarious growth defined and who may be likely to experience this type of growth? (3) How can we move forward in researching vicarious growth?

The Representation of “Others” In order to situate our call to action for further research into vicarious growth, we begin by outlining where those who have vicariously experienced trauma are considered in the existing growth literature. In doing this, we propose that at present, others are most often only considered in terms of what they provide to the individual who has directly experienced trauma (e.g., validation of growth, facilitation of growth) rather than considering the potential personal impacts of vicariously experiencing trauma. Thus, while this area of research provides us with valuable information on how growth is experienced, the focus remains strongly on the individual who directly experienced trauma and what others may provide to this individual. This focus on the individual who has experienced trauma is exemplified in research that uses others as a source to validate or provide coherence with claims that growth has been experienced. Given their high involvement with athletes and their role surrounding the return to sport after adversity, coaches have been well placed to provide a valuable source of information on the behavioral indicators of growth that they have witnessed in athletes. One such example of this approach is found in the work of Wadey, Clark, Podlog, and McCullough (2013) who interviewed coaches on their perceptions of growth in athletes who had experienced sport injury. While using others, such as coaches, to provide a thirdperson perspective has extended our knowledge of the dimensions of growth by highlighting novel types of growth that were previously unreported by injured athletes themselves, this focus on the individual athlete also leaves a number of questions unanswered. At the close of their research Wadey et al. themselves

Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? 49

question whether coaches might be able to identify any team or community growth (see also Chapter 8). Such a question is well-placed, given that coaches in their study reported some of the behavioral indicators of growth as “being more receptive to others in the team,” “seeking out distressed teammates to offer support,” and “being more receptive to listen to others” (Wadey et al., 2013, p. 130). It may therefore be logical to assume such behaviors may facilitate vicarious growth in other teammates. Further, we might also consider whether coaches themselves experienced growth after being a confidant and coach to an athlete experiencing injury. Authors such as Splevins, Cohen, Joseph, Murray, and Bowley (2010) suggested witnessing growth in others may lead to personal reflections on the strength of human resiliency and increased feelings of joy, hope, and happiness. Given that coaches have been suggested to be close confidants, and able to express empathy to athletes during adversities such as injury (Bianco, 2001), they may be well-placed to experience vicarious growth. Indeed, Salim and Wadey (2019) found that when injured athletes wrote and shared a gratitude letter, there were also remarkable impacts on the recipient of the letter, including a renewed dynamic in their relationship with the sender and an enhanced expression of gratitude to others. We might therefore consider that where coaches have been vicariously exposed to trauma, assisting the athlete in their recovery and being the recipients of gratitude may in turn allow coaches themselves to experience growth. The second consideration of others in the current growth literature is the role that others may play in fostering and/or thwarting growth following adversity. Given that conceptualizations of growth include more meaningful relationships (Tedeschi et al., 2018), this focus on the role of others as facilitators of growth is unsurprising. Numerous authors have highlighted the camaraderie gained with others who have undergone similar experiences (e.g., Sabiston, McDonough, & Crocker, 2007; Burke & Utley, 2013), recognizing the importance of encouragement from others, shared humor, and the ability to not only receive help but also to help and support others. Further, researchers have also recognized that experiencing more meaningful relationships does not imply a universal positive impact on all relationships and that some relationships may negatively impact on recovery from adversity or even thwart growth (e.g., Burke & Sabiston, 2010; Day & Wadey, 2016; McDonough, Sabiston, & Ullrich-French, 2011; Sabiston et al., 2007). Yet while the role played by others in supporting victims of trauma or adversity has been well-explored, the potential personal impacts of providing this support have not. Such considerations are vital given that authors such as Brockhouse, Msetfi, Cohen, and Joseph (2011) suggested empathic engagement with those who have experienced trauma is an important factor in the development of vicarious posttraumatic growth. The sporting literature has identified who provides social support to athletes after adversity (Howells & Fletcher, 2016) and how applied sport psychologists may facilitate growth (Wadey et al., 2019), yet the growth experiences of these supporters themselves have only been considered when expressively shown gratitude by the person they have helped (Salim & Wadey, 2019).

50 Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

Taken together, these two areas of research highlight the potential to explore the experiences of vicarious growth in those who support the injured athlete. Yet it is not only this supporting role that may provide opportunities for growth. Over the past decade, a small collection of publications has also acknowledged that others may experience vicarious trauma after witnessing or learning about another’s traumatic experiences in sport (Day, 2012; Kerr, 2007; Wenzel & Zhu, 2013). For example, Day and Schubert (2012) examined competitive gymnasts’ experiences of witnessing injury in a teammate. Their results illustrated that witnesses described emotional responses such as fear, shock, and disappointment, an ability to identify with the physical pain and personal difficulties that would lie ahead for the injured athlete, a personal sense of vulnerability to injury, as well as a degree of relief that they themselves had not sustained the injury. Similar negative ramifications of witnessing injury have also been found by Day, Bond, and Smith (2013) and Martinelli, Day, and Lowry (2017) who examined the impacts of witnessing athletic injury in coaches, suggesting that coaches experienced feelings of guilt, intrusive thoughts (e.g., involuntarily re-experiencing the event), and often avoided discussion of the injury event as well as evading interactions with the injured athlete. Finally, authors such as O’Neill (2008) have explored the responses of those in the vicinity of injury. His study of elite skiers training in ski academies suggested the occurrence of an injury led to increased expressions of fear from those around the injured athlete. Overall, these studies suggest that the wider sporting network may be vulnerable to the negative vicarious impacts of trauma. Given this vicarious exposure, it is reasonable to propose that there is the potential for growth. Just as direct experiences of trauma may shatter the assumptive world of the athlete (Joseph & Linley, 2005), vicarious experiences hold the potential to be similarly impactful. Consequently, those experiencing vicarious trauma may also be prompted to question their beliefs and seek meaning in their experiences. As a collective, the three areas of research outlined above demonstrate the potential for vicarious growth in the wider sports network, either through an individual’s experiences as a witness to trauma or in the supportive role provided as a coach or confidant to trauma victims. Yet despite this potential, at present no research in the sporting domain has aimed to specifically investigate vicarious growth. Thus, in order to define and understand the experience of vicarious growth, we must turn our attention to the literature outside of sport.

How is Vicarious Growth Defined and Who may be Most Likely to Experience this Type of Growth? Vicarious growth refers to the development of positive changes as a result of vicarious exposure to adversity or trauma, rather than through direct personal experience (Arnold, Calhoun, Tedeschi, & Cann, 2005). This vicarious exposure occurs indirectly either as a witness to a traumatic or adverse event (e.g., as an official, teammate, coach) and/or by listening to third-person narratives of such events (e.g., as a coach or teammate supporting an athlete or an applied sport psychologist).

Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? 51

Outside of the sporting context, vicarious growth (i.e., growth following indirect exposure) has been well-documented, particularly in healthcare professionals and counsellors who are often the main supporters of direct victims of adversity. In a systematic literature review of vicarious posttraumatic growth, Manning-Jones, de Terte, and Stephens (2015) outlined the similarities between vicarious growth and Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1996) conceptualization of direct growth (see also Chapter 1). For example, psychotherapists (Arnold et al., 2005), refugee support workers (Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Guhan & Liebling-Kalifani, 2009), social workers (Shamai & Ron, 2009), and interpreters (Splevins et al., 2010) noted similar positive changes in their values and priorities, spiritual growth, personal strength, and personal relationships. Yet subtle differences were also apparent between these two forms of growth, whereby those reporting vicarious growth described broader, more abstract experiences of growth. For example, when discussing enhanced personal strength, Splevins et al. (2010) reported that participants referred to the resilience of the human race in general. Similarly, when discussing spiritual growth, Arnold et al. (2005) described a more general acceptance of spiritual beliefs as a healing tool, rather than change in any personal beliefs. Suggestions such as these indicate that while vicarious growth shares some similarities with direct growth, vicarious growth may be less integrated with a person’s self-concept (Manning-Jones et al., 2015) and instead reflect positive cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and interpersonal reflections on the abilities of the human race after adversity. A further important difference between growth and vicarious growth in the helping professions is the suggestion of a new dimension of growth as a function of their work: enhanced professional identity. Numerous researchers have suggested the positive changes or “positive payments” (Stamm, 2002) may occur after assisting those who have experienced trauma. The term compassion satisfaction has been used to describe the sense of fulfilment or pleasure that may result from helping others, with those in helping professions reporting the positive benefits associated with making a difference (Larsen & Stamm, 2008). Those in helping professions have reported that the impacts of this compassion satisfaction have included an enhanced professional identity through the realization that their work was valuable, as well as enhanced professional capabilities and feelings of competence (Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013). As Larsen, Stamm, and Davis (2006) point out, this enhanced professional satisfaction is imperative to our understanding of why trauma therapists may be motivated to continue to work despite the negative costs of caring for trauma populations. Larsen et al. demonstrated that while 48 percent of their professional sample reported high burnout, 75 percent also scored in the moderate to extremely high range of compassion satisfaction. Thus, for those listening to stories of adversity and trauma as part of their professional work, embracing the benefits of their work may serve as a buffer or protective force from the negative “costs” of caring.

52 Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

As Larsen et al.’s (2006) study demonstrates, not all of those in helping professions experienced high levels of compassion satisfaction in their work. Manning-Jones et al.’s (2015) systematic literature review identified a number of cognitive and behavioral factors that may facilitate the development of vicarious growth. Cognitive factors included having positive and optimistic beliefs about the future and the benefits of suffering (Shiri, Wexler, & Kreitler, 2010), a strong sense of coherence (i.e., seeing the world as manageable, meaningful, and comprehensible; Linley, Joseph, & Loumidis, 2005), and an ability to empathically engage with those who have suffered trauma or adversity (Linley & Joseph, 2007). Yet while some authors have suggested that therapists should avoid empathically engaging and visualizing the client’s own trauma material (Rothschild, 2003), Davis and Macdonald (2004) suggested it is necessary to experience initial devastation and distress (which may later be alleviated using self-care activities) following vicarious trauma exposure in order to experience vicarious growth. In addition to these cognitive factors that may facilitate growth, studies have also demonstrated the importance of behavioral factors including self-care (e.g., Arnold et al., 2005, Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Splevins et al., 2010) and engaging in personal therapy (e.g., Brockhouse et al., 2011). Suggested selfcare activities have included exercising, engaging in hobbies, prayer, and healthy eating. It is perhaps unsurprising that the use of such strategies has been linked to vicarious growth given that these may be seen as deliberate attempts to reduce psychological distress and protect wellbeing. Further, the suggested use of personal therapy may assist caregivers in processing and finding meaning in their experiences. These behavioral strategies may also be linked to the importance of social support and suggestions that this positively influences coping and adaptation following trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Finally, time was identified by Manning-Jones et al.’s (2015) review as an important factor that may facilitate the development of vicarious growth. Those working with trauma populations described that, over time, levels of distress decreased and were replaced by personal growth (Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Shamai & Ron, 2009). Such suggestions fit well with theories that take into account the temporal nature of growth (e.g., Organismic Valuing Theory, see Chapter 2) and consider aspects such as the importance of rumination. The importance of time is also unsurprising given that vicarious growth in this population has often been linked to “making a difference” and witnessing growth in clients (Arnold et al., 2005), something that is unlikely to occur over a short timeframe. Disappointingly, the sport psychology literature has not yet specifically explored the potential for vicarious growth after listening to athlete accounts of trauma. Indeed, despite Howells and Fletcher (2016) highlighting that coaches, applied psychologists, and family were the main sources of support for athletes following adversity, there has been an absence of literature specifically exploring the positive impact of being exposed to athletes’ verbal recollections and stories of trauma. Yet glimpses of the potential for such vicarious growth can be seen in the

Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? 53

professional practice and methodology literature, particularly in the work of Andersen and Ivarsson (2016) who described the impact that listening to participant stories may have on the researcher, describing: As investigators, we are not (and should not be) immune to the power, beauty, sadness, joy, hopelessness, and other deeply personal qualities of the stories we hear. If we are not somehow changed by our encounters with the people and stories told in our research endeavours, then we have to ask ourselves, as Yalom (2002) suggested: what is it about us that we have not made room in our hearts for a deep experience of connecting with our participants? What is it that keeps us from attuning and resonating with our informants and opening up to the potential transformative power of a shared story? Researchers (and therapists) may also accrue benefits from their participants’ and clients’ stories well after the interviews or therapies are over. (p. 16) An alternative consideration to vicarious growth through listening to athlete accounts is whether there is also the potential for vicarious growth after witnessing athletic trauma or adversity. As suggested earlier in this chapter, the negative impacts of witnessing adverse events have recently been documented in a variety of studies (e.g., Day & Schubert, 2012; Martinelli et al., 2017), yet at present, no study has specifically examined growth as a vicarious witness. There are, however, some indications within the literature on vicarious trauma that growth experiences may also occur. Day et al.’s (2013) case study of coach responses to witnessing traumatic injury documents two quite different responses to vicarious trauma. While one coach struggled to comprehend the injury or find any positive meaning, the other looked for reasons that the injury happened, considered any possible benefit or purpose in the injury event, and compared the injury to a worst-case scenario, thereby reducing its threatening impact. Such actions may be seen to represent a desire to seek out positive meaning after witnessing injury by developing new perspectives on the injury and even using these to improve future coaching practice. Similar signs of taking positive actions after witnessing injury were also seen in the gymnasts who were interviewed in Day and Schubert (2012). While participants in this study initially engaged in avoidance coping after witnessing an injury in a teammate, the return to training and receipt of social support encouraged them to use approach coping strategies. These included a number of strategies that served to reduce their own risk of injury including becoming more thoughtful in training, increasing concentration, increasing safety procedures, and spending more time perfecting skill progressions. As one participant suggested, “I think after a while you understand that it’s [injury] just part of the sport that you do … having that awareness that it’s [injury] a possibility helps you to be smarter about how you do skills” (p. 750).

54 Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

Two further studies have also demonstrated the potential positive impacts following indirect experiences of trauma. Yet while participants in these studies vicariously experienced trauma, their close relationship to the individual directly experiencing trauma (Simpson & Elberty, 2018) and close proximity to the trauma event (Timm, Kamphoff, Galli, & Gonzalez, 2018) demonstrates the somewhat blurred boundary between direct and indirect experiences of trauma. Simpson and Elberty described the grief experienced by athletes following the unexpected death of a teammate. While death may be synonymous with a negative reaction, it was also suggested to be bittersweet, where later reactions included feeling motivated to make their lost teammate proud and having a more in-depth perspective on life in general. This enhanced motivation was also suggested by Timm et al. (2018) who explored the responses of marathon runners in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. Participants included those who had already finished the race, were in the finishing area, or who were still on the race course at the time of the bombing. Thus, while participants did not experience physical injury themselves, their close proximity to the bombing and involvement in the event again blurs the borders between direct and indirect trauma experience. Timm and colleagues outlined that after this experience, participants reported a change in mindset (e.g., describing that bad things or events should not stop them from living their lives), an ability to focus on the good that came out of the experience (e.g., following inspirational stories on the news), and a positive personal outcome (e.g., enhanced motivation). As one participant described: “I think it’s made me train harder. I really want to finish, I want to have a strong marathon. It’s made me more grateful for the team that I have to run with” (Timm et al., 2018, p. 47).

Future Research Directions For an area where there is extremely limited research attention it is simple to suggest that more needs to be done. Yet there are several limitations apparent in the literature outside of the sporting domain that researchers should take heed of. First, given that research into vicarious growth has emerged from the growth literature, there is no specific theory or model informing research in this area. Instead researchers rely on applying theories of growth despite the demonstration of subtle differences between the two concepts. As outlined in Chapter 3, methodologies such as grounded theory or syntheses such as meta-synthesis or meta-ethnography might be valuable for developing theory in this area. Following this suggestion, it is important to note that there is also no validated measure specifically designed to assess vicarious growth. Instead the current literature has most often relied on the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) which is designed for use following direct traumatic exposure and may therefore be limited in its ability to assess all aspects of vicarious growth. Second, vicarious growth is most often viewed in isolation to the trauma event itself, with research focusing on how the individual has grown without considering

Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? 55

the nature of the traumatic event. The association between trauma and growth bears particular relevance for those experiencing vicarious trauma as witnesses of trauma have described feeling that trauma may have been preventable. For example, sport coaches in Martinelli et al. (2017) described their guilt after witnessing injury, feeling accountable for the safety of the individuals in their charge, and reflecting on different possible courses of action. While these sport coaches may have experienced positive changes in their practice (e.g., enhancing safety precautions, becoming more aware of injury risk), viewing such changes in isolation provides a unidimensional account of growth, negating the distress caused by trauma and the personal struggle with guilt. As researchers we must be mindful of promoting vicarious growth without considering that such experiences are synonymous with suffering.

Conclusion The concept of vicarious growth offers much promise as a novel pathway for sports researchers. Specifically, this pathway turns in two directions: the exploration of growth in those who have witnessed trauma and the exploration of growth in those who have listened to trauma and supported athletes through this (e.g., coaches, applied sport psychologists, family). Further, for both of these directions we might consider individuals who are proximal to the athlete (e.g., coaches, family) as well as the general public who may hear accounts of trauma and growth in the media. At present both directions are unexplored, although glimpses of possibility are revealed in both directions by the current literature. In exploring either of these directions, our gaze is cast wider than the single victim of trauma or adversity. Thus research should seek to understand how trauma impacts on the wider sports network by moving beyond intrapersonal explanations (i.e., focusing on the direct experience of trauma) and instead asking whether vicarious trauma may also impact on an interpersonal (e.g., vicarious growth in teammates, coaches and family), institutional (e.g., how the sports environment may foster or thwart growth in a team), cultural (e.g., what stories are circulated following trauma), and policy (e.g., what policy exists to support coaches following severe injury to an athlete) level.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Andersen, M. B., & Ivarsson, A. (2016). A methodology of loving kindness: How interpersonal neurobiology, compassion and transference can inform researcher-participant encounters and storytelling. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8 (1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2015.1056827. Arnold, D., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., & Cann, A. (2005). Vicarious posttraumatic growth in psychotherapy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45, 239–263. doi:10.1177/ 0022167805274729.

56 Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

Barrington, A. G., & Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2013). Working with refugee survivors of torture and trauma: An opportunity for vicarious posttraumatic growth. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 26, 89–105. doi:10.1080/09515070.2012.727553. Bianco, T. (2001). Social support and recovery from sport injury: Elite skiers share their experiences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 376–388. doi:10.1080/ 02701367.2001.10608974. Bianco, T., Malo, S., & Orlick, T. (1999). Sport injury and illness: Elite skiers describe their experiences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 158–169. doi:10.1080/ 02701367.1999.10608033. Brockhouse, R., Msetfi, R. M., Cohen, K., & Joseph, S. (2011). Vicarious exposure to trauma and growth in therapists: The moderating effects of sense of coherence, organizational support, and empathy. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 735–742. doi:10.1002/jts.20704. Burke, S. M., & Sabiston, C. M. (2010). The meaning of the mountain: Exploring breast cancer survivors’ lived experiences of the subjective well-being during a climb on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2, 1–16. doi:10.1080/19398440903510137. Burke, S. M., & Utley, A. (2013). Climbing towards recovery: Investigating physically injured combat veterans’ psychosocial response to scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 732–739. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.707743. Davis, C. G., & Macdonald, S. L. (2004). Threat appraisals, distress and the development of positive life changes after September 11th in a Canadian sample. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 33, 68–78. doi:10.1080/16506070410025832. Day, M. C. (2012). Coping with trauma in sport. In J. Thatcher, M. Jones, & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Coping and emotion in sport (2nd ed., pp. 62–78). London, UK: Routledge. Day, M. C., Bond, K., & Smith, B. (2013). Holding it together: Coping with vicarious trauma in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.06.001. Day, M. C., & Schubert, N. (2012). The impact of witnessing athletic injury: A qualitative examination of vicarious trauma in artistic gymnastics. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 743–753. doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.671530. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Guhan, R., & Liebling-Kalifani, H. (2011). The experiences of staff working with refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom: A grounded theory exploration. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 9, 205–228. doi:10.1080/15562948.2011.592804. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2009). Posttraumatic growth and life-threatening physical illness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 343–378. doi:10.1348/135910708X332936. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173–186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037%2F1089-2680.9.3.262. Kampman, H., Hefferon, K., Wilson, M., & Beale, J. (2015). “I can do things now that people thought were impossible, actually, things that I thought were impossible”: A meta-synthesis of the qualitative findings on posttraumatic growth and severe physical injury. Canadian Psychology, 56, 283–294. doi:10.1037/cap0000031.

Where Does Vicarious Growth Fit In? 57

Kerr, J. H. (2007). Sudden withdrawal from skydiving: A case study informed by reversal theory’s concept of protective frames. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 337–351. doi:10.1080/10413200701342699. Larsen, D., & Stamm, B. H. (2008). Professional quality of life and trauma therapists. In S. Joseph, & P. Linley (Eds.), Trauma, recovery, and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic stress (pp. 275–293). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Larsen, D., Stamm, B. H., & Davis, K. (2006). Rural healthcare providers’ row to hoe: The impact on professional quality of life. Poster presentation at the annual American Psychological Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2007). Therapy work and therapists’ positive and negative wellbeing. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 385–403. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.3.385. Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., & Loumidis, K. (2005). Trauma work, sense of coherence, and positive and negative changes in therapists. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 74, 185–188. doi:10.1159/000084004. Manning-Jones, S., de Terte, I., & Stephens, C. (2015). Vicarious posttraumatic growth: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5, 125–139. doi:10.5502/ ijw.v5i2.8. Martinelli, L. A., Day, M. C., & Lowry, R. (2017). Sport coaches’ experiences of athlete injury: The development and regulation of guilt. Sports Coaching Review, 6, 162–178. doi:10.1080/21640629.2016.1195550. McDonough, M. H., Sabiston, C. M., & Ullrich-French, S. (2011). The development of social relationships, social support, and posttraumatic growth in a dragon boating team for breast cancer survivors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 627–648. O’Neill, D. F. (2008). Injury contagion in alpine ski racing: The effect of injury on teammates’ performance. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 2, 278–292. doi:10.1123/jcsp.2.3.278. Rothschild, B. (2003). The body remembers casebook: Unifying methods and models in the treatments of trauma and PTSD. London, UK: W. W. Norton & Company. Sabiston, C. M., McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2007). Psychosocial experiences of breast cancer survivors involved in a dragon boat program: Exploring links to positive psychological growth. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 419–438. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2019) Using gratitude to promote sport injury–related growth. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1626515. Shamai, M., & Ron, P. (2009). Helping direct and indirect victims of national, terror: Experiences of Israeli social workers. Qualitative Health Research, 19 (1), 42–54. doi:10.1177/1049732308327350. Shiri, S., Wexler, I. D., & Kreitler, S. (2010). Cognitive orientation is predictive of posttraumatic growth after secondary exposure to trauma. Traumatology, 16, 42–48. doi:10.1177/153476509348243. Simpson, D., & Elberty, L. P. (2018). A phenomenological study: Experiencing the unexpected death of a teammate. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 12, 97–113. doi:10.1123/jcsp.2017-0026. Splevins, K. A., Cohen, K., Joseph, S., Murray, C., & Bowley, J. (2010). Vicarious posttraumatic growth among interpreters. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1705–1716. doi:10.1177/1049732310377457. Stamm, B. H. (2002). Measuring compassion satisfaction as well as fatigue: Developmental history of the compassion fatigue and satisfaction test. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Treating compassion fatigue (pp. 107–119). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

58 Laura Martinelli and Melissa Day

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/ jts.2490090305. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychology Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Timm, K., Kamphoff, C., Galli, N., & Gonzalez, S. P. (2018). Resilience and growth in marathon runners in the aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. The Sport Psychologist, 31, 42–55. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2018.1526206. Wadey, R., Clark, S., Podlog, L., & McCullough, D. (2013). Coaches’ perceptions of athletes’ stress-related growth following sport injury. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 125–135. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.08.004. Wadey, R., Roy-Davis, K., Evans, L., Howells, K., Salim, J., & Diss, C. (2019). Sport psychology consultants’ perspectives on facilitating sport injury-related growth. The Sport Psychologist, 33(3), 244–255. Wenzel, T., & Zhu, L. J. (2013). Posttraumatic stress in athletes. In C. L. Reardon & S. H. Baron (Eds.), Clinical sport psychiatry: An international perspective (pp.102–114). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

5 GROWTH, RESILIENCE, AND THRIVING A Jangle Fallacy? Daniel J. Brown, Mustafa Sarkar, and Karen Howells

Introduction To understand what growth is and what growth is not, it is important to identify its defining features and use these to distinguish it from other constructs. Two ostensibly similar terms that have previously been discussed in relation to growth and, at times, conflated with it, are resilience and thriving. Much of the integration of this language began in the 1990s when a series of seminal texts espoused a shift in inquiry away from understanding human vulnerability and minimizing the detrimental effects of negative events towards examining human strengths and the ability to experience adaptive outcomes in the face of adversity (see Carver, 1998; O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996; Schaefer & Moos, 1992; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995, 1996). Within this work, scholars recognized the growing body of evidence on humans having positive outcomes following life crises and trauma, and they began to consolidate and elucidate the characteristics that underpin these experiences. For example, Schaefer and Moos (1992) reviewed research on life crises and personal growth and outlined three major stress-related changes (i.e., enhanced social resources, enhanced personal resources, new or improved coping skills). Furthermore, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) noted three broad categories of “perceived benefits” (p. 456) that survivors had been suggested to accrue in their attempts to cope with trauma (i.e., changes in self-perception, changes in interpersonal relationships, and a changed philosophy of life). These categories of change reflected how people grew and developed from negative events and provided the foundation for early measurement tools in this area (e.g., StressRelated Growth Scale [SRGS], Park et al., 1996; Posttraumatic Growth Inventory [PTGI], Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).

60 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

Independent to the work on growth, O’Leary and Ickovics (1995) also acknowledged the increasing anecdotal and empirical evidence indicating that humans could display adaptive outcomes following adversity. Yet, when drawing on previous resilience literature (e.g., Kahn, 1991; Rutter, 1987), the authors recognized the need for alternative language to capture the experiences of individuals who go beyond survival and recovery to thrive. Thus, O’Leary and Ickovics (1995) offered “thriving” as a value-added construct to describe the process of returning to a greater level of functioning in response to risk or threat. Moreover, the authors suggested that thriving results from a dynamic and transformative process of adaptation, whereby the experience of challenge provides the impetus for growth. This perspective was later extended by Carver (1998) who argued that different response trajectories exist for resilience and thriving, with the former characterizing recovery (i.e., a return to pre-event levels of functioning) and the latter remaining as a valueadded experience (i.e., exhibiting a superior level of functioning). It is apparent from the aforementioned literature that similarities exist between the experiences initially described by scholars as “growth,” “resilience,” and “thriving.” Yet, since this earlier work, unique and divergent bodies of literature have developed on each of these constructs at both intrapersonal and interpersonal levels. The development of the field has been accompanied by questions of a jangle fallacy with confusion existing on the distinctiveness between the terms (see, e.g., Westphal & Bonanno, 2007). The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize the existing research and to unravel previous misunderstandings. In order to do this, specific consideration will be given to three main features that have been central to the formulation of each of the constructs: adversity, processes and mechanisms, and levels of functioning. It is worth noting that although the terms can relate to individuals, groups, and organizations, the narrative that follows focuses on the distinction at the intrapersonal level. It is hoped that this discussion will provide readers with greater clarity on what is meant by “growth,” “resilience,” and “thriving,” and offer researchers and practitioners a nomenclature that they can employ consistently and accurately when examining these experiences in the future.

Adversity As a starting point, an important feature to discuss in the formulation of resilience, growth, and thriving is the notion and requirement of adversity. By definition, it is universally agreed that the term resilience presupposes exposure to adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten & Obradovic´, 2006). Indeed, Luthar et al. (2000) stated that “when the term resilience is used … the experience of significant adversity is a given” (p. 546). When considering the adversity experienced by study participants, resilience researchers have tended to employ a threshold-dependent conception by defining adversity in terms of statistical probabilities; that is, the focus is typically on negative life events that are statistically associated with maladjustment (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). However, as

Growth, Resilience, and Thriving 61

observed by Davis, Luecken, and Lemery-Chelfant (2009) “for most of us, the adversities we encounter do not constitute major disasters but rather are more modest disruptions that are embedded in our everyday lives” (p. 1638). This is particularly pertinent for the sport context where athletes often experience regular everyday hassles that are embedded in their sporting careers, such as relationship problems, inadequate preparation, and logistical issues (see, for a review, Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014b). Thus, to allow different types of situations, circumstances, and experiences to be included under the rubric of resilience, researchers have argued that the emphasis should be placed on the more neutral term “stressor,” defined as “the environmental demands (i.e., stimuli) encountered by an individual” (Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu, 2006, p. 359), rather than the negative value-laden term “adversity” (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). In comparison to resilience, which presupposes exposure to adversity (or stressors), growth researchers allude to the pivotal role that (negative) events and experiences have on individuals and the perceptions of the positive outcomes that emerge from these experiences (Joseph, Linley, & Harris, 2004). In a similar fashion to resilience, variation exists in the growth literature in the conceptualization of these negative events and experiences. In Howells, Sarkar, and Fletcher’s (2017) review of growth in competitive sport, it was noted that three terms were used to refer to athletes’ negative events and experiences: stressor, adversity, and trauma. When studying growth in this setting, the authors stated that researchers should use the term “stressor” for relatively mild environmental demands and events, and use “adversity” for more severe circumstances typically associated with adjustment difficulties. If the focus is more on an individual’s experience or state then, although “adversity” may still be satisfactory, the term “trauma” may more accurately convey an individual’s distressed response. Building on this assertion, Howells et al. (2017) proposed that once a researcher has identified a term to conceptualize a negative event or experience (i.e., stressor, adversity, or trauma), the growth that occurs following that event or experience should be coherently conceptualized using the corresponding growth terminology. Specifically, when using and exploring the terms stressor, adversity, and trauma, the growth that occurs from that (negative) event or experience should be conceptualized accordingly as stress-related growth (SRG), adversarial growth, and posttraumatic growth (PTG). In contrast to resilience and growth, thriving is not contingent on encountering stressors, adversity, and/or trauma, and scholars have recognized that negative events and experiences do not form an essential component of a thriving experience (see Carver, 1998; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014a; Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005). To illustrate, Carver (1998) argued that, in contrast to resilience, “thriving … does not depend on the occurrence of a discrete traumatic event or longer term trauma” (p. 245). Similarly, when distinguishing between resilience and thriving, Spreitzer et al. (2005) observed that the conceptualization of resilience typically encompasses adversity, whereas “thriving can occur with or

62 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

without adversity” (p. 538). Indeed, thriving can occur when successfully coping with life’s adversities and when actively pursuing life opportunities for growth and development (Feeney & Collins, 2015).

Processes and Mechanisms The processes and mechanisms through which resilience, growth, and thriving develop elucidate some of the similarities and differences between the three constructs. In the first instance, the three constructs depict some variance in how individuals perceive, evaluate, and assimilate the demands of a situation against their previous experiences. To elaborate, resilience is thought to be demonstrated when individuals perceive an event or situation to be relevant to their goals and the demands associated with it to be within their available resources (i.e., they make a challenge appraisal; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012, 2013, 2016). These perceptions also appear relevant for thriving, with Brown, Arnold, Standage, and Fletcher (2017) finding that performers who reported higher levels of challenge appraisal were more likely to be categorized in a thriving profile than a low-functioning profile. However, in contrast to the positive assimilation of information in resilience and thriving, growth is initiated when an individual experiences an event that is so negative or traumatic in nature that it challenges and shatters their assumptive world (i.e., their beliefs, values, schema, or identity) (see Janoff-Bulman, 1989). The effortful cognitive processing that follows may be intrusive or thoughtfully reflective (Lindstrom, Cann, Calhoun, & Tedeschi, 2013), involve assimilation (viz. attempting to incorporate the trauma-related material into the current schema) and/or accommodation (viz. the development of a new schema) (Joseph & Linley, 2005; Joseph, Murphy, & Regel, 2012), and comprise a search for (and finding) meaning (Joseph & Linley, 2005). A further cognitive process that appears important for growth and thriving is an individual’s perceived satisfaction of his or her basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Joseph & Linley, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Within the context of growth, Joseph and Linley (2005) propose that perceiving these needs as being satisfied can result in positive accommodation of traumatic material; that is, a positive new worldview that includes the traumarelated information. Alternatively, prior experience of settings where the needs have not been met will result in negative accommodation; that is, a negative new worldview that includes the trauma-related information. In relation to thriving, experiencing satisfaction of the three needs has been forwarded as a necessary condition for full functioning and wellness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Indeed, support for this assertion has been found within sport, with Brown, Arnold, Standage, et al. (2017) demonstrating that greater levels of need satisfaction significantly predicted membership to a thriving profile. In contrast to growth and thriving, basic psychological need satisfaction is yet to be discussed in the resilience literature. However, motivation researchers have suggested that perceiving satisfaction of the

Growth, Resilience, and Thriving 63

three needs strengthens inner resources (e.g., autonomous self-regulation) that subsequently contribute to resilience (see, Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013), and that resilience may influence the relationship between negative feedback and need frustration (see, Waterschoot, van der Kaap-Deeder, & Vansteenkiste, 2019), which suggest these associations may represent an avenue for future inquiry. In addition to the cognitive processes, there are other internal and environmental resources (or enablers) that facilitate the development of resilience, growth, and thriving. In their grounded theory of psychological resilience and optimal sport performance, Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) identified psychological factors (i.e., a positive personality, motivation, confidence, focus, and perceived social support) that protected world-class athletes from the potential negative effects of stressors by impacting upon their challenge appraisal and meta-cognitions.1 In their work investigating PTG, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996, 2004) identified that growth was mediated by personality, openness to new experiences, extraversion, and optimism.2 Furthermore, the sport-based thriving literature points to personal resilient qualities (Brown, Arnold, Standage, et al., 2017) and self-regulatory capacities (McNeill, Durand-Bush, & Lemyre, 2018) as personal enablers that facilitate thriving. In addition to the personal resources, relational influences exist for the three constructs. Resilience develops (over time) in the context of person-environment interactions (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993) and growth requires a conducive social environment that facilitates satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs (Hammer et al., 2018; Joseph & Linley, 2005; Joseph et al., 2012). Although the sport performance research in resilience and growth is unequivocal about the facilitative features of social support (see Howells et al., 2017; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014b), the evidence supporting the role of contextual enablers of thriving in sport is unclear. To illustrate, for promoting thriving in professional team sport, Brown and Arnold (2019) talk to the importance of establishing strong bonds with teammates and fostering a meaningful connection to coaching staff and the club. Yet, Brown, Arnold, Standage, et al. (2017) found no significant effects of social support, coach need-supporting behaviors, and coach need-thwarting behaviors on membership to a thriving profile. This latter variable of coach need-thwarting behaviors (i.e., high levels of coach interpersonal control) has previously been shown to have a negative effect on thriving (Gucciardi, Stamatis, & Ntoumanis, 2017). While it, therefore, appears environmental factors play a key role in resilience and growth, future research is needed to unravel the complexity in the relationships between social determinants and thriving.

Levels of Functioning One of the central components of early descriptions of resilience, growth, and thriving, was the functioning experienced following an adverse or stressful event. Although the previous sections have argued for the exclusion of adversity when characterizing thriving, the level of functioning displayed remains important for all

64 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

three terms. Resilience generally refers to the ability of individuals to maintain normal levels of functioning following adversity (Bonanno, 2004). The maintenance of these normal levels is considered to reflect positive adaptation, but the indicators used to illustrate positive adaptation must be appropriate to the adversity examined (Luthar et al., 2000). For example, for an individual exposed to a serious life adversity (e.g., direct exposure to terrorist attacks), it is sufficient to justify the existence of positive adaptation in terms of the absence of psychiatric symptoms. If the adversity is not as severe, but is nonetheless taxing (e.g., operating in a demanding sport environment on a daily basis), then it is entirely appropriate to expect excellent functioning in the specific domain (e.g., peer recognition of athletic performance) as evidence of positive adaptation (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2013). Scholars have also discussed how resilience reflects the bouncing back to pre-adversity levels of functioning and have, therefore, coupled resilience with recovery (see, Carver, 1998). In this context, recovery is characterized by a temporary period of psychopathology followed by gradual restoration to healthy levels of functioning over a period of one or two years (see Mancini & Bonanno, 2009). On the basis of these arguments, Fletcher and Sarkar (2016) forwarded two terms for resilience: “robust resilience” and “rebound resilience.” Robust resilience captures the protective quality of resilience shown when an individual maintains his or her performance and wellbeing when under pressure, and rebound resilience depicts the bounce-back quality shown when an individual experiences minor or temporary disruption in his or her performance and wellbeing under pressure followed by a rapid return to normal functioning (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2016). It is apparent, therefore, that resilience plays an important role in individuals withstanding adversity (or stressors) and managing any disruption to functioning across the many facets of their lives. In contrast to the maintenance of functioning seen in resilience, growth involves change and can be broadly understood as the process of increasing, such as increasing in size, amount, or importance. Although the term “growth” is neutral (i.e., it says nothing about whether the increase is positive or negative), when discussed in relation to humans, valence is typically ascribed to growth to refer to increases that are beneficial. Inherent in these increases are changes to existing characteristics (e.g., functioning, mentality, size) and, thus, growth often reflects a process of positive change. For example, when discussed in relation to adversity, positive changes that result in an elevated level of functioning when compared with the pre-adversity levels, are termed “adversarial growth” (Linley & Joseph, 2004). These changes are typically quantified using the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) or the SRGS (Park et al., 1996), and can occur across multiple domains. For example, in the PTGI, five areas of growth are measured, namely: a greater appreciation of life and changed sense of priorities; warmer, more intimate relationships with others; a greater sense of personal strength; recognition of new possibilities or paths for one’s life; and spiritual-existential change. Researchers have also sought to move beyond these generic measures to identify idiosyncratic components of growth in specific settings (e.g., sport; Howells et al., 2017) and

Growth, Resilience, and Thriving 65

different societies (e.g., non-Western cultures; Kashyap & Hussain, 2018). In relation to sport, for instance, Howells et al. (2017) categorized the growth indicators used by scholars into three main themes: intrapersonal indicators (e.g., awareness of the self in the context of the wider environment), interpersonal indicators (e.g., enhanced relationships), and physical indicators (e.g., superior performance). In summary, growth describes the various positive changes that occur to elevate an individual to a higher level of functioning. Where growth represents the positive change between levels of functioning and resilience represents the maintenance of current levels of functioning in the presence of adversity, thriving describes a multifaceted state of full (or holistic) functioning (Brown, Arnold, Fletcher, & Standage, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Su, Tay, & Diener, 2014). To illustrate, Su et al. (2014) stated that “to thrive in life is not only marked by feelings of happiness, or a sense of accomplishment, or having supportive and rewarding relationships, but is a collection of all these aspects” (p. 272). Further, Brown, Arnold, Fletcher, et al. (2017) suggest that “thriving can be realized through effective holistic functioning” (p. 169) and, from the viewpoint of self-determination theory, Ryan and Deci (2017) imply that thriving is akin to “being fully functioning” (p. 241). An individual can thrive and display full functioning in any context (e.g., when at school, at work, or when partaking in his or her hobby), meaning that the indicators of functioning can vary contingent on the setting. For example, to determine functioning in sport, scholars have typically utilized assessments of hedonic wellbeing (e.g., positive affect), eudemonic wellbeing (e.g., psychological wellbeing), and performance (e.g., perceived highachievement) (Brown, Arnold, Standage, et al., 2017; McNeill et al., 2018; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014a; Verner-Filion & Vallerand, 2018). When determining thriving using these multiple indicators, individuals need to score highly across all functioning dimensions to thrive, rather than reporting asynchronous patterns whereby they score highly on some dimensions but not others. Individuals who function fully and thrive are suggested to experience development and success (Brown, Arnold, Fletcher, et al., 2017), meaning that thriving will likely result in subsequent growth and may increase the parameters for functioning and thriving in the future. In essence, this means that the level of functioning and experience of thriving are progressive and dynamic over time.

Future Research Directions Based on the aforementioned discussion and literature in resilience, growth, and thriving, we have identified three important avenues for future research. First, there remains a need to further explore and better understand the relationships between the three constructs. Table 5.1 provides descriptive explanations of these proposed relationships based on current empirical and theoretical understanding; however, many of these propositions remain untested or under-researched. Important in future work will be ensuring that consistency exists in the

66 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

TABLE 5.1 Current Understanding of the Relationships between Growth, Resilience, and

Thriving Direction of Relationship

Summary of Current Understanding

Growth → Resilience

The positive changes described in growth can result in the development of behavioral, cognitive, and social attributes that enable an individual to maintain functioning when exposed to future adversity. The positive changes described in growth can result in the development of behavioral, cognitive, and social attributes that enable an individual to experience full functioning in future scenarios. Resilience may preclude growth. If an individual displays resilience, he or she maintains functioning which, by definition, means he or she cannot experience changes and grow. Resilience does not lead to thriving, but it can result in its maintenance. If an individual is functioning fully and he or she then experiences an adversity, displaying resilience (or possessing resilient qualities) to the adversity would enable him or her to maintain these levels and continue to thrive. If an individual is thriving (i.e., fully functioning), then this may better enable him or her to demonstrate resilience if they experience trauma, because he or she will have access to all capacities. If an individual is thriving (i.e., fully functioning), then this may generate new outcomes that enable subsequent growth.

Growth → Thriving

Resilience → Growth Resilience → Thriving

Thriving → Resilience

Thriving → Growth

operationalization and measurement of the constructs, and consideration given to the time-course over which the measurements take place (Infurna & Jayawickreme, 2019). To elaborate on the latter, if assessments of growth and resilience occur immediately or soon after adversity, then it is likely that these experiences will appear mutually exclusive (see Levine, Laufer, Stein, Hamama-Raz, & Solomon, 2009; Westphal & Bonanno, 2007). That is, if somebody displays resilience and maintains functioning then, by definition, they cannot have increased functioning and grown. However, should multiple assessments of functioning take place after experiencing adversity, then a positive relationship may be observed whereby demonstrating resilience to adversity may result in subsequent growth after the resilience process has completed, or where individuals who experience adversarial growth develop attributes that then allow them to demonstrate resilience to adversity in the future (see Fletcher, 2018; Tedeschi & Blevins, 2017). To examine these ideas, prospective longitudinal studies are required that enable functioning to be monitored after an adversity and to see whether the levels and patterns of functioning displayed initially persist over time (Infurna & Jayawickreme, 2019).

Growth, Resilience, and Thriving 67

Second, an accepted premise of growth is that it is reliant on a shattering of schematic assumptions following adversity or an event that is traumatic in nature (see Janoff-Bulman, 1989). However, future research should question the necessity of this premise, particularly when addressing growth in a sporting context. Despite the unpleasant nature of some sporting situations (e.g., injury, non-selection, performance slumps) these experiences may not be sufficiently traumatic to involve a shattering of assumptions, yet they have been shown to facilitate growth in athletes at all levels (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012). Focusing on a specific adversity, the theory of sport-injury related growth (T-SIRG; Roy-Davis, Wadey, & Evans, 2017) identified that experiencing an injury is threatening to athletes’ beliefs and goals and can lead to growth. But Roy-Davis et al.’s findings did not support the theory of shattered assumptions. Rather, the authors reported that sport injury is a stressful experience and that responses are influenced by internal and external resources. For growth to occur, these resources must enable cognitive processes, specifically metacognitions and positive reappraisals, which in turn affect subsequent cognitive, affective, and behavioral mechanisms. Rather than supporting the theory of shattered assumptions, these findings suggest a process that may be more in line with the mechanisms (if not the level of functioning) associated with resilience rather than growth, further blurring the boundaries between the two constructs. Although this chapter has articulated the differences between growth and resilience, the T-SIRG has revealed a need to further scrutinize the impact that adversity has on an individual’s schematic assumptions and to examine this in the context of the processes involved in resilience. Additionally, future empirical research measuring growth in athletes should be cognizant of blindly accepting that adversity necessarily leads to a shattering of schematic assumptions. Third, in this chapter, the positive changes associated with growth have been situated in an individual’s response to stress (i.e., SRG), adversity (i.e., adversarial growth), and trauma (i.e., PTG); however, scholars have begun to challenge the requirement for suffering in the experience of growth and have instead started to examine growth following positive experiences (see, e.g., Mangelsdorf & Eid, 2015; Mangelsdorf, Eid, & Luhmann, 2019; Roepke, 2013). Termed postecstatic growth, Roepke (2013) initially identified four areas of growth that occurred following positive events (e.g., accomplishments, relationships) including new meaning and purpose in life, spiritual transformation, increased self-esteem, and more harmonious relationships. More recent meta-analytic evidence from Mangelsdorf et al. (2019) offered partial support for these changes, with positive increases observed for self-esteem, positive relationships, and mastery following opportunities, but no genuine growth observed for meaning and spirituality. In addition to the attempts to characterize postecstatic growth, Mangelsdorf and Eid (2015) forwarded a framework to explain how growth occurs following positive events. Specifically, they proposed a thriver model whereby growth following a (positive or

68 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

negative) major life event is directly influenced by supportive relationships and positive emotions, and the direct effect of the event is mediated by meaningmaking. Although initial sport-based evidence suggests that growth and development can occur after the positive experience of thriving (Brown, Arnold, Reid, & Roberts, 2018), scant research exists on how favorable major life events lead to growth in sport performers and on the changes that encompass this experience. The research that does exist has been limited to discussion around how positive sporting events (e.g., finding a significant sporting other) experienced in close proximity to a negative event may have transformational properties (see Hardy et al., 2017). Scholars are, therefore, encouraged to move beyond the existing position of solely examining growth (and resilience) following negative events in sport, to consider whether and how growth (and resilience) occurs following positive events (e.g., winning an important sport competition), and how the experiences of postecstatic growth compare to those following stressors, adversity, and trauma.

Conclusion Within this chapter, we have synthesized existing knowledge on growth, resilience, and thriving in an attempt to provide readers with greater clarity on the distinction between these terms. Although we accept Tedeschi and Calhoun’s earlier sentiments that decisions regarding the language and labels used to describe the constructs were largely “semantic choices” (2004, p. 4), it is clear from the literature that has subsequently emerged that clear distinctions do exist between the terms. For thriving, the key distinction with resilience resides in the differing requirement for adversity and, with growth, this resides in the level and pattern of functioning. Although resilience and growth also demonstrate distinct levels and patterns of functioning, the future research directions highlight a number of key avenues where possible distinctions and interrelations may exist (e.g., shattering of assumptions) and where further examinations are warranted (e.g., postecstatic growth). In closing, we hope that this chapter addresses previous questions of a jangle fallacy and that it offers a clear and robust foundation upon which scholars can conduct inquiry into these constructs in the future.

Notes 1 The meta-cognitions that occur in the resilience process refer to an individual’s knowledge of, and control over, his or her cognitions (Flavell, 1979), and occur at a higher level of cognitive processing than the evaluation of the environmental demands and personal resources (i.e., appraisal). 2 Researchers should be cautious when considering the role of optimism as unrealistic optimism (or “wishful thinking”) has been shown to be a proxy for illusory growth in the wider (Maercker & Zoellner, 2004) and sport performance literature (Howells & Fletcher, 2016).

Growth, Resilience, and Thriving 69

References Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely adverse events? American Psychologist, 59, 20– 28. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20. Brown, D. J., & Arnold, R. (2019). Sports performers’ perspectives on facilitating thriving in professional rugby contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40, 71–81. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2018.09.008. Brown, D. J., Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Standage, M. (2017). Human thriving: A conceptual debate and literature review. European Psychologist, 22, 167–179. doi:10.1027/ 1016-9040/a000294. Brown, D. J., Arnold, R., Reid, T., & Roberts, G. (2018). A qualitative inquiry of thriving in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30, 129–149. doi:10.1080/ 10413200.2017.1354339. Brown, D. J., Arnold, R., Standage, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Thriving on pressure: A factor mixture analysis of sport performers’ responses to competitive sporting encounters. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 423–437. doi:10.113/jsep.2016-0293. Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.641998064. Davis, M. C., Luecken, L., & Lemery-Chelfant, K. (2009). Resilience in common life: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Personality, 77, 1637–1644. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-6494.2009.00595.x. Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517–528. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006131. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. doi:10.1177/1088868314544222. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906. Fletcher, D. (2018). Psychological resilience and adversarial growth in sport and performance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.158. Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321–374). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 669–678. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2012.04.007. Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18, 12–23. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/ a000124. 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. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012). “It was hard, but it was good”: A qualitative exploration of stress-related growth in Division I intercollegiate athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 297–319. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.693524. Gucciardi, D. F., Stamatis, A., & Ntoumanis, N. (2017). Controlling coaching and athlete thriving in elite adolescent netballers: The buffering effect of athletes’ mental toughness. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20, 718–722. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2017.02.007.

70 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

Hammer, C., Podlog, L., Wadey, R., Galli, N., Forber-Pratt, A. J., & Newton, M. (2018). From core belief challenge to posttraumatic growth in para sport athletes: Moderated mediation by needs satisfaction and deliberate rumination. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1–9. doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1466203. Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (2017). Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of super-elite and elite athletes from Olympic sports. Progress in Brain Research, 232, 1–119. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.03.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173– 186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 117–160. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Infurna, F. J., & Jayawickreme, E. (2019). Fixing the growth illusion: New directions for research in resilience and posttraumatic growth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 152–158. doi:10.1177/0963721419827017. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113–136. doi:10.1521/ soco.1989.7.2.113. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262– 280. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.262. Joseph, S., Linley, A. P., & Harris, G. J. (2004). Understanding positive change following trauma and adversity: Structural clarification. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 10, 83–96. doi:10.1080/15325020490890741. Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Regel, S. (2012). An affective-cognitive processing model of posttraumatic growth. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 316–325. doi:10.1002/ cpp.1798. Kahn, R. L. (1991). Retention, resilience, and enhancement: Components of vitality throughout the life course. Paper presented at the MacArthur Foundation Successful Aging Program, San Francisco, CA. Kashyap, S., & Hussain, D. (2018). Cross-cultural challenges to the construct “posttraumatic growth.” Journal of Loss and Trauma, 23, 51–69. doi:10.1080/ 15325024.2017.1422234. Levine, S. Z., Laufer, A., Stein, E., Hamama-Raz, Y., & Solomon, Z. (2009). Examining the relationship between resilience and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 282–286. doi:10.1002/jts.20409. Lindstrom, C. M., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2013). The relationship of core belief challenge, rumination, disclosure, and sociocultural elements to posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5, 50–55. doi:10.1037/a0022030. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:Jots.0000014671.27856.7e. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164. Maercker, A., & Zoellner, T. (2004). The Janus face of self-perceived growth: Toward a two-component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 41–48.

Growth, Resilience, and Thriving 71

Mancini, A. D., & Bonanno, G. A. (2009). Predictors and parameters of resilience to loss: Toward an individual differences model. Journal of Personality, 77, 1805–1832. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00601.x. Mangelsdorf, J., & Eid, M. (2015). What makes a thriver? Unifying the concepts of posttraumatic and postecstatic growth. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00813. Mangelsdorf, J., Eid, M., & Luhmann, M. (2019). Does growth require suffering? A systematic review and meta-analysis on genuine posttraumatic and postecstatic growth. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 302–338. doi:10.1037/bul0000173. Masten, A. S., & Obradovic´, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi:10.1196/annals.1376.003. McNeill, K., Durand-Bush, N., & Lemyre, P.-N. (2018). Thriving, depleted, and atrisk Canadian coaches: Profiles of psychological functioning linked to self-regulation and stress. International Sport Coaching Journal, 5, 145–155. doi:10.1123/ iscj.2017-0042. O’Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in response to challenge: An opportunity for a paradigm shift in women’s health. Women’s Health, 1, 121–142. Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x. Roepke, A. M. (2013). Gains without pains? Growth after positive events. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 280–291. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.791715. Roy-Davis, K., Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2017). A grounded theory of sport injury-related growth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 35–52. doi:10.1037/spy0000080. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychological resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2013). How should we measure psychological resilience in sport performers? Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17, 264–280. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2013.805141. Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014a). Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: Psychological resilience and thriving in high achievers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3, 46–60. doi:10.1037/spy0000003. Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014b). 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. Schaefer, J., & Moos, R. (1992). Life crises and personal growth. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: theory, research, and application (pp. 149–170). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16, 537–549. doi:10.1287/ orsc.1050.0153. Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6, 251–279. doi:10.1111/aphw.12027. Tedeschi, R. G., & Blevins, C. L. (2017). Posttraumatic growth: A pathway to resilience. In U. Kumar (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of psychosocial resilience (2nd ed., pp. 324–333). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

72 D. J. Brown, M. Sarkar, and K. Howells

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1007/ BF02103658. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280. doi:10.1037/a0032359. Verner-Filion, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2018). A longitudinal examination of elite youth soccer players: The role of passion and basic need satisfaction in athletes’ optimal functioning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 20–28. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2018.07.005. Waterschoot, J., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). The role of competence-related attentional bias and resilience in restoring thwarted feelings of competence. Motivation and Emotion. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/ s11031-019-09776-8. Westphal, M., & Bonanno, G. A. (2007). Posttraumatic growth and resilience to trauma: Different sides of the same coin or different coins? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 417–427. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00298.

PART 2

Cultural, Organizational, and Relational Perspectives

6 A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON GROWTH FOLLOWING ADVERSITY Using Autobiography to Understand Addiction Recovery through Sport Kerry R. McGannon, Jenny McMahon, and McKenna L’Estrange

Introduction I don’t have any regrets about my past. Everything in your life has to happen the way it happened in order be who you are in your life. I had to be a drug addict to become an ultrarunner. I had to find a passion in order to overcome my addiction. Catra Corbett, Reborn on the Run: My Journey from Addiction to Ultramarathons (2018, p. 201)

This chapter focuses on “life transformation stories through sport” in relation to alcohol and drug addiction recovery, as cultural resources to expand research on growth following adversity (i.e., posttraumatic growth). Within the psychology literature, “posttraumatic growth” is conceptualized as following adversity (e.g., injury, illness, abuse, substance addiction) when one experiences increased life appreciation, more meaningful and/or improved relationships, increased personal strength, shift in priorities, and/or enhanced existential/spiritual awareness (Joseph, 2011; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Personal growth stories in relation to drug and alcohol addiction struggles are becoming prominent storylines in sport culture that involve a protagonist (i.e., addict) who emerges a changed and better person (i.e., athlete) after going through and/or overcoming challenges (i.e., recovery from alcohol/drug addiction), along with developing changed/new identities, and ways to cope with addiction recovery. Such transformation is often linked to the notion of “what does not kill you makes you stronger” (Joseph, 2011), and going through adversity may even be necessary for coping and athletic success (see Sarkar, Fletcher, & Brown, 2015). Despite the simplistic picture painted above, qualitative sport psychology research on posttraumatic growth has shown that growth is a complex process, with people experiencing a range of psychological (e.g., improved coping,

76 K. McGannon, J. McMahon, & M. L’Estrange

psychological tension and turmoil) and social (e.g., new social connections, loss of connection with others) adaptations in sport contexts (Burke & Utley, 2013; Day & Wadey, 2016, 2017; Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013). The present chapter is grounded in a relativist and social constructionist view of “culture” to build on qualitative research on posttraumatic growth in sport and critical addiction studies. From this perspective, people are conceptualized as meaning-makers who use social and cultural narratives to constitute and communicate experiences, and make sense of who they are (i.e., identity) (McGannon & Smith, 2015; Smith & Sparkes, 2009). The “objects” of study (e.g., identity transformation, stories, addiction meanings) are also imbued with meaning(s) intertwined with sociocultural narratives, making the stories and narratives a research focus. While there is narrative research on posttraumatic growth in sport psychology (e.g., Day & Wadey, 2016; Howells & Fletcher, 2015), the exploration of stories as sociocultural sites of posttraumatic growth is a relatively untapped research focus (Day & Wadey, 2017). A recent narrative review of qualitative research on posttraumatic growth in sport and exercise psychology by Day and Wadey (2017) further noted that focusing on public forms of “storied data” (e.g., autobiographies) would provide much needed insight into socioculturally constructed stories of growth. The aim of this chapter is to use this conception of “culture” to explore a topic that has potential to expand posttraumatic growth research: studying autobiographies as cultural sites in relation to the role of sport in alcohol and drug addiction recovery. The topic of addiction recovery as a form of posttraumatic growth has been relatively less studied within sport and exercise psychology, thus opening up an additional area of exploration. To accomplish this aim, literature on addiction meanings and recovery capital is first reviewed. Literature on the sport-addiction-recovery nexus is then reviewed, followed by a discussion of athlete autobiographies grounded in narrative inquiry and how these cultural stories can expand understanding of the role of sport in addiction recovery as a form of posttraumatic growth. Future research suggestions for studying autobiographies as cultural sites to learn more about addiction recovery and sport in relation to posttraumatic growth are then provided, closing out the chapter with conclusions.

Literature Review Addiction Meanings and Recovery Capital Substance addiction is a public health issue, with over 21.6 million people age 12 years and older suffering from substance dependence or abuse worldwide (Potenza, 2013). Addiction to drugs and/or alcohol is often conceptualized as a brain disease using a medical model, which reduces addiction to brain dysfunction, which has biological, psychological and behavioral manifestations (Courtwright, 2015). From this perspective, addiction is a relapsing brain disease with a genetic and social context; substance use may begin voluntarily, but eventually there is a loss of

Autobiography and Addiction Recovery 77

control and compulsion to use, with addiction onset due to pathological brain changes (Courtwright, 2015). Critical addiction studies have problematized a conception of “addiction as a brain disease” because addiction meanings are also connected to historical (e.g., moral failings, medicine as privileged, regulation/ access of drugs and alcohol), social (e.g., poverty, lack of community/social connection), and cultural (e.g., values and meanings attributed to drugs/alcohol and health) contexts (Courtwright, 2015). Reflecting on addiction meanings as encompassing bio-psycho-social and cultural intersections, clinicians and researchers agree that “addiction recovery” (i.e., voluntary lifestyle characterized by sobriety and/or lack of substance use to maximize health) requires a multidimensional approach (Witbrodt, Kaskutas, & Grella, 2015). The contributing aspects of addiction recovery have been referred to as “recovery capital” (Granfield & Cloud, 2015), which includes the sum of resources available to support recovery pathways (Hennessy, 2017). Such resources include social capital (e.g., family, friends, community/group belonging), physical/structural capital (e.g., money, shelter, services), human capital (e.g., skills, health, education, personal aspirations), and cultural capital (e.g., values and beliefs linked to social conformity and behaviors) (Granfield & Cloud, 2015). Literature reviews have highlighted that forms of recovery capital vary in effectiveness depending on the addiction and life circumstance, with social, human, and cultural recovery capital noted as pertinent to facilitate recovery and reduce recovery barriers (Hennessy, 2017). Although addiction recovery literature has focused less explicitly on recovery capital as linked to posttraumatic growth, some researchers have suggested that addiction struggles and the recovery process can be forms of traumatic events, which when successfully overcome, can lead to positive life changes (Haroosh & Freedman, 2017). Similar to work on posttraumatic growth, the concept of “addiction-related growth” may be facilitated through forms of recovery capital (e.g., spirituality, life appreciation, new priorities, changed identity) (Haroosh & Freedman, 2017; McMillen, Howard, Nower, & Chung, 2001). Relevant to our chapter focus is additional qualitative research that has emphasized the diverse ways in which substance abusers construe recovery meanings in personal narratives, and how identity is (re)shaped through relationships and community involvement (Best, Musgrove, & Hall, 2018; Granfield & Cloud, 2015). This research has shown that the addiction recovery process is comparable to coping with life crisis such as illness and trauma highlighted in posttraumatic growth conceptions, because it involves a shift from involvement with using groups and an “addict/user” identity, to being part of a community that cultivates shared recovery values consistent with a “non-user identity” (Best et al., 2018). This “social identity” shift requires a difficult, and sometimes chaotic, transformation to a new way of thinking, acting, and being, which creates coping and adjustment difficulties if social, human, and cultural capital are lacking (Best et al., 2018; Mackintosh & Knight, 2012).

78 K. McGannon, J. McMahon, & M. L’Estrange

The cultural narratives that people draw upon to make sense of their addiction recovery journey are also important aspects of human, social, and cultural recovery capital. By drawing on a “redemption narrative” or “personal growth narrative” in which a “bettered identity” is constructed following adversity, narrators may reduce engagement in problematic behaviors, leading to a more lasting addiction recovery (Dunlop & Tracy, 2013; Hanninen & Koski-Jannes, 1999). McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, and Bowman (2001) introduced the notion of a redemption narrative which tells of a “transformation from a bad, affectively negative life scene to a subsequent good, affectively positive life scene. The bad is redeemed, salvaged, mitigated, or made better in light of the ensuing good” (p. 474). An additional part of identity and life transformation within the context of intersectional aspects of recovery capital (i.e., social, human and cultural) can be derived from participating in meaningful activities that cultivate skills, new values, goals, and a healthy identity grounded in nonusing behaviors and social connections (Cano, Best, Edwards, & Lehman, 2017; Best et al., 2018; Granfield & Cloud, 2015). As noted, while less researched within the addiction recovery literature, these forms of recovery capital have the potential to facilitate forms of “addiction-related growth” akin to conceptions of posttraumatic growth (Haroosh & Freedman, 2017).

Addiction Recovery and Sport Although studies of illegal doping and performance enhancing drugs in sport are growing (see Reardon & Creado, 2014), studies of recreational drug and alcohol addiction and the role of sport in recovery are less common (de Grace, Knight, Rodgers, & Clark, 2017; Palmer, 2018). Qualitative research has documented the mental health and career costs for professional athletes suffering from addiction to alcohol and other drugs (Brown & de Matviuk, 2010; Brownrigg, Burr, Bridger, & Locke, 2018; Jones, 2013). Few studies have explored the role of sport in adult addiction recovery, with research focusing on how sport environments promote drug/alcohol (mis)use and addiction (de Grace et al., 2017). Research on drug and alcohol addiction has shown that sport holds potential as a form of addiction recovery due to the identity, life transformative, and positive social impact it may have on intersectional aspects of recovery capital, which may intertwine with aspects of posttraumatic growth (Landale & Roderick, 2014). Using a case-study approach to explore substance-misusing adult offenders engaging in community-based sport (i.e., soccer) to facilitate addiction recovery, Landale and Roderick (2014) analyzed participant life stories. The findings showed that sport played a central role in facilitating addiction recovery capital through building new social connections and personal growth through identity transformation. Such transformation was a complex process, involving (re)construction of an “addict identity” into an “athlete” and “teammate” through sport skill development connected to new life meanings (i.e., human and cultural

Autobiography and Addiction Recovery 79

recovery capital). When taken in conjunction with addiction research on recovery capital – particularly identity-transformation and social connection – the role of sport culture (i.e., values, meanings) in addiction recovery is an intriguing line of inquiry. Related research in exercise psychology also supports the role of exercise in addiction recovery in positive psychological adjustment intertwined with social capital (Stoutenberg, Rethorst, Lawson, & Read, 2016; Zschucke, Heinz, & Ströhle, 2012), further highlighting the potential of exercise to contribute toward “addiction-related growth.” Alcohol and drug addiction struggles within sport contexts warrant further investigation to expand the posttraumatic growth research agenda, as these struggles are often underpinned by stories of trauma, chaos, and suffering across the addiction journey (Brownrigg et al., 2018; Jones, 2013; Palmer, 2018).

Narrative Inquiry and Autobiography Given the complex role of sport, addiction recovery capital, and the potential to facilitate posttraumatic growth (i.e., “addiction recovery growth”) (Haroosh & Freedman, 2017), the above work points to using qualitative research methodologies to learn more about the nuanced role of sport in addiction recovery (Harmon, 2017). One way to expand this understanding is to use narrative inquiry, which is a psychosocial approach being used in sport psychology to learn about athlete identities by focusing on stories (Douglas & Carless, 2015; Smith & Sparkes, 2009). Stories are prioritized within narrative inquiry as cultural sites of analysis because people use stories to make sense of their identities, actions, and lives. As the terms are used here, a story is a tale people tell about themselves or others and a narrative is a culturally available resource; “people tell stories, not narratives” (Smith & Sparkes, 2009, p. 2). This view of how stories and narratives function is grounded in relativism, which means that the stories people tell to make sense of, and shape their identities, are inseparable with culture (Smith & Sparkes, 2009). In this sense narratives – and the stories told within them – are resources and “actors” because they have the capacity to do things; narratives shape identities, behavior, experiences and emotions through telling and witnessing of stories (Frank, 2013). Aligning with relativism, narratives are the sociocultural resources that athletes may use to frame and fashion identity-related stories when negotiating life-changing events such as illness (Stewart, Smith, & Sparkes, 2011) or psychological and social tensions during drug/alcohol addiction recovery (Hanninen & KoskiJannes, 1999). A narrative conception of identity contrasts with post-positivist approaches in sport psychology that conceptualize identity within the mind (McGannon & Smith, 2015; Smith & Sparkes, 2009). Within narrative inquiry the focus “shifts from selves and identities as individualistic, real, and interiorbased, to them being constructions derived from narratives and performed in relationships” (Smith & Sparkes 2009, p. 5).

80 K. McGannon, J. McMahon, & M. L’Estrange

Narrative inquiry is a useful theoretical approach to expand the sociocultural understanding of addiction recovery and sport participation as potential forms of posttraumatic growth resources through focusing on the stories and cultural narratives within which they are constructed. Researchers have shown the usefulness of focusing on stories within cultural narrative resources to learn more about the process of posttraumatic growth (Pals & McAdams, 2003). Pals and McAdams (2003) noted that “self-stories of trauma and recovery” are important points of focus to learn more about the trauma process, and the ways in which people construct their identities as transformed (or not), within a positive or negative ending of a story. Research on addiction recovery further details the potential of narratives and stories told within them, as contributors toward “addiction recovery growth.” Hanninen and Koski-Jannes (1999) studied 51 stories of recovered addicts to learn more about the recovery process. Narrative analysis identified that self-narratives were intertwined with five different story types: the AA story, the growth story, the co-dependence story, the love story, and the mastery story. All of these narratives, and the different stories told with them, facilitated addiction recovery capital by linking the recovery process with self-acceptance, and reducing guilt by way of linking recovery to positive endings. This study highlighted the value of providing multiple cultural stories as resources for people to construe a range of addiction recovery meanings in relation to self-identity. This work allows us to suggest that while stories can be personal, they are intertwined with the cultural narratives made available through interactions with significant others, therapists, and in some cases, other (recovering) addicts. Stories, then, have personal, social and cultural layers, which not only impact who one is, but how one experiences the illness recovery process (Frank, 2013). While this study was not focused on recovery stories as linked to posttraumatic growth per se, the forms of recovery identified (e.g., self-change, positive relationships, new life meanings), by way of particular stories told, lend support for cultural stories as entry points of self and life transformation. One form of culturally rich self-story, athlete autobiographies (Pipkin, 2008; Sparkes & Stewart, 2016), has much to offer toward expanding research on growth following adversity in, and through, sport. An “autobiography” is a first-person life-writing story told by a single narrator, which contrasts with biographies written by a third person about someone (Smith & Watson, 2010). Sport autobiographies are commercially produced forms of “celebrity autobiographies,” focusing on recognizable athlete’s lives, providing public access to unique aspects of performing bodies in sport culture (Palmer, 2016; Sparkes & Stewart, 2016). Autobiographies differ from stories gathered through researcher-led interviews analyzed and published with anonymity of participant(s) intact (Day, 2016; Sparkes & Stewart, 2016). Studying athlete autobiographies grounded in narrative inquiry is useful toward expanding understanding of the cultural narrative resources people use to tell their stories about difficult-to-access topics related to sport and mental health (Newman, Howells, & Fletcher, 2016; Palmer, 2016).

Autobiography and Addiction Recovery 81

The foregoing makes autobiographies useful data sources and resources (Day, 2016) to study the sport and alcohol and drug addiction recovery nexus, to address the contentious understanding of the role sport plays in (re)shaping and transforming identities and lives, within the cultural narratives that thread lives. Although not yet utilized to study addiction recovery and sport participation, analysis of autobiographies has been fruitful to learn about athletes’ self-body transformation and growth in illness (Stewart et al., 2011), cyclist Lance Armstrong’s redemption and growth experiences of cancer recovery (Butryn & Masucci, 2003; Sparkes, 2004), performance pressures and depression for elite athletes (Newman et al., 2016), disordered eating recovery and personal growth for elite female swimmers (McGannon & McMahon, 2019), and elite athlete mother performance struggles (McGannon, Tatarnic, & McMahon, 2018). Howells and Fletcher’s (2015) exploration of eight autobiographies of Olympic swimmers’ experiences of adversity (e.g., mental or physical illness, silenced sexualities, abuse) underscores the potential of autobiographies. Exploring the unfolding process of adaptation to adversity, their analysis showed that swimmers initially sought normalcy through an emotional and physical connection with swimming within their stories. Using a connection with the water in this manner pushed traumatic disclosure to the background. In turn, athletes developed public (e.g., a disciplined, controlled, and confident athlete) and private (e.g., an insecure, distressed athlete) identities, which compounded health-related issues (e.g., eating disorders, depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse). Athletes were able to shift these maladaptive practices and fractured identities by problematizing the performance narrative and shifting to a quest narrative, which views setbacks and struggles as a journey to be overcome and learned from (Frank, 2013). The support from others (e.g., coaches, family, therapist) was key in facilitating the use of cultural narratives which facilitated athlete’s posttraumatic growth, spiritual awareness, and prosocial behavior. Particularly relevant for learning more about sport as a form of addiction recovery capital linked to posttraumatic growth, is Palmer’s (2016) study of professional athlete autobiographies and their addiction struggles. This sociological study of autobiographies provided a longitudinal perspective on the process of addiction development through metaphors of “war and fighting the enemy.” These action-oriented metaphors identified in the autobiographies were shown to be connected with an athlete addict’s identity and ambition to return to their previous life of sport, offering a form of redemption narrative identified as important in addiction recovery literature for posttraumatic growth (Dunlop & Tracy, 2013; Hanninen & Koski-Jannes, 1999). The journey through addiction in the autobiographies included a nuanced temporal look at what led to addiction, treatment, and/or relapse. While the role of sport was not looked at specifically in relation to recovery capital as potential resources for facilitating posttraumatic growth, this study highlighted a need for further research on the addiction recovery process for athletes, and the value of public stories about addiction.

82 K. McGannon, J. McMahon, & M. L’Estrange

Related to the latter point above, autobiographies can also be useful pedagogical resources because they provide relatable access to the emotional life-worlds of athletes (McGannon & McMahon, 2019; Newman et al., 2016; Sparkes, 2004). Autobiographies “do things”; they facilitate reflections in tellers and listeners through forms of disclosure, confession, and exposure of silenced or difficult-to-access topics (Eakin, 2008; Sparkes & Stewart, 2016). In turn, space is opened up through personal and cultural forms of accessible storytelling to humanize stigmatized and/or hidden aspects of alcohol/drug addiction and recovery within sport cultures (Brown & de Matviuk, 2010; Palmer, 2016, 2018). Despite the potential of studying autobiographies as cultural sites of analysis and pedagogical resources to provide insight into the role of sport in addiction recovery in relation to posttraumatic growth, as yet there are no published autobiographical studies with this intent and focus. The research on athlete autobiographies is growing but continues to focus on athletes from Westernized and/or North American cultures. This notion is revisited in the next section of future research.

Future Research Directions The use of narrative inquiry to study autobiography is a research avenue that embraces personal and public forms of stories as cultural sites of analysis, to expand understanding of posttraumatic growth research in new theoretical, methodological, and topical territory. Because autobiographical data has not yet been “tapped” in the manner outlined in this chapter, future research using autobiography to explore sport and addiction recovery is wide open. In light of the ideas put forward concerning sport as a conduit to addiction recovery capital (i.e., social, human, and cultural) and autobiographies as research and pedagogical resources, we see two central research implications: a focus on recreational athletes and more recognizable professional/elite athlete autobiographies and a focus on research exploring autobiography as a pedagogical tool. Autobiographical data sources might come from published books (digital, audio, or written), film, television, or digital media spheres (e.g., websites, blogs, podcasts). To advance work in this area, autobiographical data sources may also come from different countries and/or athletes from different cultural backgrounds. Focusing on these athlete stories from a relativist perspective may also expand conceptions of posttraumatic growth, which have thus far relied on Western ideals of individualism and self-determination. Although athlete autobiographies are celebrity stories, the commercial landscape of former addicts’ stories and use of sport in the recovery process also come from people who are not professional athletes. Through using sport as a pathway to addiction recovery, these individuals literally “reshaped themselves” and their lives, to become athletes and advocates for addiction awareness and change through sport. These stories are widely circulated within various sport communities and through public autobiographies in various forms (i.e., written, digital, audio, and film), which are worth studying to learn more about posttraumatic growth and addiction recovery. Focusing on these forms of public stories aligns

Autobiography and Addiction Recovery 83

with calls within the posttraumatic growth literature in sport psychology to broaden work beyond individual interviews, to learn more about the nuanced sociocultural aspects of posttraumatic growth stories (Day & Wadey, 2017). As an example of this research focus, the co-authors have recently completed a study of two ultrarunners’ autobiographies – Catra Corbett and Charlie Engle – from which a quote was drawn to open this chapter. Corbett’s story is titled Reborn on the Run: My Journey from Addiction to Ultramarathons (Corbett & England, 2018) and Engle’s story is titled Running Man: A Memoir (Engle, 2016). Corbett and Engle became known for running accomplishments (e.g., Corbett was the first US woman to run and complete 100 “100-mile races,” Engle was a top finisher in eco-challenge races) during their addiction and recovery journeys. Both stories were significant to focus on as they detail processes of becoming an addict, recovering addict, and ultrarunner, within a complex process involving corporeal/bodily suffering. Through this study we learned how certain narratives (e.g., “chaos” and “quest”) were used to construct meanings of body suffering related to ultrarunning, and forms of addiction recovery capital (e.g., human and social). Chaos and quest narratives are resources that people draw on to make sense of the illness experience (Frank, 2013). A chaos narrative is characterized by a plot that imagines life will not get better, with a sense of futility and loss of control. A quest narrative meets suffering head-on, and the illness experience provides self-related insight and/or learning for others. The identification of these cultural narratives provided insight into addiction recovery as a complex process that may result in silencing of suffering (within chaos) or allow it to be channeled productively toward recovery capital as forms of posttraumatic growth (within quest). The second focus of professional and/or elite athlete’s autobiographies of the role of sport in addiction recovery (i.e., celebrity athlete stories), was partly highlighted in Palmer’s (2016) autobiographic study of recognizable athlete addicts. However, that study did not explore the addiction journey explicitly in relation to intersectional aspects of addiction recovery capital uses and meanings within the stories. Aligning with proposed research on “non-celebrity stories” above, it will be useful to explore the nuances of addiction recovery and sport meanings in relation to the body, since the body is a signifier and site of suffering and chaos in addiction, recovery and sport experiences (Jones, 2013; Palmer, 2018). There is an abundance of professional and elite athletes’ disclosure stories of drug and alcohol addiction in public spaces to draw on that researchers might use to explore posttraumatic growth. Additional topics to explore that may intersect with addiction onset and struggles may include mental health issues (e.g., abuse, eating disorders, self-harm, depression, anxiety) and stressrelated issues (e.g., injury, sport deselection, performance pressure). In addition to focusing on drug and alcohol addiction recovery in lesserknown and well-known athlete’s stories, literature on recovery capital points to work considering other forms of addiction. Addiction forms to explore within athlete stories could include sex, gambling, and other drugs (e.g., prescription drugs, marijuana). Some of these addiction forms may intersect with drug and alcohol addiction or may be part of an individual’s life history on their own.

84 K. McGannon, J. McMahon, & M. L’Estrange

These forms of addiction in sport contexts have been touched on in the sport sociology literature, but less so in the sport psychology literature (de Grace et al., 2017; Palmer, 2018), and minimally in relation to addiction recovery and how this may relate specifically to the concept of posttraumatic growth. An exploration of athlete’s autobiographies – from recreational to professional – and across different countries and/or cultural contexts, is a future research area implicated in addiction and sport research to learn more about addiction and recovery capital in relation to sporting lives, identity, and health. As noted, such work may also expand research on posttraumatic growth within sport psychology, through the addition of addiction recovery and sport as a research focus. The final future research implication is related to athlete autobiographies functioning as pedagogical resources from which to provide insight into the emotional life-worlds of storytellers, and the social and behavioral effects in tellers and listeners (Sparkes & Stewart, 2016). From a relativist and social constructionist perspective, stories and narratives are actors – they do things (Smith & Sparkes, 2009). Future research could invite athletes – recreational, competitive, elite – to write first-person short autobiographies in relation to substance use and/or addiction and how they perceive themselves during recovery struggles and/or relapse. Depending on the research focus and questions, those invited to write stories could be occasional users, struggling with addiction, or recovered for several years. The stories could then be analyzed for content, structure and cultural meanings, within the context of sociocultural narrative resources, and linked to the stage that people are at in relation to use or non-use behaviors. Public autobiographies of addiction and recovery and the role of sport culture can also be shown to stakeholders in sport contexts (e.g., coaches, teammates, sports medicine staff, policymakers), who can then be interviewed either individually or in focus groups. The exploration of the narrative resources that they use to understand the stories, and how such stories impact their own practices, would be of value. Particular stories could be used or even constructed, to bring to the fore the often silenced aspects of addiction in sport (e.g., what it is, who is at risk, how it impacts someone’s life), and with that, the role that sport culture plays in facilitating or impeding intersectional aspects of recovery capital.

Conclusion The consideration of athlete autobiographies of addiction recovery through sport as cultural sites of analysis adds to and expands research showing that narratives matter for athlete mental health and posttraumatic growth (Howells & Fletcher, 2015; McGannon & McMahon, 2019; Newman et al., 2016) and qualitative research on posttraumatic growth (Day & Wadey, 2017). Corbett and Engle’s stories featured in our autobiographic study have been sources of inspiration and change. These athletes are now facilitators of human, social, and cultural capital in the ultrarunning community, by disclosing their stories, which have inspired people to use sport to renegotiate their identities and lives.

Autobiography and Addiction Recovery 85

The process of addiction recovery as a form of adversity and trauma and the transformative potential of sport in that process is not simple or straightforward. Centralizing athlete autobiographies as a research focus grounded in narrative inquiry to learn more about addiction recovery and sport as a conduit of posttraumatic growth has the potential to open new forms of research and theoretical understanding in the posttraumatic growth research landscape. Our hope is that the ideas put forward will be a modest starting point for continued stimulation of ideas concerning narrative and autobiographical research forms, to learn more about addiction recovery capital and the role of sport.

References Best, D., Musgrove, A., & Hall, L. (2018). The bridge between social identity and community capital on the path to recovery and desistance. Probation Journal, 65, 394–406. doi:10.1177/0264550518790677. Brown, W., & de Matviuk, M. (2010). Sports celebrities and public health: Diego Maradona’s influence on drug use prevention. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 15, 358–373. doi:10.1080/10810730903460575. Brownrigg, A., Burr, V., Bridger, A., & Locke, A. (2018). “You shut up and go along with it”: An interpretative phenomenological study of former professional footballers’ experiences of addiction. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10, 238–255. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1396557. Burke, S. M., & Utley, A. (2013). Climbing towards recovery: Investigating physically injured combat veterans’ psychosocial response to scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 732–739. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.707743. Butryn, T. M., & Masucci, M. A. (2003). It’s not about the book: A cyborg counter narrative of Lance Armstrong. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27, 124–144. doi:10.1177/ 0193732503252176. Cano I., Best, D., Edwards, M., & Lehman, J. (2017). Recovery capital pathways: Modelling the components of recovery wellbeing. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.00. Corbett, C., & England, D. (2018). Reborn on the run: My journey from addiction to ultramarathons. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing. Courtwright, D. T. (2015). The NIDA brain disease paradigm: History, resistance and spinoffs. In R.Granfield & C. Reinarman (Eds.), Expanding addiction: Critical essays (pp. 62–69). New York, NY: Routledge. Day, M. (2016). Documents of life: From diaries to autobiographies to biographical objects. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 177–188). London, UK: Routledge. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2017). Researching growth following adversity in sport and exercise: Methodological implications and future recommendations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9, 499–513. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1328460.

86 K. McGannon, J. McMahon, & M. L’Estrange

de Grace, L. A., Knight, C. J., Rodgers, W. M., & Clark, A. M. (2017). Exploring the role of sport in the development of substance addiction. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 46–57. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.10.001. Douglas, K., & Carless, D. (2015). Life story research in sport: Understanding the experiences of elite and professional athletes through narrative. London, UK: Routledge. Dunlop, W. L., & Tracy, J. L. (2013). The autobiography of addiction: Autobiographical reasoning and psychological adjustment in abstinent alcoholics. Memory, 21, 64–78. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.713970. Eakin, P. J. (2008). Living life autobiographically: How we create identity in narrative. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Engle, C. (2016). Running man: A memoir. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Frank, A. (2013). The wounded storyteller (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Granfield, R., & Cloud, W. (2015). Social capital and natural recovery: Overcoming addiction without treatment. In R.Granfield & C. Reinarman (Eds.), Expanding addiction: Critical essays (pp. 196–212). New York, NY: Routledge. Hanninen, V., & Koski-Jannes, A. (1999). Narratives of recovery from addictive behaviours. Addiction, 94, 1837–1848. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.941218379.x. Harmon, J. (2017). Leisure participation, substance abuse disorders, and recovery. Annals of Leisure Research, 21, 507–521. doi:10.1080/11745398.2017.1326157. Haroosh, E., & Freedman, S. (2017). Posttraumatic growth and recovery from addiction. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(1). doi:10.1080/20008198.2017.1369832. Hennessy, E. A. (2017). Recovery capital: A systematic review of the literature. Addiction Research & Theory, 35, 349–360. doi:10.1080/16066359.2017.1297990. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity-and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10. 3389/fpsyg.2016.00868. Jones, C. (2013). Alcoholism and recovery: A case study of a former professional footballer. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49, 485–505. doi:10.1177/1012690213516618. Joseph, S. (2011). What doesn’t kill us: The new psychology of posttraumatic growth. New York, NY: Basic Books. Landale, S., & Roderick, M. (2014). Recovery from addiction and the potential role of sport: Using a life-course theory to study change. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49, 468–484. doi:10.1177/1012690213507273. Mackintosh, V., & Knight, T. (2012). The notion of self in the journey back from addiction. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1094–1101. doi:10.1177/1049732312450325. McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A. H., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 474–485. doi:10.1177/0146167201274008. McGannon, K. R., & McMahon, J. (2019). Understanding female athlete disordered eating and recovery through narrative turning points in autobiographies. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40, 42–50. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.09.003. McGannon, K. R., & Smith, B. (2015). Centralizing culture in cultural sport psychology research: The potential of narrative inquiry and discursive psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 17, 79–87. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.010. McGannon, K. R., Tatarnic, E., & McMahon, J. (2018). The long and winding road: An autobiographical study of an elite athlete mother’s journey to winning gold. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1–39. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1512535.

Autobiography and Addiction Recovery 87

McMillen, C., Howard, M.O., Nower, L., & Chung, S. (2001). Positive by-products of the struggle with chemical dependency. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 69–79. doi:10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00151-3. Newman, H. J., Howells, K. L., & Fletcher, D. (2016). The dark side of top-level sport: An autobiographic study of depressive experiences in elite sport performers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00868. Pals, J. P., & McAdams. D. P. (2003). The transformed self: A narrative understanding of post-traumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 65–69. Palmer, C. (2016). Drinking, downfall and redemption: Biographies and “athlete addicts.” Celebrity Studies, 7, 169–181. doi:10.1080/19392397.2015.1060131. Palmer, C. (2018). Drugs, alcohol and addiction in sport. In M.A. Atkinson (Ed.), Sport, mental illness and sociology (pp. 111–125). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Pipkin, J., (2008). Sporting lives: Metaphor and myth in American sports autobiographies. Columbia, SC: University of Missouri Press. Potenza, M. N. (2013). Biological contributions to addictions in adolescents and adults: 885 prevention, treatment, and policy implications. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, s22– s32. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.007. Reardon, C.L., & Creado, S. (2014). Drug abuse in athletes. Substance Abuse Rehabilitation, 5, 95–105. doi:10.2147/SAR.S53784. Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., & Brown, D. J. (2015). What doesn’t kill me…: adversity-related experiences are vital in the development of superior Olympic performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 18, 475–479. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010. Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2009). Narrative inquiry in sport and exercise psychology: What can it mean, and why might we do it? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.01.004. Smith, S., & Watson, J. (2010). Reading autobiography: A guide for interpreting life narratives (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Sparkes, A. C. (2004). Bodies, narratives, selves, and autobiography: The example of Lance Armstrong. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 397–428. doi:10.1177/0193723504269907. Sparkes, A. C., & Stewart, C. (2016). Taking sporting autobiographies seriously as an analytical and pedagogical resource in sport, exercise and health. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8, 113–130. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2015.1121915. Stewart, C., Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. (2011). Sporting autobiographies of illness and the role of metaphor. Sport in Society, 14, 581–597. doi:10.1080/17430437.2011.574358. Stoutenberg, M., Rethorst, C. D., Lawson, O., & Read, J. P. (2016). Exercise training: A beneficial intervention in the treatment of alcohol use disorders? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 160, 2–11. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.11.019. Tamminen, K.T., Holt, N.L., & Neely, K.C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28–36. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. Witbrodt, J., Kaskutas, L. A., & Grella, C. E. (2015). How do recovery definitions distinguish recovering individuals? Five typologies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 148, 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.12.036. Zschucke, E., Heinz, A., & Ströhle, A. (2012). Exercise and physical activity in the therapy of substance use disorders. The Scientific World Journal, 1–19. doi:10.1100/2012/901741.

7 CAN SPORT ORGANIZATIONS BENEFIT FROM ADVERSITY? A Sensemaking Approach Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

Introduction I would like to thank the editors for inviting me to consider the question posed by this title. In short, I believe the answer to the thought-provoking title they have provided me with is “probably, yes.” Is that the end of this chapter? Certainly, not. I do believe, just as individuals and teams might report perceived “benefits” following traumatic events, sport organizations might also benefit (e.g., more sustainable, connected, person- or performance-centered, learning, prioritization) as a result of the challenges they encounter. In turn, these benefits might provide more opportunities to improve the high-performance environment, foster stakeholder (e.g., athletes, coach, support staff, manager, administrator, fan) engagement, and facilitate the development of stronger relationships within and outwith their organization. There is an important caveat to this perspective, because there currently exists a dearth of research examining organizational benefits following adversity, and a total absence of such literature in sport organizations. As such, rather than making a case for whether sport organizations can benefit from adversity, in this chapter I will attempt to outline and critically reflect on how these structures might do so using organizational sensemaking as a lens. Given the overlap between sensemaking and meaningmaking – a prominent factor in individual-level growth following adversity (see Chapter 1) – I believe there is a reasonable case to be made for collective sensemaking as a mechanism for sport organizations to benefit following adversity. Before plunging you – the reader – into this narrative, I feel that a note on the issue of anthropomorphism is important. Some readers may believe that referring to an organization’s propensity to “grow” or be considered “resilient” is problematic – even impossible – without invoking issues of subjugating a complex adaptive system as singular; as human. To some extent I agree in as far as

A Sensemaking Approach 89

linguistic problems are presented by the question “can sport organizations benefit from adversity?”. To what, or more importantly, to whom, are we referring when asking this question? In some sense, I believe it is very difficult to separate sport organizations from the people who coordinate them, as well as those that operate within them. Certainly, organizations can grow in size (e.g., financial largesse or membership), but this is not the meaning of growth in this psychosocial context or the focus of this book. Further, I believe that no sport organization can exist, thrive, or indeed benefit from adversity without people (see Wagstaff, 2017) and the results from organizational actions are often initiated by individual and group forces, such that social and psychological effects indirectly influence organization-level phenomena. Hence, the extent to which sport organizations – and their systems, processes, results, environments – can benefit from adversity is predicated on one’s beliefs on whether people in a complex system can do so. Needless to say, if individual growth is complex and only now being understood, team and organizational growth are arguably more complex and are comparatively poorly understood. While there exist several concepts of relevance to this discussion such as team and organizational resilience (Fasey, Sarkar, Wagstaff, & Johnston, under review), these concepts do not adequately align with what might be speculatively termed “organizational growth” (see Chapter 1), the concept that has perhaps offers the most appropriate theoretical starting point for this chapter is posttraumatic growth (PTG).

Posttraumatic Growth Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) defined PTG as “the experience of positive change that occurs as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life crises” (p. 1). The central tenet of PTG relates to the assertion that while adversity causes a variety of intense negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, sadness, shame or guilt, it can also act as a catalyst for transformational positive change. This positive change, or growth, is often characterized as being manifest in an enhanced sense of self, stronger relationships with others, and changes in life philosophy that often include radically altered priorities (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2001). Posttraumatic growth does not replace pain or distress, and those experiencing growth are unlikely to view trauma as a desirable or positive event but may reflect an individual or collective belief that good has come from experiencing and working through this adversity. The idea that positive change can emerge from pain and suffering is not new. It is a central motif within theology, philosophy, literature, music, and other cultural forms, and underpins existential psychological perspectives on human suffering (e.g., Frankl, 1963; May, 1999). Two of the most prominent scholars in the area of posttraumatic growth, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995), initially identified three broad categories of individual change following adversity: perceptions of self, relationships with others, and philosophy of life. They later adapted and expanded these categories to five

90 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

(personal strength, new possibilities, relating to others, appreciation of life, and spiritual change; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). There exists some debate regarding whether posttraumatic growth should be conceived as an outcome or process; that is, growth as an outcome of a meaning-making process (e.g., Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2001; Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh, 2006) or as the coping process through which growth is pursued (e.g., Affleck & Tennen, 1996; Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 2004). Park and colleagues (e.g., Park, 2010) have delineated these perspectives as meaning-made versus meaning-making. It is worthy of note that sport psychology researchers have also debated the nature of posttraumatic growth as an outcome or process (see Chapter 1). While growth following adversity is unlikely to reflect a stable end-point, this cannot occur without some form of meaning making process. Hence for the purpose of this chapter, I consider growth following adversity for sport organizations to be most appropriately approached as a process of making sense or identifying meaning, manifest in the activities stakeholders undertake to understand themselves and their sport organization following an adversarial threat to their sport organization, with consideration of their relationships with others within this environment and their life philosophies. Central to the individual-level conceptions of posttraumatic growth is the process by which individuals think about what has happened to them and its impact on their future lives. The work examining this process of meaningmaking within the posttraumatic growth literature generally points to a positive relationship between growth and the strategies of positive cognitive restructuring, downward comparison, and acceptance (Gangstad, Norman, & Barton, 2009). While this work has been valuable for understanding the ways individuals make sense of their own experiences, it does not necessarily shed light on the shared experiences and meaning-making of a group of individuals with shared resources, goals, and history, as one might expect those in a sport organization to have. As such, it is not inappropriate for sport and performance psychologists to consider a systemic, collective, or organizational perspective on benefits following adversity.

Adversity in Elite Sport Organizations Over the past few decades, a body of research has emerged that demonstrates the prevalence of organizational stressors in the sports context. This research, which has primarily focused on athletes’ experiences, has explored the various demands encountered that are associated with the organization to which sport performers affiliate. To elaborate, via a synthesis of research on this topic, Arnold and Fletcher (2012) presented 34 studies that had, collectively, identified 640 distinct organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. These stressors were organized into four categories: leadership and personnel, cultural and team, logistical and environmental, and performance and personal issues. Additional research examining athletes’ stress experiences has illuminated these demands as

A Sensemaking Approach 91

prevalent and problematic and associated with undesirable outcomes including overtraining, burnout, unpleasant emotions and affect, psychological need frustration, dysfunctional health and wellbeing, and impaired preparation for and performance in major competitions across a range of stakeholders, including athletes, coaches, and science and medicine staff (see, e.g., Arnold, Wagstaff, Steadman, & Pratt, 2017; Arnold et al., 2019; Fletcher, Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012; Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf, Medbery, & Peterson, 1999; Larner, Wagstaff, Thelwell, & Corbett, 2017). In addition to the work examining organizational stressors in sport, a recent line of inquiry has showcased elite sport as a fruitful context for investigating individuals’ responses to organizational change (see Wagstaff, Gilmore, & Thelwell, 2015, 2016). This work has illustrated the volatile, unpredictable, complex, ambiguous, and precarious nature of elite sport, which is characterized by frequent leadership change (see Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009; Wagstaff et al., 2015). This high level of leadership change within professional sport is influenced by stakeholder expectations for sustained performance and questionable employment practices (see Wagstaff et al., 2015; Wagstaff, 2019a, 2019b), and each leadership succession event has dramatic consequences for established work philosophies, practices, and routines in elite sport organizations (see, for a review, Wagstaff, 2016). To elaborate, Wagstaff et al. (2015) studied the change experiences of individuals employed within elite sport organizations in the UK using a two-year longitudinal design. Specifically, data were collected in three temporally defined phases via 49 semi-structured interviews with 20 sport medics and scientists employed by three organizations competing in the top tiers of English football and cricket. The results indicated that change occurred over four distinct stages: anticipation and uncertainty; upheaval and realization; integration and experimentation; and normalization and learning. In their conclusion, Wagstaff et al. drew attention to salient emotional, behavioral, and attitudinal employee experiences, the existence of poor employment practices, and direct and indirect implications for on-field performance associated with organizational change. More recently, Wagstaff and colleagues extended this work by examining employees’ responses to repeated organizational change events (see Wagstaff et al., 2016) and by examining change experiences within an athlete-only sample (see Wagstaff et al., 2016). Wagstaff et al. (2016) found employees in sport organizations responded to recurring organizational change in positive and negative emotional, behavioral, and attitudinal ways. The main positive response themes related to resilience, learning, performance, challenge appraisals, and autonomy. The main negative response themes related to trust, cynicism, organizational development, motivation, turnover, engagement, and commitment. Specifically, the data indicated increasingly deteriorating employee attitudes across change events and thus shed light on the ways individuals make sense of the adversity in their environment. The change experiences of the participants in this program of research represented an adverse situation for many of the participants (e.g.,

92 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

athletes, support staff, coaches) which was characterized by substantial role precarity (see Gilmore, Wagstaff, & Smith, 2018). The observation that some participants made sense of their experience through a process of perceiving greater individual resilience and learning is noteworthy and speaks to the existence of perceptions of individual growth following sport organization-related adversity, despite the substantive participant experience being conveyed as “negative.” That is, the volatility and precarity of individuals during organizational change in elite sport environments forced individuals to come face-to-face with the complexity of their environment, their vulnerability, and uncertainty or ambiguity in the necessary next steps. This led them to innovate and adapt their environment to suit their needs. What remains unclear from this work is the extent to which this adverse experience and subsequent responses benefited the sport organizations studied. The propensity for growth following adversity in sport is not new, with researchers having explored this in a variety of sport and performance contexts. Indeed, tentative findings that growth might be a recovery outcome following sport injury emerged during the 1990s (e.g., Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, & LaMott, 1995), and later, that adversity could be a critical factor in talent development (e.g., Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). More recent work has systematically investigated the extent to which adversity can function as a catalyst for positive change among individual athletes (see Chapters 11–15). Despite this impressive and growing body of work, it is notable that growth following adversity has received almost no attention at the organizational level. It remains unknown how organizations make sense of the adversity they experience. This knowledge gap is surprising given the recent work that has pointed to the volatile and precarious nature of operating in such environments (see Wagstaff et al., 2015, 2016) and the prevalence and persistent stressors associated directly with individual’s sport organization and experienced by many people collectively (see Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2016). It follows that understanding how individuals in sport organizations make sense of adversity in their environment might shed light on whether the organization might benefit from such circumstances.

Meaning and Sensemaking in Sport Organizations As alluded to in the early part of this chapter, meaning-making plays a central role in prominent models and definitions of posttraumatic growth (see Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh, 2006; Joseph & Linley, 2005; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). For example, Neimeyer (2001) described growth as, “a form of meaning reconstruction in the wake of crisis and loss” (p. 69), and Pals and McAdams (2004) viewed it as the “process of constructing a narrative understanding of how the self has been positively transformed by the traumatic event” (p. 65). One of the reasons that trauma can be so devastating is because of its impact on individuals’ beliefs about who they are and who they can become, and the negative emotion generated by a trauma

A Sensemaking Approach 93

can signal the loss of or harm to a significant aspect of self (Pals & McAdams, 2004). This threat to the self triggers sensemaking, a process that is fundamentally concerned with identity (Weick, 1995). Thus, in the struggle to come to terms with the new reality that follows a trauma, people are forced to assess certain assumptions as well as their goals, to create new meanings and a new understanding of the world and of themselves in that world. This process can be both confusing and painful, but it offers the opportunity for meaningful change. I would argue that the process of meaning-making is unlikely to be contained to adversity that is experienced by an isolated individual; that is, the meaningmaking process is likely to occur privately (i.e., cognitive processing) and publicly (i.e., relationally via discussing and sharing). The importance of this observation relates to the likelihood that individuals in sport organizations come to terms with what has happened to them, and what it means for how they understand themselves and their future lives and in relation to others and their environment. Moreover, in sport organizations, adversity – such as a leader succession event, a loss of funding to the sport, a natural disaster destroying training facilities – might impact an entire community, a national organizational system, a cultural group, as well as multiple internal and external stakeholder groups, arguably making it more likely that individuals will engage in shared meaning-making in an attempt to make sense of their circumstances and their ramifications. Beyond the notion of meaning-making, there exists a substantial body of work in the organizational psychology domain relating to sensemaking.1 Sensemaking has been described as the process through which individuals work to understand novel, unexpected, or confusing events, and has become a popular topic in the study of organizations. Sensemaking occurs in organizations when its members encounter events, issues, and actions that are somehow surprising, confusing (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Weick, 1993, 1995) or deviate from assumptions. Weick (1993) argued, “the basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs” (p. 635). In this vein, sensemaking is a process of social construction in which individuals attempt to interpret and explain their environment cues through the production of discursive “accounts.” More specifically, Maitlis and Christianson defined sensemaking as: A process, prompted by violated expectations, that involves attending to and bracketing cues in the environment, creating intersubjective meaning through cycles of interpretation and action, and thereby enacting a more ordered environment from which further cues can be draw. (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 67) According to this definition, when organizational members encounter moments of ambiguity, uncertainty, or adversity they will seek to clarify what is going on by extracting and interpreting cues from their environment, using these as the

94 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

basis for a plausible account that provides order and makes sense of what has occurred, and through which they continue to enact the environment (see Brown, 2000; Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Hence, sensemaking involves the active “authoring as well as interpretation, creation as well as discovery” (Weick, 1995, p. 8) and goes beyond an individual’s response or interpretation toward an understanding of the role people play in socially constructing the adverse situations they encounter and attempt to comprehend (Sutcliffe, 2014; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). While some definitions of sensemaking characterize it as a predominantly cognitive process guided by appraisal, schemata, or mental models, there is a larger body of work that positions sensemaking as a social process that occurs between people, whereby meaning is negotiated, contested, and mutually co-constructed (see, for a review, Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Indeed, Weick et al. (2005) argued that organizational sensemaking unfolds “in a social context of other actors” (p. 409), with Maitlis (2005) describing it as “a fundamentally social process” in which “organization members interpret their environment in and through interactions with each other, constructing accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively” (p. 21).2 Hence, it is my view that sensemaking following organizational adversity predominantly occurs via collective, discursive, and co-constructive processes, rather than via individual interpretive acts in isolation of others or the environment around us, or its nuanced history and culture. Given this socially constructive point of difference to individual posttraumatic growth, sensemaking offers an excellent lens for understanding how sport organizations might benefit from adversity.

How Might Sensemaking Occur Following Adverse Events in Sport Organizations? In this section of the chapter I will focus more closely on how sensemaking is triggered and how it might be explored, drawing particular attention to sensemaking as a social process and as narrative.

The Triggers of Sensemaking Researchers of sensemaking in non-sport organizations have explored a variety of different contexts in which the surprise or confusion caused by violated expectations trigger sensemaking. These include environmental jolts (Meyer, 1982; Milliken, 1990) and organizational crises (Weick, 1993; Wicks, 2001), threats to organizational identity (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996), and planned organizational change initiatives (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Hence, sensemaking begins when people experience a disruption or violation of their assumptions and expectations, or when they encounter an ambiguity or precarity that is of some significance to them. Often this disruption involves a threat to

A Sensemaking Approach 95

taken-for-granted roles and routines, causing those in organizations to question fundamental assumptions about how they should act (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). As such, organizational crises can be powerful prompts for sensemaking, but it may also arise from situations in which the organizational culture and prevailing practices inhibit sensemaking from being triggered. Taking this reasoning further, the work illuminating individuals’ experiences of organizational adversity in elite sport (see Arnold et al., 2016; Wagstaff et al., 2015, 2016), lends support to how individuals might experience trauma in response to the same event, and how an individual’s experiences might challenge assumptions and emotional security. Further, at a collective level, Wagstaff et al. (2015) noted how stakeholders gossiped and some isolated themselves, creating distrust and a range of emotional responses. In such circumstances, individuals might perceive sensemaking to be an effortful and potentially costly process that requires people to feel motivated to give up their existing accounts of their environment and construct new meanings. The sensemaking process also aligns with the stages of change experiences reported by Wagstaff et al. (2015), wherein individuals were challenged to forgo old ways of working and integrate new norms while developing innovative ways of retaining knowledge. Maitlis and Christianson (2014) argued that individuals are driven to instigate innovative changes when they experience a threat to their identity and intense negative emotions, yet are less likely to engage in sensemaking when individual or collective identity is strong and positive, capacity is low, or when they are highly invested in certain practices and beliefs. In the case of sport organizations encountering low-level or repeated upheaval or change, such identity, capacity, or investment “strengths” might buffer collectives from potential sensemaking triggers, and there might be a need for a more destabilizing event to induce sensemaking. Given the current research on organizational adversity in sport portrays a picture of individual experience commonly characterized by violations of expectations, disruption to routines, and uncertainty regarding the future (see Wagstaff et al., 2015, 2016), and limited resources to control or cope with such circumstances (see Hanton, Wagstaff, & Fletcher, 2012), the argument for sensemaking being a vital mechanism for growth is further strengthened. Further, research outside of sport has pointed to the value of compassionate organizational cultures enabling a sense of psychological safety among its members (see Barsade & O’Neill, 2014; O’Neill & Rothbard, 2015), and further corroborates the potential value of collaboratively developing sport environments in which people feel supported and cared for by making sense of their shared experiences. Indeed, in environments where individuals feel precarity, uncertainty, and threat, social support might offer an essential mechanism to avoiding destructive or toxic cultures (see Frost, 2003). Interestingly, recent work has also indicated that organizational culture might offer a buffer to such negative experiences in elite sport environments (see Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, 2018) and organizational culture is associated with organizational sensemaking (see Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, in press), and therefore might be a valuable related line of enquiry in this area.

96 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

Organizational Sensemaking as a Social Process Sensemaking in sport organizations can be viewed as an intersubjective and coconstructed process. In this process, the members of an organization are not merely passive recipients of this meaning creation, but enact this as dynamic, interactive subgroups that adopt, alter, resist, or reject the interpretation of events they have been offered by leaders (see Sonenshein, 2010). Hence, the process of sensemaking may be highly contested and negotiated among a wide range of stakeholders (Humphreys & Brown, 2002), who may understand an event or issue in a similar way, but are likely – due to different positions, interests, and backgrounds – to construct meaning from this differently (Brown, 2004; Brown, Stacey, & Nandhakumar, 2008). It follows that those interested in researching or promoting organizational sensemaking in sport conceive it as a fundamentally social process, whereby organization members interpret their environment in and through interactions with others, and co-construct or even negotiate towards an agreed-upon account that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively (see Maitlis, 2005). As alluded to in the previous section, non-sport organizational sensemaking research has traditionally focused on cognitive aspects (e.g., Griffith, 1999; Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993) or social processes during adverse circumstances (e.g., Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1993). Taking the latter of these approaches, researchers exploring the social processes of organizational sensemaking have investigated how certain groups or leaders influence others’ understandings of issues (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Smircich & Stubbart, 1985) or by focusing on contexts and extreme circumstances. Indeed, the research on sensemaking highlights important roles for both leaders and followers. For example, it has been found that the relative influence of leaders and other groups determines the form of the sensemaking process that is produced. One of the mechanisms for understanding such processes is by exploring leader-led “sensegiving.” Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) coined the term sensegiving, and defined it as “the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (p. 442). Adopting a holistic, narrative approach Maitlis (2005) showed how different combinations of leader and stakeholder sensegiving in a leading symphony orchestra produced four different forms of organizational sensemaking (guided, fragmented, restricted, and minimal), each with distinctive processual characteristics and distinct outcomes in terms of subsequent accounts and actions. Maitlis (2005) also identified two key dimensions that describe the social processes of organizational sensemaking, namely control and animation. Controlled processes are characterized by both leaders and stakeholders engaging in sensegiving in a formal, organized, private, systematic fashion, rather than an ad hoc way. These controlled sensemaking processes are dominated by formal leader authority, scheduled meetings, formal committees, and planned events with restricted attendance, rather than by informal, impromptu meetings of self-organizing groups. A central

A Sensemaking Approach 97

characteristic of animation is an intense flow of information among many stakeholders, with leaders routinely and regularly sharing information among stakeholder groups over an extended, iterative period, and actively involved in collaboratively shaping of interpretations of events and issues. In Maitlis’ study, when a sensemaking process was controlled and animated, organizational sensemaking took on a guided form. Organizational sensemaking was fragmented when the process was animated but not controlled. When the process was controlled but not animated, sensemaking emerged in a restricted form. Processes that were neither controlled nor animated produced a minimal form of sensemaking. Moreover, according to Maitlis, guided sensemaking processes may be particularly valuable in situations that require the development of a rich, multifaceted account that can be used as a resource for ongoing and spontaneous action, such as establishing an organization’s core values. In contrast, restricted sensemaking processes might be advantageous when an issue or context demands a narrowly defined account and is best addressed by a single, decisive action. Fragmented sensemaking processes may prove fruitful when an organization would benefit from the construction of a wide range of disparate accounts; such benefits might be associated with highly complex issues in which individual experimentation is needed. Further, Maitlis argued that while guided organizational sensemaking might be considered the most effective form, leaders and stakeholders should try to engage in the form most closely aligned to the outcomes they hope to achieve. Maitlis (2005) concluded her influential work by noting three commonalities that characterize the existing organizational sensemaking research. First, this research has focused on situations in which there are demands or pressure to make sense of the world quickly in which organizational members remain confused by events and actions without developing sensible accounts. Second, these studies of crises have tended to examine relatively tightly coupled social systems, such as fire crews, flight deck teams, and industrial disasters, where members’ interpretations and actions typically have direct and relatively immediate consequences. Third, high-reliability environments – such as fire-fighting and aircraft carrier flight decks – that are somewhat distinct in their demands for sensemaking, which provide members with shared accounts that facilitate tightly coordinated collective action. Arguably, elite sport offers a rich context that epitomizes these respective elements of interdependent groups operating in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment.

Sensemaking as Narrative A substantial amount of organizational sensemaking research has been conducted using narratives. A narrative perspective on sensemaking reflects the view that lived experience is captured, stored, and told in storied ways (Bruner, 1986), and that people express what they know and how they feel in organizations through

98 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

stories (O’Connor, 2000). People use stories and narrative to make sense of their organizations (Weick, 1995). Hence, narratives provide ways of creating meaning and making sense in organizations by offering a window into many aspects of organizational life. People tell stories “to complain, to boast, to inform, to alert, to tease, to explain or excuse or justify” (Schegloff, 1997, p. 97). This implies that where a story begins and ends, what it includes and excludes, what it highlights or suppresses are all choices that a narrator makes, and these choices help reveal something about organizational and personal reality. It has been argued that narrative is one way to tap into latent values and beliefs at work in an organization (Schein, 1996) and seeing sensemaking as narrative helps scholars attend to the construction and reconstruction of organizational identity in ways that make plain how members align and realign their understanding of the sport organization with their perceptions of its actions. By examining the discursive practices that actors use in the sensemaking process, most current writing on organizational sensemaking is understood as fundamentally concerned with language. As Taylor and Van Every (2010) noted, “sensemaking involves turning circumstances into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard for action” (p. 40). Given the discursive nature of sensemaking, it is unlikely to surprise the reader that research on narratives is the largest body of work on organizational sensemaking. A great benefit of examining organizational sensemaking through a narrative lens is that it reveals not only who is involved and what they are doing but also the meanings that they are constructing in the process. As such, the narrative approach enables us to showcase the multivocality of organizations and the contested nature of organizational meanings. It does so by uncovering the diverse stories told by different groups and showing how even a dominant organizational narrative can be embellished and modified by less powerful individuals in ways that significantly change its meaning. Since sensemaking is concerned with explaining previous actions to oneself and others (Weick, 1995), narrative metaphors offer a valuable role in validating some accounts and discrediting others. Relevant to the use of narratives within organizational sensemaking, narrative scholars have examined how individuals story their experience following a trauma (McAdams, 1993; Pals, 2006; Pals & McAdams, 2004), identifying key processes that seem to lead to growth. To elaborate, researchers (e.g., Pals, 2006; Pals & McAdams, 2004) have noted the importance of acknowledging the emotional impact of trauma, analyzing its effect on and meaning for the self, and constructing a positive ending that explains how the self has been transformed. Where such processes are undertaken as part of a collective sensemaking activity, it is possible that a singular, rich account of adversity can be produced leading to an emergent series of actions that are internally consistent and supportive of a positive identity (see Maitlis, 2005).

A Sensemaking Approach 99

How Might Sensemaking Lead to Benefits Following Adversity in Sport Organizations? One of the main ways sensemaking research has been shown to lead to benefits is through the facilitation of important organizational processes and outcomes. Specifically, three prominent lines of inquiry exist pointing to these outcomes: those linking organizational sensemaking to strategic change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994), organizational learning (Colville, Pye, & Carter, 2013; Haas, 2006; Kayes, 2004), and innovation and creativity (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Jay, 2013).

Strategic Change In an earlier section of this chapter, I introduced the emerging research on leadership succession events as a lens for studying organizational change in elite sport. Such planned change acts as a trigger for sensemaking, and the ensuing relationship between change and sensemaking is recursive. That is, when incoming managers were successful in influencing the sensemaking of members of a sport organization, these individuals were motivated to make changes in their own roles and practices, to help others by explaining the vision and co-constructing ways of working that are consistent with the new manager’s philosophy. Hence, individuals in sport organizations might create a new organizational order through sensemaking about new ways of working and might use sensegiving to convince others of the value of these changes and to explain how they can be implemented (see Parent, 2011).

Learning Sensemaking is also an important process for learning in organizations, teams, and individuals. Several studies examine high-risk or crisis contexts, where sensemaking is critical to learning from error. While the rate of leadership succession in elite sport shows no sign of abating, there are numerous examples of learning among the senior leadership of sport organizations (e.g., long-term manager contracts, strengthening of routines and reconnecting with a historical cultural foundation, interventions to reduce organizational stressors). Beyond sport, Haas’ (2006) research on teams working in highly political, ambiguous, knowledgeintensive settings found higher performance for teams operating in conditions that enhanced their sensemaking capabilities (slack time, autonomy, and work experience). When these teams were unable to engage in sensemaking about the knowledge they had gathered, they failed to learn from it. Haas (2006) argued that learning is particularly important in knowledge-intensive work settings, where there may be an abundance of potential solutions to challenges. In such uncertain contexts, team sensemaking about the material gathered and options

100 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

available becomes critical (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Given the fast-moving nature of elite sport, and the incessant need for success in such domains, the need to learn “fast” and “smart” from failure is pivotal to the development of sustainable performance and wellbeing.

Creativity and Innovation A final way in which sensemaking might benefit organizations following adversity relates to creativity and innovation. A small body of work has linked sensemaking to processes of the creation of novel ideas and innovative implementation approaches. In sport, participants in the organizational change studies conducted by Wagstaff et al. (2015, 2016) reported identifying novel ways to retain knowledge by paying “lip service” to new managers, while continuing to deliver science and medicine approaches in the way they felt was most effective. Beyond sport, Jay (2013) showed how sensemaking about paradoxical performance outcomes acted as a catalyst for developing the organization’s capacity for innovation. With a mission emphasizing both public service and capital growth – much like many national sport organizations – the organization in Jay’s study was driven by competing logics, so that any outcome that could be understood as a success through one lens and a failure through the other. Members initially grappled with this complexity, but later began to navigate the paradox more reflexively by engaging in sensemaking both internally and with key external stakeholders. Through these sensemaking processes, they reframed the organization’s role and identity from a “one-stop shop” to a “laboratory,” which enabled innovative outcomes through the synthesis of the two seemingly incompatible logics (see Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). It is possible that sport organizations might benefit from similar mission innovation and the development of innovation teams following adversity (e.g., the English Institute of Sport’s “Innovation Team”).

Future Research Directions In line with the arguments I have outlined in this chapter, I feel that there are three priority research questions relating to “how,” “what,” and “whom.” Research is required to more fully illuminate the co-constructed processes that characterize sensemaking in sport contexts. Therefore, researchers should seek to understand how individuals within sport organizations co-construct meaning and collectively make sense of adverse circumstances in their environment. Such research should also seek to capture the likely nuance and complexity of such processes. It will also be important to consider the outcomes of collective sensemaking following adversity in sport organizations. Hence, researchers should explore what strategic change, learning, creativity, and innovation changes follow organizational adversity. Needless to say, these are just some of the potential changes and researchers should remain open to other forms of outcome.

A Sensemaking Approach 101

Lastly, researchers should explore the nature and impact of sensegiving in the sensemaking process following adversity in sport organizations. That is, it would be valuable to better understand who guides or even seeks to control the sensemaking narrative to promote their interpretation of adversity and how this impacts learning and growth within the organization. This is important given the prominence of threat appraisals with limited perceived coping resources among individuals encountering organizational stressors in elite sport (see Hanton et al., 2012).

Conclusion The examination of benefits following adversity within sport organizations is nascent but of potential interest and value to sport and performance psychologists. Such work might enable researcher-practitioners to better understand why some organizations and institutions can maintain function and structure in the face of environmental complexity and change. Currently little is known about whether sport organizations benefit from adversity, and given this dearth of knowledge, in this chapter I have presented organizational sensemaking as a potentially valuable mechanism to address this knowledge gap. By using a socially constructed, narrative lens, scientist-practitioners can work collaboratively to better understand how sensemaking might promote strategic change, learning, and creativity and innovation (and more). What is now needed are systematic lines of inquiry to test these propositions and continue to explore how be assist organizations respond to adversity in sport.

Notes 1 As is common in the sensemaking literature, I use the terms “sense” and “meaning” interchangeably. For the purpose of this chapter, both “sense” and “meaning” are synonymous with understanding. In this vein, “sense” does not represent a faculty of sight, smell, hearing, taste, or touch, and “meaning” does not describe something as meaningful; that is, laden with significance, value, or purpose. 2 To develop an integrated definition of sensemaking, Maitlis and Christianson (2014) noted four recurrent themes. First, that sensemaking is a dynamic process. Second, cues – often in the form of violated expectations – play a central role in sensemaking. Third, sensemaking is social and intersubjective in ways that allow coordinated action; even individuals making sense on their own are embedded in a sociomaterial context where their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the “actual, imagined, or implied presence of others” (Allport, 1985, p. 3). Fourth, sensemaking concerns the action that people take to make sense of a situation which, in turn, influences the environment they seek to understand.

References Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (1996). Construing benefits from adversity: Adaptational significance and dispositional underpinnings. Journal of Personality, 64, 899–922. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.1996.tb00948.x.

102 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Arnold, R., Collington, S., Manley, H., Rees, S., Soanes, J., & Williams, M. (2019). “The team behind the team”: Exploring the organizational stressor experiences of sport science and management staff in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 7–26. doi:10.1080/10413200.2017.1407836. Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 397–429. doi:10.1123/jsep.34.3.397. Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2016). Demographic differences in sport performers’ experiences of organizational stressors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26, 348–358. doi:10.1111/sms.12439. Arnold, R., Wagstaff, C. R. D., Steadman, L., & Pratt, Y. (2017). The organizational stressors encountered by athletes with a disability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 1187–1196. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1214285. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 523–549. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/20159600. Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a longterm care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 551–598. doi:10.1177% 2F0001839214538636. Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 45–75. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00172. Brown, A. D. (2004). Authoritative sensemaking in a public inquiry report. Organization Studies, 25, 95–112. doi:10.1177%2F0170840604038182. Brown, A. D., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2008). Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations, 61, 1035–1062. doi:10.1177%2F0018726708094858. Bruner, E. M. (1986). Ethnography as narrative. In V.W. Turner & E.M. Bruner (Eds.), The anthropology of experience (pp. 139–155). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2001). Posttraumatic growth: The positive lessons of loss. In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.), Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss (pp. 157– 172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Colville, I., Pye, A., & Carter, M. (2013). Organizing to counter terrorism: Sensemaking amidst dynamic complexity. Human Relations, 66, 1201–1223. doi:10.1177% 2F0018726712468912. Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/259083. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554. doi:10.5465/ 256405. Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76–90. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/sta ble/257995. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476. doi:10.2307/2393938.

A Sensemaking Approach 103

Fasey, K., Sarkar, M., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Johnston, J. (under review). Defining and characterizing organizational resilience in elite sport. Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2012). Performers’ responses to stressors encountered in sport organizations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 349–358. doi:10.1080/ 02640414.2011.633545.. Fletcher, D., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its emergence, application and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 427–434. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.009. Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: Revised and updated. WW Publisher. Frost, P. (2003). Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gangstad, B., Norman, P., & Barton, J. (2009). Cognitive processing and posttraumatic growth after stroke. Rehabilitation Psychology, 54, 69–75. doi:10.1037/a0014639. Gilmore, S., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Smith, J. (2018). Sports psychology in the English Premier League: “It feels precarious and is precarious.” Work, Employment and Society, 32, 426–435. doi:10.1177%2F0950017017713933. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/sta ble/2486479. Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Institutional identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403. doi:10.2307/2393936. Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5, 363–383. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.3.363. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. doi:10.1080/10413200290103482. Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Factors affecting Olympic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and less successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 371–394. doi:10.1123/tsp.13.4.371. Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24, 472–488. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/259137. Haas, M. R. (2006). Knowledge gathering, team capabilities, and project performance in challenging work environments. Management Science, 52, 1170–1184. doi:10.1287/ mnsc.1060.0530. Hanton, S., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Fletcher, D. (2012). Cognitive appraisals of stressors encountered in sport organizations. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 276–289. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2012.682376. Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21, 1057– 1074. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(95)90022-5. Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421–447. doi:10.1177%2F0170840602233005. Janoff-Bulman, R., & Sheikh, S. (2006). From national trauma to moralizing nation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 325–332. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2804_5.

104 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137–159. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0772. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037%2F1089-2680.9.3.262. Kayes, D. C. (2004). The 1996 Mount Everest climbing disaster: The breakdown of learning in teams. Human Relations, 57, 1263–1284. doi:10.1177%2F0018726704048355. Larner, R. J., Wagstaff, C. R. D., Thelwell, R. C., & Corbett, J. (2017). A multistudy examination of organizational stressors, emotional labor, burnout, and turnover in sport organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27, 2103–2115. doi:10.1111/sms.12833.. Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20159639. Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125. doi:10.1080/ 19416520.2014.873177. May, R. (1999). Freedom and destiny. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 515–537. doi:10.2307/2392528. Milliken, F. J. (1990). Perceiving and interpreting environmental change: An examination of college administrators’ interpretation of changing demographics. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 42–63. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/256351. Neimeyer, R. A. (2001). Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Davis, C. G. (2004). Theoretical and methodological issues in the assessment and interpretation of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 60–64. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447203. O’Connor, E. S. (2000). Plotting the organization: The embedded narrative as a construct for studying change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 174–192. doi:10.1177% 2F0021886300362004. O’Neill, O. A., & Rothbard, N. P. (2017). Is love all you need? The effects of emotional culture, suppression, and work–family conflict on firefighter risk-taking and health. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 78–108. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0952. Pals, J. L. (2006). Authoring a second chance in life: Emotion and transformational processing within narrative identity. Research in Human Development, 3(2), 101–120. doi:10.1080/15427609.2006.9683364. Pals, J., & McAdams, D. (2004). The transformed self: A narrative understanding of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 65–69. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/ 20447204. Parent, S. (2011). Disclosure of sexual abuse in sport organizations: A case study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20, 322–337. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.573459. Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257–301. doi:10.1037/a0018301. Schegloff, E.A. (1997). Narrative analysis thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 97–106. doi:10.1075/jnlh.7.11nar.

A Sensemaking Approach 105

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 229–240. doi:10.2307/2393715. Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10, 724–736. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/258041. Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing – or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 477–512. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.51467638. Sutcliffe, K. M. (2014). Sensemaking. In M. Augier & D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1–4). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2010). The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication research. New York, NY: Routledge. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/ jts.2490090305. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: A new perspective on psychotraumatology. Psychiatric Times, 21, 58–60. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 239–270. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/ 256522. Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2016). Coaching through organizational change: The influence of leadership succession events. In R. C. Thelwell, C. Harwood, & I. Greenlees (Eds.), The psychology of sports coaching: Research and practice (pp. 68–83). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Wagstaff, C. R. D. (Ed.) (2017). The organizational psychology of sport: Key issues and practical applications. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2019a). Taking stock of organizational psychology in sport: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 1–6. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1539785. Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2019b). A commentary and reflections on the field of organizational sport psychology: Epilogue to the special issue. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 134–146. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1539885. Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Burton-Wylie, S. (2018). Organizational culture in sport: A conceptual, definitional, and methodological review. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 14, 32–52. Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Burton-Wylie, S. (in press). Organizational culture in sport. In D. Hackfort & R. Schinke (Eds.), Routledge international encyclopadia of sport and exercise psychology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Wagstaff, C. R. D., Gilmore, S., & Thelwell, R. C. (2015). Sport medicine and sport science practitioners’ experiences of organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25, 685–698. doi:10.1111/sms.12340. Wagstaff, C. R. D., Gilmore, S., & Thelwell, R. C. (2016). When the show must go on: Investigating repeated organizational change in elite sport. Journal of Change Management, 16, 38–54. doi:10.1080/14697017.2015.1062793. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652. doi:10.2307/2393339. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

106 Christopher R. D. Wagstaff

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133. Wicks, D. (2001). Institutionalized mindsets of invulnerability: Differentiated institutional fields and the antecedents of organizational crisis. Organization Studies, 22, 659–692. doi:10.1177%2F0170840601224005. Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., & LaMott, E. E. (1995). A model of psychologic response to athletic injury and rehabilitation. Athletic Training: Sports Health Care Perspectives, 1, 16–30.

8 CAN ADVERSITY PROMOTE TEAM FUNCTIONING IN SPORT? Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

Introduction Sport teams across all competitive levels are likely to experience adversity at some point within the performance cycle. For sporting teams, adversities can be characterized as events that have the potential to derail the collective functioning of the group, such as the loss of a key team member through major injury, the sudden change in management personnel (e.g., coach being fired), or an unexpected loss to a much lower-ranked side. Typically, adversities are characterized negatively in light of the potentially deleterious effects for team functioning and ultimately destabilization of performance. For example, as a result of the ball tampering scandal in 2018, the Australian cricket team lost three key members midway through a test series against South Africa, and subsequently suffered their second largest defeat in history in the following match and went on to lose their following two test series. However, teams can also withstand potentially deleterious effects or even develop positively following the experience of adverse events (e.g., enhanced focus and motivation following the feeling of injustice from an erroneous refereeing decision). Regardless of the immediate outcomes of such experiences, one important consideration for theory and practice is the implications of collective experiences of adversity for the future functioning of the team. In other words, can collective experiences of adversity promote the future functioning of a sporting team? Given the paucity of empirical work that has addressed this proposition, our goal in this chapter is to consider several key questions that might inspire others and guide efforts to study this proposition empirically.

108 Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

Literature Review What is Adversity? The use of the term adversity is widespread across the literature within areas such as resilience, posttraumatic growth, and coping (Linley & Joseph, 2004). The ubiquity of this term and implicit assumptions regarding its definition have caused discrepancies in the operationalization of adversity. For example, some scholars have defined adversity as “life circumstances that are known to be statistically associated with adjustment difficulties” (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000, p. 858), whereas others have defined the term as a “state of hardship or suffering” (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007, p. 3). Within the biological literature, adversity is defined as a level within the environment that may vary in magnitude depending upon qualities such as resources, physical structure, climate, and competitors (Andras, Lazarus, & Roberts, 2007). Despite dissimilarities within the literature, and the observed conceptual proliferation with terms such as stressor and traumatic events, certain salient observations can be drawn from those definitions available across systems. For example, characteristics considered jointly necessary to differentiate adversity from related terms (i.e., trauma, stressor) have included the event to be external to the perceiver (Andras et al., 2007; Gucciardi et al., 2018), contextually meaningful to the perceiver (Fletcher, 2018), statistically associated with changes to the functioning of a system (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000), and low to moderate in probability of occurrence (Gucciardi et al., 2018). Applicable to the domain of sporting teams, we define adversity as a “temporally bound, low-to-moderate probability event external to the perceiver that represents a major assault on the functioning of a system” (Gucciardi et al., 2018, p. 742).

How Do Individuals Experience Adversity? As team experiences are borne out of individual perspectives, we briefly consider individuals’ experiences of adversity across cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and biological domains. The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPM; Blascovich, 2013) provides a useful framework for appreciating individuals’ experiences of stress and adversity occurring within contexts where people are motivated to perform; that is, when striving to attain a personally relevant and meaningful goal. Within the context of the BPM, individuals experience psychological states of challenge or threat that are characterized by patterns of physiological responses. As these physiological responses occur rapidly, often within the matter of seconds, and can be assessed non-invasively, they can be used to make inferences about two key psychological states that represent opposite ends of a bipolar continuum. Specifically, individuals experience a state of challenge if they appraise that their personal resources outweigh the demands of the situation, or a state of threat when they appraise that the demands of the situations outweigh their personal resources. As

Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning? 109

adversity is characterized by unique experiences where situational demands are high, it is unsurprising that cognitive (e.g., intrusive thoughts, shift in attention), emotional (e.g., anger, emotional suppression), physical (e.g., illness, loss of fitness), and behavioral (e.g., performance withdrawal, social isolation) responses tend to reflect experiences of threat states (Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017). The synergistic links between psychological states and physiological processes captured in the BPM (Seery, 2011) underscores the importance of the biological experience of adversity. The BPM draws on the idea of energy mobilization via the activation of the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SAM) and pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axes during motivated performance situations (Dienstbier, 1989). In these circumstances, the SAM axis mobilizes energy swiftly via the quick release and elimination of epinephrine and norepinephrine, whereas HPA axis activation occurs more gradually via the slow release and elimination of cortisol. Although the sudden onset of SAM activation has been outlined as an indicator of “toughened” individuals, the transient half-life within the body of only a few minutes limits its measurement potential (Dienstbier, 1989). Contrastingly, cortisol released via HPA activation has a half-life of over an hour, making it amenable to measurement and therefore the preferred latent indicator of the stress response (Seery, 2011). The association between psychological stress and HPA axis activation has been especially prominent in environments with high ego involvement and low predictability and control (Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 1994). The measurement of cortisol and representation of challenge or threat states has been approached using a range of physiological measures (e.g., urine, blood serum). Offering a real-time insight into the experiences of an individual, previous work has indexed challenge and threat states via four discrete cardiovascular measures (heart rate, ventricular activity, total peripheral resistance, and cardiac output; Seery, 2011), whereas short-term (i.e., 24-hour period) accumulation of adversity has been commonly measured via saliva sampling (for a review, see Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 1994). Hair sampling permits assessments of longterm of cortisol accumulation within the body, whereby 1cm of hair growth reflects approximately one month of cortisol secretion (Stalder & Kirschbaum, 2012). Despite the utility of such measures, a multimodal approach that combines subjective (e.g., perceptions of stress intensity or appraisal) and biological (e.g., hair cortisol) indices is the preferred approach to capturing stress states following adversity (Weckesser et al., 2019). This multimodal approach to stress measurement is evident in recent work in sport settings (e.g., cardiovascular indices; Moore, Young, Freeman, & Sarkar, 2018).

How Do Teams Experience Adversity? Teams represent two or more individuals working towards a shared objective. As teams encompass multiple individuals, it is common to assume a reductionist perspective in that the collective experience of adversity simply represents an

110 Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

aggregation of these individual experiences (Chapman et al., 2018). However, common within the group dynamics literature is the holistic Aristotelian view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Lower-level characteristics (e.g., individual) emerge temporally at higher levels (e.g., team) via composition or compilation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Composition describes an isomorphic form of emergence where the individual-level attributes combine as a team-level characteristic that is similar in makeup to its individual-level constituent elements in that it has a similar meaning across levels. Contrastingly, compilation describes a process of emergence whereby the higher-level property holds a functional resemblance to the lower-level construct, yet is distinct in nature from the individual constituent elements. For example, consider the difference between the concepts of collective efficacy and team performance within sport. Collective efficacy reflects composition emergence because it captures the degree to which individual-level perceptions of the team’s capabilities converge as a collective construct. Contrastingly, team performance emerges via complementary patterns and configurations of diverse individual-level components, whereby the unique contributions of individual members interact to produce some type of functioning that is qualitatively different yet meaningful for the collective (e.g., putting together pieces of a puzzle). Distinct differences may be present in the antecedents and mechanisms underpinning the emergence process (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), so it is important to consider the adverse experience for individual members and the team as a collective, and the processes that underpin emergence within and across both levels. When it comes to understanding the experiences of adversity within teams, it is important to clarify what we mean by the concept of “shared.” Shared adversities have been described as a unique event in which the same features or circumstances are experienced directly by all group members (Windschitl, Kruger, & Simms, 2003). Examples of this conceptualization of shared adversity include sport teams who experience extreme environmental conditions (e.g., heat), relegation to a lower competition level, or loss within the final of a major competition. Common to each of these examples is the simultaneous experience of the same type of adversity across all individuals of the team. An alternative conceptualization of adversity experiences within groups is one where the event is experienced directly by one or more members and indirectly by others (also see Chapter 4 on vicarious experiences of growth). This type of collective adversity experience is important because indirect or vicarious experience of adversity (e.g., witnessing a teammate being physically harmed) can affect people’s experiences of stress. Previous work has demonstrated this effect via enhanced levels of cortisol secretion in the observer (Engert, Plessow, Miller, Kirschbaum, & Singer, 2014). Examples of this conceptualization of adversity for sporting teams include the loss of a team member due to major injury (e.g., anterior cruciate ligament), witnessing a team member experiencing verbal abuse/racism from supporters, and the awareness of a team member having lost a close family member. Consideration of these two broad types of experiences of adversity among teams is important because they may affect

Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning? 111

collective functioning in different ways and ultimately the degree to which functioning may change because of that shared experience. Owing to the limited research in this area, we consider these two types of adversity experiences collectively in this chapter unless otherwise noted.

The Cognitive Underpinnings of Shared Adversity Cognition, which has been defined as the “mechanisms by which animals acquire, process, store and act on information from the environment” (Shettleworth, 2010, p. 4), represents an appropriate starting point for considering the nature of shared adversity experiences for teams and how they may affect collective functioning and growth. Conceptual work on shared cognition has evolved from a sole emphasis upon shared knowledge structures across individuals towards an interactive model of shared cognition that resides in the observable activities or processes between team members (Cooke, 2015). These dynamic team-level activities or processes are grounded in the context in which teams perform and play out over time. Rather than denying the existence of previously dominant static models, this interactionist approach acknowledges the existence of shared mental models, yet underscores the importance of observing the interactions between team members as markers of team cognitive processing (McNeese, Cooke, Fedele, & Gray, 2015). Knowledge components reflect an important start point for teams when confronted with adversity (Cooke, 2015). For example, organized knowledge structures encompassing representations of both task- and team-related factors that are shared between team members facilitate team coordination (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993). Shared mental models, which reflect overlapping maps of the environment between team members, enhance team effectiveness via a highly shared and accurate understanding of task constraints, and the future needs and actions of other team members (Mohammed, Hamilton, Sánchez‐Manzanares, & Rico, 2017). The question of interest here is the degree to which team members are on the same page. More immediate in nature, situational awareness is reflective of an individual’s knowledge of their direct environment, which includes (a) perceptions of task-relevant environmental cues, (b) comprehension of the information that is collected from that environment, and (c) projection of how such environmental information may vary in the future (Endsley, 1995). Conceptualized at the team level to be a shared interpretation of the immediate context, team situational awareness is deemed important for performance in complex and dynamic environments because members know what is going on around them (Mohammed et al., 2017). These knowledge components of a team’s shared cognitive experience represent important avenues in which to explore the effect of adverse experiences upon future team functioning. Interactions among team members are critical for team effectiveness (Cooke, 2015). For example, there may be instances where certain teams with limited shared knowledge (i.e., newly formed teams) perform effectively. The ability to

112 Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

compensate for this limited shared knowledge may be explained by the presence of effective process components. Team coordination, which represents decisionmaking and behavior regulation with respect to the group and task context (Steiner, Seiler, & Cooke, 2017), is built largely around the communicative ability of a team (Cooke, 2015). Notably, the effective transference of adaptive information across team members at the right time is crucial to the development of new knowledge, where integration of new ideas is a marker of cognitive processing at the team level. Knowledge processes (e.g., communication, coordination) within the context of adversity therefore may supplement the exploration of knowledge components and demonstrate observable proxies from which to gain insight into the cognitive aspects of shared experiences.

The Emotional Underpinnings of Shared Adversity Emotions are neurophysiological states characterized by dimensions of valence (i.e., negative or positive) and intensity (i.e., the strength of the emotional experience) (Barrett, 2006). For teams, the linkage and transmission of emotional experiences from one person to another/others (i.e., emotional contagion; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994) plays a pertinent role in future behavior (Barsade, 2002). Affective Process Theory (Elfenbein, 2014) provides a conceptual backdrop for understanding emotional connection via three broad mechanisms. Aligned with the direct experience of adversity, the shared stimulus mechanism reflects situations where team members are exposed to the same environmental stimulus and members’ interpretations tend to converge over time via interactions and leadership influence despite likely differences in their individual experiences. Mechanisms indicative of indirect experiences of adversity can occur in two ways: (1) imitated stimulus, where one or more individuals encounter a stimulus and then imitate their experiences in ways that resonate sequentially across those of other team members (e.g., observing the reaction of a teammate to a severe injury), and (2) empathetic-through-stimulus, where an individual becomes aware of an event through interaction with a team member (e.g., discussion with coach about an injury to teammate). The emergence of affective convergence via these mechanisms, and the valence of such states has been shown to influence team behaviors (e.g., communication, group conflict, cooperation) and performance outcomes (e.g., task performance, self-related group performance, service quality appraisals) among various types of teams both inside and outside of sport (e.g., Barsade, 2002; Barsade, Coutifaris, & Pillemer, 2018; Totterdell, 2000). In essence, the dynamic nature of the affective state of a team in response to adversity holds influence upon important group processes and outcomes, and as such represents an important mediator of team functioning within such contexts. Understanding the conscious and subconscious mechanisms linking group emotions and the moderators of this dynamic state (e.g., leadership characteristics; Johnson, 2008) represents important considerations for understanding team functioning following adversity.

Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning? 113

What Might Changes in Functioning Look Like for Teams? Team functioning might be affected negatively, positively, or both across differing facets of team functioning following adversity exposure. In terms of deleterious effects, teams have been shown to lose an awareness of team perspective (Driskell, Salas, & Johnston, 1999) or to make poorer decisions under heightened levels of stress (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001). The concept of growth is one area where teams might experience positive changes from adversity exposure. At intrapersonal and interpersonal levels, growth has been defined as “positive psychological changes experienced as a result of the struggle with traumatic or highly challenging life circumstances” (Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018, p. 3). Fundamental to this definition is the nature of change as opposed to enhancement of attributes. This attribute of growth reflects the functionaldescriptive model of change in which individuals’ fundamental assumptions regarding the world are challenged and constrained to change by adverse events over time, with internal (e.g., emotional distress, core beliefs) and external factors (e.g., social support, proximal and distal social-cultural dimensions) determining subsequent growth (Tedeschi et al., 2018). Importantly, it is inappropriate to infer collective growth from individual member growth because the whole is deemed greater than the sum of parts (Tedeschi et al., 2018). For example, individual member enhancements in motivation or coping strategies may affect collective behavior negatively because it disrupts synchronicity between members. This disparity demonstrates the need to observe changes in functioning at the team level (e.g., relationships between members) and the potential for individual-level growth to foster or undermine team growth. Joseph and Linley’s (2005) Organismic Valuing Theory of Growth (OVT) mirrors several of these characteristics (see Chapter 2 for a detailed conceptual exposition), and has been the modal theoretical model used within studies of growth in competitive sport (Howells et al., 2017). Within the context of OVT, individuals’ predisposition towards growth occurs via the changing of belief systems one holds for the world that occur following adversity (Joseph & Linley, 2005). This definition also reflects the common conceptualization of growth as a process of change characterized via indicators of intrapersonal (e.g., self-efficacy), interpersonal (e.g., development of relationships), and physical (e.g., enhanced performance) functioning (Howells et al., 2017). When considering growth within teams, it seems pertinent to consider necessary characteristics of growth as an emergent state or outcome characterized by (a) positive change at the team level in the quality or value of a team properties (e.g., shared belief systems, relationships, mental models, team philosophy) or activities (e.g., cooperation, coordination); (b) prolonged or robust change over a period of time following adversity and relative to the quality or value prior, and (c) change relative to the quality or value prior to the onset of adversity. Interested readers are referred elsewhere for a discussion of similar themes in relation to the multilevel nature of team resilience (Gucciardi et al., 2018).

114 Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

The input, mediator, output, input (IMOI) model of team effectiveness (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005) offers a structured yet flexible template of what collective functioning might look like for a team following adversity. Inputs represent those conditions that exist prior to team performance, which can encompass individual (e.g., personality), team (e.g., composition), or context (e.g., organizational constraints) factors. Mediators include the ways by which inputs are engaged, integrated, and translated into valued outcomes via dynamic interactions among team members (e.g., communication). Outputs refer to the task and non-task consequences of the dynamic interactions among team members (e.g., learning, performance effectiveness). Finally, Ilgen et al. (2005) described the feedback-loop nature of team development and indicated the need to consider outputs as future inputs when assessing team-related constructs. This aspect may be important when assessing collective functioning following adversity to allow for an understanding of how over time outcomes lead in to future inputs and mediators to contribute to future outcomes (e.g., prolonged growth). Linking this framework to future explorations of team functioning within a sporting context requires an understanding of the key inputs, mediators, and outcomes underpinning this construct and their interaction.

How Might Adversity Promote Growth in Sport? Benefits of Shared Experiences of Adversity Shared experiences of adversity may hold important functional bearing on the development of team affect and cognitive inputs to functioning. Notably, shared adversities enhance the effective teamwork capability of groups without intervention (Paton & Stephens, 1996; Turner, Hogg, Turner, & Smith, 1984), with experiences of adversity proposed to stimulate processes of growth (Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013). Benefit-finding among teams fosters relationships with others (Garrison & Sasser, 2009), matching the common identification of enhanced group cohesion following shared adverse experiences (Turner et al., 1984). As examples, shared experiences of pain in groups within laboratory settings enhances trusting interpersonal relationships between members (Bastian, Jetten, & Ferris, 2014), whereas in sport an injury to a star player may bring teammates closer together (Bloom, Stevens, & Wickwire, 2003). Underpinned by Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), shared adversity experiences are likely to facilitate team cohesion through enhanced perceptions of positive distinctiveness following events and through perceptions of a shared fate, meaning, and affective reactions that are ascribed to the event (Pollock, Paton, Smith, & Violanti, 2003). This internalization of social identity within teams promotes interpretations of such experiences as “our” problem instead of “my” or “your” problem. Internalizing meaning via social identities fosters communal coping strategies that promote adaptive team functioning over deleterious processes (Leprince, D’Arripe-Longueville, & Doron, 2018). Defined as “the cooperative problem-solving process salient in coping with both individual and collective

Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning? 115

stressors involving [sic] the appraisal of a stressor as our issue and cooperative action to address it” (Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998, p. 579), communal coping strategies may reflect important transitionary processes for future functioning or an outcome of growth in itself following the immediate experience of adversity should pre-adversity coping strategies be enhanced in some way (Howells et al., 2017). Communal coping strategies in sport include problem-focused communal efforts (e.g., information sharing, refocusing, back to basics), relationship-focused coping (e.g., motivational support, social bonding), communal management of emotions (e.g., interpersonal emotional regulation, reassurance), and communal goal withdrawal (e.g., task disengagement, venting emotions) (Leprince et al., 2018). An integral communal coping strategy triggered by adversity is systematic reflection upon experiences. For individuals, stressor reflection enhances awareness of current capacities and limitations (Crane, Searle, Kangas, & Nwiran, 2019). At the team level, reflections may clarify the capacities and limitations of the collective unit, and enhance awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of team members. Thus, purposeful reflections of shared experiences of adversity may promote the salience of the social identity within teams, enhance the cohesiveness of a group, and maximize the likelihood of effective strategies being adopted following such experiences to promote team functioning.

Training and Shared Adversity Experiences Team development interventions foster team competencies, processes, leadership, and interactions that are critical to collective effectiveness (Lacerenza, Marlow, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2018). Of these approaches, team competencies or teamwork expertise are key inputs to established teams that may benefit from training within the context of adversity (see Chapter 17 for detailed information). Team training has been defined as “a formalised, structured learning experience with preset objectives and curriculum that target specific team competencies” (Lacerenza et al., 2018, p. 519), with previous work showing the advantageous nature of training prior to stressful experiences (Driskell et al., 1999). Several specific team training strategies have been outlined including coordination training, cross training, and stress exposure training (Burke, Salas, Wilson-Donnelly, & Priest, 2004), with training within the context of adversity holding three overarching benefits (Driskell, Salas, Johnston, & Wollert, 2008). First, training within the context of shared adversity has been proposed to enhance a team’s familiarity with the performance environment. Developing a shared understanding of the effects of adversity upon environmental and task constraints, teammates’ behaviors under such circumstances (i.e., shared mental model), and the affective state of the team, with training in the context of adversity, has been shown to generalize to novel, unexperienced adversities experienced by teams (Driskell, Johnston, & Salas, 2001). Second, adversity may foster the development of coordinative team performance strategies and skills to meet the demands of this context. For example, teams may

116 Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

adjust their playing strategy following the loss of a star performer to injury. Shared adversity experiences may also enhance creativity among team members; thus, applying training techniques within the context of adversity may facilitate novel solutions to problems (Bastian, Jetten, Thai, & Steffens, 2018). Finally, grounding training in adversity may enhance the collective efficacy of a group when they encounter similar experiences in the future and the collective efficacy of the group more generally (Friedland & Keinan, 1982). For example, teams who experienced and successfully overcame the adversity of an unexpected managerial change may propel their confidence to a higher level when it comes to overcoming similar hurdles and subsequent adversities in future. In sum, experiences of adversity may add significant value to training programs where performance is incumbent (e.g., elite stage) through the development of core knowledge, skills, and affective processes, and may be a prerequisite to desirable functioning following these experiences. However, it is important to adopt caution and awareness of the moral implications of such training. The relaying and sharing of previous adverse experiences has the potential to result in retraumatization, whereas sudden experiences of high severity adversity may also result in undesirable outcomes. Drawing a line in the sand ultimately requires a delicate balance of care, control, and progression (e.g., athlete-driven).

Conclusion There is intuitive and practical appeal to the idea that adversity experiences can promote collective functioning and growth among sporting teams. However, little systematic empirical or theoretical work has addressed this proposition directly. In this chapter, we reviewed research and theory from related fields with the view to shed light on several key questions that might provide a platform from which to consider the nature of this proposition and guide future work. It is essential that future work clarify the multilevel, temporally dynamic nature of adversity experiences for collective functioning.

References Andras, P., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Environmental adversity and uncertainty favour cooperation. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 240–248. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-240. Barrett, L. F. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 28–58. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00003.x. Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. doi:10.2307/3094912. Barsade, S. G., Coutifaris, C. G. V., & Pillemer, J. (2018). Emotional contagion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 137–151. doi:10.1016/j. riob.2018.11.005. Bastian, B., Jetten, J., & Ferris, L. J. (2014). Pain as social glue: Shared pain increases cooperation. Psychological Science, 25, 2079–2085. doi:10.1177/0956797614545886.

Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning? 117

Bastian, B., Jetten, J., Thai, H. A., & Steffens, N. K. (2018). Shared adversity increases team creativity through fostering supportive interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2309), 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02309. Blascovich, J. (2013). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 431–445). New York: Psychology Press. Bloom, G. A., Stevens, D. E., & Wickwire, T. L. (2003). Expert coaches’ perceptions of team building. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 129–143. doi:10.1080/ 10413200390213830. Burke, C. S., Salas, E., Wilson-Donnelly, K., & Priest, H. (2004). How to turn a team of experts into an expert medical team: guidance from the aviation and military communities. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13, 96–104. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009829. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202. doi:10.1002/job.82. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision-making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Chapman, M. T., Lines, R. L., Crane, M., Ducker, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Peeling, P., … & Gucciardi, D. F. (2018). Team resilience: A scoping review of conceptual and empirical work. Work & Stress, 1–25. doi:10.1080/02678373.2018.1529064. Cooke, N. J. (2015). Team cognition as interaction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 415–419. doi:10.1177/0963721415602474. Crane, M. F., Searle, B. J., Kangas, M., & Nwiran, Y. (2019). How resilience is strengthened by exposure to stressors: the systematic self-reflection model of resilience strengthening. Anxiety Stress & Coping, 32, 1–17. doi:10.1080/10615806.2018.1506640. Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness – implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84–100. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.96.1.84. Driskell, J., Johnston, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Does stress training generalize to novel settings? Human Factors, 43, 99–110. doi:10.1518/001872001775992471. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 291–302. doi:10.1037/ 1089-2699.3.4.291. Driskell, J., Salas, E., Johnston, J. H., & Wollert, T. N. (2008). Stress exposure training: An event-based approach. In P. A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 271–286). London, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Elfenbein, H. A. (2014). The many faces of emotional contagion: An Affective Process Theory of affective linkage. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 326–362. doi:10.1177/ 2041386614542889. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64. doi:10.1518/001872095779049543. Engert, V., Plessow, F., Miller, R., Kirschbaum, C., & Singer, T. (2014). Cortisol increase in empathic stress is modulated by emotional closeness and observation modality. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 45, 192–201. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.04.005. Fletcher, D. (2018). Psychological resilience and adversarial growth in sport and performance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–38. doi:10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190236557.013.158. Friedland, N., & Keinan, G. (1982). Patterns of fidelity between training and criterion situations as determinants of performance in stressful situations. Journal of Human Stress, 8, 41–46. doi:10.1080/0097840X.1982.9936118.

118 Michael T. Chapman and Daniel F. Gucciardi

Garrison, M. E. B., & Sasser, D. D. (2009). Families and disasters: Making meaning out of adversity. In K. E. Cherry (Ed.), Lifespan perspectives on natural disasters: Coping with Katrina, Rita, and other storms (pp. 113–130). New York, NY: Springer. Gucciardi, D. F., Crane, M., Ntoumanis, N., Parker, S. K., Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., Ducker, K. J., … & 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. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Sport and the Brain: The Science of Preparing, Enduring and Winning, Pt B, 234, 117–159. doi:10.1016/ bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250. Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60, 1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04412.x. Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 1–19. doi:10.1016/ j.leaqua.2007.12.001. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.262. Kirschbaum, C., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1994). Salivary cortisol in psychoneuroendocrine research – recent developments and applications. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 19, 313–333. doi:10.1016/0306-4530(94)90013-2. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist, 73, 517–531. doi:10.1037/amp0000295. Leprince, C., D’Arripe-Longueville, F., & Doron, J. (2018). Coping in teams: Exploring athletes’ communal coping strategies to deal with shared stressors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1908), 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01908. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(1), 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi:10.1017/ S0954579400004156. Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605. doi:10.1177/ 0265407598155001. McNeese, N. J., Cooke, N. J., Fedele, M. A., & Gray, R. (2015). Theoretical and methodical approaches to studying team cognition in sports. International Conference on Applied

Can Adversity Promote Team Functioning? 119

Human Factors and Ergonomics and the Affiliated Conferences, Las Vegas, Nevada, 3, 1211– 1218. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.201. Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., Sánchez‐Manzanares, M., & Rico, R. (2017). Team cognition: Team mental models and situation awareness. In E. Salas, R. Rico, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes (pp. 369–392). Sussex, UK: Hoboken Wiley-Blackwell. Moore, L. J., Young, T., Freeman, P., & Sarkar, M. (2018). Adverse life events, cardiovascular responses, and sports performance under pressure. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28, 340–347. doi:10.1111/sms.12928. Paton, D., & Stephens, C. (1996). Training and support for emergency responders. In D. Paton & J. M. Violanti (Eds.), Traumatic stress in critical occupations: Recognition, consequences and treatment (pp. 173–205). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Pollock, C., Paton, D., Smith, D., & Violanti, J. (2003). Team resilience. In D. Paton, J. Violanti, & L. Smith (Eds.), Promoting capabilities to manage posttraumatic stress: perspectives on resilience (pp. 74–88). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Seery, M. D. (2011). Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to potential stress in humans. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1603–1610. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.003. Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Stalder, T., & Kirschbaum, C. (2012). Analysis of cortisol in hair: State of the art and future directions. Brain Behavior and Immunity, 26, 1019–1029. doi:10.1016/j. bbi.2012.02.002. Steiner, S., Seiler, R., & Cooke, N. J. (2017). Understanding the successful coordination of team behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1869), 1–2. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01869. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848–859. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.848. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 97–111. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00619.x. Weckesser, L. J., Dietz, F., Schmidt, K., Grass, J., Kirschbaum, C., & Miller, R. (2019). The psychometric properties and temporal dynamics of subjective stress, retrospectively assessed by different informants and questionnaires, and hair cortisol concentrations. Scientific Reports, 9(1098), 1–12. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37526-2. Windschitl, P. D., Kruger, J., & Simms, E. (2003). The influence of egocentrism and focalism on people’s optimism in competitions: When what affects us equally affects me more. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 389–408. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.389.

9 STRESS-RELATED GROWTH WITHIN YOUTH SPORT The Parent–Child Relationship Sam N. Thrower, Chris G. Harwood, and Kacey C. Neely

Introduction Within the youth sport literature, significant academic attention has focused on the participation and experiences of young athletes and their parents (see Harwood, Knight, Thrower, & Berrow, 2019). These studies have predominantly focused on understanding the stressors or environmental demands (e.g., interpersonal relationships, progress towards performance goals/outcomes, performance errors) that young athletes (e.g., Nicholls, Hemmings, & Clough, 2010) and their parents (e.g., Harwood, Drew, & Knight, 2010; Harwood, Thrower, Slater, Didymus, & Frearson, 2019) face across different developmental stages. This focus on identifying stressors is perhaps not surprising considering that an inability to manage or cope with stressful events in sport has the potential to negatively influence young athletes’ enjoyment, progress, and development (Holt & Dunn, 2004) and has been identified as one of the main reasons why young athletes burn out or drop out of sport (see Crane & Temple, 2015; Goodger, Gorely, Lavallee, & Harwood, 2007). The stressors that parents report within the context of youth sport can negatively impact on their overall experiences (see Harwood, Thrower, et al., 2019) and also lead to higher levels of disciplinary punishment and harsher interactions with their children (see Knight, Holt, & Tamminen, 2009). Although this body of work has made an important contribution to the literature, it has focused predominantly on the negative impact and consequences of stressors. As such, studies have tended to overlook the possibility that young athletes and their parents may, over time, be able to use the stressful events that they experience in youth sport as a catalyst for positive change and achieve a higher level of functioning (e.g., increased personal strength, enhanced parent–child relationship) following a stressful encounter (Joseph & Linley, 2005, 2006).

Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport 121

The notion that individuals can use negative events as a catalyst for positive change is considered in the literature as stress-related growth (SRG; Park, 2004). Within the context of sport, SRG refers to stressful rather than traumatic events and can occur in relation to intrapersonal (e.g., awareness of the self), interpersonal (e.g., enhanced relationships), and physical indicators (e.g., physically stronger) (Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017). It is important to note here that experiencing SRG does not mean that individuals do not experience adverse cognitive (e.g., loss of identity, reflection on goals, perceptions of isolation), emotional (e.g., feelings of shock, frustration, anger, vulnerability), and behavioral responses (e.g., withdrawal from others, failure to disclose to others, avoidance of reminders; see Howells et al., 2017) as a result of the stressful situation; it appears that SRG is a separate outcome of a stressful encounter altogether (Park, 2004). It is not the stressful or adverse event specifically that leads to perceptions of positive psychological growth but rather the cognitive processing, coping, and affective engagement which occurs in the aftermath that leads to positive perceptions of change and perceived growth over time (Tamminen & Neely, 2016). As a result, growth is most likely to occur when individuals have opportunities for self-disclosure within supportive relationships (Tamminen & Neely, 2016). Within the context of youth sport, it is typically parents who are best positioned to create and maintain such relationships while also facilitating the interactions needed to help their child to cope and achieve growth. Taking the aforementioned points into consideration, the aim of this chapter is to review the youth sport literature with a specific emphasis on how the nature of involvement in youth sport, and the stressors encountered, may have the potential to facilitate growth for young athletes and their parents. In order to achieve this, first we examine the wide range of individual (and shared) stressors parents and young athletes experience within youth sport. In the second section we adopt a dyadic perspective and review studies that have explored how parent–child interactions following stressful events, as well as the ongoing demands they experience, may have the potential to facilitate growth. Building on this, in the third section we review the indicators of growth which parents and young athletes have reported as a result of their involvement in youth sport and/or the specific stressful events they have experienced. Finally, we conclude by offering a number of recommendations for research and practice in relation to SRG within this unique context.

Literature Review Individual and Shared Stressors in Youth Sport – Athlete and Parent Experiences Competitive youth sport, by its very nature, imposes numerous demands on young athletes and their parents (Crocker, Tamminen, & Bennett, 2017). As such, it is not surprising that significant academic interest has focused on the stressors that young athletes and their parents face. The majority of research in

122 S. Thrower, C. Harwood, and K. Neely

this area has drawn upon transactional and relational theories of stress (e.g., transactional stress theory; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; cognitive-motivationalrelational theory [CMRT] of stress and emotion; Lazarus, 1999, 2000), which are based on the notion that psychological stress is an ongoing dynamic transactional process between an individual and their environment (e.g., competitions, training). Specifically, individuals appraise demands in relation to their potential impact on their goals, beliefs, and values, and perceive a situation as either harmful, threatening, challenging, or beneficial (i.e., primary appraisals). In addition, individuals consider their coping options and what can be done to manage the demand(s) (i.e., secondary appraisals). The evaluation of demands and coping options will generate emotions and influence attempted actions (i.e., coping) to change the situation and/or regulate emotional responses (Crocker et al., 2017). Although stressors can range in terms of severity, they are typically considered within the sport psychology literature as “relatively mild” environmental demands or events (see Howells et al., 2017). Studies examining the demands young athletes experience have highlighted a large and diverse number of stressors including (but not limited to): high training demands; injury; interpersonal conflicts with teammates, officials, and opponents; parental and coach pressure to perform; personal performance expectations; performance errors; poor equipment and training facilities; an overemphasis on winning; sport organization politics; and conflict between sport and other social and academic goals (Nicholls et al., 2010; Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005; Reeves, Nicholls, & McKenna, 2009; Tamminen & Holt, 2010, 2012). Taken together, these studies illustrate how the stressors that young athletes experience are multifaceted, dynamic (i.e., changing over time), and influenced by contextual factors (e.g., sport type, specific position, level) supporting the notion of psychological stress as a context-dependent temporal process (Tamminen & Holt, 2010; Lazarus, 1999). Alongside studies which have focused on the stressful events young athletes experience, researchers have also offered an in-depth understanding of the stressors associated with parenting young athletes across a range of sports (e.g., tennis, soccer, gymnastics; Burgess, Knight, & Mellalieu, 2016; Harwood & Knight, 2009a, 2009b; Harwood et al., 2010; Harwood, Thrower, 2019). Collectively, findings from these studies have illustrated how sport parents experience stressors centered on the organizational aspects of their child’s sport (e.g., injuries, finances, time, coaching), competition demands (e.g., watching matches, players/opponents cheating, lack of effort), and developmental concerns (e.g., players’ future in sport, transitional decisions regarding schooling). These findings highlight the stressful and challenging nature of parenting in youth sport and how the stressors parents experience are influenced by the nature of the sport, the organizational system, and their child’s developmental stage (i.e., sampling, specializing, investment stages; Harwood & Knight, 2009b; Harwood et al., 2010). Research has also more recently illustrated how primary appraisals play a crucial role in shaping the subsequent emotional responses and experiences of sport parents (see Harwood, Thrower, et al., 2019).

Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport 123

Given the evident similarity of many of the individual stressors reported by parents and their children, researchers have adopted a dyadic approach and started to examine the shared stress experience in youth sport (i.e., Hayward, Knight, & Mellalieu, 2017; Neely, McHugh, Dunn, & Holt, 2017). For instance, Hayward and colleagues (2017) examined individual and shared stressors among youth swimmers, their mothers, and their coach within the context of training, tapering, and competition. Adopting a multi-case-study design, four female swimmers, their mothers, and one coach completed diaries for six weeks and took part in up to three semi-structured interviews. Within- and cross-case thematic analysis highlighted how participants predominantly experienced organizational stressors (e.g., movement between squads, interpersonal relationships, and progress towards performance goals/outcomes). Importantly, the majority of stressors and appraisals cited by athletes and parents were shared, providing empirical support for the notion that there is considerable crossover between the stressors that parents and young athletes report. In summary, this body of literature has highlighted the difficult and challenging nature of youth sport across numerous sports and the wide range of often reoccurring stressors young athletes and their parents experience. However, despite some of the stressors only being relevant at an individual level, the vast majority of stressors that parents and children experience in youth sport appear to be mutually shared. With these points in mind, it is clear that parents and young athletes have the capacity to influence one another’s stress and coping experiences through their ongoing interactions within youth sport settings (Hayward et al., 2017).

Stressors, Coping, and Growth within Youth Sport? Parent–Child Interactions In addition to studies exploring the stressors young athletes and their parents experience, considerable academic attention has focused on parent–child interactions within youth sport (see Dorsch, Vierimaa, & Plucinik, 2019). These studies have provided an in-depth understanding of the interactions which occur between parents and children before, during, and after competitions (i.e., Bowker et al., 2009; Elliott & Drummond, 2017; Harwood et al., 2010; Holt, Tamminen, Black, Sehn, & Wall, 2008; Kidman, McKenzie, & McKenzie, 1999; Knight, Boden, & Holt, 2010; Tamminen, Poucher, & Povilaitis, 2017). It is through their interactions after competitions or training (e.g., during the car ride home or while at home; Tamminen et al., 2017; Elliott & Drummond, 2017; Knight, Dorsch, Osai, Haderlie, & Sellars, 2016), that parents have the opportunity to influence how their child cognitively processes and copes with the stressors or adversities they may have experienced (Tamminen & Holt, 2012; Tamminen, McEwen, & Crocker, 2016; Neely et al., 2017). For instance, Tamminen and Holt (2012) suggested that parents can help young athletes learn about coping by creating a supportive context for learning (e.g., listening and monitoring their

124 S. Thrower, C. Harwood, and K. Neely

own reactions, establishing trust and respect, reading their child, and fostering independence) and through the use of specific strategies (e.g., questioning and reminding, providing perspective, sharing experiences, dosing stress experiences, initiating informal conversations, creating learning opportunities and direct instruction; Tamminen & Holt, 2012). In addition to parents helping young athletes learn how to cope with the individual stressors that they experience during competition, there is some initial evidence to suggest that at a dyadic level parents and young athletes can work together to process and cope with shared demands, especially when those demands are at the more severe end of the stressor continuum (e.g., Hayward et al., 2017; Neely et al., 2017). For example, Neely et al. (2017) explored how female adolescent athletes and their parents coped together with the stressor of deselection from Canadian provincial sport teams. Using a communal coping perspective (i.e., a process where stressful events are appraised and acted upon within relationships; Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998), qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 14 female adolescent athletes and their parents highlighted how deselection was considered a shared stressor associated with negative psychosocial and emotional consequences for athletes. However, participants viewed deselection from a shared perspective, with parents initially protecting their daughters from negative emotions, then engaging in cooperative actions (e.g., positive reframing) to manage reactions to the stressor, before engaging in individual coping strategies (i.e., engaging a broader social network, distraction, increasing effort). Taking these findings into consideration, parents appear to play an important role in helping young athletes to internally process and learn how to cope with the stressors they will inevitably experience within youth sport contexts (Tamminen & Holt, 2012; Tamminen et al., 2016). These findings are consistent with research in developmental psychology, which positions the family environment as the most powerful context within which coping socialization occurs (Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007). While it is important to note that none of the aforementioned studies examined SRG per se, this body of work suggests that cooperative actions (e.g., communication, rationalization, positive reframing) and athletes’ individual responses (e.g., increasing effort) not only help facilitate coping but may also provide a way to view stressful events or adversity as an opportunity for personal growth (Neely et al., 2017). These actions broadly align with theories of growth (i.e., Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004) and some of the internal (e.g., cognitive processing, positive reframing, reflecting on adversity, maintenance of a positive mentality, optimism) and external (i.e., support of others) mechanisms of growth reported in literature (see Chapter 2). However, the effectiveness of these parent– child interactions in facilitating coping and/or growth are likely to be influenced by the time and place in which they occur (i.e., private versus non-private), the characteristics of the parent and child, and the quality of the parent–child relationship (Knight, Berrow, & Harwood, 2017).

Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport 125

Indicators of Growth within Youth Sport: Parent–Child Relationships Building on studies which have shed light on the processes and mechanisms that may facilitate coping and help young athletes reach a higher level of functioning following a stressful experience, researchers have also provided some insight into the intrapersonal and interpersonal indicators of growth (see Howells et al., 2017). For example, athletes have reported long-term positive changes including: increased personal strength, change of perspective, new life philosophy, new appreciation and outlook on sport, greater enjoyment in sport, and increased motivation following stressful events experienced in sport (Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2018; Tamminen et al., 2013). Although the majority of research in this area has sampled adult athletes, many of the negative events or stressful experiences that are referred to in this body of work occurred during childhood or adolescence (Tamminen & Neely, 2016). Furthermore, parents have also reported how their children have benefited from injury-related stressors experienced in youth sport (e.g., learning how to cope with adversity, enhanced determination to reach future goals, stronger work ethic upon return; Podlog, Kleinert, Dimmock, Miller, & Shipherd, 2012). Beyond intrapersonal indicators of growth, there is some initial evidence to suggest that involvement in youth sport participation has the potential to lead to dyadic-level growth (e.g., greater appreciation for family, enhanced parent–child relationships). For instance, parents often report that involvement in their child’s sport participation, and the associated stressors, can lead to enhanced communication, emotional connectedness, and a perceived higher quality parent–child relationship (Dorsch, Smith, & McDonough, 2009; Clarke & Harwood, 2014; Clarke, Harwood, & Cushion, 2016), while young athletes themselves have also described how participation in sport provided the opportunity to bond and develop close relationships with their parents (Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2009). However, although these findings suggest that jointly navigating stressors and adversities in youth sport may facilitate positive changes in the parent–child relationship over time, none of the aforementioned studies explored SRG per se. In one of the only studies to date which has specifically examined positive growth in youth sport, Neely and colleagues (2018) interviewed 18 former youth athletes who were deselected from Canadian provincial sport teams during adolescence. Athletes described deselection as a traumatic experience during adolescence and struggled with their identity in the aftermath of being deselected. However, they experienced growth as a gradual process over several years. In addition to reprioritizing the role of sport in their lives, gaining an enhanced sense of personal strength, and recognizing other opportunities to play their sport, athletes also described that their relationships with their parents in particular were stronger after deselection because of the reliance on their parents for emotional and instrumental support, and through coping together with not making the team. These findings support the notion that it is possible

126 S. Thrower, C. Harwood, and K. Neely

that parents and their children are able to gain a greater appreciation of each other through sharing and coping with the demands of youth sport, which over time creates and/or strengthens their emotional bonds and enhances their relationship (Neely et al., 2017).

Future Research Directions Within the current chapter, we have reviewed the youth sport literature with a specific emphasis on how the nature of involvement in youth sport, and the stressors encountered, may have the potential to facilitate growth for young athletes and their parents. However, as previously alluded to, research in this area is limited and there are a number of important areas for future research which are needed to advance our knowledge and understanding. First, although considerable research has retrospectively examined growth in athletes (e.g., Howells et al. 2017), relatively little academic attention has focused on children and/or adolescents’ experiences of growth in youth sport. Similarly, research is yet to explore how parents may be able to benefit from the stressors and adversities they themselves encounter in youth sport. This is somewhat surprising considering the attention children and parents’ experiences of growth has received within the general psychology literature (see Laceulle, Kleber, & Alisic, 2015; Meyerson, Grant, Carter, & Kilmer, 2011; Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018) and represents a logical starting point for future research. Second, although the majority of studies to date have explored growth at the individual level, this chapter illustrates how growth in youth sport is only likely to be achieved within the context of supportive relationships. As such, future research examining the process and mechanisms of growth at both a dyadic and/or group level (i.e., family unit; Tedeschi et al., 2018; Chapter 8) would be a valuable contribution to the youth sport literature. Specifically, researchers are encouraged to explore how parents and children may be able to cope and achieve growth following adversity or traumatic experiences in sport (e.g., career-ending injury, being released from academies, being a victim of abuse in sport; see Hafstad, GilRivas, Kilmer, and Raeder, 2010 for an example). Third, there is evidence to suggest that the stressful and challenging nature of sport does not always lead to positive parent–child interactions and improved parent–child relationships over time. As such, researchers are also encouraged to examine parents and/or young athletes who have struggled to achieve growth at an individual or dyadic level following stressful events or adversities associated with youth sport involvement. Finally, from a practical perspective, future research is needed to explore the efficacy of proactive educational programs (e.g., Thrower, Harwood, & Spray, 2017) or more reactive interventions (e.g., Salim & Wadey, 2019) which explicitly target coping, resilience, and/or long-term growth in response to stressful or adverse events in youth sport.

Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport 127

Conclusion The aim of the current chapter was to review the youth sport literature with a specific emphasis on how the nature of involvement in youth sport, and the stressors encountered, may have the potential to facilitate growth for young athletes and their parents. Based on the existing literature, it is clear that stressors provide opportunities for parent–child interactions which can facilitate coping and also strengthen the parent–child relationship. Although not explicitly acknowledged as growth within the literature, these conclusions are broadly consistent with the mechanisms and indicators of growth (see Howells et al., 2017) and align with the wider notion that stress and adversity can lead to more meaningful relationships (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Despite this, future research is needed to more closely examine these ideas of stress and adversity related growth with youth sport (Tamminen & Neely, 2016). Given the shared nature of the stress experience, future studies should endeavor to consider growth at an individual, dyadic, and family level. Such research is needed to help to inform interventions that may proactively prepare young athletes and their parents for potential future stressful events or adversities with the view to facilitating long-term growth.

References Bowker, A., Boekhoven, B., Nolan, A., Bauhaus, S., Glover, P., Powell, T., & Taylor, S. (2009). Naturalistic observations of spectator behavior at youth hockey games. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 301–316. doi:10.1123/tsp.23.3.301. Burgess, N.S., Knight C.J., & Mellalieu, S.D. (2016). Parental stress and coping in elite youth gymnastics: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise &. Health, 8, 237–256. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2015.1134633. Clarke, N. J., & Harwood, C. G. (2014). Parenting experiences in elite youth football: A phenomenological study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 528–537. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2014.05.004. Clarke, N. J., Harwood, C. G., & Cushion, C. J. (2016). A phenomenological interpretation of the parent–child relationship in elite youth football. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5, 125. doi:10.1037/spy0000052. Crane, J., & Temple, V. (2015). A systematic review of dropout from organized sport among children and youth. European Physical Education Review, 21(1), 114–131. doi:10.1177%2F1356336X14555294. Crocker, P. R. E., Tamminen, K. A., & Bennett, E. V. (2017). Stress, emotions, and coping in youth sport. In C. J. Knight, C. G. Harwood, & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport psychology for young athletes (pp. 164–173). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Dorsch, T. E., Smith, A. L., & McDonough, M. H. (2009). Parents’ perceptions of childto-parent socialization in organized youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 444–468. doi:10.1123/jsep.31.4.444. Dorsch, T. E., Vierimaa, M., & Plucinik, J. M. (2019). A citation network analysis of research on parent−child interactions in youth sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 8, 145–162. doi:10.1037/spy0000140.

128 S. Thrower, C. Harwood, and K. Neely

Elliott, S. K., & Drummond, M. J. N. (2017). During play, the break, and the drive home: The meaning of parental verbal behaviour in youth sport. Leisure Studies, 36, 645–656. doi:10.1080/02614367.2016.1250804. Fraser-Thomas, J., & Côté, J., (2009). Understanding adolescents’ positive and negative developmental experiences in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 3–23. doi:10.1123/tsp.23.1.3. Goodger, K., Gorely, T., Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. G. (2007). Burnout in sport: A systematic review. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 127–151. doi:10.1123/tsp.21.2.127. Hafstad, G. S., Gil-Rivas, V., Kilmer, R. P., & Raeder, S. (2010). Parental adjustment, family functioning, and posttraumatic growth among Norwegian children and adolescents following a natural disaster. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 248–257. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01028.x. Harwood, C. G., Drew, A., & Knight, C. J. (2010). Parental stressors in professional youth football academies: A qualitative investigation of specializing stage parents. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2, 39–55. doi:10.1080/19398440903510152. Harwood, C. G., & Knight, C. J. (2009a). Understanding parental stressors: An investigation of British tennis-parents. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 339–351. doi:10.1080/ 02640410802603871. Harwood, C. G., & Knight, C. J. (2009b). Stress in youth sport: A developmental investigation of tennis parents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 447–456. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2009.01.005. Harwood, C. G., Knight, C. J., Thrower, S. N., & Berrow, S. R. (2019). Advancing the study of parental involvement to optimise the psychosocial development and experiences of young athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 66–73. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2019.01.007. Harwood, C. G., Thrower, S. N., Slater, M. J., Didymus, F. F., & Frearson, L. (2019). Advancing our understanding of psychological stress and coping among parents in organized youth sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–17. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01600. Hayward, F. P., Knight, C. J., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2017). A longitudinal examination of stressors, appraisals, and coping in youth swimming. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 29, 56–68. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.12.002. Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199–219. doi:10.1080/10413200490437949. Holt, N. L., Tamminen, K. A., Black, D. E., Sehn, Z. L., & Wall, M. P. (2008). Parental involvement in competitive youth sport settings. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 663–685. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.08.001. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity-and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173–186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 234, 117–159. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037%2F1089-2680.9.3.262.

Stress-Related Growth within Youth Sport 129

Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2006). Growth following adversity: Theoretical perspectives and implications for clinical practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 1041–1053. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.12.006. Kidman, L., McKenzie, A., & McKenzie, B. (1999). The nature and target of parents’ comments during youth sport competitions. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 54–68. Knight, C. J., Berrow, S. R., & Harwood, C. G. (2017). Parenting in sport. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 93–97. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.011. Knight, C. J., Boden, C. M., & Holt, N. L. (2010). Junior tennis players’ preferences for parental behaviours. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 377–391. doi:10.1080/ 10413200.2010.495324. Knight, C. J., Dorsch, T. E., Osai, K. V., Haderlie, K. L., & Sellars, P. A. (2016). Influences on parental involvement in youth sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5, 161. doi:10.1037/spy0000053. Knight, C. J., Holt, N. L., & Tamminen, K. A., (2009). Stress and coping among youth sport parents. In C. H. Chang (Eds.), Handbook of sports psychology (pp. 347–359). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Laceulle, O. M., Kleber, R. J., & Alisic, E. (2015). Children’s experience of posttraumatic growth: Distinguishing general from domain-specific correlates. PloS One, 10, 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145736. Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229–252. doi:10.1123/tsp.14.3.229. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605. doi:10.1177/ 0265407598155001. Meyerson, D. A., Grant, K. E., Carter, J. S., & Kilmer, R. P. (2011). Posttraumatic growth among children and adolescents: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 949–964. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.003. Neely, K. C., Dunn, J. G. H., McHugh, T. F., & Holt, N. L. (2018). Female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following deselection. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 40, 173–185. doi:10.1123/jsep.2017-0136. Neely, K. C., McHugh, T. F., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2017). Athletes and parents coping with deselection in competitive youth sport: A communal coping perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.01.004. Nicholls, A. R., Hemmings, B., & Clough, P. J. (2010). Stress appraisals, emotions, and coping among international adolescent golfers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20, 346–355. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00894.x. Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., Polman, R. C., & James, D. W. G. (2005). Stress and coping among international adolescent golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 333–340. doi:10.1080/10413200500313644. Park, C. L. (2004). Stress-related growth. In N. B. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of health and behavior (pp. 783–784). London, UK: Sage. Podlog, L., Kleinert, J., Dimmock, J., Miller, J., & Shipherd, A. M. (2012). A parental perspective on adolescent injury rehabilitation and return to sport experiences. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 175–190. doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.608102. Reeves, C. W., Nicholls, A. R., & McKenna, J. (2009). Stressors and coping strategies among early and middle adolescent premier league academy soccer players: Differences

130 S. Thrower, C. Harwood, and K. Neely

according to age. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 31–48. doi:10.1080/ 10413200802443768. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2019). Using gratitude to promote sport injury–related growth. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1626515. Tamminen, K. A., & Holt, N. L. (2010). A meta-study of qualitative research examining stressor appraisals and coping among adolescents in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1563–1580. doi:10.1080/02640414.2010.512642. Tamminen, K. A., & Holt, N. L. (2012). Adolescent athletes’ learning about coping and the roles of parents and coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 69–79. doi:10.1016/ j.psychsport.2011.07.006. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28– 36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002. Tamminen, K. A., McEwen, C. E., & Crocker, P. R. (2016). Perceived parental support, pressure, and the socialization of adolescent athletes’ coping. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 47, 335–354. Tamminen, K. A., & Neely, K. C. (2016). Positive growth in sport. In N. L. Holt (Eds.), Positive youth development through sport (pp. 193–204). London, UK: Routledge. Tamminen, K. A., Poucher, Z. A., & Povilaitis, V. (2017). The car ride home: An interpretive examination of parent–athlete sport conversations. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 325–339. doi:10.1037/spy0000093. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R.G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L.G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Thrower, S.N., Harwood, C.G., & Spray, C.M. (2017). Educating and supporting tennis parents: An action research study. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9, 600–618. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1341947. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Locke, E. M. (2007). The socialization of adolescent coping behaviours: Relationships with families and teachers. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.03.001.

10 TAKING AN EMBODIED APPROACH TO POSTTRAUMATIC GROWTH RESEARCH AND SPORT Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

Introduction At some point or another, philosophy, psychology, and sport have been criticized for taking primarily cerebral approaches to research inquiry – “invaded by the body snatchers,” so to speak (Gallagher, 2016; Johnson, 2017, p. 11; Nesti, 2004). However, when aiming to understand the complex experiences of those that have undergone physical trauma, this cognitive mono-focus becomes an impossibility. Trauma is a bodily experience (Levine, 2008, 2010; Ogden, Minton, Pain, & van der Kolk, 2006), and our bodies are integral to how we perceive and understand the world around us (Allen-Collinson, 2017; Merleau-Ponty, 1963). Thus, the body and our relationship with our body (e.g., body-self; Sparkes & Smith, 2013), should play a central role in our research endeavors to understand the construct of growth following adversity. This is even more pertinent when researching athletes who have experienced physical trauma (e.g., lost appendage), as the sporting body becomes the very center of trauma, recovery, and excellence. As the area of growth following adversity has already been explored in depth within Part 1 of this text, we aim to offer an additional, more embodied perspective on the field and within the context of sport. This chapter stems from our predominately qualitative work with multiple clinical populations, aiming to explore, from their perspective, what it is like to experience trauma and subsequently grow following physically altering events. We are both posttraumatic growth (PTG) researchers, and have had the privilege of being let in to the life-world of many clinical populations, from cancer survivors to amputees, whose lives and bodies have been forever changed as the result of trauma. PTG has been defined as “positive psychological changes experienced as a result of the struggle with traumatic or highly challenging life circumstances” (Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun,

132 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

2018, p. 3). These unexpected “seismic events” are believed to “seriously challenge or shatter an individual’s assumptive world” (p. 4). Growth therefore has been recorded across cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes that are deemed transformative to the individual. As researchers, we ascribe to the position that PTG is both a process and an outcome (Tedeschi et al., 2018). We also note that there are differing definitions of the concept, as well as current debates within the field (e.g., see Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). However, our position is that PTG can be demonstrated within our populations by the transformational change discussed in their narratives, as well as transformative action-oriented growth noted via positive health behavioral changes (e.g., uptake of exercise/sport, increased self-care, enhanced body-self relationship) and elevated sporting positions (e.g., amateur to elite performer), which are arguably operating at a higher level of functioning than which existed before their trauma occurred (Linley & Joseph, 2004). Although taking an action-focused approach to growth is not the only way to conceptualize PTG (Tedeschi et al., 2018), adopting this behavioral perspective can “add validity” to our understanding of the field itself (Shakespeare-Finch & Barrington, 2012, p. 433). We also support the continued investigation into the argument that different trauma types and contexts may influence PTG processes and outcomes (Chopko, Palmieri, & Adams, 2018; Karanci et al., 2012; Kılıç, Magruder, & Koryürek, 2016; Kira et al., 2013; Shakespeare-Finch & Armstrong, 2010; Shuwiekh, Kira, & Ashby, 2018; Wu et al., 2019); and that following a direct physical trauma (e.g., illness, injury, amputation), the body becomes a focal point in both the process and outcomes of PTG. As such, we argue that researchers should be aiming to make the body a “meaningful presence” in the PTG and sport research field (Ellingson, 2017, p. 1).

Literature review In order to situate an embodied approach to PTG research in sport, we first need to clarify what we mean by embodiment and of course, the body. The body “is simultaneously physical and affective, social and individual, produced and producing, reproductive and innovative” (Jones & Woglom, 2015, p. 116, as cited in Ellingson, 2017). Bodies have the capacity to tell stories (Sparkes & Smith, 2013), and yet, despite this phenomenal capacity of the body, it remains “the one marvel of nature that we least stop to observe” (Aldersey-Williams, 2013, p. xviii). Embodiment is a vast area of research, spanning several competing perspectives, from biological to cultural practice (Ash & Gallacher, 2015), and even as far as a proposed separate area of psychology itself (e.g., psychology of physical sensations; Eccleston, 2016). In the general psychological literature, embodiment has been defined as “an awareness of and responsiveness to bodily sensations” (Impett, Daubenmier, & Hirschman, 2006, p. 40) as well as the perspective that “thoughts, feelings and behaviours are grounded in sensory experiences and bodily states” (Meier, Schnall, Schwartz & Bargh, 2013, p. 2). Key to embodiment is body

Embodied Approach to PTG Research & Sport 133

awareness, a person’s proprioceptive ability to recognize the body in space (e.g., motor skills, walking) and interoceptive ability to understand what is going on inside the body (e.g., increased heart rate, shallow breathing) capabilities. This inevitably links to identifying and understanding emotion feeling states (Eccleston, 2016). Although there has been criticism of the lack of embodied research practices within the field of sport psychology (Nesti, 2004), embodiment and the body have been pursued within sports from multiple perspectives, including, but not limited to: understanding the role of the “Gaze”, physicality, body work, sporting embodiment (Allen-Collinson, 2009; Brace-Govan, 2002; McDermott, 1996, 2000; Shilling & Bunsell, 2014) existential and phenomenological approaches (Allen-Collinson, 2009, 2017) and the “sensory revolution” (Sparkes, 2017, p. 343). The construct of embodiment has been less prominent in the field of wellbeing (for a review, see Hefferon, 2015). Presently, derived from a series of large-scale, mixed-methods analyses, Piran (2019) has offered the first “positive embodiment” perspective, consisting of five dimensions of the experience of embodiment: body connection and comfort (i.e., feeling “at home” in the body), agency and functionality (i.e., acting with agency through physical functionality), experience and expression of desire (i.e., connection to desire – appetite, sexual), attuned self-care (i.e., attuned to inner needs and states), and inhabiting the body as a subjective site (i.e., resisting objectification). Despite this emergence of more embodied perspectives on wellbeing constructs, the role of the body and embodiment in the process and as an outcome of positive transformation following adversity is fledgling.

Posttraumatic Growth: Taking an Embodied Perspective Focusing on the role of the body within the PTG process emerged from Kate’s early PhD research with women who had participated in an exercise intervention during treatment for breast cancer. In the early 2000s, the concept of PTG was gaining popularity in the academic field as well as the exploration of potential interventions that could be employed to foster the phenomenon (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004a). Quantitative studies were plentiful regarding the prevalence and variables associated with PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004b). However, there was a dearth of research and focus on the role of the body and the use of physical activity within the process and outcomes of PTG (Hefferon, Grealy & Mutrie, 2008; Sabiston, McDonough & Crocker, 2007). During initial in-depth interviews, Kate noticed that while the women reported the already established, traditional domains of PTG (i.e., personal strength, relating to others, new possibilities, appreciation of life, and spiritual and existential change; Tedeschi et al., 2018), novel, embodied facets of their experience came to the fore. Their body was very much a central feature of their PTG journey, not only during the process of recovery (e.g., physical changes, reconnecting to a new/altered body) but in transformative positive health practices (e.g., novel uptake of physical

134 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

activity). At this point, these corporeal elements of the PTG process were not accounted for in the literature. To dig deeper, Kate conducted a larger, qualitative meta-synthesis of PTG within life-threatening physical illnesses, and found supportive evidence for additional embodied elements of the PTG processes and outcomes, offering a proposed sixth domain, a “new awareness of the body,”1 for those whose bodies have been challenged/altered/threatened by physical illness. In 2015, Kampman, Hefferon, Wilson, and Beale aimed to extend this embodied exploration of PTG beyond life-threatening illness populations to those who had experienced acquired disability. Their meta-syntheses found similar findings within the acquired disability population, most prominent was the transformative experience of exploring new abilities via the loss of body functionality and increased body appreciation, arguing that “being severely injured has elements unique from other traumas due to its direct and substantial impact to the body” (p. 283). From this exploratory work, previous inquiry within the field, and continued studies since 2008, as well as being informed by historical philosophical writers such as Merleau-Ponty (2003), Frank (1995, 2013) and Leder (1990), emerged a working theory of corporeal posttraumatic growth (C-PTG; Hefferon, 2012), which supports the argument that different trauma types and contexts may have different PTG processes and outcomes (Chopko et al., 2018; Karanci et al., 2012; Kılıç et al., 2016; Kira et al., 2013; Shakespeare-Finch & Armstrong, 2010; Shuwiekh et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019). Hence, when a person experiences a physical trauma, whether by an internal (e.g., cancer) or external (e.g., car) transgressor, there may be potentially different, more embodied, PTG processes and set of outcomes that emerge from the experience (Hefferon, 2012; Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2009, 2010; Kampman et al., 2015; Kampman & Hefferon, 2020; Walsh, Morrison, et al., 2018). In terms of the process of this more embodied PTG perspective, to start, experiencing a physical trauma can lead to a heightened corporeal awareness of the body that may not have been present prior to the trauma (Hefferon, Mallery, Gay, & Elliot, 2012; Hefferon et al., 2009, 2010). Indeed, prior to illness or injury, individuals tend to live in what philosophers deem a “taken-for-granted body” (Frank, 1995; Leder, 1990). In athletes, this can manifest as training through the pain, not taking time to recover, and competing while ill (Schnell, Mayer, Diehl, Zipfel, & Thiel, 2014). We “have” a body that we exist in, one that we do not really appreciate or recognize – an “absent-presence” (Leder, 1990, p. 13); that is, until something traumatic happens. This taken-for-granted body is thus eliminated when individuals experience a heighted corporeal awareness and the body is situated first and foremost in our consciousness. The body is now a “vulnerable body” or a “messy ill” body that is “out of control” (Ellingson, 2017, p. 73); and “these bodily changes have meaning” (Sparkes & Smith, 2013, p. 131). By engaging and challenging our embodied experiences and selves, there is potential to grow and rewrite our narrative in a multitude of positive ways (Brady, 2011, as cited in Ellingson, 2017).

Embodied Approach to PTG Research & Sport 135

Once an individual has experienced this heightened corporeal awareness, and depending on the trauma sustained, there may be a period of fear of the new body; this body that is now altered/wounded/weakened/threatening and a feeling of betrayal by the physical self (Hefferon et al., 2010). For some, there may be the overwhelming sense of a loss of control over the body (Gorven & du Plessis, 2018), or a feeling of “inhabiting a chaotic body” (Sparkes & Smith, 2013, p. 133). There may exist visible reminders of the trauma (e.g., lost appendage, scarring), placing the person into a highly mortality salient environment (Goldenberg et al., 2001), and so could perpetuate a daily renegotiation, both physically and psychologically, with this new physical self. Further, in some cases, participants have even stated that it was enduring and overcoming the sheer physical pain of the trauma that helped to launch the process of PTG (Hefferon et al., 2009) and on some level, reclaim their body (Salick & Auerbach, 2006). In the sport domain, our work with elite athletes with acquired disability has reported early frustration towards the body, after trauma, due to the loss of previous skills (Kampman & Hefferon, 2020). This frustration towards a person’s new form of physicality stems from missing what individuals have termed “the super body,” the automatic, effortless body; in essence, missing the taken-for-granted body. From fearing the new body, individuals can find a way to reconnect with their new body, challenging and rebuilding a new relationship with their physical self, regaining a “sense of control” and increased appreciation for the body (Gorven & du Plessis, 2018; Hefferon et al., 2010, 2012; Kampman et al., 2015; Sparkes & Smith, 2013). Individuals report engaging in various forms of self-care (Piran, 2016), such as attuning to the body’s needs; being “kinder” to the body (e.g., rest, recovery); engaging in self-monitoring/examination (in the case of illness); and general renegotiation of the self/body relationship (Hefferon et al., 2009; Paterson et al., 1999). In our work, we have found that physical activity (Hefferon et al., 2008; Hefferon, 2012; Hefferon et al., 2012) and structured sport participation at both leisure and elite levels (Kampman & Hefferon, 2016, 2020) can help facilitate this reconnection phase as these physical activities and environments can help: (a) provide a “normative” activity to engage in, (b) challenge individuals’ bodies in a safe environment, (c) gain awareness and acceptance around their bodies through sports, (d) offer social support and team environment, (e) offer a place to be surrounded by other bodies with varying abilities, (f) regain their physicality, (g) relearn physical boundaries (e.g., use body as a monitoring tool), (h) connect physical self (body) as not a threat but an agent in recovery (e.g., activity), (i) focus on what the body can do versus what it cannot (i.e., functionality), and (j) offer a form of control back over the body over which they felt they lost control. Furthermore, for elite athletes with acquired impairment, this reconnection of the body can consist of an awareness and acceptance with the lost abilities of the body and a need to “remake their bodies” (Howe & Silva, 2017, p.193). The memory of the old body may still cohabit the new body, providing a constant reminder of the fragility and vulnerability of the physical self and thus a source of appreciation for it (Kampman & Hefferon, 2016, 2020).

136 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

Not only can the body be a focus in the PTG process in individuals who have experienced physical trauma, several enhanced physical outcomes have been documented and yet not adequately recognized by the PTG field. Increased appreciation and taking responsibility for one’s health via engaging in new health behavior changes (e.g., the adoption of improved nutritional plans or increased/ novel uptake of an exercise/sport program) provide a narrative of surpassing the previous levels of physical functioning that existed before the trauma occurred. As health behavior changes have been deemed more in line with benefit finding (Tedeschi et al., 2018), we would argue that these are not just perceived benefits, but “action-focused growth” (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014, p. 11), in that there are actual behavior changes deemed transformative by the participants themselves (Hobfoll et al, 2007; Shakespeare-Finch & Barrington, 2012). For example, in athletes who had acquired a severe impairment that led to a disability, the cognitive element of growth exhibited as a deeper understanding of the body’s fragility, power, and also ability within disability (Kampman et al., 2015). This wisdom was displayed in their behavior (action) through taking breaks to recover from practice or not practicing when unwell and seeking medical attention more readily (Kampman & Hefferon, 2016). Thus, in sports and within sporting bodies, this corporeal growth seemed to have implications for their careers as athletes, taking action to protect their bodies, to guarantee a longer, healthier career in sports. Similarly, in Hefferon et al. (2008), for those that had never engaged in physical activity before their cancer diagnosis, their new exercise engagement was deemed transformative as it provided them with a sense of empowerment (physical strength = mental strength), control, and confidence, which they perceived to positively transfer over into other domains of their life. Furthermore, Hanna’s current PhD work expands on these findings, focusing on the role of team sports within the PTG process (see also Chapters 8 and 17). Her work has found preliminary evidence for the evolution of the body through team sport. In addition to the stages discussed above, the team sport environment can aid deliberate reflective and constructive rumination through sharing experiences with teammates (e.g., dealing with disablism, practical tips about the body). The data reveals a narrative revision around the body, moving from the body as “doing” or “being in the background” to being “world class” and “functional.” Additionally, the body appears to be at the center of the schema change from “I am the only one with an impairment” to “diversity of bodies and abilities.” The “impaired damaged body” becomes a “strong, unique athletic body,” with this new physical identity emerging via the participation in team sports. In sum, previous and current fledgling research into the role of the body within the PTG process and outcomes, within traumas where the body has been affected by either an internal or external transgressor, is starting to show unique components that require further diverse methodological inquiry. At present, the majority of the work has been focused within illness-related trauma (e.g., cancer) and from a qualitative perspective, thus further exploration across various trauma

Embodied Approach to PTG Research & Sport 137

dynamics such as types (e.g., direct/indirect), contexts (e.g., single, repeated, chronic, cumulative), severity (e.g., objective, subjective ratings), causal attribution (e.g., preventable, predictable), as well as differing physical trauma types (e.g., burns), methodological approaches (e.g., mixed methods, time-span/ developmental) and embodied reconnection facilitators (e.g., yoga, mindfulness) is needed to expand our understanding of the embodied experience of the posttraumatic growth journey. With a more body-based PTG scale already in use (i.e., Physical PTG scale; Walsh, Groarke, et al., 2018), the exploration of more embodied aspects of PTG is ripe for exploration.

Future Research Directions “Researchers begin with the body” (Ellingson, 2017, p. 1); the body is not just the site of trauma, but an integral part of how we research the topic area. Thus, the last section of this chapter will review the current methodological practices within the PTG research area and offer suggestions for how the field can take a more embodied approach to understanding the processes and outcomes of PTG in trauma populations. Furthermore, this section will offer researchers further relevant embodied topics to explore within the field of growth following adversity within sport. Over the past five years, psychological research, including the area of positive psychology (one of many areas in which PTG arguably falls) has been criticized for utilizing restrictive, post-positivistic approaches and designs (e.g., cross-sectional surveys; Gonzalez-Moralez, 2018), thereby limiting the understanding of the concepts we study. Researchers have called for more epistemological and methodological diversity, including more qualitative and pragmatic, mixed- and multi-method designs (Hefferon, Ashfield, Waters, & Synard, 2017; Rich, 2017). The use of diverse qualitative research approaches within sport and exercise has become well-established (e.g., see Smith & Sparkes 2017); however, its use within PTG research is less so, although mounting. Tedeschi et al. (2018) offered a full chapter to the contribution of qualitative research to understanding PTG, espousing its importance in providing voice and offering rich, new, and differing perspectives, as well as reaching beyond current positivist scales and hypotheses testing (see also Chapter 3). Thus, the combination of embodied qualitative approaches within the sport and exercise field, the call for more embodied PTG research within sport and the “turn to qual” in PTG inquiry is promising for “methodological creativity” (Day & Wadey, 2016). So how can we make the body substantive in our research? How do we talk or write about the body? All of qualitative research is inherently embodied (Ellingson, 2017) and this is especially poignant within the area of sport and trauma where the body is a focal point in the actual trauma and the subsequent recovery. Taking more phenomenological approaches, that recognize embodiment within the entire research process, is one clear way that we better understand the athlete

138 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

and their athletic world “in the flesh of the lived sporting body” (Allen-Collinson, 2009, p. 280, 2017; Nesti, 2004; Smith, 2017). Engaging in active, face-to-face interviewing is in itself a embodied practice (Ellingson, 2017); however, researchers can move beyond this to engaging the participants’ whole body in the interview process such as engaging in object-interviews, where participants are asked to bring, touch, wear items of relevance (Fleetwood-Smith, Hefferon & Mair, 2019); asking participants to create lifeline sketches to understand the complicated nature of trauma and the role of the body within it (Kampman & Hefferon, 2016); setting up walking interviews (Ellingson, 2017); or even interviewing or collecting data while athletes practice in their sport environment, thus engaging the participant in their sport and physicality while being asked about it (Kampman & Hefferon, 2016). PTG researchers are also encouraged to move beyond single-time-point interviewing (the most common qualitative approach in PTG research at present) to exploring further embodied and inclusive practices, such as photovoice and ethnographic inquiry. Finally, throughout the research journey, researchers should engage in reflexive practices (Gough, 2017), from a more embodied perspective. For example, how close are we to the research question? Have we, as researchers, experienced a trauma, either in the context of sport or not? Was this a physical trauma? What is my relationship like with my body now? What was it like then at the time of the trauma? What was my journey? Ultimately, reflexivity on who we are and our own experiences “should be explored physically as well as psychologically and emotionally” (Ellingson, 2017, p 5). In addition to the extension of embodied research design approaches, sport researchers could explore more embodied topics relating to physical trauma, such as the role of the body in mortality awareness and PTG. Increased existential awareness is a staple domain of the growth process, and in 2018, Tedeschi et al. adapted the renowned PTG Inventory (PTGI) to expand the spiritual change subscale to include existential items (PTGI-X). This reflects a growing trend in the literature to explore the role of mortality awareness from both an anxiety-provoking perspective (e.g., terror management theory) to a more positive, multidimensional approach (Ivtzan, Lomas, Hefferon, & Worth, 2015; McEwen, McDermott & Hefferon, 2018; Vail et al., 2012). As trauma to the body can lead to long-lasting physical alterations and challenges (e.g., lost limbs, scarring, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation), as well as create a mortality salient environment from which the individual cannot escape, the role of the body in managing mortality awareness is an avenue to for future researchers (Cozzolino, Staples, Meyers, & Samboceti, 2004). Furthermore, the reported increase in body appreciation and focus on functionality that can arise following a physical trauma is worthy of additional inquiry. The topic area aligns with the rapidly expanding positive body image (PBI) movement (Tylka & Piran, 2019), which is a multifaceted construct defined as: An overarching love and respect for the body that allows individuals to: (a) appreciate the unique beauty of their body and the functions that is performs

Embodied Approach to PTG Research & Sport 139

for them; (b) accept and even admire their body, including those aspects that are inconsistent with idealized images; (c) feel beautiful, comfortable, confident and happy with their body … (d) emphasize with their body’s assets rather than dwell on their imperfections; and (e) interpret incoming information in a body-protective manner whereby most positive information is internalized and most negative information is rejected or reframed. (Tylka & Piran, 2019, pp. 2–3) PBI has been explored with regards to physical activity and sport participation; however, to date, the links between PTG, sport, and positive body image have not been adequately explored. Finally, adapted team sport is an environment of various traumas (Kampman & Hefferon, 2016), full of bodies with different abilities, bodies that each carry a story of their own and, at times, a trauma that is evolving (e.g., chronic or degenerative conditions). Thus, athletes in these environments do not only live in their own mortality salient environments but are affected by other athletes’ traumas as well. This calls attention for further research into embodied aspects of vicarious posttraumatic growth among adapted sports (Day & Wadey, 2016; Kampman & Hefferon, 2016; see also Chapter 4), as well as the recognition and exploration of negative, distressing and pressurized experiences/narratives within sport and the sporting environment, which can co-exist with accounts of growth and positive change (Caddick & Smith, 2014; Day & Wadey, 2016; Kampman & Hefferon, 2016; Sparkes & Smith, 2013).

Conclusion This chapter aimed to offer the readers of this book an additional, embodied approach to understanding the process and outcomes of positive transformation following physical trauma, and within a sporting context. Researchers are encouraged to continue the exploration of the working theory of corporeal posttraumatic growth again within a wider range of trauma contexts and utilizing diverse methodological approaches. Within sporting populations, who have experienced significant trauma and injury there is support for the importance of taking a holistic and embodied perspective when trying to understand the growth journey. Finally, embodied approaches to research design as well as more embodied topic areas can move our understanding of PTG further beyond the dominant, traditional mono-focus cognitive models of growth following adversity that exist today.

Note 1 For example, heightened awareness and connection to the physical self, reclaiming of the body, taking responsibility for own health, improved health behaviours, and reduced risky health behaviours (Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2009, pp. 372–373).

140 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

References Aldersey-Williams, H. (2013). Anatomies: The human body, its parts and the stories they tell. London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd. Allen‐Collinson, J. (2009). Sporting embodiment: Sports studies and the (continuing) promise of phenomenology. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1(3), 279–296. doi:10.1080/19398440903192340. Allen‐Collinson, J. (2017). Breathing in life: Phenomenological perspectives on sport and exercise. In B. Smith and A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 11–23). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Ash, J., & Gallacher, L. A. (2015). Becoming attuned: Objects, affects and embodied methodology. In M. Perry & C. L. Medina (Eds.), Methodologies of embodiment: Inscribing bodies in qualitative research (pp. 69–85). New York, NY: Routledge. Brace-Govan, J. (2002). Looking at bodywork: Women and three physical activities. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26 (4), 403–420. doi:10.1177/0193732502238256. Caddick, N., & Smith, B. (2014). The impact of sport and physical activity on the well-being of combat veterans: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(1), 9–18. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.09.011. Chopko, B. A., Palmieri, P. A., & Adams, R. E. (2018). Relationships among traumatic experiences, PTSD, and posttraumatic growth for police officers: A path analysis. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10(2), 183–189. doi:10.1037/tra0000261. Cozzolino, P. J., Staples, A. D., Meyers, L. S., & Samboceti, J. (2004). Greed, death, and values: From terror management to transcendence management theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 278–292. doi:10.1177/0146167203260716. Day, M. C. & Wadey, R. (2016). Researching growth following adversity in sport and exercise: Methodological implications and future recommendations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(4), 499–513. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1328460. Eccleston, C. (2016). Embodied: The psychology of physical sensation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellingson, L. L. (2017). Embodiment in qualitative research. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Fleetwood-Smith, R., Hefferon, K., & Mair, C. (2019). “It’s like… it’s me”: Exploring the lived experience of clothing attachment during wear. International Journal of Fashion Studies, 6(1), 41–62. doi:10.1386/infs.6.1.41_1. Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Frank, A. W. (2013). The wounded storyteller, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gallagher, S. (2016). Phenomenology and embodied cognition. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 9–18). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Kluck, B., & Cornwell, R. (2001). I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 427–435. doi:10.1037/ 0096–3445.130.3.427. Gonzalez- Moralez, M. (2018). Advancing research methods in positive psychology. Keynote presented to Canadian Positive Psychology Association Scientific Conference, Toronto, Canada. Gorven, A., & du Plessis, L. (2018). Corporeal posttraumatic growth as a result of breast cancer: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. doi:10.1177/0022167818761997. Gough, J. (2017). Educating career guidance practitioners in the twenty-first century. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45, 199–207. doi:10.1080/03069885.2016.1263932.

Embodied Approach to PTG Research & Sport 141

Hefferon, K. (2012). Bringing back the body into positive psychology: The theory of corporeal posttraumatic growth in breast cancer. Psychology, 3(12), 1238–1242. doi:10.4236/psych.2012.312A183. Hefferon, K. (2015). The role of embodiment in optimal functioning. In S. Joseph (Ed.). Positive psychology in practice (pp. 791–805). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Hefferon, K., Ashfield, A., Waters, L., & Synard, J. (2017). Understanding optimal human functioning: The “call for qual” in exploring human flourishing and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 211–219. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1225120. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2008). The perceived influence of an exercise class intervention on the process and outcomes of post-traumatic growth. Journal of Mental Health and Physical Activity, 1, 32–39. doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2008.06.003. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2009). Posttraumatic growth and life-threatening physical illness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14 (2), 343–378. doi:10.1348/135910708X332936. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2010). Transforming from cocoon to butterfly: The potential role of the body in the process of posttraumatic growth. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 50 (2), 224–247. doi:10.1177/0022167809341996. Hefferon, K., Mallery, R., Gay, C., & Elliott, S. (2012): “Leave all the troubles of the outside world”: A qualitative study on the binary benefits of “boxercise” for individuals with mental health difficulties. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 5(1), 80–102. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.712995. Hobfoll, S. E., Hall, B. J., Canetti‐Nisim, D., Galea, S., Johnson, R. J., & Palmieri, P. A. (2007). Refining our understanding of traumatic growth in the face of terrorism: Moving from meaning cognitions to doing what is meaningful. Applied Psychology, 56 (3), 345–366. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00292.x. Howe, P. D., & Silva, C. F., (2017). Challenging “normalcy”: Possibilities and pitfalls of Paralympic bodies. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 39(1–2), 191–204. Impett, E. A., Daubenmier, J. J., & Hirschman, A. L. (2006). Minding the body: Yoga, embodiment, and well-being. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 3(4), 39–48. doi:10.1525/srsp.2006.3.4.39. Ivtzan, I., Lomas, T., Hefferon, K., & Worth, P. (2015). Second wave positive psychology: Embracing the dark side of life. London, UK: Routledge. Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. (2014). Post‐traumatic growth as positive personality change: Evidence, controversies and future directions. European Journal of Personality, 28(4), 312–331.doi:10.1002/per.1963. Johnson, M. (2017). Embodied mind, meaning, and reason: How our bodies give rise to understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kampman, H., Hefferon, K., Wilson, M. and Beale, B. (2015). “I can do things now that people thought were impossible, actually, things that I thought were impossible”: A metasynthesis of the qualitative findings on posttraumatic growth and severe physical injury. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56(3), 283–294. doi:10.1037/cap0000031. Kampman, H., & Hefferon, K. (2016). Post-traumatic growth and team sports: Towards all-encompassing model of the complex relationship between acquired disability, team sports and post-traumatic growth. Poster presented at the 9th Biennial International Meaning Conference, Toronto, July 30. Kampman, H., & Hefferon, K. (2020). “Find a sport and carry on”: Posttraumatic growth and achievement in British Paralympic athletes. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(1), 67–90. doi:10.5502/ijw.v10i1.765.

142 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

. Karanci, A. N., Is¸ıklı, S., Aker, A. T., Gül, E. I., Erkan, B. B., Özkol, H., et al. (2012). Personality, posttraumatic stress and trauma type: Factors contributing to posttraumatic growth and its domains in a Turkish community sample. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 3(1). doi:10.3402/ejpt.v3i0.17303. Kılıç, C., Magruder, K. M., & Koryürek, M. M. (2016). Does trauma type relate to posttraumatic growth after war? A pilot study of young Iraqi war survivors living in Turkey. Transcultural Psychiatry, 53(1), 110–123. doi:10.1177/1363461515612963. Kira, I. A., Aboumediene, S., Ashby, J. S., Odenat, L., Mohanesh, J., & Alamia, H. (2013). The dynamics of posttraumatic growth across different trauma types in a Palestinian sample. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 18(2), 120–139. doi:10.1080/ 15325024.2012.679129. Leder, D. (1990). The absent body. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Levine, P. A. (2008). Healing trauma. Boulder, CO: Sounds True, Inc. Levine, P. A. (2010). In an unspoken voice: How the body releases trauma and restores goodness. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive psychological theory of therapeutic practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. McDermott, L. (1996). Toward a feminist understanding of physicality within the context of women’s physically active and sporting lives. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(1), 12–30. doi:10.1123/ssj.13.1.12. McDermott, L. (2000). A qualitative assessment of the significance of body perception to women’s physical activity experiences: Revisiting discussions of physicalities. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17(4), 331–363. McEwan, O., McDermott, M. R., & Hefferon, K. (2018). Modelling everyday understandings of mortality: A qualitative enquiry. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1–26. doi:10.1177/0022167818787908. Meier, B. P., Schnall, S., Schwartz, N., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). Embodiment in social psychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 705–716. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01212.x. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963). The structure of behaviour. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003). Nature: Course notes from the Collège de France. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Nesti, M. (2004). Existential psychology and sport: Theory and application. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Ogden, P., Minton, K., Pain, C., & van der Kolk, B. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Piran, N. (2016). Embodied possibilities and disruptions: The emergence of the experience of embodiment construct from qualitative studies with girls and women. Body Image, 18, 43–60. Piran, N. (2019). The experience of embodiment construct: Reflecting the quality of embodied lives. In T. Tylka and N. Piran (Eds), Handbook of positive body image and embodiment: Constructs, protective factors and interventions (pp. 11–21). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rich, G. J. (2017). The promise of qualitative inquiry for positive psychology: Diversifying methods. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 220–231. doi:10.1080/ 17439760.2016.1225119. Sabiston, C. M., McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. (2007). Psychosocial experiences of breast cancer survivors involved in a dragon boat program: Exploring links to positive psychological growth. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(4), 419–438.

Embodied Approach to PTG Research & Sport 143

Salick, E. C., & Auerbach, C. F. (2006). From devastation to integration: Adjusting to and growing from medical trauma. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 1021–1037. doi:10.1177/ 1049732306292166. Schnell, A., Mayer, J., Diehl, K., Zipfel, S., & Thiel, A., (2014). Giving everything for athletic success! Sports-specific risk acceptance of elite adolescent athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(2), 165–172. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.10.012. Shakespeare-Finch, J. E., & Armstrong, D. (2010). Trauma type and posttrauma outcomes: Differences between survivors of motor vehicle accidents, sexual assault, and bereavement. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15(2), 69–82. doi:10.1080/15325020903373151. Shakespeare-Finch, J. E. & Barrington, A. (2012). Behavioural changes add validity to the construct of posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25 (4), 433–439. doi:10.1002/jts.21730. Shilling, C., & Bunsell, T. (2014). From iron maiden to superwoman: The stochastic art of self-transformation and the deviant female sporting body. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 6(4), 478–498. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2014.928897. Shuwiekh, H., Kira, I. A., & Ashby, J. S. (2018). What are the personality and trauma dynamics that contribute to posttraumatic growth? International Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 181–194. doi:10.1037/str0000054. Smith, J. (2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis in sport and exercise: Getting at experience. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 219–229). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2017). Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Sparkes, A. C. (Ed.). (2017). Seeking the senses in physical culture: Sensuous scholarship in action. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Sparkes, A. C. & Smith, B. (2013). Spinal cord injury, sport and the narrative possibilities of posttraumatic growth. In N. Warren & L. Manderson (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life: A global perspective (pp. 129–144). New York: Springer. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004a). A clinical approach to posttraumatic growth. In S. Joseph and A. Linley (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 405–419). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004b). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. doi:10.1207/ s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Tylka, T. L., & Piran, N. (2019). Focusing on the positive: an introduction to the volume. In T. L. Tylka & N. Piran (Eds.), Handbook of positive body image and embodiment (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Vail, K. E. III, Juhl, J., Arndt, J., Vess, M., Routledge, C., & Rutjens, B. T. (2012). When death is good for life: Considering the positive trajectories of terror management. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 303–329. doi:10.1177/1088868312440046. Walsh, D. M., Groarke, A. M., Morrison, T. G., Durkan, G., Rogers, E., & Sullivan, F. J. (2018). Measuring a new facet of post traumatic growth: Development of a scale of physical post traumatic growth in men with prostate cancer. PloS One, 13(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195992. Walsh, D. M., Morrison, T. G., Conway, R. J., Rogers, E., Sullivan, F. J., & Groarke, A. (2018). A model to predict psychological-and health-related adjustment in men with

144 Kate Hefferon and Hanna Kampman

prostate cancer: The role of post traumatic growth, physical post traumatic growth, resilience and mindfulness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 136. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00136. Wu, X., Kaminga, A. C., Dai, W., Deng, J., Wang, Z., Pan, X., & Liu, A. (2019). The prevalence of moderate-to-high posttraumatic growth: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 243, 408–415. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.09.023.

PART 3

Population Perspectives

11 ADVERSITY- AND GROWTH-RELATED EXPERIENCES OF ELITE SPORT PERFORMERS Karen Howells

Introduction Following the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio, British cyclist Lewis Oliva was reported as supporting British Cycling’s brutal training regime by saying: “It’s a performance programme, not a day care centre … It’s performance-based so it’s about medals and that’s the bottom line” (Brown, 2017). This performance narrative represents a totalitarian belief that winning at all costs is, and must be, the primary focus of elite performance sport (see Douglas & Carless, 2006), and alludes to its harsh realities and potential traumatic nature. Recently, the sport psychology literature has witnessed a shift of the empirical lens from the distress and pathology of traumatic and adversity-related experiences in sport performers to a more holistic focus on the range of responses that individuals have in the face of adversity. Informed by the wider psychology literature on adversarial and posttraumatic growth (e.g., Joseph & Linley, 2005; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), this shift has incorporated a focus on the positives that are identifiable in response to negative events (see Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017). As part of this refocusing, a body of work that has explored adversity and its impact on growth in elite sport performers has emerged in the sport psychology literature. Addressing adversity and growth in this specific cohort does more than provide an interesting context through which to explore the positive outcomes that may be identifiable following adversity. It provides researchers, performance directors, coaches, and sport psychology practitioners with an understanding of the impact of adversity and the progression of growth in a highly pressurized and performance-focused environment where dominant narratives exist about how athletes can, and potentially should, manage adversity and traumatic experiences.

148 Karen Howells

Challenging the dominant performance narrative, the past decade has seen an increasing number of elite athletes propagating a powerful growth narrative of transformation following adversity (Howells & Fletcher, 2015). The athletes’ accounts typically reveal painful and distressing journeys from childhood to the Olympic podium or world-class success and are promulgated to a wide audience for public consumption, through the mainstream media, social media, and athletes’ published memoirs. Accordingly, to explore the adversity- and growth-related experiences of athletes at the highest level, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the nature of growth in elite sport, to review the extant growth research that has been conducted among elite sport performers, and to provide recommendations for conducting future research. In synthesizing the relevant research, this chapter adopts a broad and inclusive conceptualization of both adversity and growth to provide a comprehensive appreciation of the state-of-play in respect of growth following adversity in elite athletes. Although there are conceptual differences between trauma, adversity, and stressors (see, Day & Wadey, 2016; Howells et al., 2017), this chapter predominantly uses the term adversity to refer to the negative events and experiences that elite athletes may endure. Adversity is conceptualized as a relational state between an individual and their environment (see Howells & Fletcher, 2015) which incorporates both the negative event (e.g., injury) and the individual’s cognitive (e.g., appraisal) and affective (e.g., distress) responses to it. Additionally, a broad definition of growth – that is, those positive outcomes that are identifiable following adversity – is adopted and includes posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995, 2004), adversarial growth (Joseph & Linley, 2005), perceived benefits (Affleck, Tennen, Croog, & Levine, 1987), and stress-related growth (SRG; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996). For a comprehensive discussion about the conceptual differences between these (growth) constructs, we refer the reader to Calhoun and Tedeschi (2014), Snyder and Lopez (2009), Tamminen and Neely (2016), and Chapter 1 of this book.

The Elite Experience of Athletes Participation in competitive sport involves an individual’s affiliation with a microculture where athletes are socialized into accepting and internalizing specific behaviors (Hanrahan, 2010). Training and performing at an elite level represents an identification with a subculture in which those athletes who have reached this level have different motivations for participation, different psychological responses to competition (e.g., Hardy et al., 2017), and may experience pressure and adversity in different ways to non-elite athletes (e.g., Anderson, Hanrahan, & Mallet, 2014). Research has demonstrated that elite athletes score significantly lower than non-elite athletes on the interpersonal sensitivity, depression, psychoticism, and global severity scales (Mahoney, 1989). Furthermore, elite athletes are more likely than non-elite athletes to cope effectively with negative appraisals in response to sport-specific pressures and are more likely to use problem-focused

Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences 149

coping (Calmeiro, Tenenbaum, & Eccles, 2014). However, the elite environment presents challenges for athletes that go beyond the pressures of competing at the highest level. These athletes are subject to dominant messages or cultural scripts such as the performance narrative (Douglas & Carless, 2006), a prescriptive, highly structured environment that reduces opportunities for independence and autonomy (Warriner & Lavallee, 2008), and in some sports, are required to develop a particular body shape such as the “swimmer body” in elite competitive swimming (McMahon & Thompson, 2008, p. 23). Nevertheless, we must be cautious about homogenizing the concept of being elite in sport. Swann, Moran, and Piggott (2015) reviewed the sport psychology literature, identified that definitions of elite vary on a continuum of validity, and translated their findings into a taxonomy for classifying expert samples in sport research. They classified elite performers into four categories: semi-elite, competitive-elite, successful-elite, and world-class elite athletes. Hardy et al. (2017) further distinguished between super-elite (serial medalists) and elite (those who had not medaled at a World Championship or an Olympic Games) and found that both elite and super-elite athletes shared a commonality of a culture of striving and displayed similar levels of conscientiousness and commitment. Two fundamental differences were apparent between these groups. First, super-elite athletes experienced a foundational negative critical life event that occurred in close temporal proximity to a positive sport-related event. Second, a mid-career significant turning point increased the focus, motivation, or determination of super-elite athletes but decreased the focus, motivation, or determination of elite athletes. Accordingly, while it is appropriate to explore elite athletes’ experiences of adversity and growth separately from those who have not performed at the highest level, we must be cognizant of the individual differences and social-contextual factors that may exist even within this subgroup. Research examples in this chapter represent the successful elite (e.g., Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013) world-class athletes (e.g., Sarkar, Fletcher, & Brown, 2015), and super-elite (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015).

Experiencing Adversity Adversity is an expected consequence of being human, and as such elite athletes may experience adversities that are analogous with those experienced by the wider population such as developmental difficulties (e.g., stutter; Howells & Fletcher, 2015), and major life events (e.g., bereavement; Sarkar et al., 2015). However, they are also susceptible to adversities that are specific to an elite cohort that arise as a consequence of high training loads, increasingly saturated competition calendars (Soligard et al., 2016), and a highly pressurized competitive environment. Such an environment can give rise to adversities including: illness induced by travel crossing multiple time zones (e.g., Reilly, Waterhouse, & Edwards, 2005), non-selection to an Olympic or World team (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2016), sport-specific injuries (e.g., Soligard et al., 2016), poor mental health including depression (e.g.,

150 Karen Howells

Newman, Howells, & Fletcher, 2016), weight and body image concerns that have the potential to result in disordered eating (e.g., McMahon, Penney, & DinanThompson, 2012), and traumatic end-of-career-transitions (e.g., Erpicˇ , Wylleman, & Zupancˇ icˇ , 2004). Although many of the adversities are acute in nature (e.g., an event causing injury, short-term illness, and bereavement), the experience of adversity is an ongoing process (Tamminen et al., 2013). As one participant reported in Howells and Fletcher’s (2016) study of adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: “It was a hellish slog that was blood, sweat, guts, tears … the road to the Olympics had some of the highest highs and some of the lowest lows” (p. 181). Experiencing adversity is a precursor to experiencing growth. As elite athletes appraise negative events in fundamentally different ways to the wider population (see Calmeiro et al., 2014), it is important to concentrate on this aspect of the growth process. In the first instance, adopting a theoretical perspective on the process (see Chapter 2), and in accordance with the functional descriptive model of posttraumatic growth (FDM; Calhoun, Cann, & Tedeschi, 2010; Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995, 2004), the organismic valuing theory of growth (OVT; Joseph & Linley, 2005), and the affective cognitive processing model of PTG (ACPM; Joseph, Murphy, & Regel, 2012) for adversity to promote growth, the individual needs to experience an adversity that is sufficiently traumatic in nature to involve a shattering of schematic assumptions (see Janoff-Bulman, 1989). Researchers exploring growth in elite sport have internalized this lexis and have described the processes of assimilation (incorporating trauma-related information into current schema) and accommodation (developing a new worldview) in their participants (e.g., Day, 2013; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Tamminen et al., 2013). For example, in exploring growth in elite female athletes, Tamminen et al. (2013) interpreted words such as: “totally destroyed, being crushed, hit rock bottom, and shattered to reflect emotional disruption” (p. 31) as representing the shattering of athletes’ cognitive schemas about themselves as elite athletes. In describing the negative experiences of one of their participants who said that her negative experience, “was probably the best thing for me at the time,” the authors interpreted that she had accommodated her previous schemas about herself and her prior abilities as an athlete. However, Tamminen et al.’s examples to illustrate shattering of assumptions are all terms that are in daily usage and their use by elite athletes may not fully encapsulate the life-changing schematic change suggested by Janoff-Bulman (1989). In the absence of tangible schematic change in sport performers’ adversities, there appears to be a gradual shift away from the nomenclature of “shattering,” with some researchers being more restrained in the terminology used. For example, Hammer et al., (2019) articulated a: “challenge to core beliefs” (p. 2) despite being informed by OVT. Recent research (Roy-Davis, Wadey, & Evans, 2017) that introduced the term Sport-Injury Related Growth (SIRG) to address the growth experiences of athletes (at all levels) who have experienced injury, implied that a shattering of assumptions is not a necessary requirement for athletes

Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences 151

to experience growth but suggested that there may be another pathway to growth which involves a strengthening of assumption (see Chapter 14). The authors argued instead that sport injury is a stressful experience, and that the athletes’ responses are influenced by internal and external resources that need to enable specific cognitive processes (i.e., metacognitions and positive reappraisals) to facilitate SIRG. However, the theory did not acknowledge the deeply distressing nature of adversity (see Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004) and intrusive ruminations which are believed to be critical in facilitating transformational change. Therefore, to bridge the gap between the nomenclature of a shattering of assumptions and the acknowledgment of a stressful event, perhaps a more pragmatic approach is to consider the importance of an adversity to the elite athlete. Johnson and Boals (2015) determined that in addressing PTG, it is judicious to consider event centrality; that is, the extent to which the individual construes the negative experience as a core part of their identity. This comprises events that individuals appraise as being highly influential and which have caused the individuals to fundamentally rethink their worldview or schematic assumptions; for an elite athlete this may involve for example, non-selection for an Olympic team despite an expectation that this was a realistic goal. Furthermore, Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) emphasized that adversity must be considered within a contextualized environment. Therefore, it is the subjective evaluation or appraisal of the event by the elite athlete, which the wider population may not interpret as traumatic (e.g., performance slumps), that determines how influential and/or severe the event is (see Joseph, 2011; Lazarus, 1966, 1999). This focus on the subjective appraisal of the athlete in the elite environment is evident in sport performance research. Tamminen et al. (2013) did not exclude participants depending on the severity of their adversities, they argued that it was the subjective experience of the event that influences the extent of an individual’s growth following adversity. Accordingly, the athletes in this study experienced a diverse range of adversities including eating disorders, injuries, bullying, career transitions, sexual abuse, performance slumps, and coach conflicts. Adversity that may facilitate growth can occur at a number of critical periods in elite athletes’ lives: childhood, during their early sporting experiences, or as elite athletes. Interestingly, one specific time period appears to be significant; serious emotional trauma during childhood (see Chapter 15) is evident in the public narratives of many of the world’s most successful sport performers such as, amongst others, Maradona, Dame Kelly Holmes, Sir Steve Redgrave, George Best, Marion Jones, Tonya Harding, Michael Phelps, Amanda Beard, and Lance Armstrong. These anecdotal accounts are supported by the academic literature and it is increasingly clear that the role of childhood adversity is salient in our understanding of growth in the elite sport performer. Van Yperen (2009) identified that academy footballers who ultimately became elite footballers had a family background involving over three times the divorce rate of their peers who did not progress further. Collins and MacNamara (2012) speculated that “overcoming

152 Karen Howells

early life challenge is a precursor to high-level achievement” (p. 908) and that “[t] here is a disproportionally high incidence of early trauma … in the life histories of elite. The knowledge and skills the athletes accrued from ‘life’ traumas … certainly appears to affect their subsequent development and performance in sport” (p. 909). Furthermore, Hardy et al. (2017) identified differences in the experience of adversity in those athletes who achieved super-elite status and those who did not. The authors argued that traumatic events in childhood are not sufficient to develop the attributes that are necessary to become super-elite. Rather, they found that experiencing a positive critical event in sport (which could be performance or interactional in nature) shortly after the traumatic event (or events in one domain) was evident in all of the super-elite athletes that they studied and only in a small number of elite athletes. The temporal proximity of a negative event to a positive sport-related critical event was identified as crucial for future super-performance.

Mechanisms of Growth The experience of adversity does not mean that growth will occur, but a growing body of research that has explored growth in elite athletes (Day, 2013; Day & Wadey, 2016; Hammer et al., 2019; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Sarkar et al., 2015; Tamminen et al., 2013; Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Beck, 1997), and research that has identified positive outcomes following negative events and experiences in elite athletes (Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Hardy et al., 2017; Podlog et al., 2013; Van Yperen, 2009) collectively support the notion that positive outcomes can emerge from adversity-related experiences. In a culture that espouses the virtues of not only being physically tough, but also being mentally tough (e.g., Thelwell, Such, Weston, Such, & Greenlees, 2010), elite athletes experience “emotional upheaval” (Udry et al., 1997, p. 234), “emotional disruption” (Tamminen et al., 2013, p. 31), and being “‘furious’, ‘absolutely gutted’, and ‘angry’” (Sarkar et al., 2015, p. 477) in the immediate aftermath of adversity. However, it is not uncommon, unsurprisingly in light of a narrative of mental toughness, for athletes to suppress these negative emotions, engage in denial, and adopt avoidance coping strategies (Howells & Fletcher, 2016). In their research involving Olympic swimmers, Howells and Fletcher (2015, 2016) identified that their participants initially attempted to maintain their extant beliefs by trying to incorporate (or assimilate) their negative experiences into their current identification (or schema) as elite performers. Furthermore, in an instrumental, collective case study with two male athletes with acquired disabilities, Day and Wadey (2016) identified a narrative of assimilation; one of the individuals rejected his disability as “meaningless” (p. 134). However, in an environment that functions on the explicit surveillance of athletes’ bodies, their nutrition, their technique, and adherence to training, and where performance is extensively scrutinized, reality ultimately becomes

Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences 153

overwhelming. As Howells and Fletcher (2015) explained in relation to Olympic swimmers: “Although the maintenance of normality proved to be a somewhat effective strategy in the short-term, it was ultimately unsustainable resulting in the [athletes] acknowledging the need to confront their issues” (p. 45). Accordingly, following a period of denial and intrusive thoughts, many elite athletes experience a period of purposeful cognitive processing involving “reflective pondering” (Joseph et al., 2012, p. 322) and acceptance of their adversities (Howells & Fletcher, 2016). Nevertheless, growth is not an inevitable outcome of experiencing and accepting the occurrence of a traumatic experience, rather, growth is facilitated by factors that are both internal and external. It is not sufficient for elite athletes to understand why a negative event has occurred, it is necessary for them to seek meaning (of the significance) in their experience (Day 2013; Howells & Fletcher, 2016). Research that has explored growth in elite athletes has identified a number of mechanisms that promote or facilitate growth, including a self-disclosure (Sarkar et al., 2015), and a realization of the role of sport in their lives (Day & Wadey, 2016; Tamminen et al., 2013). Additionally, it is evident that an empathetic social support network (e.g., Day, 2013; Hammer et al., 2019; Howells & Fletcher, 2015; Tamminen et al., 2013) that can facilitate disclosure is fundamental in facilitating the growth process. One participant in a study of growth in Olympic swimmers reflected on the support he received from his parents: “I owe absolutely everything … to what my parents did. Unquestionable, often illogical, ridiculous amounts of support” (Howells & Fletcher, 2016, p. 180).

Indicators of Growth The research into athletes’ experiences of growth has, on the most part, been informed by the theoretical and conceptual models developed to explain growth following a wide range of traumatic experiences (see Howells et al., 2017; Chapter 2). Unsurprisingly, given the informing literature, the sport performance research has broadly supported Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (2004) identification of five domains of PTG which are measured using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996), namely, a greater appreciation of life and changed sense of priorities; warmer, more intimate relationships with others; a greater sense of personal strength; recognition of new possibilities or paths for one’s life; and spiritual-existential change.1 However, qualitative studies in the sport performance literature collectively suggest that growth in athletes involves more than a transformation in these five domains (Day & Wadey, 2017; Howells et al., 2017). Physical improvements have been recognized as an additional indicator in a systematic review exploring growth in competitive athletes (viz. Howells et al., 2017), but it what appears particularly salient in elite athletes is the identification of superior performance following an adverse event.

154 Karen Howells

Anecdotally, Mark Spitz – winner of seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympic Games, and arguably one of the most recognized swimmers of all time – alluded to the difficult journey to Olympic swimming success through adversity and growth. As he explained in his foreword to Foster’s biography of him: “I don’t think I could have achieved success at the 1972 Olympics in Munich if I hadn’t endured the anguish of the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City” (Foster, 2008, p. 7). Accounts such as Spitz’s are supported by unequivocal research that elite athletes not only experience physical improvements, but exhibit superior performance following adversity (e.g., Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012; Hardy et al., 2017; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Sarkar et al., 2015; Van Yperen, 2009). In a study of psychological resilience in Olympic champions, Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) found that, “participants argued that if they had not experienced certain types of stressor … including highly demanding adversities such as parental divorce, serious illness, and career-threatening injuries, they would not have won their gold medals” (p. 672). This notion of superior performance appears to be unique to elite sport and has not been identified in research exploring other contexts (e.g., trauma, general psychology, oncology), therefore we may conclude that superior performance is an element of growth that is confined to an elite or expert population. While the research that has explored the growth-related experiences of elite athletes has contributed to the paradigm shift away from a focus on the pathology of traumatic experiences, we should be cautious of accepting, without critical questioning, that following adversity elite athletes will experience growth. Despite the pervasiveness of the cultural script of growth, there are individual differences in individuals’ lived experiences that means that the findings from studies of elite athletes must be examined with some caution. Several studies identified individual athletes who did not experience growth following adversity (Tamminen et al., 2013; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Udry et al., 1997). Howells et al. (2017) warned that even though their findings in a systematic review of growth in competitive sport support the potential for growth following adversity, this should not imply that individuals should be expected to benefit from adverse events. Tamminen et al. (2013) highlighted that we should “[remain] open to the idea that not all experiences lead to growth … [this] shed [s] light on perceived expectations surrounding elite athletes” (p. 35). Researchers and practitioners should be aware that if they are actively seeking growth in elite athletes, they may purposely find growth, thus contributing to, and reinforcing, the increasingly dominant narrative promulgated in elite athletes’ published autobiographies (see Howells & Fletcher, 2015). In a recent study involving sport psychology practitioners, a participant was reported as stating: “We need to be careful of pushing this whole growth idea. It’s something that we are seeing in the media now, in terms of you must overcome adversity. It can place real pressures on … athletes” (Wadey et al., 2019, p. 19).

Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences 155

Future Research Directions Informed by research referred to in this chapter and being cognizant of the methodological implications of studying growth (see Day & Wadey, 2017; Chapter 3), this section identifies several future research recommendations in elite sport, first focusing on the nature of adversity in elite sport, and second, focusing on the measurement or identification of growth in elite athletes. In constructing a research study, one of the issues that many researchers face is making the decision about whether to adopt the terminology of trauma, adversity, or stressor. In light of the career implications for elite athletes of experiencing negative events that the wider population would not necessarily find traumatic (e.g., injury), it is not useful to attempt to classify the severity of the event according to the event itself. Rather, as this chapter has alluded to, researchers should focus on the event centrality of events for the elite athlete (see Johnson & Boals, 2015). Boals, Steward, and Schuettler (2010) established that use of the PTGI to predict relevant positive outcomes is greatly improved when examining events that are significant to the individual. Using event centrality would strengthen the rationale for using the PTGI in research focusing on the elite environment (either as a screening tool in a qualitative study or to measure growth in relation to other constructs in a quantitative study). It is clear that adversity has the potential to facilitate the growth process in the elite sporting environment. The strength of the extant literature is that, collectively, adopting a predominantly qualitative approach (see Chapter 3), it has identified an indicator of growth (i.e., superior performance) that would not have been possible operating within the constraints of standardized instruments such as the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Although we may deduce that superior performance is likely to be identifiable as comprising a domain of growth in the elite environment, this could be explored further using alternative qualitative (e.g., [auto]ethnographic studies) and quantitative approaches (e.g., notational analysis). In the absence of a standardized instrument that includes this domain, in the longer term there is the potential for the development of an elite sport and/or a sport-specific measurement instrument that measures growth in (elite) athletes.

Conclusion In conclusion, this chapter has provided an overview of the current theoretical status of growth and focused on the extant studies of growth and related concepts in sport. Adversarial growth in elite athletes can be conceived as a multidimensional construct that involves changes that occur through a process that involves the athletes struggling with adversity. This struggle propels the individual to a higher level of functioning than that which existed prior to the event (Linley & Joseph, 2004). In elite sport this higher level of functioning may uniquely involve superior physical functioning that is identifiable through the athletes’ performance outcomes.

156 Karen Howells

Note 1 A revised version of the PTGI, the PTGI-X (Tedeschi, Cann, Taku, Senol‐Durak & Calhoun, 2017) extended the domain of spiritual change (SC) to allow respondents to indicate changes in a broader spiritual and existential domain. The revised version replaced SC with spiritual–existential change (SEC) in the expanded scale.

References Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Croog, S., & Levine, S. (1987). Causal attribution, perceived benefits, and morbidity after a heart attack: An 8-year study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 55, 29–35. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.55.1.29. Anderson, R., Hanrahan, S. J., & Mallet, C. J. (2014). Investigating the optimal psychological state for peak performance in Australian elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26, 318–333. doi:10.1080/10413200.2014.885915. Boals, A., Steward, J. M., & Schuettler, D. (2010). Advancing our understanding of posttraumatic growth by considering event centrality. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15, 518–533. doi:10.1080/15325024.2010.519271. Brown, T. (2017, April 3). British Cycling is “elite sport, not day care” – Welsh cyclist Lewis Oliva. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/sport/wales/39482550. Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2010). The posttraumatic growth model: Sociocultural considerations. In T. Weiss & R. Berger (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the globe (pp. 1–14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Online Library. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1998). Posttraumatic growth: Future directions. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Theory and research on change in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 215–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Calmeiro, L., Tenenbaum, G., & Eccles, D. W. (2014). Managing pressure: Patterns of appraisals and coping strategies of non–elite and elite athletes during competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1813–1820. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.922692. Collins, D., & MacNamara, A. (2012). The rocky road to the top: Why talent needs trauma. Sports Medicine, 42, 907–914. doi:10.1007/BF03262302. Day, M. C. (2013). The role of initial physical activity experiences in promoting posttraumatic growth in Paralympic athletes with an acquired disability. Disability & Rehabilitation, 35, 2064–2072. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.805822. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2017). Researching growth following adversity in sport and exercise: Methodological implications and future recommendations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9, 499–513. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1328460. Douglas, K., & Carless, D. (2006). Performance, discovery, and relational narratives among women professional tournament golfers. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 15, 14–27. Erpicˇ , S. C., Wylleman, P., & Zupancˇ icˇ , M. (2004). The effect of athletic and non-athletic factors on the sports career termination process. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 45–59. doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00046-8.

Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences 157

Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 669–678. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2012.04.007. Foster, R. (2008). Mark Spitz: The extraordinary life of an Olympic champion. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press LLC. Hammer, C., Podlog, L., Wadey, R., Galli, N., Forber-Pratt, A. J., & Newton, M. (2019). Cognitive processing following acquired disability for para sport athletes: a serial mediation model. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1–9. doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1563639. Hanrahan, S. (2010). Culturally competent practitioners. In S. Hanrahan & M. Anderson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied sport psychology: A comprehensive guide for students and practitioners (pp. 460–468). New York, NY: Routledge. Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (2017). Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of super-elite and elite athletes from Olympic sports. Progress in Brain Research, 232, 1–119. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.03.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity-and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173–186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113–136. doi:10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.113. Johnson, S. F., & Boals, A. (2015). Refining our ability to measure posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7, 422–429. doi:10.1037/ tra0000013. Joseph, S. (2011). Religiosity and posttraumatic growth: A note concerning the problems of confounding in their measurement and the inclusion of religiosity within the definition of posttraumatic growth. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 14, 843–845. doi:10.1080/13674676.2011.609162. Joseph, S., & Linley, A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.262. Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Regel, S. (2012). An affective-cognitive processing model of post-traumatic growth. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19(4), 316–324. doi:10.1002/cpp.1798. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London, UK: Free Association. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi:10.1017/ S0954579400004156. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive psychological theory of therapeutic practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Mahoney, M. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and non–elite performance in Olympic weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 1–12.

158 Karen Howells

McMahon, J., Penney, D., & Dinan-Thompson, M. (2012). “Body practices – exposure and effect of a sporting culture?” Stories from three Australian swimmers. Sport, Education and Society, 17, 181–206. doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.607949. McMahon, J., & Thompson, M. D. (2008). A malleable body – revelations from an elite Australian swimmer. ACHPER Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 55, 23–28. Newman, H. J., Howells, K. L., & Fletcher, D. (2016). The dark side of top level sport: an autobiographic study of depressive experiences in elite sport performers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 868. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00868. Park, C., Cohen, L., & Murch, R. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress‐related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x. Podlog, L., Wadey, R., Stark, A., Lochbaum, M., Hannon, J., & Newton, M. (2013). An adolescent perspective on injury recovery and the return to sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 437–446. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.005. Reilly, T., Waterhouse, J., & Edwards, B. (2005). Jet lag and air travel: Implications for performance. Clinical Sports Medicine, 4, 367–380. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2004.12.004. Roy-Davis, K., Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2017). A grounded theory of sport injury-related growth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 35–52. doi:10.1037/spy0000080. Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., & Brown, D. J. (2015). What doesn’t kill me…: Adversity-related experiences are vital in the development of superior Olympic performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 475–479. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford Library of Psychology. Soligard, T., Schwellnus, M., Alonso, J. M., Bahr, R., Clarsen, B., Dijkstra, H. P., … & van Rensburg, C. J. (2016). How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50, 1030–1041. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096581. Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2013). Spinal cord injury, sport and the narrative possibilities of posttraumatic growth. In N. Warren & L. Manderson (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life: A global perspective (pp. 129–143). New York, NY: Springer. Swann, C., Moran, A., & Piggott, D. (2015). Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002. Tamminen, K. A., & Neely, K. C. (2016). Positive growth in sport. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth development through sport (2nd ed., pp. 193–204). London, UK: Routledge. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma & transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1007/ BF02103658. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R. G., Cann, A., Taku, K., Senol‐Durak, E., & Calhoun, L. G. (2017). The posttraumatic growth inventory: A revision integrating existential and spiritual change. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30, 11–18. doi:10.1002/jts.22155.

Adversity- and Growth-Related Experiences 159

Thelwell, R. C., Such, B. A., Weston, N. J., Such, J. D., & Greenlees, I. A. (2010). Developing mental toughness: Perceptions of elite female gymnasts. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 170–188. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2010.9671941. Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to season-ending injuries. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 229–248. Van Yperen, N. W. (2009). Why some make it and others do not: Identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 317–329. doi:10.1123/tsp.23.3.317. Wadey, R., Roy, K., Evans, L., Howells, K., Salim, J., & Diss, C. (2019). Sport psychology consultants’ perspectives on facilitating sport injury-related growth. The Sport Psychologist, 1–38. doi:10.1123/tsp.2018-0110. Warriner, K., & Lavallee, D. (2008). The retirement experiences of elite female gymnasts: Self identity and the physical self. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 301–317. doi:10.1080/10413200801998564.

12 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ATHLETES’ EXPERIENCES OF ADVERSITY AND GROWTH Kacey C. Neely, Katherine A. Tamminen, and Nicholas L. Holt

Introduction Events within sport such as injury, coach conflict, bullying, deselection, or sexual abuse can cause individuals significant distress, yet athletes can also experience positive growth from their struggle with such events. Within sport, a growing body of literature has shown that athletes who experience stressful, adverse, and/ or traumatic events report growth in the aftermath of their experiences (Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017). Positive growth typically occurs within three broad domains including changes in perceptions of self (e.g., enhanced self-efficacy, personal strength), relationships with others (e.g., renewed appreciation of family and friends), and one’s philosophy about life (e.g., seeing new possibilities in life; Linley & Joseph, 2004; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Beyond the sport psychology literature, researchers examining growth following adversity such as serious illness, bereavement, and natural disasters suggest that females tend to report greater levels of positive growth following adversity and trauma than males (Vishnevsky, Cann, Calhoun, Tedeschi, & Demakis, 2010). However, within a sport context, gender differences1 in relation to adversity and growth are not well-understood. The overall purpose of this chapter is to examine the potential contribution of gender differences to growth following adversity in sport. Specifically, there are three main objectives. The first objective is to examine potential differences between male and female athletes’ experiences of adversity and growth in sport and the reasons for these differences. The second objective is to review the existing empirical studies looking at female athletes’ experiences of adversity and positive growth to understand the process of growth for female athletes. Finally, the third objective is to provide important directions for future research in this area.

Gender Differences 161

Brief Overview of Theories and Terms Related to Positive Growth Prior to reviewing the literature, it is necessary to briefly review some of the most prominent theories that underpin research in this area (for more information on the theoretical underpinnings of growth, see Chapter 2). Several theories, models, and concepts describe the notion of positive growth. These include the functionaldescriptive model of posttraumatic growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), organismic valuing theory (Linley & Joseph, 2004), as well as the concepts of stress-related growth (Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996), thriving (O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995), and perceived benefits (McMillen & Fisher, 1998). Although these theories, models, and concepts have specific definitions and conceptualizations (see Chapter 1), they all propose that the cognitive processing that occurs in the process of struggling with adversity can result in positive changes that propel an individual to a higher level of functioning than that which existed prior to the adverse event (Linley & Joseph, 2004; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). The use of one concept over another may be dependent on the severity of the adverse event, the commonality of occurrence, and the duration of change (Park, 2009). For example, posttraumatic growth (PTG) is one of the most commonly used terms to understand positive changes people report following traumatic events. It refers to the positive psychological changes individuals experience as a result of their struggle in the aftermath of highly challenging circumstances (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Trauma (or a traumatic event) can be defined as a highly stressful event that significantly challenges the adaptive resources of an individual and significantly challenges an individual’s way of understanding the world and their place in it (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). As such, PTG represents a significant positive change and occurs in response to a traumatic event (i.e., deselection in sport), while other models and theories of growth refer to less radical changes in response to more commonly experienced life stressors (i.e., injury in sport). Stress-related growth (Park et al., 1996) is another common approach to understanding growth following stressful experiences. Howells et al. (2017) argued that growth following a stressful, adverse, or traumatic experience should be conceptualized accordingly as PTG, adversarial growth, or stress-related growth in order to provide conceptual clarity to the literature. While each concept has specific definitions and conceptualizations, as noted above, the term positive growth is used in this chapter as a broad term to refer to stress-related growth, adversarial growth, and PTG, unless articulated when discussing specific research studies.

Gender Differences in Athletes’ Experiences of Stress and Adversity in Sport In the sport context, male and female athletes have reported various types of stress and adversity including injury, sexual abuse, eating disorders, bullying, poor performance, and conflict with coaches (Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013) as well as

162 K. C. Neely, K. A. Tamminen, & N. L. Holt

deselection and non-selection to sport teams, political unrest, death of a family member, disability, depression and mental health challenges, substance abuse (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2018). Experiences of injury, however, are the most common form of adversity among male and female athletes that have been studied in the area of positive growth. Several types of injuries have been examined in regard to athletes’ experiences of growth following injury (e.g., Brewer, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Tennen, 2017). In this regard, it is worth noting that some injuries are more common among female athletes, such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries (Schilaty et al., 2017), sport-related concussions (Covassin, Anderson, Petit, Savage, & Bretzin, 2019), and stress fractures (Nattiv, 2000), although these patterns can differ by sport (e.g., Powell & Barber-Foss, 2000) and training loads at different career stages (e.g., Korpelainen, Orava, Karpakka, Siira, & Hulkko, 2001). Researchers still do not fully understand the mechanisms that underlie females’ increased susceptibility to ACL injury but suspect it is related to structurally weaker knee ligaments and less developed knee protection and higher relative loads (Shultz, 2014). Beyond the research examining differences in injury rates among male and female athletes, there have been few studies examining gender differences in psychosocial stressors, although some findings suggest that interpersonal stressors (e.g., negative teammate interaction, coach conflict) may be more pronounced for female athletes. For example, Anshel, Sutarso, and Jubenville (2009) reported that female athletes reported significantly higher stress intensity associated with stressors related to coaches compared to male athletes. These findings mirror research suggesting that females report more stress associated with interpersonal relationships with parents, peers, and partners compared to males (Rudolph, 2002). Furthermore, in sport, young female adolescent athletes perceive greater intra-team competition and social comparisons than older female adolescent athletes (Vazou, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006). Among intercollegiate athletes in the United States, relational aggression (e.g., purposefully excluding others from a group, ignoring others, spreading rumors; Archer & Coyne, 2005; Kerr, Jewett, MacPherson, & Stirling, 2016) was positively associated with peer rejection among male and female athletes; moreover, relational aggression was positively associated with alcohol use and self-harm, and negatively associated with prosocial behaviors (i.e., voluntary behaviors intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals) among female athletes. Evidently, this research suggests interpersonal factors can be a significant source of stress and adversity experienced by female athletes. Recent evidence suggests that female athletes report higher levels of chronic psychological stress than males, which is associated with poorer recovery in sport (Wahl, Gnacinski, Nai, & Meyer, 2019). Such chronic stress may also place female athletes at increased risk for experiencing adversity in the form of performance difficulties, burnout, injuries, and impaired mental health. However, there is currently limited research that has systematically examined rates of adversity

Gender Differences 163

among female athletes compared to male athletes. Some forms of adversity which are related to mental illness and psychological disorders have been examined with regard to sex and gender differences among athletes. Among a sample of highperformance French athletes, 17 percent of the athletes reported at least one ongoing or recent psychological disorder; 20.2 percent of female athletes met the criteria for at least one psychopathology, compared to 15.1 percent of male athletes (Schaal et al., 2011). Generalized anxiety disorder was reported as the most prevalent psychopathology across both male and female athletes, although women were significantly more likely to experience anxiety than men, and women were also more likely to be diagnosed with other disorders at the same time (e.g., obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia along with generalized anxiety diagnosis). Women were also significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with an eating disorder than men, however men may be less likely to disclose. Overall, female athletes were 1.3 times as likely to be diagnosed with a psychopathology, suggesting that female athletes are at greater risk of experiencing adversity in sport or during the course of their sport participation. Based on their findings, the authors suggested that elite female athletes “appear more susceptible to difficulties encountered in their environment than their male counterparts” (Schaal et al., 2011, p.5). In considering the organizational stressors surrounding male and female athletes’ sport experiences, Arnold, Fletcher, and Daniels (2016) reported that female athletes were more likely to report a greater frequency, intensity, and duration of organizational stressors related to selection (e.g., “pressure associated with how my team is selected”) compared to males. However, males were more likely to report stressors related to logistics and operations (e.g., “pressure associated with traveling to or from training or competitions,” “the funding allocations in my sport,” and “what gets said or written about me in the media”) compared to female athletes. Furthermore, female Australian athletes were more likely to report having been sexually abused within the sport environment compared to male athletes (41 percent versus 29 percent respectively; Leahy, Pretty, & Tenenbaum, 2008) and elite female athletes reported significantly higher rates of sexual abuse in sport than female club-level athletes. In a recent report (Kerr, Willson, & Stirling, 2019), current and retired female Canadian national-level athletes reported higher rates of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as neglect, than male athletes, and across all four types of abuse, retired female athletes reported experiencing higher incidences of abuse than retired male athletes. These alarming rates of abuse among female athletes might suggest that females endure more severe types of adversity in sport. Collectively, with these findings in mind, it is worth considering the possible reasons why female athletes may experience more or different types of adversity in sport compared to male athletes. One explanation is that male and female athletes are exposed to different types of stressors and adversity in the course of their sport participation. Historically, sports have traditionally been characterized

164 K. C. Neely, K. A. Tamminen, & N. L. Holt

as “masculine” pursuits, which has contributed to societal discomfort with women’s participation, resulting in sexism, discrimination, and assumptions about women’s sexuality (Carter, 2020; Roper, 2012). Women’s sports also generally receive less funding than men’s sports across most sports, women experience greater objectification and pressures surrounding their bodies, and there is less representation of women in sport roles (e.g., as athletes, coaches, referees, administrators; Roper, 2012). Consequently, women in sport may face different types of adversity compared to men due to the nature of the sport environment and societal norms related to women’s participation in sport. Another explanation for the potential differences between male and female athletes in the types of stress and adversity they report could be due to gender roles and gender socialization (Helgeson, 2012; Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). Females are typically socialized to adopt gender roles that are more communal in nature, and as a result they may appraise particular stressors as more severe or intense than males. For example, because females may be socialized to focus on interpersonal and communal relationships, as a result they may appraise interpersonal stressors or conflict more frequently and more intensely than males (Helgeson, 2012; Tamres et al., 2002). Thus, differences in reported adversity among male and females may arise as a result of differences in appraisal processes that are linked to the socialization of gender roles. This first section describes the various types of adversity male and female athletes experience and some of the potential reasons for gender differences. Both male and female athletes can experience injury-related and physical adversity, psychological and interpersonal stress and adversity, as well as organizational stressors, but it is evident from the existing research that females are more likely to experience certain types of stress and adversity, and more often than males. The next section will focus on experiences of positive growth among male and female athletes, discussing differences in the reporting of growth as well as different types of growth experiences. Existing empirical studies looking at female athletes’ experiences of adversity and positive growth to understand the process of growth for female athletes will also be reviewed.

Gender Differences in Experiences of Positive Growth In the broader literature on growth outside of the sports domain, females have been suggested to report greater adversarial growth or PTG compared to males (Linley & Joseph, 2004). Recent evidence has suggested that women report greater PTG than men, after controlling for posttraumatic distress (Jin, Xu, & Liu, 2014), and findings from a meta-analysis of 70 empirical studies provided support for the idea that women report greater PTG compared to men across a range of types of adversity (Vishnevsky et al., 2010). Yet in sport settings, there is no indepth research to date that has specifically examined positive growth experiences of female athletes compared to male athletes.

Gender Differences 165

In terms of different types of growth experienced by male and female athletes, Galli and Reel (2012) found that both male and female athletes scored the highest on the personal strength domain of growth, and found that female athletes reported more growth than male athletes in their ability to relate to others and spiritual change. Among male and female athletes, Brewer et al. (2017) found that athletes reported significant increases in their perceptions of growth in general and in relating to others and personal strength following surgery for ACL injury. Athletes also reported higher scores for growth in the areas of new possibilities and appreciation for life, however there were no significant differences in the PTG inventory subscale scores between men and women in the study. Similarly, Salim, Wadey, and Diss (2015) found no significant difference between male and female athletes in their study on hardiness and stress-related growth following injury. In other studies that have examined growth following adversity among male and female athletes, gender differences have not been explored. While there is limited research on the reasons why females may report greater adversarial or PTG, one possible explanation may be found in the ways that males and females respond to stressful situations. In a meta-study examining gender differences in coping, Tamres et al. (2002) found that women were more likely to seek emotional support in response to stressors compared to men, which may be explained by women’s socialization to seek out others for support and express their feelings. Affiliation and support seeking are proposed to be integral parts of meaning-making and experiencing posttraumatic or adversarial growth (Linley & Joseph, 2004; Park, 2009). Females may be socialized to engage in more support-seeking and affiliation as a response to stress or adversity (Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor, 2011), and a greater propensity to engage in these types of coping strategies may facilitate processes of growth, therefore contributing to higher reports of growth among females compared to males, especially in certain domains of growth such as relating to others. However, these propositions have not been explored in sport settings, and further research is needed to determine whether female athletes, and certain female athletes, do experience greater rates of growth following adversity than male athletes, and whether this may occur due to differences in support-seeking and affiliation. Furthermore, athletes’ internalization of performance narratives and ideals surrounding mental toughness and “playing through pain” may be associated with increased perceptions of stigma surrounding mental health concerns (e.g., Anderson, 2011; Malcom, 2006). Thus, when faced with adversity or trauma that is psychologically challenging, male and female athletes who endorse these narratives and ideals may be less likely to seek support, as they may perceive more stigma associated with acknowledging their limitations in managing adversity (Tamminen et al., 2013). As a result, athletes may have difficulty dealing with adversity and trauma and they may have limited opportunity for engaging in processes of verbal disclosure that are associated with growth (Salim & Wadey, 2018).

166 K. C. Neely, K. A. Tamminen, & N. L. Holt

Female Athletes’ Experiences of Growth Following Adversity A recent systematic review on growth following adversity in competitive sport identified 17 empirical studies (Howells et al., 2017). Of these 17 studies, only two focused solely on female athletes (McDonough et al., 2011; Tamminen et al., 2013) while the other 12 studies included mixed samples (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012) and three studies were all male samples (e.g., Wadey, Evans, Evans, & Mitchell, 2011). Since the publication of the systematic review, only one other study has been published containing a female sample (Neely et al., 2018). Despite Wadey et al.’s (2011) recommendation that research is needed that specifically examines the experiences of female athletes because they likely differ from those of male athletes, the research on female athletes’ experiences of growth following adversity remains sparse. This is surprising given the recent increased attention on gender and feminism in sport psychology (see Carter, 2020). This section of the chapter will review findings from the three aforementioned studies that solely focus on females and their experiences of adversity and positive growth. The first study in sport psychology to explicitly examine PTG consisted of qualitative interviews with 17 female breast cancer survivors who were involved in dragon boat racing teams (McDonough et al., 2011). Analysis of the interview data revealed that dragon boating provided opportunities for women to gain personal control, develop new identities as athletes, and overcome physical challenges. Participating in sport also provided interpersonal benefits, such as enabling the breast cancer survivors to self-disclose, expand their social network, and to give and receive social support, all of which enhanced their relationships with others. This research demonstrated the prominence of positive social relationships and that support through multiple pathways facilitated and enhanced the participants’ experiences of PTG. While the trauma these women endured took place out of sport, it is evident that sport was central to their growth experiences. Despite being the first study to examine PTG in sport, the adversity experienced by participants was unrelated to sport itself. Females have also experienced positive growth in response to adversity and trauma that was caused by and experienced within the sport context. For example, in the context of elite sport, Tamminen et al. (2013) explored experiences of adversity and perceptions of positive growth through interviews with five elite female athletes. Athletes described several different types of adverse events including coach conflicts, injuries, eating disorders, and sexual abuse by a coach. Although the types of negative events were different for each athlete, shared features of the athletes’ experiences included feelings of withdrawal/isolation, emotional disruptions, and questioning their identity and abilities as athletes, thus suggesting their experiences challenged their personal narrative. Through struggling and coping with their adversities, athletes realized their physical and mental strength, developed a newfound desire to help others dealing with similar types of adversity, and gained perspective of their problems

Gender Differences 167

in the wider scope of their lives. Growth was perceived through finding meaning in their experiences, particularly through reappraising the role and importance of sport in their lives. The most recent study on female athletes’ experiences of growth following adversity focused on a single traumatic event. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, Neely and colleagues (2018) explored female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following deselection (i.e., “getting cut” from a competitive sport team based on the decisions of a coach; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2016) from provincial level team sports using the functional descriptive model of PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Eighteen females described the traumatic nature of being deselected and shared how they questioned their identity and ability as athletes following deselection. Findings showed that growth was a gradual process that unfolded over time across several domains. Female athletes experienced growth through developing a greater appreciation of the role of sport in their lives (e.g., sport becoming a focused priority), and enhanced sense of personal strength and belief in their abilities to cope with future adversities, developing closer relationships with their parents and stronger bonds with some of their teammates, and recognizing potential new opportunities both in and out of sport. Of particular importance, these findings highlighted the crucial role social relationships played in the process of growth. The results suggest that four of the domains of growth (i.e., greater appreciation, enhanced personal strength, developing closer social relationships, and recognition of new opportunities) depicted in Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (2004) functional descriptive model of PTG are helpful in understanding and interpreting female experiences of positive growth in sport. Collectively, the three aforementioned studies (McDonough et al., 2011; Tamminen et al., 2013; Neely et al., 2018) shed light specifically on female athletes’ experiences of adversity and growth. While it is difficult to compare the findings from these three studies on female athletes with male athletes’ experiences and there is only one study to date (Galli & Reel, 2012) that has specifically examined the types of growth experienced by female athletes compared to male athletes (which remains a relevant area for future research), there are some shared findings in these studies that can provide insight on female athletes’ experiences of growth. For example, the findings reinforce the role of social support and strengthened social relationships in contributing to some of the growth experiences of female athletes that may differ from male athletes’ experiences. As outlined in the previous section in this chapter, this could be due to females’ increased likelihood to seek social support and use emotion-focused coping. Given that positive growth is a burgeoning area of research in sport, it is crucial that researchers better understand the mechanisms that lead male and female athletes to perceive and experience growth differently.

168 K. C. Neely, K. A. Tamminen, & N. L. Holt

Future Research Directions As research on growth following adversity continues to gain momentum, differences between and within female and male athletes’ experiences of adversity and positive growth remain key areas for future research. For instance, to advance the literature in the area of experiences of adversity, it would be important to examine whether male and female athletes report different types of adversity greater and the frequency of adversity in sport, to determine whether female athletes face different stressors that may be attributable to the sport context and the broader discourse outside of sport. Examining the frequency of adversity in sport might help researchers understand why more females experience more growth than males. To examine the notion of gender roles or gender socialization as an explanation for possible differences in adversity among male and female athletes, researchers might examine the same “objective” form of adversity (e.g., deselection, ACL injury, bullying; see Neely et al., 2018) and explore whether there are differences in the subjective appraisals that male and female athletes make surrounding these experiences and the meanings they attribute to these events (for a thorough discussion of stressor appraisal severity and intensity and gender differences in coping, see Tamres et al., 2002). However, considering that adversity and trauma are defined as events that are psychologically challenging and shatter one’s pre-existing schemas and assumptions about the world, an athlete’s identity, especially athletic identity, may play a more important role in determining the severity of appraisals of adversity. Thus, examining athletic identity and adversity and growth experiences is an important avenue for future research. A number of other factors are also implicated in individuals’ propensity to experience positive growth following adversity, including pre-existing vulnerabilities, coping style, optimism, perceptions of control over life events, having a strong sense of self, and the characteristics of the event itself (Updegraff & Taylor, 2000). However, whether and how these factors contribute to male and female athletes’ experiences of adversity and positive growth is unknown and requires further exploration. Thus, while gender differences in experiences of adversity and growth may exist in sport, further research is needed to fully understand the role of gender in experiences of growth in sport. Researchers must continue to investigate the different variables at play, and consider gender a primary factor in such research. Seeking and receiving social support has been identified as an important factor during adversity and through the growth process, particularly in females. Future research that strives to identify the most effective types and forms of support for athletes facing adversity will be valuable. Specifically, understanding social interactions with coaches and teammates, as well as parents, may shed light on the role of others throughout the growth process and highlight ways they can provide support to athletes that promotes growth. Therefore, research studies that include the views of coaches, teammates, parents, or other close relationships could make a valuable contribution to the literature.

Gender Differences 169

With calls for interventions to enhance and support positive growth (Howells et al., 2017), an in-depth understanding of differences in female and male athletes’ experiences will be valuable in order to create and tailor gender-specific interventions that support and facilitate positive growth. For example, a deeper understanding of coping strategies that promote growth within this population will be important to understand. Given that male and female athletes tend to cope with adversity differently, research examining male and female athletes’ use of emotion and/or problem-focused coping and how these different strategies support positive growth are warranted. For example, one interesting line of research related to coping that is worth considering, particularly among female athletes, is the relationship between positive growth and self-compassion. Recent research has demonstrated that self-compassion can be a useful and adaptive coping strategy to manage adversity in sport among female athletes (Mosewich, Sabiston, Kowalski, Gaudreau, & Crocker, 2019). Athletes who are higher in self-compassion may be better able to cope with adversity through practicing self-kindness, mindfulness, and common humanity and being less self-critical, which may facilitate increased experiences of positive growth. Finally, within a feminism paradigm, one approach to studying gender differences in experiences of adversity and positive growth that would shed light on females’ experiences could be feminist phenomenology. Feminist phenomenology can provide rigorous, grounded and insightful analyses of female sporting embodiment, and effectively portray the complexities of sporting experiences (Allen-Collison, 2011). In feminist phenomenology, the personal or subjective experience of women is fundamentally linked to the political, which is located within the wider social, political, and ideological structures. Studying female athletes’ experiences of adversity and growth in this way would bring females’ experiences into the center of analysis, contextualize the sport experience and challenge assumption of traditional sport psychology research, thus allowing for new forms of knowledge to exist (Busanich & McGannon, 2010).

Conclusion The aim of the current chapter was to examine gender differences within the growth following adversity in sport literature. The chapter described several differences in how female athletes may experience adversity and provided potential explanations for unique experiences of adversity and growth, however as no research to date has specifically examined gender differences in regards to adversity and growth, much more research on the topic is needed. A review of three published studies on female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following adversity highlights the importance of social relationships in coping and growth processes that may be unique to female athletes, as well as the evident lack of research specific to females’ experiences. As the area of growth following adversity continues to grow in the field of sport psychology, identifying and understanding male and female athletes’ unique experiences and subsequent gender differences is a research avenue for fruitful discovery.

170 K. C. Neely, K. A. Tamminen, & N. L. Holt

Note 1 “Sex and gender are not interchangeable terms and should be properly outlined in sports medicine research. Sex is defined by characteristics encoded in DNA, such as reproductive organs and other physiological and functional characteristics. Gender is defined by social, cultural, and psychological traits linked to women and men through social context” (Schilaty, Bates, & Hewett, 2018, p. 440).

References Allen-Collinson, J. (2011). Feminist phenomenology and the woman in the running body. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 5, 297–313. doi:10.1080/17511321.2011.602584. Anderson, M. B. (2011). Who’s mental, who’s tough and who’s both? Mutton constructs dressed up as a lamb. In D. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.), Mental toughness in sport: Developments in theory and research (pp. 69–88). New York, NY: Routledge. Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., & Jubenville, C. (2009). Racial and gender differences on sources of acute stress and coping style among competitive athletes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 159–178. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.2.159-178. Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212–230. doi:10.1207/ s15327957pspr0903_2. Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2016). Demographic differences in sport performers’ experiences of organizational stressors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(3), 348–358. doi:10.1111/sms.12439. Brewer, B. W., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Tennen, H. (2017). Adversarial growth after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 134–144. doi:10.1123/jsep.2016-0210. Busanich, R., & McGannon, K. R. (2010). Deconstructing disordered eating: A feminist psychological approach to the body, food, and exercise relationship in female athletes. Quest, 62(4), 385–405. Carter, L. (2020). Feminist applied sport psychology. London, UK: Routledge. Covassin, T., Anderson, M., Petit, K. M., Savage, J. L., & Bretzin, A. C. (2019). Sex differences of sport-related concussions. In G. A. Bloom & J. G. Caron (Eds.), Psychological aspects of sport-related concussions (pp.127–146). New York: Routledge. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012). “It was hard, but it was good”: A qualitative exploration of stress-related growth in Division 1 intercollegiate athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health, 4, 297–319. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.693524. Helgeson, V. S. (2012). Gender and health: A social psychological perspective. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 519–537). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity-and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 234, 117–159. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Janoff-Bulman, P. (1992). Shattered assumptions. New York, NY: Free Press. Jin, Y., Xu, J., & Liu, D. (2014). The relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder and post traumatic growth: gender differences in PTG and PTSD subgroups. Social

Gender Differences 171

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49(12), 1903–1910. doi:10.1007/s00127-000140865-0865. Kerr, G., Jewett, R., MacPherson, E., & Stirling, A. (2016). Student-athletes’ experiences of bullying on intercollegiate teams. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 10(2), 132–149. doi:10.1080/19357397.2016.1218648. Kerr, G., Willson, E., & Stirling, A. (2019). Prevalence of maltreatment among current and former national team athletes. AthletesCAN. Retrieved from https://athletescan. com/sites/default/files/images/prevalence_of_maltreatment_reporteng.pdf. Korpelainen, R., Orava, S., Karpakka, J., Siira, P., & Hulkko, A. (2001). Risk factors for recurrent stress fractures in athletes. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(3), 304–310. doi:10.1177/03635465010290030901. Leahy, T., Pretty, G., & Tenenbaum, G. (2008). Prevalence of sexual abuse in organised competitive sport in Australia. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(2), 16–36. doi:10.1080/ 13552600208413337. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11–21. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e. Malcom, N. L. (2006). “Shaking it off” and “toughing it out”: Socialization to pain and injury in girls’ softball. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 495–525. doi:10.1177/ 0891241605283571. McDonough, M. H., Sabiston, C. M., & Ullrich-French, S. (2011). The development of social relationships, social support, and posttraumatic growth in a dragon boating team for breast cancer survivors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 627–648. doi:10.1123/jsep.33.5.627. McMillen, J. C., & Fisher, R. H. (1998). The perceived benefit scales: Measuring perceived positive life changes after negative events. Social Work Research, 22, 173–187. doi:10.1093/swr/22.3.173. Mosewich, A. D., Sabiston, C. M., Kowalski, K. C., Gaudreau, P., & Crocker, P. R. (2019). Self-compassion in the stress process in women athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 33, 23–34. doi:10.1123/tsp.2017-0094. Nattiv, A. (2000). Stress fractures and bone health in track and field athletes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 3(3), 268–279. doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(00)80036-5. Neely, K. C., Dunn, J. G. H., McHugh, T-L. F., & Holt, N. L. (2016). The deselection process in competitive female youth sport. The Sport Psychologist, 30, 141–153. doi:10.1123/tsp.2015-0044. Neely, K. C., Dunn, J. G. H., McHugh, T-L. F., & Holt, N. L. (2018). Female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following deselection. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 40173–185. doi:10.1123/jsep.2017-0136. Neely, K. C., McHugh, T-L. F., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2017). Athletes and parents coping with deselection in competitive youth sport: A communal coping perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.01.004. O’Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in response to challenge: An opportunity for a paradigm shift in women’s health. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy, 1, 121–142. Park, C. L. (2009). Overview of theoretical perspectives. In C. L. Park, S. C. Lechner, N. H. Antoni, & A. L. Stanton (Eds.), Medical illness and positive life change: Can crisis lead to personal transformation? (pp. 11–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Park, C. L., Cohen, L., & Murch, R. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x.

172 K. C. Neely, K. A. Tamminen, & N. L. Holt

Powell, J. W., & Barber-Foss, K. D. (2000). Sex-related injury patterns among selected high school sports. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(3), 385–391. doi:10.1177/ 03635465000280031801. Roper, E. A. (2012). Gender, identity, and sport. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 384–398). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rudolph, K. D. 2002. Gender differences in emotional responses to interpersonal stress during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 3–13. doi:10.1016/S1054-1139X (01)00383-00384. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2018). Can emotional disclosure promote sport injury-related growth? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30, 367–387. doi:10.1080/ 10413200.2017.1417338.. Salim, J., Wadey, R., & Diss, C. (2015). Examining the relationship between hardiness and perceived stress-related growth in a sport injury context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.12.004. Schaal, K., Tafflet, M., Nassif, H., Thibault, V., Pichard, C., Alcotte, M., … & Toussaint, J. F. (2011). Psychological balance in high level athletes: gender-based differences and sport-specific patterns. PloS One, 6(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019007. Schilaty, N. D., Bates, N. A., & Hewett, T. E. (2018). Relative dearth of sex differences’ research in sports medicine. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21(5), 440–441. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2017.10.028. Schilaty, N. D., Bates, N. A., Sanders, T. L., Krych, A. J., Stuart, M. J., & Hewett, T. E. (2017). Incidence of second anterior cruciate ligament tears (1990–2000) and associated factors in a specific geographic locale. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(7), 1567–1573. doi:10.1177/2325967117724196. Shultz, S. J. (2014). ACL injury risk in the physically active: Why are females more susceptible? Kinesiology Review, 4(1), 52–62. doi:10.1123/kr.2014-0076. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28– 36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002. Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., and Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 2–30. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1. Taylor, S. E. (2011). Affiliation and stress. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 86–100). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fightor-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.3.411. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Updegraff, J.A., & Taylor, S.E. (2000). From vulnerability to growth: Positive and negative effects of stressful life events. In J. Harvey & E. Miller (Eds.), Loss and trauma: General and close relationship perspectives (pp. 3–28). Philadelphia, PA: BrunnerRoutledge. Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., and Duda, J. L. (2006). Predicting young athletes’ motivational indices as a function of their perceptions of the coach- and peer-created climate. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 215–233. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.007.

Gender Differences 173

Vishnevsky, T., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., & Demakis, G. J. (2010). Gender differences in self‐reported posttraumatic growth: A meta‐analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(1), 110–120. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01546.x. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Evans, K., & Mitchell, I. (2011). Perceived benefits following sport injury: A qualitative examination. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 142–158. doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.543119. Wahl, C. A., Gnacinski, S. L., Nai, M. M., & Meyer, B. B. (2019). Psychological predictors of perceived stress and recovery in sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/spy0000175.

13 POSTTRAUMATIC GROWTH IN DISABILITY SPORT FOLLOWING SPINAL CORD INJURY A Narrative Approach James Brighton

Introduction Acquiring spinal cord injury (SCI) is a traumatic event in an individual’s life, impacting the physical and sensate functioning of the body and the psychological, social, cultural and emotional worlds that people inhabit (e.g., Cole, 2004; Linton, 2007; Murphy, 1990). The processes in which individuals cope and adjust to SCI over time are continuous and evolving (Sparkes & Smith, 2013), challenges made further problematic by the encountering of negative societal attitudes that position being disabled as weak, tragic and a medical “problem” to overcome (e.g., Oliver, 1996, 1998). In spite of these forms of oppression, research has emerged that acknowledges that under certain conditions, posttraumatic growth (PTG) may be experienced following SCI (e.g., Chun & Lee, 2008). According to Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995), PTG is demonstrated when survivors of traumatic destabilizing life events report growth in: changes in self; changes in relationships with others; and changes in philosophy of life and spiritual and/or existential beliefs. In doing so, catastrophic personal setbacks can be reconstituted as “redemptive” in which “bad events are expected to give way to good outcomes” (McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, & Bowman, 2001, p. 476). Historically, research into PTG has taken an individual psychologized perspective in analyzing how individuals have gained (or not) from experiencing an adverse situation. More recently, there has been a shift in emphasis in which the social and cultural resources available for individuals to make sense of experiences of PTG, and how these dynamics are active and evolving over time, have been advocated. In particular, acknowledging the storied nature of being, Sparkes and Smith (2013, p. 30) highlight the “centrality of narrative in the process of PTG (or otherwise) following catastrophic SCI” and how such an approach uniquely

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 175

reveals how dominant cultural storylines are enabling and/or constraining for PTG. They draw on the work of Frank (1995) who identified three dominant illness narratives operating within Western cultures which have the following basic storylines: (a) restitution: “Yesterday I was healthy, today I’m sick, but tomorrow I’ll be healthy again,” assuming that a fully restored body-self is “normal”; (b) chaos: “Life is never going to get better for me,” in which linear progression and remedy are replaced with vulnerability, futility, and impotence; and (c) quest: “I will meet suffering head on, accept it and use it. My illness journey is a quest,” situating that there is something to be achieved through disability and that bodily disruption is inevitable and can be reframed as a challenge and an opening up to new ways of being and living in the world. Building on this work, this chapter takes a narrative approach in uncovering the complex dynamics of disablement, PTG, and sport over time by drawing on life history interviews with four disabled athletes with acquired SCI: Jack (68; athletics), Sebastian (37; wheelchair basketball), Jenny (26; wheelchair rugby) and Deakin (21; wheelchair rugby) (all pseudonyms). Taking the standpoint of “story-analyst,” structural narrative analysis (Riessman, 2008) reveals the storytelling dynamics through which individuals construct ideal body-selves as disabled athletes. Such an approach reveals the carnal realities of participants, the trauma they have experienced, and the repertoire of dominant narratives drawn upon in (re)constructing valued senses of self through disability sport and how these emplotments are enabling and/or constraining in experiencing PTG. As Day and Wadey (2016, p. 132) highlight, while our understandings of the benefits of sport and/or physical activity among trauma survivors have recently proliferated, “the process by which these positive outcomes are gained is less well understood.” Accordingly, this chapter sheds further light on the role that engagement in disability sport has on PTG following SCI over time through using narrative methodology to analyze these processes.

Experiences of Trauma For Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin, acquiring SCI was a dramatic and “epiphinal” life event (Denzin, 1989). Prior to SCI, Jack was a regional-level rugby player, athlete, and gymnast. Aged 18 he fell 60 feet from a “big wheel” fairground ride, landing on a brick wall and breaking his back. Sebastian was a professional footballer who at age 26 was involved in a catastrophic motorbike crash in which he required resuscitating twice by paramedics: I was coming back [from lunch] through the country lanes and I just went around a corner and my back wheel blew. I jack-knifed and I couldn’t hold the bike – it threw me across the road and into a car coming the other way. I hit the car with my head and went straight over the top of it into the air and down the other side. Luckily we were close to a hospital and a paramedic

176 James Brighton

arrived on the scene within minutes just as I stopped breathing. He literally saved my life; stopped people moving me, stopped people taking my helmet off and stuff like that and resuscitated me twice before moving me into the air ambulance. I was airlifted to [hospital] and then as my injury was too serious, lifted me to [a hospital specializing in SCI] where they completed a ten-hour operation on my spine, pinning and plating my back. Jenny’s “only passion” as a child was riding her horses. She had lessons from the age of four and by the age of 14 she owned her own horse and competed at regional level. Aged 17, coming back from the cinema on a Friday night she was involved in a fatal car crash in which she broke her neck, and her boyfriend, who was driving, was killed. Daniel (21) was an elite level gymnast, who broke his neck when attempting a complex and risky routine at a demonstration event: It was my final routine of the day, I had done it hundreds of times, could probably have done it with my eyes closed, sort of run up to it which was the move I was doing which was a double back summersault with a 360 degree twist. So I ran up to it and as I took off for it for the final big move I just remember flying through the air and thinking and seeing the floor coming towards me and knew that it wasn’t good … I hit the floor face first and rolled onto my back and I remember sort of thinking that it wasn’t that bad so I sort of tried to get up and couldn’t get up, nothing happened at all. Although asking participants “What happened?” risks perpetuating medicalizing and tragic understandings of disability and reopening emotional wounds in their telling, listening to stories of acquirement of SCI are important in exploring how individuals experience, reflect on, and (re)narrate body-self-culture relationships over time. As Joseph (2011) reinforces, illuminating trauma stories reveal how core beliefs and assumptions are shattered – which are underlying requirements in order to experience PTG. Exploring the enduring, complex, and multiple levels of physical, psychological, and emotive trauma in acquiring SCI therefore contributes to the analysis of the development of PTG in differing ways. For example, for Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin, acquiring SCI were near death experiences (NDEs) in which life was “snatched back from the very brink of death itself” (Wren-Lewis, 2004, p. 90) highlighting the personal distress endured and the profound impact on the development of positive life change. While not always articulated consciously, NDEs impact experiences of PTG. This can be demonstrated through attending to “rehabilitation stories.”

Rehabilitation Stories In the aftermath of the traumatic acquirement of SCI, participants were required to spend time in general hospitals to stabilize their conditions before attempting

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 177

to come to terms with their new body-selves in specialized spinal rehabilitative units. For Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin, being in hospital following SCI was an uncertain and anxious time that was problematic to recall and narrate. As Jenny reflects on her earliest memories of living with SCI: Being in hospital was the worst, most scary time of my life. My earliest memories are hazy. One of the first things I remember thinking is what is going on. I kept asking my Dad, because I always wanted to sit up, because I felt so sick, I just kept being sick and I remember saying “I just want to sit up”, but my Dad said “You can’t sit up because you have broken your neck.” My Dad was very honest with me. He was like “Look Jenny, you have broken your neck, you’re paralyzed and that is why you cannot sit up.” I didn’t think it would affect my arms though. So I asked him to pass me a drink and like I wasn’t allowed to drink anything. They had these little sponges that they dip in the water and they give you. I remember him passing me this sponge and I tried to pick it up – I didn’t have any finger function at the time and I couldn’t. So I was like “Dad, why can’t I pick it up, what’s wrong?” and he was like, “It’s because you have broken your neck.” Being in hospital acted as a “stabilizing” period in which participants were required to assimilate the trauma they had experienced and new bodies they inhabited. With their storylines in “chaos” (Frank, 1995) hospitals provided “narrative asylum” (Douglas & Carless, 2009) in which Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin were protected from cultural requirement to imagine future senses of self and were able to concentrate on survival. Having been stabilized, all participants expressed relief at being transferred to the spinal unit in which they could begin their rehabilitation through engaging in various physical and psychological regimen. Here, through medical discourse aimed at restoring functionality and normative standards of able-bodiedness, participants developed disciplined body-selves lived through “restitution narratives” (Frank, 1995). Although important in transgressing chaos, these storylines limited potential for PTG through cradling participants and nurturing singular and pathologizing ways of being, restricting opportunity to make sense of newly acquired impairment in social contexts or beyond parameters of normalcy. Emphasis remained on medical intervention and cure, valorized “heroic” stories of survival and overcoming the tragedy of SCI. This can be demonstrated in the narrowly defined restitution narrative offered by Sebastian: I was obnoxious about it [overcoming disability], that this person [the surgeon] was telling me I was not going to be able to walk again. I simply was not having that. Like basically, why is he telling me that? How would he know? So he looked at a few X-rays saying my back isn’t great but I wasn’t

178 James Brighton

having it. One minute you’re telling me my back is nicked, not severed – so I should be able to walk again. Do you know what I mean? It’s nicked, not severed. It’s not permanent. He can say what he wants to, it’s not damaged that much. I’m definitely not having that … I wanted to get straight back out there and start walking again … I was adamant that this was going to be a temporary thing and I was just going to carry on. Such narrative action prioritizes attempts to walk again and desire to restore a previous, able-bodied, sporting body. Remaining firmly entrenched in a former sense of self and reclamation of a more highly valued “lost body” (Charmaz, 1987; Yoshida, 1993) makes it difficult for Sebastian to develop personally valued senses of self as a disabled man, exploring alternative identities in present time (Sparkes & Smith, 2003). This is compounded by cultural pressure for people to live a restitution story others want to hear, in his words “I wanted people to say ‘Sebastian’s back!’ and as quickly as possible.” In seeking restitution, therefore, disability is positioned as tragic, pitiful, and something to be overcome as part of “the modernist expectation that for every suffering there is a remedy” (Frank, 1995, p. 80). A further limitation of restitution is that when the person is dying or their impairment chronic there is “no other story to fall back on” (Frank, 1995, p. 94). When restitution fails, therefore, alternative valued storylines need preparing otherwise narrative wreckage will ensue, preventing the imagination of future senses of self and leaving the individual in turmoil. This is articulated by Jack, who through narratives of chaos and failed restitution, fears embodying negative medicalized stereotypes of tragedy and charity: And I am lying there thinking that I was going to die; I thought I was going to die. I was 18 years of age. But I was flown by helicopter to [spinal unit], and when I came around the next morning I saw all of these guys pushing around in wheelchairs, I thought shit, that’s the last thing I want to be a cripple. That’s the last thing I wanted. If someone had given me a tablet then I probably would have taken it … my life was going to be as a cripple, I just thought “Shit, I want to die” … I thought that was me finished. I couldn’t see anything at all. For Jack, this was a dark time in which he could see “no way out,” in which he considered death. However, as is now discussed, for Jack and other participants, engaging in disability sport provided the catalyst for the creation of new, transformative, empowering storylines as part of what Day and Wadey (2016) term narratives of “positive accommodation” in which sport provided mastery experiences, enhanced relationships, corporeal understanding, and enhanced life philosophies.

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 179

“Being Dragged Out of the Darkness”: Disability Sport as a Catalyst for Growth Exiting rehabilitation units, participants undertook a corporeal grieving process and nostalgia for their once able sporting bodies. Pre-SCI sport was recalled as a pleasurable activity providing discipline, direction, a “glorified sense of self” (Alder & Alder, 1999) and commitment to “a complete way of life” created through deeply engrained and embodied routines (Bourdieu, 1990). As Deakin reflects: Gymnastics was my absolute life; I lived and I breathed it. It was all I did, all I cared about. My Mum was a gymnast, so as early as I remember I was doing it. By the time I was 12 I was British champion and part of the national team. Training was pretty much 24/7, I spent my entire life outside of school in the gym. I loved it; gymnastics was my entire life before I broke my neck. Acquiring disability perhaps proved particularly challenging for participants as each had developed a strong sense of athletic identity prior to SCI, placing limitations on the construction of other positively framed storylines (Smith & Sparkes, 2002; Sparkes & Smith, 2002). Feelings of loss were confounded by unfulfilling and sentimental early attempts to re-engage in previous able-bodied sporting cultures. Jenny indicated that trying to ride again was “the most emotional experience of my life, I just didn’t like it. It was so different and it was so frustrating, it was nothing like it was before,” whereas Sebastian harbored feelings of resentment towards ablebodied players whom he was now trying to coach football as they reminded him of his previously able sporting body. Eventually, Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin entered disability sport. Jenny was introduced to wheelchair rugby through meeting an ex-GB athlete a couple of years after her injury and joined her local club. After five years of coaching able-bodied football. Sebastian joined a basketball club and Deakin, captivated by watching “people smashing into each other,” thought “I want to do that!” and started training with his local wheelchair rugby club. Some 45 years ago, Jack’s entrance into disability sport occurred from a serendipitous meeting in a pub: I knew that I didn’t want to be some sort of charity case, but I didn’t know my way out. There was no way academically that I was going to rock the boat. And work wise, there wasn’t much. So I just spent all of my time down at the pub getting fatter and fatter and drunker and drunker. I was pissed all the time. I would get up at about 5 o’clock every day in the afternoon and head back down the pub, I would drink until it closed. I was pretty good at it actually … But I was … I was just a piss head. I remember coming home and my mother saying to me – I need to have a word with you. She said “All you ever do is drink; you’ve turned into a kind of a lush”

180 James Brighton

[someone who noticeably drinks lots of alcohol]. I was like, “So what?” you know. I was a horrible bastard I have got to be honest, and she said, “I’m your mother I love you and I always will, but I don’t like you, I don’t think that you’re a very nice person.” Fuck, you know I was gutted, my mother saying that to me. So I cried myself to sleep … And um, I can remember going down the pub one night, I would have been about 22 I expect, and I met this bloke and he said “Take a look at yourself, look at the state you’re in. All you do is drink. Come down the gym with me.” Down the gym, how the hell I am I going to go down the gym, I thought. So anyway, eventually I plucked up the courage to go down this gym and it saved my life; it dragged me out of my darkness. For Jack, making a decision to do something productive and go to the gym provided a “way out” of chaos and self-pity offering an alternative to restitution and dragging him out of the “darkness” he experienced post-SCI. Sport and physical activity were therefore the central catalysts through which participants were able to begin to experience PTG, develop new storylines and construct “new” personally valued identities as disabled sporting bodies. Jack uses the metaphor of a “jigsaw puzzle” to describe this process of narrative reconstruction: It wasn’t until I went to my local gym that I could come to terms with myself. That’s what did it for me, I’m not saying that works for everybody I’m not saying it can’t … but it might be writing, it might be painting, it might be a partner, a girl or a boyfriend I don’t know … it might be coming to college … whatever it might be that helps you turn that corner, but for me it was sport and going down my local gym. And it was like a snowball, that domino effect from going down the gym to someone saying why don’t you join the [athletics] club now, you’d be great you know, being a great role model and then you know … from there my jigsaw puzzle, I started putting together a few pieces … I got down [the gym] and I started training and I was like “wow.” I found myself. I am back. I had found my comfort zone. This is where I wanted to be, this is what I was born to do, to train. That’s all I wanted to do, to train. I was gladiator. I couldn’t do anything else; I wasn’t born to do anything else. For Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin the decision to engage with disability sport was a life-changing experience, providing opportunities to master new physical skills and develop corporeal understandings of their newly impaired bodies while (re)engaging in a team with a shared sense of purpose as part of a narrative of “positive accommodation” (Day & Wadey, 2016). Importantly, disability sport participation enabled the “pleasures” of physical movement (Wellard, 2012) to be experienced again, which had become restricted to participants as disabled people. Increasingly therefore, disability sport provided the social and cultural dynamics for the narration of new identities as “disabled athletes.”

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 181

Constructing Disabled Athletic Identity Over time, the development of a disabled athletic identity became increasingly important for participants. Progressively, they became disciplined through sportspecific routines of training that were directed towards improving sporting performance, rather than governed by medical discourses promoting rehabilitation. In doing so, emphasis switched from restitution of an able body, to a “high performance” disability sport narrative, centered “around performance values of single-minded dedication to sport and prioritization of winning above all other areas of life” (Douglas & Carless, 2009, p. 213). By accepting the contingency of their bodies these high performance narratives acted as “quests” (Frank, 1995) through which participants were able to imagine “new” and valued senses of self as disabled athletes. For example, Jack’s focus turned from restitution of an able-bodied self to winning a medal at the Paralympic Games: I swore to myself that by hook or by crook, I wanted a Paralympic medal; I didn’t care if I died afterwards. So I went home and I put this piece of foil on my bedroom wall. And to me that was representative of a medal – it was gold foil, not silver or bronze, I didn’t see the point of silver or bronze, it was a gold medal. I didn’t see the point, you have got to aim big; you have got to train to win. You don’t train to come second. You train to win. You don’t train to come second and go out there and think, “Ah brilliant, we are here to play and it doesn’t matter if we come second.” Fuck off. So I had this bit of gold foil, and every morning I would wake up and see this bit of gold foil and for the next three years that’s all I did was train. Whenever there was a competition I went. I was gone; I was on a plane, train, boat, wherever it was … I was totally, 100 percent focused on what I wanted to do and what I wanted to achieve. Here, Jack’s commitment to a high-performance narrative in which “sacrifice, dedication, discipline and an overriding focus on winning” (Douglas, 2009, p.176) is clear as he both accepts the contingency on his body and pride at becoming a disabled athlete. Although adopting elite sporting narratives present a move out of chaos and narrowly defined forms of restitution, they can be dangerous and limit opportunity for PTG. Over time and increasingly (re)subjected to intense sporting rules and regimens, participants bodies risk once again becoming dissociated from their selves and transformed into an “it” to be treated (Frank, 1995). In turn, this contributed to the reproduction of the same risky instrumental rationalities towards the self and others that were prevalent in participants’ sporting lives pre-SCI. This can be demonstrated, for example, through narrating particular responses to pain, including “hiding” its presence or “welcoming” it (see Smith & Sparkes, 2008) as a corporeal marker of re-engagement in aggressive sporting competition once again, further legitimatizing the reconstruction of athletic identity. As Jenny celebrates

182 James Brighton

immediately after a training session “I had forgotten how much I love pain! It’s good to be back!” It may also contribute to practices such as “boosting,” the intentional initiation of autonomic dysreflexia among athletes with SCI for the purposes of performance enhancement (e.g., Webborn, 1999; Sparkes & Brighton, 2019) or “negative conditioning” in which disabled athletes undertake a strength and conditioning regimen to become more impaired so as to remain within classification boundaries (Brighton, 2018). In addition to restoring a normative sense of athletic identity performances of risk, aggression, bravado, and machismo in sport were deemed essential for participants in dispelling stereotypes of “disabled people as weak,” distinguishing themselves from other “less able” wheelchair athletes and communicating a restored sense of able-bodied hegemonic masculinity (Lindemann & Cherney, 2008; Lindemann, 2010). This is not limited to male participants but for Jenny, extends as an expression of “female masculinity” (Halberstam, 1998) competing in the hypermasculine sport of wheelchair rugby (Gard & Fitzgerald, 2008): Yeah, I mean that is the best bit about it really, hitting people … it’s barbaric! Yeah, it makes you feel GOOOOOD! If it’s a legal hit and you have done what you’re supposed to do, you’re like “Stay down on the floor mate!” Haha! You wouldn’t care about it! I suppose it’s the nature of our sport really, like when someone gets tackled and taken to the floor in ablebodied rugby, it’s good to watch, and if you’re the one that’s taken them down … that can be quite satisfying. Having experienced SCI and subsequent physical, psychological, and emotional trauma, participants readily (re)engaged in aggressive acts and reproduced risktaking in sport, narrating themselves as more resilient and unbreakable as evidence of undergoing PTG. As Sebastian reinforces, “I’ve pretty much died twice and already broken my neck, what’s the worst that’s going to happen to me now?” For those who have so intimately tasted death, participants (re)emerge as more fearless versions of their previous selves in the way they participate in sport. As Lyng (1990) suggests, “Having survived the challenge [of risk] one feels capable of dealing with any threatening situation” (p. 860). In describing the above, participants’ accounts are consistent with previous research that has demonstrated how disability sport has been hailed as “the savior of compulsory heterosexual masculinity” (McDonald, 2007, p. 220) by providing an arena through which men can “create and sustain a sense of masculine competence” (Berger, 2009, p. 138). Although this provides a “seductive cure” for the crises of disability (Kleiber & Hutchinson, 1999, p. 146) some disability sport participation results in a “reproduction of undesirable traits of hegemonic masculinity” (Berger, 2009, p. 138) limiting opportunity for PTG in wider areas of life. Developing narratives that represent movement away from restoration of a former sense of masculine self through a more radical re-storying may offer

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 183

opportunity for more complete self-development and “heroic journey” (Brock & Kleiber, 1994; Kleiber & Hutchinson, 1999; Sparkes & Smith, 2005, 2008) such as developing empathy and positively framing intimate sexual relationships (Sparkes, Brighton, & Inkle, 2012). In becoming disabled athletes, therefore, participants exemplified “narratives of assimilation” (Day & Wadey, 2016) through demonstrating resilience to trauma and the (re)development of life meanings and athletic identity pre-SCI. However, in developing high-performance narratives or becoming (re)socialized into aggressive disability sports such as wheelchair rugby, participants risked limiting PTG through reproducing narrow storylines and instrumental, risky, and dangerous rationalities towards their own and others’ bodies that were valorized within the masculine disability sport subcultures they now inhabited. For Jack and Jenny in particular, who achieved international sporting success and media recognition as multiple-time Paralympians, their identities as disabled athletes entered public and political spaces as they became “supercrips,” the epitomes of PTG.

Embodying the Supercrip and PTG The supercrip narrative discerns that with hard work, courage, and determination individuals can heroically “overcome” their disability and succeed against the odds in spite of their impairment by demonstrating abilities beyond that which are commonly expected of disabled people (Berger, 2009; Hardin & Hardin, 2004). Although moving for the able-bodied majority, the supercrip acts as an hegemonic device reinforcing negative, medical, and tragic understandings of disability by promoting human interest story (i.e., pity) over athletic achievement (Peers, 2009). Resultantly, disabled athletic performances are consumed as a form of “inspiration porn” (Grue, 2016), especially for individuals who have acquired disability through events that are deemed traumatic and emotional. Due to both their trauma stories and successes in disability sport, Jack and Jenny had supercrip narratives bestowed upon them. Over a 23-year athletics career, Jack competed at five Paralympic games, winning multiple medals and breaking world records. Jenny successfully competed at two Paralympic games, winning a gold medal. Neither, however, considers themselves as “heroic,” as Jenny reaffirms “A hero? No. I have done nothing. I wouldn’t see myself as a hero … umm … maybe somebody that people can aspire to. I have done nothing heroic, I have been put in a certain situation and made the decisions I have made.” In spite of this both Jack and Jenny emphasized the sacrifices, commitment, and dedication they had made and the ability required for elite-level competition. Medals were deemed as symbolic of elite athletic success, not merely tokens of participation and the courageous “overcoming” of disability, as discussed by Jack: When I did the Paralympics in 1984 this woman had bought her son along to see and as I am wheeling up to compete she said “I think that this is

184 James Brighton

brilliant, do you think that my son could have a go?” Because he was disabled she thought he could do the Paralympics, no training or anything. If he’s disabled he can have a go then? But it is often people’s perceptions, “Oh, he’s in a wheelchair and disabled, he’s in the Paralympics so why can’t I do it or my son or daughter?” Jack’s frustrations lie in the unrealistic expectations made by others of what can be achieved in elite disability sport, undermining his sporting abilities and achievements. As Silva and Howe (2012, p.190) iterate, although alluring to for disabled people to aspire to, idealizing the supercrip narrative feeds the “illusion that athlete lives can be controlled by human agency,” fostering unrealistic, neoliberal-informed expectations of achievement. Another critique of the supercrip narrative is that it restricts the expression of alternative forms of identity available as disabled people, limiting the importance of growth in other areas of an individual’s life as discussed by Peers (2009, p. 659), an ex-Paralympian, who contests the limited constructions of her identity by the media: “I read my new coherent life narrative: my salvation from the depths of disability by the progressive, benevolent empowerment of sport. My destiny reads as a coming of age. I am the heroic Paralympian: pedestal, medal and all” (p. 659). Peers’ “imagined” identity reinforces dominant ideologies of individualism and heteronormativity, elevating these storylines over and above other aspects of her (feminine) identity. By continuing to reduce the complexity of disability experience to a single focus there is a “lost opportunity to acknowledge the pervasiveness of difference” (Silva & Howe, 2012, p. 191) and the potential for growth in alternative areas of one’s life diminished. The supercrip, however, remains a popular narrative for the able-bodied majority to conceptualize disability and a common identity to aspire to for disabled athletes, especially given the increasing interest in the Paralympic and disability sport events like the Invictus Games. However by promoting pity and amazement without actively contesting others’ perceptions of the ability and skill required to compete in disability sport, the supercrip narrative trivializes performance, perpetuating ableist assumptions about the capability of disabled people, and belittling the importance of alternative forms of PTG such as the development of alternative valued senses of self, wellbeing, and the development of fulfilling relationships with others. Having said this, over time Jack and Jenny were able to use the exposure and power their disabled sporting bodies occupied in political spaces, manipulating their supercripdom for more altruistic outcome. After his retirement, Jack used his notoriety to raise money to develop disability access to sports facilities by completing charity pushes and Jenny used her increasing media profile to promote wheelchair sport and athlete funding. Both Jack and Jenny therefore used their privileged positioning as supercrips to develop “activist identities” assisting others involvement in disability sport (Smith, Bundon, & Best, 2016). In becoming “communicative bodies” (Frank, 1995), and as part of developing a “collective

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 185

disabled consciousness” (Yoshida, 1993, p. 230) through highlighting the oppression faced by disabled people and promoting disability sport, Jack and Jenny demonstrated broader qualities of PTG through empathetic altruistic activism. In reflecting on their sporting journeys and valued senses of self as disabled athletes in ways that can positively affect the lives of others, Jack and Jenny enacted what McAdams et al., (2001, p. 474) term “redemptive narratives,” in which their experiences have undertaken “transition from a bad, affectively negative life scene to a subsequent good, affectively positive life scene.” What was deemed negative in acquiring SCI is “redeemed, salvaged, mitigated, or made better in light of the ensuing good.”

Conclusion and Future Research Directions Within this chapter, structural narrative analysis is provided that explores the multiple storylines that four people who traumatically acquired SCI drew on in eventually becoming disabled athletes, and over time how these dominant cultural narratives were enabling or constraining resources in experiencing PTG. Frank’s (1995) chaos, restitution, and quest narrative typologies were useful in helping illuminate how participants made sense of their newly impaired bodies. In the aftermath of SCI, participants experienced “chaos” and were afforded narrative asylum in medical institutions. Immediate narrative action concentrated on restitution of an able-bodied former self (Yoshida, 1993). However, by accepting the contingency of their bodies, participation in disabled sport acted as a “narrative catalyst” through which Jack, Sebastian, Jenny, and Deakin were able to imagine “new” senses of self. Whilst sport may be an alluring a form of restitution of a previous sporting self, disabled athletes may become vulnerable to the cultural repertoire of storylines that they are exposed to within disability sport, including dangerous adherence to a “high-performance narrative” (Douglas & Carless, 2009) or the supercrip narrative restricting opportunity for PTG in other areas of their lives. Over time, however, and under certain conditions, participants were able to transgress exclusive ways of being and develop empathy, altruism, and activism, and broader qualities of PTG. Constructing positive storylines and experiencing PTG was, of course, not a linear process (Becker, 1997). Rather the narratives told, reconstructions of self, and experiences of PTG were profoundly limited by continual trauma at different moments in participants’ life stories such as enduring pain, undergoing multiple surgical procedures, and experiencing episodes of depression as participants shifted between dominant narratives. Thus, further longitudinal research is required that more comprehensively unpacks the transitions made between ideal narrative types and PTG over time across disability sport careers (Wadey & Day, 2018). Such investigations should acknowledge the heterogeneousness of disabled sporting bodies and the uniquely situated experiences of PTG. In particular, how PTG may be experienced and enhanced in specific areas of disabled athletes’ lives, such

186 James Brighton

as the development of relationships and how positive qualities of empathy, altruism and activism can be cherished, requires more in depth scrutiny. Importantly, future research should include analysis of the lives of disabled people who do not experience PTG as a result of sporting participation or disabled athletes who are unable to embody supercrip identities in embodying evidence of PTG to others. Any such explorations should consider disabled athletes as gendered, sexed, raced, and classed beings and should address a spectrum of disability sports, helping better understand the conditions under which narratives are constructed and PTG experienced. One way of achieving this could be to develop storylines in which the pleasure and enjoyment (Wellard, 2012) of disability sport are advocated, as opposed to situating disability sport as a vehicle to rehabilitation or supercripdom.

References Alder, P. A. & Alder, P. (1999). College athletes in high profile media sports: The consequences of glory. In J. Coakley & P. Donnelly (Eds.), Inside sports (pp. 162–170). New York, NY: Routledge. Becker, G. (1997). Disrupted lives: How people create meaning in a chaotic world. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Berger, R. (2009). Hoop dreams on wheels: Disability and the competitive wheelchair athlete. New York, NY: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Brighton, J. (2018). Disability, spinal cord injury and strength and conditioning: Sociological considerations. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 40, 29–39. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0000000000000419. Brock, S.C. & Kleiber, D.A. (1994). Narrative in medicine: the stories of elite college athletes’ career-ending injuries. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 411–430. doi:10.1177/ 104973239400400405. Charmaz, K. (1987). Struggling for a self: Identity levels of the chronically ill. In J. Roth & P. Conrad (Eds.), Research in the sociology of health care: A research manual (pp. 283–321). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc. Chun, S. & Lee, Y. (2008). The experiences of posttraumatic growth for people with spinal cord injury. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 877–890. doi:10.1177/1049732308318028. Cole, J. (2004). Still lives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Day, M. & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography. London, UK: Sage. Douglas, K. (2009). Storying myself: Negotiating a relational identity in professional sport. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 1, 176–190. doi:10.1080/ 19398440902909033. Douglas, K., & Carless, D. (2009). Abandoning the performance narrative: Two women’s stories of transition from professional sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 213–230. doi:10.1080/10413200902795109. Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Posttraumatic Growth in Disability Sport 187

Gard, M., & Fitzgerald, H. (2008). Tackling Murderball: masculinity, disability and the big screen. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2, 126–141. doi:10.1080/17511320802222008. Grue, J. (2016). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability and Society, 31, 838–849. doi:10.1080/09687599.2016.1205473. Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hardin, M., & Hardin, B. (2004). The “supercrip” in sport media: Wheelchair athletes discuss hegemony’s disabled hero. Sociology of Sport Online, 7(1). Retrieved from http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v7i1/v7i1_1.html. Joseph, S. (2011). What doesn’t kill us: The new psychology of posttraumatic growth. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kleiber, D., & Hutchinson, S. (1999). Heroic masculinity in the recovery from spinal cord injury. In A. C. Sparkes & M. Silvennoinen (Eds.), Talking bodies: Men’s narratives of the body and sport (pp. 135–155). Finland: University of Jyvaskyla, SoPhi. Lindemann, K. (2008). “I can’t be standing up out there”: Communicative performances of (dis)ability in wheelchair rugby. Text and Performance Quarterly, 28, 98–115. doi:10.1080/10462930701754366. Lindemann, K. (2010). Cleaning up my (father’s) mess: Narrative containments of “leaky” masculinities. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 29–38. doi:10.1177/1077800409350060. Lindemann, K., & Cherney, J. L. (2008). Communicating in and through “Murderball”: Masculinity and disability in wheelchair rugby. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 107–125. doi:10.1177/2167479513514847. Linton, S. (2007). My body politic: A memoir. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 851–886. doi:10.1086/229379. McAdams, D., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A. H., & Bowman, P.J. (2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality & Psychology Bulletin, 27, 474–485. doi:10.1177/0146167201274008. McDonald, I. (2007). Situating the sport documentary. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 208–225. doi:10.1177/0193723507304608. Murphy, R.F. (1990). The body silent. New York, NY: Norton. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. London, UK: Macmillan. Oliver, M. (1998). The social model of disability: A sociological phenomenon ignored by sociologists? In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The disability studies reader: Social science perspectives. London, UK: Continuum. Peers, D. (2009). (Dis)empowering Paralympic histories: Absent athletes and disabling discourses. Disability and Society, 24, 653–665. doi:10.1080/09687590903011113. Riessman, K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. London, UK: Sage. Silva, C. F., & Howe, P. D. (2012). The [in]validity of supercrip representation of Paralympic athletes. Journal for Sport and Social Issues, 36, 174–194. doi:10.1177/0193723511433865. Smith, B., Bundon, A., & Best, M. (2016). Disability sport and activist identities: A qualitative study of narratives of activism among elite athletes’ with impairment. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 139–148. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.07.003. Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2002). Men, sport, spinal cord injury, and the construction of coherence: Narrative practice in action. Qualitative Research, 2, 143–171. doi:10.1177/ 146879410200200202.

188 James Brighton

Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2008). Changing bodies, changing narratives and the consequences of tellability: A case of becoming disabled through sport. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 217–236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01033. Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2003). Men, sport, spinal cord injury and narrative time. Qualitative Research, 3, 295–320. doi:10.1177/1468794103033002. Sparkes, A. C., & Brighton, J. (2019). Autonomic dysreflexia and boosting in disability sport: Exploring the subjective meanings, management strategies, moral justifications, and perceptions of risk among male, spinal cord injured, wheelchair athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1623298. Sparkes, A. C., Brighton, J., & Inkle, K. (2012). Disabled sporting bodies as sexual beings: Reflections and challenges. In E. Anderson & J. A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on sport, gender and sexuality. London, UK: Routledge. Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2002). Sport, spinal cord injury, embodied masculinities and the dilemmas of narrative identity. Men and Masculinities, 4, 258–285. doi:10.1177/ 1097184X02004003003. Sparkes, A. C. & Smith, B. (2005). When narratives matter: men, sport and spinal cord injury. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 81–88. doi:10.1136/jmh.2005.000203. Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2008). Men, spinal cord injury, memories, and the narrative performance of pain. Disability and Society, 23, 679–690. doi:10.1080/ 09687590802469172. Sparkes, A.C., & Smith, B. (2013). Spinal cord injury, sport, and the narrative possibilities of posttraumatic growth. In N. Warren and L. Mandersen (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life: A global perspective. New York, NY: Springer. Tedeschi, R., & Calhoun, L. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wadey, R., & Day, M. (2018). A longitudinal examination of leisure time physical activity following amputation in England. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37, 251–261. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.11.005. Webborn, A. D. (1999). “Boosting” performance in disability sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 74–75. Wellard, I. (2012). Body-reflexive pleasures: Exploring bodily experiences within the context of sport and physical activity. Sport, Education and Society, 17, 21–33. doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.607910. Wren-Lewis, J. (2004). The implications of near-death experiences for understanding posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 90–92. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/20447208. Yoshida, K.K. (1993). Reshaping of self: A pendular reconstruction of self and identity among adults with traumatic spinal cord injury. Sociology of Health and Illness, 15, 217–245. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep11346888.

14 SPORT INJURY-RELATED GROWTH A Conceptual Foundation Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

Introduction Sporting injuries have long been recognized as a major risk factor for psychological distress among athletes (see Putukian, 2016; Souter, Lewis, & Serrant, 2018). On the one hand, this distress has been observed to be associated with negative repercussions (e.g., depression, risk of suicide) and the critical need to change policies and practices to support the welfare of injured athletes (see McCradden & Cusimano, 2019; Wadey, Day, Cavallerio, & Martinelli, 2018). On the other hand, researchers have also observed this distress to co-exist with positive-by products (e. g., increased resilience, strengthened relationships; Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019). These positive changes have been labelled as sport injury-related growth (SIRG; RoyDavis, Wadey, & Evans, 2017), which is a concept gaining research attention in applied sport psychology (e.g., Brewer, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Tennen, 2017). However, rather than focusing on the meaning of SIRG, researchers until now have become more intrigued with identifying its underlying mechanisms. In this chapter, we shift the attention back to the meaning and experiences of SIRG by, first, comparing SIRG with related concepts such as posttraumatic growth (PTG) and stress-related growth (SRG) to provide a clear conceptual foundation for future research. Next, we extend previous research by thematically synthesizing SIRG experiences. Four new dimensions of SIRG are proposed (i.e., corporeal growth, athletic growth, personal growth, and social growth) and future research directions.

A Conceptual Foundation The first mention of the positive by-products of sport injury was made by WieseBjornstal, Smith, and LaMott (1995) who proposed a model of psychological

190 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

response to athletic injury and rehabilitation. In their description of the model, the authors suggested positive by-products were a potential recovery outcome. It was reported: The target or core of the conceptual model is physical and psychological recovery … For example, some athletes become reinjured … Conversely, some athletes may recover physically or psychologically beyond their preinjury levels. For example, after enduring the enormous challenge of a long arduous rehabilitation, athletes may find that they are more dedicated, focused, and mentally tough than they were before the injury or physically, through the intensive strengthening activates required in rehabilitation programs, athletes may find that they are stronger than ever after recovery. (Wiese-Bjornstal et al., 1995, pp. 27–28) Building upon this early speculation, Udry, Gould, Bridges, and Beck (1997) were the first researchers to empirically examine whether athletes do experience positive by-products following injury. From interviewing 21 athletes from the United States Olympic Skiing Team who had experienced season-ending injuries, 81 raw data themes were identified that formed three general dimensions: (1) personal growth (i.e., gained perspective, personality development, developed aspects of non-skiing life, and learned better time management), (2) psychologically based performance enhancement (i.e., increased efficacy, enhanced motivation, and realistic expectations), and (3) physical-technical development. It was concluded: “Our findings clearly showed that athletes derived long-term benefits from being injured” (p. 246). Following this preliminary study, and heeding recommendations from Udry et al. (1997), researchers turned their gaze to the antecedents and mechanisms underlying these positive by-products: resilient personality trait of hardiness (Salim, Wadey, & Diss, 2015), positive reappraisal and social support (Salim, Wadey, & Diss, 2016), reflective practice (Wadey, Evans, Evans, & Mitchell, 2011), cultural scripts (Roy-Davis et al., 2017), and prior adversities (Wadey, Evans, Hanton, Sarkar, & Oliver, 2019). Yet, despite the merits of these empirical findings from a theoretical and applied perspective (viz. Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019), a critical perusal of this research reveals the conceptual foundation of this evidence-base lies on shaky ground. Consistent with the wider growth literature (see Chapter 1), researchers have used different terms within and between studies (e.g., perceived benefits, SRG, PTG), the terms used have not always clearly defined and conceptualized, and there is often limited justification why certain terms are used and not others. We believe it is important that scholars are reflexive in their selection and labeling of terms because they have a key role to play in determining the nature and direction of research and provide conceptual boundaries to help guide theoretical and empirical development.

Sport Injury-Related Growth 191

With the aim of providing a more solid conceptual foundation to build upon, and to create a more unified, identifiable, and context-specific conceptualization, Roy-Davis et al. (2017) proposed the term SIRG. This concept was defined as perceived positive changes relating to a sport injury experience, which has subsequently underpinned and informed recent research (e.g., Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019). However, how SIRG relates to and differs from other commonly used terms such as PTG and SRG has not yet been fully considered. Towards helping sport psychology researchers make more informed decisions in their use of terminology and to help guide theoretical and empirical development in this area, we now consider how SIRG relates to and differs from other terms across three areas: (a) severity versus meaning of adversity, (b) meaning and direction of positive change, and (c) the validity of growth reports. We hope this provides a clearer conceptual foundation for future research in this area moving forwards.

Comparing SIRG with Related Concepts Regarding the severity versus meaning of adversity, PTG is defined as positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with “seismic” events (i.e., traumatic events that shatter a person’s assumptive world and core beliefs; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), whereas SRG concerns positive changes following less seismic and more commonly experienced stressors (Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996). Given these are two commonly used terms in the literature, they would appear to be encouraging researchers to adopt a more threshold-dependent definition of adversity to separate more “seismic” from less “seismic” events (see Day & Wadey, 2016). In contrast, SIRG is less concerned with the severity of event or physical injury (see Kampman, Hefferon, Wilson, & Beale, 2015) and more with the subjective meaning of the injury to the athlete. According to research on SIRG (e.g., Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Wadey, Roy-Davis, et al., 2019), giving meaning to an injury experience occurs between an inner world of thought-feeling and an outer world of shared meanings and prevailing storylines, which would appear to resonate with the concept of relational meaning proposed by Lazarus (1991, 1998; Lazarus & Launier, 1978). In sum, the difference between severity versus meaning of adversity is an important one, because it has implications regarding how the terms are operationalized and the methodological choices that are made by researchers such as participant sampling (see Kampman et al., 2015). Another difference between these terms relates to the meaning and direction of growth or positive change following an adverse event. Regarding the meaning of change for PTG, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) view change as that which goes beyond what was the previous status quo. PTG is not simply a return to baseline; it involves moving beyond previous levels of functioning by identifying new ways of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving following adversity. This view of change is also echoed in the conceptualization of SRG, which was influenced by the work of Schaefer and Moos (1992) who were concerned with “enhanced” social

192 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

resources, “enhanced” personal resources, and “new or improved” coping skills (Park et al., 1996, p. 73). Informed by this research, this view of change was initially adopted by Roy-Davis et al. (2017), who defined and conceptualized SIRG. Examples of SIRG that reflect this view of change include constructing new relationships with others and adopting new prosocial and healthy behaviors (e.g., Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim et al., 2016). However, for some, this view of change has been criticized as being overly restrictive (e.g., Janoff-Bulman, 2004; McMillen, 2004; Park, 2010). For example, recent research on SIRG has expanded this conceptualization of change (Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019) to include a raised awareness of one’s preinjury self. Examples of SIRG that reflect this type of change include the realization of one’s own personal resilience and a recalling of one’s preinjury values (e.g., Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019). These examples of change do not reflect the rebuilding of a person’s fundamental assumptions about themselves and their worlds that Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) refer to when describing PTG. These examples perhaps more align with Park’s (2010) research that locates the changes associated with PTG and SRG within the broader concept of meanings made (i.e., the products of meaning-making processes). According to Park, there are many different meanings that can be made following adversity (e.g., sense-making, reattributions, identity reconstruction, restored or changed meaning in life). In contrast to PTG and SRG, which are solely concerned with new changes, SIRG would appear more synonymous with the concept of meanings made, which is more inclusive of the different types of changes that can be experienced following adversity. In terms of the direction of change, the conceptualizations of PTG and SRG focuses more on what individuals gain from the adverse experience. For example, items from the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) include: “I developed new interests” and “I have a stronger religious faith.” In a similar vein, items from the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS; Park et al., 1996) include: “I developed new relationships with helpful others” and “I gained new knowledge about the world.” Arguably, these examples of positive change are interested in what people gain from their experience. However, certain individuals might also interpret a loss as a positive change. Drawing from the SIRG literature, empirical research has identified injured athletes to report the following as positive changes: less physical strength, less independence, less optimism, less pessimism, and detaching from negative relationships (e.g., Salim et al., 2016; Salim & Wadey, 2018). In contrast to PTG and SRG, and perhaps more aligned with meanings made (Park, 2010), SIRG is less concerned with the direction of the change and more concerned that the athlete deems the change to be meaningful to them (Wadey, Evans, et al., 2019). A final conceptual difference that separates SIRG from PTG and SRG is the validity of participants’ reports of the positive by-products experienced. To expand, there is an ongoing debate on whether reports of the positive by-products following adverse events reflect genuine positive change. Alternative interpretations suggest

Sport Injury-Related Growth 193

these changes are motivated illusions, self-presentation concerns, and/or adherence to cultural scripts (e.g., McFarland & Alvaro, 2000; Maercker & Zoellner, 2004). McFarland and Alvaro provided evidence that individuals who reported growth following adversity did so not because they had changed in positive ways, but because they derogated their pre-event selves. The authors, therefore, concluded that self-reports of growth reflect, at least in part, motivated illusions to cope with distress. However, rather than expanding their original conceptualizations of PTG and SRG from considering this evidence-base, the authors who coined the terms continue to delimit their concepts to only veridical changes (see Park, 2009; Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018). In contrast, SIRG does not delimit itself to genuine or illusory reports. Indeed, perceptions of SIRG from injured athletes might reflect authentic positive changes or, for example, adherence to a cultural script. Both genuine and illusory reports constitute SIRG. From our perspective, such conceptual diversity should be encouraged and celebrated rather than stifled because it opens multiple ways of understanding the complexity of this phenomenon.

Defining Sport Injury-Related Growth From comparing SIRG with related concepts and accounting for recent empirical findings (e.g., Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019), SIRG can be defined as a context-specific form of meanings made that can be defined as the end-results of inner (i.e., psychological, physical, embodied) and/or outer (i.e., observable actions) changes that give meaning to a sport injury experience(s) as a result of certain environmental factors (e.g., physical resources) and a cognitive, relational, and cultural meaning-making process. The positive changes can involve authentic and illusory reports and regardless of the direction of change (i.e., gain or loss), what is important is that an injured athlete deems the change to meaningful to them. While we do not foresee these changes or meanings made to be static or stable end-points, rather they are likely to be dynamic and fluid over time, this awaits future research attention. We hope this conceptual foundation helps to provide a platform for future research in this area moving forward. Expanding upon this conceptual foundation further, the following section aims to accumulate and consolidate isolated knowledge of the dimensions of SIRG. Before doing so, a critical review of the dimensions of growth reported in the wider growth literature is provided to contextualize our thematic synthesis.

A Multidimensional Conceptualization: A Brief Review There is growing consensus among scholars that growth following adversity is a multidimensional concept. Yet, in the mid-1990s there was confusion in the literature as to whether growth was a unidimensional or multidimensional phenomenon. In their development of the SRGS, Park et al. (1996) used principle components analysis and identified the 50 items to load on one factor. The authors interpreted

194 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

this finding to mean that growth-related experiences are interrelated. At the same time, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) had developed the PTGI. Using principle components analysis, five dimensions were identified: relating to others (e.g., “A sense of closeness with others”), new possibilities (e.g., “I established a new path for my life”), personal strength (e.g., “I discovered that I’m stronger than I thought I was”), spiritual change1 (e.g., “I have a stronger religious faith”), and appreciation of life (e.g., “An appreciation for the value of my own life”). Despite these differing perspectives, subsequent research has provided further clarity of the dimensionality of growth. For example, the items on the SRGS have been found to represent a three-, seven-, and eight-factor structure (e.g., Roesch, Rowley, & Vaughn, 2004) and studies have replicated the factor structure of the PTGI (e.g., Morris, ShakespeareFinch, Rieck, & Newbury, 2005). In sum, there appear consensus that growth following adversity is a multidimensional phenomenon. However, it is also important that researchers recognize these represent nomothetic2 dimensions. Taking a more ideographic approach, other researchers have identified the dimensions of growth following adversity to vary across at least three areas. First, dimensions differ across context. For example, Ihle, Ritsher, and Kanas (2006) added additional dimensions (e.g., “Perceptions of Earth”) and items (e.g., “I gained a stronger appreciation of the Earth’s beauty”) to the PTGI for astronauts and cosmonauts following a stressful spaceflight experience. Second, dimensions are population-specific. Hefferon (2012) interviewed 83 female breast cancer survivors and identified a new general (e.g., corporeal awareness) and specific (i.e., new relationship with the body) growth dimension that extended the PTGI. Third, dimensions vary cross-culturally. For example, the original five-factor structure of the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) has been identified to have three dimensions in the Turkish version (Dirik & Karanci, 2008) and four in the Japanese version (Taku et al., 2007). Furthermore, other researchers have added additional dimensions. For example, to develop a scale appropriate for Latinas living in the United States, qualitative interviews identified a culturally relevant dimension (i.e., patience; Abraído-Lanza, Guier, & Colón, 1998). Following pilot interviews with Israeli youth, two new dimensions (i.e., feelings of responsibility, connection to community and land) were added to the PTGI (Laufer & Solomon, 2006). Taken together, this brief review illustrates the importance of identifying context-, population-, and culture-specific dimensions. Accounting for context (e.g., rehabilitation) and population (i.e., injured athletes), the next section provides a thematic synthesis of the dimensions of SIRG.

Sport Injury-Related Growth Dimensions: A Thematic Synthesis The purpose of our thematic synthesis was to integrate individual studies on SIRG in order to provide a more cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the context-specific dimensions of SIRG. We hoped that creating an integrative

Sport Injury-Related Growth 195

synthesis of the dimensions of SIRG would provide a platform for future research to continue to advance our understanding of the phenomenon from a conceptual, methodological, and theoretical perspective. A five-step approach was employed to complete the synthesis (see Williams & Shaw, 2017). The first three stages involved identifying the research question (i.e., what are the context-specific dimensions of SIRG?), completing a systematic search, and identifying relevant papers based on an inclusion criterion of qualitative studies with a research question, aim, or objective that intended to study growth following sport injury. Following a systematic review of the literature, nine papers were identified (Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim et al., 2016; Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019; Tracey, 2011; Udry et al., 1997; Wadey et al., 2011; Wadey, Clark, Podlog, & McCullough, 2013; Wadey, Evans, et al., 2019). The final two stages involved conducting a thematic synthesis of all the text labeled as “findings” or “results” in the primary research reports (Williams & Shaw, 2017). This process involved generating “data-driven” descriptive themes before reorganizing the themes into higher-level analytical themes. Higher-level themes were created by using the research question to structure an integrative and meaningful synthesis that aimed to go beyond the primary research finding by identifying novel dimensions of SIRG. We now present the four identified dimensions: corporeal growth, athletic growth, personal growth, and social growth.

Corporeal Growth This dimension is characterized by developing a greater or new awareness, understanding, and relationship with one’s corporeal self (e.g., being more compassionate with one’s body), as well as behavior changes that reflect and prioritize physical health (e.g., injury prevention). To expand, it was identified that injured athletes became increasingly aware of how they took their physical health for granted prior to their injury and how their injury experience provided them with an opportunity to learn “what the body can do and what the body can’t do” (Wadey et al., 2013, p. 132) as well as deepening or eliciting new sources of knowledge about the body (i.e., anatomy, physiology, physical injury risk factors, specific types of physical injuries, physical rehabilitation, and nutrition). This awareness and understanding enabled some injured athletes to cultivate a stronger or new connection with their physical self, which included listening and interpreting messages from their body such as understanding how it responds to training. For example, one athlete reported, “I listen to my body now. I know how much pain is too much and when to stop so I don’t get injured” (Roy-Davis et al., 2017, p. 47). These inner changes (i.e., awareness, increased knowledge) occasionally led to behavioral changes that prioritized physical health. Examples include eating healthier, changing training regimes to incorporate injury prevention (e.g., warming up and cooling down properly, adding in or prioritizing physical recovery, training smarter rather than harder), and the cessation of risk-taking behaviors. Further, athletes reported investing an increased amount of time into their strength and conditioning,

196 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

resulting in them altering their fitness, flexibility, range of motion, muscular/body control, speed, and physical strength (increase or decrease) to resist future (re)injury (Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Wadey et al., 2011, 2013; Wadey, Evans, et al. 2019). One athlete reported, “I definitely become physically stronger because of my injury and I have had less niggles since returning back” (Salim et al., 2016, p. 164).

Athletic Growth This dimension is sport-specific and performance-oriented and encompasses a renewed or new appreciation and outlook on sport, expanding one’s sporting intelligence, refining or developing new athletic abilities and qualities (i.e., tactical, technical, and psychological), and, for some, ultimately improving sport performance outcomes. Regarding athletes’ relationship with their sport, it was identified that they had returned to sport with a deeper or new sense of purpose and meaning for their sport and a greater appreciation of prior sporting accomplishments (Udry et al., 1997; Wadey et al., 2013). For example, one athlete reported, “People have always said to me that ‘you never know what you have until you lose it.’ But I never understood how important skiing was to me until it was completely taken away from me” (Udry et al., 1997, p. 240). As well as a change in one’s relationship with sport, evidence also supported injured athletes returning with a heightened sporting intelligence. To expand, athletes reported refining or developing a newfound knowledge of their sport from observing teammates or other performers playing (e.g., improved game awareness, increased knowledge of positional play, and role clarity). One coach reported, “I’ve always tried to encourage players to come back to training if they’re not partaking themselves … to keep them involved in the game. And when they come back when they are fit, they find they are technically more aware and they see the game from a different perspective” (Wadey et al., 2013, p. 131). Regarding improved athletic abilities, it was identified that athletes become more well-rounded, learned new athletic skills, and improved their technique (e.g., Udry et al., 1997; Wadey et al., 2011, 2013; Wadey, Evans, et al. 2019), which, for some, led to them exceeding preinjury sporting performance outcomes (Salim et al., 2016). One basketball player reported: If I did score during a game [before the injury], it was through lay-ups and getting under the basket and being aggressive. I couldn’t practice that when I was injured and I soon came to the realization that my game was unidimensional. So, I started practicing my shooting, which opened up a new part of my game. (Wadey et al., 2011, p. 151) As well as physical abilities, sport-specific psychological qualities (e.g., more focused in training and competition, enhanced sport motivation, increased sport

Sport Injury-Related Growth 197

efficacy/confidence) and skills (e.g., setting and working towards more realistic goals) were strengthened. For example, one athlete reported, “the fire inside of me was burning hotter than ever because something was taken away from me that has never been taken away before” (Udry et al., 1997, p. 243). These strengthened psychological qualities for some athletes were also associated with optimizing training parameters (e.g., greater commitment to training and training intensity, heightened pain tolerance; Udry et al., 1997; Wadey et al., 2013).

Personal Growth This dimension is characterized by a strengthened past self and/or a shift to a new current self. Indeed, the injury experience was reported to make athletes realize their own capabilities and strengthen pre-existing qualities. For example, one athlete reported a greater awareness of his resilience, “I never thought it (injury) would change me, but I have learned so much about myself. I wouldn’t have called myself a resilient or strong person. I always thought I was weak. But … I overcame my injury. So, I must be stronger than I thought” (Salim & Wadey, 2018, p. 13). Other examples include realizing one’s selfish nature (Salim & Wadey, 2018), that actions have consequences (Salim & Wadey, 2018), and how one manages adversity (Salim & Wadey, 2018), as well as strengthening certain beliefs such as “hard work pays off” (Wadey et al., 2013). Regarding a new current self, examples clustered around three subthemes: (1) one’s developed or newfound ability to manage stress (e.g., improved ability to cope, coped better with future adverse events, able to put things into perspective, learned to manage and express one’s emotions; Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Wadey, Evans, et al., 2019); (2) a new appreciation, outlook, and/or direction in life (e.g., value being in the here and now, appreciate the little things; Udry et al., 1997; Wadey et al., 2013). For example, one athlete reported, “I appreciate from my injury and operations that my life doesn’t need to be dominated by sport and the need to play sport. There are other more important things in life” (Roy-Davis et al., 2017, p. 46–47); and (3) personal qualities (e.g., increased resilience, more open, more caring, more mature, less selfish, less critical, greater patience, acceptance of vulnerabilities, more or less independent, more or less optimistic, more or less pessimistic, and more authentic; Udry et al., 1997; Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2018; Wadey et al., 2013). The following quote from a sport psychologist reflects more authenticity: Yes, I’ve seen growth. I’ve seen athletes change from being injured. I remember one athlete I worked with, he learned a lot about himself during that period of time. I’d known him for quite some time and he always thought he was quite a positive character. He thought he was happy. He thought he loved his life and he was doing exactly what he wanted to do. But, deep down, that was just a mask. He was presenting himself in a way

198 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

that wasn’t true. I spent a long time working with him through his injury experience, in terms of helping him to understand who he actually was as an individual. He became more authentic. More genuine. More him. (Wadey, Roy-Davis, et al., 2019, p. 8)

Social Growth This theme is characterized by a greater awareness, appreciation, and strengthening of one’s social support network in and outside of sport, as well as a deepened or new understanding of the importance of reciprocal relationships and associated behavioral outcomes (e.g., helping others in need, returning the favor, actively seeking out distressed teammates to offer support, spending more time with friends and family; Wadey et al., 2013; Salim & Wadey, 2019). By awareness and appreciation, we mean heightened perceived social support. That is, athletes across various studies (Salim & Wadey, 2019; Tracey, 2011; Roy-Davis et al., 2017) reported how the injury gave them a greater awareness of and insight into their social network (e.g., “realization of who they can and cannot rely on in times of need”; Salim & Wadey, 2018, p. 13). For example, one athlete reported, “People always say you know who your real friends are when you are at your worst. And I think I was at my worse when I was injured; I was a nightmare to be around. But it was good to recall who stuck by me and who didn’t” (Salim & Wadey, 2018, p. 12). This greater awareness, together with other injury-related experiences, for some athletes was perceived to result in them strengthening their social circle by forming closer relationships within their pre-existing network (Salim & Wadey, 2019), weakening (or detaching) from others (Roy-Davis et al., 2017), and developing new relationships and expanding their social circle (e.g., physiotherapists, doctors, other injured athlete; Wadey et al., 2013). For example, a coach reported: When you go through a traumatic experience, relationships can form and strengthen so to speak. Their relationship with me got closer, because we weren’t just dealing with swimming anymore; we were dealing with the injury. And the longer you spend with anybody the more you learn about them and you become more of a friend than a coach. (Wadey et al., 2013, p. 131)

Future Research Directions There are several directions for future research. First, researchers should use the proposed definition of SIRG in this chapter to guide future theoretical and empirical development. For example, given that injured athletes construct positive changes as a result of environmental factors and a cognitive, relational, and cultural meaning-making process, future quantitative research should consider

Sport Injury-Related Growth 199

using multilevel modeling to account for the various “levels” of influence in the meaning-making process (see Cornelius, Brewer, & Van Raalte, 2011). Regarding qualitative research, future researchers could also consider using certain traditions to understand the dominant social-cultural narratives that structure injured athletes’ experiences (e.g., narrative inquiry; Sparkes & Smith, 2013) or use conversational analysis to understand how injured athletes coconstruct meanings with others (Faulkner & Finlay, 2012). That said, it is also important that future researchers are not delimited by this definition. For example, it might be that future researchers seek to expand the conceptualization of SIRG by moving beyond athletes’ personal experiences of growth. For example, an injury might result in growth or positive change indirectly to others such as teammates, coaches, and partners (e.g., vicarious-SIRG; see Day, Bond, & Smith, 2013; Henschen & Heil, 1992). In addition, McCradden and Cusimano (2019) recently reported how following the tragic death of Rowan Stringer, a young rugby player for whom a string of head injuries culminated in her death, Rowan’s Law was introduced into Ontario legislation. The law mandates the removal of play of any youth athlete suspected to have a concussion and makes concussion education mandatory for certain individuals involved in youth sport. Although efforts should always be put in place to avoid injuries wherever possible, when unavoidable injuries do occur in sport, it is important to consider how we can learn from them to bring about positive change to policies and practices to better support the future health and welfare of injured athletes and their support network. This call-to-action is timely, given that the magnitude of sports-related concussions has risen exponentially in recent years (e.g., Enniss et al., 2018). In sum, future research should examine if injury can bring about positive change at a micro (i.e., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro level (e.g., organizational, cultural). Following the thematic synthesis, there are several directions for future research. First, future researchers could use these four dimensions to develop a valid and reliable quantitative measure of SIRG. Up until now, researchers have used the PTGI (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) and SRGS (Park et al., 1996) to assess SIRG (e.g., Brewer et al., 2017; Salim et al., 2015; Wadey, Podlog, Galli, & Mellalieu, 2016). However, these measures were not developed for injured athletes and do not include many of the domains identified in this chapter (i.e., corporeal growth, athletic growth). Therefore, the items in the PTGI and SRGS lack face and content validity. A new measure developed specifically for injured athletes that represents their experiences would significantly extend the current research landscape and help provide a platform for future research. Second, the research conducted to date on SIRG has largely been conducted in Westernized countries (i.e., United Kingdom, United States); therefore, there is a need for researchers to expand SIRG research to multicultural settings. Given the recent calls in sport injury psychology to explore the social-cultural context (Wadey, Roy-Davis, et al., 2019), this future avenue of research is timely and has

200 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

tremendous scope to construct a rich evidence-base that could subsequently inform culturally competent professional practice. Finally, several researchers have considered the underlying mechanisms leading to SIRG across the various dimensions (e.g., Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Salim et al., 2016). However, it might be wrong to assume that the underlying path to each of these dimensions is the same. Therefore, rather than “lumping” together the four dimensions of SIRG, a fruitful future avenue of research might be to develop a substantive theory for each dimension.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have debated the conceptual similarities and differences between SIRG and other related terms (e.g., SRG, PTG) and provided greater conceptual clarity around the meaning of SIRG. We have also extended research by providing a thematic synthesis of the dimensions of SIRG. Four new dimensions were identified: corporeal growth, athletic growth, personal growth, and social growth. Taken together, we hope this chapter provides a solid conceptual foundation for future research to build upon. Future research avenues include the need for a valid and reliable measure of SIRG, a more culturally diverse evidence-base, and to explore the pathways within rather than across dimensions of SIRG.

Notes 1 Spiritual change has recently been extended to spiritual-existential change (Tedeschi, Cann, Taku, Senol‐Durak & Calhoun, 2017) 2 Nomothetic stems from the Greek nomos, which means applying to people generally. Ideographic stems from the Greek idios, which means applying to the individual.

References Abraído-Lanza, A. F., Guier, C., & Colón, R. M. (1998). Psychological thriving among Latinas with chronic illness. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 405–424. doi:10.1111/j.15404560.1887.tb01227.x. Brewer, B. W., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Tennen, H. (2017). Adversarial growth after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 134–144. doi:10.1123/jsep.2016-0210. Cornelius, A. E., Brewer, B. W., & Van Raalte, J. L. (2011). Applications of multilevel modeling in sport rehabilitation research. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 4, 387–405. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2007.9671843. Day, M. C., Bond, K., & Smith, B. (2013). Holding it together: Coping with vicarious trauma in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2012.06.001. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004.

Sport Injury-Related Growth 201

Dirik, G., & Karanci, A. N. (2008). Variables related to posttraumatic growth in Turkish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 15, 193–203. doi:10.1007/s10880-008-9115-x. Enniss, T. M., Basiouny, K., Brewer, B., Bugaev, N., Cheng, J., Danner, O. K., et al. (2018). Primary prevention of contact sports-related concussions in amateur athletes: A systematic review from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 3. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2017-000153. Faulkner, G., & Finlay, S-J. (2012). It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it! Conversational analysis: A discursive methodology for sport, exercise, and physical education. Quest, 54, 49–66. doi:10.1080/00336297.2002.10491766. Hefferon, K. (2012). Bringing back the body into positive psychology: The theory of corporeal posttraumatic growth in breast cancer survivorship. Psychology, 3, 1238–1242. doi:10.4236/psych.2012.312A183. Henschen, K. R., & Heil, J. (1992). A retrospective study of the effect of an athlete’s sudden death on teammates. Journal of Death and Dying, 25, 217–223. doi:10.2190% 2FTUU3-Y7J9-QLRG-C08G. Ihle, E. C., Ritsher, J. B., & Kanas, N. (2006). Positive psychological outcomes of spaceflight: An empirical study. Aviation Space Environmental Medicine, 77, 93–101. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16491575. Janoff-Bulman, R. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Three explanatory models. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 30–34. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447198. Kampman, H., Hefferon, K., Wilson, M., & Beale, J. (2015). “I can do things now that people thought were impossible, actually, things that I thought were impossible”: A meta-synthesis of the qualitative findings on posttraumatic growth and severe physical injury. Canadian Psychology, 56, 283–294. doi:10.1037/cap0000031. Laufer, A., & Solomon, Z. (2006). Posttraumatic symptoms and posttraumatic growth among Israeli youth exposed to terror incidents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 429–447. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.429. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of R. S. Lazarus: An analysis of historical and perennial issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in international psychology (pp. 287–327). New York, NY: Plenum. Maercker, A., & Zoellner, T. (2004). The Janus face of self-perceived growth: Toward a two-component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 41–48. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447200. McCradden, M. D., & Cusimano, M. D. (2019). Staying true to Rowan’s Law: How changing sport culture can realize the goal of legislation. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 110, 165–168. doi:10.17269/s41997-019-00174-8. McFarland, C., & Alvaro, C. (2000). The impact of motivation on temporal comparisons: Coping with traumatic events by perceiving personal growth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 327–343. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.327. McMillen, J. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: What’s it all about? Psychological Inquiry, 15, 48–52. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447201. Morris, B. A., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Rieck, M., & Newbery, J. (2005). Multidimensional nature of posttraumatic growth in an Australian population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 575–585. doi:10.1002/jts.20067.

202 Ross Wadey and Ciara Everard

Park, C. L. (2009). Overview of theoretical perspectives. In C. L. Park, S. C. Lechner, N. H. Antoni, & A. L. Stanton (Eds.), Medical illness and positive life change: Can crisis lead to personal transformation? (pp. 11–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effect on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257–301.doi:10.1037/a0018301. Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stressrelated growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996. tb00815.x. Putukian, M. (2016). The psychological response to injury in student athletes: A narrative review with a focus on mental health. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50, 145–148. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095586. Roesch, S. C., Rowley, A. A., & Vaughn, A. A. (2004). On the dimensionality of the stress-related growth scale: One, three, or seven factors? Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 281–290. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_04. Roy-Davis, K., Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2017). A grounded theory of sport injury-related growth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 35–52. doi:10.1037/spy0000080. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2018). Can emotional disclosure promote sport injury-related growth? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30, 376–387. doi:10.1080/ 10413200.2017.1417338. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2019). Using gratitude to promote sport injury-related growth. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1626515. Salim, J., Wadey, R., & Diss, C. (2015). Examining the relationship between hardiness and perceived stress-related growth in a sport injury context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.12.004. Salim, J., Wadey, R., & Diss, C. (2016). Examining hardiness, coping and stress-related growth following sport injury. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28, 154–169. doi:10.1080/10413200.2015.1086448. Schaefer, J., & Moos, R. (1992). Life crises and personal growth. In B. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 149–170). Westport, CT: Praeger. Souter, G., Lewis, R., & Serrant, L. (2018). Men, mental health and elite sport: A narrative review. Sports Medicine, 19, 4–57. doi:10.1186/s40798-018-0175-7. Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2013). Spinal cord injury, sport, and the narrative possibilities of posttraumatic growth. In N. Warren & L. Manderson (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life (pp. 129–143). Dordrecht: Springer. Taku, K., Calhoun, L. G., Tedeschi, R. G., Gil-Rivas, V., Kilmer, R. P., & Cann, A. (2007). Examining posttraumatic growth among Japanese university students. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 20, 353–367. doi:10.1080/10615800701295007. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/ jts.2490090305. Tedeschi, R. G., Cann, A., Taku, K., Senol-Durak, E., & Calhoun, L. G. (2017). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: A revision integrating existential and spiritual change. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30, 11–18. doi:10.1002/jts.22155. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sport Injury-Related Growth 203

Tracey, J. (2011). Self-cultivation and meaning through the experience of injury rehabilitation: A case study of two female basketball players. Journal of Excellence, 15, 28–39. Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to season-ending injuries. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 229–248. doi:10.1123/jsep.19.3.229. Wadey, R., Clark, S., Podlog, L., & McCullough, D. (2013). Coaches’ perceptions of athletes’ stress-related growth following sport injury. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 125–135. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.08.004. Wadey, R., Day, M., Cavallerio, F., & Martinelli, L. (2018). The multilevel model of sport injury: Can coaches impact and be impacted by injury? In R. Thelwell & M. Dicks (Eds.), Professional advances in sports coaching: Research and practice (pp. 336–357). New York, NY: Routledge. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Evans, K., & Mitchell, I. (2011). Perceived benefits following sport injury: A qualitative examination of their antecedents and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 142–158. doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.543119. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Hanton, S., Sarkar, M., & Oliver, H. (2019). Can preinjury adversity affect postinjury responses? A 5-year prospective, multi-study analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01411. Wadey, R., Podlog, L., Galli, N., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2016). Stress‐related growth following sport injury: Examining the applicability of the organismic valuing theory. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/sms.12579. Wadey, R., Roy-Davis, K., Evans, L., Howells, K., Salim, J., & Diss, C. (2019). Sport psychology consultants’ perspectives on facilitating sport injury-related growth. The Sport Psychologist. doi:10.1123/tsp.2018-0110. Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., & LaMott, E. E. (1995). A model of psychologic response to athletic injury and rehabilitation. Athletic Training: Sports Health Care Perspectives, 1, 16–30. Williams, T. L., & Shaw, R. L. (2017). Synthesizing qualitative research: Meta-synthesis in sport and exercise. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. New York, NY: Routledge.

15 ADVERSE EXPERIENCES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH Can Sport Play a Role in Growth Following Psychologically Traumatic Events? William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

Introduction Traumatic experiences in children (i.e., under the age of 11) and youth (i.e., 11–24 years old) are a growing social health concern, given both the prevalence that is now documented (Felitti et al., 1998; United States Centers for Disease Control, 2016; United Nations General Assembly, 2006) and a rising awareness of the resulting consequences to health and development across the lifespan (Anda et al., 2006; Chapman et al., 2011; Rovi, Chen, & Johnson, 2004). Estimates suggest more than one-third of children and youth have experienced a traumatic event (Fletcher, 2003), and that individuals who have experienced multiple traumatic events during childhood are more likely to experience depression, have difficulty controlling their emotions, use illicit drugs, perpetrate in domestic violence, and suffer from alcoholism (Anda et al., 2006). In response to this, scholars have begun to examine not only the detrimental effects of trauma, but also if and how growth can occur following traumatic experiences. Within this chapter, we conceptualize growth primarily through the lens of resilience (e.g., Ungar, Ghazinour, & Richter, 2013; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). Resilience can be defined as the capacity to sustain one’s wellbeing and achieve positive outcomes in the face of trauma or adversity (Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). Resilience is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, grounded within an ecological framework that stresses the importance of individual, family, community, and environmental determinants of resilience (Ungar et al., 2013). Sport has the potential to intersect various systems within a human ecological framework, and thus presents an opportunity to serve as a growth-supporting domain for children and youth affected by trauma. Moreover, given the large number of children and youth engaged in organized sports worldwide, coaches

Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth 205

and sport science professionals work closely with children and youth affected by trauma. Therefore, an understanding of how sport does (or does not) contribute to growth is critical to address. The purpose of the current chapter is to review the existing evidence base on the role sport and physical activity can play for children and youth who have experienced or are currently experiencing trauma. Within this, we will examine potential pathways for growth following trauma. In doing so, we direct the readers to the following assumptions that guide this chapter: (a) trauma occurrence should be viewed through a developmental lens, as data show that the type and developmental timing of trauma exposure influence responses across the lifespan (Dunn, Nishimi, Powers, & Bradley, 2017; Schalinski et al., 2016); (b) growth can occur following trauma, and for the sake of those who experience traumatic events, we hope growth does occur; however, this does not negate the devastating effects experienced as a result of trauma (D’Andrea, Ford, Stolbach, Spinazzola, & van der Kolk, 2012); (c) the potential for growth following trauma, while ideal, should not be considered normative (Wortman, 2004); and (d) the presence of growth does not mean the absence of distressing experiences nor the absence of symptoms (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Literature Review In this section, we provide an overview of the scientific literature that broadly addresses the intersection of sport, physical activity, and trauma. In doing so, we will first review evidence from interventions aimed at personal growth following traumatic events with physical activity generally, as well as sport more specifically. Next, we will examine possible facilitators and barriers to growth in sport and physical activity settings for individuals who have experienced trauma. Finally, we will highlight organizations intentionally using sport to work with children and youth who have experienced traumatic events, as this enhances our understanding of best current practices and helps with the translation of current evidence into practice.

Sport and Physical Activity Interventions Relatively few studies have been conducted to specifically examine the impact sport and/or physical activity has on children and youth who have experienced traumatic events. From a mechanistic standpoint, one could consider physical activity, and the physical activity accrued through sport, to yield some positive outcomes for children and youth who have experienced traumatic events. Notably, research has suggested similar neurobiological responses involved in psychological trauma and exercise (Schnurr & Green, 2004), with researchers suggesting that physical activity can help regulate the autonomic nervous system and facilitate an adaptive response to chronic stress (Streeter, Gerbarg, Saper, Ciraulo, & Brown,

206 William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

2012). While limited research has directly tested this hypothesis, researchers have shown that physical activity interventions can reduce trauma symptomology (Newman & Motta, 2007), as well as reduce trauma symptom severity (Diaz & Motta, 2008) in samples of institutionalized youth who have experienced traumatic events. Thus, preliminary evidence suggests physical activity might serve as a protective factor to help ameliorate negative symptoms following traumatic events. A growing body of literature has also provided preliminary evidence that mind–body practices (e.g., yoga, dance) can help reduce symptomology and facilitate personal growth following traumatic events. One promising area of research is the positive effects of yoga for individuals who have experienced trauma. Previous authors have deemed yoga as a potentially evidence-based trauma treatment (Racco & Vis, 2015), as well as an area of promising practice (Spinazzola, Rhodes, Emerson, Earle, & Monroe, 2011) for children and youth who have experienced trauma. Van der Kolk et al. (2014) demonstrated that a ten-week yoga program could reduce symptomology in adult women with chronic PTSD. Moreover, in a series of follow-up studies, Rhodes, Spinazzola, and van der Kolk (2016) reported that the frequency of yoga practice was associated with decreases in PTSD symptom severity 18 months post-intervention. Aside from symptom reduction, Rhodes (2015) reported that claiming peaceful embodiment (e.g., experiences of inner strength, self-acceptance, authenticity) was a growth experience facilitated through yoga participation. In addition to research on adults who have previously experienced traumatic events, Culver, Whetten, Boyd, and O’Donnell (2015) reported decreased trauma symptomology for children living in Haitian orphanages after participation in either a yoga intervention or an aerobic dance group. Aside from yoga, martial arts (Grodin, Piwowarczyk, Fulker, Bazazi, & Saper, 2008; van Ingen, 2011, 2016) and dance (Levine & Land, 2016) have also been suggested as beneficial mind–body practices for trauma survivors. In their qualitative meta-study, Levine and Land reviewed nine research articles that examined the use of dance movement therapies (DMT) with trauma survivors. The authors concluded that DMT facilitated mind–body connections (see also Chapter 10 on corporeal posttraumatic growth), increased mobility, helped create healthy physical relationships, and helped cultivate new relationships with movement, suggesting a growth process could occur through DMT. Along with research examining the impact of physical activity of individuals who have experienced trauma, research exploring the role of sport to promote growth after trauma is also limited. In one of the first studies to examine a sport intervention in the context of children and youth affected by trauma, Dyck (2011) reported findings from a sport intervention at a disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) camp for youth who were former child soldiers during the 11-year civil war in Sierra Leone. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 13 former child soldiers and four adult camp administrators across two different DDR sites. Interview data suggested that the inclusion of sport gradually helped

Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth 207

participants to: (a) reduce the overall levels of violence in the camp, (b) integrate members of the DDR camp with external sport teams, (c) build social networks, and (d) escape from the trauma of their past. However, Dyck (2011) also noted that sport initially allowed for the continuation of violence and wartime tactics among the youth. Further, sport largely benefited older male youth, as sport in the DDR camps became a “masculinised activity … which played into male aggression and gender-based roles” (p. 408). Thus, while sport may provide benefits for some, in the context of war and trauma, sport also risks “perpetuating complicated post-war gender-based violence, which requires attention and sensitivity” (p. 408). Others have also reported mixed findings related to sport following war and trauma. For example, Ravizza (2012) reported on data gathered from field observations, interviews with key stakeholders, and surveys from children in Northern Uganda, where former child soldiers were engaged in sport. It was reported that sport facilitated personal and community benefits (e.g., positive identity, inclusion, social belonging, cohesion), and yet also served as a source of isolation, stigma, and conflict. Further, Richards, Foster, Townsend, and Bauman (2014) reported data from an 11-week sport intervention with 1,462 youth who were displaced from over 20 years of civil war in Northern Uganda. Data in this study showed that boys in the intervention groups reported a statistically significant increase of depression-like symptoms, again suggesting the need to use caution when prescribing sport interventions for children and youth who have experienced psychologically traumatic events. Further evidence supports the need to exercise caution when considering the use of sport for trauma survivors. Using a case-study methodology, Ley, Rato Barrio, and Koch (2018) examined how a sport program, as a part of an intensive psychological treatment intervention, provided growth opportunities for a refugee who had escaped war and was suffering from PTSD. Notably, Ley and colleagues reported the sport program helped the participant regulate emotions, feel a sense of belonging within a group, and experience a respite from trauma symptoms. However, Ley and colleagues also discussed challenges to engaging in a sport program (e.g., difficulty making friendships, motivational and logistical challenges to attending the program, coping with symptomology) that warrant consideration. In a separate study, D’Andrea, Bergholz, Fortunato, and Spinazzola (2013) showed that a trauma-sensitive sport league (i.e., Doc Wayne, see below for additional details), carried out within a residential treatment facility, had positive effects on the mental and behavioral health of participants who played relative to those who did not. The authors suggested that when sport is carefully designed and supervised, it can assist in building resilience for those who have experienced traumatic events. However, the sport program structure, coach and leader training on trauma-informed care, and rule adaptations for competitive events are likely critical to engendering positive outcomes and avoiding potential associated harms of sport programs for trauma survivors.

208 William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

Facilitators and Barriers to Growth in Sport and Physical Activity Settings In conjunction with sport-based programs and interventions that target children and youth affected by trauma, a growing body of literature has begun to examine the role that “natural” sport (e.g., youth sport, school sport) plays for this population. For example, a recent analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health database in the United States found that for individuals who reported adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; e.g., abuse, neglect), those who played team sports were less likely to experience depression and anxiety as adults (Easterlin, Chung, Leng, & Dudovitz, 2019). In a recent review paper, Massey and Williams (2019) analyzed 16 studies that examined the intersection of children, youth, trauma, and sporting experiences. Results suggested that for children and youth affected by trauma, sport could facilitate a sense of belonging, provide a psychological escape, and be used as an embodied experience to try and reintegrate physical and psychological processes. However, Massey and Williams also cautioned the need to consider the environment in which sporting activities take place. For example, Massey and Whitley (2016) reported that while sport could be a place of escape and belonging, when athletes were solely valued for their athletic potential and “used” by coaches and others with vested interests (e.g., family and friends hoping for financial opportunities), sport highlighted and magnified past traumas. Further, Whitley and colleagues (Whitley, Massey, & Wilkinson, 2018; Whitley & Massey, 2018) studied the role of sport in communities with high trauma prevalence rates and reported that when athletes were viewed as a commodity, sport termination frequently resulted, along with negative mental and behavioral health concerns. Similar to the work conducted by Massey and Whitley, research on incarcerated youth has shown that engagement in sport and physical activity has facilitated belonging, psychological escape, and social networking (Meek & Lewis, 2014; Parker, Meek, & Lewis, 2014; Van Hout & Phelan, 2014); yet, others have cautioned that the use of sport with this population can reinstitute gender hierarchies (i.e., masculine-dominated) as well as trigger trauma symptomology for those with low ability and low self-esteem (Andrews & Andrews, 2003). In examining factors that might help facilitate growth through sport, the existing literature suggests that perceptions of autonomy and agency within the sporting environment are critical for those who have experienced psychologically traumatic events. For example, research on trauma-sensitive yoga (e.g., Rhodes, 2015) revealed the need for yoga instructors to demonstrate careful use of language to invite participants into movement, rather than recreate power hierarchies in which the instructor tells the participants what to do and how to do it. Similarly, in examining the impacts of a boxing program for survivors of gender-based violence, van Ingen (2011, 2016) discussed the sociopolitical nature of gender-based violence and individuals taking control over their narratives. In another emerging line of

Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth 209

scholarship, Thorpe (2016) examined the role of action sports (e.g., skateboarding, parkour) in the lives of youth who have experienced, or are experiencing, war, trauma, and/or disaster. Notably, Thorpe discussed the role youth agency plays in using sport to overcome the inherent challenges faced in traumatizing scenarios. Taken together, evidence suggests engaging children and youth who have experienced traumatic events in sport-based activities requires careful attention to the environment, coach and leader training, rule adaptations for competitive events, and participants’ autonomy and agency (Bergholz, Stafford, & D’Andrea, 2016). To better understand how to move from research to practice, the following section will document organizational practices from those who are using sport to engage children and youth who have experienced trauma.

Organizations Utilizing Sport and Physical Activity While there are many children and youth participating in sport, with many sport organizations serving these individuals, there are a smaller number of organizations explicitly targeting children and youth affected by trauma. In examining organizations that directly engage with this population, common traumainformed design principles include: (a) cultivation of a safe, caring, supportive environment (e.g., mentoring relationships, sense of belonging, safe space); (b) provision of quality coach/leader training (e.g., strategic hiring practices, intentional onboarding and supervision); (c) rule adaptations for competitive events; (d) support for participant autonomy and agency (e.g., taking responsibility for one’s actions, learning to self-advocate); and (e) integration of services (e.g., clinical mental health services). In the following section, we profile two of these organizations (Doc Wayne and Waves for Change), exploring how they are taking an evidence-informed approach to their work with children and youth affected by trauma, with a focus on how sport and physical activity may ameliorate symptoms and promote growth. Doc Wayne was founded in 2010 in Boston, Massachusetts, USA with the mission of fusing “sport and therapy to heal and strengthen at-risk youth” (Doc Wayne, 2019). Chalk Talk is their sport-based group therapy program, engaging around 550 children and youth (ages 5–18) who have experienced traumatic events. Doc Wayne moves evidence into action by embracing the traumainformed design principles identified above in their sport-based curriculum (titled “Creating Champions”), which is guided by dialectical behavior therapy (DBT; MacPherson, Cheavens, & Fristad, 2013) and the Attachment, Regulation, and Competency (ARC; Arvidson et al., 2011) model. There are clinical and socialemotional learning goals layered onto a sports framework, enabling participants to: (a) build positive adult and peer relationships that support their growth into resilient and regulated individuals; (b) form positive relationships with teammates, friends, and family members; (c) develop into confident and competent members in school and in their community; and (d) experience academic success. Licensed

210 William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

clinicians and graduate student interns (i.e., ‘coaches’) help participants process and persist through adverse childhood experiences while participating in team sports (e.g., soccer, basketball, flag football) and engaging in weekly group therapy sessions outside of a traditional clinical setting. As previously discussed, research evaluations have demonstrated the effectiveness of the Doc Wayne program (D’Andrea et al., 2012). Waves for Change was founded in 2011 in South Africa with a mission of “fusing the rush of surfing with evidence-based mind/body therapy” (Waves for Change, 2019). Waves for Change provides vulnerable and differently-abled children and youth (ages 8–16) residing in under-resourced communities in South Africa and Liberia with child-friendly mental health services. Utilizing a Surf Therapy curriculum that draws from the trauma-informed design principles identified above, along with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Humanistic Therapy, Waves for Change targets the development of “skills to cope with stress, regulate behaviour, build healing relationships, and make positive life choices” (Waves for Change, 2019). Children and youth are offered a minimum of two weekly surfing sessions that target both surfing skills and self-management skills (e.g., coping with fear and anxiety; Snelling, 2015). Surf sessions are led by trained local coaches who take part in weekly debriefing sessions, visit with parents and primary caregivers, interact with school principals and teachers, and facilitate community support for the program (Rolfe, 2016). In addition to surf sessions, children and youth also take part in a weekly session with a child therapist. Investigations of Waves for Change provide conflicting evidence, with one study identifying the acquisition of both health-related and interpersonal skills and behaviors, along with improved mental health and psychological well-being (Herrmann, 2012), while a randomized control trial found no significant improvement of psychological wellbeing or decreased (self-reported) antisocial behavior (Snelling, 2015). These conflicting data have been integrated into the “learning” part of the organization’s monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) efforts, such that they can continue to improve their program design and implementation, along with coach training and community engagement (Rolfe, 2016). As shown above, the successful integration of sport for children and youth affected by trauma requires intentionality, multilevel programming, and integration with clinical mental health services. As an increasing number of organizations (e.g., Homeless World Cup, Skateistan, PeacePlayers International, Slum Soccer) are using sport to engage children and youth affected by trauma, with an increasing number of groups guiding these organizations (e.g., Edgework Consulting, InFocus Inc., WeCoach, Up2Us Sports, Coaching Peace, Coaching Corps, streetfootballworld). Thus, it is imperative to continue building an evidence-base of best practices for sport programs serving this population. To date, academic research and practice-based evidence suggests the need for safe spaces, quality coach/leader training, rule adaptations, autonomy support, and integration of services when considering the use of sport for promoting growth in children and youth affected by psychological trauma.

Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth 211

Future Research Directions With the aim of advancing both scholarly and applied pursuits in using sport to meaningfully engage children and youth affected by trauma, several recommendations can be made. First, there is a need to grow and strengthen the evidence-base with more rigorous research that can target specific mechanisms of change for sport and physical activity interventions, along with research that is epistemologically, methodologically, and theoretically aligned; these efforts will enhance our understanding of “what works” and “under what conditions” within this population (Darnell, Whitley, & Massey, 2016; Massey & Williams, 2019; Whitley, Massey, Camiré, Boutet, & Borbee, 2019; Whitley, Massey, Camiré, Blom, et al., 2019). Concurrently, given the mixed and often contradicting evidence within this field, further research is needed to better understand what differentiates positive outcomes through sport from those that are potentially harmful. Specifically, it may be necessary to differentiate factors that increase or decrease trauma symptomology from those that promote growth. In outlining a research agenda that can address this issue, we have identified four critical questions that remain unanswered: (1) Are there “universal” components of sport programs that engage children and youth affected by traumatic events that are largely generalizable? If so, what are these components? (b) Are there context-specific features that need to be tailored to each individual setting? If so, what are these components? (c) How should trauma-informed design principles be used when designing and administering sport programs for children and youth affected by trauma? (d) How should coaches and other facilitators be supported to abate symptoms of burnout and secondary trauma? (See also Chapter 4).

Conclusion There is tremendous potential for sport to play a meaningful role in facilitating growth for children and youth following psychologically traumatic events, and yet there is also the possibility of magnifying past traumas and/or introducing new traumas. Thus, it is critical for intentionality and reflexivity in the design, implementation, and evaluation of sport-based programs and interventions, such that we can continue to learn and improve the sport experience for all children and youth, with a focus on those affected by trauma.

References Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Walker, J., Whitfield, C. L., Bremner, J. D., Perry, B. D., Dube, S. R., & Giles, W. H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood: A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 56, 174–186. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00614_2.x.

212 William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

Andrews, J. P., & Andrews, G. J. (2003). Life in a secure unit: The rehabilitation of young people through the use of sport. Sport Science and Medicine, 56, 531–550. doi:10.1016/ S0277-9536(02)00053-9. Arvidson, J., Kinniburgh, K., Howard, K., Spinazzola, J., Strothers, H., Evans, M., Andres, B., Cohen, C., & Blaustein, C. C. (2011). Treatment of complex trauma in young children: Development and cultural considerations in application of the ARC intervention model. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 4, 34–51. doi:10.1080/19361521.2011.545046. Bergholz, L., Stafford, E., & D’Andrea, W. (2016). Creating trauma-informed sports programming for traumatized youth: Core principles for an adjunctive therapeutic approach. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 15, 244–253. doi:1080/ 15289168.2016.1211836. Chapman, D. P., Wheaton, A. G., Anda, R. F., Croft, J. B., Edwards, V. J., Liu, Y., Sturgis, S. L., & Perry, G. S. (2011). Adverse childhood experiences and sleep disturbances in adults. Sleep Medicine, 12, 773–779. doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2014.12.013. Culver, K. A., Whetten, K., Boyd, D. L., & O’Donnell, K. (2015). Yoga to reduce trauma-related distress and emotional and behavioral difficulties among children living in orphanages in Haiti: A pilot study. Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, 21, 539–545. doi:10.1089/acm.2015.0017. D’Andrea, W., Bergholz, L., Fortunato, A., & Spinazzola, J. (2013). Play to the whistle: A pilot investigation of a sports-based intervention for traumatized girls in residential treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 739–749. doi:10.1007/s10896-013-9533-x. D’Andrea, W., Ford, J., Stolbach, B., Spinazzola, J., & van der Kolk, B. A. (2012). Understanding interpersonal trauma in children: Why we need a developmentally appropriate trauma diagnosis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 187–200. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01154.x. Darnell, S. C., Whitley, M. A., & Massey, W. V. (2016). Changing methods and methods of change: Reflections on qualitative research in sport for development and peace. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8, 571–577. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2016.1214618. Diaz, A. B., & Motta, R. (2008). The effects of an aerobic exercise program on posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity in adolescents. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 10, 49–59. Doc Wayne. (2019). Doc Wayne. Retrieved from http://docwayne.org/. Dunn, E. C., Nishimi, K., Powers, A., & Bradley, B. (2017). Is developmental timing of trauma exposure associated with depressive and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in adulthood? Journal of Psychiatric Research, 84, 119–127. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.09.004. Dyck, C. D. (2011). Football and post-war reintegration: Exploring the role of sport in the DDR processes in Sierra Leone. Third World Quarterly, 32, 395–415. doi:10.1080/ 01436597.2011.573936. Easterlin, M. C., Chung, P. J., Leng, M., & Dudovitz, R. (2019). Association of team sports participation with long-term mental health outcomes among individuals exposed to adverse childhood experiences. JAMA Pediatrics. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1212. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8. Fletcher, K. E. (2003). Childhood posttraumatic stress disorder. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp. 330–371). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth 213

Grodin, M. A., Piwowarczyk, L., Fulker, D., Bazazi, A. R., & Saper, R. B. (2008). Treating survivors of torture and refugee trauma: A preliminary case series using qigong and t’ai chi. Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, 14, 801–806. doi:10.1089/ acm.2007.0736. Herrmann, M. (2012). Isiqalo – Waves for Change: Evaluation report. Cape Town, South Africa: Waves for Change. Levine, B., & Land, H. M. (2016). A meta-synthesis of qualitative findings about dance/ movement therapy for individuals with trauma. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 330–344. doi:10.1177/1049732315589920. Ley, C., Rato Barrio, M., & Koch, A. (2018). “In the sport I am here”: Therapeutic processes and health effects of sport and exercise on PTSD. Qualitative Health Research, 28, 491–507. doi:10.1177/1049732317744533. MacPherson, H. A., Cheavens, J. S., & Fristad, M. A. (2013). Dialectical behavior therapy for adolescents: Theory, treatment, adaptations, and empirical outcomes. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 16, 59–80. doi:10.1007/s10567-012-0126-7. Massey, W. V., & Whitley, M. A. (2016). The role of sport for youth amidst trauma and chaos. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health, 8, 487–504. doi:10.1080/ 2159676X.2016.1204351. Massey, W. V., & Williams, T. L. (2019). Sporting activities for individuals who experienced trauma during their youth: A meta-study. Qualitative Health Research. doi:10.1177/1049732319849563. Meek, R., & Lewis, G. (2014). The impact of a sports initiative for young men in prison: Staff and participant perspectives. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38, 95–123. doi:10.1177/0193723512472896. Newman, C. L., & Motta, R.W. (2007). The effects of aerobic exercise on childhood PTSD, anxiety, and depression. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 9, 133–158. Parker, A., Meek, R., & Lewis, G. (2014). Sport in a youth prison: Male young offenders’ experiences of a sporting intervention. Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 381–396. doi:10.1080/13676261.2013.830699. Racco, A., & Vis, J. (2015). Evidence based trauma treatment for children and youth. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32, 121–129. doi:10.1007/s10560-014-0347-3. Ravizza, D. (2012). We don’t play war anymore: Sport and the reintegration of former child soldiers in Northern Uganda. In K. Gilbert & W. Bennett (Eds.), Sport, peace & development (pp. 61–70). Champaign, IL: Common Ground. Rhodes, A. M. (2015). Claiming peaceful embodiment through yoga in the aftermath of trauma. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 21, 247–256. doi:10.1016/j. ctcp.2015.09.004. Rhodes, A. M., Spinazzola, J., & van der Kolk, B. (2016). Yoga for adult women with chronic PTSD: A long-term follow-up study. Journal of Complementary Medicine, 22, 189–196. doi:10.1089/acm.2014.0407. Richards, J., Foster, C., Townsend, N., & Bauman, A. (2014). Physical fitness and mental health impact of a sport-for-development intervention in a post-conflict setting: Randomised controlled trial nested within an observational study of adolescents in Gulu, Uganda. BMC Public Health, 14, 619. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-619. Rolfe, L. (2016). Using evaluation and surfing to reduce violence in high-risk youth. Retrieved from www.waves-for-change.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Wavesfor-Change-WUPIERM-2016-Paper.pdf.

214 William V. Massey and Meredith A. Whitley

Rovi, S., Chen, P. H., & Johnson, M. S. (2004). The economic burden of hospitalizations associated with child abuse and neglect. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 586–590. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.4.586. Schalinski, I., Teicher, M. H., Nischk, D., Hinderer, E., Müller, O., & Rockstroh, B. (2016). Type and timing of adverse childhood experiences differentially affect severity of PTSD symptoms, dissociative and depressive symptoms in adult inpatients. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 295. doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1004-5. Schnurr, P. P., & Green, B. L. (2004). Understanding relationships among trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, and health outcomes. Advanced in Mind-Body Medicine, 20(1), 18–29. doi:10.1037/10723-010. Snelling, M. (2015). Breaking cycles of violence, one wave at a time: A formative evaluation of the Waves for Change surf therapy programme. Unpublished Master’s thesis. University of Cape Town, South Africa. Spinazzola, J., Rhodes, A. M., Emerson, D., Earle, E., & Monroe, K. (2011). Application of yoga in residential treatment of traumatized youth. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 17, 431–444. doi:10.1177/1078390311418359. Streeter, C. C., Gerbarg, P. L., Saper, R. B., Ciraulo, D. A., & Brown, R. P. (2012). Effects of yoga on the autonomic nervous system, gamma-aminobutyric-acid, and allostasis in epilepsy, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medical Hypotheses, 78, 571–579. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2012.01.021. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Thorpe, H. (2016). “Look at what we can do with all the broken stuff!” Youth agency and sporting creativity in sites of war, conflict, and disaster. Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health, 8, 554–570. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2016.1206957. Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J. (2013). Annual research review: What is resilience within the social ecology of human development? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(4), 348–366. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12025. United Nations General Assembly (2006). Report of the independent expert for the United Nations study on violence against children. Retrieved from www.unicef.org/ violencestudy/reports/SG_violencestudy_en.pdf. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). The ACE study survey data [Unpublished Data]. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/vio lenceprevention/acestudy/about.html. van der Kolk, B. A., Stone, L., West, J., Rhodes, A., Emerson, D., Suvak, M., & Spinazzola, J. (2014). Yoga as an adjunctive treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75, e559–e565. doi:10.4088/ JCP.13m08561. Van Hout, M. C., & Phelan, D. (2014). A grounded theory of fitness training and sports participation in young adult male offenders. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38, 124–147. doi:10.1177/0193723513520012. van Ingen, C. (2011). Spatialities of anger: Emotional geographies in a boxing program for survivors of violence. Sociology and Sport Journal, 28, 177–188. doi:10.1123/ssj.28.2.171. van Ingen, C. (2016). Getting lost as a way of knowing: The art of boxing within shape your life. Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health, 8, 472–486. doi:10.1080/ 2159676X.2016.1211170. Waves for Change. (2019). Waves for Change. Retrieved from waves-for-change.org.

Adverse Experiences of Children and Youth 215

Whitley, M. A., & Massey, W. V. (2018). Systems influences on sport disengagement and disenchantment for traumatized and disadvantaged youth. Paper presented at the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, Vancouver, BC, Canada, November. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Blom, L. C., Chawansky, M. … & Darnell, S. C. (2019). A systematic review of sport for development interventions across six global cities. Sport Management Review, 22, 181–193. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.013.. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Boutet, M., & Borbee, A. (2019). Sportbased youth development interventions in the United States: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19, 89. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., & Wilkison, M. (2018). A systems theory of development through sport for traumatized and disadvantaged youth. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 38, 116–125. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.06.004. Wortman, C. B. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Progress and problems. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 81–90. Zolkoski, S. M., & Bullock, L. M. (2012). Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children and Youth Services, 34, 2295–2303. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009.

PART 4

Applied Perspectives

16 NURTURING GROWTH IN THE AFTERMATH OF ADVERSITY A Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

Introduction Adversity itself is never a good thing and no amount of growth can undo the pain of such experiences; it will not make everything better and put an end to any suffering. Although we do not recommend adversity as a pathway to growth, given that adverse experiences currently reflect the harsh reality of life for many involved in sport (e.g., Cavallerio, Wadey, & Wagstaff, 2016; Feddersen, Morris, Littlewood, & Richardson, 2019; Kavanagh, Brown, & Jones, 2017; Papathomas & Lavallee, 2014), how can we learn from such adverse experiences to bring about positive change in sport? While there have been significant advancements in our conceptual and theoretical understanding of growth following adversity in sport (see Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017), there remains limited attention on applied interventions and consideration of the uptake of this field of research (for exceptions, see Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019; Wadey et al., 2019). The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to provide a narrative review of evidence-based interventions from the wider growth literature to consider what we can learn from them to inform future interventions in applied sport psychology. But before doing so, we contextualize the chapter by carefully considering the costs and benefits of the uptake of growth research for professional practice in applied sport psychology. The chapter closes with future research directions to inform future-making practices.

The Beneficence of Growth Research in Sport Klein and Zedeck (2004) argued, “good theory, at least in applied psychology, has practical implications” (p. 933). It is also frequently argued by researchers, either in line with their research philosophy or to conform to the requirements of

220 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

academic journals, that their research has applied implications for practitioners working in the field. Yet, we should not assume that just because we have identified interesting, significant, and/or meaningful findings we should, without critical reflection, progress to developing interventions for the wider sporting community. From carefully considering the ethics endorsed by representative bodies for psychology such as the American Psychological Association and British Psychological Society, there is a promotion for the requirement of non-maleficence by practitioners and researchers. That is, a principle of “do no harm.” Yet, we would also argue we need to go one-step further than this by also critically considering whether our research findings are useful to the wider sporting community. To assist towards this agenda, we believe adopting the principle of beneficence – the balancing of the benefits of application of treatments and interventions against their respective risks and costs – will promote a more reflective approach to the uptake of research findings, especially regarding growth following adversity research in sport.

Potential Risks to the Uptake of Growth Research in Sport Researchers that have explored growth in sport that have used a qualitative approach have gone beyond the identification of the traditional indicators (or domains) of growth (i.e., a greater appreciation of life and changed sense of priorities; warmer, more intimate relationships with others; a greater sense of personal strength; recognition of new possibilities or paths for one’s life; and spiritual-existential change; Tedeschi, Cann, Taku, Senol‐Durak, & Calhoun, 2017), which have included, inter alia, superior sporting performance (Howells et al., 2017). This indicator of growth can provide a quandary for national governing bodies (NGBs), performance directors (PDs), sport science practitioners, and coaches who might be naively seduced and enticed by the compelling and transformational qualities of the concept of growth following adversity in sport. Here, there might be a temptation or an intrinsic belief that introducing, reinforcing, and/or perpetuating current harsh practices (see Cavallerio et al., 2016; Feddersen et al., 2019) into training and competition will facilitate enhanced sporting performance and thus promote certain key performance indicators (e.g., heightened podium potential, improved positioning in medal tables). To illustrate, at a British Educational Research Conference in 2007, Melanie Lang illustrated how a myopic focus on performance in one British sport in 2003 resulted in the introduction of a sport-specific Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) plan, which comprised the withholding of funding and national team places from athletes who refused to follow the PD’s regime. This performance-focused regime was (and remains) incongruent with athlete welfare initiatives and uncritically applies the principle of “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” (see Joseph, 2012).

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 221

The paradox of growth as a concept, that it can “do good” (e.g., learning from adverse practices to prevent them in the future) and “do bad” (e.g., perpetuate destructive and adverse practices to enhance performance), was acknowledged in a study that analyzed Olympic champion swimmers’ autobiographies. Howells and Fletcher (2015) cautioned that, “there may come a point when … practices contribute to or become inappropriate adversities that have a negative impact on performance and/or well-being” (p. 46). Becoming complacent towards harm and worrying less about the social conditions that cause suffering and distress is clearly a significant risk if practitioners are to naively (despite having misguided good intentions) intervene in professional practice to promote the uncritical uptake of growth following adversity research in sport. Before intervening in sport, therefore, we encourage researchers and practitioners to critically reflect on Tamminen and Neely’s (2016) question, “What is at risk when we promote growth in sport, and is the potential for growth worth the distress associated with adversity?” (p. 198). As we recommend in the introduction of this book, we strongly believe that policies and practices should first and foremost be put in place to prevent adversity in sport to support the safety, wellbeing, and welfare of the people who take part (e.g., athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers). The more preventative approach does reflect growth following adversity in sport, but the positive change operates at a cultural and organizational level rather than solely at an intrapersonal level (see Chapter 1). Another significant risk factor for the uptake of growth research in sport is that those involved in sport can impose an unrealistic narrative and associated expectations onto those who are experiencing adversity. Put another way, the narrative of growth might portray that it is simply not good enough to “just” recover anymore – athletes, relationships, teams, and organizations must come back stronger. This risk resonates with the commentary of Camille Wortman, who was critical in her appraisal of the concept of growth following adversity. She reported: Our culture champions people who are strong, invulnerable, and independent in the face of adversity. As any examination of the daily news reminds us, adversity cannot be avoided. Hence, the only way to maintain psychological comfort is to believe that adversity can be transcended. Yet there are dangers inherent in these views … We have to consider the burden such views place on survivors. Even without these notions of growth, survivors often suffer at the hands of others who expect them to be recovered from their trauma … quickly. They show distress, they are often regarded as poor copers who are wallowing in their pain. We honour people by acknowledging what they are up against following a trauma, not by holding out false hope that if they have the right personality characteristics, if they process the event in the right way, and if they adopt the right coping strategies, they will be able to grow from the experience. If outsiders believe growth is prevalent, this can become a new standard that survivors’ process is measured against.

222 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

Such a standard may lead to negative judgements towards those who do not show personal growth, making them feel like coping failures. (Wortman, 2004, pp. 8–9) A final risk factor considered here (although by no means the last) is that researchers and practitioners should be aware of the underlying difficulties that may be synchronous with facilitating positive change (e.g., distress can co-exist with growth) and how storying adversity can be (re)traumatizing for participants (Day & Wadey, 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2018; Wadey et al., 2019). To illustrate, Salim and Wadey identified that talking and writing about an adverse experience was retraumatizing for their participants (i.e., competitive athletes), which may constitute abuse on the part of the researcher (Andersen & Ivarsson, 2016). Thus, it is imperative that safeguards and strategies (e.g., collaborations with external support agencies) are put in place to protect participants and clients. As Andersen and Ivarsson (2016) proposed, “We should be whatever we can to increase the odds that our participants leave our research encounters feeling heard, embraced, and lovingly cared for” (p. 15).

Potential Benefits to the Uptake of Growth Research in Sport Over the past two decades, there appears to have been a shift in the applied sport psychology landscape away from researching and promoting concepts such as “mental toughness” (see Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008) towards a more empathetic and compassionate paradigm that focuses on the health and wellbeing of those involved in sport (see Atkinson, 2018; Hägglund, Kenttä, Thelwell, & Wagstaff, 2019; Knight, Harwood, & Gould, 2017; Mosewich, Ferguson, McHugh, & Kowalski, 2019; Quartiroli, Etzel, Knight, & Zakrajsek, 2018; Schinke, Stambulova, Si, & Moore, 2017), as well as a far stronger emphasis on the duty of care sporting organizations have towards those who are involved in sport (e.g., athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers). To illustrate, the Minister for Sport from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the United Kingdom requested an independent report to government by Baroness Grey-Thompson (2017) into the duty of care that sport has towards those who are involved. One of the themes raised in her report was the issue of mental welfare and it posed the question: “What more can sport do?” Towards this call-to-action, we believe the concept of growth can have an important role to play in terms of helping to bring about positive change in sport following adverse experiences. Despite adversity being defined as having low to moderate likelihood of occurrence (see Chapter 8), adverse experiences currently reflect the harsh reality of life for many involved in sport (e.g., Cavallerio et al., 2016; Feddersen et al., 2019; Kavanagh et al., 2017). Therefore, how can we learn from such adversity to bring about positive change at micro (i.e., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro (e.g., organizational policies and practices) levels? This knowledge gap represents a timely call-to-action for researchers and practitioners in applied sport psychology as positive change is needed.

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 223

A Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice Following a careful and critical analysis of the costs versus benefits for the uptake of growth research in sport, some NGBs, PDs, sport science staff, and coaches might conclude that there is a need to design interventions to promote growth. This begs the question – how should we go about nurturing growth at meso, macro, and micro levels? Considering the limited intervention research on growth in applied sport psychology (for exceptions, see Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019; Wadey et al., 2019), we now provide a narrative review of evidence-base interventions that have been published in the wider growth literature to learn from and use as a platform to build upon to bring about positive change in sport, with a specific focus on methodological design and content. (for recent reviews, see Howells, Wadey, Roy-Davis, & Evans, 2020; Shiyko, Hallinan, & Naito, 2017).

Methodological Design Mindful of the limited guidance to sport psychology practitioners on how to facilitate growth, Howells et al. (2020) synthesized 36 studies that utilized both qualitative and quantitative designs to facilitate growth in individuals who have experienced a range of adversities including, but not restricted to, cancer (e.g., Kallay & Baban, 2008; Lo et al., 2014), breast cancer (e.g., Carlson et al., 2016; Gallagher, Long, Tsai, Stanton, & Lu, 2018), prostate cancer (Penedo et al., 2006; Victorson et al., 2017), motor vehicle accidents (Zoellner, Rabe, Karl, & Maercker, 2011), political imprisonment (Salo, Punamaki, Qouta, & Sarraj, 2008), and brain injury (Karagiorgou, Evans, & Cullen, 2018). The review provides researchers developing growth interventions with detail on the methodological designs that have been used in the wider literature to facilitate growth. The review identified that the majority (n = 22) of interventions used randomized controlled trials. Other studies utilized quasi-experimental designs (n = 6), single subject designs (n = 4), and qualitative designs to assess the intervention effects, namely, interviews (n = 4). Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, and Calhoun (2018) cautioned that some research designs (e.g., cross-sectional design) may truncate the time measure and mislead us about how time and PTG are related. Accordingly, irrespective of design, researchers must be cognizant of the temporal nature of growth and acknowledge the individual variability in the trajectories of growth over time. Interventions to facilitate growth have ranged from one day (e.g., Slavin‐Spenny, Cohen, Oberleitner, & Lumley, 2011; Taku, Cann, Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2017) to 19 months (e.g., McDonough, Sabiston, & Ullrich-French, 2011). Even with data collection at various time points, measurement of time since the event may sometimes not be long enough to reveal changes, so a longitudinal design may be worthy of consideration (see Chapter 3). Although the benchmark standards vary for the different designs, Howells et al. (2020) cautioned developing quantitative studies that rely on significance levels and effect sizes without

224 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

interpreting what this means in a real-world application (Ivarsson, Andersen, Johnson, Stenling, & Lindwall, 2015). They recommended that researchers utilizing quantitative designs should, as well as reporting significance levels and effect sizes, interpret the effect sizes and what this means in application. Howells et al. (2020) suggested that one approach to this would be discussing the magnitude of change experienced by participants; that is, identifying that some changes may be transformative, suggesting evidence of constructive growth, others may represent small changes that may be representative of illusory growth (Howells & Fletcher, 2016; Zoellner & Maercker, 2006). In determining the rationale for developing an intervention, Tedeschi et al. (2018) recommended that interventions should not be developed with the sole intention of facilitating growth, rather the inclusion of growth should be in addition to other foci such as reduction of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and improvement in mental health. To illustrate, interventions often adopt a holistic approach to overcoming adverse experiences and aim to reduce posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms as well as increase growth (e.g., Bennett, Lundberg, Zabriskie, & Eggett, 2014; Hagenaars & van Minnen, 2010; Hijazi et al., 2014). Nevertheless, irrespective of whether growth is the primary or secondary objective of a study, Tedeschi et al. also posited that interventions to address growth must be theoretically informed. Despite differences in conceptualization of growth (see Chapters 1–2), there is coherence in the theoretical literature (Joseph & Linley, 2005; Joseph, Murphy, & Regel, 2012; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; Zoellner & Maercker, 2006) that relates to the fundamental roles that enduring distress and cognition have in the process of growth. Intervention design should thus be informed by theories and models of growth and specifically address some or all of the fundamental processes integral to the development of growth, namely, the management of the emotional distress; address individuals’ cognitive appraisals and ruminations associated with making sense of the traumatic experience; support the development of a coherent narrative that allows positive accommodation of the trauma-related information; and facilitate the construction of a new life narrative with revised life principles (see Tedeschi & Moore, 2016). Additionally, interventions should be informed by, and be coherent with, the philosophy underpinning them. To illustrate, interventions theoretically informed by the organismic valuing theory of growth (OVT; Joseph & Linley, 2005) should reflect the humanistic principles of organismic valuing process (OVP; Rogers, 1964). OVP refers to individuals’ innate ability to know what is important to them and move towards those things that facilitate their self-actualization. Despite these recommendations, it appears that some strategies (e.g., mindfulness; Carlson et al., 2016; Victorson et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017) are employed in successful interventions despite theoretical and philosophical inconsistencies. To illustrate, the non-judgmental facet of mindfulness is in conflict with the active evaluation of trauma-related information that is at the essence of our understanding of growth. Furthermore, Horton (2014) questioned the use of

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 225

mindfulness out of the context of its philosophical origins in Buddhism. Although he acknowledged that it may have its positive effects in therapeutic environments that can be measurable by science, he argued that a complete understanding of mindfulness will not be gained by randomization or systematic review alone.

Intervention Content In their review, Howells et al. (2020) identified a number of strategies employed by researchers in the wider literature that may, providing each strategy is employed appropriately (e.g., a complete understanding of mindfulness), be located in the theoretical process of growth (see Chapter 2). These strategies were psychoeducation, mindfulness, sport and leisure activities, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), disclosure, social support, and novel techniques. Psychoeducation interventions (e.g., Ramos et al., 2017; Taku et al., 2017; Wagner, Knaevelsrud, & Maercker, 2007) involving challenging core beliefs, integration, and restoration inform and educate individuals about their trauma response and their subsequent growth trajectory. Knowledge about this process (involving distress, and negative and potentially positive outcomes) empowers individuals to recognize that their distressing emotional and physiological reactions are appropriate in the context of the trauma experienced (Tedeschi et al., 2018). This improved growth literacy provides a framework for an individual to actively engage in the processes conducive to growth. Second, mindfulness and sport and leisure interventions target the emotional distress experienced as an ongoing consequence of experiencing trauma. Mindfulness has been successfully utilized in many interventions to facilitate growth (see Howells et al., 2020; Shiyko et al., 2017) and comprises techniques such as meditation, yoga, and body scanning (e.g., Carlson et al., 2016; Victorson et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017). Although there is a wealth of evidence that mindfulness can facilitate growth, sport psychology researchers should be cognizant that despite the analytical generalization (see Smith, 2018) of growth interventions to the sport context, evidence for use of mindfulness in non-medical populations is limited (Shiyko et al., 2017). Sport and leisure, which may also target the emotional distress experienced by individuals who have experienced adversity, appears to be the least successful strategy to facilitate growth in interventions. However, it has been used with some success (Howells et al., 2020). A number of interventions utilizing a variety of sport and leisure techniques (Bennett et al., 2014; Garland, Carlson, Cook, Lansdell, & Speca, 2007; Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2008; McDonough et al., 2011; Singer et al., 2012) have been implemented, however, only a healing arts program (Garland et al., 2007), an exercise class intervention (Hefferon et al., 2008), and a dragon boating initiative (McDonough et al., 2011) identified enhanced levels of growth in study participants. Interventions that employ CBT and disclosure focus on the ruminative processes that are fundamental in the growth process (Joseph & Linley, 2005; Joseph et al., 2012; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; Zoellner & Maercker, 2006). CBT is the gold standard technique to use for reducing PTS symptoms and PTSD (Tedeschi

226 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

et al., 2018). With reduction of PTS symptoms and promotion of PTG used together in interventions, it is unsurprising that CBT is an increasingly favored strategy to use. CBT has been used in a number of interventions (e.g., Antoni et al., 2001; Knaevelsrud, Liedl, & Maercker, 2010; McGregor et al., 2014; Penedo et al., 2006; Ye, Yu, Zhu, Chen, & Lin, 2017) comprising techniques such as approach coping and the identification of growth, but has also been used in interventions that did not report improved levels of PTG in participants (e.g., Zoellner et al., 2011). Disclosure involving narrative exposure therapy, prospective writing, and emotional disclosure has been used successfully in several intervention studies (e.g., Hijazi et al., 2014; Roepke, Benson, Tsukayama, & Yaden, 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2018; Slavin‐Spenny et al., 2011) but disclosure has also been identified as having no impact on the development of PTG in others (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2018; Liu & Kia-Keating, 2017). The fundamental role of social support in facilitating growth is evident in both theory (see Chapter 2), research (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012; Sabiston, McDonough, & Crocker, 2007) and in applied interventions (e.g., Morris, Campbell, Dwyer, Dunn, & Chambers, 2011). Social support, whether formal or informal can assist individuals in accommodating the trauma-related information and creating a new narrative with a changed perspective on life. Interventions involving supportive expressive therapy and group therapy have been successful in promoting growth (e.g., Carlson et al., 2016; Salo et al., 2008) but there may be cultural and social implications to the use of certain therapies. For example, art therapy may be more effective in younger rather than older populations (Tedeschi et al., 2018) and the content of the therapy may need to be culturally informed (e.g., Volgin, Shakespeare-Finch, & Shochet, 2018). Howells et al. (2020) identified other strategies that have been used successfully in growth interventions (e.g., wish granting, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, Brief Eclectic Psychotherapy for PTSD, and mental health therapy; Chaves, Vázquez, & Hervás, 2016; Nijdam et al., 2018; Salo et al., 2008), but these currently lack theoretical grounding in the growth literature.

Future Research Directions As early as 2003, Kellmann and Beckmann identified an inherent conflict between what we do as applied sport psychology researchers and the value and extent of the application of research findings. They noted that even those studies that are carried out in applied settings tend to be conducted for research purposes only. The inaccessibility of research both practically (i.e., peer-reviewed research hidden behind paywalls) and academically (i.e., the use of complicated academic language) means that informed evidence is not being promulgated to the very people we seek to assist in facilitating positive change in sport. What we can learn from our narrative review is that growth can be nurtured through a range of different interventions. Preliminary support is offered for several intervention

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 227

strategies (i.e., mindfulness, psychoeducation, emotional disclosure, social support, sport and exercise, eye movement desensitization, and reprocessing therapy). This finding from the review is encouraging in that it can provide a narrative of hope for individuals in sport who have experienced adversity. Following a careful examination of the costs and benefits of the uptake of growth research in sport, therefore, future researchers should carefully examine the transferability of these findings with sporting populations, especially given that applied interventions on growth following adversity represent this least-researched area in applied sport psychology. However, rather than “just” replicating the same interventions with sporting populations, researchers and practitioners would do well to consider what the genuine unknowns are in order to avoid needless replication and help reciprocate knowledge transfer with the wider growth literature. Following the narrative review, it is evident that all the current interventions that have been published on growth following adversity focus on positive change at an intrapersonal level and they have also been reactive in their orientation (i.e., postadversity). Moving forwards we recommend future researchers should seek to facilitate change beyond an individual (psychological) experience. For example, researchers should aim to explore dyad-, team-, organizational-, and cultural-level growth (Chapter 1) and the applied sport psychology literature provides ample examples and advice on how this might be done (Holt & Dunn, 2006; Parent, 2011; Ryba, Stambulova, Si, & Schinke, 2013; Wagstaff, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2013). However, one new line of research that might help promote social justice following adverse conditions or experiences is activist inquiry (see Haslett & Smith, 2019; Lee & Cunningham, 2019). Indeed, perhaps the most direct way by which applied sport psychology research can affect adverse experiences in sport (and outside) is through direct efforts to bring about positive change. Unlike most research in applied sport psychology, where researchers hope their work will find a way into the hands of decision-makers in sporting organizations, activist inquiry reflects cases in which individuals (e.g., sport psychologists; Heil, 2016) actively enter the process of social change. One methodology that may lend itself to activist inquiry is participatory or collaborative action research (Wicks, Reason, & Bradbury, 2008). The journals Action Research and International Journal of Action Research, along with Wicks et al.’s (2008) chapter in the Sage Handbook of Action Research provide ample examples of the potentials of action research for social change. A second recommendation moving forward is that researchers and practitioners in applied sport psychology consider utilizing more proactive rather than reactive interventions. That is, can interventions be conducted pre-adversity to minimize the damaging consequences post-adversity and maximize the likelihood of growth-related experiences? Again, the applied sport psychology literature provides several examples of how this might be done. For example, Fletcher and Sarkar (2016) proposed an evidence-based approach to develop psychological resilience referred to as mental fortitude trainings, which, if effective, could enable athletes to more effectively cope with future adverse experiences. Another

228 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

example includes planned disruptions in structured and deliberated training activities where athletes are exposed to increased demands under controlled circumstances to enable the management of future adversity (see, e.g., Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Kegelaers, Wylleman, & Oudejans, 2019; Stoker, Lindsay, Butt, Bawden, & Maynard, 2016). However, despite these interventions having good intentions to enable the end-user (e.g., athletes) to cope more effectively with adversity and experience growth, we encourage NGBs, PDs, and coaches to critically reflect on the costs versus benefits for their uptake, especially to avoid the perpetuation of adverse cultures and training conditions (see Cavallerio et al., 2016; Feddersen et al., 2019). On a final note for future research, while we encourage theoretically informed interventions moving forward, sometimes action to bring about positive change cannot wait for established theory (Chomsky, 2011). That is, researchers and practitioners may have to forge ahead with the various needs of those who are involved in sport, and perhaps have to report the findings retrospectively (see, e.g., Henschen & Heil, 1992). In addition, it might also be wise for future intervention research on growth following adversity in sport to replace the attempt to establish “best practices” or the “single-best practice” with continuous innovation and future-making practices (see Gergen, 2016). From our perspective, and in agreement with Gergen, the broader the array of available practices to facilitate positive change either prior to or following adversity, the greater the number of people who can find help. As Gergen reported, “the very attempt to use evidence-based evaluation to winnow out ineffective practices in misconceived … In effect, depending on time and place, evidential support may be garnered for virtually any form of therapy” (2016, p. 12). Moving forward, rather than streamlining our practices, we encourage greater diversification of pre- and post-adversity interventions that promote positive change in sport at micro (i.e., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro (e.g., organizational policies and practices) levels.

Conclusion Given that adversity currently reflects the harsh reality of life for many involved in sport, we believe there is an urgent need for positive change. Towards this call-toaction, in this chapter we firstly encourage adopting the principle of beneficence to promote a more reflective approach to the uptake of growth following adversity research in sport. We then provide a narrative review of interventions that have been published in the wider growth literature for future researchers and practitioners to learn from in terms of the methodological design and content, as well as to identify genuine unknowns (e.g., interventions beyond intrapersonal outcomes) to avoid needless replication and facilitate knowledge transfer with the wider literature on growth. In sum, adversity itself is never a good thing and no amount of growth can undo the pain of such experiences; however, ignoring the potential existence of growth will be unhelpful to bringing about positive change in sport.

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 229

References Andersen, M. B., & Ivarsson, A. (2016). A methodology of loving kindness: How interpersonal neurobiology, compassion and transference can inform researcher–participant encounters and storytelling. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8, 1–20. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2015.1056827. Antoni, M., Lehman, J., Kilbourn, K., Boyers, A., Culver, J., Alferi, S., … & Carver, C. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention decreases the prevalence of depression and enhances benefit finding among women under treatment for earlystage breast cancer. Health Psychology, 20, 20–31. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.20.1.20. Atkinson, M. (Ed.). (2018). Sport, mental illness and sociology. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Bennett, J., Lundberg, N., Zabriskie, R., & Eggett, D. (2014). Addressing posttraumatic stress among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and significant others: An intervention utilizing sport and recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 48, 74–93. doi:10.1080/ 21520704.2016.1227414. Carlson, L. E., Tamagawa, R., Stephen, J., Drysdale, E., Zhong, L., & Speca, M. (2016). Randomized‐controlled trial of mindfulness‐based cancer recovery versus supportive expressive group therapy among distressed breast cancer survivors (MINDSET): Long‐ term follow‐up results. Psycho‐Oncology, 25, 750–759. doi:10.1002/pon.4150. Cavallerio, F., Wadey, R., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2016). Understanding overuse injuries in rhythmic gymnastics: A 12-month ethnographic study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.05.002. Chaves, C., Vázquez, C., & Hervás, G. (2016). Positive interventions in seriously-ill children: Effects on well-being after granting a wish. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1870–1883. doi:10.1177/1359105314567768. Chomsky, N. (2011). The essential Chomsky. New York, NY: New Press. Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2012). The rocky road to the top. Sports Medicine, 42, 907–914. Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The development and maintenance of mental toughness: Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 83–95. doi:10.1080/02640410701310958. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2017). Researching growth following adversity in sport and exercise: Methodological implications and future recommendations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9, 499–513. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1328460. Feddersen, N. B., Morris, R., Littlewood, M. A., & Richardson, D. J. (2019). The emergence and perpetuation of a destructive culture in an elite sport in the United Kingdom. Sport in Society, 1–19. doi:10.1080/17430437.2019.1680639. 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. Gallagher, M. W., Long, L. J., Tsai, W., Stanton, A. L., & Lu, Q. (2018). The unexpected impact of expressive writing on posttraumatic stress and growth in Chinese American breast cancer survivors. Journal of Clinical Psychology 74. 1673–1686. doi:10.1002/ jclp.22636. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012). “It was hard, but it was good”: A qualitative exploration of stress-related growth in Division I intercollegiate athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 297–319. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.693524.

230 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

Garland, S. N., Carlson, L. E., Cook, S., Lansdell, L., & Speca, M. (2007). A non-randomized comparison of mindfulness-based stress reduction and healing arts programs for facilitating post-traumatic growth and spirituality in cancer outpatients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 15, 949–961. doi:10.1007/s00520-007-0280-5. Gergen, K. J. (2016). Toward a visionary psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 44, 3–17. doi:10.1037/hum0000013. Grey-Thompson, T. (2017, April). Duty of care in sport: Independent report to government. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/government/publications/duty-of-care-in-sport-review. Hagenaars, M., & van Minnen, A. (2010). Posttraumatic growth in exposure therapy for PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23, 504–508. doi:10.1002/jts.20551. Hägglund, K., Kenttä, G., Thelwell, R., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2019). Is there an upside of vulnerability in sport? A mindfulness approach applied in the pursuit of psychological strength. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 10, 220–226. doi:10.1080/ 21520704.2018.1549642. Haslett, D., & Smith, B. (2019). Disability sport and social activism. In M. Berghs & T. Chataika (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability activism. New York, NY: Routledge. Hefferon, K., Grealy, M., & Mutrie, N. (2008). The perceived influence of an exercise class intervention on the process and outcomes of post-traumatic growth. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 1, 32–39. doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2008.06.003. Heil, J. (2016). Sport advocacy: Challenge, controversy, ethics, and action. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5, 281–295. doi:10.1037/spy0000078. Henschen, K. R., & Heil, J. (1992). A retrospective study of the effect of an athlete’s sudden death on teammates. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 25, 217–223. doi:10.2190/TUU3-Y7J9-QLRG-C08G. Hijazi, A., Lumley, M., Ziadni, M., Haddad, L., Rapport, L., & Arnetz, B. (2014). Brief narrative exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress in Iraqi refugees: A preliminary randomized clinical trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27, 314–322. doi:10.1002/jts.21922. Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. (2006). Guidelines for delivering personal-disclosure mutualsharing team building interventions. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 348–367. doi:10.1123/ tsp.20.3.348. Horton, R. (2014). Offline: Mindfulness – evidence, out of place. The Lancet, 383, 766. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60271-3. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: Adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173– 186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Howells, K., Wadey, R., Roy-Davis, K., & Evans, L. (2020). A systematic review of interventions to promote growth following adversity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101671. Ivarsson, A., Andersen, M. B., Johnson, U., Stenling, A., & Lindwall, M. (2015). Things we still haven’t learned (so far). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 449–461. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0015.

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 231

Joseph, S. (2012). What doesn’t kill us: A guide to overcoming adversity and moving forward. London, UK: Hachette. Joseph, S., & Linley, A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 262–280. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.262. Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Regel, S. (2012). An affective-cognitive processing model of posttraumatic growth. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19, 316–324. doi:10.1002/cpp.1798. Kallay, E., & Baban, A. (2008). Emotional benefits of expressive writing in a sample of Romanian female cancer patients. Cognitie, Creier, Comportament/Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 7, 115–129. Karagiorgou, O., Evans, J. J., & Cullen, B. (2018). Post-traumatic growth in adult survivors of brain injury: A qualitative study of participants completing a pilot trial of brief positive psychotherapy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40, 655–659. doi:10.1080/ 09638288.2016.1274337. Kavanagh, E., Brown, L., & Jones, I. (2017). Elite athletes’ experience of coping with emotional abuse in the coach–athlete relationship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 402–417. doi:10.1080/10413200.2017.1298165. Kegelaers, J., Wylleman, P., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2019). A coach perspective on the use of planned disruptions in high-performance sports. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. doi:10.1037/spy0000167. Kellmann, M., & Beckmann, J. (2003). Research and intervention in sport and exercise psychology: New perspectives on an inherent conflict. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 13–26. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671701. Klein, K. J., & Zedeck, S. (2004). Introduction to the special section on theoretical models and conceptual analyses: Theory in applied psychology: Lessons (re) learned. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 931–933. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.931. Knaevelsrud, C., Liedl, A., & Maercker, A. (2010). Posttraumatic growth, optimism and openness as outcomes of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for posttraumatic stress reactions. Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 1030–1038. doi:10.1177/1359105309360073. Knight, C. J., Harwood, C. G., & Gould, D. (Eds.). (2017). Sport and exercise psychology for young athletes. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Lang, M. (2007, September). Problems facing qualitative researchers: Some examples. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference. Lee, W., & Cunningham, G. B. (2019). Group diversity’s influence on sport teams and organizations: A meta-analytic examination and identification of key moderators. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19, 139–159. doi:10.1080/16184742.2018.1478440. Liu, S. R., & Kia-Keating, M. (2017). Improving coping self-efficacy among distressed students after exposure to university mass violence: A pilot online intervention. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 32, 199–219. doi:10.1080/87568225.2017.1388754. Lo, C., Hales, S., Jung, J., Chiu, A., Panday, T., Rydall, A., … & Rodin, G. (2014). Managing cancer and living meaningfully (CALM): Phase 2 trial of a brief individual psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer. Palliative Medicine, 28, 234–242. doi:10.1177/0269216313507757. McDonough, M., Sabiston, C., & Ullrich-French, S. (2011). The development of social relationships, social support, and posttraumatic growth in a dragon boating team for breast cancer survivors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 627–648. doi:10.1123/ jsep.33.5.627.

232 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

McGregor, B., Antoni, M., Boyers, A., Alferi, M., Blomberg, B., & Carver, C. (2004). Cognitive–behavioral stress management increases benefit finding and immune function among women with early-stage breast cancer. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56, 1–8. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00036-9. Morris, B., Campbell, M., Dwyer, M., Dunn, J., & Chambers, S. (2011). Survivor identity and post-traumatic growth after participating in challenge-based peer-support programmes. British Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 660–674. doi:10.1348/2044-8287.002004. Mosewich, A. D., Ferguson, L. J., McHugh, T. L. F., & Kowalski, K. C. (2019). Enhancing capacity: Integrating self-compassion in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 10, 235–243. doi:10.1080/21520704.2018.1557774. Nijdam, M. J., van der Meer, C. A., van Zuiden, M., Dashtgard, P., Medema, D., Qing, Y., … & Olff, M. (2018). Turning wounds into wisdom: Posttraumatic growth over the course of two types of trauma-focused psychotherapy in patients with PTSD. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 424–431. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.031. Papathomas, A., & Lavallee, D. (2014). Self-starvation and the performance narrative in competitive sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 688–695. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2013.10.014. Parent, S. (2011). Disclosure of sexual abuse in sport organizations: A case study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20, 322–337. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.573459. Penedo, F., Molton, I., Dahn, J., Shen, B., Kinsinger, D., Traeger, L., … & Antoni, M. (2006). A randomized clinical trial of group-based cognitive-behavioral stress management in localized prostate cancer: Development of stress management skills improves quality of life and benefit finding. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 261–270. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3103_8. Quartiroli, A., Etzel, E. F., Knight, S. M., & Zakrajsek, R. A. (2019). Self-care as key to others’ care: The perspectives of globally situated experienced senior-level sport psychology practitioners. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 147–167. doi:10.1080/ 10413200.2018.1460420. Ramos, C., Costa, P. A., Rudnicki, T., Marôco, A. L., Leal, I., Guimarães, R., … & Tedeschi, R. G. (2017). The effectiveness of a group intervention to facilitate posttraumatic growth among women with breast cancer. Psycho‐Oncology, 27, 258–264. doi:10.1002/pon.4501. Roepke, A. M., Benson, L., Tsukayama, E., & Yaden, D. B. (2017). Prospective writing: Randomized controlled trial of an intervention for facilitating growth after adversity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 627–642. doi:10.1080/17439760.2017.1365161. Rogers, C. R. (1964). Toward a modern approach to values: The valuing process in the mature person. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 160–167. doi:10.1037/ h0046419. Ryba, T. V., Stambulova, N. B., Si, G., & Schinke, R. J. (2013). ISSP position stand: Culturally competent research and practice in sport and exercise psychology. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 123–142. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2013.779812. Sabiston, C. M., McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. (2007). Psychosocial experiences of breast cancer survivors involved in a dragon boat program: Exploring links to positive psychological growth. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 419–438. doi:10.1123/ jsep.29.4.419. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2018). Can emotional disclosure promote sport injury-related growth? Journal of Applied Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 367–387. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2014.12.004.

Narrative Review of Evidence-Based Practice 233

Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2019). Using gratitude to promote sport injury-related growth. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1–20. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1626515. Salo, J., Punamaki, R., Qouta, S., & Sarraj, E. (2008). Individual and group treatment and self and other representations predicting posttraumatic recovery among former political prisoners. Traumatology, 14, 45–61. doi:10.1177/1534765608319079. Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., Si, G., & Moore, Z. (2018). International society of sport psychology position stand: Athletes’ mental health, performance, and development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 622–639. doi:10.1080/ 1612197X.2017.1295557. Shiyko, M. P., Hallinan, S., & Naito, T. (2017). Effects of mindfulness training on posttraumatic growth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 8, 848–858. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0684-3. Singer, S., Gotze, H., Buttstadt, M., Ziegler, C., Richter, R., Brown, A., … & Geue, K. (2012). A non-randomised trial of an art therapy intervention for patients with haematological malignancies to support post-traumatic growth. Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 939–949. doi:10.1177/1359105312458332. Slavin‐Spenny, O. M., Cohen, J. L., Oberleitner, L. M., & Lumley, M. A. (2011). The effects of different methods of emotional disclosure: Differentiating post‐traumatic growth from stress symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 993–1007. doi:10.1002/jclp.20750. Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10, 137–149. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1393221. Stoker, M., Lindsay, P., Butt, J., Bawden, M., & Maynard, I. (2016). Elite coaches’ experiences of creating pressure training environments for performance enhancement. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 47, 262–281. Taku, K., Cann, A., Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2017). Psychoeducational intervention program about posttraumatic growth for Japanese high school students. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 22, 271–282. doi:10.1080/15325024.2017.1284504. Tamminen, K. A., & Neely, K. C. (2016). Positive growth in sport. In N. Holt (Ed.). Positive youth development through sport (pp. 193–204). London, UK: Routledge. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01. Tedeschi, R. G., Cann, A., Taku, K., Senol‐Durak, E., & Calhoun, L. G. (2017). The posttraumatic growth inventory: A revision integrating existential and spiritual change. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30, 11–18. doi:10.1002/jts.22155. Tedeschi, R. G., & Moore, B. A. (2016). The posttraumatic growth workbook: Coming through trauma wiser, stronger, and more resilient. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Victorson, D., Hankin, V., Burns, J., Weiland, R., Maletich, C., Sufrin, N., … & Brendler, C. (2017). Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary psychological benefits of mindfulness meditation training in a sample of men diagnosed with prostate cancer on active surveillance: Results from a randomized controlled pilot trial. Psycho‐Oncology, 26, 1155–1163. doi:10.1002/pon.4135. Volgin, R. N., Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Shochet, I. M. (2018). Posttraumatic distress, hope, and growth in survivors of commercial sexual exploitation in Nepal. Traumatology. doi:10.1037/trm0000174.

234 Karen Howells and Ross Wadey

Wadey, R., Roy-Davis, K., Evans, L., Howells, K., Salim, J., & Diss, C. (2019). Sport and exercise psychology consultants’ perspectives on facilitating sport injury-related growth. The Sport and exercise psychologist, 1–38. doi:10.1123/tsp.2018-0110. Wagner, B., Knaevelsrud, C., & Maercker, A. (2007). Post‐traumatic growth and optimism as outcomes of an internet‐based intervention for complicated grief. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 36, 156–161. doi:10.1080/16506070701339713. Wagstaff, C. R., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2013). Developing emotion abilities and regulation strategies in a sport organization: An action research intervention. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 476–487. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.006. Wicks, P. G., Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Living inquiry: Personal, political and philosophical groundings for action research practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 15–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wortman, C. B. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Progress and problems. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 81–90. Ye, Z., Yu, N. X., Zhu, W., Chen, L., & Lin, D. (2017). A randomized controlled trial to enhance coping and posttraumatic growth and decrease posttraumatic stress disorder in HIV-infected men who have sex with men in Beijing, China. AIDS Care, 30, 1–9. doi:10.1080/09540121.2017.1417534. Zhang, J. Y., Zhou, Y. Q., Feng, Z. W., Fan, Y. N., Zeng, G. C., & Wei, L. (2017). Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) on posttraumatic growth of Chinese breast cancer survivors. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22, 94–109. doi:10.1080/13548506.2016.1146405. Zoellner, T., & Maercker, A. (2006). Posttraumatic growth in clinical psychology: A critical review and introduction of a two-component model. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 626–653. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.01.008. Zoellner, T., Rabe, S., Karl, A., & Maercker, A. (2011). Post-traumatic growth as outcome of a cognitive-behavioral therapy trial for motor vehicle accident survivors with PTSD. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84, 201–213. doi:10.1348/147608310X520157.

17 MULTILEVEL ADVERSITY AND GROWTH IN SPORTS TEAMS A Professional Practice Perspective Stephen D. Mellalieu

Introduction Once we realized we would exist (as a team) you could see a freshness. I have the utmost respect for every player in our group and they have been incredibly resilient throughout the season. It has been draining and probably what you see on the exterior, you won’t begin to understand what is underneath. There have been a lot of sleepless nights for a lot of people involved. It’s an indication of how tight everyone has become in our squad and how we have come together, we have been galvanized about the threat to our existence. I never felt the group would fold. The character of the players in the squad meant that was never an option. (Anonymous quote from a member of a professional sports team in relation to the threat of their team going out of existence due to financial issues)

Despite a growing body of literature regarding the growth that can occur following experiences of adversity in individual sports performers (see Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017) and the mental fortitude and success that can be derived from such experiences (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2016), to date there has been little consideration of growth from adversity at the relational, group or organization level (see Chapters 1, 7, and 8). Some work has arguably explored “growth,” but this has tended to be as an indirect consequence of seeking to build group functioning in sports teams (see Evans, Slater, Turner, & Barker, 2013). This lack of inquiry is surprising given the common acknowledgment that individuals operating within group contexts do not exist in isolation, and, collectively face stressors that are unique or specific to their own team or organization (Mellalieu, Neil, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2009). Moreover, these stressors place significant demands upon the individual’s mental and physical resources, often resulting in the experience of psychological trauma, and providing the prerequisite conditions

236 Stephen D. Mellalieu

for the potential for psychological growth to occur (Howells et al., 2017). Indeed, preliminary work considering related concepts to growth from adversity at the relational, group, or organization level, such as team resilience, has begun to emerge in the literature (see Gucciardi et al., 2018), with initial findings suggesting that leveraging a team’s collective resources can enhance its ability to withstand stressors and perform at the highest level (see Morgan, Fletcher, & Sarkar, 2017). This chapter will adopt a practice-based evidence approach to consider my observations and reflections on the adversity and growth witnessed as a sport psychology consultant (SPC) providing support within professional team sports in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years. Practice-based observations have great potential to inform both theory and practice in relation to concepts such as adversity and growth (see Wadey et al., 2019). In the current chapter, following a brief overview for the context of my reflections, I outline the nature of adversity experiences observed at the individual, relational, group, and organizational level. Next, growth-related experiences are considered in relation to indicators at the physical, intrapersonal, group, and organizational level. The chapter concludes by discussing the contribution of these reflections in relation to the conceptualization of multilevel adversity and growth-related experiences in sport. Finally, a number of areas for future research will be highlighted, including conceptualizing multilevel growth, conducting in-depth longitudinal investigations of high-performance teams and sports organizations to capture the diverse and dynamic nature of adversity and growth in these environments, utilizing practice-based evidence models to inform both theory and practice, and developing suitable measurement instruments to capture multilevel adversity and growth experiences. Given the substantial deliberation regarding the nature of the construct in the wider literature (see Chapter 1), for the purposes of this chapter growth is considered holistically as a positive physical or psychological change in functioning at the individual, relational, group (team), or organizational level in relation to any form of adversity experienced, individually and/or collectively.

Personal Context In order to better contextualize my reflections on adversity and growth in sports teams for the reader, it is first important to give some insight into my personal and professional background and personal consulting philosophy. As a SPC I have been working in team sports for more than two decades. Prior to that I had been involved in team sports in some aspect as an athlete or coach for over 20 years, gaining junior international representative honors, and participating at the semi-professional level. During my doctoral training, specializing in stress and performance, I also combined playing and coaching alongside my academic studies. My subsequent efforts as a neophyte SPC working in team sports were focused on understanding and enhancing the specific dynamics of the team itself. As my experiences and understanding of

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 237

working within sports teams and organizations has grown, I have increasingly become interested in the organizational environment within which teams are situated. Specifically, the roles of the individuals in this organization responsible for the creation and regulation of such high-performance cultures (see Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009). I have therefore sought to establish a level of contextual intelligence or understanding of how a sport organization operates (Brown, Gould, & Foster, 2005), in terms of not only the culture and context of the specific sport setting in which the individual operates, but also the historical and philosophical evolution of the sport and its formal and informal political structures (e.g., decision-making processes and customs, values and attitudes of people within the organization). Based upon my experiences of playing, coaching, and studying team sports I have adopted a context-driven personal consulting philosophy (Mellalieu, 2017), where my “modus operandi” has very much been one of locating myself firmly as another “expert” member of the support team, if you like an “insider,” as opposed to someone from “outside” of the sport with no understanding or experience of the sport itself. My philosophy has consequently been driven by the need to integrate psychological services into the existing high-performance environment as part of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) systems-based approach (Reid, Stewart, & Thorne, 2004). My day-to-day practice in the sports I work with is in keeping with my context-specific consulting philosophy of trying to understand the environment and the culture as much as possible and build working alliances and relationships with individuals (Tod & Andersen, 2012) through immersion in the sport and its context (see Bull, 1995). My context-driven “immersion” philosophy has allowed for an ongoing observation of the culture of the professional sporting team environment, and the day-to-day social interactions between individuals and groups, in and away from the training, practice, and competition environments. Having the capacity to observe individuals in situ in their “workplace” is an invaluable source of evidence for a SPC in numerous ways, such as getting to understand individual personality and behavioral tendencies, social networks, interpersonal skills, and, how athletes perform in training and competition in their sport. These strategies allow the SPC to collate evidence with which to establish robust profiles of their clients in their “natural” workplace environments to validate and/or unpick the various challenges that the individuals and the organization experience.

What Does Adversity Look like in a Professional Team Sport? Adversity comes in many forms and guises in sport and in this next section I discuss some examples of adversity experiences witnessed in my time working within professional team sport. All these experiences have resulted in a large degree of adversity for those parties involved, and challenges to their wellbeing. For the purposes of classification, I have organized these forms of adversity into individual, relational, group, and organizational levels.

238 Stephen D. Mellalieu

Individual-Level Adversity At the individual level, adversity in a professional sports team is prominent in many ways and can emanate from a range of performance, organization and personal demands faced (Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu, & Neil, 2010; Mellalieu et al., 2009). From a performance demand perspective, injury is one of the most common forms of adversity faced. Being a professional team sport athlete inevitably means that one will experience injury. It is certainly not a case of if an athlete will get injured, but when. In contact team sports especially, such as the soccer or rugby codes (rugby league, rugby union), injury is often the most frequent psychological stressor reported by athletes (Mellalieu et al., 2009), with long-term injuries meaning 9–12 months out of the sport, and in some circumstances a failure to return to play. While the psychological impact of injury has been well documented (see e.g., Wadey & Evans, 2011), a particular challenge for team sports players who receive long-term injuries is the isolation from the normal training group and loss of connection and interaction with fellow teammates, coaches, and support staff. In many professional team sports, the contact nature of the sport (e.g., rugby union) and the composition of the training, frequency of games, and length of season, dictate that teams require large squad sizes to offset the natural attrition from the injuries that occur (for example, figures suggest that up to a fifth of a professional rugby union team’s squad can be injured or unavailable to train at any one time; Brooks, Fuller, Kemp, & Reddin, 2005). In rugby union, for example, from a training squad of 40, only 15 players can start the game every week with up to 7–8 more players involved as potential replacements or substitutes coming “off the bench” to take part. This means that in at any one time almost half of a team’s squad are not able to undertake their job fully (i.e., play for the team) due to injury or non-selection. A further source of individual adversity therefore presents itself for those “squad” players who are fit to train and play, but regularly fail to make selection, often seen by coaches as merely providing numbers in the training session to allow the first-choice players or team to train effectively, without any realistic chance of making the starting team themselves. Indeed, once the season is underway there often comes a point where a player realizes they are not part of a coach’s selection plans, and unlikely to figure for the team for the rest of that season. This may be a particularly challenging situation if that individual is contracted for a considerable time period to the club and unable to move clubs, but equally unable to play. In relation to the organizational stressors faced by athletes within a professional team sport, a prominent demand witnessed in my practice experience is that of athlete contract negotiations. As certain as death and taxes, and becoming injured, is the fact that players will have to consider where, and for whom, they will compete (work) for in the medium to long term. Often this decision has to be

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 239

made on a two or three yearly basis throughout the course of an athlete’s career. The last year of a contract can therefore be a highly taxing process, and one that is often out of the athlete’s control and in the hands of those responsible for recruitment and retention at that team. The nature of the uncertainty around one’s employment status also produces challenges for athletes in terms of their ability to financially plan and manage their current and future status. Purchasing a new house, funding a business investment, or long-term financial planning to complement post-sport career plans are further impacted by the 2–3 yearly cycle of contract negotiations athletes have to engage in.

BOX 17.1 Janine was a player who I had known as part of the professional team I had been working with ever since I had been employed by the club. She had come up through the academy ranks and progressed through to the senior environment, earning a full-time contract to train and play as a professional in the sport. Only this was the problem, despite being a fully-fledged member of the squad, Janine’s appearances in the senior team had been limited to a spattering of starts during various injury crises, coupled with appearances from the substitutes bench. She was liked by the coaches and valued as a good squad player, who worked hard and was versatile in her ability to play a number of positions. However, the reality was she was never going to be a regular starter when everyone else in the squad in her position was fit. In the last year of her current contract it became evident that the club were announcing a number of new signings for the following season, some of those in Janine’s position. She was acutely aware that she needed as many opportunities (appearances for the team) as possible to boost her chances of being offered another contact. Despite her frustrations at being someone who was being increasingly perceived as “making up the numbers” for training, she still had ambitions to succeed in the professional game and believed that given the chance she could perform and excel. She also very much enjoyed being part of the club, and wanted to stay, having settled in the area and bought a property close to the training ground with her partner and young family. At the start of the season she got her chance, due to injuries and unavailability, and was picked to start the first few games. Unfortunately, she picked up a shoulder injury in the first game, battled through to be fit for the following week but suffered further complications and was withdrawn from the field of play. Subsequently what followed over the coming months were various failed attempts to regain fitness and return to play, as a problematic injury failed to heal sufficiently. Alongside the challenges of a complicated injury rehabilitation, she experienced chronic anxiety over the uncertainty of her contract situation, and the unwillingness of the club management to confirm a new contract for her,

240 Stephen D. Mellalieu

despite repeated requests directly and via her agent. As the time passed on, her injury failed to heal, her anxieties grew stronger and she experienced a breakdown in her relations with her partner, leading to her partner and their children leaving the family home permanently. The situation came to a head later in the season, when it was confirmed Janine would not be given a new contract, and due to her ongoing injury was unable to secure a new contract with another club. Reluctantly she decided to retire from the professional game at the end of the season.

Relational-Level Adversity Adversity in professional team sports can also come away from the game itself, from a personal context. While little empirical evidence has considered the personal stressors elite athletes face (see, e.g., Mellalieu et al., 2009), professional players are not immune to such challenges. Indeed, the personal challenges encountered away from the sport can also lead to the experience of relational adversity, frequently coming from the various relationship issues that team sport athletes face. The large commitment required to be a professional athlete can place a great strain upon an individual and those closest to them. Professional team sport athletes will frequently be away from their friends and family on a weekly basis during the regular league season, and often for large periods of time during representative tournaments or competitions. Such sustained disruption to social interactions can severely impact the quality of personal relations. Relationship breakdown, separation, and divorce can be common side effects of the life of a professional team sport athlete who fails to adapt to the irregular working patterns the environment presents.

Group-Level Adversity In addition to individual and relational forms of adversity, challenges can also come at the group level in professional team sports. A common contributor here to the team’s functioning and its subsequent performance is the turnover of its players and staff. The nature of professional sport, particularly in sports such as professional soccer, means it is a dynamic environment with change often the only certainty. On an annual (or even more frequent) basis, new players will enter the squad and some will move on or be released by the organization. This in itself can be detrimental to team functioning but is further compounded if there is turnover of the staff of the team (coach, support staff, etc.), none more so than when coaching staff are sacked during the season (Wagstaff, Gilmore, & Thelwell, 2015). Of course, a group can face challenges for many different reasons, beyond just the turnover of its players and staff (see Gucciardi et al., 2018). Often teams experience performance slumps, which can have a

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 241

detrimental impact overall upon team functioning. When a team faces a losing streak, a number of threats to its cohesion and functioning are experienced, including deselection of players and subsequent lack of contract renewal for those individuals, often resulting in further disruption and adversity (coach turnover). While injury is a major source of adversity for an individual player, if a team or playing squad suffers a number of serious injuries over a relatively short period of time, this can lead to a number of challenges at the group level by threatening the team’s ability to perform. Serious long-term (season-ending) injuries not only threaten the performance of a group but also elicit financial challenges at the organizational level for the team. Particularly if that injury occurs to a starting star or marquee player who needs to be replaced in-season with suitable cover. While some teams have strength in depth, multiple injuries to particular positions, as is common in contact sports such as the rugby codes, can leave teams with “bare cupboards” and in need of replacement cover. Trying to identify and recruit suitable replacements of a certain quality is not only labor-intensive but also a financially costly process, as individuals of a suitable quality who are available to replace the injured star players are often difficult to find and expensive to recruit (as they are already in contract with other clubs or teams).

Organizational-Level Adversity As professional sport is a business, changes to financial circumstances to teams can be a source of adversity. This is particularly evident in professional sports such as soccer, where wage inflation, and the introduction of wealthy owners, benefactors, and investors across leagues on a regular basis means that teams are constantly in an “arms race” to develop and enhance the quality for their playing squads, further inflating wage pressures and challenging those with tighter financial budgets with which to recruit players. At times, it is not uncommon to witness instances of proposed takeovers or mergers, which can place great strain upon all the individuals employed by, and associated with, that team or club (see Wagstaff, 2016). The threat of a takeover, or having your team endure financial struggles, with the potential of the club going out of existence, is a form of adversity at the organizational level and one that is not uncommon in many professional team sports. Further organizational-level adversity related to finance for a professional sports team may also include competition restructure, which may increase or decrease revenues for the team, or present other organizational- and group-level challenges (e.g., additional travel to new venues, domestically or overseas), and the withdrawal of a major sponsor of a league, tournament or competition (such as a TV broadcast sponsorship deal).

242 Stephen D. Mellalieu

BOX 17.2 At the start of my career one of my first appointments was as team psychologist to a professional sports team. This appointment happened to coincide with one of the most turbulent seasons in the team’s long history. The club had been supported for a long time by a wealthily financial benefactor who had sustained the club in terms of the injection of money for its playing squad and the development of the training ground and the stadium facilities. However, at the beginning of the season rumors circulated, both in the external press and internally among staff in the performance and commercial departments, that the benefactor was going to withdraw their financial support from the club, due to the way the club’s finances had been managed. The national governing body was also alleged to be undertaking a financial audit of the club to assess its viability to continue as a business. What started out as rumors quickly began to escalate through the club, and at first staff and player meetings were held whereby the senior management of the club stressed the rumors circulating were unfounded, only for further meetings to follow throughout the season to confirm that there were indeed financial challenges due to the benefactor withdrawing funding, and that there were potentially some threats to staff jobs and also those of the players. Accompanying the financial uncertainty off the field, the team was experiencing a performance slump and towards the end the season was looking more likely to be relegated from the league they were competing in, purely on results, let alone expulsion from the league due to the financial challenges faced. The matters all came to a head when the external media reported that the club was facing going out of existence due to financial irregularities and unpaid tax bills. Within 48 hours of the story appearing in the media, player and staff meetings were held to confirm that the club faced severe financial challenges, and there was a possibility of it going out of existence. What followed were a number of weeks of uncertainty, where the club subsequently confirmed it would remain in existence, but that cuts to staff and player budgets would need to be made in light of the financial circumstances, and also given that the club’s impending relegation was looming. Subsequently, a number of high-profile (and high-salaried) players were informed their contracts would not be renewed for the following season, and staff were also given the option to take voluntary redundancy.

Growth-Related Experiences in a Professional Team Sport Having described some examples of common (and not so common) challenges faced by those within a professional team sport environment I would now like to discuss some of the indicators of growth in relation to the adversity observed

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 243

through my professional practice experiences. Here, I have sought to group my observations into those relating to associated growth at the physical, intrapersonal, group, and organizational levels.

Physical-Level Growth At the physical or corporeal level, for athletes, growth from adversity is often reflected through embodied changes in size, strength, or technique. These changes may be through the result of physical (i.e., receiving a long-term injury) or psychological adversity (e.g., deselection, contract termination). For example, becoming a long-term injured athlete (see Chapter 14) will inevitably result in a physical detraining effect for a period of time in the initial recovery phase of rehabilitation, leading to loss in overall muscle mass (weight), especially around the injured limb (often referred by athletes as “wasting away”), further contributing to concerns about the ability to successfully return to sport. However, the time away from the day-to-day demands of a training regime with the fully fit squad or team, often affords an injured player time to work on his or her physical or technical deficiencies that were present pre-injury. Here growth is embodied in the notion of using the time wisely to come back bigger, stronger, fitter, faster than prior to the injury. In professional team sports, long-term injuries can also restrict a player’s physical or technical capacity to undertake training and performance once they return to their sport (e.g., players have a “modified” training status). It is not uncommon, therefore, to see players consequently change or adapt their technical (and tactical) playing style/performance as a result of the injury in order to maintain their ability to train/compete and remain in their profession. Rather than being seen as a negative, this behavior is often perceived as a positive change by players, who feel they have become more proficient or skilled as a result of the change in behavior. Whilst some injuries necessitate prescribed changes (on behalf of the medical team) in terms of weight-lifting techniques, time on-feet, or extent of exposure to the physical contact (associated with the sport) to manage the load on injured limbs, other injuries promote players to grow by self-engaging in ways to defend/ attack with different body postures (to protect injured limbs), or change tactical decision-making styles accordingly (to strengthen their performance and also become more physically robust). In itself, aside from changes at the physical or technical level, developing an overall awareness of the need to adapt to the changing demands of the sport within which athletes operate, represents a level of psychological growth in the form of an individual’s cognitive maturity/intelligence in their status as a professional athlete. Growth embodied through physical change can also arise from the psychological adversity of poor performances, subsequent deselection from the team, and the related demands which may ensue, such as contract renewal discussion. Physical factors are the most common areas of growth embodied through such

244 Stephen D. Mellalieu

adversity in team sports with large contact elements (e.g., the rugby codes), with athletes often seeking weight gain (increased muscle mass) or increases in speed or endurance to gain favor in the eyes of the coach or selectors (“I need to be bigger and stronger and more powerful in order to convince the coach to pick me”). This behavior, of course, can also have a potential downside in that such a growth “narrative” in a professional sporting culture may encourage athletes to do “too much” and lead them to become injured themselves (Wadey et al., 2019).

Intrapersonal-Level Growth Aside from physical embodiment, psychological growth also frequently occurs at the intrapersonal level in professional team sports. A frequent space for such growth is when an athlete becomes long-term injured and they experience challenges to their athletic identity and overall wellbeing. Time away from training and competing often forces players to review their current outlook on their sport, engage in career planning for life after sport, and look to undertake some form of continuing professional development activity. Often this goes hand-in-hand with a broader outlook on life, and the need to put the sport into perspective, and ensure that they are able to switch off away from the sport and enhance and protect their wellbeing. Such changes in outlook are frequently prompted through the modification in routine when a player picks up a long-term injury. For example, while players have regular and intensive rehabilitation with the medical teams at the professional club, days are shorter and spare time is greater, often leading to those inexperienced injured players (young or first-time injured) feeling bored and with time on their hands. Individual players who are over 18 years old but have not started or engaged in any education or training due to prioritizing their sport commitments often drift into a “hard to reach” category, within which they remain, often oblivious to the importance of having outside interests to maintain or protect wellbeing. For others, the injury is the trigger to seek active opportunities outside of the sport, to “keep busy” to maintain wellbeing, but also grow psychologically. Cultural influences inside and outside of the sport can potentially impact upon these opportunities for growth (e.g., supportive team managers, partners or friends pushing for the injured athlete to engage in activities while injured). The reality is that some players will not recover fully from the adversity of the long-term injury received to be able to play and return to their sport. Here growth can be evident, both in terms of the psychological resources developed to manage the injury and the rehabilitation process itself, but also during the retirement from sport process and beyond. While the characteristics of successful and less successful career termination experiences in sport are well-documented (see Park, Lavallee, & Tod, 2013), it is particularly noteworthy to see growth occurring in the long term with players who experience forced retirement from the sport. Players who are forced to retire often take some time to being to be

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 245

comfortable in their new skin (identity formation) as a former professional player and embrace whatever life holds next for them. The role of family, peers, and formal networks (i.e., player associations) would appear to influence the quality of players’ ability to manage and successfully negotiate the potential crisis transition and the development of suitable coping resources. Again, cultures (inside and outside) of the sport where careers after sport are reinforced, and the presence of role models that exist to exemplify such practice (former players from the club who have successfully transitioned) appear particularly important to support the growth of a balanced identity for life after sport and positive wellbeing.

BOX 17.3 I had kept in regular contact with Janine since she had left the club the previous season, in this time she acknowledged that the uncertainty of whether she would be offered a new contract had placed her under a large degree of stress and impacted upon her ability to undertake her job as a professional athlete day-to-day, both in terms of training and performance. She also described how the demand of securing her employment had “seeped” into her personal life, affecting the quality of social and personal relations with those closest to her. Although Janine had initially decided to retire from her sport at the end of the season due to her long-term injury, a short-term contact offer came in from a nearby professional team for the following season. The offer was a chance for Janine to keep the dream alive, especially as she felt she had unfinished business given the way her injury had hampered her chance to demonstrate her ability and play professionally. She accepted the contract offer and began preseason with the club, managing to get her injured limb to a level where she was able to be available for selection. However, following some promising appearances for the team, halfway through the season Janine sadly re-injured the same limb and was advised on medical grounds she would have to retire from the sport. Janine saw joining the new club as a “fresh start,” and to avoid the adversity experienced over the past 12 months or so, she began to actively engage in processes to prepare for life after sport. Contact was made with the player association to gain career advice, training courses were undertaken, together with work experience opportunities. By the time Janine was “retired” officially from the sport, she had a potential career alternative lined up within the business sector and several informal job opportunities from the development of her social networks. Janine had also managed come to an agreement with her former partner regarding access to their children, they had sold the family house, and both had moved into new properties. Janine was now also engaging in alternative physical activity modes (she was training for triathlons) as a way to give her a goal and focus to work towards, over and above her desire to gain employment in the business sector. In my more recent meetings with Janine during this period I observed someone who was less anxious, more

246 Stephen D. Mellalieu

confident and assured, almost more at peace with herself and (accepting of) her situation. This was in stark contrast to her wellbeing and state of mind in the previous 12 months or so. She appeared someone who was now looking forward, as opposed to reflecting on the past and what could or might have been, seeking to allocate blame for her situation. Reflecting back on this period, Janine recounted that despite some challenging and “dark” moments, the support from her immediate family (she had moved in with her parents during the separation), friends, and fellow players (regular coffee mornings) had been a valued resource. She particularly emphasized the support she had gained from several former professional players whom she had been put in touch with via the player association, and how they shared their retirement experiences, the meaning they took from these experiences, and how it had helped them to shape their actions for the future in finishing playing sport, and moving into new careers. Janine, emphasized how she had been fearful of losing her identity because she would no longer be able to play her sport, but she had now come to terms with this and the fact that a part of her would always be a professional athlete, only that she was now a professional athlete who couldn’t play her sport, but was able to satisfy these “traits” in different ways in her future career paths.

Threats to wellbeing can also occur with those players who are fit and healthy but are classed as squad members or non-starters by their coaches, leading to adversity experiences of not being considered for selection for the team in the medium to long term. For some individuals in this category, the reality that they (athletes) are not going to be involved in the starting team, or sitting on the bench as a replacement, or that they need to find another club, often prompts the development of coping resources, through action and support seeking, to deploy strategies to improve their situation. This support may come specifically through a learning and development culture within their professional club environment, or through support from family, friends, and business contacts externally. It is worth noting, however, that some players chose not to engage in such activities and have neither the psychological resources nor motivation to engage in such practices to handle the adversity presented.

Team-Level Growth Accompanying growth in intrapersonal elements such as enhanced wellbeing and identity formation, adversity can also promote team (group) level growth. At the group level, exposure to adversity in the form of continued underperformance or a slump by the team (persistent underperformance resulting in sustained losses or defeats) often leads to turnover in coaching and support staff, bringing the potential for team physical and technical

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 247

growth (see Berger & Weiss, 2009). For example, the introduction of new conditioning staff, who implement different working and training practices (longer working days, increased training volume), may lead to a collective perception from the group of “team” physical growth as a consequence (e.g., “we have rolled our sleeves up, we are working harder” and “we are fitter and stronger than last season”). The introduction/development of new working and training practices due to underperformance can also lead to changes in the dynamics of the team and perceived psychological growth in the group. For example, the increase in a team’s confidence brought from the change in the playing philosophy of tactics and strategies introduced by new coaches is often characterized by enhanced interpersonal communication and cooperation between players, greater cohesion and collective efficacy, and overall team functioning.

Organizational-Level Growth Perceived changes in group or interpersonal factors due to adversity also have the potential to lead to organizational growth within a professional sports team (Haque, TitiAmayah, & Liu, 2016; Wagstaff et al., 2015). For example, the threat from, or reality of, financial hardship (e.g., the team going into administration or out of business) for players and staff within the organization of a sports team (see Box 17.4), can also lead to enhanced working practices that lead to stronger interpersonal dynamics and overall productivity and functioning on and off the field. In my observations, professional sports teams often face multiple challenges at the organizational level, such as financial hardship and acquisition or takeover (proposed or actual), with multilevel growth occurring through the ability to become resilient to such adversity by its members, both individually and collectively. In addition to “physical” growth at the individual and team level, what might be termed or viewed as a form of physical organizational growth may also occur. This could be in terms of the impact that, for example, the adversity a professional sports team faces off the field (e.g., difficult financial circumstances and uncertainty on the future of the club/team) can have on its strategic direction and operational working practices. In professional sport financial constraints and the threat of going out of business – due to player budget overspend, and reduced revenues from gate receipts, sponsorship, and investors – can lead to changes in the way that the organizational aspect of a professional sports team runs their day-to-day practices. Here my observation is that the team’s organization often seeks to become physically “leaner” and “wiser” as an entity in operational terms – with many parallels to the changes and physical growth an injured player may undergo in returning from injury to sport.

248 Stephen D. Mellalieu

BOX 17.4 The announcement of the team potentially going out of existence certainly was a challenging time for me both personally and professionally … let alone my fellow staff members and players. On being told of the news of the club’s potential fate, a collective wave of speculation and anxiety spread throughout the organization. For a period for 48–72 hours the only thing talked about between or among staff and players was the likelihood of loss of jobs and the loss of the club itself. For want of a better word it felt like a collective organizational “paralysis,” staff and players just spending the day in and around the workplace talking about the situation, with little or no productivity. Player training sessions were also cancelled or shortened in the immediate aftermath of the news. Following this initial “shock,” however, collective action started to occur after a few days. Initially meetings were held between the players and the player association with professional advocates present, to discuss legal implications (would contracts be honored?). Then staff met collectively with management to seek further clarification about their own positions, and their contractual status (note that while player associations exist to represent the needs of the players, no equivalent association exists for staff, thereby increasing feelings of vulnerability and anxiety at the time, something I experienced acutely). Staff representatives emerged or were appointed to coordinate views and opinions. Private social media groups were created to share daily communication/updated news among staff members, and weekly face-to-face staff meetings for all staff were initiated to share updates and for management to field queries and concerns. On the playing front, several squad meetings were held among players and coaching staff where players openly shared their commitment and passion for the club and a desire for the club to not only stay in existence, but to avoid the potential impending relegation threat, and be successful moving forward. Coaching staff and players subsequently appeared to “circle the wagons” and trained and played with improved focus and intent. Performances improved, and relegation at the end of the season was avoided. The quote at the start of this chapter is from the team’s coach following the game where relegation was avoided and reflects the coach’s view of how the team had come together collectively in the face of the adversity to avoid relegation. Although the club managed to stay in existence some financial cuts were made across the organization, including both staff and players. Staff were offered voluntary redundancy, which several took up, while a number of higher-profile players were released from contracts early, or not re-contracted in order to manage wage levels. The result in the turnover in personnel, both staff and player, meant a reorganization of “core business.” Off the field this took the form of revised support structures, particularly in the medical and

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 249

strength and conditioning (S&C) departments. Some senior staff had moved on with the redundancies, and therefore junior staff were given more responsibilities and amended roles. Overall the business had a much “leaner” feel. Communication practices improved, evidenced by more “all staff” meetings, and informal social gatherings (with and without the playing staff). The changes in the player roster weren’t really felt until the following seasons, and similar to the staff changes, the turnover of senior players paved the way for a number of younger, talented local academy players to step up and gain more opportunities in the senior team environment. Changes that were to bear fruit in that the team’s performances improved over a two-year period, eventually leading them to success by winning a domestic cup title.

Conceptualizing Multilevel Growth in Research and Practice In reflecting on my experiences of witnessing the adversity faced in professional sports teams and subsequent observations of what we would call behaviors associated with growth, there are a number of considerations for the conceptualization of growth at the individual, group, and organizational level (see also Chapter 1). First, it is important to reflect that professional team sports provide individuals with a number of sources of adversity (from performance, organizational and personal sources) common with those identified in the existing literature in sport psychology (see, e.g., Fletcher et al., 2010; Mellalieu et al., 2009). Consequently, professional sport team environments appear to provide rich opportunities for, and occurrence of, individual growth due to this adversity. However, forms of adversity also exist that have the potential to impact upon individuals as a team or group, and as an organization (see Chapters 7 and 8). Accordingly, “growth” in some form would therefore also appear to exist at the group (team) and organization level in response to such adversity in these environments. While there has been limited research in sport focusing at growth beyond the individual level, work in other social psychological contexts, such as the area of family systems (Berger & Weiss, 2009), indicates a number of parallels with professional team sports environments. These include positive changes in a team’s identity, integrity, and legacy, characterized by transformed relations between team members and extended family and friends (staff and supporters), resolution of past losses or conflicts, and the team and organization’s belief system (see King & Wynne, 2004). Work examining organizational-level growth in other domains also has parallels with the observations related in this current chapter. Powley (2009), for example, has reported an organization’s capacity to recover after an unexpected organizational crisis (a shooting and standoff in a business school) was underpinned by three social mechanisms: liminal suspension – the alteration of relational structures and the emergence of new relational patterns as a result of crisis; compassionate witnessing –

250 Stephen D. Mellalieu

noticing and feeling empathy for others; and relational redundancy – how interpersonal connections intersect and span beyond immediate social reference groups. In acknowledging that there can be collective or “shared” growth it is also important to consider that growth in response to adversity can be experienced on multiple levels. For example, the adversity coming from the threat to the existence of a sports team due to financial problems, and the subsequent response of its members can be considered individually (the personal strain a player feels as a result of the uncertainty of whether they will have a job the following season and their resilience developed in coping with this process), at the team level (the increase in interpersonal communication between members of the team/squad in dealing the adversity), and organizationally (improvement in organizational functioning of staff and players in response to the financial threat of going out the team of business). While limited work has considered such a concept, directly or indirectly, inside or outside of sport (see, e.g., Haque et al., 2016; Wagstaff et al., 2015), in discussing posttraumatic growth beyond the individual, Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, and Calhoun (2018) note that as families and organizations are systems that are more complex than the sum of the individuals within them, approaches should attempt to go beyond applying or modifying inquiry designed to capture individual-level growth to the group level. Lastly, in seeking to conceptualize growth in professional sports teams, an important theme from the reflections of this chapter is the factors that potentially influence the growth experience – those conditions that appear necessary for growth, at the individual, relational, team, and organizational level. Here, the culture inside and outside of the sport appears to have a large influence on the potential for individual and collective growth opportunities and experiences in response to adversity. The role of formal (player association and player development managers) and informal (partners, family members and loved ones, retired players) support networks would appear pivotal in influencing individual cognitive processes. This conceptualization aligns with Calhoun and Tedeschi’s (2006) model of posttraumatic growth (see Chapter 2), which highlights the role of sociocultural factors upon the rumination process, both at the proximate or micro/meso (family, friends, teammates and peers) and distal or macro levels (social values and discourse within the culture and wider team environment).

Future Research Directions To conclude, I offer a number of areas for future research in relation to growth at the group and organizational level. First, as my practice-based reflections provide some level of evidence to suggest experiences of adversity and growth exist at the relational, group, and organizational level in professional team sport, more work is needed to further explore these preliminary observations to better describe and understand such phenomena in relation to the existing

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 251

conceptualizations from other life domains (e.g., family systems; Berger & Weiss, 2009), not only within professional team sports, but also across other modalities and populations in sport. For example, athletes competing in individual sport disciplines are not alone, they commonly train in groups, with athletes of similar standards, supported by a team staff or coaches, all employed or working for the sport or national governing body. In seeking to consider collective experiences of adversity and growth beyond team sports, a further conceptual note of worth here is that outside of sport the existing literature has predominantly focused on job/organizational contexts that are likely to engender severe responses to adversity (i.e., trauma), such as disaster work, emergency services, the military, and police professions. These are all domains that may be viewed as “trauma-prone” professions. Little research has focused on more “ordinary” work contexts and work-related adversity where stress-related, as opposed to trauma-related, growth is likely, and more akin to the forms of adversity and growth reported in the high-performance team sports environment in this chapter. Indeed, greater knowledge of collective adversity and growth experiences in sport in general has significant potential to inform understanding regarding various forms of growth in a range of occupational domains regarded as equally mentally and physically demanding (e.g., education, health sector). In seeking to offer a conceptualization of growth at the group and organization level in sport, researchers enter the familiar territory and path well-trodden by social psychologists in how to consider a construct at multiple levels (e.g., individual, group, organization). For example, deliberation already exists within the group dynamics literature surrounding concepts such as collective efficacy (a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment; Bandura, 1997, p. 477) and the ability to consider its existence at multiple levels (e.g., individual versus group perceptions of a team’s shared belief; Shearer, Holmes, & Mellalieu, 2009). Comparable discussion and consideration is therefore warranted in relation to conceptualizing adversity and growth at the collective level. Specifically, the ability to discern whether the adversity faced is individual, shared, or merely common, and whether any subsequent growth can be realized individually, collectively as a group or organization. Again, a wealth of literature exists in the group dynamics area discussing interpersonal, group and organizational constructs that can help researchers to better understand adversity and growth at the collective and organizational level (Moritz & Watson, 1998). Any psychological construct that is dynamic and multilevel in nature requires adoption of suitable methodologies that can capture and reflect such properties. In this respect future research needs to conduct in-depth longitudinal investigations (see Chapter 3) of high-performance teams and sports organizations to capture the diverse and dynamic multilevel nature of adversity and growth as reflected in this chapter (Day & Wadey, 2017). Interpretative approaches to data collection have

252 Stephen D. Mellalieu

already helped to illuminate our understanding of individual experiences of growth and adversity (see, e.g., Morgan, Fletcher, & Sarkar, 2015) and similar methods would appear to be fruitful for future research in the area. Alongside comprehensive case study designs capturing the rich narratives of athletes, teams and their respective organizations, in keeping with the practice-based evidence lens adopted in this chapter, research should explore autoethnographic accounts from experienced practitioners and stakeholders “living” through or witnessing such adversity and subsequent growth. Indeed, given the significant potential for practice-based evidence to inform both theory and practice in relation to adversity and growth (see Wadey et al., 2019), practice-based models and “practical” theories are encouraged. On a related note, in addition to witnessing the phenomena, the potential growth encountered by the sport psychologist themselves in their practice is also likely to be an important area of research, given the experiences described by healthcare practitioners and counsellors in other domains (cf. Day & Wadey, 2017). Lastly, in adopting a more fine-grained and longitudinal consideration of multilevel adversity and growth, through the utilization of interpretative inquiry, the construct may also benefit from the introduction of a complementary, more pragmatic, lens, which seeks to develop suitable measurement instruments that are able to discern between the construct at the individual, group, and organizational level. In constructing assessment instruments capturing multiple-level constructs, appropriate statistical techniques are required to analyze such levels. Here, statistical modelling procedures, such as multilevel modelling, established in the group dynamics discipline (see e.g., Christ et al., 2017), would offer some useful areas for inquiry.

Conclusion In this chapter I have sought to consider my observations and reflections on the adversity and growth witnessed while working within professional team sport environments in the United Kingdom over a 20-year period of sport psychology service provision. My reflections highlight multilevel (individual, relational, group, organization) adversity experiences within such environments and the subsequent responses or indicators of growth at the physical, intrapersonal and collective level. These reflections provide practice-based evidence to inform the conceptualization of adversity and growth-related experiences in sport, particularly at the group and organization level. To further understanding of multilevel adversity and growth, in line with the aim and scope of this chapter, future research should seek to undertake more practice-based evidence inquiry to develop models that can inform both theory and practice. In-depth longitudinal investigations of high-performance teams and sports organizations, including practice-based evidence from practitioner autoethnographies, will allow for the capture of the diverse and dynamic nature of adversity and growth in these environments, accompanied by the development and utilization of suitable instruments to capture these contexts.

Adversity and Growth in Sports Teams 253

References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Berger, R., & Weiss, T. (2009). The Posttraumatic Growth Model: An expansion to the family system. Traumatology, 15, 63–74. doi:10.1177/1534765608323499. Brooks, J. H., Fuller, C. W., Kemp, S. P. T., & Reddin, D. B. (2005). Epidemiology of injuries in English professional rugby union: Part 1 match injuries. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(10), 757–766. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.018135. Brown, C., Gould, D., & Foster, S. (2005). A framework for developing contextual intelligence (CI). The Sport Psychologist, 19, 51–62. doi:10.1123/tsp.19.1.51. Bull, S. J. (1995). Reflections on a 5-year consultancy program with the England women’s cricket team. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 148–163. doi:10.1123/tsp.19.1.51. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2006). Handbook of posttraumatic growth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Schmid, K., Green, E. G., Sarrasin, O., Gollwitzer, M., & Wagner, U. (2017). Advanced multilevel modeling for a science of groups: A short primer on multilevel structural equation modeling. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 21, 121–134. doi:10.1037/gdn0000065. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2017). Researching growth following adversity in sport and exercise: Methodological implications and future recommendations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(4), 499–513. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2017.1328460. Evans, A. L., Slater, M. J., Turner, M. J., & Barker, J. B. (2013). Using personal-disclosure mutual-sharing to enhance group functioning in a professional soccer academy. The Sport Psychologist, 27(3), 233–243. doi:10.1123/tsp.27.3.233. Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S. D., & Neil, R. (2010). A conceptual framework of organizational stressors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 22, 545–557. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01242.x. 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. Fletcher, D., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its emergence, application and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 427–434. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.009. Gucciardi, D. F., Crane, M., Ntoumanis, N., Parker, S. K., Thøgersen‐Ntoumani, C., Ducker, K. J., … & Temby, P. (2018). The emergence of team resilience: A multilevel conceptual model of facilitating factors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 729–768. doi:10.1111/joop.12237. Haque, M. D., TitiAmayah, A., & Liu, L. (2016). The role of vision in organizational readiness for change and growth. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 983–999. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-2015-0003. Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 234, 117–159. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. King, D. A., & Wynne, L. C. (2004). The emergence of “family integrity” in later life. Family Process, 42, 7–21. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.04301003.x. Mellalieu, S. D. (2017). Sport psychology consulting in professional rugby union in the United Kingdom, Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 8(2), 109–120. doi:10.1080/ 02640410902889834.

254 Stephen D. Mellalieu

Mellalieu, S. D., Neil R., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2009). Competition stress in sport performers: Stressors experienced in the competition environment. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 729–744. doi:10.1080/02640410902889834. Morgan, P. B., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2015). Understanding team resilience in the world’s best athletes: A case study of a rugby union World Cup winning team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 91–100. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.007. Morgan, P. B., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2017). Recent developments in team resilience research in elite sport. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 159–164. doi:10.1016/j. copsyc.2017.05.013. Moritz, S. E., & Watson, C. B. (1998). Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 285–298. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.285. Park, S., Lavallee, D., & Tod, D. (2013). Athletes’ career transition out of sport: A systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 22–53. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2012.687053. Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human Relations, 62, 1289–1326. doi:10.1177/0018726709334881. Reid, C., Stewart, E., & Thorne, G. (2004). Multidisciplinary sport science teams in elite sport: Comprehensive servicing or conflict and confusion? The Sport Psychologist, 18, 204–217. doi:10.1123/tsp.18.2.204. Shearer, D. A., Holmes, P., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2009). Collective efficacy in sport: The future from a social neuroscience perspective. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 38–53. doi:10.1080/17509840802695816. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. London, UK: Routledge. Tod, D., & Andersen, M. B. (2012). Practitioner–client relationships in applied sport psychology practice. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Professional practice in sport psychology: A review (pp. 273–306). London, UK: Routledge. Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2011). Working with injured athletes: Research and practice. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Professional practice in sport psychology: A review (pp. 107–132). London, UK: Routledge. Wadey, R., Roy-Davis, K., Evans, L., Howells, K., Salim, J., & Diss, C. (2019). Sport psychology consultants’ perspectives on facilitating sport-injury-related growth. The Sport Psychologist, 33(3), 244–255. doi:10.1123/tsp.2018-0110. Wagstaff, C. R. (Ed.). (2016). The organizational psychology of sport: Key issues and practical applications. London, UK: Routledge. Wagstaff, C. R. D., Gilmore, S., & Thelwell, R. C. (2015). Sport medicine and sport science practitioners’ experiences of organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(5), 685–698. doi:10.1111/sms.12340.

PART 5

Conclusion

18 TAKING STOCK AND MAKING HAY Growth Following Adversity Research in Applied Sport Psychology Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Introduction This book represents a diverse series of chapters that provide detailed insights into trajectories of growth following adversity research in sport, each closing with, and offering the reader, exciting and novel future research directions that will expand our understanding of this intriguing phenomenon. We are proud of what the chapters offer readers and hope the content will inspire new generational interest in the wellbeing and welfare of people involved in sport who experience adversity. Given the wealth of research covered across these chapters and the multitude of future research recommendations offered at the close of each chapter, we debated for some time about the need for a closing chapter. What could we say that hasn’t already been said? We knew we did not want to summarize the chapters in this book as we wanted them to “speak for themselves.” However, following conversations with several of the chapter authors who posed questions to us (e.g., “What do you think are the most important future research directions?”) and reflective discussions after a recent symposium on growth following adversity in sport held at the 34th Annual Conference Association of Applied Sport Psychology Conference (Howells, Wadey, & Mellalieu, 2019), we surmised growing interest in more macro or “bigger-picture” future research directions that operate across rather than within the specific chapters in this book. At the conference, there was also intrigue from sport psychology researchers and practitioners relating to how the concept of growth fitted into the broader objectives of the profession of applied sport psychology and included questions such as: “Can growth lead to enhanced performance?” “Can growth support athletes’ mental health?” and “Can growth help to bring about social justice?”

258 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Reflecting on the questions posed in addition to ongoing conversations with sport psychology researchers and practitioners about this field of research, we decided to write a closing chapter, the aim of which was twofold. First, we take stock of growth following adversity research in sport (i.e., first-wave research) with the goal of illuminating its strengths and shortcomings. Reflecting on this evaluation we make suggestions about how the strengths might be harnessed and the shortcomings alleviated to inform future work (i.e., second-wave research). This shift from first- to second-wave research involves moving from: (a) intradisciplinary to multi/inter/transdisciplinary research, (b) narrow to multiple pathways to growth, and (c) uncritical to critical considerations. Second, we consider how second-wave research can better align with the broad objectives of the profession of applied sport psychology. Herein, we consider the expanding scope of sport psychology and reflect on how the concept of growth can support its (current) goals of facilitating performance in sport (and beyond), enhancing health and wellbeing, and bringing about social justice (Schinke et al., 2019; Schinke, Stambulova, Si, & Moore, 2018; Sly, Wagstaff, & Mellalieu, 2019).

Taking Stock of Growth Following Adversity Research in Sport Since the first empirical study on growth following adversity in sport (Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Beck, 1997), much has been written about this concept over the past two decades. In what we refer to as “first-wave research” (i.e., between 1997 and 2020), researchers in sport psychology have either examined psychological experiences of growth (e.g., Crawford, Gayman, & Tracey, 2014; Day, 2013; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2018; Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013), provided explanations for growth-related experiences (e.g., Day & Wadey, 2016; Roy-Davis, Wadey, & Evans, 2017; Savage, Collins, & Cruickshank, 2017), addressed when and for whom adversity is more (or less) likely to lead to growth (e.g., Collins, MacNamara, & McCarthy, 2016; Galli & Reel, 2012; Salim, Wadey, & Diss, 2015; Wadey, Evans, Hanton, Sarkar, & Oliver, 2019), and considered how to facilitate growth in athletic samples (e.g., Salim & Wadey, 2018, 2019; Wadey et al., 2019). Collectively, these articles provide an insightful illustration of the diverse and exciting lines of inquiry in sport psychology, offering considerable support to the wider growth literature. To illustrate, support has been found for “traditional” indicators of growth identified by Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) in their pioneering research (e.g., increased appreciation for life, more meaningful relationships, increased sense of personal strength) and some of the fundamental tenets (e.g., cognitive and emotional processing) of two widely accepted theories of growth: the functional descriptive model (FDM) of posttraumatic growth (Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018) and the organismic valuing theory of growth (Joseph & Linley, 2005). However, not only does sport-specific growth research resonate with and support the wider growth literature, it is important to recognize it also extends, challenges, and provides novel insights into this phenomenon.

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 259

Regarding the novelty of sport psychology research on growth following adversity, or what we consider to be its signature strengths, we argue that it has extended the wider literature on growth in at least three important ways. First, sport psychology researchers have extended the conceptual and theoretical foundation of this area of research. To illustrate, researchers have identified new conceptual dimensions of growth and considered growth beyond an individual (psychological) experience (see Chapters 6–10). For example, following a systematic review of the literature, Howells, Sarkar, and Fletcher (2017) identified physical indicators as a new dimension of growth (e.g., physically stronger, increased health and fitness, improved body-self relationship). It was reported, “these physical indicators of growth have not been reported in the wider growth literature and there may be specific to growth in sport performers” (p. 38). Furthermore, several conceptualizations of and theories underpinning this field of research in the wider domain (see Chapters 1 and 2) purport how growth following adversity only occurs through the process of positive accommodation or deliberate and constructive rumination (i.e., the development of a new worldview to include new information) rather than assimilation (i.e., incorporating the new information into one’s current worldview). However, research findings in applied sport psychology have shown that individuals can experience growth by either the process of accommodation or assimilation (see Chapter 14). Lastly, research in applied sport psychology has also challenged our theoretical understanding of growth following adversity research. In contrast to “just” testing theory, which has been the typical approach adopted in the wider growth literature, researchers in sport psychology (viz. Galli & Reel, 2012; Roy-Davis et al., 2017; Day & Wadey, 2016) have applied and built theory that have identified to novel antecedents (e.g., narrative typologies) and mechanisms (e.g., metacognitions) that extend the wider growth literature. Second, unlike the wider growth literature, sport psychology researchers have arguably used more diverse and novel methodologies and methods. For example, Tamminen et al. (2013) used interpretative phenomenological analysis to explore the lived experiences of elite female athletes; Roy-Davis et al. (2017) used grounded theory to develop a substantive (rather than formal) theory of growth following sport injury; Day and Wadey (2016) used an instrumental, collective case study to illustrate the experiences of two men with acquired disability; Howells and Fletcher (2016) used the autobiographies of Olympic swimming champions to explore adversity- and growth-related experiences; and Savage et al. (2017) used the method of timelining in their temporal-based research design to explore trauma in the development of talent in sport. Although there is tremendous scope to further expand both the research designs used and our methodological toolkit (see Chapter 3), it is important to stop, recognize, and celebrate the excellent and diverse research that has been conducted in applied sport psychology.

260 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Finally, sport psychology researchers have also critically considered the methodological challenges of doing research on growth following adversity (Day & Wadey, 2016; Howells et al., 2017), which include the use of language during data collection, protecting participants (i.e., relational ethics), and how researching trauma can be problematic for the researcher (e.g., vicarious trauma; see Chapter 4). Day and Wadey reported that this line of research is of critical importance for three reasons: (a) it holds pedagogical value for neophyte qualitative researchers and more established researchers who seek to become wellversed in the challenges of doing research on adversity and growth, (b) it encourages researchers to be more reflexive in their methodological choices and the implications of their decisions, and (c) it has the potential to improve the integrity and quality of future research by identifying methodological perils and pitfalls and examples of best practice.

Future Research Directions Aside from reinforcing the strengths of sport psychology research on growth following adversity, it is also important to take a step back and consider some of the shortcomings of this body of research and how they can be alleviated in the next wave of research. We propose three new horizons for future research that require a shift from: (a) intradisciplinary to multi/inter/transdisciplinary research, (b) narrow to diverse pathways to growth, and (c) uncritical to critical considerations. We believe this shift will mature this field of research from a conceptual, theoretical, and applied perspective.

Intradisciplinary to Multi/Inter/Transdisciplinary Up until now, the sport psychology literature (and arguably the wider growth literature) has treated growth following adversity as a psychological construct and relied on self-report measures of data collection (e.g., questionnaires, interviews) to understand and learn about this concept. However, we agree with Tedeschi et al. (2018) who reported that growth is, and should be, an area of multi- and interdisciplinary interest, because it has clear links to a variety of disciplines. To illustrate, there are emerging bodies of literature on growth following adversity that explore neurological and biological mechanisms, indicators, and consequences (e.g., brain activity, pain, stress hormones) and associated methods (e.g., electroencephalogram, magnetoencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging) of data collection (e.g., Anders et al., 2015; Bower, Moskowitz, & Epel, 2009; Fujisawa et al., 2015; Katz, Flasher, Cacciapaglia, & Nelson, 2001; Rabe, Zöllner, Maercker, & Karl, 2006). For example, Katz et al. (2001) reported that patients who perceived more growth following illness (e.g., cancer) reported less physical pain. Therefore, taking a more biopsychological approach in future research we believe is likely to be a

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 261

fruitful endeavor, especially considering that, “Trauma always leaves the individual transformed on a biological, as well as psychological, level” (Christopher, 2004, p. 75). Alternatively, or in addition to, there is also increasing interest on growth following adversity from a social science perspective (e.g., social psychology, sociology, organizational psychology, cross-cultural psychology; Berger & Weiss, 2009; Haque, TitiAmayah, & Liu, 2016; McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, & Bowman, 2001; Weiss & Berger, 2010). This body of research illustrates the importance of factoring in the web of relations with significant others, as well as group, institutional, and cultural and subcultural norms and values, to understand growth-related experiences (see Chapters 1, 4, 6–10, 17). Therefore, drawing from allied sport-related disciplines (e.g., social psychology of sport, sociology of sport) and their associated concepts (e.g., climate, cohesion, hierarchy, traditions) and methodologies (e.g., ethnography, narrative inquiry) could help to identify and further explain the powerful determinants of behavior that are not solely psychological in nature. Moving to a psychosocial (and perhaps spiritual; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016) approach in future research in sport, we believe will be critical to the advancement of this field of research. In summary, to understand the complexity of growth following adversity in sport we believe we need a shift from an intradisciplinary to multi- and interdisciplinary approach that interconnects biological, psychological, social, and perhaps spiritual factors (i.e., bio-psycho-social-spiritual approach) and bridges epistemological and methodological differences. Growth following adversity is more than merely a psychological phenomenon. Despite the aforementioned examples drawn from the wider growth literature, we would still argue that research on growth following adversity has still not matured to the point that is can be considered interdisciplinary – with a true synthesis of approaches and integration of knowledge and methods across disciplines (Stember, 1991) – so there is tremendous scope for groundbreaking programs of research. It is also hoped that with more interdisciplinary lines of research, more transdisciplinary research will follow. That is, rather than drawing from the theories, concepts, and methods from different disciplines, transdisciplinary research reflects the creation of a new holistic way of approaching a phenomenon – an approach that transverses traditional disciplinary boundaries (Kessel & Rosenfield, 2008).

Narrow to Diverse Pathways to Growth As several chapters have argued in this book, the concept of growth has shifted from a unidimensional to multidimensional conceptualization. To briefly recap, in the mid-1990s there was confusion in the literature as to whether growth was a unidimensional or multidimensional phenomenon. In their development of the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS), Park, Cohen, and Murch (1996) used principle component analysis and identified the 50 items to load on one factor.

262 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

The authors interpreted this finding to mean that growth-related experiences are interrelated. At the same time, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) had developed the Posttraumatic Growth Scale (PTGI). Using principle components analysis, five dimensions were identified: relating to others (e.g., “A sense of closeness with others”), new possibilities (e.g., “I established a new path for my life”), personal strength (e.g., “I discovered that I’m stronger than I thought I was”), spiritual change (e.g., “I have a stronger religious faith”), and appreciation of life (e.g., “An appreciation for the value of my own life”). Despite these two contrasting perspectives emerging in the literature, subsequent research provided further evidence on the dimensionality of the construct. For example, the items on the SRGS have been found to represent a three-, seven-, and eight-factor structure (e.g., Roesch, Rowley, & Vaughn, 2004) and studies have replicated the factor structure of the PTGI (e.g., Morris, Shakespeare-Finch, Rieck, & Newbury, 2005). Therefore, it appears there is growing consensus that growth following adversity is a multidimensional phenomenon. However, despite this conceptual advancement, the theories and models driving this area of research have largely remained somewhat limited, or unidimensional, in the pathways to growth-related experiences. The theories and models currently directing this field of research propose that the same processes lead to different types of growth. To elaborate, Tedeschi et al.’s (2018) FDM of PTG is largely underpinned by two explicitly cognitive anchors: a seismic event that challenges a person’s fundamental schemas and beliefs about themselves and their world, and cognitive processes of the meaning of the traumatic event, especially deliberate rumination, schema change, and narrative development (see Chapter 2). These two cognitive processes are theorized to be the same mechanisms by which all five domains of growth occur in their model (i.e., relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, appreciation of life). In a similar vein, Joseph and Linley’s (2005) organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity largely theorizes how certain cognitive-emotional processing after trauma (viz. positive accommodation rather than assimilation or negative accommodation) will lead to all six aspects of growth proposed in their theory (i.e., selfacceptance, positive relations with others, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy). Rather than offering diverse trajectories to different types of growth, these theoretical models “lump together” various dimensions of growth and suggest the same pathways to operate across the cluster of positive changes. Put more eloquently, and regarding the FDM, McMillen (2004) reported, “Their model accounts for the fact that the trees in the forest change color following adversity, but it does not account for different colors the trees turn” (p. 50). Despite the merits of these theoretical models advancing research and practice in the field, several researchers have previously warned against proposing the process to growth in too limited a manner (e.g., Janoff-Bulman, 2004; McMillen, 2004). In their critique of the functional descriptive model, Janoff-Bulman (2004) reported, “I believe that this common cluster of benefits belies the role of somewhat disparate psychological processes” (p. 30) and McMillen (2004) suggested,

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 263

“It may be more fruitful to develop models for each of the major domains of selfreported positive changes and determine later what processes the different models share” (p. 50). These suggestions were predicated on the assumption that the theoretical models driving growth research would likely look very different based on what dimension of growth is being considered as the dependent construct. With this previous critique in mind, and bringing the narrative back to sport psychology research, Howells et al. (2017) identified three domains of growth in sport in their systematic review: intrapersonal indicators, interpersonal indicators, and physical indicators. Therefore, this begs the question: Are the pathways to these three dimensions of growth likely to be similar? We suspect they are not. For example, intrapersonal indicators of growth (e.g., personal strength) may result from the realization one can cope with the debilitating pain and distress in the aftermath of adversity; interpersonal indicators of growth (e.g., strengthen relationships) may result from spending more time with one’s social support network following an adverse experience; and physical indicators of growth (e.g., physically stronger) may result from spending more time in the gymnasium, for example, during rehabilitation following an injury to decrease the likelihood of re-injury. Heeding McMillen’s (2004) recommendation, we believe second-wave research on growth following adversity in sport needs to shift away from narrow pathways to multiple trajectories of growth to provide a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of this phenomenon.

Uncritical to Critical Considerations We would argue that researchers in applied sport psychology have largely remained uncritical of the concept of growth following adversity in sport. Moving aside from reports of growth-related experiences (see Howells et al., 2017), some perhaps more critical questions that warrant future research attention include: Should athletes’ reports of growth following adversity always be accepted at face value? Does idealizing the concept of growth legitimize adversity in sport? Does growth impose unrealistic expectations on athletes who have experienced adversity, and what is the impact of not experiencing growth? It is not our intention that readers of this book come away with the impression that all athletes will experience growth following adversity and that this concept is considered a “good thing” given its positive connotations; a closer reading of the book’s chapters will illustrate that this is not the case. Therefore, in the next wave of research in applied sport psychology, we encourage researchers to be far more critical of this concept, which we believe will lead to a more well-rounded and nuanced understanding of growth and help to create more well-considered and ethically informed implications for professional practice. To encourage a shift towards a more critical agenda towards this phenomenon, we now draw upon a limited body of research from the wider growth literature and some tentative findings from applied sport psychology to start to critically reflect on the aforementioned questions.

264 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Should athletes’ reports of growth following adversity always be accepted at face value? In the wider growth literature, several researchers have questioned the veridicality of growth (e.g., Maercker & Zoellner; 2004; Zoellner & Maercker, 2006). Specifically, Maercker and Zoellner (2004) suggested that growth is reminiscent of a Janus-faced character and proposed a two-component model which comprises a constructive side and an illusory side to growth. The constructive, self-transcending side of growth, is analogous with the assumptions of the FDM (Tedeschi et al., 2018). However, the illusory or dysfunctional side they argued, involves self-deception and is associated with denial, avoidance, wishful thinking, self-consolidation, and palliation which may occur following adversity (see Taylor, 1983). To date, only one study in the applied sport psychology literature has explicitly focused on the notion of growth having illusory aspects as captured in a two-component or Janus-faced model. Howells and Fletcher (2016) took a critical stance on the veridicality of growth reported by Olympic swimmers; they identified both illusory and constructive growth in athletes who had experienced adversities. Specifically, earlier phases of the growth process were characterized by more illusory aspects of growth, whereas when the temporal proximity from the adversity increased, more constructive aspects of growth were apparent. Furthermore, the authors contended that the two types of growth were not mutually exclusive but rather aspects of both may temporally fluctuate or even co-exist. Considering these preliminary findings, together with the broader sociocultural expectation to report positive outcomes (i.e., “tyranny of positive thinking”; Held, 2002), we encourage future researchers to critically examine claims of growth reported by athletes (and others) in their studies. Does idealizing the concept of growth legitimize adversity in sport? This question was posed by Tamminen and Neely (2016) in their research on positive growth in youth sport. The authors raised the concern that idealizing growth in sport could promote and legitimize adversity (see Kerr & Stirling, 2019). Thus, growth can endorse and justify the questionable acts of coaches, parents, and others involved in sport on the underlying assumption that adverse practices and conditions will promote growth among their athletes. Tamminen and Neely posed a question worthy of future consideration: “What is at risk when we promote growth in sport, and is the potential for growth worth the distress associated with adversity?” (Tamminen & Neely, 2016, p. 198). This question aligns with Wortman’s (2004) concerns in the wider growth literature. She reported how growth following adversity could make us more complacent toward harm and make us worry less about the social conditions that cause suffering and distress because we have faith that people will be able to master and transcend adversity. As we outlined in the introduction of this book, we strongly believe that policies and practices should be put in place to prevent adversity in sport to support the safety, wellbeing, and welfare of the people who take part (e.g., athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers). However, not all adversity is avoidable; athletes will get injured, relationships will break down, teams will get relegated, sports will

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 265

lose funding, and organizations will experience high staff turnover. Therefore, when adversity is unavoidable, we strongly believe the concept of growth can provide a powerful narrative of hope amid the despair in the aftermath, which can lead to positive changes (e.g., resources, policies, practices) in the functioning of athletes, support staff, and sporting organizations to enable them to better prepare for and effectively manage future adversity. That said, we are also cognizant that this narrative of hope can also bring with it a wave of heightened expectations for those who experience adversity. Does growth impose unrealistic expectations on athletes who have experienced adversity, and what is the impact of not experiencing growth? Although only tentatively, researchers in applied sport psychology have started to identify that the concept of growth following adversity can create unrealistic expectations for those who experience adversity, as well as lead to negative judgments about those who do not experience growth following adversity, making them feel like coping failures (see Wortman, 2004). This perspective is perhaps best summed up by a sport psychology practitioner who reported in a recent study on growth following sport injury: We need to be careful of pushing this whole growth idea. It’s something that we are seeing in the media now, in terms of “You must overcome adversity.” It can place real pressures on injured athletes. Not only do they have to deal with all the turmoil of being injured, but now they must come back stronger. And from my experience that pressure really doesn’t help. That pressure just adds to everything else that an injured athlete is going through. Yes, think about what can be put in place early on that could lead to growth, but don’t start prescribing it or forcing it on injured athletes. There shouldn’t be an expectation of growth. (Wadey et al., 2019, p. 253) The finding resonates with research in the wider literature on adversity (see Ehrenreich, 2009). The concern here is that growth becomes expected, obligatory even, which may engender a climate of implicit blame and stigmatization towards those who fail to achieve growth. Although we might choose to celebrate an athlete’s growth following adversity, future researchers and practitioners need to be mindful of the future expectations and moral consequences this might create for the athlete when they experience subsequent adversity, as well as for other athletes who hear this story of triumphing over adversity. Towards a conclusion, future researchers in the area should proceed with caution. This is not a “safe” area of research; it is riddled with controversy, heated discussion, and disagreement. However, rather than avoid discussing this topic and perhaps sidelining or dismissing it altogether, we believe it should be discussed, debated, and researched with the utmost care and respect for those who have experienced adversity in sport. When we originally proposed this text to Routledge, we continually

266 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

reflected among ourselves and with others on whether we are doing more harm than good. What will be the likely impact (if any) of this book? Furthermore, in writing and editing the book, we have lost sleep and gone round-and-round debating words, as well as rewriting sentences, paragraphs, and whole chapters to ensure we are being careful in our narrative. As Goodley (2017) reported, “anyone who tells you that they find writing easy is either a liar or a bad writer (and probably both)” (p. xiii). That said, we are fully aware that we have limited control over how the words in this text will be interpreted. And if we have caused you, the Reader, any distress from reading the contents of this book, we apologize. This was never our intention. The objective of this book is to support the health, welfare, and wellbeing of those who take part in sport, and we believe the concept of growth following adversity in sport can help towards this objective by bringing about positive change at micro (i.e., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro levels (e.g., organizational policies and practices). Adversity itself is never a good thing and no amount of growth can undo the pain of such experiences; it will not make everything better and put an end to any suffering. Not everyone will experience growth and nor should growth become an expectation; however, ignoring the potential existence of growth will be unhelpful to bringing about positive change in sport.

Supporting the Field of Applied Sport Psychology In this final section of the book, we further consider how second-wave research on growth following adversity can more closely align with and can help support the broad objectives of the profession of applied sport psychology. From the early beginnings of sport psychology, an objective of the profession has been to understand psychological preparation to improve performance in sport (see Griffith, 1926, 1928) and more recently nonathletic populations (e.g., business, military, healthcare, education, performing arts; see Sly et al., 2019). This begs the question: Can adversity lead to improved performance directly (with performance being the key indicator of growth) or indirectly through enhancing other growth dimensions (e.g., stronger relationships with others, increased individual or team resilience)? Anecdotally, Mark Spitz, winner of seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympic Games, and arguably one of the most recognized swimmers of all time, alluded to the difficult journey to Olympic swimming success through adversity and growth. As he explained in his foreword to Foster’s biography of him, “I don’t think I could have achieved success at the 1972 Olympics in Munich if I hadn’t endured the anguish of the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City” (Foster, 2008, p.7). Accounts such as Spitz’s are supported by research with elite athletes that illustrates superior sporting performance following adversity (e.g., Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012; Hardy et al., 2017; Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016; Sarkar, Fletcher, & Brown, 2015; Van Yperen, 2009). In a study of psychological resilience in Olympic champions, Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) found that,

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 267

“participants argued that if they had not experienced certain types of stressor … including highly demanding adversities such as parental divorce, serious illness, and career-threatening injuries, they would not have won their gold medals” (p. 672). Although stronger methodological designs (e.g., longitudinal rather than cross-sectional) would help to provide more rigorous support for whether there is a link between prior adversity and future performance in sport and other professions (e.g., business, military, healthcare, education, performing arts), we believe it is likely that the concept of growth following adversity could align with and help support this objective. However, once again, we urge researchers and practitioners to remain critical in their research endeavors examining the relationship between adversity and performance, especially given that it could lead to the promotion and legitimization of adversity (see Tamminen & Neely, 2016). Towards this end, it would be advantageous that future researchers transcend performance as the sole growth-related outcome and incorporate other objectives of the profession of applied sport psychology (e.g., health and wellbeing). Another ongoing objective of applied sport psychology has been to support the health and wellbeing of those who partake in sport (Williams, 1986), which is supported by the professional associations. For example, the International Society of Sport Psychology recently produced a Position Stand that provides support for sport psychology researchers, practitioners, sport participants, and stakeholders to understand athletes’ mental health (Schinke et al., 2018). To illustrate how the concept of growth following adversity could support the health of athletes, we offer two examples. First, McCradden and Cusimano (2019) recently reported how following the tragic death of Rowan Stringer, a young rugby player for whom a string of head injuries culminated in her death, Rowan’s Law was introduced into Ontario legislation. The Law mandates the removal of play of any youth athlete suspected to have a concussion and makes concussion education mandatory for certain individuals involved in youth sport. From our perspective, this example provides a powerful illustration of positive change at an organizational level (see Chapters 1 and 7) that can occur following such a tragedy to prevent future athletes’ physical (and mental) ill-being. A second example, Haslett, Choi, and Smith (2020) recently published a paper that explores para-athlete activism in Ireland. Following interviews with 28 elite-level Irish para-athletes, the participants reported that following the mental distress connected to their experience of physical impairment (e.g., spinal cord injury, amputation) and subsequent social adversity (e.g., discriminatory societal attitudes from non-disabled public), they utilized their social platforms as elite athletes to strategically and actively develop a focus on positive social change focused on mental health. For example, this involved athletes frequently and publicly disclosing (e.g., through talks, seminars) how they coped through sport to deal with their mental distress. This example provides an illustration of how adversity could lead to a social mission to bring about positive change at a cultural level regarding the public’s attitudes towards mental health (see Chapter 1).

268 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

To provide an illustration of how growth could enhance wellbeing, it is first important to define wellbeing. There are two distinct constructs of wellbeing: subjective wellbeing (SWB) and psychological wellbeing (PWB). SWB is concerned with people’s happiness with their lives and the experience of positive and negative affect (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). In contrast, PWB captures the meaningfulness of those lives through exploring “perceived thriving via-à-vis the existential challenges of life” (Keyes et al., 2002, p. 1007). Ryff (1989) proposed PWB to comprise of six core dimensions: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. While some researchers in the wider growth research have conceptualized growth following adversity as an increase in PWB as opposed to SWB (Joseph & Linley, 2005), it is interesting that the six indicators of PWB resonate with the indicators of growth (e.g., deeper understanding of selves, enhanced relationships, new outlook on life) reported in a recent systematic review of sporting literature (Howells et al., 2017). That said, it is important that sport psychology researchers and practitioners recognize that in the wider growth literature it has been identified that growth following adversity may not necessarily make people “happier” in terms of their SWB (Joseph & Linley, 2005). Growth may leave them sadder, but almost inevitably wiser (see Alloy & Abramson, 1979). Therefore, the concept of growth might help support the profession of sport psychology towards enhancing athletes’ PWB, but not necessarily their SWB. Moving away from individual qualities (i.e., SWB, PWB), future researchers should also consider how certain types of adversity might lead to improved social wellbeing outcomes (see Keyes, 1998). Finally, there has been a recent shift in applied sport psychology towards social justice within sporting contexts and wider society (e.g., Lee & Cunningham, 2019; Long, Fletcher, & Watson, 2017; Schinke et al., 2018), with a focus on athlete activism (e.g., Braye, 2016; Coombs & Cassilo, 2017) and significant others (e.g., coaches, sport psychologists) who can advocate on behalf of athletes and other stakeholders (e.g., Heil, 2016; Tibbetts et al., 2017). For example, the Society for Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology recently created an evidence-based educational factsheet to guide sport practitioners on how to support and facilitate athlete activism. The International Society of Sport Psychology has also published a Position Stand that calls for researchers to take seriously and promote social justice in their work. Cognizant of this additional objective of applied sport psychology, and bringing the narrative back to growth following adversity, could adversity help to bring about positive change in sport and wider society? However, prior to providing some illustrative examples, it is important that researchers and practitioners recognize first how the growth following adversity narrative might also work against social justice. Indeed, the prevailing narratives of “heroic overcoming” of adversity can shift attention away from more social forms of adversity that can oppress individuals and not challenge the status quo to bring about change that can benefit sport and society (see Shakespeare, 2016).

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 269

To provide some context, there are many different types of injustices in wider society and there is no exception for the field of sport. The cultures of sport reflect and reinforce various hegemonies of oppression and inequality in our society such as racial, gender, sexual orientation, and social class prejudices (Eitzen & Sage, 2009). Given this prevalence of injustice in sport and wider society, we question how this type of social adversity might lead to social change or justice. To provide an example of social justice beyond sport and athlete activism, Smith, Bundon, and Best (2016) interviewed 36 elite-level parasport athletes from the United Kingdom and identified that those athletes who described themselves as “political activists” and advocated for social changes beyond sport were hailed into political action indirectly after hearing stories of social oppression outside of sport (e.g., discrimination, oppression, inequalities) and directly following their own experiences of social oppression upon their retirement from sport (e.g., employment barriers). Thus, this research illustrates how social adversity can lead to positive change at a psychological (e.g., identity), behavioral (e.g., calling out discrimination in public), and social level (e.g., challenge disability oppression). To provide another example, but this time of social justice in sport and advocacy, Heil (2016) wrote a call-to-action to encourage sport psychologists to advocate for athletes’ rights and responsible organizational practices. Following a series of personal anecdotes of the adverse experiences and injustices he encountered during his career as a sport psychologist (e.g., anti-doping, fatal injury, terminal illness, violence), Heil shares several examples of positive change and the associated challenges of advocacy. In his conclusion, he also draws a notably link between social justice in sport and wider society: As goes sport, so goes society. Sport is a juggernaut of a social institution putting a spotlight on societal issues and modeling a standard of behavior. It is said that sport builds character. Yet, there are so many contrary examples. Sport is like a ship that goes where it is steered, whether to the moral high ground or the rocky shoals of tragedy. When sport stays on course society benefits. Hence the critical role of advocacy. (Heil, 2016, p. 292) These examples contribute to a useful discussion on how the concept of growth following adversity might support the social justice objective of applied sport psychology by helping to eliminate social injustices and ultimately achieve justice in society. However, research in this area is still very much at an early stage. From our perspective, this gap in our knowledge base provides an exciting area for future research that can promote new ways of thinking about the concept of growth that can significantly extend the wider growth literature. Questions for future researchers to consider: Can adversity challenge the status quo? Can adversity lead to social movements? Can adversity lead to a change in our society?

270 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Conclusion In this chapter, we have taken stock of the strengths and shortcomings of the first wave of research (1997–2020) on growth following adversity in sport and provided several recommendations moving forward for the next wave of research that can expand our understanding and support the broader objectives of applied sport psychology (i.e., performance, health and wellbeing, social justice). Without getting too carried away, at the very minimum, we hope this chapter has inspired new generational interest and encouraged researchers and practitioners to think more critically about the concept of growth following adversity in sport and how it may have an important role in bringing about positive change at micro (i.e., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro levels (e.g., organizational, cultural).

References Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 108, 441–485. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441. Anders, A. L., Peterson, C. K., James, L. M., Engdahl, B., Leuthold, A. C., & Georgopoulos, A. P. (2015). Neural communication in posttraumatic growth. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 2013–2020. doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4272-2. Berger, R., & Weiss, T. (2009). The posttraumatic growth model: An expansion to the family system. Traumatology, 15, 63–74. doi:10.1177/1534765608323499. Bower, J. E., Moskowitz, J. T., & Epel, E. (2009). Is benefit finding good for your health? Pathways linking positive life changes after stress and physical health outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 337–341. doi:10.1111%2Fj.14678721.2009.01663.x. Braye, S. (2016). “I’m not an activist”: An exploratory investigation into retired British Paralympic athletes’ views on the relationship between the Paralympic Games and disability equality in the United Kingdom. Disability & Society, 9, 1288–1300. doi:10.1080/ 09687599.2016.1251392. Christopher, M. (2004). A broader view of trauma: A biopsychosocial evolutionary view of the role of the traumatic stress response in the emergence of pathology and/or growth. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 75–98. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2003.12.003. Collins, D., & MacNamara, A. (2012). The rocky road to the top: Why talent needs trauma. Sports Medicine, 42, 907–914. doi:10.1007/BF03262302. Collins, D., MacNamara, A., & McCarthy, N. (2016). Super champions, champions, and almost: Important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(6). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009. Coombs, D. S. & Cassilo, D. (2017). Athletes and/or activists: LeBron James and Black Lives Matter. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 41, 425–444. doi:10.1177%2F0193723517719665. Crawford, J., Gayman, A. M., & Tracey, J. (2014). An examination of post-traumatic growth in Canadian and American parasport athletes with acquired spinal cord injury. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 399–406. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.008.

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 271

Day, M. C. (2013). The role of initial physical activity experiences in promoting posttraumatic growth in Paralympic athletes with an acquired disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 2064–2072. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.805822. Day, M. C., & Wadey, R. (2016). Narratives of trauma, recovery, and growth: The complex role of sport following permanent acquired disability. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.004. Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Eitzen, D. S., & Sage, G. H. (2009). Sociology of North American sport (8th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 669–678. doi:10.1016/j. psychsport.2012.04.007. Foster, R. (2008). Mark Spitz: The extraordinary life of an Olympic champion. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press LLC. Fujisawa, T. X., Jung, M., Kojima, M., Saito, D. N., Kosaka, H., & Tomoda, A. (2015). Neural basis of psychological growth following adverse experiences: A resting state functional MRI study. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136427. Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012). “It was hard, but it was good”: A qualitative exploration of stress-related growth in Division I intercollegiate athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 297–319. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.693524. Goodley, D. (2017). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction, 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage. Griffith, C. R. (1926). Psychology of coaching: A study of coaching methods from the point of view of psychology. Oxford, UK: Scribner’s. Griffith, C. R. (1928). Psychology of athletics: A general survey for athletes and coaches. New York, NY: Scribner’s. Haque, M. D., TitiAmayah, A., & Liu, L. (2016). The role of vision in organizational readiness for change and growth. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 983–999. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-2015-0003. Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (2017). Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of super-elite and elite athletes from Olympic sports. Progress in Brain Research, 232, 1–119. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.03.004. Haslett, D., Choi, I., & Smith, B. (2020). Para athlete activism: A qualitative examination of disability activism through Paralympic sport in Ireland. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101639. Heil, J. (2016). Sport advocacy: Challenge, controversy, ethics, and action. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5, 281–295. doi:10.1037/spy0000078. Held, B. S. (2002). The tranny of the positive attitude in America: Observation and speculation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 965–991. doi:10.1002/jclp.10093. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink and swim: Adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Howells, K., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: Constructive reality or illusory self-deception? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 173–186. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0159.

272 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficult? A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 234, 117–159. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.002. Howells, K., Wadey, R., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2019). Growth following adversity in sport: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the Association of Applied Sport Psychology. Janoff-Bulman, R. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Three explanatory models. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 30–34. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447198. Joseph, S., & Linley, A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 2005, 262–280. doi:10.1037%2F1089-2680.9.3.262. Katz, R. C., Flasher, L., Cacciapaglia, H., & Nelson, S. (2001). The psychosocial impact of cancer and lupus: A cross validation study that extends the generality of “benefit-finding” in patients with chronic disease. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 561–571. doi:10.1023/A:1012939310459. Kerr, G., & Stirling, A. (2019). Where is safeguarding in sport psychology research and practice? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 367–384. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1559255. Kessel, F., & Rosenfield, P. L. (2008). Toward transdisciplinary research: Historical and contemporary perspectives. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 225–234. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.005. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140. doi:10.2307/2787065. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007. Lee, W., & Cunningham, G. B. (2019). Moving toward understanding social justice in sport organizations: A study of engagement in social justice advocacy in sport organisations. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 43, 245–263. doi:10.1177%2F0193723519832469. Long, J., Fletcher, T., & Watson, B. (2017). Sport, leisure and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. Maercker, A., & Zoellner, T. (2004). The Janus face of self-perceived growth: Toward a two-component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 41–48. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447200. McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A. H., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and then relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 474–485. doi:10.1177%2F0146167201274008. McCradden, M. D., & Cusimano, M. D. (2019). Staying true to Rowan’s Law: How changing sport culture can realize the goal of legislation. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 110, 165–168. doi:10.17269/s41997-019-00174-8. McMillen, J. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: What’s it all about? Psychological Inquiry, 15, 48–52. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447201. Morris, B. A., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Rieck, M., & Newbery, J. (2005). Multidimensional nature of posttraumatic growth in an Australian population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 575–585. doi:10.1002/jts.20067. Neely, K. C., Dunn, J. G. H., McHugh, T. F., & Holt, N. L. (2018). Female athletes’ experiences of positive growth following deselection in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 40, 173–185. doi:10.1123/jsep.2017-0136.

Research in Applied Sport Psychology 273

Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x. Rabe, S., Zӧllner, T., Maercker, A., & Karl, A. (2006). Neural correlates of posttraumatic growth after severe motor vehicle accidents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 880–886. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.880. Roesch, S. C., Rowley, A. A., & Vaughn, A. A. (2004). On the dimensionality of the stress-related growth scale: One, three, or seven factors? Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 281–290. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_04. Roy-Davis, K., Wadey, R., & Evans, L. (2017). A grounded theory of sport injuryrelated growth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6, 35–52. doi:10.1037/ spy0000080. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2018). Can emotional disclosure promote sport injury-related growth? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30, 376–387. doi:10.1080/10413200.2017.1417338. Salim, J., & Wadey, R. (2019). Using gratitude to promote sport injury-related growth. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. doi:10.1080/10413200.2019.1626515. Salim, J., Wadey, R., Diss, C. (2015). Examining hardiness, coping and stress-related growth following sport injury. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28, 154–169. doi:10.1080/10413200.2015.1086448. Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., & Brown, D. J. (2015). What doesn’t kill me…: Adversity-related experiences are vital in the development of superior Olympic performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 475–479. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010. Savage, J., Collins, D., & Cruickshank, A. (2017). Exploring traumas in the development of talent: What are they, what do they do, and what do they require? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29, 101–117. doi:10.1080/10413200.2016.1194910. Schinke, R. J., Middleton, T., Peterson, B., Kao, S., Lefebvre, D., & Habra, B. (2019). Social justice in sport and exercise psychology: A position statement. Quest, 71, 163– 174. doi:10.1080/00336297.2018.1544572. Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., Si, G., & Moore, Z. (2018). International society of sport psychology position stand: Athletes’ mental health, performance, and development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 622–639. doi:10.1080/ 1612197X.2017.1295557. Shakespeare, T. (2016). The Paralympics: Superhumans and mere mortals. The Lancet, 288, 1137–1139. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31600-2. Sly, D., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2019) “It’s psychology Jim, but not as we know it!” The changing face of applied sport psychology practice. Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology, 9, 87–101. doi:10.1037/spy0000163. Smith, B., Bundon, A., & Best, M. (2016). Disability sport and activist identities: A qualitative study of narratives of activism among elite athletes’ with impairment. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 139–148. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.07.003. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Sciences Journal, 28, 1–14. doi:10.1016/0362-3319(91)90040-B. Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.002.

274 Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Tamminen, K. A., & Neely, K. C. (2016). Positive growth in sport. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth development through sport (p. 193–204). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315709499-16. Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.11.1161. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/ jts.2490090305. Tedeschi, R. G., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Taku, K., & Calhoun, L. G. (2018). Posttraumatic growth: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Tibbetts, E., Longshore, K., Cropper, R., Lipsky, S., Brutus, A., Bonura, K. B., & Galli, N. (2017). Supporting the athlete in society: Athlete activism. Sport Psych Works, 5, 1–2. Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to season-ending injuries. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 229–248. doi:10.1123/jsep.19.3.229. Van Yperen, N. W. (2009). Why some make it and others do not: Identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 317–329. doi:10.1123/tsp.23.3.317. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Hanton, S., Sarkar, M., & Oliver, H. (2019). Can preinjury adversity affect postinjury responses? A 5-year prospective, multi-study analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01411. Wadey, R., Roy-Davis, K., Evans, L., Howells, K., Salim, J., & Diss, C. (2019). Sport psychology consultants’ perspectives on facilitating sport injury-related growth. The Sport Psychologist, 33, 244–255. doi:10.1123/tsp.2018-0110. Weiss, T., & Berger, R. (2010). Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the globe. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Williams, J. (1986). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Wortman, C. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Progress and problems. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 81–90. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20447207. Zoellner, T., & Maercker, A. (2006). Posttraumatic growth in clinical psychology: A critical review and introduction of a two component model. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 626–653. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.01.008.

INDEX

Abraído-Lanza, A. F. 13, 37, 194 Abramson, L. Y. 268 accommodation 21, 22, 24, 62, 150, 259; negative 24, 62, 262; positive 24, 26, 62, 178, 180, 224, 259, 262 action-focused-growth 3, 132, 136 actual growth: perceived vs actual 5 Adams, R. E. 132 adaptation 22, 26, 28, 60, 76, 81; and coping 52; positive 64; see also cognitive adaptation theory addiction xviii, 75–85; drug and alcohol 76, 78–9, 82–3; meanings 76–77; recovery capital 78–85; recovery 76–80, 82–5; substance 76 addiction related growth 77–80 adversarial growth 40, 61, 64, 66–7, 148, 150, 155, 161, 164–5 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) 208, 210; see also adverse experiences of children and youth adverse experiences of children and youth 204–11 adversity: acute 39–40, 150; aftermath of xvii, 3, 8–9, 19, 22, 152, 263, 265; benefits of shared experiences of 114; biological experience of 109; chronic 39–40; in elite athletes 148; in elite sport organizations 90–92, 95; gender differences in xix, 160–4; group-level, in teams 240–1; individual-level, in teams 238–240; multilevel 235–252; organizational 94–5,

100; organizational-level, in teams 241–2; prior adversities 190, 267; as relational state 7, 148; relational-level, in teams 240; severity of 5–6, 116, 151, 161, 168, 191; shared, cognitive underpinnings 111; shared, emotional underpinnings 112; shared, training and 115; team functioning 107–116; vs trauma vs stressor 5, 7, 61, 108, 148, 155 affective-cognitive processing theory (ACPM) 22, 25, 150 Affleck, G. 5–6, 8, 13n1, 20, 90, 148 Akhtar, M. xvii alcohol and drug addiction see addiction Alder, P. 179 Alder, P. A. 179 Aldersey-Williams, H. 132 Aldwin, C. 8 Alisic, E. 126 Allen-Collinson, J. 131, 133, 138 Alloy, L. B. 268 Almonte, J. L. 8 Alvaro, C. 29, 193 Amanda Beard 151 American Psychiatric Association 48 Anda, R. F. 204 Anders, A. L. 260 Anderson, R. 148 Anderson, M. B. 162, 165 Andras, P. 108 Andrews, L. 11 Andrews, J. P. 208

276 Index

Andrews, G. J. 208 anger 89, 109, 121 Anshel, M. H. 162 Antoni, M. H. xvii, 4, 226 anxiety 81, 83, 89, 138, 163, 208, 210, 239, 248 appraisal 21, 25–7, 62–3, 67, 148, 168, 224; primary 122; secondary 122; subjective 151 appreciation of life 5, 11, 23, 64, 75, 77, 90, 133, 153, 165, 194, 197, 220, 258, 262 Archer, J. 162 Armstrong, D. 132, 134 Arnold, D. 50–52 Arnold, R. 62–3, 65, 68, 90–2, 95, 163 Arpawong, T. E. 20 art therapy 226 Arvidson, J. 209 Ash, J. 132 Ashby, J. S. 132 Ashfield, A. 137 assimilation 21, 24, 36, 62, 150, 259, 262; narrative(s) of 152, 183 athlete: collegiate 5; contract negotiations 238–9; disabled 135, 175, 180–6; elite xix, 4, 22, 27, 81, 83–4, 135, 147–55, 240, 259, 266–7, 269; injured xvii, 4, 25, 37, 48–50, 189–90, 192–9, 238, 241, 243–5, 247, 264–5; intercollegiate 162; recreational 82, 84; retirement 184, 244, 246, 269; and self-compassion 169; support for 52, 168; young xv-xvi athletic growth 189, 195–6, 199–200 Atkinson, M. 222 attachment, regulation, and competency (ARC) model 209 Auerbach, C. 135 Australian cricket team 107 authentic growth 6 autobiographical analysis 34 autobiographies xviii, 19, 36, 76, 80–5, 154, 221, 259 autonomy 6, 10, 24–6, 62, 91, 99, 149, 208–10, 262, 268 Baban, A. 223 Balogun, J. 94 Bandura, A. 251 Barber-Foss, K. D. 162 Bargh, J. 132 Barker, J. B. 235 Barrett, L. F. 112

Barrington, A. 51–52, 136 Barsade, S. G. 95, 112 basic (psychological) needs 24, 26, 62–3; see also autonomy, competence, and relatedness Bastian, B. 114, 116 Bates, N. A. 170n1 Bauman, A. 207 Bawden, M. 228 Bazazi, A. R. 206 Beale, J. 34, 47, 134, 191 Beattie, S. 19 Beck, L. 4, 20, 152, 190, 258 Becker, B. 60 Becker, G. 185 Beckmann, J. 226 behavioral responses 121 Bell, J. J. 19 beneficence xx, 219–220, 228 benefit finding 3, 5–7, 13n1, 27, 114, 136 benefit reminding 6 Bennett, E. V. 27, 121 Bennett, J. 224–5 Benson, L. 226 bereavement 20, 27, 149–50, 160 Berger, R. xvii, 4, 11–13, 182–3, 247, 249, 251, 261 Berrow, R. 120, 124 Best, D. 77–78 Best, M. 29, 184, 269 Bianco, T. 47, 49 biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPM) 108–9 Black, D. E. 123 Blackie, L. E. R. xvii, 7–8, 10–11, 13, 132, 136 Blanco, I. 29 Blascovich, J. 108 Blevins, C. L 66 Bloom, G. A. 114 Boals, A. 151, 155 Boden, C. M. 123 Bonanno, G. A. 26, 60, 64, 66 Bond, K. 50, 199 Boston marathon bombings 10, 54 Bower, J. E. 260 Bowker, A. 123 Bowley, J. 49 Bowman, P. J. 7, 78, 174, 261 Boyd, D. L. 206 BPM see biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat Brace-Govan, J. 133

Index 277

Bradbury, H. 227 Bradley, B. 205 Braye, S. 268 Bretzin, A. C. 162 Brewer, B. W. 22, 34, 40, 162, 165, 189, 199 Brewin, C. R. 25 Bridger, A. 78 Bridges, D. 4, 20, 152, 190, 258 brief eclectic psychotherapy 226 Brighton, J. xix, 174, 182–3 British Psychological Society 220 Brock, S. C. 183 Brockhouse, R. 49, 52 Brooks, J. H. 238 Brown, D. J. xviii, 22, 59, 62–3, 65, 68, 75, 149, 266 Brown, L. xvi, 219 Brown, A. D. 94, 96 Brown, T. 147 Brown, R. P. 149 Brown, C. 237 Brown, W. 78, 82 Brownrigg, A. 78–9 Brunell, A. 8 Bruner, E. M. 97 Bryman, A. 42 Buddhism 4, 225 Bull, S. J. 237 Bullock, L. M. 204 Bundon, A. 184, 269 Bunsell, T. 133 Burgess, N. S. 122 Burke, C. S. 115 Burke, S. M. 34, 49, 76 Burr, V. 78 Burton-Wylie, S. 95 Busanich, R. 169 Butryn, T. 81 Butt, J. 228 Cacciapaglia, H. 260 Cacioppo, J. T. 112 Caddick, N. 139 Calhoun, L. G. xvi, xvii, 4–6, 8–12, 20, 22–3, 28, 34, 37, 50, 52, 54, 59, 62–64, 75, 89–90, 92, 113, 124, 126–7, 131, 133, 147–8, 150–1, 153, 155, 156n1, 160–1, 167, 174, 191–4, 199, 200n1, 205, 220, 223–5, 250, 258, 262 Calmeiro, L. 149–50 Campbell, W. 8 Campbell, M. 226

cancer 27–28; breast cancer 40, 133, 166, 194, 223; leukemia 29; prostate cancer 223, Cann, A. 5, 22, 37, 50, 62, 150, 156n1, 160, 200n1, 220, 223 Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 111, 113 Cano, I. 78 Caplan, G. 4 captivity 27 cardiovascular measures 109 Carless, D. 36, 79, 147, 149, 177, 181, 185 Carlson, E. 63 Carlson, L. E. 223–6 Carter, M. 99 Carter, J. S. 126 Carter, L. 164, 166 Carver, C. S. 6, 59–61, 64 case study (-ies) 38, 53, 78, 123, 152, 207, 252, 259 Cassidy, T. 35–6 Catania, L. 29 Catra Corbett 75, 83 Cavallerio, F. xvi, 37, 189, 219–220, 222, 228 Chalk Talk 209 challenge and threat 108–9 Chamberlain, K. 42 Chambers, S. 226 change magnitude of 9, 224 changes in outlook questionnaire (CiOQ) 37 Chapman, M. T. xix, 107, 110 Chapman, D. P. 204 Charlie Engle 83 Charmaz, C. 41 Charmaz, K. 178 Chaves, C. 226 Cheavens, J. S. 209 Cherney J. L. 182 child and youth soldiers Uganda 207 Chittipeddi, K. 94, 96, 99 Choi, I. 267 Chomsky, N. 228 Chopko, B. 132, 134 Christ, O. 252 Christianity 4 Christianson, M. 93–5, 100, 101n2 Christopher, M. 261 Chun, S. 174 Chung, S. 20, 77 Chung, P. J. 208 Cicchetti, D. 60, 108, 151 Ciraulo, D. A. 205

278 Index

Clark, S. 48, 195 Clark, A. M. 78 Clark, S. M. 96, 99 Clarke, N. J. 125 Cloud, W. 77–8 Clough, P. J. 120 coaches 48, 50–2, 55, 210–11, 238, 246–7, 251, 264; conflict with 161; social interaction with 168; as stressor 162 cognitive adaptation theory 22, 28 cognitive behavioral therapy 210, 225–6 cognitive-motivational-relational theory (CMRT) 122 cognitivism 21 Cohen, L. H. 4, 37, 59, 148, 161, 191, 261 Cohen, S. R. 41 Cohen, J. L. 223 Cohen, K. 49 Cole, J. 174 collective efficacy 251; in teams 110, 116, 247 Collins, D. 5, 41, 151–2, 154, 228, 258, 266 Collins, N. L. 62 Colón, R. M. 13, 37, 194 Colquitt, J. A. 38 Colville, I. 99 combat 27 compassion satisfaction 51–2 competence 24–6, 51, 62 completion tendency 21 concussion 199, 267 confidence xiv, 12, 63, 116, 136, 197, 247 Conlon, A. 20 Connaughton, D. 222 Constructive growth 28, 224, 264 constructivism 21, 28 consulting philosophy xx, 236–7 Cook, S. 225 Cooke, N. J 111–12 Coombs, D. S. 268 coping 6, 8, 22, 59, 75, 79, 90, 113–15, 165–9, 192, 245–6, 250; appraisalfocused coping 27; approach 53, 222, 226; avoidance 53, 152; communal coping strategies 115; emotion-focused coping 27, 167; failure 265; growth as a coping process 22, 26–29; problemfocused coping 149, 169; relationship focused 115; in youth sport 121–7 Copping, A. 13 Corbett, C. 75, 83–4 Corbett, J. 91

Cornelius, A. E. 34, 162, 189, 199 corporeal awareness 134–5, 194 corporeal growth 136, 189, 195, 199–200 corporeal posttraumatic growth (C-PTG) 134, 139, 206 cortisol 109–10 Côté, J. 125 Courtwright, D. T. 76–77 Coutifaris, C. G. V. 112 Covassin, T. 162 Coyne, J. C. 5, 40, 115, 124 Coyne, S. M. 162 Cozzolino, P. J. 138 Crane, M. F. 115 Crane, J. 120 Crawford, J. J. 34, 258 Creado, S. 78 Creating Champions 209 creativity and innovation in organizations 100–1 Crocker, P. R. 27, 49, 121–3, 133, 169, 226 Croog, S. 148 cross-sectional design 41 Cruickshank, A. 41, 258 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 4 Cullen, B. 223 cultural capital 77, 84 cultural narrative xix, 12–13, 76, 78, 80–1, 83, 185, 199 cultural script 19, 28, 154, 193 culture 12, 42, 76, 79, 194; high performance and professional sport 237, 244, 246; meaning of growth across cultures 13, 19; non-western 65; organizational and institutional 27, 94–5; social constructionist view of 76; of sport xvii, 75, 79–80, 82, 148, 152, 179, 183, 237, 245, 269; team 250; western 82, 175 Culver, K. A. 206 Cummings, T. G. 35 Cunningham, G. B. 227, 268 Currier, J. M. 20 Cushion, C. J. 125 Cusimano, M. D. 189, 199, 267 Dalgleish, T. 25 Dame Kelly Holmes 151 dance movement therapies (DMT) 206 D’Andrea, W. 205, 207, 209–10 Daniels, K. 92, 163 Darnell, S. C. 211

Index 279

D’Arripe-Longueville, F. 114 Daubenmier, J. J. 132 Davis, C. G. 6, 8–9, 52, 90 Davis, K. 51 Davis, M. C. 61 Dawson, K. A. 27 Day, M. xvi, xviii, 3, 19, 25, 34, 36, 38, 41–2, 47, 49–50, 53, 76, 80–1, 83–4, 137, 139, 148, 150, 152–3, 155, 175, 178, 180, 183, 185, 189, 191, 199, 222, 251–2, 257–60 de Grace, L. A. 78, 84 de Matviuk, M. 78, 82 de Terte, I. 51 Deci, E. L. 25, 62, 65 Demakis, G. J. 160 denial 28, 152–3, 264 Denzin, N. 175 depression 81, 83, 148–9, 162, 185, 189, 204, 207–8 deselection 83, 124–5, 160–62, 167–8, 241, 243 dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) 209 diary xiv, 42, 143 Diaz, A. B. 206 Dibb, B. 25 Didymus, F. F. 120 Dieffenbach, K. 4, 92 Diehl, K. 134 Diener E. 65 Dienstbier, R. A. 109 Dimmock, J. 125 Dinan-Thompson, M. 150 Dirik, G. 12, 194 disability 134–6, 152; following spinal cord injury 174–86; sport xix disclosure 81–2, 153, 165, 225; emotional disclosure 226–7; prospective writing 226; narrative exposure therapy 226; self- xix, 21, 121, 153 Diss, c. 25, 41, 165, 190, 258 distress 4, 22–5, 40, 52, 89, 148, 189, 221–5, 263–4 divorce 27, 151, 154, 240, 267 Doc Wayne xix, 207, 209–10 Dohrenwend, B. S. 4 domestic violence 204 Doron, J. 114 Dorsch, T. E. 123, 125 Douglas, K. 36, 79, 147, 149, 177, 181, 185 dragon boat 40, 166 Drazin, R. 99

dreams: intrusive 26 Drew, A. 120 Driskell, J. 113, 115 Drummond, M. J. N 123 DSM-V 47–48 du Plessis L. 135 dual representation theory of PTSD 25 Duda, J. 162 Dudovitz, R. 208 Dukerich, J. M. 94 Duncombe, R. 36 Dunlop, W. L. 78, 81 Dunn, J. G. H. 5, 41, 120, 123, 125, 162, 167, 227, 258 Dunn, E. C. 205 Dunn, J. 226 Durand-Bush, N. 63 Dutton, J. 61, 94, 96 Dwyer, M. 226 dyadic perspective xix, 121 Dyck, C. D. 206–7 Eakin, P. J. 82 Earle, E. 206 Easterlin, M. C. 208 Eccles, D. W. 149 Eccleston, C. 132–3 Edenborough, M. 7, 108 Edwards, M. 78 Edwards, B. 149 Egeland, B. 63 Eggett, D. 224 Ehrenreich, B. 265 Eid, M. 67 Eitzen, D. S. 269 Elberty, L. P. 54 Elfenbein, H. A. 112 Elghamrawy, A. 20 elite: athletes xix, 4, 22, 27, 81, 83–4, 135, 147–55, 240, 259, 266–7, 269; athletes’ autobiographies 82–3; gymnast 176; organizations 90–2; skiers 20, 50; sport xix, 95, 97, 99–101, 154, 166, ; sport performers xix, 147–55; super-elite 149, 152; taxonomy of 149; see also athletes and disability Ellingson, L. L 132, 134, 137–8 Elliott, S. K. 123 Ellis, C. 36 Elsbach, K. D. 94 embodied approach to growth 131–9 embodiment 132–9; female sporting 169; peaceful 206

280 Index

Emerson, D. 206 Endsley, M. R. 111 Engert, V. 110 England, D. 83 Engle, C. 83 English Institute of Sport (EIS) 100 Enniss, T. M. 199 Epel, E. 260 Epp, D. 29 equilibration theory 21 Erpič, S. C. 150 ethics 220, 260 ethnography 34, 26; meta- 38, 54 Evans, L. 5, 9, 20, 38, 41, 166, 189–90, 192, 195–7, 223, 238, 258 Evans, K. 20, 41, 67, 166, 190 Evans, J. J. 223 Evans, A. L. 235 event centrality 151, 155 Everard, C. 189 evidence-based practice 219–228 exercise psychology 79 existential psychological perspective 89 extraversion 23, 63 Fasey, K. 89 Faulkner, G. 199 FDM see functional descriptive model Feddersen, N. xvi, 219–20, 222, 228, Fedele, M. A. 111 Feeney, B. C. 62 Felitti, V. J. 204 feminism 166, 169 Ferguson, L. J. 222 Ferris, L. J. 114 Filipp, S. H. 28 Finlay, S-J. 199 first-wave research xx, 258 Firtko, A. 7, 108 Fischer, P. 29 Fisher, R. H. 37, 161 Fitzgerald H. 182 Flasher, L. 260 Flavell, J. H. 68n1 Fleetwood-Smith, R. 138 Fletcher K. E. 204 Fletcher, D. 4–5, 10, 19–20, 22–3, 26, 28–29, 34, 36, 49, 52, 60–66, 68n2, 75–6, 80–1, 84, 90–2, 95, 108–9, 121, 125, 147–50, 152–4, 160, 162–3, 219, 221, 224, 227, 235–8, 249, 252, 258–9, 261, 264, 266 Fletcher, T. 268

Folkman, S. 8–9, 122 football 91, 179, 210; see also soccer Ford, J. 205 Fortunato, A. 207 Foster, J. 8 Foster, R. 154, 266 Foster, C. 207 Foster, S. 237 France, E. F. 38 Frank, A. 79–81, 83, 134, 175, 177–8, 181, 184 Frankl, V. E. 4, 89 Fraser-Thomas, J. 125 Frazier, P. 20 Frearson, L. 120 Freedman, S. 77–9 Freeman, P. 109 Frey, D. 29 Friedland, N. 116 Fristad, M. A. 209 Frost, P. 95 Fujisawa, T. X. 260 Fulker, D. 206 Fuller, C. W. 238 functional descriptive model of growth 9, 12, 22–5, 28, 150, 167, 258, 262, 264 functioning: levels of xviii, 8, 60, 63–5, 191 Galanos, A. 13 Gallacher, L. A. 132 Gallagher, S. 131 Gallagher, M. W. 223, 226 Galli, N. 5, 10, 20, 23, 25, 37, 54, 67, 165–7, 199, 226, 258–9 Gangstad, B. 90 Gard, M. 182 Garland S. N. 225 Garrison, M. E. B. 114 Gaudreau, P. 169 Gay, C. 134 Gayman, A. M. 34, 258 gender: differences in athletes’ experiences of adversity and growth xix, 160–9; gender-based violence 207–8; gender-specific interventions 169; roles 164, 168, 207; vs sex 170n generalized anxiety disorder 163 George Best 151 Gerbarg, P. L. 205 Gergen, K. J. 228 Ghazinour, M. 204 Gilmore, S. 10, 91–2, 240 Gil-Rivas, V. 126

Index 281

Gioia, D. A. 93–4, 96, 99 Glaser, T. 20 global beliefs 6, 8 Glynn, M. A. 99 Gnacinski, S. L. 162 goals 6, 8, 23, 27, 67, 78, 93, 108, 122, 125, 151, 197 209, 245, 258; performance goals 120, 123; reflection on 121; and resilience 62; withdrawal 115 Goldenberg, J. L. 135 Gonsalves, C. A. 42 Gonzalez S. P. 10, 54 Gonzalez-Moralez, M. 137 Goodger, K. 120 Gorely, T. 120 Gorven, A. 135 Gough, J. 138 Gould, D. 4, 20, 91–2, 152, 190, 222, 237, 258 Granfield, R. 77–8 Grant, A. M. 61 Grant, K. E. 126 gratitude 49; intervention 11 Gray, R. 111 Grealy, M. 4, 23, 34, 47, 133–4, 139n1, 225 Green, B. L. 205 Greenleaf, C. 91 Greenlees, I. 152 Greitemeyer, T. 29 Grella, C. E. 77 Grey-Thompson, T. M. 22 Griffith, T. L. 96 Griffith, C. R. 266 Groarke, A. 137 Grodin, M. A. 206 grounded theory of psychological resilience 63 group cohesion 114 group dynamics 110, 251–2 growth: action-focused 3, 7, 132, 136; action-oriented 132; barriers to 205, 208; as coping see coping; cultural influences 244; cultural script of 19, 154; defined 5–7, 19, 113; dimensionality of 8, 194, 262; domains of growth 6, 23, 64, 133, 199, 153, 165, 167, 220, 262–3; dyadic level 125; in elite sport performers 147–55; embodied 7; facilitators of 49, 205, 208–9, 211; gender differences in xix, 160–9; indicators of xix, 48–9, 65, 113, 121,

125–6, 132, 153–4, 220, 236, 242, 252, 258–9, 263, 268; macro level 223; measurement of 23, 155, 236, 252; mechanisms of xix, 62, 67, 124, 126–7, 152–3; meso level 223; micro level 223; multidimensional 37, 193–4, 261–2; multilevel 235–52; organizational-level, in teams 247; as an outcome 8, 90, 92, 113–15, 132; physical indicators 65, 259, 263; potential risks to the uptake of growth research 220; as a process 8, 21–2, 26, 39, 42, 64, 75, 125, 138, 153, 160, 167–8, 206, 224–5, 262, 264; in a professional team sport 242, 244; role of sport to promote growth 206; self-deceptive 28; self-enhancing 28; team-level 12, 246–7; terminology 7, 13, 61; unidimensional 37, 55, 193, 261–2; validity of 5, 191; veridicality of 5, 29, 193; see also posttraumatic growth growth following adversity see growth growth literacy 225 Grue, J. 183 Gucciardi, D. F. xix, 63, 107–8, 113, 236, 240 Guhan, R. 51 Guier, C. 13, 37, 194 Guinan, D. 91 gymnastics 122, 179 Haas, M. R. 99 Haderlie, K. L. 123 Hafstad, G. S. 126 Hagenaars, M. 224 Hägglund, K. 222 Halberstam, J. 182 Hall, L. 77 Hallinan, S. 223 Hamama-Raz, Y. 9, 66 Hamilton, K. 111 Hammer, C. 23, 63, 150, 152–3 Hanninen, V. 78–81 Hanrahan, S. J. 148 Hanton, S. 4, 9, 61, 91, 95, 101, 190, 222, 227, 235, 238, 258 Haque, M. D. 12, 247, 250, 261 Hardin, B. 183 Hardin, M. 183 hardiness 25, 165, 190 Hardy, L. 19, 68, 148–9, 152, 154, 266 Harmon, J. 79 Haroosh, E. 77–9 Harris, G. J. 5, 61

282 Index

Harwood, C. G. xix, 10, 120, 122–6, 222 Haslett, D. 227, 267 Hatfield, E. 112 Hefferon, K. xix, 4, 7–8, 23, 34, 38, 47, 131, 133–9, 191, 194, 225 Heil, J. 199, 227–8, 268–9 Heinz, A. 79 Helgeson, V. S. 164 Hellhammer, D. H. 109 Hemmings, B. 120 Hennessy, E. A. 77 Henschen, K. R. 199, 228 Herrmann, M. 210 Hervás, G. 226 Hewett, T. E. 170n1 Hijazi, A. 224, 226 Hill, R. C. 99 Hinduism Hirschman, A. L. 132 HIV 25 Hobfoll, S. E. 7, 136 Hodge, K. 38 Hogg, M. A. 114 Hollenbeck, J. R. 114 Holly Bradshaw xiii Holmes, P. 251 Holt, N. L. xix, 5, 20, 41, 76, 114, 120, 122–5, 149, 160–2, 167, 227, 258 Hooper, O. 36 Horowitz, M. J. 21, 24 Horton, R. 224 Howard, M. 20, 77 Howe, P. D. 135, 184 Howells, K. xvi, xviii, xix, xx, 3–5, 19–20, 23, 26, 28–29, 34, 36, 49, 52, 59, 61, 63–65, 68n2, 76, 80–1, 84, 109, 113, 115, 121–2, 125–7, 147–50, 152–4, 160–2, 166, 169, 219–21 223–26, 235–6, 257–61, 263–4, 266, 268, Hulkko, A. 162 humanism/humanistic 21, 24–5, 224 humanistic therapy 210 Humphreys, M. 96 Hurd Clarke, L. 27 Hussain, D. 8, 65 Hutchinson, S. 182–3 Ickovics, J. R. 4, 59–60, 161 identity xvi, 12, 23, 51, 62, 76–81, 84, 93, 95, 121, 125, 136, 151, 166–8, 184, 207, 245–6, 269; athletic 22, 168, 179, 181–3, 244; disabled athletic 179, 181; organizational 94, 98, 100;

reconstruction 192; social 114–15; team 249; see also social identity theory Ihle, E. C. 194 Ilgen, D. R. 114 illness 26, 28, 75, 77, 79–83, 109, 132, 135–6, 150, 154, 175, 260, life-threatening 134; mental 163; serious 154, 160, 267; terminal illness 27, 269; by travel 149 illusions: motivated 28, 193; positive 28–9 illusory growth 28, 68n2, 224; in sport 29 Impett, E. A. 132 Infurna, F. J. 66 injured athletes 4, 25, 37, 48–9, 189, 192–6, 198–9, 265; see also athletes and injury injury: ACL 162, 165, 168; as adversity 241; and corporeal growth 195–6; and interpersonal-level growth 244–6; meaning to injury experience 191; and personal growth 197–8; positive by-products of 190; preinjury 192, 196, 243, 263; and social growth 198–9; see also spinal cord injury Inkle, K. 183 International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP) Position Stand 267–8 interpersonal conflict 10 interpretative phenomenological analysis 167, 259 interventions xvii, xx, 11, 39, 169, 219–220, 223, 226–8; content 177, 225–226; methodological design 223–5; sport and physical activity 133, 205–7; team 115 Invictus Games 184 Islam 4 Ivarsson, A. 53, 222, 224 Ivtzan, I. 138 Jackson, D. 7, 108 Jackson, S. E. 96 James, D. W. G. 122 jangle fallacy 59–60, 68 Janicki, D. 164 Janoff-Bulman, R. 8, 22, 62, 67, 90, 92, 150, 161,192, 262 janus-faced model 28, 264; see also two component model Jay, J. 99–100 Jayawickreme, E. xvii, 7–8, 10–11, 13, 66, 132, 136 Jetten, J. 114, 116

Index 283

Jin, Y. 164 Johnson, G. 94 Johnson, M. 114, 131 Johnson, S. K. 112 Johnson, S. F. 151, 155 Johnson, M. S. 204 Johnson, U. 224 Johnston, J. 89 Johnston, J. H. 113, 115 Jones, I. xvi, 219 Jones, G. 4, 222 Jones, C. 78–9, 83 Joseph, S. xvii, 4–8, 10–11, 22, 24–5, 34–5, 37, 40, 49–50, 52, 61–4, 75, 92, 108, 113, 120, 132, 147–8, 150–1, 153, 155, 160–1, 164–5, 176, 220, 224–5, 258, 262, 268, Jowett, S. 10 Jubenville, C. 162 Judaism 4 Jundt, D. 114 Kahn, R. L. 60 Kallay, E. 223 Kamphoff, C. 10, 54 Kampman, H. xix, 34, 47, 131, 134–6, 138–9, 191 Kanas, N. 194 Kangas, M. 115 Karagiorgou, O. 223 Karanci, A. N. 12, 132, 134, 194 Karl, A. 29, 223260 Karpakka, J. 162 Kashyap, S. 8, 65 Kaskutas, L. A. 77 Kastenmüller, A. 29 Katz, R. C. 260 Kavanagh, E. xvi, 219, 222, Kay, T. 42 Kayes, D. C. 99 Kazak, A. E. 29 Kazanjian, R. K. 99 Kegelaers, J. 228 Keinan, G. 116 Kellmann, M. 226 Kemp, S. P. T. 238 Kendellen, K. 42 Kennedy, P. 40 Kenttä, G. 222 Kerr, G. xvi, 162–3, 264 Kerr, J. H. 50 Kessel, F. 261 Keyes, C. L. M. 25, 268

Kia-Keating, M. 226 Kidman, L. 123 Kılıç, C. 132, 143 Kilmer, R. P. 126 King, D. A. 249 Kira, I. A. 132, 134 Kirschbaum, C. 109–10 Kleber, R. J. 126 Kleiber, D. A. 182–3 Klein, K. J. 110, 219 Kleinert, J. 125 Knaevelsrud, C. 225–6 Knight, C. J. 78, 120, 122–4, 222 Knight, T. 77 Knight, S. M. 222 Koch, A. 207 Kondrak, C. L. 8 Korpelainen, R. 162 Koryürek, M. M. 132 Koski-Jannes, A. 78–81 Kowalski, K. C. 169, 222 Kozlowski, S. W. J 110 Kramer, R. M. 94 Krane, V. 35 Kreitler, S. 52 Kruger, J. 110 L’Estrange M. xviii, 75 Lacerenza, C. N. 115 Laceulle, O. M. 126 LaMott, E. E. 4, 92, 189 Lance Armstrong 81, 151 Land, H. M. 206 Landale, S. 78 Lang, M. 220 Lansdell, L. 225 Larner, R. J. 91 Larsen, D. 51–2 Laufer, A. 9, 66, 194 Launier, R. 191 Lavallee, D. 120, 149, 219, 244 Lawler, E. E. 35 Lawson, O. 79 Lazarus, R. S. 108, 122, 151, 191 Leahy, T. 163 Lechner, S. xvii, 4 Leder, D. 134 Ledford, G. E. 35 Lee, Y. 174 Lee, W. 227, 268 Lehman, J. 78 Lemery-Chelfant, K. 61 Lemyre, P. N. 63

284 Index

Leng, M. 208 Leo, R. J. 8 Leprince, C. 114–15 Levenhagen, M. 99 Levenson, M. 8 Levine B. 206 Levine, P. A. 131 Levine, S. Z. 9, 66, 148 Lewis Oliva 147 Lewis, M. 7, 78, 174, 261 Lewis, R. 189 Lewis, G. 208 Ley, C. 207 Liebling-Kalifani, H 51 Liedl A. 226 Lin, D. 226 Lindemann, K. 182 Lindsay, P. 228 Lindstrom, C. M. 22, 62 Lindwall, M. 224 Linley, P. A. xvii, 4–6, 8, 10–11, 22, 24–5, 34–5, 40, 50, 52, 61–4, 92, 108, 113, 120, 132, 147–8, 150, 155, 160–1, 164–5, 224–5, 258, 268, Linton, S. 174 Littlewood, M. A. xvi, 219 Liu, L. 247, 261 Liu, D. 164 Liu, S. R. 226 Lo, C. 223 Locke, A. 78 Locke, E. M. 124 Lomas, T. 138 Long, L. J. 223 Long, J 268 longitudinal 39–40, 66, 81, 252, 267; design 35, 40, 91, 223; investigations 236, 251–2; methods 41–2; research 185 long-term athlete development (LTAD) 220 Lopez, S. J. 148 Loumidis, K. 52 Lowry, R. 50 Lu, Q. 223 Luecken, L. 61 Luhmann, M. 67 Lumley, M. A. 223 Lundberg, N. 224 Lupien, S. P. 8 Luthar, S. S. 60, 64, 108, 151 Lyng, S. 182 Lyons, A. C. 42 Lyons, R. F. 115, 124

Macdonald, S. L. 52 Mackintosh, V. 77 MacNamara, A. 5, 151–2, 154, 228, 258, 266 MacPherson, H. A. 162, 209 Maercker, A. 6, 28–9, 68n2, 193, 223–6, 260, 264 Magruder, K. M. 132 Mair, C. 138 Maitlis, S. 93–8, 100, 101n2 Malcom, N. L. 165 Mallery, R. 134 Mallett, C. J. 148 Mallot, J. 20 Malo, S. 47 Mancini, A. D. 26, 64 Mangelsdorf, J. 67 Manning-Jones, S. 51–2 Maradona 151 Marion Jones 151 Mark Spitz 154, 266 Marlow, S. L. 115 Martinelli L. xviii, 47, 50, 53, 55, 189 Martinez, T. E. 20 Maslow, A. 4, 21 Massey, W. V. xix, 5, 204, 208, 211 Masten, A. S. 60 mastery 27–8, 67, 80, 178, 262; environmental 6, 262, 268 Masucci, M. A. 81 May, R. 89 Mayer, J. 134 Maynard, I. 228 McAdams, D. P. 7, 12–13, 78, 80, 92–3, 98, 174, 185, 261 McCarthy, N. 258 McCradden, M. D. 189, 199, 267 McCullough, D. 48, 195 McDermott, M. R. 138 McDermott, L. 133 McDonald, I. 182 McDonough, M. H. 40, 49, 125, 133, 166–7, 223, 225–6 McEwan, O. M. 138 McEwen, C. E. 27, 123 McFarland, C. 29, 193 McGannon, K. R. xviii, 42, 75–6, 79, 81–2, 84, 169 McGregor, B. 226 McHugh, T. F. 5, 41, 123, 125, 162, 167, 222, 258 McKenna, J. 122 McKenzie, A. 123

Index 285

McKenzie, B. 123 McMahon, J. xviii, 75, 81–2, 84, 149–50 McMillen, J. C. 8, 37, 161, 192, 262 McMillen, C. 21, 77 McNeese, N. J. 111 McNeill, K. 63, 65 meaning xviii, 4, 6, 25, 50, 53, 67,96, 98, 101n1; and addiction 76–80; comprehensibility vs significance 24; finding 52, 62, 167; meanings made 6, 192–3; meaning making 6, 88, 90, 92–3, 165, 192–3, 198–9; relational meaning 191; search for 27, 62; severity vs meaning 191; significance 153 meaning making see meaning measurement tools 34, 59 measures 42, 64, 155, 199; cardiovascular 109; multifactorial 37;physiological 109; self-report 37, 40–1, 260; unifactorial 37; see also PTGI, SRGS Medbery, R. 91 Meek, R. 208 Meier, B. P. 132 Mellalieu, S. D. xx, 19, 25, 37, 61, 122–3, 199, 235, 237–8, 240, 249, 251, 257–8 mental health 78, 80, 83–4, 149, 162, 165, 210, 224, 257, 267 mental models 21, 111, 113 mental toughness 19, 152, 165, 222 Merleau-Ponty, M. 131, 134 metaphor 36, 81, 98; narrative reconstruction 180 Meyer, A. D. 94 Meyer, B. B. 162 Meyers, L. S. 138 Meyerson, D. A. 126 Michael Phelps 151 Michie, S. 39 Mickelson, K. D. 115, 124 Milam, J. E. 20 Miller, R. 110, 125 Milliken, F. J. 94 mindfulness xv, 137, 169, 224–5, 227 Minton, K. 131 Mitchell, I. 20, 41, 166, 190 mixed methods 34, 133 models see affective-cognitive model and functional descriptive model Moffett, A. 4, 92 Mohammed, S. 111 Mohrman, S. A. 35 Mohrman, A. M. 35 Monroe, K. 206

Moore, B. A. xvii, 224 Moore, L. J. 109 Moore, Z. 222, 258 Moos, R. H. 26–7, 59, 191 Moran, A. 149 Morgan, P. 10, 236, 252 Moritz, S. E. 251 Morris, R. xvi, 219 Morris, B. A. 194, 226, 262 Morrison, T. G. 134 Mosewich, A. D. 169, 222 Mosher, C. E. 11 Moskowitz J. T. 260 motivation 54, 62–3, 91, 107, 113, 125, 190, 196, 207; of the elite 149; intrinsic 24; lack of 246 Motta R. 206 Mount B. M. 41 Msetfi, R. M. 49 multi/inter/transdisciplinary research 258, 260 multi-disciplinary team (MDT) systems-based approach 237 multilevel model of growth following adversity 11, 13 Murch, R. L. 4, 37, 59, 148, 161, 191, 261 Murphy, D. 7, 22, 37, 62, 150, 224 Murphy, R. F. 174 Murray, C. 49 Musgrove, A. 77 Mutrie, N. 4, 23, 34, 47, 133–4, 139n1, 225, Mystakidou, K. 12 Nai, M. M. 162 Naito, T. 223 Nandhakumar, J. 96 narrative 7, 19, 23, 36, 50, 60, 77, 84, 92, 94, 132, 139, 166, 185–6, 208, 221, 224, 226, 244, 252, 268; of assimilation 152, 183; asylum 177; chaos 83, 175, 178; of hope i, xvi, 227, 265; of mental toughness 153; performance 81, 147–9, 151, 154, 165, 181, 183–5; of positive accommodation 178, 180; quest 81, 83, 175; reconstruction 180; redemption/ redemptive 7, 13, 78, 81, 185; restitution 175, 177–8; revision 136; sensemaking as 97–101; supercrip183–5; typologies 259; see also cultural narratives narrative approach 96, 98, 174–86 narrative inquiry 34, 76, 79–82, 85, 199, 261

286 Index

narrative methodology: interviews 41 narrative research 36, 76 national governing body xv, 220, 242, 251; NGB(s) 223, 228 national longitudinal study of adolescent to adult health 208 Nattiv, A. 162 near death experience 176 Neely, K. C xix, 5, 20, 41, 76, 114, 120–1, 123–7, 148–9, 160–2, 166–8, 258, 264, 267, negative life events 47, 60; see also adversity Neil, R. 235, 238 Neimeyer, R. A. 20, 92 Nelson S. 260 Nesti, M. 131, 133, 138 neurobiological responses 205 new relationship with body xix, 7, 194 Newman, H. J. 80–2, 84, 150 Newman, C. L. 206 Nicholls, A. R. 120, 122 Nietzsche, F. xvi Nijdam, M. J. 226 Nishimi, K. 205 Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 6, 8–9, 90 Norman, P. 90 Nower, L. 20, 77 Ntoumanis, N. 63, 162 Nwiran, Y. 115 O’Connor, E. S. 98 O’Leary, V. E. 4, 59–60, 161 O’Neill, D. F. 50 O’Neill, O. A. 95 Oberleitner, L. M. 223 Obradović, J. 60 Obstfeld, D. 94 Ochoa, C. 29 O’Donnell, K. 206 Ogden, P. 131 O’Leary, V. E. 4, 59–60, 161 Oliver, M. 174 Oliver, H. 9, 258 Olympic: champions 154, 221, 266; swimming champions 26, 36, 259; swimmers 29, 81, 150, 152–3, 264 Olympic Games 149; London xv; Mexico City 154; Munich 154, 266; Rio xv, 147; Tokyo 10 Olympic team selection 27; non-selection 22, 149, 151 Olympics xv, 150, 154, 266 O’Neil, B. H. 50, 95

openness to experience 23, 63 optimism 23, 63, 68n2, 124, 168, 194 Orava, S. 162 organismic valuing process 21, 24, 224 organismic valuing theory 22, 24–5, 37, 52, 113, 150, 161, 224, 258, 262; see also OVT organizational change 12, 91–2, 94, 99–100 organizational psychology 12, 93, 261 Orlick, T. 47 Osai, K. V. 123 Oudejans, R. R. D. 228 OVT 24–5, 37, 113, 150, 224; see also organismic valuing theory Owton, H. xvi, 36 Pain, C. 131 palliation 28, 264 Palmer, C. 78–84 Palmieri, P. A. 132 Pals, J. L. 7, 13, 80, 92–3, 98 Papathomas, A. 36, 219 para-athlete 267; see also Paralympian para-athlete activism 267 Paralympian 183–4 Paralympic games 181, 183 Paralympics 183–4 parent(s) xix, 120–7, 153, 162, 167–8, 246, 264; of children treated for leukemia 29; parent-athlete 11; and primary caregivers 210 Parent, S. 99 227 parental pressure 122 parent-child interactions xix, 121, 123–4, 126–7 parent-child relationship xix, 120, 124, 126–7; indicators of growth 125–6 Park, C. L. xvii, 4–9, 11, 28, 37, 59, 64, 90, 121, 148, 161, 165, 191–3, 199, 261 Park, S. 244 Parker, A. 208 Parpa, E. 12 participant voice 36 Paton, D. 114 Patten, A. H. 7, 78, 174, 261 Peers, D. 183–4 Penedo, F. 223, 226 Penney, D. 150 perceived benefits 59, 136, 148, 161, 190 perceived benefits scale 37 perceived growth 6, 28, 121 perceptions of earth 194

Index 287

personal resources 63, 68n1, 108; changes in 6; enhanced 27, 59, 192 personal therapy 52 personality 23, 25, 114, 190, 221, 237; and growth 25–6, 63; personality change xviii, 7, 10, 13; and resilience 63, 190; theory of 21 Peterson, K. 91 Petit, K. M. 162 Phelan, D. 208 phenomenology 34, 169 physical PTG scale 137 Piaget, J. 24 Piggott, D. 149 Pillemer, J. 112 Pipkin, J. 80 Piran, N. 133, 135, 138–9 pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis 109 Piwowarczyk, L. 206 Plessow, F. J. 110 Plucinik, J. M. 123 Podlog, L. 25, 37, 48, 125, 152, 195, 199 Pollard, C. 40 Pollock, C. 114 Polman R. C. 122 positive adaptation 64 positive adjustment 24 positive by-products 4, 189–90, 192 positive change i, xvi, xvii, xviii, 3–5, 8–11, 64–5, 89, 92, 113, 161, 192, 199, 219, 221–3, 226–8, 243, 266–70; meaning and direction of 191 positive psychology 4, 21, 24–5, 137 positive reappraisal 27, 190 positive reinterpretation and growth 6 positive relationships 6, 67, 80, 209 postecstatic growth 67–8 post-Olympic blues xv post-positivist approaches 79 posttraumatic growth 5–10, 26, 61, 89, 151, 161, 174–7, 180–6, 189, 191–2, 226; action-focused 7; defined 5–7, 47, 89, 131, 191; embodied 131–9; gender differences in 164–7; as an outcome 132–4, 136; as a process 23, 132–6; supercrip and 183–5; veridicality of 193; see also growth posttraumatic growth inventory (PTGI) 9, 12–13, 37, 54, 59, 64, 138, 155, 192–4, 199, 262; domains of 23, 64, 153, 192, 194, 262; Greek 12; inclusion of existential items (PTGI-X) 138, 156n1; Japanese 12, 194; new awareness of the

body 23, 38, 134; PTGI-X 138, 156n1; Turkish 12, 194 posttraumatic stress (PTS) 24–5, 47, 224 posttraumatic stress disorder see PTSD Potenza M. N. 76 Poucher, Z. A. 123 Povilaitis, V. 123 Powell, J. W. 162 Powers, A. 205 Powley, E. H. 249 Pratt, Y. 91 Prestwich, A. 39 Pretty, G. 163 Priest, H. 115 priorities: changed sense of 23, 64, 75, 77, 153, 220 professional identity 51 professional practice xx, 53, 200, 219, 221, 235–252 prosocial behaviour 81, 162, 192 psychoeducation 225, 227 PTG see posttraumatic growth PTSD 25, 207, 224–6; symptoms and symptom reduction 25, 206, Punamaki, R. 223 purpose in life 6, 25, 67, 262, 268 Pye, A. 99 Qouta, S. 223 qualitative research 34–5, 39, 76–9, 84, 137, 199 quantitative research 34, 198 Quarmby, T. 36 Quartiroli, A. 222 Rabe, S. 29, 223, 260 Racco, A. 206 Raeder, S. 126 Ramos, C. 225 Rapson, R. L. E. 112 Rato Barrio, M. 207 Ravizza, D. 207 Read, J. P. 79 real growth 6 Reardon, C. L. 78 Reason, P. 227 recovery capital 76–85 Reddin, D. B. 238 Reel, J. J. 5, 20, 23, 25, 67, 165–7, 226, 258–9 Reeves, C. W. 122 reflective pondering 26, 153 reflective practice 190

288 Index

Regel, S. 7, 22, 37, 62, 150, 224 Reid, T. 68 Reid, C. 237 Reilly, T. 149 relatedness 24–26, 62 relationships xvi, 12, 51, 59, 63, 65, 68, 77, 79, 90, 113–14, 120, 123–4, 160, 162, 164, 174, 186, 209, 221, 166, 237, 263; with the body 176, 206; breakdown of xvii, 264; closer, stronger, warmer and/ or more intimate xvi, 13, 23, 64, 88–9, 153, 167–8, 184, 189, 198, 220, 266; enhanced 36, 65, 121, 178, 268; intimate sexual 183; more meaningful 49, 58, 75, 127; negative 192; new relationships with others 19, 192, 198; parent-child xix, 120–1, 124–7;positive 6, 9, 67, 80, 209–10; reciprocal 198 relativism 79, 82 Rendon, J. xvii resilience 11, 108, 189, 197, 204; as mental fortitude trainings 227; rebound 64; resilient qualities 63, 66; personality trait of hardiness 190; robust 64; similarities and differences with thriving and growth xviii, 59–68; team 89, 113, 236, 250, 266 resilient xvi, 26, 88, 182, 197, 209, 235, 247 Rethorst, C. D. 79 retrospective reports of growth 40–2 Reynolds, J. 7, 78, 174, 261 Rhodes, A. M. 206, 208 Rich, G. J. 137 Richards, J. 207 Richardson, D. J. xvi, 219 Richeimer, S. H. 20 Richter, J. 204 Rico, R. 111 Rieck, M. 194, 262 Riessman, K. 175 Ritsher, J. B. 194 Roberts, G. 68, 108 Roderick, M. 78 Rodgers, W. M. 78 Roepke, A. M. 67, 226 Roesch, S. C. 194, 262 Rogers, C. R. 4, 21, 24, 224 Rolfe, L. 210 Ron, P. 51–2 Roper, E. A. 164 Rosenfield, P. L. 261 Rothbard, N. P. 95

Rothschild, B. 52 Rovi, S. 204 Rowan’s Law 199, 267; see also concussion Rowley, A. A. 194, 262 Roy-Davis, K. 4, 9, 38, 67, 150, 189–93, 195–200, 223, 258–9 Rudolph, K. D. 162 rugby 175, 182, 199, 238, 267; union 238, 241; wheelchair 175, 179, 182–3 rumination(s) 21–3, 25, 52, 136, 151, 224, 250, 259, 262 Rutter, M. 60 Ryan, R. M. 25, 62–3, 65 Ryba, T. V. 227 Ryff, C. D. 6, 25, 268 Sabiston, C. M. 40, 49, 133, 169, 223, 226 Sage, G. H. 269 Salas, E. 111, 113, 115 Salick, E. C. 135 Salim, J. 5, 9, 11, 25, 41, 49, 126, 165, 189–93, 195–200, 219, 222–3, 226, 258 Salo, J. 223, 226 Samboceti, J. 138 Sánchez‐Manzanares, M. 111 Sandford, R. 36 Sandy, C. 20 Saper, R. B. 205–6 Sarkar, M xviii, 5, 9–10, 20, 22–3, 26, 59–65, 75, 89, 109, 121, 147, 149, 152–4, 160, 190, 219, 227, 235–6, 252, 258–9, 266 Sarraj, E. 223 Sasser, D. D. 114 Savage, J 41, 162, 258–9 Schaal, K. 163 Schaefer, J. A. 26–7, 59, 191 Schalinski, I. 205 Schegloff, E. A. 98 Scheier, M. F. 6 schema 21, 62, 150, 152, 168, 262; change 23, 136, 150, 262 schemata 94 schematic assumptions 22–3, 67, 150–1 Schilaty, N. D. 162, 170n1 Schinke, R. J. 222, 227, 258, 267–8 Schnall, S. 132 Schnell, A. 134 Schnurr, P. P. 205 Schubert, N. 50, 53 Schuettler, D. 155 Schwartz, N. 132 Searle, B. J 115

Index 289

second-wave research 263 Seery, M. D. 8, 109 Sehn, Z. L. 123 Seiler, R. 112 seismic events 5–7, 9, 47, 132, 191 Selby, C. L. 22 self-acceptance 6, 10, 80, 206, 268 self-care 52, 132–3, 135 self-compassion 169 self-deceptive (-ion) 6, 28; 264 self-determination theory 25, 65 self-esteem 27–8, 67, 208 self-harm 83, 162 self-regulation: resilience and 63 self-reported growth 28 self-report measures 28, 37, 40–2, 260 Seligman, M. E. P. 4, 21 Sellars, P. A. 123 sensegiving 96, 99, 101 sensemaking xviii, 88–101; as narrative 94, 97–8; in organizations 88, 92–4, 96–99; triggers 93, 85 Serrant, L. 189 sexual abuse 36, 151, 160–1, 163, 166 sexual assault 20 Shakespeare, T. 268 Shakespeare-Finch, J. xvi, 4, 13, 20, 34, 47, 51–2, 113, 126, 131–2, 134, 136, 193–4, 223, 226, 250, 258, 262 Shamai, M. 51–2 Sharp, L. 38 shattering of assumptions 22, 26, 67–8, 150–1 Shaw, R. L. 38, 195 Shearer, D. A. 251 Sheikh, S. 90, 92 Shettleworth, S. J. 111 Shilling, C. 133 Shipherd, A. M. 125 Shiri, S. 52 Shiyko, M. P. 223, 225 Shmotkin, D. 25, 268 Shuwiekh, H. 132, 134 Si, G. 222, 227, 258 Siira, P. 162 Silva, C. F. 135, 184 Simpson, D. 54 Singer, T. 110 Singer, S. 225 Sir Steve Redgrave 151 SIRG see sport injury related growth skiing 190, 196

Slater, M. J. 120, 235 Slavin-Spenny, O. M. 223, 226 Sly, D. 258, 266 Smircich, L. 96 Smith, A. M. 4, 92, 189 Smith, B. 36–8, 41–2, 50, 76, 79, 84, 131–2, 134–5, 137, 139, 174, 178–9, 181, 183–4, 190, 225, 227, 267, 269 Smith, S. 80 Smith, J. 92, 138 Smith, D. 114 Smith, P. M. 114 Smith, A. L. 125 Snelling, M. 210 Snyder, C. R. 148 soccer 78, 122, 210, 238, 240–1 social capital 77, 79 social environment and basic needs 24, 26, 63 social growth 189, 195, 198, 200 social identity theory 114 social isolation 109 social justice xvi, xx, 3, 11, 12, 227, 257–8, 268–70 social relationships 6, 166–7, 169 social resources xvii, 27, 59 social support xix, 23, 25, 49, 52–3, 63, 95, 113, 135, 153, 166–8, 190, 198, 225–7, 263; perceived 63 Society for Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology 268 sociocultural influences: distal 23; proximate 23 Soligard, T. 149 Solomon, Z. 9, 66, 194 Sonenshein, S. 61, 96 Souter, G. 189 Sparkes, A. 36–7, 41, 76, 79–82, 84, 131–5, 137, 139, 174, 178–9, 181–3, 199 Speca, M. 225 spinal cord injury xix, 40, 174–186 Spinazzola, J. 205–7 Spiritual beliefs 51 Splevins, K. A. 49, 51–2 sport and physical activity interventions 205–7, 211 sport injury 4, 20, 25, 48, 92, 265; grounded theory of 38, 67, 259; positive by-products of 189; as a stressful experience 67, 151; and stress-related growth 37; see also injury

290 Index

sport-injury-related-growth (SIRG) 38, 150–1, 189–200; definition of 193; dimensions of 194–197 Spray, C. 126 Spreitzer, G. 61 SRG see stress-related-growth Sroufe, L. A. 63 Stacey, P. 96 Stafford, E. 209 Stalder, T. 109 Stamatis, A. 63 Stambulova, N. B. 222, 227, 258 Stamm, B. H. 51 Standage, M. 62–3, 65 Stanton, A. L. xvii, 4, 223 Staples, A. D. 138 Steadman, L. 91 Steffens, N. K. 116 Stein, E. 9, 66 Steiner, S. 112 Stember, M. 261 Stenling, A. 224 Stephens, C. 51, 114 Stevens, D. E. 114 Steward, J. M. 155 Stewart, C. 79–82, 84 Stewart, E. 237 Stirling, A. xvi, 162–3, 264 Stoker, M. 228 Stolbach, B. 205 Stolorow, R. D. 39 stories xviii, 3–4, 36, 185, 37, 41–2, 51–5, 75–84, 98; bodies have capacity to tell 132; rehabilitation 176–77; of SCI 176; of social oppression 269; trauma 183 Stoutenberg, M. 79 Streeter, C. C. 205 Streisand, R. 29 stress exposure training 115 stressful events xix, 5–7, 120–2, 124–7 stressor 3, 5–7, 25, 37, 61, 115, 121, 148, 154, 161–5, 189, 191, 236–40, 267; appraisal of severity and intensity 168; cultural and team 90; individual vs shared xix, 123–4; interpersonal 162, 164; leadership and personal 90; organizational 90–22, 99, 101, 163–4, 235, 238; performance and personal issues 90; psychosocial 162; and resilience 64; and SRG 5–7, 25, 67, 121, 124–5, 189–93, 200; vs trauma vs adversity 5, 7, 61, 108, 148, 155; in youth sport xix, 120–127

stress-related-growth scale SRGS 37, 59, 64, 192–4, 199, 261–2 Strike, S. 41 Ströhle, A. 79 Stubbart, C. 96 Su, R. 65 substance abuse 20, 162; see also addiction Such, J. D. 152 Such, B. A. 152 suicide: risk of 189 Sullivan, M. J. L. 115, 124 Sumalla, E. C. 29 supercrip 183–6 super-elite 149, 152 superior performance following adversity xix, 23, 36, 65, 153–5 Surf Therapy 210 survivors breast cancer 40, 166, 194; see also cancer Sutarso, T. 162 Sutcliffe, K. 61, 94 Swann, C. 149 swimming 26, 36, 81, 149, 154, 198, 259, 266 sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM) axis 109 Synard, J. 137 Tajfel, H. 114 Taku, K. xvi, 4–5, 12, 20, 34, 37, 47, 113, 126, 131, 156n1, 193–4, 220, 223, 225, 250, 258 Tamminen, K. A. xix, 5, 20, 25, 28, 76, 114, 120–5, 148–54, 160–1, 165–7, 221, 258–9, 264, 267 Tamres, L. K. 164–5, 168 Tannenbaum, S. I. 115 Tatarnic, E. 81 Taylor, S. E. 22, 28, 165, 168, 264 Team: coordination 111–3, 115; environment 135–6, 139, 237, 249–50; functioning 107–116, 240–1, 247; high performance 236, 251–2; input, mediator, output, input (IMOI) model 114; and organizational level adversity 241–242; and organizational-level growth 247–249; multilevel adversity and growth 235–252; multidisciplinary team 237; non-selection 125, 149, 151, 162, 236; relegation 10, 110, 242, 248; resilience 113, 236, 266; and team-level growth 246–7; training 115; and youth athletes 125

Index 291

team sport xx, 63, 136, 139, 167, 208, 210, 236–8, 240–4, 249–52 teammate 50, 53–4, 78, 110, 112, 136, 162, 167–8, 196–9, 209, 238 Tedeschi, R. G. xvi, xvii, 4–6, 8–12, 20, 22–3, 28, 34, 37, 39–40, 47, 49–52, 54, 59, 62–4, 66, 68, 75, 89–90, 92, 113, 124, 126–7, 131–3, 136–8, 147–8, 150–1, 153, 155, 156n1, 160–1, 167, 174, 191–4, 199, 205, 220, 223–6, 250, 258, 260, 262, 264 Temple, V. 120 temporal proximity to a positive sport-related event 149, 152 temporality 39, 41–42; of growth 35 Tenenbaum, G. 149, 163 Tennen, H. 5–8, 20, 34, 40, 90, 148, 162, 189 Thai, H. A. 116 Thelwell, R. C. 10, 91, 152, 222, 240 theoretical paradigms informing growth theory 20–21 theory of sport-injury-related growth (T-SIRG) 67 therapists 51–53, 80; empathy 52 Thiel, A. 134 Thomas, J. B. 93, 96, 99 Thompson, M. D. 149–50 Thorne, G. 237 Thorpe, H. 209 thriving 21, 161, 268; vs resilience vs growth xviii, 59–68 thriving scale 37 Thrower, S. N. xix, 120, 122, 126 Tibbetts, E. 268 time lines: timelining 41, 259 Timm, K. 10, 54 TitiAmayah, A. 12, 247, 261 Tod, D. 237, 244 Tonya Harding 151 Totterdell, P. 112 Townsend, N. 207 Tracey, J. 34, 195, 198, 258 transactional stress theory 122 transformation 75, 77–8, 80–81, 133, 139, 148; change 89, 132, 151; in five domains 153; of identity 76, 79; properties of a negative event 68; qualities of the concept of growth 220; spiritual 67; through sport xviii, 75 transformative changes 5, 6 trauma xiv, 4, 24, 36, 39, 41, 47, 52, 67–8, 77, 85, 89, 92–3, 95, 134, 154, 165–6,

168, 221, 225–6, 235, 251; vs adversity vs stressor 61, 108, 148, 155; assimilation of trauma-related information 62, 150, 177; attempts to cope with 59; as a bodily/embodied experience xix, 131–2, 134–9, 175; during childhood 151–2; in children and youth xix, 204–11; definition of 161; positive accommodation of trauma-related information 224, 226; positive outcomes or changes after 9, 20, 51, 59, 160, 204; and resilience 66; SCI 175–85; supporting victims of 49–50; survivors of 175, 206–7; stories 51–2, 55, 79–80, 98, 176, 183; vicarious 48–50, 52–5, 260–2 Tsai, W. 223 Tsilika, E. 12 T-SIRG see theory of sport-injury-relatedgrowth Tsukayama, E. 226 Turner, J. C. 114 Turner, P. J. 114 Turner, M. J. 235 two-component model 28–9, 264; see also janus-faced model Tylka, T. L. 138–9 Udry, E. 4, 20, 152, 154, 190, 195–7, 258 Ullrich-French, S 49, 223 Under, D. E. 22 Ungar, M. 204 United Nations General Assembly 204 Updegraff, J. A. 168 Utley, A. 34, 49, 76 Vail, I. I. I. 138 Vallerand, R. J. 65 van der Kaap-Deeder, J. 63 van der Kolk, B. 131, 205–6 Van Every, E. J. 98 Van Hout, M. 208 van Ingen, C. 206, 208 van Minnen, A. 224 Van Raalte, J. L. 34, 162, 189, 199 Van Yperen, N. W. 151–2, 154, 266 Vansteenkiste, M. 63 Vaughn, A. A. 194, 262 Vazou, S 162 Vázquez, C. 226 vehicle/motor accident 223; survivors 29 Verner-Filion, J. 65 vicarious growth xviii, 11, 47–55 Victorson, D. 223–4, 247

292 Index

Vierimaa, M. 123 Violanti, J. 114 Vis, J. 206 Vishnevsky, T. 160, 164 Vlahos, L. 13 Volgin, R. N. 226 Wachsmuth, S. 10 Wacquant, L. J. 19 Wadey, R. xvi, xix, xx, 3–5, 9, 19–22, 25, 28, 34, 36–8, 41, 48–9, 67, 76, 83–4, 126, 137, 139, 148, 150, 152–5, 165–6, 175, 178, 180, 183, 185, 189–93, 195–9, 219, 222–3, 226, 236, 238, 244, 251–2, 257–60, 265 Wagner, B. 225 Wagstaff, C. R. D. xvi, xviii, 10, 12, 37, 88–9, 91–2, 95, 100, 219, 222, 227, 237, 240–1, 247, 250, 258 Wahl, C. A. 162 Wall, M. P. 123 Walsh, D. M. 134, 137 Warriner, K. 149 Waterhouse, J. 149 Waters, L. 137 Waterschoot, J. 63 Watson, J. 80 Watson, C. B. 251 Watson, B. 268 Waves for Change xix, 209–10 Weckesser, L. J. 109 Weick, K. E. 93–4, 96, 98 Weinstein, F. 20 Weintraub, J. K. 6 Weiss, T. xvii, 4, 12–13, 247, 249, 251, 261 Wellard, I. 180, 186 wellbeing i, xvi, xviii, x, 24, 29, 52, 133, 184, 204, 210, 221–2, 237, 244–6, 257–8, 264, 266–7, 270; dysfunctional health and 91; eudemonic 6, 65; hedonic 65; and performance 100; under pressure 64; psychological (PWB) 10, 268; subjective (SWB) 268 Wenzel, T. 50 Weston, N. J. 152 Westphal, M. 60, 66 Wexler, I. D. 52 Whaley, D. E. 35 Whetten, K. 206 Whitley, M. A. xix, 5, 204, 208, 211

Wicks, D. 94 Wicks, P. G. 227 Wickwire, T. L. 114 Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M. 4, 92, 189–90 Williams, R. 37 Williams, T. L. 38, 195, 208, 211 Williams, J. 267 Willson, E. 163 Wilson, M. 34, 47, 134, 191 Wilson-Donnelly, K. 115 Windschitl, P. D. 110 wishful thinking 28, 68n2, 264 Witbrodt, J. 77 withdrawal: as emotion 166; goal withdrawal 115; of major sponsor 241; from others 121; from performance 109 Wollert, T. N. 115 Worth, P. 138 Wortman, C. B. 8–9, 28, 205, 222, 265 Wren-Lewis, J. 176 Wu, X. 132, 134 Wylleman, P. 150, 228 Wynne, L. C. 249 Xu, J. 164 Yaden, D. B. 226 Yalom, I. D. 4, 53 Ye, Z. 226 Yin, R. K. 38 yoga 137, 206, 208, 225 Yoshida, K. K. 178, 185 Young, T. 109 youth sport xix, 120–7, 199, 208, 264, 267 Yu, N. X. 226 Yule, W. 37 Zabriskie, R 224 Zakrajsek, R. A. 222 Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 38 Zedeck, S. 219 Zhang, J. Y. 224–5 Zhu, L. J. 50 Zhu, W. 226 Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. 124 Zipfel, S. 134 Zoellner, T. 6, 28–9, 68n2, 193, 224–6, 223, 264 Zolkoski, S. M. 204 Zschucke, E. 79