Sport and the Brain: The Science of Preparing, Enduring and Winning, Part A [1st Edition] 9780128118283, 9780128118276

Table of contents :
Content:
Series PagePage ii
CopyrightPage iv
ContributorsPages v-vii
PrefacePages xv-xvii
Chapter 1 - Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of Super-Elite and Elite athletes from Olympic sportsPages 1-119Lew Hardy, Matthew Barlow, Lynne Evans, Tim Rees, Tim Woodman, Chelsea Warr
Chapter 2 - On elite and super-elite Great British athletes: Some theoretical implications from Hardy et al.’s (2017) findingsPages 121-125Timothy C. Howle, Robert C. Eklund
Chapter 3 - The psychosocial development of world-class athletes: Additional considerations for understanding the whole person and salience of adversityPages 127-132Daniel F. Gucciardi
Chapter 4 - The journey of a thousand miles…: Notes on Hardy et al.’s Great British Medalists ProjectPages 133-136Joseph Baker
Chapter 5 - Embedding the psychosocial biographies of Olympic medalists in a (meta-)theoretical model of dynamic networksPages 137-140Ruud J.R. Den Hartigh, Nico W. Van Yperen, Paul L.C. Van Geert
Chapter 6 - Assessing risk factors for athletic excellencePages 141-144Kielan Yarrow
Chapter 7 - In search of the golden skillPages 145-148John W. Krakauer
Chapter 8 - Much Ado about…? A response to Hardy et al.Pages 149-154Dave Collins, Áine MacNamara
Chapter 9 - The stress test: Does what doesn’t kill me, make me a super-elite athlete?Pages 155-158Ian H. Robertson
Chapter 10 - Adversity-related experiences are essential for Olympic success: Additional evidence and considerationsPages 159-165Mustafa Sarkar, David Fletcher
Chapter 11 - Getting gritty about practice and success: Motivational characteristics of great performersPages 167-173Nicola J. Hodges, Paul R. Ford, David T. Hendry, A. Mark Williams
Chapter 12 - Great British medalists: A commentary based on a developmental systems theory perspectivePages 175-179Martin I. Jones, Mark R. Wilson
Chapter 13 - Eventual sport performance level: What about the role of type of sport, perception of critical life events, and practice quality?Pages 181-185Tynke Toering
Chapter 14 - Is a peaceful mind a winning mind? Comment on Hardy et al. (2017)Pages 187-190Li-wei Zhang
Chapter 15 - Super-elite athletes: Some complimentary observations from Australia and some lessons for sports expertise research: Comment on Hardy et al.Pages 191-195Damian Farrow
Chapter 16 - A culture of striving augments use of working memory? Implications for attention controlPages 197-200Tim Buszard, Rich S.W. Masters
Chapter 17 - The tales athletes tell: Narrative structure and identity in Great British medalistsPages 201-205Tristan J. Coulter, Clifford J. Mallett, Jefferson A. Singer
Chapter 18 - Great British medalists: Response to the commentariesPages 207-216Lew Hardy, Matthew Barlow, Lynne Evans, Tim Rees, Tim Woodman, Chelsea Warr
IndexPages 217-220

Citation preview

Serial Editor

Vincent Walsh Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience University College London 17 Queen Square London WC1N 3AR UK

Editorial Board Mark Bear, Cambridge, USA. Medicine & Translational Neuroscience Hamed Ekhtiari, Tehran, Iran. Addiction Hajime Hirase, Wako, Japan. Neuronal Microcircuitry Freda Miller, Toronto, Canada. Developmental Neurobiology Shane O’Mara, Dublin, Ireland. Systems Neuroscience Susan Rossell, Swinburne, Australia. Clinical Psychology & Neuropsychiatry Nathalie Rouach, Paris, France. Neuroglia Barbara Sahakian, Cambridge, UK. Cognition & Neuroethics Bettina Studer, Dusseldorf, Germany. Neurorehabilitation Xiao-Jing Wang, New York, USA. Computational Neuroscience

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101–4495, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom First edition 2017 Copyright # 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. ISBN: 978-0-12-811827-6 ISSN: 0079-6123 For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Zoe Kruze Acquisition Editor: Kirsten Shankland Editorial Project Manager: Ana Claudia A Garcia Production Project Manager: Magesh Kumar Mahalingam Cover Designer: Mark Rogers Typeset by SPi Global, India

Contributors Joseph Baker School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Matthew Barlow Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom Tim Buszard Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living/College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, Melbourne; Game Insight Group, Tennis Australia, Richmond, VIC, Australia Dave Collins Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston; Grey Matters Performance Ltd., Royal Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom Tristan J. Coulter The School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Ruud J.R. Den Hartigh University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Robert C. Eklund College of Education, Office of the Dean, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States Lynne Evans Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, United Kingdom Damian Farrow Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC; Skill Acquisition, Australian Institute of Sport, Belconnen, ACT, Australia David Fletcher School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom Paul R. Ford Centre for Sport, Exercise Science and Medicine, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK Daniel F. Gucciardi School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia Lew Hardy Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom David T. Hendry School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

v

vi

Contributors

Nicola J. Hodges School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Timothy C. Howle Indigenous Primary Care Reporting Unit, AIHW, Canberra, ACT, Australia Martin I. Jones Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom John W. Krakauer The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States A´ine MacNamara Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom Clifford J. Mallett The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Rich S.W. Masters Te Oranga School of Human Development and Movement Studies, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand; School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Tim Rees Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom Ian H. Robertson Global Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Mustafa Sarkar School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom Jefferson A. Singer Connecticut College, New London, CT, United States Tynke Toering Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway Paul L.C. Van Geert University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Nico W. Van Yperen University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Chelsea Warr UK Sport, London, United Kingdom A. Mark Williams Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, College of Health, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States Mark R. Wilson Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom

Contributors

Tim Woodman Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom Kielan Yarrow Cognitive Neuroscience Research Unit, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom Li-wei Zhang Sport Science College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China

vii

Preface In this volume, we believe we’ve attracted one of the most important investigations into the athlete development and performance for many years. It is common to the literature in sports psychology to reflect the interests of either sport or psychology, but seldom to satisfy the rigor of one and the practical needs of the other. There are good reasons for this: carrying out top-class research is a demanding full-time job, and meeting the ever-moving target of elite performance is equally difficult and time-consuming. Trying to put the two together usually demands a compromise on one of the two sides. In this volume, Hardy and colleagues have wrestled with, and beaten, one of the challenges the field so often sales to meet; that is, to combine the insight required to ask the question, “what do we need to know about athletes?” with the expertise to structure research project that can answer it. They have also let another challenge so often ducked in sports psychology research. Having grown out of the standard models of psychological research in which one looks for differences between two groups of people, the investigation of athletes performance also tends to look for differences between two groups of people, usually as a function of some intervention. But when we deliver psychological and mental skills programs in the elite environment, we are trying to improve the performance of individuals who are by definition outliers—exactly the people psychological group studies do not like and who indeed, if their performance falls far away enough from the rest of the group, are sometimes excluded from the data analysis. Hardy et al. score double victory in this regard by establishing some other factors that segregate the best from the rest and then go further by forensically investigating the factors behind the best of the best. This really sets a new bar in understanding elite performance, and allows us to free up some memory space in our laptops because we can now delete many of the hundreds of papers to pretend to do this. The authors of the target paper in this volume have used a biographical approach to learn about a range of differences between elite athletes, defined as those who have received top-level funding but had never won an Olympic or world championship medal, and super-elite athletes, who have won at least one gold medal and one other major championship gold or silver. Right there we have the first uplift in quality that this investigation represents. Most papers in sports psychology do not access elite athletes, despite pointing their conclusions toward them. Hardy et al., however, accessed in-depth information gathered with 32 elite or super-elite athletes. This is a goldmine. The medicine criticism of the choice of psychosocial factors in this enquiry is a common, thoughtless tax levied against first psychological studies. It is easy to think, “well yes we knew that” but the truth is we didn’t, and there are many basic and applied lessons to be learned from the data presented here. Elites and super-elites differed on many variables, the results of which for the purposes of this preface we will take at face value. One difference was noted in exposure to a Culture of Striving in early life. One cannot help but feel, a feeling that returns time and again with this paper, that there are life lessons as well as sporting

xv

xvi

Preface

performance lessons here. One difference that will both resonate and antagonize is the finding of an increased frequency of significant negative life events in the superelites. The notion of being saved by a positive experience of sport is similarly resonant and generalizable, and one immediately thinks of people who have reported similar experiences with music, mathematics, science, and any number of lifelong pursuits, if only we could timetable such experiences into the school day! Similarly, for turning points in one’s experience, the coaching practitioner is presented with a question that can be asked every single day—“is today the day to turn the energy of a setback into something else?” We may feel we knew this, but the clarity and convincing examples breathe new life into the importance of understanding the importance of setback. “Examples?” did someone say “examples?” Don’t we know that anecdotes are not evidence? Well, first of all, they can be the beginnings of evidence to the attentive observer, and second, to anticipate a criticism often used to defend the “we tested 12 undergraduates in shorts and now think X about elite performance” approach to sports psychology, the approach here is closer to that of a group of single case studies, akin to the classic studies that have formed the bedrock of knowledge in neuropsychology, and the importance of which has been articulated elsewhere (Walsh, 2014). The potential wider importance of the findings is perhaps seen most clearly in the differences between the focus on outcome vs outcome and mastery. This resonates not only within sport but within the educational and economic sectors. Sport is learned in the context of general education wherein results at the end of a module are usually the only measure of the success of that module. There is a wider educational philosophical issue here: imagine a world where we welcome the University students for whom the degree is a beginning, not the end. The interaction between a focus on mastery and performance under pressure is a major insight here: super-elites perform better because they are process not outcome driven. Another key insight, and one that runs counter to folk expectation, is the dissociation between the need to win everything and the need to win the right thing. Elites winning at everything (are Elites the real source of family arguments over Monopoly at Christmas?) may seem to represent drive, but the maturity to take an occasional one step back before the big leap forward is worth understanding, rather than merely observing. There are many other examples and highlights we could point to justify our pleasure at having captured this article for the Progress in Brain Research series, but science likes to build on foundations of discord. Enter stage right the choir of clashing voices. We invited leading scientists and practitioners to comments on this gargantuan piece of work and offered the original authors the right of reply. Gratifyingly our colleagues did not let us down in being—what we are best at being—hard to please. It was reasonably suggested by some that the temporal parsing of events was insufficient and/or that the interaction of life events and contexts was insufficiently accounted for. There are some inevitable truths to these kinds of criticisms because any one given study can only do so much. The challenge for anyone observing such insufficiencies is to help fill the gaps and help to take the research and practice forward. The current authors have begun this process in a companion paper to be

Preface

published in due course (Hardy et al., 2017). It was enlightening to notice that in the discussion of variables and mediators, the commentators mostly looked to traditional, narrower, laboratory-based issues which, while interesting in their own right, may be seen as shrinking from the combination of expansion and detail that makes the target paper such a significant contribution to the field. The authors of the target article are to be congratulated on their lack defensiveness and position holding in their responses. On being challenged as to the limits of the methodology, their response is to “hold our hands up to all these criticisms.” Would that there were more of this intellectual honesty in the discussion of difficult, important, and consequential research. We are grateful to the commentators for their incisive and detailed dissection of the target paper, and the result is clearly the emergence of a rich vein of new projects and practice that will address new cohorts, new comparisons, new variables, and new models. One cannot really ask for more from a paper.

REFERENCES 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Walsh, V., 2014. Is sport the brain’s biggest challenge? Curr. Biol. 24 (18), R859–R860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.08.003.

xvii

CHAPTER

Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of Super-Elite and Elite athletes from Olympic sports

1

Lew Hardy*,1, Matthew Barlow*, Lynne Evans†, Tim Rees‡, Tim Woodman*, Chelsea Warr§ *Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, United Kingdom ‡ Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom § UK Sport, London, United Kingdom 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +44-1248-382823; Fax: +44-1248-371053, e-mail address: [email protected] †

Abstract Participants were 32 former GB athletes from Olympic sports, 16 Super-Elite athletes who had won multiple medals at major championships, and 16 matched Elite athletes who had not. In-depth interviews with the athletes, their coaches, and one of their parents explored all psychosocial aspects of their development and careers. Content analyses revealed that there were no differences between Super-Elite and Elite athletes with regard to family values, conscientiousness, or commitment to training. However, the two groups were found to be different with regard to: (1) the experience of a foundational negative life event coupled with a foundational positive sport-related event; (2) the experience of a career turning point that enhanced motivation and focus for their sport; (3) need for success; (4) obsessiveness and/or perfectionism with regard to training and performance; (5) ruthlessness and/or selfishness in the pursuit of their sporting goals; (6) dual focus on both mastery and outcome; (7) the use of counterphobic attitudes and/or total preparation to maintain higher levels of performance under pressure; and (8) the relative importance of sport over other aspects of life. The results are discussed within the context of psychodynamic theory, and recommendations are made for both applied implications and future research.

Keywords Elite, Super-Elite, Athletes, Development, Biographies

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.03.004 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1

2

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

1 INTRODUCTION The results reported in this chapter are part of a larger project that was sponsored by UK Sport with the objective of producing two key outputs: (1) A position paper that reported a review of the available research literature to identify current understanding of what was known, what was thought likely to be true, and what needed to be explored next with regard to the underpinnings of success at Elite and Super-Elite levels of performance. (2) A multidisciplinary study that examined the commonalities and differences between the developmental biographies of Super-Elite GB athletes who had won multiple medals at major championships and those of matched, Elite GB athletes who had won medals in international competitions but had not medaled at major championships. The first of these outputs (Rees et al., 2016) was structured into three broad sections which examined research about: the performer, the environment, and the practice and training underpinning Elite and Super-Elite performance. As part of this review, the paper identified a list of research questions that represented the research team’s best estimate of what needed to be known next. Consistent with Rees et al.’s (2016) recommendations for future research, the ensuing retrospective multidisciplinary study examined a wide range of potential commonalities and discriminators between Elite and Super-Elite athletes, including demographics, practice, training, and competition histories, and psychosocial development. The psychosocial part of the study focused on six different facets of athletes’ psychosocial development: (1) positive and negative critical life events; (2) personality; (3) commitment, motivation, and desire to compete; (4) engagement with pressure and emotional regulation; (5) context and environment; and (6) relationships with coaches, family, and peers. The present chapter reports findings with regard to the first five of these six themes. The findings with regard to sixth theme will be reported in a separate paper.a

1.1 REFINEMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS In the Spring of 2010, a Research Advisory Team (RAT) of world authorities in talent research was appointed to assist the lead researchers in developing the review and list of research questions reported in Rees et al. (2016). During the Summer and Autumn of 2010, the RAT held two, two-day meetings to refine the list of research questions and develop appropriate methods to answer them. At the first of these meetings, each member of the RAT, was asked to identify the most important findings from their research domain with regard to the development of Super-Elite performance, and to present the most important questions for future research to address, a

The results of “relationships with coaches, family, and peers” are not reported in the present chapter. Results suggested that the coach met the social support needs of the Super-Elite athletes in a way that the Elite athletes did not experience. The results of this important discriminating variable are reported in a separate paper (Barlow et al., in preparation).

1 Introduction

together with outline methodologies for answering them. At this point it became clear that some sort of mixed method approach was going to be needed. The preferred methods for addressing the psychosocial questions were qualitative methods using relatively unstructured interviews with former performers, their coaches, and parents. However, the preferred methods for addressing the demographic, and practice, training, and competition history questions were quantitative methods, using very structured interviews with former performers and their coaches. In both cases, a decision was made to compare serial medaling Super-Elite GB athletes with matched UK Sport funded, Elite athletes who had received Athlete Personal Awards (APAs), but had not medaled at either a World Championship or an Olympic Games. The RAT then engaged in an importance
expectancy analysis in which members were asked to rate the importance of each question in terms of its potential impact on Elite performance, and the likelihood of the proposed methods satisfactorily answering the question. The ratings for each question were then combined in a multiplicative fashion to yield the most important research questions (n ¼ 33) that the team felt could be answered. Finally, the RAT spent one day working in two smaller groups to finesse the methods to be used for the different research questions. The resulting list of n ¼ 33 research questions was validated with three other groups of stakeholders: a group of 12 highly experienced coaches who worked on UK Sport’s World Class Program; a group of 4 internationally renowned training scientists not included in the RAT; and the UK Sport Performance Directorate’s Senior Management Team. As a result of this validation process, the complete list of research questions increased to n ¼ 43. Of these 43 research questions, only questions relating to psychosocial development are considered in the present chapter. The questions relating to the relationship with the coach and the training environment were considered sufficiently important to justify being reported in a separate paper (see Barlow et al., in preparation). Similarly, questions relating to demographics, practice, training, and competition histories will be considered in a third paper together with a multidisciplinary analysis of the most significant discriminating factors. The psychosocial questions considered in the present chapter are described below. However, in order to render the chapter more readable, evidence relating to each of these different facets is reviewed at the start of each results section rather than here in the general introduction (see also Rees et al., 2016).

1.1.1 Positive and negative critical events Do Super-Elite athletes experience more positive critical events (e.g., success experiences, inspirational coaches, etc.) and/or negative critical events (e.g., a “distant” or divorced parent, learning difficulties, failure experiences, etc.) than Elite athletes, which might influence the development of motivational drive, confidence, resilience (coping with adversity), and the internalization of learning motivation? As well as “main effects” associated with such critical events, can potential moderating variables also be identified?

3

4

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

1.1.2 Personality Is there any evidence that certain (combinations of) “general” personality traits discriminate between Super-Elite and Elite athletes; e.g., conscientiousness, narcissism, openness to new experiences, obsessiveness, dispositional optimism, and hope?

1.1.3 Commitment, motivation, and desire to compete What is the nature of Super Elite athletes’ motivation and where does it come from? Is it obsessive or self-determined? How do Super-Elite athletes judge their progress, by reference to others, by reference to self and absolute standards, or by reference to both? Are Super-Elite athletes (adaptive) perfectionists – i.e., they leave “no stone unturned”? If they are adaptive perfectionists, how does their perfectionism make them adaptive as opposed to maladaptive? Do Super-Elite athletes have an optimistic (i.e., internal-unstable) attributional style with regard to failure experiences?

1.1.4 Pressure zone and emotional regulation Do Super-Elite athletes always love the pressure zone? Why? What is a Super-Elite athlete’s relationship with anxiety? Does their emotion regulation enable them to perform relatively “free from fear,” or are they “nervous tigers trapped in a corner”? How do Super-Elite athletes learn to use their anxiety as a positive stimulus, and maintain concentration and focus when anxious?

1.1.5 Context and environment Were the relationships that Super-Elite athletes had with their siblings, and parents different to those that Elite athletes had? For example, did competition with siblings, parental style, parent relationships, and relationships with training peers play a part in their development? Do interpersonal skills discriminate between Super-Elite and Elite athletes? For example, are Super-Elites better able to manage their support, the media, or are they demanding, awkward, and “difficult” to work with?

2 METHODS 2.1 PARTICIPANTS The participants were 32 former APA-funded international athletes from Olympic sports. Sixteen of these athletes were defined as Super-Elite serial medalists: athletes who had won at least one gold medal plus one other major medal (gold or silver) at major championships (i.e., Olympic Games or World Championships) post-1996. These Super-Elite athletes, aged 30–50 years (Mage ¼ 40.25 years, SD ¼ 6.16) at the time of the interview, had competed in their main sport for between 8 and 32 years, from 1976 to 2011, with a mean number of international competitions of 135 (SD ¼ 94). They had won between 2 and 18 medals (M ¼ 6.00 medals, SD ¼ 4.76) at major championships. Of the total of 93 medals won at major championships, 49 were gold, 23 were silver, and 21 were bronze.

2 Methods

Table 1 Participant Characteristics Mean age when competing in main sport Number of years competing in main sport Number of international competitions Age at time of interview

Elite

Super-Elite

21.60  3.84 years 17.97  6.28 years 69  91 33.44  2.53 years

21.66  3.80 years 18.42  6.04 years 135  94 40.25  6.16 years

The other 16 were defined as Elite athletes: funded athletes who had received APAs but had never medaled at an Olympic Games or a World Championships.b These Elite athletes were matched to the Super-Elite athletes on sport, sex, discipline, age, and era. The fact that they received APAs indicates that they were perceived to have the potential to medal in their chosen discipline. These Elite athletes, aged 27–37 years (Mage ¼ 33.44 years, SD ¼ 2.53) at the time of the interview, had competed in their main sport for between 9 and 29 years, from 1980 to 2012, with a mean number of international competitions of 69 (SD ¼ 91). In each of our two groups, 6 of the athletes were male and 10 were female. They represented seven different sports (Table 1). Each participant was asked to nominate one coach and one parent whom we could contact to interview. Two athletes declined to nominate a parent and one of these also declined to nominate a coach. Very occasionally, it proved impossible to interview the relevant person (for example, they had moved to another country outside of Europe, were seriously ill, or had died). Nevertheless, we successfully interviewed coaches for 28 of 32 athletes and one or more parents for 25 of 32 athletes (this includes four instances where neither of the athletes’ parents was alive and we interviewed another close relative). One of the most serious problems that we faced was dealing with issues relating to confidentiality. Many of the athletes were household names, who revealed sometimes quite sensitive and personal information about themselves, their families, and their relationships with other people. Because of this, all participants’ personal identifiers were double coded prior to their data being entered on the master spread sheets. A second issue relating to confidentiality was whether or not to reveal the sex of athletes in the quotations that are reported in the present chapter. We took the stance that this was not an acceptable risk, and that all athletes (and all coaches) would be referred to as though they were male throughout the chapter. We chose to refer to

b

On three occasions, we varied the criterion for our Elite participants upward such that three Elite athletes had won minor medals at a World Championships or Olympic Games. Specifically, the National Governing Bodies (NGBs) concerned informed us that they sometimes used less important World Championships to try out new athletes who showed potential but that they did not regard athletes winning minor (bronze) medals at such an event as a major success. Consequently, we recruited three Elite athletes from those sports who had won minor medals at a Major Championship.

5

6

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

them all as males rather than females because there are more male Elite athletes who are household names than female Elite athletes, so the risk of an athlete’s identity being accidentally discernible was less by referring to everyone as male. However, we have revealed whether a parent was a mother or a father because, in our view, the risk from revealing the gender of a parent is much less, and the roles of mothers and fathers are (still) sufficiently different for this distinction to be potentially important. On the other hand, we have not revealed parent’s true professions where they were stated, but have replaced them with something broadly similar, but sufficiently distinct for the associated athlete to be unrecognizable. To help us recruit our samples we solicited four very well-known athletes from the Super-Elite group who offered their support as ambassadors to the project and allowed us to send signed letters from them to other athletes encouraging them to sign up as participants. The vast majority of athletes who was approached responded very positively. Once athletes had expressed an interest in being involved in the project, they were telephoned to explain the details of involvement. A follow-up letter was then sent to them so that they had a written record of those details. Finally, an interview date was arranged. Through these procedures, 34 former athletes were initially recruited, 17 SuperElite athletes and 17 matched Elite athletes. However, one Super-Elite athlete eventually declined to be interviewed, thereby reducing the sample to 16 Super-Elite and 16 Elite athletes as described above.

2.2 MEASURES 2.2.1 Interviews The psychosocial interview guide was developed by Authors 1, 4, and 5 in conjunction with other relevant RAT members.c Because of the difficulty of recalling events from the past, we decided to develop a relatively unstructured interview schedule in which athletes were asked to tell the interviewer their life story starting from the earliest time they could recall. The interviewer then interwove open questions relating to the themes of interest into the conversation as appropriate to the material being discussed; for example, “Could you tell me about your family background and childhood, about life growing up, and your relationship with your family?” which were c In the present chapter, we report the psychosocial findings. However, the interview procedure also comprised a quantitative data collection element focusing on demographics and practice, training, and competition history data (this will be presented elsewhere). For the first few interviews, the interviewer proceeded with the demographics, practice, training, and competition history interview first, followed by the psychosocial interview second. However, after the first few interviews, it was decided that it would be better to allow the order of working through the two interviews to be determined naturally by the direction that the athlete took. Seventeen athletes completed the interview in the order demographics, and practice, training, and competition history first then psychosocial history second; and 15 athletes completed the interview the other way round. Both interviews were conducted on the same visit to the athlete and took approximately 2 h each to complete. Whichever interview was completed first, the interviewer and athlete took a short break prior to commencing the second interview.

2 Methods

followed up by probes such as “And how did this affect you?” until saturation was deemed to have occurred on each particular issue (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Clarification and elaboration probes were used to ensure an accurate and in-depth understanding of what the participants were describing. Before proceeding to the next topic, participants were asked whether there was anything else they could tell the interviewer concerning what had just been discussed. Participants were asked to take their time to respond to questions and to tell the interviewer if they could not remember something rather than try to guess (Hindley, 1979; Moss, 1979). The interview guide ensured each participant was asked the same broad openended primary questions, with similar clarification and elaboration prompts, in order to obtain responses that were as consistent as possible in terms of depth and complexity (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Fontana and Frey, 2005). Participants were still able pursue the interview in the order and direction they deemed most appropriate (Mishler, 1986). This relatively unstructured approach to interviewing requires considerable skill on the part of the interviewer and also places considerable responsibility on him/her to ensure that all aspects of the interview are covered effectively, but it has the advantage of allowing participants the opportunity to express themselves in their preferred manner while retaining a systematic nature to the data collection (Patton, 1990). Ethical approval for the study was sought and received from the UK Sport Ethics Committee.

2.3 PROCEDURE All interviews were conducted by highly trained and experienced qualitative interviewers. Additionally, based on recommendations in the literature (cf. Geertz, 1973, 1983; Spradley, 1979), before undertaking any interviews, each interviewer conducted a media abstraction search to find out more information about the participant who was the focus of the interview. The aim was to enable the interviewers to be more sensitive regarding the (specific) experiences and language of the Super-Elite and Elite athletes, minimize interviewer insinuation and assumption, and the introduction of bias (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The interviews were prepiloted on two non-Elite athletes, and then piloted on four former funded athletes whose achievement level was of the same magnitude as the Elite group or higher. The coach and parent interviews were also piloted on two coaches and parents from the four athletes used to pilot the athlete interviews. The interviews all followed the same pattern: the athlete was interviewed first, followed by their designated coach and one (or occasionally both) of their designated parents (or other close relative).d All athlete interviews were conducted by Author 4. Designated parents and coaches were interviewed in close proximity to one another d

There was one exception to this where one of the coach interviews took place after the relevant parent interview. In this case, the parent interview informed the development of the coach interview guide (i.e., the interviewer conducting the coach interview was informed of any additional issues or factors that had arisen during the parent interview).

7

8

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

after the athlete interviews had been completed. The coaches were interviewed by Author 2, and the parents were interviewed by Author 3.

2.3.1 Athlete interview process Prior to each athlete interview, we prepared individualized outline athlete biographies and personal timelines from reading biographies and autobiographies, and internet searches. At the start of the interview, the interviewer reminded the athlete that the project was collaboration between UK Sport, Bangor University, and Exeter University (Cardiff Metropolitan University was not involved at this stage). He explained the nature of the project and that we were interested in exploring the biographies of international level performers who had experienced different levels of achievement. The athlete was reminded that his data would remain completely confidential to the research team and that all data that appeared in the final research report would be anonymized. The athlete then signed an informed consent form. All interviews commenced with a basic discussion of the athlete’s biography/ timeline, performance milestones (e.g., age when they started performing in the sport, experience of first junior international, age at first senior international, etc.), and (major) achievements informed by the biography that had been constructed prior to the interview. The course of the conversation then led naturally more toward either demographics, and practice, training, and competition histories, or psychosocial development. The interviewer followed whichever direction the conversation led him in, so that sometimes the psychosocial part of the interview was conducted first and sometimes it was conducted second. When the psychosocial part of the interview was reached the interviewer explained that we would like to find out more about what sort of a person the athlete was, what had made him that person, and where his competitive excellence came from. The interviewer then explained that we were interested in the athlete’s whole story, everything that might have had an influence, from early childhood, through junior development, and on to competitive peak. The interviewer went on to explain that although we wanted to hear the athlete’s story in their own words, we had certain themes that we would like to make sure we covered which might have influenced the athlete’s achievement: (1) positive and negative critical life events he might have experienced; (2) the athlete’s personality; (3) his motivation, commitment, and desire to compete; (4) his experience of pressure and emotional regulation; and (5) and other contextual and environmental factors. The interviewer asked questions about each of these themes as they naturally arose in the conversation. Specifically, the interviewer asked the athlete to “start by telling me a bit about your sports career, your journey, and how you came to achieve the results you did. Please speak freely, and I will weave in questions, where appropriate.” The interviewer allowed the conversation to proceed in a relatively unstructured, and fluid, fashion. As such, the questions were only very rarely asked in the same order (copies of the full interview schedule can be obtained from the first author). At the end of the interviews, the athletes were asked whether there was anything we had missed during the interview. They were then thanked for their time

2 Methods

and told that a transcription of the interview would be sent for their approval prior to any analysis being conducted. A follow-up “thank you” email was sent to all athletes. The total duration of the athlete interviews was between 2 h 09 min and 4 h 43 min, with a mean duration of 3 h 54 min (SD ¼ 34.78 min).

2.3.2 Coach interview process All coach interviews were individually constructed for each particular coach and athlete. Specifically, the athlete interviews were transcribed verbatim as soon after completion as possible and then two experienced qualitative researchers (Authors 2 and 3) coded the data. Next, all five authors liaised to determine the focus and structure of the coach and parent interview for each individual athlete based on their analysis of the athlete’s data. The aim of each coach interview was to verify certain pieces of key evidence that the athlete had given us and further explore aspects of the athlete’s psychology that appeared to be important from the athlete interview. Specifically, the coach interview was determined by two criteria: (1) which issues from the athlete interview might be further explored with the coach to yield additional insights and (2) which answers might benefit from being triangulated with the coach (e.g., the athlete’s response to pressure and emotional regulation). Where discrepancies arose between researchers regarding the key points to be explored in the coach interview, further reference was made to the athlete’s data and the discrepancies were discussed until full agreement was reached. These discussions were recorded so that they could be referred back to, if required, during the analysis phase. The coach interview was then constructed and conducted by Author 2. Although the construction of the coach interview made extensive use of the information that the athlete had provided, in line with our confidentiality agreement and the ethical approval we had obtained, great care was taken never to divulge any of that information to the coach. The coach interviews followed the same procedure as the athlete interviews. The length of the coach interviews ranged from 30 min to 3 h 34 min with an average duration of 2 h 24 min (SD ¼ 36 min). Following each coach interview, the interviewer reported back to the other researchers involved in constructing the parent interview any new issues that might be of relevance.

2.3.3 Parent interview process Each parent interview was also uniquely constructed in a parallel fashion to the coach interviews, except the process was led by the interviewer who was to conduct the interview (Author 3). Care was again taken not to divulge information from the athlete or coach interviews to the parent. The length of the parent interviews ranged from 32 min to 2 h 56 min with an average duration of 1 h 43 min (SD ¼ 38 min). Following the interview, the interviewer again reported back to the other researchers any new relevant issues of which they might not have been previously aware. The two interviewers who conducted the coach and parent interviews also

9

10

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

always shared their general overview of the athlete’s psychological profile after both interviews had been completed. This was done to facilitate the subsequent qualitative analysis.

2.3.4 Volume and timeframe The athlete interviews took 11 months to complete. The coach and parent interviews were performed in parallel over the next 6 months. In total, all of the interviews (both quantitative and qualitative) took approximately 260 h to complete. Transcription of the interviews took two experienced professional typists approximately 1.5 person– years to complete, and produced 8400 pages (2.4 million words) of data.

2.4 ANALYSIS The interviews were transcribed verbatim by two professional transcribers. The analysis was based on a combination of traditional inductive/deductive content analysis (Weber, 1985) and the principles of inductive grounded theory analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The five broad themes that defined the deductive component were: (1) positive and negative critical events; (2) personality; (3) motivation, commitment, and desire to compete; (4) the athlete’s experience of pressure and emotional regulation; and (5) other contextual and environmental factors. The transcripts were checked for errors by the interviewer (Author 4) and then member checked by the athletes (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Next, Nvivo 10 computer software (http://www.qsrinternational.com/prod ucts_nvivo.aspx) was used by two other researchers (Authors 2 and 3) to code the athletes’ data prior to the coach and parent interviews being constructed and conducted by the same two researchers. When coding the data, the researchers searched the transcripts for raw quotes that were relevant to the development of the athlete, and then initially coded them into one of the five predetermined themes or a sixth, open-ended, theme. The raw quotes contained within each theme were then examined to identify common abstractions or concepts that emerged as first-order subthemes. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and further review of the transcript until full consensus was reached. These first-order themes were used to decide on issues to be explored further in the coach and parent interviews. After member checking, the coach interview transcripts were coded by the interviewer who had conducted those interviews (Author 2), and the parent transcripts were coded by the interviewer who conducted them (Author 3). These two researchers then met to agree a biographical summary of each athlete and conduct further analyses to identify the commonalities and discriminating factors between the Super-Elite and Elite athletes. Again, disagreements regarding athlete biographies were resolved by discussion and further review of the transcript until full consensus was reached. Furthermore, on five occasions during the comparisons between Super-Elite and Elite athletes, the two researchers performing the analysis (Authors 2 and 3) presented their findings to two other peers who were also subject matter experts and experienced qualitative researchers (Authors 1 and 5). These peers

3 Results

challenged the original researchers’ interpretation of the data, and disagreements were again resolved by reference to the original transcripts and further discussion until full consensus was reached across all four researchers. The results were then reported almost completely in the participants own words using extensive verbatim quotes. This analytical procedure took several months to complete, but the authors believe that, as a consequence of it, the results are very trustworthy. In summary, trustworthiness was established through a combination of member checking, discussion until consensus was reached, peer debriefing, and reporting the findings through the participants’ own voices (cf. Wadey et al., 2012). Within the present results each Super-Elite athlete has been labeled with a single letter, from A to P. The matched Elite athlete has been assigned the same letter. Following the single letter identifier is either “-SE”, for Super-Elite (e.g., F-SE) or “-E”, for Elite (e.g., H-E). All participant quotes are in normal font, whereas quotes from other sources are displayed in italics.

3 RESULTS 3.1 FORMATIVE EXPERIENCES It is widely accepted that a substantial part of adult personality and behavior is shaped by conscious and unconscious influences from early childhood (Bandura, 1986; Carducci, 2009; Cervone and Pervin, 2008; Hurrelmann, 2009; Maccoby, 1992; Macionis and Gerber, 2011). However, to date, there has been only limited development of an empirical database with regard to the early childhood experiences, both positive and negative, that may underpin Super-Elite sporting performance (C^ ote, 1999; Van Yperen, 2009). For example, although a happy childhood may be a good thing from a mental health perspective, the high levels of mental toughness, resilience, and deep-seated need to achieve that Super-Elite athletes may require are likely fueled by something more than just happiness (see, for example, Collins and MacNamara, 2012; Gogarty and Williamson, 2009; Rees et al., 2016). In this section, we report the commonalities and discriminating factors that the data revealed between the Super-Elite and Elite athlete groups regarding: (1) family values; (2) foundational critical events, both positive and negative; and (3) significant career turning points.

3.1.1 Family values: A culture of striving Across many theories of child development, the family is the primary socialization agent in the development of all children. The family values that children are exposed to in their primary developmental years influence and shape their future expectations, thinking, feelings, values, and behaviors (Bandura, 1986; Hurrelmann, 2009; Maccoby, 1992; Macionis and Gerber, 2011). There is also considerable evidence of family values influencing the socialization of young athletes into sport (e.g., Fredricks and Eccles, 2005; Partridge et al., 2008). Finally, there is anecdotal

11

12

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

evidence of “success” running in families; often the success of offspring lies in a different domain to the success of parents, but the ability to succeed appears nevertheless to have been “handed down” in some way. This “Culture of Striving” appeared to be manifest in the present participants in some combination of four separate factors: (1) an environment, and expectation, of achievement; (2) a strong work ethic; (3) a highly competitive home environment; and (4) high value on mastery and outcome. It is important to note that none of the 14 Super-Elite athletes or 12 Elite athletes who indicated that their family espoused a culture of striving reported being exposed to all four of the above factors. Rather, the results demonstrated that all 14 SuperElite and 12 Elite athletes reported being exposed to at least one of the above four factors. Since the results suggest a culture of striving is a commonality between Super-Elite and Elite groups, rather than a discriminator, Super-Elite and Elite results will be grouped and presented one-group-after-another within each of the four factors.

3.1.1.1 An environment and expectation of achievement A commonality between the Super-Elite and Elite groups, with regard to the culture of striving both groups were exposed to, was a family value characterized by “An environment, and expectation, of achievement.” Specifically, both Super-Elite and Elite athletes reported that they were exposed to an aspirational environment, or culture of achievement, during their developmental years. In this context, achievement could be defined in terms of winning, achieving potential, or being successful in some other way. This environment and expectation of achievement were evidenced by other family members, parents, siblings, and significant others, being “highflyers” in sporting or nonsporting domains. Exposure to such “excellence” seemed to have developed the attitude that excelling was not extraordinary, and only something that other individuals do, but was normal and something that they themselves would do. The results suggested that in such environments, achievement was not merely encouraged within the family but was expected and, in some instances, even demanded. This expectation could be explicit, or unspoken and perceived only unconsciously by the child. F-SE provides an example of an athlete who grew-up with significant-others who had achieved success both within and outside of sport and who recognized that similar was “expected” of him: We were massively encouraged and… expected to achieve. [My siblings and I] did grow up with someone who had an Olympic medal, and a Dad who had gone to [a very high status university], so it wasn’t like we were breaking down new barriers because that’s what was expected of us.

Similarly, N-SE grew-up with a mother who played “for England” at her sport and of whom N-SE said, “I think my Mum possibly is my biggest role model.” J-SE provided evidence of perceiving that, within the family, achievement was expected, even when that expectation was unspoken:

3 Results

My parents have worked incredibly hard. My Dad got a PhD [and] then moved into running his own business. My older sister achieved pretty great things so I had her as a role model in terms of copying how hard she worked. There was just an element of expectation that we would do well but it wasn’t ever particularly voiced in that sense.

This same foundational experience – of significant others achieving excellence, and therefore establishing high performance as “the norm” – was also evidenced in the Elite group data. D-E provides a sporting example: I grew up thinking that everybody went to the Olympics; that was perfectly normal. Therefore, it wasn’t ever something that’s out of reach because almost everyone I knew went to the Olympics. It was my friend’s parents that were a bit odd because they didn’t [go to the Olympics].

Similarly, C-E coach describes how C-E was exposed to an environment of achievement both within, and outside, of sport: C-E’s Father is a [brain surgeon] and Mother was [a professional athlete]. There are 4 or 5 children all sharp, well educated. C-E was the youngest and I think that he wanted to live up to the family’s high achievement and high standards. The reality was that the culture was [one of] achieving in that family. B-E described his family values as such that high achievement was simply what you do… [I went] to quite a high-flying school and have a reasonably high-flying family… I really, really wanted to go to University; that’s what we do in my family. It never even occurred to me not to go to University.

3.1.1.2 A strong work-ethic A second commonality between the Super-Elite and Elite groups, with regard to the culture of striving both groups were exposed to, was a family value characterized by a “strong work-ethic.” Exposure to such a strong work-ethic may have helped athletes develop a strong link between the process (i.e., hard work) and the outcome (i.e., the productive consequences of the hard work). The results of the present study suggest that hard work and “putting-in-the hours” was not merely demonstrated by the parents but was also encouraged and expected within offspring and, in some instances, could even be explicitly or implicitly demanded. O-SE said, “My parents were very working class… [and] worked their absolute socks off. My Dad worked all the hours god sends [doing] low skilled, low paid, manual work.” H-SE consciously recognized that observing his father’s high levels of dedication influenced the high level of dedication to training, he subsequently demonstrated throughout his career: [At] 4-5 years old, I remember going for runs with my Dad, in the snow, before he went to work at 6 am. To have that one-to-one time with someone who is a very motivated person… I ended up picking up a lot of those traits from him … If there

13

14

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

was anything that [my Dad] was not good at he would find a book and make himself better at it. So I had that as a role model… he instilled that in me… The one kernel of everything was ‘if you can’t do something, find a way of doing it’ and ‘if there’s someone who’s giving you a problem, you get over it’.

M-SE suggested that “what underpinned [my] ability to excel at such a high-level, over such a [long] period of time” was, in part, having “a consistent work-ethic… like my Dad.” My Dad… worked all week and then still worked hard at weekends to pay for what we had as kids. So I think there was a work ethic [in the family] which you can summarise as “consistency to what you do”. Which means you should always turn up to work, you always get on with your job, and I learnt from that situation. Not necessarily strictly from my Dad but just observing him going to work, coming back, and just getting on with stuff; I was aware of it. You then just wonder if you have that same work ethic. Because I don’t know if I would have [had such a strong work ethic] [growing up] in well [pause] a ‘normal’ environment. It’s not necessarily an ambition but [rather] the ability to go out to work and just do a job, day in, day out. It’s quite different [in] sport but still it’s probably linked to the same kind of awareness … It rubs off I suppose [so] I had… an underlying ability to get up in the morning and do [what was required].

As mentioned above, the same family values of a Culture of Striving were also evidenced in the Elite group with regard to a strong work ethic. As in the Super-Elite data, F-E was exposed to a value system that underlined hard work and persistent effort producing results: So where did my determination come from? I don’t know. It must have been from Mum and Dad because Mum fought to achieve what she has achieved. Dad had a different upbringing but was very decisive on where he wanted to go and what he wanted to get out of life and they are very driven and incredibly strong … We had one of those China marmalade pots that had a slogan written on it, “never say die, man-up and try.” which is pretty cool actually, but obviously it took a while to understand … I was always backed up by my parents and my sister saying, do anything that you want to do. Dad’s [motto] was “if you want to do something, just carry on”… In the last big recession – Dad was self-employed – he did really well to get through that period because they didn’t have any money… but we understood the value of plugging away at something and [the resultant] success.

Similarly, E-E said, “The household ethos [was] working hard. My parents always taught me that I can do anything that I want.” P-E recognized that exposure to a strong work ethic was very influential for him: My mother didn’t really go to school that much… she was more into smoking and truanting… My father completely contradicted that, he had a fantastic education and was always very influential in my life because, even from a young age, he usually worked two jobs. I don’t know how he did it. Then he would come home

3 Results

and sit me down and give me mathematical equations to do. How he does it, I don’t know, it’s fantastic, it’s great, he works very hard.

Finally, P-E parent said, “We were a normal family but struggled – nothing was handed on plate, anything we’ve had we’ve had to work for and strive to get.”

3.1.1.3 A highly competitive environment Another commonality between the Super-Elite and Elite groups with regard to the Culture of Striving both groups were exposed to was a “highly competitive environment.” The results suggested this competitiveness manifested itself in sporting situations but could equally pervade other domains of family life (e.g., school work, house work, etc.). Being exposed to a highly competitive environment, from a young age, may have provided opportunities to learn how to develop the requisite coping strategies for dealing with high-pressured competitive situations. N-SE-Parent said, “He does not like coming second and I think he’s got that from me [mother].” N-SE confirmed this saying: My Mum is like ‘Competitive Dad’ in The Fast Show. Literally, I would have to throw her a ball and she would just whack it and say, ‘go on, go get it…’ and I would be running and saying, ‘let me have a go’. … I was never allowed to sit down. If I sat down for more than a minute, there was something wrong. Any free moment, she’d say ‘come on, let’s go play [my sport]’ and we would go down the club and play against each other. She would never let me win – ever. I literally spent my whole life trying to beat my Mum.

This competitive environment is also evidenced in data pertaining to sibling rivalry in both the Super-Elite and Elite athlete families. For example, F-SE: I was probably – by all the anecdotal evidence – competitive as I came out the womb. My poor brother was 14 months older than me and I did compete with him throughout childhood, so I think that’s a really key factor. Winning was really important to me whether it was playing chess – and taking his knights so he ran off and cried – or racing him up a hill. There is a huge amount, both academically and sportingly, that I learned from having a sibling 14 months older than me … I think probably being the second sibling; I had to work to keep up so I learned to work to keep up pretty quickly… and there was probably fighting … The areas that I couldn’t beat him in, I didn’t engage. So my brother read the ‘Lord of the Rings’ at age four [!] and I chose not to read.

G-E reported similar experiences: My Dad’s family are all so competitive. We had family weekends every year where all the brothers and the cousins were competing and the brothers were trying to promote their children. Obviously, the [children] were all different ages but we were the youngest. Whatever [activity] it was, it was a race … So, like climbing up a mountain, why would you go the easy way? You want to go the hard way. This crazy route is the way that’s going to test you… it was just like, “we’re the

15

16

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

‘[surname]-family’, we’re not going to go along the path, we’re going straight up the rock”, and it was a race … Aged 15, whenever we would go on bike rides as a family, Dad would just go at his pace and I would struggle to keep up… but I wasn’t going to tell him that I was struggling … It’s just always been instilled in me to set myself a challenge to see if I can do it. If you know you can walk up the path, why would you bother?

Meanwhile O-E reported a highly competitive rivalry with his brother: My brother… was a lot more intelligent than me [and] was good at pretty much everything. He naturally picked things up whereas I had to work really hard so I always felt like he could have played football – maybe not premiership – but for a decent team. For instance, we both loved basketball but it took until the age of about 18 for me to work as hard as I could just to beat him in a game of basketball. I’ve always followed in his shadow… but I worked so hard because I just wanted to be able to beat him. It was a case of rivalry… I just wanted to beat my brother.

3.1.1.4 High value on mastery and outcome A final commonality between the Super-Elite and Elite groups with regard to the culture of striving both groups were exposed to, was a family value characterized by “High value on mastery and outcome.” That is to say, although the family environment was a highly competitive environment – as evidenced in Section 3.1.1.3 being competitive alone appeared not to be sufficient within these family values. Both Super-Elite and Elite athletes were exposed to family values in which mastery and outcome were both highly important. Although the evidence is not strong enough to draw confident conclusions at this stage, a very interesting subtlety seems to be differentially present among the Super-Elite and Elite athletes in this subsection of the data. Specifically, Super-Elite athletes more frequently reported a high value being placed on both mastery and outcome, whereas there appeared to be less emphasis on mastery in the Elite athletes. This may have had some subtle relevance in shaping how the athletes subsequently behaved and is returned to later in the results on the athletes’ motivation. A-SE reports, his father’s value of mastery was such that sometimes winning was not good enough in his father’s eyes: My Dad was quite a driver in that, when I was 12 years old, he would say “come on, that’s not good enough, you can win this, I know you can jump 5 metres, and if you jump 5 metres I will give you £5”. I might have [even] won the long jump and he would say “Oh, I thought you were going to jump 5.50 today, not 5.30”.

Conversely, the Elite athlete data that focuses upon mastery and outcome, seems to have less focus on mastery values and possibly more focus on winning. Competing at a young age, P-E describes:

3 Results

I said to my Mother “I don’t think I’ve got a chance here [my competitors] are phenomenal”. She just looked me in the eyes and said “Hey, we didn’t come here for you to mess about. You need to shape up; you’re going to win this”. So, Mother doesn’t mess about. That night when I went to bed, I decided “Right, tomorrow I’m going to… risk everything. If I break my leg then it is tough luck; I’ll break my leg but will beat everyone”.

Similarly, J-E suggested that the family values he was exposed to produced a strong outcome focus within him: Aged 12, I wanted to go to the running club and my Dad said that there was no point in going unless you are good. So I [entered the county running championship and] won and then I started going to the athletics club … My mum is quite a negative person and always looks at the worst. I did a lot of work with the psychologist last year, he thought that I was very outcome focussed and it came from a young age that if I used to win things my mum would buy me presents … There were often bets placed. So “if you win, I’ll buy you this”. Or you can have a Christmas present if you win, if you do well. But my mum even now doesn’t realise that.

3.1.1.5 Exceptions Two Super-Elite athletes did not report being exposed to a Culture of Striving as characterized by any of the four factors described above. First, D-SE perceived his family values were maladaptive and suggested “home was… an unhappy place to be” (see Section 3.1.2). However, D-SE mirrored the Super-Elite group on all other variables thus enabling him to attain SE status. Furthermore, D-SE used the family values he was exposed to as an “anti-goal” (D-SE-Coach). In other words, he was motivated specifically to avoid following in the footsteps of the family to whose values he was exposed. This was manifested in a deep seated need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1) which likely enabled D-SE to attain Super-Elite status. Regarding the present variable D-SE-Coach said, When he was growing up, [what he experienced] was clearly a big part of his understanding of what he didn’t want. The blue-print of how he didn’t want his life to be, was right in front of him every day… Inevitably when D-SE was a kid, he probably had a view of what success looked like and it was probably a nice house, nice car, not [addiction problem] Mum, not going-mental Dad, and an organised life. I think that the thing that he hooked into, to make that his reality, was [his sport].

Second, B-SE, who attained Super-Elite status despite mirroring the Elite group on multiple variables (see Section 3.1.3.3 for full discussion), said: I’d come home from a morning [training] and [my Dad] would [say], “Oh where’ve you been?” “Well I’ve been [training] Dad. Same as I’ve been [doing] every morning for the last however many years!” In the evening I’d say, “Well I’m off out now” and he would say, “Where are you going?” “I’m going [training]. Same

17

18

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

thing I do every evening and I’ve done for the last however many years”. It was just frustrating; like, “Why don’t you know this?”

Four Elite athletes did not report being exposed to a Culture of Striving. For example, L-E said, “It was not like a driven household where everyone was aspiring to be the best.” Similarly, N-E-Parent said, “We’ve hopefully [brought up N-E] the right way… it’s not all about winning… it’s about playing whatever sport. Great if you win. If you lose there’s always tomorrow.” Similarly, when asked whether there was a general culture of achievement within the family, M-E said: No, no, no. I remember being very consciously aware when I was younger that there’s nothing special about me; we are just normal, so no not at all. There was no sense [of that]; no elitist mantras or anything like that. [My success] was just the way it happened I think … It was always, “let’s go and have a pop at it” [and] “are you enjoying it”. It was always [about] my enjoyment. I was never driven like, “Right you’ve got to win” or “Oh no, I can’t believe you didn’t win”. They were massively supportive to the point where it was me driving it, not them.

All four Elite athletes, who were not exposed to a Culture of Striving, additionally reported low levels regarding a need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1) which is potentially linked to lower expectations of achievement and lower exposure to a strong work ethic. They also all exhibited low levels of ability to maintain high performances under pressure (see Section 3.3.4) which is potentially linked to not experiencing a foundational competitive environment.

3.1.1.6 Summary Fourteen out of 16 Super-Elite athletes, and 12 out of 16 Elite athletes, were exposed to family values characterized by a Culture of Striving in their primary developmental years. Exposure to an environment of expectation and achievement likely aided in developing the attitude that excelling was not extraordinary, but normal and something that they themselves would do. Exposure to a strong work ethic likely assisted in developing the attitude that the outcome (success or achievement) is inextricably linked to the process (hard work, dedication, constancy). Exposure to a highly competitive environment from a young age potentially provided opportunities for the child to develop the requisite coping strategies for dealing with highly pressured competitive situations. Exposure to an environment where the outcome (e.g., winning) has a greater value than simply taking part may have developed the desire to win in both Super-Elite and Elite athletes. The extent to which Super-Elite athlete family values emphasized both outcome and mastery, whereas Elite athlete family values emphasized only mastery, will be given further consideration in Section 3.3.3.

3.1.2 Foundational critical events As noted earlier, adult personality and behavior are believed to be shaped by conscious and unconscious influences from early childhood (Carducci, 2009; Cervone and Pervin, 2008). As such, the experience of foundational critical events,

3 Results

both positive and negative, likely influences the development of attributes such as robustness, resilience, and ruthlessness as well as motivations such as having a deep-seated need to achieve. Super-Elite athletes are, by definition, extraordinary. It may well be that the development of extraordinary levels of characteristics thought to be necessary to excel in Elite sport (e.g., motivation, robustness, resilience, ruthlessness, and single mindedness) are fueled by a certain degree of childhood trauma (e.g., Collins and MacNamara, 2012; Gogarty and Williamson, 2009; Morgan et al., 2015; Rees et al., 2016). Conversely, a childhood with zero, or few, experiences of negative critical events, may not be sufficiently challenging to provide opportunities to foster such characteristics to the degree required in Super-Elite sport. Examples of significant negative critical events include, but are not limited to: the death (or serious illness) of a significant family member, parental divorce, or serious relationship problems, unstable or unsettled home environment (e.g., witnessing, or undergoing personal experience of, physical or verbal abuse), frequently moving home (with a subsequent loss of friendship groups), the perception of being sent away from parents (e.g., boarding school), and difficulty at school (e.g., low achievement, bullying, and loneliness). The present findings are consistent with research by Van Yperen (2009) who highlighted that, at junior Elite level, academy footballers who eventually became Elite footballers had a family background involving over three times the divorce rate of peers who failed to reach the highest level. Furthermore, Van Yperen (2009) presents evidence to suggest that moving away to boarding school may also be considered a traumatic event. However, research generally suggests that the experience of foundational traumatic events is associated with health and social risks such as increased likelihood of depression, suicide, and alcoholism (Roy, 2004; Roy et al., 2007; Wiersma et al., 2009). Consequently, it would appear that significant foundational traumatic events alone would not provide an adaptive framework for the development of the attributes necessary to become a Super-Elite level athlete. Although all 16 Super-Elite athletes experienced foundational negative critical event(s), these negative critical events occurred in close temporal proximity to the experience of a positive critical event(s) within, or specifically linked to, the sporting domain. This temporal proximity, between the negative and positive critical events, was likely an important factor in preventing the negative outcomes typically associated with negative critical foundational events highlighted above (cf. Rees et al., 2016; Wiersma et al., 2009). In 14 out of 16 Super-Elite athletes, the negative critical life event occurred shortly before a positive critical sportrelated event. In one Super-Elite athlete, a positive critical sport-related event occurred shortly before the negative critical life event; and in one Super-Elite athlete it was not clear which event occurred first, but they were both in close proximity to each other. Only four of the Elite group experienced this combination of foundational negative critical events in close proximity to a positive critical sportrelated event.

19

20

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

For both Super-Elite and Elite groups the positive critical events, related to sport, fell into one of three categories: (1) “Finding” sport; (2) “Finding” a significant (sporting) other; and (3) experiencing an inspirational (sporting) pathway moment. In the present research, when an athlete describes “finding” sport, what seems to actually be described is the athlete finding a domain in which he perceives he can thrive or specifically where he will find what he is looking for (e.g., recognition, acceptance, glory, self-esteem, and escape). Importantly, the athlete likely perceived he could thrive in the “new” domain in a way that he perceived he could not previously thrive in other domains of his everyday life. When an athlete describes “finding” a significant-sporting-other it is typically in the context of finding a coach or mentor. As with “finding” a sport, what seems to be described is the athlete finding an individual whom he perceives can provide what he is looking for (e.g., technical, tactical or physiological expertise, structure, limits, recognition, praise, protection, and self-esteem). Importantly, the athlete likely perceives he can thrive within the attachment to the “new” significant-other in a way that he perceived he could not thrive in the attachments in his everyday life. With regard to the phrase “finding a significant-sporting-other,” the word “finding” may imply an element of chance or fortuitousness. It is important to note that while this may be the case in some instances, in certain instances a specific coach who could meet the athlete’s needs was sought out by parents or indeed by the athlete themselves. Experiencing an inspirational (sporting) pathway moment relates to being exposed to an individual, or even an ideal, that demonstrates how life could be in the future. Such a moment as this, for example seeing the Olympics on TV and meeting a sporting hero/role model, provides the (young) athlete with a picture of someone whom, they perceive, has attained what they themselves aspire to have (be it recognition, praise, achievements, etc.). From Bandura’s (1986) self-efficacy theory, it seems likely that the young athlete must also have seen personal characteristics in the inspirational person with which they could identify. Below, we first present selected illustrative evidence pertaining to the 16 SuperElite athletes who experienced foundational negative critical events in close temporal proximity to positive critical sport-related events.

3.1.2.1 Super-Elite D-SE experienced foundational negative critical events within the home and his relationships with his parents: I just think my childhood wasn’t necessarily easy… Things at home weren’t great and I wouldn’t say it was an easy time growing up… I didn’t see a lot of my Dad… but then when [my parents] were together it was really horrific at times. I’m not trying to make it sound really terrible; there was lots of fuelling [for the rows] because my Mum [had a mental health problem]… and was [an] absent mother [to me] … I would say there’s something in that [which drove me] for sure.

3 Results

D-SE-Parent confirmed this: I did have an illness at one point… first of all my husband was ill and he stayed at home and I went to work… and D-SE had to grow up quite quickly… although [his father] was in the house all the time with him… he grew up a lot quicker perhaps than he would have done… and then later on, [his father] went back to work and I wasn’t very well for a few years and I think he had that resilience in him… it made him more independent, perhaps less able to rely on me and [my husband] to give him the type of support that a child [needs].

This was also confirmed by D-SE-Coach: I definitely think that his early childhood years were absolutely fundamental in forming him as an athlete. D-SE had a bloody difficult childhood I think, in so much that his parents had all sorts of troubles. One of the big things was that his Mum [had] a secret [mental health problem]. He came home from school one day to find out that his Mum had re-mortgaged the home and spent all the money and his Dad had just found out… So his understanding of stability and control and all the rest of it was warped by that experience.

Contemporaneous with this on-going negative critical event, D-SE experienced a positive critical sport-related event, namely, a relationship with an inspiring individual. Indeed, D-SE suggested that he may have been “lost” had he not “found” his future coach: From [age] 8 to 14… [A family friend] really used my [sport] to just get me away from all of the [negative events at home] in a way. I guess meeting the people that I did, who were completely different to my family [was important] … So I had been quite resilient, tough, and hard and then I met people that had a completely different outlook on things. That gave me this toughness and a whole kind of new set of eyes regarding the way you look at things. Actually, these people – and [Coach 1] in particular – being really ambitious and being really “anything’s possible” actually then brought this hard, tough-nut, really hard working person, and aligned it with this whole world of what could be possible… so there is probably something in that … [Coach 1] would take me [to engage in my sport] every weekend. I just don’t know what would have actually happened [to me] if [Coach 1] hadn’t been there. The biggest thing that I think about now is; if I was coming through again, actually, there probably would have been a chance of me being kind of lost if [Coach 1] hadn’t been there… he was a huge inspiration to me.

For N-SE one negative critical event was a father who was absent; at times physically but who also was perceived as “missing” from fulfilling the father’s role for the athlete. This was in conjunction with other negative critical events such as divorce and an unstable emotional family life. I hardly ever saw my Dad, he would be away [working] Monday to Friday, maybe even Saturday morning… When I was 10 or 11; my Dad’s business was failing.

21

22

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

I saw him drunk and I saw him in a worse light. He would come home [very drunk] and [have] arguments with my Mum. I’d listen to that; I could hear everything and understand what was going on … We’d gone from a really affluent lifestyle to nothing… I wasn’t allowed any spending money, couldn’t go shopping, it was literally Tesco Value baked beans on toast … I hated what had happened in my life. My mum and I would be just screaming at each other every single day. I blamed her, blamed my Dad, blamed the world, I blamed everything I could … My Mum was a bit [mental health problem] – we’ve all got a bit of [that] in us – but after the divorce went through she went extreme [mental health problem] and it was awful … About 16 or 17, I actually had to go and live with my Dad because my Mum and I were going to kill each other… I feel really guilty because I left [my mum’s] home and… my mum met this [very horrible] [new partner]… She almost forgot about my brother and sister and just went off with this guy. Then after 5 days she got engaged and my brother and sister were kind of left on their own. I feel really guilty that I wasn’t there; I couldn’t look after them.

As with D-SE, the future direction of N-SE’s life might have been very different if he had not experienced a critical positive foundational event of “finding-sport.” Speaking about the consequences of experiencing his foundational traumas N-SE said, My sister ended up bulimic from it and my brother – the school were really worried – he just ended up a complete [wreck]. It was quite traumatic… At age 14-15 I started drinking and smoking, and trying to be cool and stuff like that; and then yeah just kind of drifted. I did sport, and the only place I felt happy was sport, and the only place I felt happy was in competitions and you know being away from it all … I remember watching the Olympics and I saw [a famous GB Olympian]… [He] doesn’t realise what a massive turning-point in my life he was. It’s really weird, he will probably never know, but I just watched two weeks of the Olympics on TV and I thought, “That’s it; I’m going to go”. … I think at 15 I just wasn’t sure which way I was going and literally the next day I went out running. I just ran – I was like Forrest Gump – it made me want to train. It was the summer and then literally my first [major competition] that I went to, I won. It was like a massive changing point. I think it was watching the Olympics, just actually realising that I can be [that person], I can do sport, and it is okay to do sport.

For O-SE the negative critical foundational events came from experiences at school and also an absent father: I didn’t have a good time [at school]. I was bullied by a very nasty teacher; she was an absolute bigot. I hated the whole experience. She was a wicked mean lady… and just made my life like hell… I was very unhappy. … Dad was the bread winner and he wasn’t around much… he would work and go to the pub afterwards. I don’t recall him too much in my young life… I would have hardly seen him. In all honesty, I don’t think there was a great relationship with my Father; he would probably be a bit disappointed to hear me say that … I was afraid of my

3 Results

Father when I was growing up, he was a very strong guy… He was very strict as well… discipline is absolutely the rule. We used to go to my gran’s [house] every Sunday. I hated going there because it was a Sunday full of chores and I was afraid of my gran as well because I would get a whacking. We [also] got disciplined [from my Dad]; if you did something wrong you got a good beating which the other side of the family was absolutely horrified to see… So that was really hard just trying to grow up and work out what was going on… [my mum] would always come on sports days and would always be the one who went to parents evenings – but I don’t think my Dad did because of work and so she was the one who was there at the major events. … I always remember other people’s Dads were there and I really missed that… There was the absence of a Father during those [early sporting] events, he was absent in a lot of things actually, I do recall that.

Again, O-SE also experienced a critical positive foundational event when he moved home which led to new opportunities, new relationships, and a new experience of winning at something: That was the first time in my life I can recall being good at something – winning – instantaneous gratification. The respect from my other classmates was something that I absolutely loved and wanted more; I wanted to taste it again. I can’t recall being top of my group in any [school] subject at that stage. I don’t think I was ever top of the class, so this was where I got a huge sense of satisfaction.

Again, as with the athletes in the earlier quotes, O-SE recognizes the critical importance of these events and also their timing. The idea of being “lost” if he had not “found-sport” once again comes across: Sometimes I look back and wonder what would have happened if I hadn’t won that first race because it coincided with the Olympic Games. All I knew was I wanted to be like a [famous GB Olympian] because he was British, he was the Olympic champion, and a lot of people made connections: “You’re the next [famous GB Olympian]”, so that was in my brain. I watched the Olympics and thought “Wow, that’s amazing, I want to do that, I’ve got this talent and I can go there one day”. That’s where my Olympic aspirations really started. … These are really key years here when other people came into my life: there was [Coach 1], and I got so much support from other people, but what that did was just reinforce in me the absence of my own Father because other people were there for their children. I do remember that, “Gosh, why couldn’t my Father be here, why couldn’t he do that for me?”… Then I spent time with [Coach 2], who became more of a father figure for me. He was absolutely an integral part of it. [Coach 2] changed my life pretty much. Had I not come into contact with him, I think my so called talent would have just [been lost]. He certainly fulfilled a lot of what my Father didn’t. I wanted him to coach me so badly because he had experience of the Olympics; he was an international, I had no idea of the pathway for sport… I didn’t even know at the age of 12 that there was a local club. So, basically, I met this guy with that

23

24

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

knowledge – and some people will call it fate, right place, right time – and it just really worked; a massive positive influence in my life.

In the case of H-SE, the link between the negative critical event and subsequent positive critical (sport-related) event is very clear and temporally proximate: The biggest [early critical event] was my Dad being diagnosed with [a life threatening illness] just before my last year at school started. That was the moment that I decided I wanted to be an [athlete in my sport]. I wanted to be really good at [my sport], and prove to him before he dies that I would actually have something in my life that I could be really good at. I wasn’t the brainiest kid at school – but I wasn’t by any means the stupidest kid – but I wanted to prove to him that in the long run I am going to be okay, you can be proud of me, and in the long run I will achieve where other people can’t. That’s when I started training twice a day for [my sport].

The results demonstrated that Super-Elite athletes may report undergoing continual foundational negative critical experiences, in a single domain, which, in isolation may seem largely inconsequential. However, when experienced repeatedly such events appear to have had a cumulative effect being subsequently perceived as a significant negative event, despite other domains of the individual’s life being reported as relatively stable, happy, and untraumatic. An example of this is L-SE: I think every sports person will have something in their past that gives them the ‘need’ to win and ‘need’ to stand out from the crowd and [sport] just might be the medium that they need to seek the affirmation that you belong to society or whatever. Mine was probably born in my childhood school: it wasn’t my parents … In my formative years I was well loved, a great family, not pushy parents … My home life actually helped me cope with [school]… The actual sports side was very much driven by rivalries at school … At school, there was no area at all in which I excelled, I was the kid in the middle of the pack that you wouldn’t notice, not at the bottom and certainly not at the top, be it in sport, be it academically, nothing. I wasn’t one of the hard kids so I had a bit of a tough time with other kids … I can’t say I wasn’t bullied at school, and I didn’t have a great time… I never won anything, so I was left with quite low self-esteem, low self-confidence… and didn’t really feel that I could do anything … I did one cross country event for the school or with the school and I came 1st, that was the only thing I ever came first in and it was fantastic and I went back and did it again. It’s a fact that pretty girls often don’t really commit to hard [difficult] sports because they’ve got lots of other options… and I guess that’s the same for the smart people. So I think that was fundamental really, fundamental building blocks of being successful to some degree in sports, I just needed it more than other people [emphasis added].

As well as his first sporting victory, mentioned above, L-SE also recognizes additional significant positive sporting events that were in close temporal proximity to the perceived on-going significant negative event he experienced:

3 Results

My Dad introduced me to [Coach 1] and he was quite an extraordinary character really. He coached [world champions] across a real variety of different sports. He was a [high rank] from the war but he was a very, very good at motivating people. I didn’t realise until a decade later that there were three distinct coaching styles that I was involved with and [Coach 1] was very much ‘follow me’ and it was like, “brilliant, where are we going?” But he died when I was 17, and that had a big impact… the only death that’s ever had a real impact on me. When he was gone there was just nothing because I hadn’t been taught to think. I’d just been taught to do it, and been praised for doing it; it was very dictatorial. It was harsh but it was very led by his opinion and it was probably right for me at the time. It gave me belief that I could do it … Then I wandered around and bumped into [Coach 2] and he was fascinating. I asked him questions and [he] gave some evidence [regarding] what kind of training I should be doing. I was arrogant and said, “Well why do you think that’s the case?” and he’d always say, “Well there’s evidence”. [Coach 2] was pivotal really in me continuing in sport … So winning in [sport] very quickly gave me something that was really special and important to me. To actually be able to do something that other people couldn’t do was a big deal. It was a massive emotional rollercoaster. When it went well it was fantastic, when it didn’t go well it was devastating. [Coach 2] actually gave me a fantastically productive way of dealing with failure. A simple three step process which is; here’s an idea, here’s something that we can do; and its evidence based.

L-SE-Coach confirmed these pivotal positive events by also reporting the positive role of both Coach 1, and himself, in influencing L-SE during his developmental years. [Coach 1] coached a number of [athletes] and L-SE was one of them; he died the year before I’d met L-SE… So part of the narrative is probably that L-SE along with a number of other [athletes] were drifting around not knowing what you did next because [Coach 1] was this tough little coach, he told you how to live your life… and what you did… The recollection I have of this is very strong because I have been interviewed about it many times and I’ve thought about it a lot… L-SE wanted to be winning races and he sensed something in where I was coming from, and what that avenue of work might offer him, very early on. He was a very early adopter of what was on offer there and as a consequence was something of a shaper of it too.

G-SE provides another example that a critical negative life event does not need to be a single event with huge significance but can be a series of small situations, which, as a collective, when experienced repeatedly over a period of time constitute a significant critical event: I think it is very clear that I am driven by a sense of inadequacy, and needing to prove something, and I do think that this goes back to very early when my brother was always, older, stronger, cleverer, better, and not ever being able to keep up with him at anything… [Having a brother who was] four and a half years [older] is a large amount, so he was physically much stronger and he is very clever, so he

25

26

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

could always beat me in an argument. We had very lively dinner debates where my Dad and my brother would spar on a level above and I would try and play and get slapped down… Intellectually, they were superior to me and would pull my argument to bits, although most of the time it was my brother who would pull my argument to bits… So often, through secondary school, I would leave the dinner table feeling very small. My Dad less so but my memories of my brother is him dominating those discussions. My brother definitely wanted to squash anything that I came up with; he would have just pointed out the illogicality of my argument… [and] vehemently be saying, “That is ridiculous, how can you possibly be saying this?” He would go lashing out and say that’s not how it is done and that’s only a kiddie version of it… The general ending was probably tears and the kind of thing where my mother said, “Why do you have to argue at the dinner table?”

Regarding these difficulties that G-SE experienced with his sibling, G-SE-Parent remarked: Sibling rivalry gave him a thick skin to strive for achievement … I think it possibly has [shaped who he became]. It was both very positive and very negative… I don’t think that [his brother] thinks that G-SE succeeded in [sport] as a result of his pushing or bullying… Now whether G-SE would have been able to operate so successfully without it, I don’t know.

For G-SE the critical positive foundational event came atypically late but again the sentiment of almost being “lost” is apparent: I found it really difficult going to University… a year early; I felt quite overwhelmed and quite inadequate. I felt a bit of a chip on the shoulder – “there’s all these sort of posh people, from posh schools” – and that appealed to my inadequacy, so I knew I wouldn’t fit in. I started off in a bit of an alcoholic haze, drinking a lot … I think [my sport] was slightly a saving grace because I was just going to the pub in the afternoons in the first term as a bit of a coping mechanism; totally scared. Subject wise [academically] everyone was [more advanced] and it was like, “****! – I don’t understand what’s going on”. Totally out of the blue this other world opened up and it was quite a saving grace; I am not quite sure where I’d have found my niche otherwise… I didn’t really choose [my sport] particularly, and I didn’t really try many other things, so it’s hard to say if it was a conscious decision … It happened so quickly, my improvement curve was so steep. I did very much fall into it and immediately it felt at home. It was such a drastic life change, it opened up a different way of life … I’d suddenly got a lot taller at [age] 15-16… I felt really awkward about my size… In [my sport] it is good to be big. I was naturally very strong… [so] suddenly, “Okay, I may not feel great on the dance floor, in life, standing on the street, or in the bar, but I’m feeling good in [my sport] and everyone is saying I’m good… I hate the way I look but it helps me [in my sport]”. [Sport] gave me a way of feeling good about my size; quite an important thing, that slightly saved me.

3 Results

G-SE-Coach confirmed the significance of the critical positive foundational event. He was big, a bit geeky and uncoordinated at school… and suddenly discovers something that he could do. In lots of other sports he – like me – couldn’t do any of them; just hopeless until the day he got into [the sport] and was like, “Oh, hello… I can do this… I’m off” He just very quickly took to it… He had the heart and lungs of a buffalo so when he got on a [training machine] he just absolutely crunched the thing. Was it lucky inevitably that it came with some quite thoughtful coaches who challenged him? [Coach 1] in particular is a very thoughtful, clever coach and was incredibly meticulous and was just completely organised and I think he responded to that quite well. G-SE is extremely intolerant of inefficiency, extremely intolerant of ill thought-through macho stuff so having found the right environment, he prospered quite quickly.

A-SE describes the significant negative critical events related to his family: Someone asked me the other day, and I hadn’t ever talked about this before, but my Mum had a [serious mental health problem] when I was 14… and tried to commit suicide. I was a 14 year old kid watching all this; which at that age was quite hard to deal with because she very much kept the family together. I hadn’t really been that close to my Dad because it had always been my Mum at that point but my Dad obviously had to come in and take over at that point. I often wonder whether, at age 14, that made me quite tough and resilient. Watching somebody go through that meant I had to get on and defend myself… My Dad was always there but he had never done the cooking or anything like that so I felt a little bit of [responsibility] keeping the family together.

Around the time of all these critical negative events at home, a positive critical event for A-SE was finding a coach that, as it transpired, he would work with throughout his whole career: At 14… I watched the Olympics and I was just mesmerised, I just loved it and just thought, “Wow, wouldn’t that be amazing”. … [Coach 1] was a national coach and… he would have seen me at English schools [events]. He was obviously out looking for talent and he’d coached [a famous GB medal winning Olympian] who had just left the group as I joined. I joined a group of international athletes so I had so many people to aspire to and watch in those early days.

A-SE-Parent confirmed the importance of “finding” this coach saying, “A-SE-Coach was a huge, huge, role model… [and] someone that A-SE desperately sought to gain attention and approval of.”

3.1.2.2 Elite group Mirroring the Super-Elite group, all 16 of the Elite group reported experiencing significant sport-related positive foundational events in their formative years. As with the Super-Elite group, these positive experiences could be categorized into

27

28

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

three groups: (1) “Finding” sport; (2) “Finding” a significant sporting other; or (3) experiencing an inspirational sporting pathway moment. However, unlike the Super-Elite group, 12 out of 16 Elite athletes did not report experiencing any significant negative critical events in their formative years. Five of the Elite group suggested that watching a particular Elite sport was a significant foundational positive event in their lives. For example, F-E said, “Watching [a famous GB Olympian], I was thinking, ‘Yeah, I want some of that’.” Similarly, M-E said: Watching [my sport] on TV and thinking “Oh, that is great”. It was brilliant, it just blew me away and I thought, “Wow, I want to have people screaming for me like that and watching me.” It was the epic nature of the sport which appealed to me; like a romantic side of the sport, about athletes doing phenomenal things, out-ofyour-skin performances. I found it really inspiring and I thought I want to be able to do that and make someone else feel like that about what I’ve done. From there it became infectious. The drive was to deliver out of your skin performances.

O-E said: As an 8 year old… I remember watching the World Cup and Olympics, seeing [a famous GB Olympian], and he was my hero… I can remember really thinking that’s what I want to do. I suppose that was a turning point; a time where it was written in my mind: “this is what is going to happen, I’m going to be an athlete”.

For J-E, “finding-sport” allowed him to excel at something and gain a desired sense of recognition: When I was at school… sport was really something that I was good at and it got me respect. I almost became a bit of a celebrity in the school because I was good. It was quite easy to be a big fish in a small pond and be quite well known. So I liked the attention I got from being successful, I was good at it, and it just flowed… In high school I won this cross country race… It was a turning point because nobody even knew… how good I was until that point. I won it by quite a long way… and it was in the newspapers… and then the school started to notice.

N-E met a significantly inspiring teacher and coach at a very young age: Aged 7-8… I started playing [my sport]… in primary school. That’s where we had a teacher who was keen on [my sport]… [and] I remember winning [competitions] pretty easily. Aged 9 or 10 I beat my older [sibling], which he thinks ruined his life (laughing) … A coach saw me… and said [to himself], “I’m going to coach him” and he pretty much coached me, for free, for 10 years. So it was that coach that really that got me going, plus a teacher at school.

Twelve of 16 Elite athletes did not experience a foundational negative critical event(s). Asked whether he had any difficulties to overcome in his childhood, E-E said, “No, I didn’t really have anything traumatic as such to overcome through

3 Results

childhood.” Similarly, when asked whether he had a stable home life, M-E said, “Yeah, oh massively, yes.” M-E went on to say: [My parents] were generally always around. I never went without anything; it was fantastic to be [that] lucky really… They’d be helping us to be occupied or doing something to help facilitate our happiness… I was massively loved and supported, massively, bloody hell I couldn’t have felt better do you know what I mean? Looking back, and at the time, fantastic, unbelievable, to the point where you know you can’t appreciate it when you’re young because you’ve got nothing to gage it against. But if I can provide even a fraction of gratitude for what I have had, I would.

D-E-Coach recognized a similar situation in the childhood of D-E: D-E is in that position where “Life’s ace: I’ve got a lovely great big room, a lovely house, loads of money and what do you say I have to do? Go [and do my sport]? Of course I want to go [and do my sport] Dad. Why wouldn’t I?” … You could stand back and feel really envious because everything is laid on a plate [but] I think he had been delivered the worst of all worlds really; you never have to take responsibility for anything you do and yet the only way you’re ever going to really get some love and affection from your parents is if you achieve something… blimey … I mean it’s absolutely the classic story of a kid having no fire because everything is laid on for him. He doesn’t have to take any responsibilities because the family unit always make it somebody else’s fault. He was never asked, “Well come on what are you going to do about this? How can we make it better? What’s the genuine solution to it?” … I think happy, comfortable kids who get too much support don’t ultimately make great athletes.

At this point, the interviewer asked “so it’s that uncomfortable truth that maybe a bit of unhappiness is not such a bad thing?” That is 100% right… I say it to my friend all the time… who is this wealthy guy with three kids… and he’s got this son, whose just won the Great South Run… I mean he’s that good… he’s just a brilliant athlete… Loves his biking, loves his running… he’s going to be brilliant… [my friend asks] “What do you think I should do?”… I said, “Kick him out” [laughs] “If you want him to win… kick him out on the streets [because] you’ll make him a nutter but… he’ll just throw himself into his sport… as being the way. Happy kids don’t make great sports people in my opinion … I feel really bad on one level, having been as honest as I have about D-E because I do think that he is a victim of [his upbringing] and that fundamentally they [the family] are all driven by really good, lovely principles of having a nice family. Protecting those you love, wanting to keep [them] safe and providing the best for [them] are the intentions within that family which are astronomically brilliant, and lovely, and something I’d love to be part of. But, the concoction of all those things have put them all in a really difficult

29

30

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

position and despite the fact that D-E is a bright and lovely and charming [person]… it’s going to be very difficult for him to find anything in life that gives him… any sort of level of happiness.

H-E also recognized that he led a trauma free childhood which quite likely helped him to maintain a very balanced perspective on a major lost opportunity. However, the following quote makes it clear that in terms of need for achievement and Elite performance this balanced perspective may not have been an advantage (this issue will be further discussed in Section 3.2.1): Looking back at the way that I used to live as a child, I was pretty spoilt. Because my [siblings] had gone to university everything was about me and [my parents] were making all these sacrifices for me… [Getting injured pre-Olympics] was sheer bad luck. We really did feel that we were in the medal zone. So to lose it all was, at the time, the worst thing that had ever happened to me. So take it into perspective, you look at that and you think, “Well if that’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to me compared to most people, that’s pretty good really”. I’ve lived a pretty happy sheltered life still to be able to say that missing out on a really nice race, which I worked really hard for, [is the worst thing that has ever happened to me]. Actually, nothing serious has happened to me so in that perspective it’s not terrible.

As discussed above, L-E was not raised in a family culture of striving. Furthermore, his childhood was very stable: Growing up… we always ate together as a family [and] I used to enjoy my Dad getting home and we would be playing ball games together until dinner time… It was a very functional family. It was very close knit. I had a very stable upbringing… Maybe I should have been more dedicated than I was because my Mum and Dad were always totally supportive in anything I did. So if I jacked my [sport] any day they wouldn’t say anything. It wasn’t a case of, “You’ve got to get in the Great Britain team”. They would say, “OK that’s fine, if that is what you want to do.”

3.1.2.3 Exceptions Four of the Elite group reported experiencing significant negative critical events in close proximity to significant positive events in their primary developmental years. P-E, for example, does not mirror the other Elite athletes on a number of variables, including the present variable (see Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.4). However, results suggest that his outcome focus (see Section 3.3.3) – potentially developed in his early childhood (see Section 3.1.2.2) – subsequently resulted in a significant career turning point (see Section 3.1.3) away from sport, that likely prevented him ultimately becoming a Super-Elite athlete. Regarding the present variable P-E said: It was quite a difficult upbringing. Aged 6 to about 12, living on a rough estate, was quite challenging I suppose; it was a tough life… The older kids used to try

3 Results

and bully [me] so at a young age I did feel vulnerable in that particular area… I remember my father getting made redundant… [and] my parents divorced roughly when I was 13.

These early difficulties where proximal to early positive events for P-E: Aged 11… [Coach 1], was such a strong man, he wouldn’t give us an inch, wouldn’t let us have any weak feelings. Looking back, I haven’t seen anyone like that with 11 year olds. He made sure we were the best – but we didn’t know it – we had to work bloody hard and then become the best… Then [Coach 2] was called in to train me [at school] and he was fantastic. He researched as best he could in regards to [the specifics of my sport]. He was very influential because he had… volunteered all his time [and] invested time into me. I was really appreciative of that.

B-E said: My parents separated when I was 2, and my Dad didn’t live with us; he wasn’t necessarily a parent figure I would say. Really Mum was the only parent. [After the separation] it was a very amicable set-up. Dad would sometimes come on holiday with us; it was a very odd relationship. To be honest it was a pretty weird situation but they never got divorced. My Dad was never diagnosed with anything but had serious bouts of depression… My [sibling] was diagnosed with severe [mental health problem] when he was 11 and he just went completely bizarre; he changed and he has struggled with that ever since… I dabbled in having therapy after my [other sibling] died. It became apparent that I still have some residual issues with some of these things. I definitely still do but I’m much better these days. I’ve come to peace with my relationships and although it was a long time ago it still gets to me now.

B-E’s profile also mirrored the Super-Elite athlete profile in multiple variables examined in the present study (Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, and 3.3.3). B-E “finds” an early coach who is “like part of my family.” Later in his career, B-E establishes a coach–athlete relationship with another “who was a World Class coach and has coached Olympic medalists” of whom B-E says he “knows what I need” and that he benefited, at competition, from “just having a bit of his physical presence.” Given B-E’s experience of negative critical events, it is unsurprising he seeks out coaches to fulfill this particular role. It is therefore even less surprising, that one of the key factors that likely prevented B-E being a Super-Elite athlete is that his coach was taken away from him at critical times in the competition season, causing a dramatic decline in performance.

3.1.2.4 Summary All 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only four of the Elite group, reported experiencing significant negative critical events during their primary developmental years. This finding supports anecdotal evidence that some of the greatest achievers in sport have

31

32

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

experienced serious emotional trauma during childhood. This includes, among others, Maradona, Paul Gascoigne, George Best, Marion Jones, Tonya Harding, Andrea Jaeger, and Lance Armstrong (Gogarty and Williamson, 2009). Indeed, Armstrong (2004), in his book Every Second Counts – published long before his confession of doping – explicitly recognizes that early childhood traumas had impacted and influenced his desire to ride: Self-examination has not always been my strength; for one thing, it takes too long and, for another, I have the suspicion that it’s the old secrets in me, the cheats and slights of childhood, all melted down into one purpose, that make me turn the wheels (p. 25).

Similarly, in UK athletes, evidence from biographies and the media suggest that Dame Kelly Holmes experienced an unsettled childhood and struggled subsequently with self-harm (e.g., Brown, 2012). Furthermore, Sir Steve Redgrave is reported as having experienced his dyslexia as a significant, and traumatic, developmental event (Pucin, 1996). These data provide a degree of external validity to the present findings. All Super-Elite athletes, and all Elite athletes, experienced significant positive critical events, related to sport, during their primary developmental years. For the Super-Elite group, these positive critical events, related to sport, were in close temporal proximity to negative critical event(s). The present findings support other biographical data which seems to underline the importance of positive critical sporting events occurring in close temporal proximity to negative critical foundational events. For example, Greg LeMond, three-time winner of the Tour de France, was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Regarding “finding sport” LeMond said, “Cycling saved my life. I know it did… It allowed me to reinvent myself” (Gifford, 2008). In other words, on the bike LeMond no longer perceived himself as merely a victim of sexual abuse but found a new self; a competent accomplished athlete. He found a domain in which he could thrive. The idea that LeMond expresses – that “Cycling saved my life” – is echoed in multiple ways by the Super-Elite group, the idea being that without this pivotal positive sport-related critical event the individual might have been “lost,” as D-SE put it. Similarly, when F-SE-Coach was asked whether he thought it was possible that F-SE might have “gone down a different or divergent path” had he not “found” sport, he said: Yeah, there is still a lot of chance involved… With [one particular] project we did… one of the guys [overdosed] on Heroin and died… He was on the cusp of the Under-23 s… When he [did his sport], he was on the straight and narrow but then he went off and saw all these dodgy mates and one day it was just too much. I’m convinced if he had gone on the straight and narrow – if he had just been good enough just to get there [in sport] a little bit longer – he’d still be here today… I don’t see F-SE like that. He’s outstandingly smart and got more opportunities than you can poke a stick at… I’m sure [his] skills or traits would have given him success in another field.

3 Results

The experience of a foundational negative critical event in close temporal proximity to a positive critical (sport-related) event differentiates Super-Elite and Elite athletes. We argue that such experiences are causally linked to “what the athlete became.” The importance of the athlete’s developmental experiences is underlined by L-SE-Coach: [Now] I would be more interested in the athlete’s life back-cloth – if there are lifechanging events going on – because invariably they have more impact on performance than what I’m telling you [about hours of practice completed] or training.

3.1.3 Significant career turning point The critical events discussed thus far have been foundational in nature. That is to say they deal specifically with the athlete’s primary developmental years. The present section examines significant turning points during an athlete’s career. This does not refer to the moment when the athlete first received funding from UK Sport, which may or may not be a significant turning point in an athlete’s development. In other words, whether Super-Elite and Elite athletes differ regarding the impact of being placed on funding is not explored in the present section. The present section examines significant career turning points that occurred after being placed on World Class Funding for the first time. Significant turning points, during an athlete’s career, may increase motivation, focus, and dedication to sport. Conversely, similar experiences, perceived and interpreted differently, may prompt other athletes to reduce their motivation, focus, and dedication to sport. Collins and MacNamara (2012) have presented anecdotal evidence (e.g., from biographies) of high-level athletes experiencing significant trauma on their pathway to success. However, turning points may not be the result of negative experiences; a number of athletes in the present study reported very positive events as turning points. The extent to which significant career turning points subsequently had a positive or negative impact on the athlete’s psychological approach is what discriminated between the groups. Results suggested that 15 of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only 1 of 16 Elite athletes, reported a significant career turning point(s) that resulted in an overall increase in focus, motivation, or determination to attain sporting success. The other Elite athletes all reported significant turning points, but they resulted in an overall reduction of focus, motivation, or determination. The word overall is important in the above statement. Multiple Elite athletes reported significant career turning points that increased their focus, motivation, or determination to attain sporting success. However, these were coupled with other significant events – within or outside of their perceived direct control – that resulted in an overall loss of focus, motivation, or determination to attain sporting success.

3.1.3.1 Super-Elite athletes 3.1.3.1.1 Positive events. In 5 of 16 Super-Elite cases, the significant turning point was classified as a positive event. For example, being (re)inspired by a significantsporting-other or joining a new influential coach or squad.

33

34

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

C-SE had “made the decision that [going to another Olympics] was what was going to happen, so I was going to give it everything” and then he met both inspiring new team mates and an inspirational new coach: I did about 4 weeks [of training] and then the first event of the year was pretty [difficult] and I was just wiped out all day. I thought, “This is ridiculous; I’ve got to get better than this”. And whilst I still totally believed I could do it, it was just like. “Oh my god!” Then that evening I got a call from [a new coach] who was coaching [other medal winning athletes] at the time.

The coach asked C-SE to join his squad and the next day C-SE met one of his new team mates: I hadn’t met [this particular athlete] at this point. I’d obviously known him through what he’d achieved, so he was ‘up in lights’. I was like, “Oh [wow]!” He was just this vision of what I wanted to be, I guess. He was immaculately smart, in sponsored clothes, and everything looked like it was completely under control. I still remember that there was no, “Nice to meet you” he just gave me a wink and that was it and I thought, “that’s amazing”.

The significant turning point for D-SE was watching athletes, whom he believed he was equal to, achieving their own Olympic success. This career turning point has clear similarities to the positive foundational critical event that D-SE experienced (as discussed in Section 3.1.2.1). D-SE described the positive foundational event, aged 12, as watching, “[A famous GB Olympian] win his gold medal” and thinking, “Wow! That is amazing. I would love to be an Olympic champion.” The mid-career positive event D-SE described as: I’d been [competing] with [a team mate] and [against other athletes] and winning [competitions], and I’m thinking, “Christ, these guys are where I need to be and I’m actually doing pretty well here.” Then the moment of seeing those guys win their [Olympic] medals, I thought, “I can actually do this” and that was a pretty pivotal moment.

3.1.3.1.2 Negative events. In 10 of 16 Super-Elite cases, the significant turning point was classified as a negative event; for example, an athlete experiencing a major defeat in competition or a trauma in their everyday life. N-SE-Parent describes how not being selected for the Olympic squad provided N-SE with increased motivation: “He was very, very upset about missing [the Olympics]… and that gave him that extra incentive to train a bit harder [and] work a bit harder.” Similarly, F-SE-Parent suggested that a perceived poor result at one Olympics made F-SE more determined: “I think he’s still got scars over [finishing outside the medals at the Olympics]… but it made him more determined to prove everybody wrong.” The significance of certain defeats is also evidenced in the coaches’ data. G-SE-Coach said:

3 Results

The pain of him losing the [important event] was enormous and stayed with him for a long time. It still is with him. Losing [that particular event] would have been pretty much at the top of the list [of] the things that he didn’t enjoy in [sport], I’m sure of that … It made him realise how wonderful winning is, and how bloody awful losing can be, and therefore it focused the fact that he really had enjoyed winning it and didn’t want to do the losing thing again. I think he knew the pain of losing was a spur.

A-SE-Coach recalled a particular campaign when A-SE “should have gone [to the Olympics]” because he had achieved the qualification requirements for two separate disciplines. Despite this A-SE “didn’t get [selected for] either.” A-SE-Coach went on to say: That was possibly one of the times that A-SE and I sat down and chatted; and he decided, and I decided, “You’ll never get left behind again”. And he wasn’t … So really that gave him the impetus to say, “Right, well I’m going to [do it]”. He was a very tenacious young man, he was very keen to do well, and very keen to commit himself to various training regimes and see how far we could go. That possibly was the turning point.

Again in the coach data, E-SE-Coach said: I’m absolutely certain that his whole mentality is driven by the fact that he finished 4th in [the Olympics] and finishing 4th – as you know – is the cruellest place to finish. That flicked a switch with him. After that, he decided that he wanted to have the race won before it started.

Loss is a cognitive representation as much as an event (see, for example, Bowlby, 1979; Gogarty and Williamson, 2009; Miller and Rodgers, 2001; Van der Kolk, 1989). Thus, loss can occur when someone recognizes that they will not be able to do something they thought they would be able to do, or when something happens that will likely make their future have something missing. In the case of K-SE, the loss was that of two significant relationships in close temporal proximity: The biggest turning point was splitting with that [partner]… of 7 years… when I was 25. It [felt] like a loss and I went through grieving. The hardest thing was that [the partner] went off with a mutual friend; that hit hard. I have never been one to mope so my way of getting over the loss [was]… I definitely trained harder and… stopped drinking and lost a stone quite quickly.

K-SE went on to say, “My dad died and I think that was quite big. That is why I [get] emotional receiving awards because I know he’s always been there and he would have been really proud.” K-SE-Coach recognized the explicit impact of this turning point on K-SE: My view is that K-SE went through a complete transformational phase in his life. The death of his father was an extraordinary event in his life, as I’m sure it is in

35

36

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

most people’s life. For me, it was an absolute trigger point to him committing to excellence. The death was very sudden and very unexpected. [He] dropped dead from a heart attack despite being a fit, healthy, active, full of life, individual. My very strong recollection is that it probably was such a shake to K-SE that it immersed him in sport in a more serious way – or to look at life in a different way – I can’t be absolutely certain but it strikes me as hugely important.

Regarding the setbacks K-SE experienced, K-SE-Parent said: [The setbacks]… made him stronger… he would make himself bounce back with this incredible inner strength that he had and nothing was going to stop him from getting to where he wanted to go… he would battle on and there were a lot of battles.

H-SE also experienced the death of his Father which served to increase his focus, commitment, and motivation to succeed. As for many people, the death of his Father was a hugely significant event. However, in the case of H-SE, this may have had a greater impact because first, H-SE recognized part of his motivation to succeed was to prove his worth to his father. Second, and likely unconsciously, was the fact that H-SE had chosen, against his father’s wishes, to leave home and spend time at boarding school. The impact of this could have been guilt at leaving his father during years that they could have actually spent together: When I chose to go [to boarding school] my Dad said, “You don’t have to, I don’t want you to board, I don’t want you to go away early. But if you would like to go then it’s up to you, I want you to feel like you made that decision. You can always change it at any point.” I said, “No, I want to get into fulltime boarding” … The whole thing was my decision. I remember specifically saying I really want to be a boarder and they said, “Okay, if you want to do that then here are the keys and go off and enjoy yourself.”

H-SE describes the increased focus and determination he got as a consequence of his father dying: [During] a deep conversation, about the time [my Father] was dying… he said, “One thing I will always remember is you standing on the podium, when you won your bronze medal and you looked [at] me in the crowd. That moment I will never ever forget. You smiled at me and I smiled back at you.” He said, “I will take that to my grave as the proudest moment of my life”. After that I thought, “Wow, I’ve actually achieved what I want to do here, and then when he died I thought “Who am I really doing this for now? Am I doing this for me? Am I doing it for him? Am I just doing it to be really ******* good? What’s my real motivation?” That was why [that year] was a real head spin because I didn’t have [my Dad] who I was trying to prove something to anymore. I had to prove it to myself; I had to get my head into that space where it was about me and what I wanted to get out of it. I had to spend a lot of time with the psychologist … 2 weeks before the World Championships… My father died and I said, “Right, I’m 100% carrying on,

3 Results

there’s no way I’m sitting around feeling sorry for myself”. No way would my Father want me to say, “I’m not going”. I’ve got to finally try and do this one thing for him. So it was really a big test of will power; exhausted, no sleep, emotional, screwed in the head in every single way you know. The one person who motivated me more than anyone [was gone] and I suddenly realised it… I had a rude awakening. Every boy or man will have one when their father dies. You suddenly realise, “I’ve got to actually man up and do something with my life”… I’m not as bright as my Father is, clearly I know that already, but what can I do to prove to him that I can make it? So that was my motivation behind it.

In the case of N-SE a significant and pivotal loss (i.e., losing the opportunity to achieve, losing funding, and losing status) was experienced when he was told he would not achieve world-level success: At age 18 the [performance director] said, “You’re not going to make it. You are not going to be an Olympian or go to World Championships.” I think they were right because I wasn’t the most talented [or] skilful [and] physically I wasn’t in the best condition at all. Looking at me, I was doing alright but there was nothing they could really see. But that triggered me to work harder and that got me through. That drive has seen me through definitely.

L-SE-Coach suggested that L-SE experienced positive events (e.g., getting married and having a child) that, due to his life circumstances, appeared to result in a perceived loss of control in his everyday life. This seemed to lead to an increase in his focus, motivation, and desire to succeed: The time-line is so important here. Whilst L-SE was very focused, and very, very different to his contemporaries in terms of the extent to which he was absorbing and committing to the paradigms that were unfolding, he wasn’t winning. His performances weren’t the absolute stand out, “My god he’s on his way. He’s going to be the man”. He didn’t do anything really until [a particular year]… [His team mate] was considerably better than L-SE at the time… L-SE hadn’t really broken through. He had his first child, he got married that year, [his wife] was heavily pregnant [again]… You’re talking [about a young] guy… not a lot of cash, trying to get by, he’s got a little house; it was tough. I actually think that the combination of lifestyle and choices that he made, meant that actually, he wasn’t in control of an awful lot that was going around him. It looked a pretty chaotic picture to me and he wasn’t really performing. I’ll have to think quite hard about what really changed through that winter, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the commitment became absolute. It may have been as simple as, “I just need to make some bloody money here” because [my wife’s] not working, I’m not working, and this isn’t what we want” … It has to be [a key turning point]… it was pretty tough! He had a hell of a lot of commitment for somebody with no qualifications, and no obvious source of income, that early on in life; and actually, it didn’t seem to faze him… [Prior to this point] He was committed to what we were doing. But, on reflection, the breakthrough came that winter, it had to, and it probably was

37

38

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

the first winter he worked all the way through a programme that I had created. Then for the first part of that [following] year, domestically, he was untouchable… I’m increasingly curious now about this transition and I think some of it was just [that] the penny must have dropped, with [a wife], the kid, and the house, and that it was pretty crummy the conditions they were living in. There’s something about it that just said [to him], “You know what? You’ve got to grow up. Now”… but something must have clicked through that winter that made him, as a relatively young person, really step up, when everybody around him was still dicking around.

3.1.3.2 Elite group Only 1 of 16 Elite athletes reported a significant career turning point(s) that resulted in an overall increase in focus, motivation, or determination to attain sporting success. The other 15 experienced significant turning points that led to diminished focus, motivation, or determination, and eventually their withdrawal from sport. For example, regarding finishing outside the medal places at the Olympics, aged only 23, B-E-Parent said, “He just sort of lost the will to do it after [the Olympics].” Super-Elite athlete data demonstrate athletes with increased motivation following being told they are not going to make it to a World Class level, whereas K-E-Coach recalls: The senior management… reduced the squad down … I said [to K-E], “That’s the decision that’s been made [to take you off-funding], take a bit of time; we’ll still pay you for 3 months” and he just said, “Thanks for being honest; I’m going to retire” [aged only 27, the season following his best ever result].

Regarding the same occasion K-E said: I realised that I was never going to make the Olympics. I was good but I wasn’t that good. I’d enjoyed my time on the programme, I’d achieved probably all I was going to achieve and it was time to move on to the next stage of my life.

For certain Super-Elite athletes finding the right coach, at a significant mid-career point, was a clear positive turning point toward subsequent achievement. N-E-Parent suggested that a significant turning point away from Elite performance may have been triggered by an inability to afford the right coach for N-E: We just couldn’t afford to give him the top coaches, so that’s the downside of his career really… He just had a local coach…. he was very good….he coached him all the way through… Would he have become a better [performer] if we were able to pay out more money for more expert-coaching? We don’t really know the answer to that but, possibly, yes.

A-E-Parent identified that injuries were the key turning point – away from sport – in A-E’s career:

3 Results

The injuries were absolutely soul destroying, you know, because he couldn’t do what he always wanted to do… and the only blip in the whole of his career was not going to the Olympics… but it wasn’t for the want of trying… had it not been for the injuries, who knows?

3.1.3.3 Exceptions B-SE was the only Super-Elite athlete to experience a turning point that resulted ultimately in a loss of performance and motivation. This was when the NGB made a decision that personal coaches could not accompany athletes to the Olympics. Instead, all athletes were to be coached by the NGB Performance Director. Such was the detrimental effect of this mid-career turning point that B-SE never managed to medal at the Olympics. All his medals were won at World Championships. I do think a lot of [competitive performance] is [about] what’s going on in your head. If you’re happy and in a good place in your head [pre-competition] then it doesn’t matter what training you’ve done. From the neck down, if your head’s in the right place, you’ll be fine … Going into [that particular Olympics] everything just seemed to be out of control … At the time [the] performance director did some great things… but a lot of his decisions were [terrible] … The holding camp before [the Olympics] we were training in [conditions that were highly detrimental to performance] … I could see my body was reacting [to this detrimental training]; my pulse was going up to maximum even though it… wasn’t a maximum [training] set and all the rest of it. How can you recover when it’s [those conditions]… Bearing in mind you’re at the competition of your life; you’ve trained so many years for it. [The performance director] was saying, “Right, everybody’s got to do a morning session”.

B-SE was very clear that if he was under the guidance of B-SE-Coach this would not have happened: In my preparation for the trials [with B-SE-Coach] I could do what I wanted to. So now when I get to the actual meet why do I have to do what you’re telling me to do? And when you’re threatened all the time with, “If you don’t do what you’re told, we will take your funding off of you” – when that’s your only source of income – you do it.

B-SE said, “Clearly I [didn’t perform] because I am [a long way] off what I did the year before.” He went on to say: I made an Olympic final but as far as I was concerned it wasn’t a medal. I just wasn’t happy. Everyone said, “That’s amazing” [but] even now it hurts to think about it … So at the end of the Games I saw one of the doctors there and he actually said I had over-training syndrome; that’s why I hadn’t performed.

39

40

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

Following the Olympics, B-SE’s was treated for depression, and B-SE-Coach moved to another country. Despite wanting to, B-SE could not move with him due to “financial [reasons]; simple as that.” B-SE-Parent said, It did take him a long, long time to get himself up from that… but one thing that does get me about that… Is that B-SE-Coach carefully nurtured him all along… and then [the PD]… who did seem to be a bit of a bully… instead of carrying on in the same vein… I don’t know whether he felt compelled to up his training, or change it, or whatever… I don’t know… I will never know… but he was completely devastated [after the Olympics].

It is important to note that B-SE attained Super-Elite status relatively early in his career – despite not mirroring the Super-Elite group on multiple variables (Sections 3.2.1, 3.1.3, and 3.3.4) – and thus prior to this career turning point. Results suggest that B-SE-Coach believed B-SE had the potential to achieve even greater competitive successes than were actually realized in his career. Difficulty in dealing with perceived competitive pressure (see Section 3.3.4.2) seems to have tempered this potential as well as this significant career turning point away from sport. F-E was the only Elite athlete to report a significant career turning point that resulted in an overall increase in focus, motivation, or determination to attain sporting success. F-E experienced increased motivation after not being selected for a particular squad: I fell out pretty badly with [a certain coach (not F-E-Coach)] … I’d won all the trials… and [the coach] didn’t put me in [the squad]… he said, “No, I don’t think you’re ever going to make it. I don’t think you’re good enough”. So I was sent home effectively … that was a turning point in how I looked at things because I realised that I wanted results, and I wanted it badly, and that it wasn’t going to be easy. No one was ever going to turn around and say, “Well done F-E, you’re doing really well. I think that you’re going to go on and achieve great things.” They were never going to say that to me and I learned that quite early on. But then I thought, “Okay, right, fine. I want this” and that was about me making sure that nothing stands in my way and I moved forward.

Interestingly, F-E’s profile across multiple variables mirrored that of a Super-Elite athlete (Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, and 3.3.4). Indeed, F-E-Coach said: He was nearly a gold medallist in [the Olympics]… he [competed] and was [a very tiny margin] off… You could be [a very tiny margin] down or you could be [a very tiny margin] up… He’s very gifted full stop… He could have been a gold medallist, putting him in the [Super-Elite] pile of people… and I certainly see his obsessiveness, his positive-ness and his competiveness [and] he’s got confidence.

Results suggest that the critical determining factor, that may have prevented F-E becoming a Super-Elite athlete, was a difficult relationship with some of his coaches. This is discussed in full in Barlow et al. (in preparation).

3 Results

3.1.3.4 Summary Results indicate that 15 of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only 1 of 16 Elite athletes, reported a significant career turning point(s) that resulted in an overall increase in focus, motivation, or determination to attain sporting success. Other biographical data support the idea that Super-Elite athletes are able to use significant (negative) career events as a source of motivation and inspiration. For example, Richards (2009), two-time Olympic gold medalist pole-vaulter, said, “It may sound strange, but many champions are made champions by setbacks” (p. 63). Similarly, Bruce Jenner, Olympic gold medalist decathlete, said “I’m the type of guy who fails and fails and fails, and then, as if failure has become sick of him, succeeds” (IMDb, 2012). Furthermore, at least some of the Super-Elite athletes in the present study seem to be able to use other people’s doubt, or lack of belief, as a source of motivation (see also Rees et al., 2016). This is mirrored by Dick Fosbury who, speaking about his revolutionary high-jump technique which he went on to use to win an Olympic gold medal and break the world record, said “I was told over and over again that I would never be successful, that I was not going to be competitive and the technique was simply not going to work. All I could do was shrug and say, ‘We’ll just have to see’” (Romanov and Robson, 2008, p. v). For the Super-Elite group, unlike the Elite group, both the positive and negative events that comprised the career turning points, appeared to reaffirm the importance of achieving in the sport domain. Perhaps these events reconnected these athletes with their earlier foundational negative events and reawakened their strong perception that “failure” is not an option. From a psychodynamic perspective, these foundational negative critical events could be framed as a “loss” for the child. Specifically, this may be a tangible loss (e.g., death of a parent) or an intangible loss (e.g., a felt loss of security as a consequence of an absent parent). Regardless of the tangible or intangible nature of the “loss,” or indeed the explicit or implicit awareness of the “loss,” the commonality in all instances is that the loss is likely experienced as extremely painful. A painful loss affirms within the individual, “I do not want to ‘lose’ again; I do not want to have to endure the extreme pain of another ‘loss’” (Freud, 1999; Miller and Rodgers, 2001). Experiencing a negative career turning point (e.g., being told you will never be a world class performer or experiencing the death of a close family member), is a painful loss and, as such, may reconnect the athlete to the earlier negative critical foundational event. This experience may therefore serve to underline to the Super-Elite athlete how painful such losses are. It thereby reaffirms that further losses must be avoided at all cost and increases the Super-Elite athlete’s motivation to “succeed” in order to avoid such further losses. Similarly, in the present data, what may seem like a “positive” career turning point (e.g., being inspired by team mates collecting their gold medals or being drafted onto a new squad) could actually be linked back to the desire to avoid future “loss.” For example, in describing his positive career turning point D-SE recognized that, “these guys are where I need to be” and similarly C-SE recognized his new team mate “was just this vision of what I wanted to be.” Given that they have recognized

41

42

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

where they want to be, that they are not there yet, and that not getting there would be experienced as another painful loss, the Super-Elite athletes demonstrated increased motivation to “succeed” in order to avoid such losses. This proposed link between foundational negative critical events, career turning points, and a high need to succeed (or avoid failure) is well illustrated by Noureddine Morceli, Olympic gold medalist athlete in Atlanta 1996, “I run to be known as the greatest runner, the greatest of all time. I could not eat or sleep for a week after I lost in the 1992 Olympics. I have to win or die” (Witt, 2012, p. 2). As discussed above, our earlier results suggest the experience of a significant negative critical life event coupled with a positive sport-related event during their foundational years is a characteristic of Super-Elite athletes. However, the results of the present section suggest that this combination alone may not be enough to foster the sustained level of performance that is required by Super-Elite athletes. Rather, these results suggest that it may be the triple interaction of a significant negative critical life event coupled with a positive sport-related event during foundational years, followed by a subsequent career turning point in later years, which produces such high levels of sustained performance in Super-Elite athletes.

3.2 WHAT THE ATHLETE BECAME As discussed above, the formative experiences of the Super-Elite and Elite athletes shaped and influenced the type of individual each athlete became in their life. Thus, what the athlete became was likely influenced by the innate traits and attributes of the individual athlete plus some interaction of at least the following three factors: (1) family values; (2) foundational critical events; and (3) significant career turning points. Given that the Super-Elite and Elite groups differ on two out of these three factors, one might reasonably expect differences between the Super-Elite and Elite groups in terms of the type of person the athletes became. Furthermore, by any reasonable definition of the word “normal,” “normal” people do not win one gold medal, let alone a gold medal plus at least one other medal at a second Major Championship. Thus, it seems unlikely that Super-Elite athletes would have “normal” personalities, “normal” interpersonal relationships, or fit comfortably into a “normal” sporting system. Rather, one would expect them to have some idiosyncrasies that make them exceptional. The present section reports the discriminators and commonalities between SuperElite and Elite groups with regard to their: (1) need to succeed; (2) ruthlessness and selfishness; and (3) conscientiousness, obsessiveness, and perfectionism.

3.2.1 Need to succeed From a psychodynamic perspective, the painful experience of a foundational loss, or losses (see Section 3.1.2), may result in a strong drive to avoid future losses (see Section 3.1.3.4). One way to foster the perception that one is avoiding future

3 Results

losses, is to escape from self-awareness. Escaping from self-awareness via, for example, the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, loud music, etc., enables people to temporarily distance themselves from past losses and renders them less likely to perceive immediate threats or future losses (Carver and Scheier, 1998). In this way, totally escaping self-awareness enables a brief respite from the possibility of experiencing (further) loss. However, escaping self-awareness in this manner is associated with depression and feelings of helplessness (Duval and Wicklund, 1972). An alternative way of dealing with loss is to find an activity that enables one to gain a sense of control and thereby compensate for the loss (Carver and Scheier, 1998). In the previous section, many of the athletes reported finding and using sport as such a compensatory mechanism. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that Super-Elite athletes, who reported experiencing foundational negative critical life events during their development, would have a stronger need to succeed in their compensatory activity than Elite athletes, who generally did not experience such loss during their developmental years. Since the desire “not-to-lose” – as a consequence of painful losses in the past – is likely largely unconscious, athletes will more readily express this attitude as a deep-seated need to succeed; as evidenced in the present section. Although it was not the aim of the present study to tease out the (potentially subtle) group differences between Super-Elite and Elite athletes regarding the need to “not-lose” and the need to win (i.e., avoidance vs approach motivation), this is an interesting avenue for future research. Results indicated that 13 out of 16 Super-Elite group, but only six of the Elite group, reported an elevated Need to succeed in the sporting domain.

3.2.1.1 Super-Elite group K-SE-Coach captured the degree of this elevated need, suggesting K-SE had, “a need to excel that goes beyond the norm.” This was confirmed by K-SE-Parent: He knew where he wanted to get to and there wasn’t going to be anything that would get in the way of that… and he fought and fought until he broke the records and got the golds… with this absolute sense of “this is where I’m going, this is what I need to do”… There was no way that K-SE could give anything less than his best… ever… in anything.

L-SE reports that he too demonstrated a strong need to succeed from an early age: I won some juvenile competition and that was fantastic – I wasn’t there for social reasons; I wasn’t there for the thrill of the event itself [which] is sad really when it is a very sociable sport – I enjoyed the result and got a real high from the result… I was only interested in the winning part of it because that is what I needed … ‘Need’ is the big drive. It is that voice that says, “I know [you might not want to] but you have just got to do it anyway”. The need is the most important… It was a need not to lose.

43

44

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

It is important to note that this need followed rather than preceded L-SE’s reported significant negative critical events. Returning to these foundational negative critical events (see Section 3.1.2.1), L-SE says: …every sports person will have something in their past that gives them the ‘need’ to win… those things are absolutely fundamental in you becoming good in sports because I needed it more than other people did… So I think that was fundamental really… I just needed it more than other people.

L-SE recognized this same “need” in other Super-Elite athletes: He just desperately needed to win. I watched him. I can remember the noise that he was making on an ergo trainer next door at the last training camp. He was desperate to make it work and he was “whatever it takes, whatever it takes”. A very, very intense individual … There are several people inside that head quite frankly. It is pretty nasty. Sport can do that. It is such an unreasonable thing to do that it is weird to witness people who desperately need it more than anyone else … I think he thought that a gold medal in [the Olympics] would be the answer; that was going to make it all right and it didn’t. So he has just wandered around for a few years wondering what to do.

L-SE-Coach: I think L-SE understood in himself that his drivers to be that good were unusual. He coined the expression, that “I needed to win, not that I just wanted to win”, and I think he saw that difference between him and his peers … For a very long time I’ve had the view, partly because L-SE has been so good at articulating it… that for him there was a much clearer distinction throughout his career, but certainly at the start between wanting to win and needing to win. He’s very strong on this and I think it speaks a lot about how much more he is aware of what he’s done than many other athletes around him.

O-SE-Coach noticed this need in O-SE from a young age: O-SE was that ambitious that… [Coach 1] said [to me], “The [local] club can’t do [enough] for him anymore. He needs to come to you [for coaching]. What do you think?” I said, “Yes, bring him along”. So O-SE arrives at my door and he stood there; he was anxious, and he was nervous, and I looked at this kid and his eyes were burning. I have never seen such desire, nothing has ever mattered to anybody that much! He was burning.

H-SE-Parent said, “[He is] very competitive, he wanted to win and most of time he did.” H-SE suggested he still exhibits a high level of need to succeed, postsport: “I loved competition, I still love competition. I need it. I need to be in a job where I can say, ‘Look I made x-amount today and I am better than you’.” N-SE-Parent said: Nothing would beat him… Second didn’t even enter his head, whatever [competition] he entered he went there to win… He was always very, very competitive

3 Results

even from a young age… in primary school in spelling tests for example he had to get 10 out of 10… He had to be top of the reading… Maths… anything like that… even from 4… 5 years old… And he was very, very competitive with any game he played… hockey, tennis… he was always competitive… even with trivial pursuit, he has to win.

D-SE-Parent said: “In everything he does failure is not an option… It wasn’t an option [that] he wasn’t going to win [an Olympic gold medal]… From as long as I can remember, you could never tell [D-SE] he couldn’t do anything.” A-SE was very clear that such was his high level of need, which he described as “really wanting it,” that he would do “whatever it took” to achieve the goal. I look at [certain athletes] who are very talented and right on the edge of being there and I think, “Does he really want it? Does he want to win? Does he really want to go out there and be the best in the world?” and I am not quite sure he will ever want that; I don’t think you can force somebody into it … It’s very hard to describe. What does ‘really want it’ mean? So it’s very hard to describe to them and say, “you’ve got to work hard” – and I know a lot of them do really work hard – but it’s like [the premise] of this interview, “What really makes that person have that real difference to really want it to make it?” I look back, aged 14, and I think of some of the letters that I wrote to local companies, saying “please can I have £100 to send me on a training trip?” and I think that makes you quite strong. It takes a certain type of person to do that. I look back and I think how the hell did I do that? So, I guess, I really, really wanted it and I would do whatever it took to keep me in the sport.

F-SE clearly demonstrated a desperate need to “not-lose” and was able to articulate the pain associated with “loss”: I love winning, but I hate losing more. Winning is such a fleeting moment; if I lose a race – or I perceive myself to have lost the race – I will go over and over it, I will torture myself over it… I see it in a different colour almost, when I lose. I live in a different space. When you win it’s really hard to recall, and it’s a very strange scenario. Quite often when I was winning, I thought, “My god, this is so easy, how is this even happening?” Whereas when I was losing it was such a horrible place to be; I didn’t want to be there, I wanted to leave. I was far more driven by ‘away-from’ [motivation], than ‘towards’. Having to endure that training, you have to have some pretty dark-sides that you were trying to avoid … which is that ‘away-from’ motivation.

3.2.1.2 Elite group Ten out of 16 Elite athletes indicated that they did not have an elevated need to succeed. For example, K-E-Coach said: Having experienced lots and lots of different types of athletes now, I can put those people into the ‘need’ category and the ‘want’ [category] who are the ‘lifestyle’

45

46

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

[athletes]. It’s not a very nice thing to say, but ultimately K-E was a ‘lifestyle’ athlete. If this programme didn’t exist, if world class funding didn’t exist, then K-E would not have been a professional [athlete]. He was the product of an environment; that environment wasn’t conducive to performance and therefore – to be quite harsh – neither was K-E. The environment created around those [athletes] wasn’t a performance based culture; it was a [compete] and have some fun culture. He never showed any sign of desperately wanting… a World’s medal or an Olympic medal, or even a Commonwealth medal.

K-E confirmed the coach’s notion that he was a “lifestyle” type athlete: The programme was a lifestyle thing, in that, you got to travel the world with a good group of people. I’d been at work [in an office job], albeit briefly, but this was an opportunity that I couldn’t turn down. If I stopped doing it, I’d just be back in an office job … School sport was like [my sport] is now to an extent; I was always good but I was never the best. At school sports days I was always third, there were always 2 [others] that were better than me so I’ve never been overly disappointed [with not winning]. You know some kids totally throw their toys out of the pram and absolutely can’t accept not winning; I’ve never been like that. I’m a bit laid back [and] I like to win – I don’t like to lose – but at the same time it’s not the be all and end all for me which is probably why I never reached the very top in sport because I don’t have a big enough drive for it.

K-E-Coach also coached a Super-Elite athlete and believed he can recognize a difference in his level of “need” to succeed compared to K-E: It can be summed up really, really easily; there are very few [Athlete-name]s in this world, and just because you’ve won an Olympic gold medal doesn’t mean that you’re a ‘[Athlete-name] type’. Lots of different types of people win Olympic gold medals. I can talk about [Athlete-name] because I then spent the next 3-4 years coaching him. Somebody like [Athlete-name] needs to win like you and I need to eat. With him, just in my opinion, it is a need. The [opponent] who [Athlete-name] beat in [the Olympics] was a phenomenal athlete. I mean, talk about a pure physical specimen; unbelievable! And he desperately wanted to win that Olympic medal – desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to win it but [Athlete-name] ‘needed’ to win it and that’s what separated them because it was down, it was a [very fine margin] between them. And in that [fine margin] is everything really, it’s their entire mind-set and approach. K-E was on a completely different page from that point of view. He was tough, because [competition] makes you tough… but what K-E wanted, in my opinion, was the lifestyle. [Athlete-name], for example, he didn’t [care] what you were doing; he did the training for one purpose and one person alone… it was to win Olympic gold. He’d already had silver, but he wanted the Olympic gold.

Similarly, to K-E who was never “overly disappointed” with not winning, M-E suggested:

3 Results

I haven’t got a killer instinct to win, I don’t need to win, I’m not particularly too bothered about winning, it’s nice when you win, but I never needed to win and I think that’s a factor that held me back – I just wanted to do well and if I had done well, I was happy … I like to win but I don’t need to win. I don’t need to win to exist in a sport at all. I like everything for what it is; the training, preparation, the structure of the training plan, the challenge of bettering myself; all that comes first before winning.

This was confirmed by M-E-Parent, “He trained hard and was determined… [but] I sometimes see it that… maybe he hasn’t got that win at all costs feature to him.” O-E-Parent said: It’s not life or death to him… if you’re going to be a top athlete, it is life or death and you do push yourself to the limit… and he won’t because he doesn’t want to hurt his body and he wants to compete the next, and the next, and the next time… He’s quite driven… in training and he pushes himself more in training… He loves [his sport] and needs it, but doesn’t need to win… At school, if you won the race you stood on a chair – so he was 5 years old, and he got to the line and stopped because he didn’t want to stand on the chair… and it’s been the same ever since, he doesn’t want the limelight, just wants to be one of the lads… winning has never been that important.

N-E-Parent said, “We used to call him the ‘nearly boy’” in reference to him nearly having the desire, and nearly having the subsequent success. Indeed, N-E-Coach suggested, “He’s almost just happy to be a part of the group, nowhere near as competitive, just happy to be fitting in. I just don’t think he had that real individual personalized desire to really, really achieve.” D-E-Coach did not recognize a deep seated need to achieve in the sporting domain within D-E (this was confirmed by D-E in Section 3.3.2.2 where data suggested his need to achieve was focused on alternate domains): D-E never did it because he wanted to do it. D-E did it because it’s what his [parent] wanted him to do. His [parent] wanted him to be successful, his [parent] wanted him to go to the Olympics, and his [parent] wanted him to win a medal. It was your classic vicarious living through your children’s existence; this massive expectation, from the [parent], that the kids could fulfil his dream.

I-E-Parent said, “I-E wasn’t doing it for rave success, or… to achieve a medal… I’m convinced he was doing it because he enjoyed it… [it] didn’t bother him if he came 8th in [his event], as long as he was selected.” In a similar way, J-E-Coach believed the desperate need to win medals was not there within J-E: He always hoped to be in the top 4 so he would [get to] travel [abroad to the events]. But, never, ever, in any conversation, when I tried to drive him towards some kind of admission of dreams, was there [anything more] … If I said, “Do you think that you can get on a podium?” He’d say, “I can come 4th I reckon?” [I’d say], “So what about podium?” “Erm, I will try”. The “I will try” answer

47

48

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

was almost like, “Let us finish this conversation; I will give you the line that you were looking for just to close this subject”. If I said to [a Super-Elite athlete] “What about the top 10?” [He’d be] really challenging or provocative, “Why top 10? I want to be top 4 or podium”, “Oh, yeah, I’m sorry” [I’d reply].

3.2.1.3 Exceptions Two Super-Elite athletes were classified neutrally with regards to a need to succeed. Thus, M-SE was the only Super-Elite athlete who was classified as having a relatively low-need to succeed. M-SE said, “I don’t think I ever felt super competitive; not driven by the need to succeed. For me, it’s more of a personal journey to be good.” It appeared that M-SE attributed his personal journey to be true to his family values (see Section 3.2.1). It may be M-SE’s perfectionist tendencies (see Section 3.3.3) regarding training enabled him to achieve Super-Elite status. It may also be important to note that M-SE competed in a team sport where other members of his team demonstrated a high need to achieve and M-SE’s perfectionist tendencies in training complemented the composition of the group. Six Elite athletes reported an elevated need to succeed. For example, A-E said, “I was so determined… that when I was 6 years old and I stood in the kitchen and said ‘Mummy I want to go to the Olympics and win a gold medal’.” A-E-Parent said, “At 11 [competing] against older, bigger [performers] you could see this look on [his] face, ‘You may be bigger than me, but you’re not going to beat me’.” Indeed, A-E’s profile, across the examined variables in the present study, often mirrored that of a Super-Elite athlete (Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3). Results suggest the key determining factor that likely prevented him from becoming a Super-Elite athlete was difficulty in maintaining high performance under pressure (see Section 3.3.4.3). As mentioned earlier, under the guidance of the coach he knew and trusted, A-E was better able to deal with high-pressure situations. However, the NGB typically did not allow personal coaches to accompany their athletes to major championships and this presented A-E with a number of serious problems (see Barlow et al., in preparation). Similarly, B-E’s profile also mirrored the Super-Elite profile on the present variable and on multiple variables examined in the present study (Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, and 3.3.3). Despite this, the key factor that likely prevented B-E attaining Super-Elite status is that his coach was taken away from him at critical times in the competition season, causing a dramatic decline in performance (see Barlow et al., in preparation). Regarding the present variable B-E-Coach said: B-E [had] an innate desire to be successful. He’s the type of person that will continue to be successful. I think he’s driven in that way. There’s balance; I don’t think that he’s overly consumed. There’s a natural level of [self] expectation for him to want to do well [and] a total realisation that in order for that to happen that he would have to work hard; and then a willingness to do that high level of work.

3 Results

H-E-Parent suggested H-E had a high need to succeed: He is very motivated to be successful. He will push himself to absolute extremes… even despite illness or whatever he will push and push and push and push himself… He really gets off on winning, when it works and he does well… he loves it… absolutely loves it… Failure, its move on, move on, focus on next one – but did he reflect and learn from it, I’m not sure he did.

Indeed, H-E’s need to succeed was demonstrated in his constant search for the secret that would help him succeed. H-E said: It was half my week’s wages to go to training and back. I slept on my sister’s floor, walked to [the club] and did the training. The coach that ended up taking me from novice to international, eventually tried to get rid of me by saying, “Just go away.” because I kept asking [questions]; I was looking for the secret that was going to make me [better]. He basically said, “Just go away and do [a training set that would take months of intensive daily effort to complete]”… [so I did].

H-E’s high need to succeed matches the profile of a Super-Elite athlete. Furthermore, H-E-Coach suggested that H-E, “had all the capabilities and the attributes of being by far the best in the world.” Unfortunately, H-E could not perform in high-pressure situations. The coach repeatedly, and clearly, described an athlete for whom the pressure of competition, “really prevented him from doing anything meaningful athletically – it did write him off.” H-E-Coach identified this as a major contributing reason for why H-E did not go on to achieve greater competitive success (see Section 3.3.4). P-E, G-E, and F-E also all demonstrated a high need to succeed. For example, P-E-Parent said: I encouraged him all the way… but I can’t say it’s my influence that got him where he was… it was his own… determination and hard work that powered him on … [He was] very, very determined… if he wanted something or wanted to do it… he would just go for it rather than think, “Oh I can’t do it”. From a very young age … he was very driven, everything came from within.

However, all three Elite athletes also demonstrated a focus on outcome alone rather than on both mastery and outcome (see Section 3.3.3), which, as discussed later, may account for why they did not attain Super-Elite status.

3.2.1.4 Summary The results indicated that 13 out of 16 Super-Elite group, but only six out of the Elite group, reported an elevated Need to succeed in the sporting domain. This deep seated and elevated need to succeed was most likely a function of the experience of painful losses (foundational negative critical events) in childhood (see Section 3.1.2) and other mid-career events that were often negative in nature (see Section 3.1.3).

49

50

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

Baron Pierre de Coubertin, Founder of the International Olympic Committee, said, “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part. The essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well” (Glendenning, 2012). In the present study, results indicate that, for Super-Elite athletes, winning is much more important than simply taking part and that Super-Elite athletes demonstrate, “a need to excel that goes beyond the norm” (K-SE-Coach). Other biographical evidence confirms this; for example, Thomas Hicks, speaking of his Olympic gold medal-winning marathon race in 1904, said, “I would rather have won this race than be President of the United States” (Pampel, 2007, p. 6). Emma Pooley, time-trial World Champion, spoke of her Olympic silver medalwinning performance saying, “I was nearly sick… But that’s how you have to ride, as if you never want to breathe again” (Fotheringham, 2008). Finally, there is perhaps the most famous quote of all from the former Liverpool FC manager, Bill Shankly, who said “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that” (Hassall, 2009). In conclusion, Super-Elite athletes have an elevated need to succeed relative to Elite athletes, although this need to achieve may actually reflect a more fundamental need to avoid losing.

3.2.2 Ruthlessness and selfishness A willingness to exhibit characteristics typically perceived to be undesirable, may be linked to Super-Elite athletes’ high need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1), in so much that Super-Elites appear to place a relatively greater importance on achievement compared to being nice, liked, or deemed considerate by others. Furthermore, theorists indicate that personality traits, such as ruthlessness and selfishness, are influenced by the experience of negative critical foundational events (Freud, 1999; Miller, 1997), such as those reported by the Super-Elite group (see Section 3.1.2). Specifically, Super-Elite athletes appear to recognize that ruthlessness and selfishness are not necessarily desirable characteristics to display in everyday life. However, they believe that within the sporting domain such characteristics are both acceptable and at times advantageous to performance. The data clearly indicate that Super-Elite athletes are not ruthless and selfish all the time. For example, E-SE-Coach suggested that E-SE can appear to “be charm personified,” but also can display his “ruthless streak” if necessary. This combination of charm and ruthlessness is a characteristic of narcissism (cf. American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Results indicate Super-Elite athletes are willing to be ruthless or selfish – at any given moment or under any circumstances – if that is what is required to achieve the outcome they desire. Results indicate that 14 out of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only 2 out of 16 Elite athletes, reported being either ruthless or selfish in their single-minded pursuit of their goals.

3.2.2.1 Super-Elite group With regard to ruthlessness, E-SE-Coach said: E-SE is ruthless. He doesn’t really [care] about what anybody else thinks or does particularly. He sets his mind to do something and will go after it 100%. … He’s

3 Results

not a nasty person, if he was sitting here having coffee he would be charm personified but he has that ruthless streak … E-SE doesn’t care about anyone around him. This is a big generalisation, but most very successful people are incredibly selfish. You have to be selfish, because you’re so far off the scale in terms of normal human behaviour, that if you’re not being selfish, then you are not doing your programme justice. If one of [the team] starts getting ill, he won’t [care]. We’re still going out [training] every day.

When asked whether he believed it was possible to get to the highest echelons of sport without being ruthless E-SE said, “No, I don’t think you can. You have to be self-absorbed and you know no-one else is really important; definitely I was the most important person in my world.” D-SE was asked what might separate him from someone that did not quite achieve the same level he did. D-SE said, “Being quite mentally tough, and being comfortable with being terribly single minded and pretty ruthless. They’re not necessarily nice things to be and lots of people aren’t comfortable being those things but that is what I have been.” D-SE-Coach confirmed this idea: If he needed to be nice to someone to get [what he wanted], he’d be nice. If he needed to be horrible, he’d be horrible. He’d have a number of strategies in order to be able to make happen what he needed to happen and wouldn’t be worried about which of those strategies he would need to use.

N-SE-Coach suggested, “It’s all about him. I’d put him in the [ruthless & selfish] category.” Indeed, N-SE-Parent said, “He was ruthless to get to the top.” N-SE confirmed this saying: I will be honest and say that… as an athlete, you can be selfish. I can literally turn around to my [partner] and say, “Sorry, it’s all about me, I need to do this, this and this”. But now [I am retired] I can’t do that so much. I still have that in me; I still want to go and take over world … I have to rein it in sometimes. I realise I can’t be like this all the time otherwise I won’t have any friends … I went out with another [athlete] for 3 years… This is going to sound like such a [nasty person] but I just missed out [on Olympic selection] and I thought “I need to make some changes in my life. I want to go to [the Olympics]” and one of them was dumping [my partner]. How bad is that? That’s really harsh, yeah, but I had to make changes and I had to be selfish because I needed to get to the next stage. I knew I had to be really selfish and I couldn’t be in a relationship so I dumped them… I had [another] relationship until just before [the next Olympics]… and again I couldn’t cope with being with [a partner] so I literally dumped them just before the Olympics. Again, a [nasty person]!!! Not coming off well here am I?

With regard to selfishness, I-SE suggested, “I’m bloody minded and selfish in [the sporting] context. If you want to achieve something, you don’t have to be a horrible person, but you’ve got to be single minded.” Similarly, A-SE said, “I think I can be quite selfish which I think is the real trait of an athlete.”

51

52

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

P-SE has struggled to stop being as selfish now he is retired: For me, the greatest challenge (of retirement) is that you’re not the centre of your own little world anymore. As an athlete you are the centre of your existence; everything revolves around you. Your needs, wants, your sleeping, recovering from competition training, and so forth; and the world revolves around you. When you retire it doesn’t revolve around you anymore, I think that’s the hardest part.

The idea that the world revolves around the athlete is echoed by L-SE who said, “I was obsessed with me to a degree.” For J-SE, being selfish did not come easily. However, he recognized that it was advantageous to performance and therefore, in his opinion, it was acceptable: One of the main things is you have to be very selfish when you are competing at that level. In some ways, for me, it went against the grain a little bit… [in the job I trained to do] you are doing things for other people the whole time, you are trying to make people better, and suddenly I then threw myself into actually this is all about me, me, me, but because of what you are actually trying to achieve when it got to a point that I was competing at the Olympics actually I owe it to all these people who have been training me and coaching and supporting me all the way through and I am out there competing for Team GB. You want to do the best that you can and actually the only way that you can do that is to live quite a selfish life and you know you do have to sacrifice other things; relationships do get put on hold.

K-SE-Parent said, “K-SE knew where he wanted to get to… and there wasn’t going to be anything that would get in the way of that.” K-SE confirmed this suggesting that despite perceiving that he “wasn’t a selfish person” he was willing to act in a selfish manner to achieve success: I would have struggled with a meaningful relationship and having the intensity that I had in my [sport] because – I’m not a selfish person per se – but to be an elite sportsperson you do have to have a certain selfishness. I don’t think selfish is the right word; selfish-driven, but yeah, a total focus and sacrifice all other things and all other people for yourself and for your ultimate gain.

G-SE-Coach suggested, “It was about himself and being selfish is not a bad thing I don’t think.” Similarly, G-SE said: There is a selfishness that goes with being an elite athlete that is no fault of anyone that you have to overcome [it in retirement]. You just get into a way of thinking that is inappropriate for the time [whilst you are an athlete].

Regarding getting ready for competition F-SE said: …it’s given me a great excuse to be very selfish. With my [parent] still alive, but very ill, I haven’t done a huge amount of caring over the later years and I justified it to myself that it made [my parent] very proud to see me at the finish line.

3 Results

3.2.2.2 Elite group Fourteen of 16 Elite group reported not being ruthless or selfish. Rather, Elite athletes reported valuing being “nice” and pleasing other people as, relatively, more important than being ruthless and selfish in order to achieve. Interestingly, results indicate that the Elite athletes did indeed recognize that being ruthless or selfish is an advantageous characteristic for a top-level performer. However, despite acknowledging this, the Elite athletes reported still not being willing to be ruthless or selfish. Indeed, at times, it appears that the Elite athletes perceived they are simply unable to act in a ruthless or selfish manner even when they perceive it would be advantageous for them to do so. J-E said, “I don’t think I could have been an Olympic champion. As much as I am really competitive, I’m just not ruthless. I’m a bit too nice probably.” J-E underlines his unwillingness to be ruthless or selfish, even when others around him were acting in that manner. For example, when a more experienced team mate became available as a partner, J-E recalls his partner leaving him and going to train with the more experienced athlete: [He] said “I don’t want to [perform] with you anymore, I’m going to [perform] with [someone else]” and I couldn’t do something like that … I remember [an opportunity] when [an athlete’s] partner got injured and [a good player] said, “[Perform] with me, don’t worry about [him]” and I said, “No, I’ve said that I would [perform with my partner] and so I will”… and so I did … Maybe sometimes [I should have been more ruthless] but I just have very high morals and I wouldn’t want change them … The development coaches sat me down and told me I would never be good as an athlete because I was too nice … As a person I would have come across as polite, I don’t think I would have come across as a being top-dog, [horrible], or anything like that.

C-E recognizes that within him there was “an element of being a people pleaser.” He said: In competitive situations I felt like I didn’t have that real aggression when I was [performing] against them to be able to divorce the fact that I was friends with them [as well]. I would be a bit too nice … I should have been more ruthless and again that was something we talked about with [my coach]; trying to be more cut throat whereas actually I was good at doing what was right for the squad.

C-E-Coach confirmed this saying: C-E is… a very calm, considered, thoughtful individual. Not the classic character of a [participant of this sport]. He does not have some of the arrogance or selfishness that you see within a sporting environment that is often involved with greatness … In C-E’s career, unfortunately, he was too considerate to the group and too considerate to myself … In group sessions he would always be considerate to everybody’s point, but to an extent that his own point would maybe [be lost]… I’m sure he could have taken more and compromised less, but it’s not in his

53

54

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

character. He liked to please other people, but there were people which he didn’t need to please in pursuing his goal … C-E was very good at motivating the others; the perfect training partner as well as the model individual.

Similarly, P-E said: I always tried to help people. I’m definitely a helper. I hate to see other people… having problems so when I see the vulnerable I always try and help them greatly because life can be very difficult for certain people and each and every person goes through a different road. If people need my help or ask for my help then I will go out of my way to help them.

B-E was asked how he thought other people would describe him. He said: I think they would say that he is a really nice, friendly [person]. I don’t think there would be anything like “he’s very driven”; nothing like that. I’m not very good at being very confrontational, I’m just friendly and quite easy to work with and I like trying to help people.

D-E believed “you have to be” selfish in Super-Elite sport. However, he divorced himself from being such a person by describing selfish athletes as “them”: [Being an athlete] is a very selfish pursuit really… How you can be so selfinvolved? I mean you have to be, but I’m not convinced that it turns them into a great person because the whole world revolves around you. I think it’s a good excuse; I think you’re probably that way inclined and it’s a great excuse to make the world revolve around you.

I-E-Parent also said: I-E will do anything to help people; he’s a real helper, an absolute giver. That’s my fault… he was brought up with seeing me teach and I like to think that I’m a great giver… so that’s possibly rubbed off on him. I often say [athlete], “You’re too nice” and when I say to too nice, it’s because he is going round helping people. I sometimes think I’ve been too easy going about it… But I’d rather that than a killer instinct… and walking over someone.

N-E-Coach said N-E had a “warm heartedness of sharing all the time” and N-E described how he learned to act in a “peacemaker” role from an early age: [My siblings] always used to organise little [competitions]. I didn’t like playing games just for the sake of it; it would have to be a [competitive] game … We all got on well but then my older brother and sister would row and I was more of a peacemaker.

The foundation of this attitude is evidenced by N-E-Parent: I always remember once we were at a [competition]… and he had beaten this particular [person]… which was fantastic because he had never beaten him… And I’m apologising to this [person] that my [child] has just beaten him … He’s not

3 Results

selfish…. I don’t know whether if he’d had that [selfishness]… would he have achieved [more]… and made him a better player? I don’t know… from a person point-of-view… I’m glad he’s like he was… from a sporting angle… whether or not he could have achieved more… maybe, perhaps it would have been better if he was selfish… but I think I would prefer him the way he was and what he achieved… not selfish to the point of ‘at all costs’, absolutely not… and that necessarily wouldn’t have worked for N-E … the way he’s conducted himself through his sporting career… has made him a better [person] and everyone loves [him] … he’s laid back and he’s… just a lovely [person].

O-E-Parent underlines the clear link between a high need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1) and a ruthless “killer instinct”: An athlete… doing any sport has to have that killer instinct and he hasn’t got it, you know that do-or-die… it’s almost like he’s the goody instead of the baddie, he’s not got that disappointment of losing… I think it goes back… to [the club and coaches] who he was involved with… polite, nice people and winning just wasn’t the be all and end all.

3.2.2.3 Exceptions Two Super-Elite athletes were classified neutrally on the present variable. Two Elite athletes mirrored the Super-Elite athletes. F-E earlier mirrored the results of a SuperElite athlete (see Section 3.1.3.3 for further discussion) and does so again regarding the present variable. F-E said: The overall driving force has been very selfish; me wanting to be on the top step, over anybody else that gets in my way and I didn’t care who it was… I wanted to have my name in lights and I didn’t really care about what anybody else thought.

A-E earlier mirrored the results of a Super-Elite athlete (see Section 3.2.1.3 for further discussion) and also does so again regarding the present variable. A-E-Coach said: I’m not saying that you have to be nasty to be good but you have to have something about you which is bordering on arrogance; that you know that you are going to do something. [His sibling] just didn’t have that and A-E did… He put his whole life into that [goal] even to the extent that things like relationships just didn’t last very long. He went through a succession of [partners] and as soon as the [partner] got in the way of his progress in [sport], they just disappeared.

3.2.2.4 Summary A willingness to display ruthlessness and/or selfishness at critical moments is a defining characteristic of Super-Elite athletes. Fourteen of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only 2 of 16 Elite athletes, report being either ruthless or selfish in their single-minded pursuit of “the goal.” Super-Elite athletes appear quite willing to

55

56

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

admit that they would be either ruthless or selfish if it helped them achieve, whereas Elite athletes seem to be unwilling to attach these specific words, with their negative social connotations, to their performance and behavior. One question that arises from this finding is “Do Elite athletes actually behave in a ruthless and selfish manner, but they are unwilling to admit that they do, either to themselves or to others?” Since both the coach data and parent data mirrored the self-report data of the Super-Elite and Elite athletes, the results seem to suggest that the answer to this question is “no.” Rather, both Super-Elite and Elite athletes reported recognizing that these seemingly negative characteristics could be facilitative in terms of enhanced achievement. However, whereas Super-Elite athletes were willing to embrace such characteristics, the Elite athletes were not. This is likely linked to the level of need to succeed that differentiates between the groups (see Section 3.2.1). Other biographical data support the present results. Dawn Fraser, four-time Olympic gold medalist swimmer, said, “I used to do some terrible things in the marshaling area to upset my rivals” (SearchQuotes.com, 2013). In retirement, after winning eight Olympic medals, she said, “Make yourself an example, achieve it, but don’t hurt anyone on the way up. I don’t think I did that.” Michael Schumacher – seven-time Formula One World Champion – is widely regarded as one of the greatest F1 drivers of all time, and also, one of the most ruthless. This is evidenced by Schumacher causing multiple, so-called, “deliberate crashes” and other dangerous and selfish maneuvers in order to win F1 World Championships (e.g., Weaver, 2013). Schumacher believed that being willing to “do what must be done” is not ruthless but efficient: “Ruthlessness? You must always do what must be done. But in the proper way. Always honest. Then it is not ruthlessness, but efficiency” (Dearmore, 2013).

3.2.3 Conscientiousness, obsessiveness, and perfectionism Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for high levels of achievement (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Obsessiveness refers to an extreme internal pressure (motivated by a persistent overriding idea or thought) to engage in certain activities or behaviors (Stricker et al., 2004). Perfectionism is characterized by a person holding extremely elevated standards or expectations of him/ herself (Adderholdt and Goldberg, 1999). Results show that both Super-Elite and Elite athletes demonstrated a high level of conscientiousness with regard to their sport, but Super-Elite athletes can be discriminated from Elite athletes on the basis of their obsessiveness and/or perfectionism.

3.2.3.1 Conscientiousness Conscientiousness has been found to be significant predictor of performance and performance-related variables in sport (Allen et al., 2011; Piedmont et al., 1999; Woodman et al., 2010b), but it does not appear to have received any attention in the context of Elite and Super-Elite athletes. Nevertheless, it is a very obvious personality variable to examine in the context of high achievement. Results of the

3 Results

present study indicated that 16 out of 16 Super-Elite and 12 out of 16 Elite athletes demonstrated a high level of conscientiousness with regard to their sport. 3.2.3.1.1 Super-Elite group. P-SE said, “I am conscientious. I think I was conscientious with my training definitely.” P-SE-Parent confirmed this, “[He] achieved through commitment, dedication, devotion; to be the best, you’ve got to have dedication.” Similarly, J-SE said “[I’m] definitely conscientious… [It] is how I work mentally… I wanted to do everything that I could to achieve what I set out to do.” Similarly, D-SE-Coach said of D-SE: He is absolutely fastidious. He is utterly organised, utterly focused… and I think that the lackadaisical attitude of his mother – and his father almost driving himself mad having to cope with his mother – during those years was completely fundamental in the way D-SE has become driven and almost [pause] a control freak. He absolutely wants to be in control, and be organised, and get things done in a manner that he sees fit for them to be done. I think there’s a straight line from there to there [early childhood to now] … When D-SE was growing up, that was clearly a big part of his understanding of what he didn’t want. The blue-print of how he didn’t want his life to be, was right in front of him every day.

3.2.3.1.2 Elite group. The Elite athletes mirrored the Super-Elite athletes with regard to conscientiousness. For example, N-E-Coach said, “I think he realized that he didn’t have some of the skillsets that the others did but he put more time in and more effort in. N-E’s conscientiousness [was] very, very big.” N-E confirmed this saying, “[I’m] definitely conscientious. Even if you look at my school reports ‘conscientious’ was a word that would come up quite a lot.” Similarly, B-E said, “I was always very conscientious. I would think my coaches would say the same; very conscientious.” This was confirmed by B-E-Coach who said, “[His] conscientiousness would be pretty high on a 1 to 10 scale.” E-E also demonstrated high levels of conscientiousness in his approach to training: Yes, [I was conscientious]. I plan things and I would be quite analytical in the way I approached training. We would have lots of documentation, go into it in big detail; that’s [my] approach. Some people might just take more of an, “Oh that [seemed] right” and a seat-of-your-pants [approach] but I was very much more of a detailed, structured approach … I was probably not the easiest person to work with through the campaign. I was not very light hearted about life.

Despite possessing high levels of conscientiousness these Elite athletes did not attain Super-Elite status. Thus, the results suggest that high levels of conscientiousness alone are not sufficient to produce Super-Elite performers. 3.2.3.1.3 Exceptions. Three Elite athletes demonstrated relatively low levels of conscientiousness (one Elite athlete was classified neutrally on the present variable). For example, K-E reported conscientiousness at a relatively low level as regards his sport. Asked whether he was conscientious regarding training he said, “Yeah [I was conscientious]. I could have probably put more effort into the sessions. I wouldn’t

57

58

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

skip sessions. I might [finish] 10 min earlier than I was supposed to; things like that [but] I wouldn’t miss a whole session.” K-E-Coach also describes an athlete, who demonstrated a degree of conscientiousness, but rather less than other Elite athletes: K-E [viewed it as] a job. [For example] K-E would work well in an office [but] you’re not going to find him sat there on a Saturday morning or a Friday evening. He comes to work, does a steady job perfectly adequately – I wouldn’t say that he excels but I wouldn’t say he underperforms either – and boom goes home. He’s not going to be lying awake at 4 o’clock in the morning wondering whether or not we do [this particular strategy in competition or not] and what the connotations are [if we do].

L-E also displayed low levels of conscientiousness: If I had a training programme, and I got half way through it and I thought I feel good now, I have done enough for the week, then I wouldn’t have any qualms. But within it, I would have periods of annihilating myself or really giving it, in a [competition] certainly, if I was on form, yes I wouldn’t leave anything behind really. So I had the ability to really switch it on and go through the pain barrier … [My school reports would describe me] similar to my [sport] I guess: “Just about done enough; could have done better if he applied himself a little bit more”. But for me, exams or grades, as long as I had done enough to pass then I was kind of happy.

Similarly, D-E displayed a low level of conscientiousness: I was the kind of person that would always do just enough to get what I wanted; I would never do as much as I possibly could, I would only do what I needed to do. There’s no point in beating someone by 4 hours, if you can beat them by 4 seconds type of attitude. I’m really bad for leaving things until the last minute and then just doing just enough to get [done] what I need to do. I did what I was told to do but I never really went above and beyond in any real meaningful way that was going to make a difference. I’m quite sure I could have done more, not push myself harder but just done a bit more … I was probably quite bad at actually taking responsibility for my own fitness and my own health and all of that kind of thing.

3.2.3.2 Obsessiveness and perfectionism While conscientiousness did not discriminate between Super-Elite and Elite athletes, obsessiveness and perfectionism did. Specifically, 14 of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only 5 of 16 Elite athletes, reported either consistent obsessive or perfectionist tendencies. In its adaptive form, perfectionism can motivate individuals toward goal striving (Adderholdt and Goldberg, 1999). Adaptive perfectionists will likely maintain a better perspective on their performances while still striving to achieve exceptional standards. Indeed, there is evidence at non-Elite (Stoeber et al., 2009; Stoll et al., 2008), Elite (Oldenziel et al., 2003; Orlick and Partington, 1988), and Super-Elite levels (Gould et al., 2002) that adaptive perfectionism is positively associated with achievement. However, in its maladaptive form, perfectionism drives individuals to

3 Results

strive for goals in ways that have negative mental health consequences (e.g., depression) if goals are not met (Adderholdt and Goldberg, 1999). Maladaptive perfectionism has been associated with athlete burnout, anxiety, preoccupation with mistakes, strong self-doubts, and the perception of parents as being critical and expecting too much (e.g., Gould et al., 1996). The present results indicated that Super-Elite athletes display an adaptive form of perfectionism. Importantly, the results also indicate that Super-Elite athletes have the potential for maladaptive tendencies to arise should their perfectionist tendencies go unchecked by either themselves (e.g., N-SE below) or significant others (see Barlow et al., in preparation). As previously noted, obsessiveness refers to an extreme internal pressure to engage in certain activities or behaviors (Stricker et al., 2004). The results indicated that the Super-Elite athletes’ had either perfectionist or obsessive tendencies toward their sport. Furthermore, their perfectionism and obsessiveness related not only to outcome goals (i.e., results and winning) but also to mastery goals (see Section 3.3.3 for further discussion). 3.2.3.2.1 Super-Elite group. With regard to perfectionism, D-SE-Parent said, “He has [great] attention to detail, everything has to be in its place, if you’re going to do something you’ve got to do it properly, there are no half-measures [with him]… everything has to be done perfectly.” With regard to obsessiveness, D-SE said, “I guess I was quite obsessed with the detail.” L-SE also described his own obsessive behaviors. Interestingly, some Super-Elite athletes appeared happy to use the phrase obsessive whereas others, like L-SE, preferred to attach a different label to their behaviors (e.g., “fascination” in the instance of L-SE). This was seemingly because they were not happy with the negative connotations that the word obsessive carries. Nevertheless, it is clear from their descriptions that there was some degree of obsessiveness about their behavior. Other Super-Elite athletes appeared comfortable with the phrase obsessive which may well link to the idea that they were – as D-SE put it – “[I’m] comfortable with being… [those] things lots of people aren’t comfortable being.” L-SE said: I am very, very obsessive; yes. Someone said to me last night “You should come and play [recreationally with us] and you’ll love it”. I said, “Yes I might [love it] which is why I’m not doing it” because I don’t do things a bit, you know. Certainly, the obsession back then was a commitment to do something; everything else takes second place. I wouldn’t call it obsessive. I would call it fascination. A real fascination with being better at whatever it is I am doing. You could term it obsessive but I think fascination slightly better describes it, an absolute fascination with how something works. I love that part of it.

H-SE recognized that his perfectionist tendencies, with specific regard to his training, helped him compensate for perceived lower natural physiological attributes than other athletes: I don’t think there’s any point in doing anything unless you’re going to do it really well. I’ve tried to kill that a little bit in me [since retiring] because it gets a little bit

59

60

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

boring for people around me like [my partner]. But when I was [doing my sport] that was one thing that kept me doing well because I wanted to be that person who was 100% going to be the best technical [athlete] you could be. I wasn’t going to be as strong as [athlete 1] and I didn’t have the physiological make-up of [athlete 2], but there were bits about my personality which could supersede some of those things.

M-SE described the perfectionist attitude he shared with his coach with regard to their combined approach to the “job” they were doing: Part of our success was how well we did our job. We were trying to ‘chase’ a lot of the time; not even chasing a result, or a beating another team, but trying to chase a performance and a precision about what we did. That was part of the perfectionist attitude that I liked. Everyone likes to do well; I like to do as well as I can but I wouldn’t say I’m necessarily a perfectionist. I’m certainly not as idealistic as I was as a youngster. 99% is ok, 98% obviously a very high percentage of success but not chasing the 100%.

J-SE-Parent described how J-SE had exhibited perfectionist tendencies from an early age: He always seemed to do the best he could… for as long as I can remember… I mean he went to prep-school when he was about 3 and was always quite meticulous about what he did… and even in school when they practiced writing shapes… I was told by his teacher that J-SE was the only one who finished every line on the page, right till the end… whereas others would just do a couple here and there… J-SE did every last bit.

J-SE-Coach suggested that the perfectionist tendencies J-SE exhibits may have been fostered by the foundational negative critical events he experienced: When his parents divorced, and the father left the family, the mother constantly tried to frame his father as a monster. J-SE constantly tried to bring them together and I think, maybe, that he wanted to prove to his mum that he can succeed, or to his father. I think this could have stimulated this perfectionist. The idea that, “I have to be good”.

Similarly, N-SE points to his upbringing as the source of his perfectionist tendencies: I obviously had [perfectionism] in me and my Mum just helped bring it out a lot. I just wanted to win everything. I just wanted to be the best in everything. If there was a test, I wanted to get the highest mark; I used to get really annoyed if I got 99%, why didn’t I get a 100? The tiniest mistake would really annoy me. One time I got 30 out of 30 and I thought, “Yes, finally!” … I had to learn [to control] my perfectionism. Sometimes my coach would say, “Well done” and I would think, “Yeah, but that [particular element] wasn’t very good”… I think every athlete has a level of perfection. I had to learn that, I cannot be 100% perfect, that 95% is bloody good… because I wanted to be 100% I’d be like “Booo!”

3 Results

[when I didn’t] reach that point. So I learnt to level-off and be 95%, [and] say, “that is actually ok”… I don’t think I’ve ever [competed perfectly], and actually it’s ok to say that; no-one can.

O-SE speaks of a striving for perfection in his preparation for competition, “For me to achieve success with [O-SE-Coach], everything [in] my preparation had to be right; everything had to be perfect. My body had to be good, and when it wasn’t good, I wasn’t good. I didn’t deliver good results.” However, speaking about obsessiveness, O-SE said: No. No I’m not obsessive. To be honest with you, I looked at athletes who were and I thought they were pathetic. [Measuring] every gram of protein or what they’ve eaten? I’m not anal like that. To be honest with you, I think the majority of the people that I saw like that, never got to the top.

Interestingly, results suggested that the perfectionist attitude O-SE demonstrated may have been driven by his perfectionist coach who suggested: “O-SE never did an exercise, never did a repetition, without in his mind, ‘If I don’t do this 100% perfect, I’m not going to win The World Championships. It is upon me to do this exercise perfectly to get where I want to go’.” However, O-SE-Coach also went on to say: Perfect is possible; let’s go for perfect. I want perfect – always – and that’s how we taught them… I wouldn’t have any messing about; it had to be done right. I was a perfectionist… If it could be perfect, why settle for less?

3.2.3.2.2 Elite group. Only 5 of 16 Elite athletes reported consistent obsessive or perfectionist tendencies and two Elite athletes were classified as neutral. Nine Elites reported not having obsessive or perfectionist tendencies; for example, L-E-Coach said, “I wouldn’t say [he was a perfectionist] no. I don’t think I ever saw that in him.” L-E is totally clear that he does not have perfectionist tendencies: I’m not a perfectionist. No, far from it I’d say. Even at [school/college] exam level or training level, if I felt that I had done enough then I would probably stop. I wouldn’t go the nth degree to make sure that I had absolutely nailed it. [In] my training, if I thought I had done enough then I’d go home. No reason to push … I’m not a perfectionist and I’m not that driven.

In the same vein, N-E-Coach said, “I don’t think N-E is; I don’t think his self-belief was strong enough that he believed he would ever achieve perfection; so I don’t think perfectionism.” J-E also describes clear conscientiousness without it bordering on perfectionism, “I am not sure I would have been an athlete with real perfectionist tendencies. If it was done, it was done properly; but it wasn’t – to be honest with you – perfectionist tendencies.” Similarly, I-E said: I was conscientious [not obsessive]. Not as obsessive as some of the people. [Another squad member] wasn’t the most naturally gifted [but] is a true example

61

62

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

of the awesome graft that they put in. They just go at it again and again and again and again and keep pushing. I have utter respect for [that] because I know that I don’t have that.

3.2.3.2.3 Exceptions. Two Super-Elite athletes did not provide consistent evidence of perfectionism or obsessiveness. First, P-SE provided a mixed message regarding his perfectionist and obsessive tendencies. When asked how those who knew him best would describe him he said, “Probably driven, obsessive and a perfectionist”. However, he went on to say “I am conscientious. I think I was conscientious with my training definitely. But [did it boarder on] obsessive? No. No I don’t think so. I’m obviously more driven than I probably thought I was at the time because being a Christian, being “driven” can have slightly negative connotations, like “ruthlesspassion” to be the best you can be, and that did not quite fit-in with the characteristics of what a good Christian should be. P-SE-Coach certainly did not believe that P-SE’s attitude to training bordered on obsessive. Speaking about meeting P-SE before their coach–athlete relationship began P-SE-Coach said: When I met P-SE he was a highly technical, accomplished, [athlete]. What he lacked was a bit of a work ethic… He seemed to train with a lot of nice looking [members of the opposite sex] and training seemed to consist of lying on the crash mats, talking, giggling and then every now and again one of them would get up, do an exercise, without any direction – they must have had a direction but it didn’t seem so – and then they’d stop and they’d go lie down again… So one day I saw them doing it and I said, what is it today P-SE, 6 sets of lying down, 5 sets of talking, and 3 sets of chatting up the [members of the opposite sex]?

P-SE-Coach suggested P-SE’s attitude did not change once they started their coach– athlete relationship: I’m sure there were days when he wouldn’t have trained, because he’s told me this, but he knew he had to come [to my house and pick me up] and we used to talk in the car a lot. Sometimes he didn’t want to go [training], and you couldn’t force him to go, but I used to say, “Why? Why don’t you want to go?” If he was feeling ill, well, ok but usually he wasn’t. I would say daft things like, “Well let’s go to the gym anyway, walk in, say ‘hello gym’ and if you don’t want to train we’ll come back”. But he always trained… He’s told me many a time if he hadn’t had to come for me, he wouldn’t have gone [training].

Contrasting P-SE to his training partner, P-SE-Coach said, “[His training partner] was so committed. I cannot speak highly enough of [him].” He went on to say P-SE’s training partner “was often sick” with the sheer physical exertion of training: He’d have to run out of the gym and vomit in the street – but not P-SE! … Sometimes P-SE would [push himself to the maximum in training], sometimes he wouldn’t… I think he probably realised himself that he wasn’t training hard.

3 Results

P-SE’s attitude here does not mirror that of the Super-Elite group as a whole. Indeed, in Section 3.3.1, it will become clear that P-SE also does not mirror the rest of the Super-Elite athletes with regard to commitment to training. P-SE-Coach is clear why an athlete who does not possess these two qualities – that the data indicate are characteristics of Super-Elite athletes – was still able to achieve Super-Elite status: The first thing successful Olympians have to do is select their parents… so it’s genetics… It was basically all about how he was wired up… With P-SE, he was obviously born [with it] because the things he could do – you wouldn’t believe it – you just wouldn’t believe. He could power clean 150 kilos; it’s a hell of a lot of weight… Another example, where we were [training]… they had left the highjump set up… he walked across to it and I thought, “I wonder where he’s going because this doesn’t form part [of the training]”; but you don’t stop a man like that. He walked across and he stood with the bar just below his shoulder level. He stood and he just went ‘boing’ and he went up and over the bar: incredible. If I had… trained for a million years, I’d never be able to do that.

P-SE confirmed his natural physiological giftedness saying: I felt incredibly lucky that I found something that I could do well… There are just thousands of men across the UK who would want to be a professional football player but they’re just not good enough. [Athlete name has] got this slightly odd background which makes him super driven, which means he’s got to that [high] stage… So to refer back to the conversation [about early childhood] that we had, I think I would be more into that [talented/gifted] camp rather than being driven by some sort of… trauma and trying make-up for some deficit.

The second Super-Elite athlete who did not demonstrate perfectionist or obsessive tendencies was C-SE. This is confirmed, in detail, in the commitment to training section (see Section 3.3.1). However, C-SE’s ability to maintain high performance under pressure, and even – to an extent – transfer that high performance mentality to his teammates (see Section 3.3.4) was, according to his coach, what enabled him to be a Super-Elite athlete. Five Elite athletes reported being obsessive or perfectionistic. However, as detailed in Barlow et al. (in preparation), it is important to note that all these five Elite athletes also reported not having their specific needs met by their coach. For example, M-E reports both obsessive and perfectionist tendencies: [I’m] pretty obsessive. [I’ve] got to get [training] done, it’s got to be the right intensity, I’ve got to get all these efforts done to ensure that I am this good. I must get it done come rain, snow and ice, illness or anything… Even if it means doing something at a completely ridiculous time of day I’ve got to get it done; yeah quite obsessive. If I’m going to do something, it’s got to be right; it’s pretty much all or nothing. So yeah, [a] perfectionist… with the things that are important to me, if I consider it to have value, I will commit to it and perfect it.

63

64

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

However, this obsessiveness and perfectionism refers specifically to training rather than competition. M-E enjoyed a stable childhood (Section 3.1.2) and did not “need” to win (Section 3.2.1) and, although he had a high motivation to train (Section 3.3.1) he could not maintain high performances under pressure (Section 3.3.4). A-E earlier mirrored the results of the Super-Elite athletes (see Section 3.2.1.3 for discussion) and does so again regarding the present variable. Indeed, A-E’s profile, across the variables identified in the present study, often did not mirror that of the Super-Elite group (see Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3). A-E suggested he was obsessive in training but that his obsessiveness was also evident “in everything I do.” A-E-Parent said: When he started school and they had their first sports day… he stood on the line and the concentration on his face was so intense and they said ‘go’ and he was off like a bullet and the rest of the class was coming behind and he was across the line and he turned around and he raised his arms with this big smile on his face and he shouted, “I won Mum, I won” and from that day it was almost like an obsession, “I want to run, I want to run” and everything had to be race… There’s nothing left to chance… everything he does is planned… he just concentrated on what he had to do and did it… but he had to do it well, technically he couldn’t just go out and [perform]; technically he had to get it right… everything was methodical.

F-E mirrored the results of the Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables (Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, and 3.3.4). Indeed, regarding the present variable, F-E mirrored the Super-Elite athletes: I was obsessive about doing everything on the programme and in [Coach 1’s] days that probably didn’t help me because other people would back-off or take sessions off and I took pride in completing what was set before me. So I was obsessive in that way.

Both C-E’s and O-E’s perfectionist attitude to training is confirmed, in detail, in the commitment to training section (see Section 3.3.1). In all the other variables considered so far, both C-E and O-E mirrored the results of the Elite athletes, which is likely what prevented them attaining Super-Elite status.

3.2.3.3 Summary All athletes, both Super-Elite and Elite, demonstrated a degree of conscientiousness toward their sport. However, subtle differences were evidenced in the level of conscientiousness reported. Specifically, all Super-Elite’s but only 12 of 16 Elites demonstrated high levels of conscientiousness. Results pertaining to obsessiveness and perfectionism evidenced a much clearer discrimination. Specifically, 14 of 16 Super-Elites, but only 5 of 16 Elites, consistently reported either obsessive or perfectionist tendencies. The idea of athletes, at the Super-Elite level of sport, demonstrating obsessive and perfectionist behaviors is clearly demonstrated in the biography of Jonny Wilkinson (Gogarty and Williamson, 2009, p. 166):

3 Results

The problem with me is I always think I should have done better. I felt that after the World Cup final and the same goes for my whole career. But it’s the only way to go about this job – and life itself … I always needed to push my expectations way above those of everyone else, but as people started to expect more of me, it got harder and harder. If I beat my expectations it was, for me, nothing – that was where I should be – but if I failed it was crazily painful and lasted so much longer.

It is important to note that the pursuit of perfection, especially in sport, may be a legitimate goal. But to extend it to “a way of living” – as Wilkinson suggested in the quote above – is a philosophical journey that seems likely to end in disappointment and failure (Gogarty and Williamson, 2009, p. 166).

3.3 HOW THE ATHLETE BEHAVED This section examines the extent to which the training, competition, and lifestyle behaviors of Super-Elite and Elite groups shared commonalities and the extent to which they were discrepant. Four main topics emerged from the data: (1) commitment to training; (2) the relative importance of sport; (3) focus: mastery, outcome, and process; and (4) performing under pressure.

3.3.1 Commitment to training Clearly, the accumulation of a large volume of domain-specific practice and training plays a key role in the development of expertise. The notion that Elite performers need to accumulate a large volume of domain-specific deliberate practice is wellestablished (Bloom, 1985; Ericsson et al., 1993; Simon and Chase, 1973). The results indicated that 14 of 16 Super-Elite, and 9 of 16 Elite athletes, demonstrated a high commitment to training. The between-group commonality, evidenced in the present study, supports previous research which suggests that practice volume may not discriminate between Elite and Super-Elite performers (see also Rees et al., 2016). Rather, the results indicated that both Super-Elite athletes, and Elite athletes, invested significant effort into attending and completing their training sessions. Indeed, they perceived that they typically attempted to train longer, and/or more frequently, than others around them. This may have involved self-sufficient and costly journeys to-andfrom training or attempting to training through injury. Athletes’ commitment was further evidenced by their frustration when they were prevented from training for any reason. Certain Super-Elite and Elite athletes reported that they “loved training” and were “desperate” to train. However, it is important to note that, despite being fully committed to their training, not all of 14 Super-Elite athletes reported “enjoying” training per se. Specifically, certain Super-Elites appeared to train, not because they derived immediate satisfaction or pleasure from it, but because they had made a clear-link between mastery of the process of training and the outcome (competitive

65

66

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

performance), which is discussed in detail in Section 3.3.3. Expressed overly simply the idea is: “Unless I do this training today, I won’t be ready for competition,” which we will later show links to the Super-Elite athletes’ ability to perform under pressure (see Section 3.3.4).

3.3.1.1 Super-Elite group B-SE-Parent said, “[He] had a natural god given talent… but [he] also had incredible commitment [to training] and determination.” K-SE-Coach also describes an athlete who wanted to train despite suffering injuries: I’m struggling to recall a single month when he didn’t train fully, and if not fully then certainly indoors and in some kind of rehab. I honestly don’t recall a month’s break in the whole of the six years. [The longest break] would have been probably ten days and that would have been injury; literally broken collarbone, shoulder bone, in hospital for three days, and back [into indoor training] … There would have been bitter tears of anger, and frustration, at not being able to [train] the toys come out of the pram. It may be an inaccurate memory but [I recall] trying to organise a training session – with his arm in a sling and scabs everywhere – and he wants to train … I was pretty strong, with every athlete that I coached, about the off-season; “have three weeks off, do nothing”. But that just went out the window [with K-SE].

K-SE confirmed this saying: Obviously, you’ve got to do the training and you’ve got to have been given the unique genetic ability but, for me, the biggest thing at the elite level is definitely just the mind-set. There’s this one particular [athlete] who was on the squad who had far more talent than I did, but [athlete] was just lazy. He just didn’t want to train out in the sheer cold and push himself. That annoys me because to see someone who has been given talent and doesn’t use it is such a waste. So for me, the biggest thing is the psychology of sport; it is something that is always of interest to me.

From a young age, A-SE approached sport with a “training” mind-set rather than a “playing” mind-set. A-SE said, “[From age 8] it was all serious, I loved it. It was what I wanted to do but it was always… when I got out there I never would muck around.” Regarding training during his career A-SE said: It was just pure enjoyment; I just loved [training]. I loved the day to day of it all, I never moaned about going to training… I would never train less; I would always do everything… I used to get a real buzz from doing a good training session, there was nothing better than going out and you know coming back in and just thinking you’ve really pushed yourself and that was a great session. I used to love that feeling and doing a really good [competition], I used to love that feeling… I would never have missed training, the thought of somebody doing an extra training

3 Results

session that I hadn’t done; I couldn’t live with that… guilt almost. So I had to do every training session… I think you’ve got to train bloody hard

G-SE-Coach suggested that G-SE’s commitment to training was, “Exemplary. I mean you couldn’t ask for anymore.” Similarly, J-SE-Coach suggested that such was J-SE’s “clinical, almost pathological” commitment to training that, as a coach, his main role was to attempt to hold him back: When the core muscle exercises had been introduced, and he understood the real benefit of it, it became a problem. You [train] for 10/15 minutes and then you have to sit down a bit. We’re not talking about half an hour, you sit down for 5 minutes, have a drink, [and] a little bit of a refresh… He would do core or planks, I said, “What are you doing?” “I’m not just sitting here doing nothing” he’d reply. The concept was recovery but, to him, doing nothing was a waste of time because “I could do core” … His dedication was sometimes clinical, almost pathological. One time we started an [outdoor training] session and incredible rain came down and wind. So I said, “Absolutely no point. We won’t get what we were looking for [out of this specific session]. Let’s just postpone this and we’ll come back to this session a later day” The rest [of the training group] said, “Ok” and went inside but he said, “No, no, it’s ok”. [He stayed outside] contemplating “should I do it alone” or “why are these people leaving me here?” Eventually he said “Alright, I’m coming in,” but he wasn’t happy; he [came inside] but he was irritated by it… So [he had] that dedication [to training] but flexibility wasn’t his forte.

F-SE-Parent suggested his child, “Invests very heavily into what he wants to achieve… but that’s what it takes to be successful … He is very self-driven.” This was clearly evidenced by F-SE who described his early dedication to training: By the time I was 14 I trained across [the other side of the city], so I would go from school, cycle down to [the station], get the train across [the city], and cycle back. That was two or three nights a week… There was no money for me to get to training. I had to fare dodge to get to training at times and having to pay for the [training facilities] for a year was huge.

F-SE was asked whether training was something he enjoyed or endured to get where he wanted to go. He said: I think it’s almost a bitter sweet. I do love training, I do love being fit and active… [and] I couldn’t try any harder… but the amount we did, it was just sometimes overwhelming to try and actually just get through it. So then it became something you had to do to get where you wanted to go. We constantly would be given a week training schedule and I would think, “This is bonkers, I am going to die!” and yet we would get to the end of it and be alive – so it would be amazing. But it’s very hard to enjoy it when you are that tired… Having to endure that training, you have to have some pretty dark-sides that you were trying to avoid.

67

68

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

The interviewer (Author 4) asked, “What are the dark sides you were trying to avoid?” to which F-SE responded: It is that feeling, when you don’t win… that fear that you let yourself down. On the finish line you want to know – win, lose or draw – you have had your hand in the fire… In training [I need to know] that every time [I did] what I could do, changed what I could change, and have done everything I believe I have to do it to get there. At the end of the day, the sad fact is, there might be a Usain Bolt in your event and you might get a silver, and that might be the best [you could achieve]. You hate it at the time, but that would be your best and you can look yourself in the mirror. So for me, I could look myself in the mirror at the end of the day [of training], and know that I’ve done everything I thought I could. So it was not cutting the corners, or just surviving, I absolutely tried to push myself, in the right way, every day.

O-SE-Coach suggested that O-SE was “only late [to training] once in 10 years; I find that astonishing.” He went on to say: However many [training] hours O-SE did, it was absolutely 100% purposeful … His talent was in this incredible desire, wonderful gifted level of ability to concentrate. O-SE never did an exercise, never did a repetition, without in his mind, “If I don’t do this 100% perfect, I’m not going to win the World Championships. It is upon me to do this exercise perfectly to get where I want to go”. So, nothing was ever done with less than 100% effort. Incredible.

3.3.1.2 Elite group For 9 of 16 Elite athletes a high commitment to training was a commonality they shared with the Super-Elite athletes. For example, A-E – reflecting his obsessiveness (see Section 3.2.3.2.3) – described being more committed to training than his peers: I would always go down slightly earlier [to training] [because] I can’t have people mess around. It really annoys me when the [other athletes] start chatting and having a little meeting. I’d say, “Come on. You know you need to [train]!” and they’d be like, “Yeah alright”. I’d think, “Oh my god, what am I turning into?” but that’s how I was. We would have a laugh while we were warming up but as soon as the coach said, “Okay, we are going to start” then I really did just knuckle down and get on with it. Once the session was done, then you could laugh and have a mess around again. It just frustrates me sometimes where I see people with talent just wasting it.

Similarly, O-E demonstrated his perfectionism (see Section 3.2.3.2.3) through his high commitment to training. O-E’s data seemed to demonstrate the importance of athletes who are likely to train to the point of damaging themselves, finding a coach who might prevent such overtraining: Out of all the people that I’ve trained with – most of the time – I’d probably turn up earlier than everyone and start my own drills [and] warm-up… So I think I’m more of a perfectionist [than them] but then obviously you know there are such

3 Results

things as overkill so sometimes I have wondered, “Is this overkill?”… I would analyse that and think, “Should I be going less times because they go in less times?”… It’s difficult to know.

When asked to compare H-E with other athletes he had worked with, in terms of motivation to train, H-E-Coach said, “He exceeds all of them … In all honesty, I’ve never dealt with anybody who was so… to the letter of the law like he did.” H-E-Coach expanded on this, saying: Unless he was actually hammered to take a break he would train 12 months a year. He even phoned me up on Christmas day [to ask] what he should do that afternoon and what should he do on Boxing Day. He even hitched down… from [his home] on Boxing Day [to train] rather than wait until the trains ran again the day after to come down … He didn’t want to leave any stone unturned.

B-E suggested that, with regard to training, he “was first in, last out… pretty much.” B-E went on to say: I would try very hard and really liked doing [training]… I didn’t need kicking that much… If a coach says, “Do 10 sets of [a certain exercise]”, some of the people I was training with might do 9 and they will say they’ve done 10. I would always do 10, without a doubt, and if I lost count I would always start on the lower number so I would do more instead of less, always, absolutely … I wouldn’t pretend on intervals. My coach wasn’t standing over me the whole time watching every single thing I did… but it just means I was always completely vigilant.

B-E-Coach confirmed this stating that B-E had a very high motivation to train: He’s an interesting athlete because he had the ability to train at a high level. The one thing you know with him is there was no misunderstanding on his part that he needed to, or that he wanted to, do everything possible [in training] … We are talking about a pretty long career, [so] there’s always certain emotional points where somebody gets down and so forth. When I look at the body of work in total and you add to that the work ethic; absolutely, in my opinion, [he] was at the highest level [in terms of motivation to train]… There was never any messing around, missing practice or having some excuse.

Regarding F-E’s motivation to train, F-E-Coach said, “He might be 5.6 or 5.7 [out of 5].” F-E-Coach went on to say: He got the most out of [training]. He knew that he had to get the most out of it. He was very competitive in training. [Other athletes] might, not exactly be holding back but, just doing their own thing. Whereas F-E would always be chasing people down and trying to make himself [better].

C-E-Coach described his athlete as “very motivated to train” and suggested: You weren’t going to get a day where he didn’t feel like it or he didn’t see the point. He was one of the first [to start training] and the last [to finish]. There were days when the others weren’t [training], where I went [training] alone with him.

69

70

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

The whole [squad] were aware it was happening, and they preferred a rest day. There were sessions where he would just ask for 20 minutes at the end to go through something again.

C-E confirmed that despite not enjoying certain aspects of training he made the link between the process and the outcome: In terms of the gym, I was quite ‘guilt-led’, because all our data was recorded. I’m never going to be a huge gym bunny, dying to get to the gym; that was not exactly my prerogative. It was definitely something I needed to do because I had been asked to go and do it.

M-E said, throughout this career, his attitude was consistent regarding both training and competition. He expanded on that saying: I very much enjoy the training, the structure, being fit and healthy, doing those big training [volumes] and getting out there, working hard and all those feelings of having worked hard but I didn’t necessarily always need the competition … I’m not that talented. I need to really dig deep to do well and I think [the reason] I am good is because I can dig deeper than anyone else [in training]. I can go harder in training than anyone and that’s my thing.

Interestingly, M-E concluded, “Every coach I’ve come across has tried to hold me back [in training]” suggesting his coaches may have recognized some potential for overtraining, or a tendency to leave “a lot of good [competition performances] behind [in training].”

3.3.1.3 Exceptions Two Super-Elite athletes did not demonstrate a consistently high commitment to training. P-SE’s modest commitment to training has already been detailed in the evidence pertaining to P-SE’s lack of Obsessiveness and Perfectionism (see Section 3.2.3.2.3 for this discussion). C-SE’s Coach said: It’s wrong to say C-SE was dragged along [to training] kicking and screaming but I think he did what he had-to-do rather than what he could-do. Whereas [his team mate], would wake up in the morning and think, “Right, OK, what [extra] can I do today as well as all the things that I’ve got on my list?” C-SE looked at his list and did the list. There was no extra drive other than, “If I do all the things that [my team mate] tells me to do then I can have a quiet life; I won’t get a [telling off]”… Not lazy but… path of least resistance is probably appropriate to C-SE… It’s perhaps an unfair perspective… but I think if you spoke to [his team mate] he’d probably tell you something similar … There was no hunger for work, it wasn’t like, “I’m going to get in the gym and I’m going to smash it!” C-SE got in the gym and, “Oh my shoulder’s sore” and [would] go off and do 3 quarters of what he had to do. It wasn’t like “Blimey, whoa, slow down, you’re doing too much today, save a bit of energy for later in the week.” It was always, “Come on, let’s just do it, put in more please, just… aaarrrgghhhhh!”

3 Results

It is interesting to note that C-SE-Coach was directly comparing C-SE with other Super-Elite athletes he had coached. Thus, C-SE-Coach strongly emphasized his judgment was that C-SE had a relatively lower commitment to training, rather than an absolutely low commitment to training. Indeed, when C-SE-Parent described C-SE’s commitment to training he likely had a different reference value against which he rated C-SE’s commitment to training: This is an indication of his determination… He used to get up at 5 am… and cycle [a long way] before breakfast, just on Pro-Plus, to keep his weight down and keep his fitness up… and that would be a fairly regular occurrence… [he had] that commitment to do the job.

Despite this, C-SE’s ability to maintain high performance under pressure, and even – to an extent –inspire that ability in his teammates (see Section 3.3.4) was, according to his coach, what seemingly enabled him to attain Super-Elite status. Six of 16 Elite athletes reported consistently low levels of commitment to training (one Elite athlete was classified neutrally). Results suggest these Elites did not attempt to maximize the frequency, duration, and intensity of their training but rather would typically find reasons to minimize the frequency, duration, or intensity of training. These six Elite athletes expressed needing a “kick” or a “push” in order to go out training and demonstrated a “lazy” attitude to training. They did not demonstrate an attitude of attempting to leave “no-stone-unturned” but rather demonstrated an attitude of trying to get by with a bare minimum of effort and personal suffering. This is likely a contributing factor that prevented these Elite athletes becoming Super-Elite athletes. D-E-Coach was asked whether D-E typically had the attitude of being “first-in and last-out” when it came to training. He said: Last-in, first-out would be more appropriate… He would never apply himself… I would say physically, I could only describe him as lazy. If [I said],”Right, D-E we need to get in the gym for 4 hours every day for the next 10 days” he would just tell you to “Sod off”. There wouldn’t be anything on earth that would make him go and do something like that. So I would have to say that from a physical training point of view he was lazy… You go out to train and [he presents lots of] reasons not to be there: “Oh its cold, my shoulder hurts, my back hurts, my foot hurts, the [equipment] isn’t right”.

Interestingly, D-E-Parent also revealed a disdain for training, saying “Training is bloody boring, you’re better off not doing it full time.” This was echoed by D-E who confirmed that he “loathed” training: I loved [competing]. The [competing] was the bit I loved; the training was the bit that I loathed … If I could just have done the [competitions], I probably would have been far happier in the long run. It’s just that you’ve got to do the training along the way, and it was the training that I just found horrendous … What I found hard was sort of staying 110% motivated for protracted periods of time doing the same thing over and over and over and over again, when if

71

72

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

I’m honest, I’m wasn’t sure how much I was getting out of it. … I just found [training] monotonous, keep [doing a specific drill] and [repeating it]; I’m just genuinely, even now, still not sure what we were taking from [those sessions] … I guess I would never really have sat there and said outright to [my team mate] that I found all the training utterly monotonous and slightly pointless … I was the kind of person that would always do just enough to get what I wanted; I would never do as much as I possibly could, I would only do what I needed to do… I did what I was told to do but I never really went above and beyond in any real meaningful way that was going to make a difference. I’m quite sure I could have done more.

Similarly, J-E said: I am one of those [athletes] that likes competing and is not so worried about the training. I was better at training in a group than on my own. I needed that drive of the others around me, someone around me … I wasn’t very good at doing homework things. I would be fine training with a group, and I was fine competing, but if I got told to go home and do this so many days and nights a week… I wasn’t really good at making myself do that… I’m probably not the most motivated athlete. I don’t think I come across as being really keen all the time. I am quite laid back, probably quite negative. I would moan a lot, I used to get told off a lot for moaning… So I guess if I was a bit of pain, it would be like “why are we doing this – I’m tired!”.

This was confirmed by J-E-Coach who said, “He liked being comfortable rather than taking the challenge… It’s too much hassle [for him] to face something when he doesn’t want to. So his comfort zones always have to be maintained somehow.” I-E recognized his motivation to train prevented him from being, as he termed it, a “winner” and instead made him an “also-ran.” For example, when asked, “Did you have to be kicked by a coach to get going in training?” I-E said: To an extent [I needed a kick], which is another thing that changes the ‘winners’ from the ‘also-rans’. I liked the idea of [training] in a [team]… [because] I realised, I was [only] going [training] out of routine a lot of the time and it helped me having a [training] partner because if I wake up in the morning [and think], “I can’t be bothered” I’d think, “No, I’ve made a commitment, if I don’t turn up, I’m letting these people down”, which is why team sports worked for me; just being a member of a successful [team] as opposed to being an [individual] star.

When asked, “Did you always feel committed to doing everything it took to get to the highest level in terms of your training?” K-E said: Probably not, no, because as I said I wouldn’t do the exact training that had been set or I might have finished the [session] 10 minutes before I should have done and then I probably would have not done all the stretching or just had a quick stretch

3 Results

rather than someone else who might have spent half an hour doing stretching, I’d spend 5 minutes doing it … I was a lazy trainer, I needed someone to push me and write me a structured training program and check up and make sure I was doing it… I probably should have put the two together [training and competing] and realised that if I had done a bit better at more training then I might have done a bit better (laughter) in the [competing].

G-E indicated that he believed that, relative to others in his training cohort, he had high motivation to train. However, relative to the Super-Elite athlete data presented, the following data do not mark G-E as an athlete with a high motivation to train: Although in general, especially compared to all the other people, I was definitely somebody who did like training. I didn’t necessarily like every session and I found [certain specific sessions] really, really boring … When things started up with [my loving partner]… I didn’t want to get out of bed anymore, whereas it used to be that the days I would be [training] I would be bang out of bed… I found [training] sessions by myself quite hard to do. I would have to push myself to get out, but I could do it myself, I didn’t need anyone else to do it but I would have to [push myself], I knew that I was making myself do it. I didn’t want to go [training early] in the morning. If it is supposed to be steady continuous pace… and I would want to do [a small percentage] and then stop and have a little drink, then do another [small percentage] and then stop and take off my jumper and then do another [small percentage].

L-E-Coach recalled “having a conversation with L-E about somebody who was overtrained and [got] ill.” I said to L-E, “But you’d never get like that would you?” And he smiled at me and he said, “Maybe not.” I said, “No, because you’re too lazy aren’t you?” And he laughed and said “Yes.” So, if [an athlete] is not quite feeling up to it, [and thinking] “should I train or shouldn’t I train?” the driven ones do it – and sometimes it’s their undoing – but that wouldn’t happen with L-E … [Unlike L-E] some people actually enjoy hurting themselves [through training]; they actually get gratification out of hurting themselves. I tested an [athlete], for the first time, and I said, “You like hurting yourself don’t you?” And he smiled and looked at me. So I said, “So you’ll… bury yourself [in competition] because you enjoy doing it” and he said, “Yeah! How did you spot that?” I said, “Well, it’s just something about you. That is essentially what you like doing”. I used to like hurting myself when I was [doing my sport]. It’s not something you think about at the time – “I’m really enjoying this” – but you know that when you’ve done it you’re going to feel great about yourself because you’ve hurt yourself. I don’t particularly see that in L-E and again, it’s not normal to want to hurt yourself is it? Why would you want to do that?

As evidenced in Section 3.2.3, L-E recognized his attitude marked him out as “a bit lazier” than others, “If I had a training program and I got half way through it and

73

74

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

I thought ‘I feel good now, I have done enough for the week’, then I wouldn’t have any qualms [stopping].” Finally, N-E stated, “Winning Olympic medals, for me, probably was never really on the cards… It might be partly because I had that 3 or 4 years where I wasn’t very good [at training] really, and I wasn’t very professional.” A low commitment to training is likely a key contributing factor as to why these Elite athletes did not attain Super-Elite status.

3.3.1.4 Summary The results suggest that while a high commitment to training may be a necessary condition to produce Super-Elite athletes, it did not clearly discriminate between Super-Elite and Elite athletes, with 9 of 16 Elite athletes also reporting this behavior. It is therefore concluded that commitment to training is a commonality across SuperElite and Elite athletes. This commonality is important since other biographical evidence exists – which if only taken on face value – could be interpreted as suggesting that a high commitment to training ought to be a discriminating factor between Super-Elite athletes and others. For example, Agassi (2010), Olympic gold medalist tennis player, said “If I’ve learned nothing else, it’s that time and practice equal achievement” (p. 336). Team GB’s Alexei Evangulov, commenting on the media commitments of Tom Daley, said, “If you look at the Chinese, they work three times harder. That’s the only secret. Just work hard” (BBC, 2012).

3.3.2 The relative importance of sport From the lay perspective, the athlete lifestyle may appear to be replete with sacrifice. Specifically, athletes may appear to forego other potentially attractive opportunities, such as interpersonal relationships, alternative careers with high salaries, parties, alcohol, and recreational drugs, in order to single-minded pursue sporting success. This section examines the relative importance that Super-Elite and Elite athletes place on sport relative to: (1) interpersonal relationships; (2) money and alternate careers; and (3) a “normal” life (involving parties, alcohol, indulgence, etc.). The results indicated that for 15 of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only three of the Elite group, sport held a greater relative attraction compared to alternate domains and opportunities. Super-Elite athletes demonstrated that they were very able to maintain a narrow focus on sport and immerse themselves in the athlete lifestyle at the expense of other aspects of daily life. However, the results indicated that Super-Elite athletes did not view prioritizing sport as a sacrifice per se (Pari et al., 2007). Rather, the so-called competing influences from daily life, seemed to hold a lower attraction for SuperElite athletes than for normative populations. For example, although Super-Elites reported foregoing regular all-night parties and getting drunk they did not report resenting, or begrudging, doing so. Indeed, they seemed to perceive that what they stood to gain by pursuing such “normative-avenues” was less attractive than what they stood to gain by abstaining from such activities.

3 Results

The results indicated that for 10 of 16 Elite athletes competing influences held a relatively greater importance than sport. These 10 Elite athletes demonstrated that they were unable or unwilling to maintain a very narrow focus on sport and immerse themselves in the athlete lifestyle at the expense of other aspects of daily life. Results indicated that these Elite athletes viewed the decision to prioritize sport as a sacrifice. Three Elite athletes were classified neutrally on the present variable and three had the same profile as Super-Elite athletes. Put simply, the Elite athlete attitude was: “I need what daily life can offer me as much as, if not more than, I need what the sporting domain can offer me.” Conversely, and again put simply, the Super-Elite athletes’ attitude was: “I don’t need what daily life can offer me as much as I need what the sporting domain can offer me.” This is particularly interesting given that Super-Elite athletes have been shown to demonstrate a greater need to succeed relative to Elite athletes (see Section 3.2.1). The data studied for the present section suggests that this need manifested itself in the sporting domain, but does not identify exactly why. One potential explanation could be the presence of the sport-related positive critical event earlier in their development (see Section 3.1.2).

3.3.2.1 Super-Elite group 3.3.2.1.1 Interpersonal relationships. O-SE-Coach suggested that O-SE was not disinterested in interpersonal relationships per se; rather, sport held relatively higher importance than interpersonal relationships and therefore the athlete lifestyle was maintained as a priority: O-SE loved the [opposite sex] and the [opposite sex] loved O-SE. If I wanted a personal best weightlifting record out of him, I walked a [very attractive member of the opposite sex] into the weightlifting room – it was guaranteed! So the opposite sex was obviously a motivation for O-SE. He always had [partners]. But he was magnificently controlled with things like parties and alcohol and all that sort of thing. Rarely did he ever come to training where he was tired because of his social life.

In the same way, J-SE said: I went out with [my partner] from [two years before the Olympics] and then we split up at the beginning of [the Olympic year]… but we stayed in touch and it was very much we knew we would get back together. But in the run up to [the Olympics] I did not want to be in a relationship, I did not want any distractions, I didn’t want to have any other commitments and responsibilities. I just needed to be focused, and so I was. Once [the Olympics] was over we got back together again and got married, but I was very single minded before [the Olympics] and I was like, “I don’t want to know”.

3.3.2.1.2 Money and alternate careers. C-SE moved from the sporting domain into an alternate career. However, he perceived that such career options, outside of sport, were “just not really fulfilling” for him and repositioned sport back to the top priority in his life:

75

76

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

I stopped after [the Olympics]. I thought “Okay, I’m done now, I gave everything, we didn’t get it.” That first experience was just [terrible]… To be perfectly honest and I hated it. Why did I go back [to the sport]? Well, I worked for 2 years [in an office] – I just needed to do something normal I suppose – and after a year and a bit I was just bored; I was like, “This is not for me. It’s great, and I’m really having a good time, but it’s just not really fulfilling anything” … So I left work and set off on my mission, on my own, but I was still a bit unsure. I thought, “Why should I get involved [again]? I’m not on the programme anymore” but I was like, “Sod it, I’m just going to do it” and I just turned up, rented a flat, and got involved … I thought “Right, now I’m going to have to start you know pulling my finger out. I’ve got 2 ½ years to go to the Games… I’ve just about got enough time, I’m going to do it”. So I spent 6 months making my plans and raising money … because I was off funding… I’d made the decision that this was what was going to happen, so I was going to give it everything.

However, it is interesting to note that C-SE-Coach felt that C-SE did allow “normal” life to hold a competing priority in his life, “My perspective with C-SE was that he was managing his [sporting] efforts and his energies in order that he could still have some level of a social persona and a professional persona.” F-SE described how he felt “bullied” after “continuously being told that, ‘You are weak’” by one particular coach. He decided, “I’m done… I wanted to leave [my sport].” F-SE went on to say: [The coach] had me in tears for 5 hours one day, literally I could not stop crying for 5 hours because we were knackered; we’d been training massively hard and he just said, “You are just not trying to make the change”. He could have said anything to me but telling me I wasn’t trying when I could not try with another atom of my body… He didn’t understand that he could break me by telling me that I wasn’t trying.

However, when F-SE was asked, “Why would you keep putting up with it?” F-SE indicated that there were no attractive alternatives for him in different domains: Because there is no other option. If you want to be in the Olympics, and if you want to have that moment when you put on the [GB kit], you have to put up with that… It isn’t stubbornness [on my part]… to hang on, it’s desperation; there’s nothing else.

This same sentiment was expressed by B-SE-Parent who said, “[His sport] has been his life, all he has ever done.” 3.3.2.1.3 A “normal” life. K-SE-Coach recognized that, in his pursuit to be the world’s best, K-SE was not interested in anything else: You have to be able to immerse yourself… and shut down pretty much all the things that could get in the way in life… in order to optimise what you can do in that very specific domain … He was absolutely living what it was to try and be… the world’s best in [his sport]… and very little else … There was definitely

3 Results

an early period where he completely immersed himself in it and just got better and better … [With world class funding] He didn’t go and buy a flash car. He didn’t buy a new stereo, he just lived a life that to me was the absolute epitome of what the purpose of lottery funding was for. I honestly can’t recall a moment where I sensed that his mission was anything other than to be the best… just being able to block out and just say, “I don’t need to do that, I don’t need to go clubbing, I don’t need to eat ice-cream” or whatever people believe is the necessary lifestyle. K-SE was as strong on that as anybody you’re likely to meet and – unlike probably some of his counterparts in the programme – when the ball was in the back of the net, he didn’t just go completely wild and get hammered and have this great blow-out. He just kept on going.

L-SE-Coach suggested that this very narrow life that Super-Elite athletes seem able to lead may be through choice, necessity, or just the type of person they came to be. L-SE-Coach recognized that sport must hold greater importance than competing influences “at least at the critical times”: For most of the time I worked with him as an athlete, he was either training, thinking, or sleeping, he didn’t do chilling out, he didn’t do lots of other stuff, he lived in a way that very few could … L-SE is like a number of people who have really made it in sport; they were able to live a sufficiently narrow life – through choice, necessity, or just the type of person they came to be – that meant that the distractions, at least at the critical times, were much less than other people had to manage. There’s a phrase that works so well around this: “The true price of success, here, is what you are prepared to give up in order to have it”. It’s not the pounds it’s actually what you are going to deny yourself in order to have that one thing. I think that narrowness and that willingness to [forego] is particularly true of L-SE’s career; and probably many other athletes of a similar [medal winning] profile.

D-SE-Parent said that for D-SE, “[Sport] was his means of achieving.” Indeed, following a significant positive career turning point (see Section 3.1.3) D-SE-Coach recalled: It was like, “Right, here we go. Now you’re in a position where you can apply all your talents and your energy and your enthusiasm and your personal skills in order to deliver a performance”. It was at that stage that he got the flick-ofthe-switch into ‘overdrive’ and all the other sacrifices – that become difficult when you don’t believe something is going to happen – just become really easy to make… I’m sure that D-SE was almost completely and utterly consumed by the [Olympic] project. I would argue that 8 hours a day from the minute he committed to [it] he worked on this [Olympic] campaign to the exclusion of everything else … I don’t think that the word ‘off’ entered his vocabulary; ever! D-SE would just say, “Well I need to do whatever it is that I need to do from a professional side of life and if there’s 10 minutes at the end of the day to do something else with [socialising, going out, etc.] then I’ll do it, but if there isn’t then I don’t care”.

77

78

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

Of A-SE, A-SE-Coach said: He wanted to do well and if it meant that, for argument’s sake, the nutritionist said, “Oh you shouldn’t eat chocolate” he didn’t eat chocolate; or whatever it may be … He was obsessive about it… if there was something that somebody said, “Don’t do this because…”, and he thought that was the case, he didn’t do it.

Finally, P-SE offered the opinion that: As an athlete you are so one dimensional, so focused on your performance and all the other stuff almost gets left behind, it’s almost like being frozen in time… Your interaction with people is defined by the fact that you are an athlete; I’m not going to drink a skin-full and whatever else. You’re taken out of the normal rhythm and routine of life… as an athlete it is different; it’s a kind of different category.

3.3.2.2 Elite group 3.3.2.2.1 Interpersonal relationships. Athlete M-E said: “I found [the athlete lifestyle] quite stressful and… I got to the point where I didn’t want to spend 250 days of the year away from home.” The interviewer (Author 4) asked: “So what would you say is the difference between you and someone who does want to spend 250 days away from home doing [sport]?” M-E replied: “I think [the] importance on how much they value their relationships, home life, and time with family [versus] the need to win, and the urge to prove themselves at that level.” 3.3.2.2.2 Money and alternate careers. D-E-Parent said, “He enjoyed working in [business] as much as he enjoyed training to get a gold medal.” Indeed, for D-E one attraction of “working in business” was that it could provide a good income, and financial security, in a way that he perceived sport could not. When asked what advice he would give to athletes coming through today D-E said: Have more than one string to your bow. There’s only a very few people like David Beckham that are ever going to make their fortune in sport. The whole approach of throwing all your eggs into one basket, for one day, is terrifying. You have only got to have a [health] issue, like I had, or your knee go and it’s not like you’re playing American football where you are signing an 80 million contract over 6 years. By and large you are living on a relatively low salary … I’m actually more motivated with work than I was with [my sport] because in many ways you get more endresults a lot quicker. Whereas with sport it just takes forever, not forever to get there but you still have got to do a lot of the… monotony… [In sport] you’ve got to put it in to get it out at the end of the day.

Athlete C-E said: A pivotal moment… I did a [University] course. In hindsight that was a good thing in terms of [my non-sporting career] but possibly not in terms of [the Olympics] because I might have been able to beat the [athlete] that went [to the games] … If I’d been clear in my planning of both Olympic cycles… [and] if I’d known where

3 Results

I could have got to [in sport]… I wouldn’t have chosen a four year [University] course… I had that dilemma in my head. I felt that my focus was not where it should have been… I think as soon as you have that loss of focus then you shouldn’t be trying to go to the Olympics.

L-E-Parent said, “[He is an] achiever… he wants to achieve, but [sport] wasn’t the only thing, the be-all end-all.” L-E-Coach confirmed this when he was asked, “L-E certainly seemed to have lucrative career options as alternatives. Do you think it was a contributor to why he didn’t achieve greater success?” L-E-Coach replied, “Oh without a shadow of a doubt. You can see people who know they can’t do anything else; there’s nothing else for them.” 3.3.2.2.3 A “normal” life. The results indicated that Super-Elite athletes were attracted to the simplicity, structure, and narrow focus of the athlete lifestyle. Conversely, Elite athletes appeared not to be attracted to such a narrow, athlete lifestyle in the same way. For example, D-E described how the athlete lifestyle made him “bored” and interestingly used the word “they” in his description of professional sports people: I should have been content with just [doing my sport] but it drove me insane. I was just bored out of mind half the time. The monotony of being a professional sports person is just mind blowing; how they do it is beyond me.

K-E-Coach contrasted K-E with a Super-Elite athlete he had worked with: People like K-E’s team mate, epitomises the extreme; he would – and he did – give up his entire life in [his home town], where he was based, to live in a flat in the rough end of [the city] next to the [training facilities] just because that is what he thinks is going to put him in the best possible place to win Olympic gold. You wouldn’t get that from a ‘lifestyle’ type athlete [like K-E]; it’s more about them and their life, for want of a better word … K-E [was] so ingrained into that lifestyle culture he couldn’t spell performance.

3.3.2.3 Exceptions H-SE was the only Super-Elite athlete for whom alternate opportunities in everyday life held a similar importance to sport. However, it is important to note that, unlike the Elite athletes, H-SE perceived this did not adversely affect his sporting performance but rather gave his life balance. Furthermore, H-SE mirrored the Super-Elite group on all other variables. Regarding the present variable, H-SE suggested balance in his life was more important to him than prioritizing sport over all other aspects of everyday life, “I did some of my best [sporting] years when I was having the most fun… I was partying harder that you can possibly imagine and I won everything, so I think having that balance in life is majorly important.” Three of the Elite athletes evidenced that sport held a greater relative attraction compared to potentially competing domains or opportunities. O-E mirrors the Elite athletes on all but the present variable and commitment to training

79

80

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

(see Section 3.2.3); a profile that, when considered as a whole, explains why he did not attain Super-Elite status. Regarding the present variable O-E said: My mum would always be strict with me and she pushed me the most. So if I wanted to miss a training session and go on a date with a [person of the opposite sex] she would say “Well can’t you go another day [then] you can still do your training session?” So from a very early age my mum has said to me [sport] is more important and so from the age of 13-14 meeting [a person of the opposite sex] I would say, “I do [my sport], it’s very important to me and I can’t meet you this day”. I would say that came from my mum really. My dad [was] very much the silent type really; he didn’t really [push me] … At competitions my mum was one of those mum’s that was very loud; whereas my dad would probably just be somewhere the other side of the [competition site] and just watching me.

P-E’s earlier results did not mirror the results of the other Elite athletes (see in Section 3.1.2.3 for further discussion). Indeed, P-E’s results mirror those of the Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables (Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.4). Regarding the present variable P-E-Parent said, “[Sport] became his whole life… if it wasn’t for injury he’d still be competing.” P-E simply said, “Sport was always the centre of my life.” Indeed, the rest of his interview backed up this succinct statement. A-E’s earlier profile also did not mirror the results of the Elite athletes. Indeed, A-E’s profile, across the variables in the present study, often does not mirror that of an Elite athlete (Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3). However, A-E was unable to maintain performance under pressure which likely prevented him attaining Super-Elite status (see Section 3.3.4.2 for discussion). Regarding the present variable A-E-Coach said: It was definitely a case of [sport] in the centre and everything else revolved around it and if that was getting in the way then it slipped off the edge and the [sport] was still there in the centre … I think his life was so narrow that he just didn’t see ordinary day things at all; they just passed him by… The impression I always had was that outside of [sport] there wasn’t much of a life.

A-E confirmed this saying: I sacrificed a lot of stuff from the early part of my life but I never wanted to say, “What if I had just stayed in that night and gone training the next day instead of going out and getting drunk?” … If friends had a party or… something like, “Do you want to come out tonight?”… I didn’t feel that I wanted to [go]. There wasn’t a case of, “Oh that might be nice to go out with them”. They would ask me and… I would just [say], “No, I’ve got training in the morning” and in the end they stopped asking me because they knew what the answer was going to be.

3.3.2.4 Summary Attaching a greater importance to sport than to alternate aspects of everyday life is a defining characteristic of Super-Elite athletes; a finding other biographical evidence supports. For example, Richards (2009), two-time Olympic gold medalist

3 Results

pole-vaulter, said, “One of the great lessons I’ve learned in athletics is that you’ve got to discipline your life. No matter how good you may be, you’ve got to be willing to cut out of your life those things that keep you from going to the top” (Richards, 2009, p. 74). Similarly, Travis Pastrana, the most successful competitor in the history of freestyle motocross, said, “The guys that are going to make it are the guys that will stop at nothing and sacrifice everything to be where they want to be” (DCshoesFilm, 2010). It is important to note that Super-Elite athletes reported being willing and comfortable with attributing greater importance to sport than alternative aspects of everyday life. Indeed, for most Super-Elite athletes alternative domains, or opportunities, outside of sport appeared to hold little attraction compared with sport. Conversely, for the Elite group alternative aspects of everyday life were perceived as attractive, relative to a narrowly focused, athlete lifestyle, and therefore became competing influences. This raises many interesting questions for future research with Super-Elite and Elite athletes. For example, it is possible that sport can provide, “a sort of symbolic refuge… that… allows us to forget the woes and turmoil of our daily existence” (Segrave, 2000, p. 61). This perhaps begs the question, to what extent does Super-Elite sport provide Super-Elite athletes with an “escape” from everyday life (Carver and Scheier, 1998)? Escaping difficulties in everyday life may be particularly salient for Super-Elite athletes given their experience of negative foundational critical events (see Section 3.1.2). However, by escaping from such memories, the impact of the negative event typically remains present – albeit at an unconscious level – and unresolved even into adult life (Miller, 1997). For such individuals, Super-Elite sport may provide a perceived “respite” (Woodman et al., 2010a, p. 350) or “relief” (Castanier et al., 2010, p. 482) from “the stress of playing social roles or adjusting their daily lives to routines, schedules, and relationships they experience as arbitrary and causing self-alienation” (Lester, 1983, p. 34). Clearly, it is too simplistic to distinguish sport and life as separate entities. Nonetheless, Super-Elite sport possesses certain characteristics that make it particularly suitable as an arena for “escape” from everyday life. Indeed, Segrave (2000) suggested that, “Sport can give universal significance to a myriad of seemingly inconsequential actions including those of our own [making]” (p. 66). Additionally, Segrave (2000) argued that for certain individuals sport offers participants a chance to “escape” the need to be respectable and restrained which links to the Super-Elite athletes’ willingness to display selfishness and ruthlessness (see Section 3.2.2). Thus, the Super-Elite athletes’ attraction to the structure, routine, and simplicity of the athlete lifestyle is an area that warrants further investigation.

3.3.3 Focus on mastery, outcome, and process There has been much debate in the literature with regards to the extent to which mastery or outcome goals are motivationally adaptive or maladaptive (e.g., Duda, 1992, 1997; Hardy, 1997, 1998; Hardy et al., 1996; Harwood et al., 2000) and how such goals relate to performance (e.g., Hardy et al., 1996; Kingston and Hardy, 1997). Outcome goals pertain specifically to winning, or performing better than other

81

82

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

people. They refer to the desired end result (e.g., a medal or squad selection). Consequently, the successful attainment of an outcome goal will, by definition, be influenced by other people, since the achievement of such goals is directly affected by how well others’ perform. Because outcome goals are not under the individual’s direct control it has been frequently argued that they are motivationally maladaptive (see, for example, Duda, 1992). Mastery goals pertain to some self-referenced or objective standard against which performance can be judged. Generally, being the best-you-can-be at a given task, or within a given performance, would not be considered a mastery goal because it does not specify a benchmark. However, in the present context, the authors would argue that that is exactly what the statement “being the best I can be” (which featured on multiple occasions in the present data) means to Elite athletes. This raises an important distinction between Elite performers and “normal” people. Elite performers are so intimately acquainted with their capabilities that they would know immediately if they had or had not performed the best that they could perform. The literature is entirely consistent on mastery goals even with Elite athletes. Since the individual has direct control over the achievement of mastery goals, most psychologists would argue that they provide a route to achieving desired outcome goals that can make a performer feel satisfied with a performance even if they do not win (see, for example, Duda, 1992; Hardy et al., 1996). However, in the case of Super-Elite athletes, it may be that their perfectionism gives a different meaning to the attainment of mastery and outcome goals; for Super-Elite athletes, perhaps winning is not actually enough and they have to beat everyone else and themselves. Results indicated that 14 of 16 Super-Elite groups, but only three of the Elite group, consistently reported both a mastery focus and an outcome focus with regards their sporting performances. Ten of 16 Elite athletes solely had an outcome focus. Specifically, beating other people was their primary aim and this was not accompanied by an express desire to be the best that they could be (i.e., a mastery focus). It is clear that an athlete does not attain Super-Elite status without wanting to beat other people, since to stand on the top step of the podium that is exactly what is required (Hardy, 1997). Indeed, this is supported by the fact that Super-Elite athletes expressed a desperate need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1). However, the present Super-Elite athletes demonstrated a consistent combination of both outcome and mastery focus. Indeed, several Super-Elite athletes indicated that, “winning in itself wasn’t actually enough” (G-SE), unless it was coupled with a performance equating to the best the athlete could be, which has clear links with the Super-Elite athletes’ perfectionism (see Section 3.2.3.2). It may be surprising that even a loss could be accepted and embraced, by Super-Elite athletes, if they felt “that’s as good as you can be then, you’ve got to be happy with that” (P-SE). Having a mastery and an outcome focus that was strongly linked to the process of training and performing meant that Super-Elite athletes left “no stone unturned” (F-SE) in their preparation. They recognized that, despite total preparation (see Section 3.3.4), “it may not make me win” (I-SE). However, “as long as I knew I had given my best shot that’s what gave me my satisfaction” (K-SE).

3 Results

The results indicated that at certain times – like in high-pressure competitions – Super-Elite athletes were able to focus solely on mastery, rather than outcome goals. Since mastery goals, as opposed to outcome goals, were within their direct control this appeared to be one effective way of reducing the perceived pressure of competition (see Section 3.3.4). Indeed, when it comes to the performance that counts, “all I can do is the best I can… because I can’t affect him over there” (L-SE). When Super-Elite athletes were faced with the question, “Why don’t you quit?” (K-SE), or “Why carry on after I’ve got two Olympic gold medals?” (I-SE), then the combination of a mastery and outcome focus appeared to influence their responses. The answer is clear: “I could be better than I was” (I-SE) or “[I] couldn’t let it go… if I knew I haven’t got the best out of myself” (K-SE). This is likely important in regard to the finding that Super-Elite athletes, relative to Elite athletes, derive increased motivation or focus as a consequence of negative significant career turning points (see Section 3.1.3). The Elite athletes’ position stands in stark contrast to that of the Super-Elite athlete when they are faced with the question, “Why don’t you quit?” If an athlete’s sole goal is to beat others (i.e., solely outcome focus) and this is perceived to be unlikely to be achieved (or indeed has been achieved), and there is no desperate need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1) but there are attractive alternative outside sport (see Section 3.3.2), then quitting sport becomes an attractive prospect (see Section 3.1.3.2).

3.3.3.1 Super-Elite group K-SE said: Obviously winning, or getting medals, was a big motivating factor,… [but] I couldn’t see the point in doing a race if you hadn’t given your best, even if it was only to get me 33rd in a race; as long as I knew I had given my best shot that’s what gave me my satisfaction. I have always had that willingness to be the best that I could be. Even in school work – even though I wasn’t overly bright and I wasn’t ever going to be top – I would always do my homework … At one point… I was living hand-to-mouth and… winters in [my home town] were tough to get through. Then I had a couple of bad injuries that held me back and mentally I questioned, “Why don’t you quit? Why don’t you just go home and get a job?” All I can say is the only thing that kept me going was just something inside me that wouldn’t let me [quit] because I knew I haven’t got the best out of myself. I set out, 10 years before, to be the best I could be and I knew I hadn’t done that and [so] I couldn’t, just couldn’t, let it go… I still didn’t know for certain that I was going to do it [win Olympic gold]… it was purely because it was my nature to get as far as I could.

N-SE-Coach was asked whether N-SE was motivated more by beating other people or being the best he could be. He said, “That’s a good question. I can’t differentiate, I think both, definitely both.” N-SE’s response, to the same question, mirrored that of the coach:

83

84

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

Both. I hate it when I hear of ‘well done badges’ at sports days. Why is it so bad to actually want to be the best? Maybe it’s a very British attitude. I want [my offspring] to say “I want to be the best”. I think it’s a really great attitude to have to actually want to try your hardest to be the best you can be in a sport [and] yeah, to beat other people. If you’re going for a job interview and you get picked out of 50 then you’ve beaten other people, so it’s actually okay to want to do that.

P-SE said, “When you become a world-record holder, and you’re the best ever, then your expectations are always to win because nobody can do it better than you.” However, speaking about prior to breaking the world-record P-SE said: But up until that point, my objective was not winning. I wanted to win but to be honest there were other [athletes] out there who were better than me so you can get [angry] all your life for coming second. But if that’s as good as you can be then, you’ve got to be happy with that. My mind was never focused around other people. In fact, the year before I got the world record I was at a competition and I saw [my competitor] [compete] and I said, “There is no way I can ever beat him, he’s incredible; just in a different orbit from me as an athlete”. The next year, he was looking at me saying, “I can’t believe what you’re doing”.

I-SE demonstrates he clearly wants to beat other people: “From the age of 16 onwards I was fully committed to, the end goal, of trying to be the best in the world.” However, I-SE also clearly demonstrates the best-you-can-be attitude when he says: Why carry on after I’ve got two [major championship] gold medals? It’s a very simple answer; I could be better than I was … People look at the Olympic Games [as] the ultimate, but it’s not the ultimate, it’s just a moment in time. So why did I carry on? To be the first [in my sport] in the world to win an Olympic gold medal [using an alternate method] was a draw and a different challenge … My [family member] said, “Why put your neck on the line of going to [another] Olympics and trying to win? You’re putting your neck out to be chopped off!” I never saw it from that point of view. I could be a better athlete but that better athlete may not make me win because somebody else might be improving better than me at the time. But I felt that I could take this sport on, I can take it into a different era.

F-SE had a clear mastery focus: I always want to be better than I was. I wanted to be quicker, faster, and stronger at the event and see where I’d get to… I could do about [certain training exercises] better than anyone else in the country or in the world. [In certain training exercises] I was just worse than world record [pace] so I was pretty good. But in [other training exercises], I was nowhere. So I needed to become more explosive; I wasn’t quick enough, which was my weakness… I might have got the Olympic gold medal but I wouldn’t be the best I could be, and for me, life is about, if you’re going to go for something a 100% you want the best you can be and leave no stone unturned… It was a hard sacrifice for me to look in one direction for so long and

3 Results

just [do my sport]. It took me a long time to be mature enough to do that. It took me until [age] 23-24 to say, “I’m going to do one sport to the best of my ability.”

However, F-SE also recognized his desire to beat-other-people: There was also an element in me [that] wanted to be the best in the squad. I used to get very frustrated that I wasn’t the best. I was the best at certain parts of the training but [athlete] is undoubtedly the best in the squad and I wanted to be better than him. That’s the person I am. So it was quite hard knowing you were second or third best and operating in that environment.

D-SE demonstrated an outcome focus from a young age: In the background then it’s just always been my thing to be the best at it. So I would never actually be doing it just for something to do, it would mean a lot to be the best. As I went on I put a huge amount of pressure on myself, all the time, to be the best at what I did and that has got me quite a long way.

Later in his career he learned how to link process goals to his ultimate outcome goal: I enjoyed… the end result, being on top of the podium, and knowing that actually I achieved my goal of being the best. [But] on the journey there are a whole stack of process goals, so I learnt from [my team mate] that we would hardly be on the podium at any major event but all he was worried about was the end goal and the whole 4 years was about preparing for this one goal. It was definitely a big eye opener that you don’t need to win everything and you don’t need to be beating everybody.

This “journey” is also described by D-SE-Parent: Sometimes he’d come in [from a competition] and I’d say, “Oh, that wasn’t so good, you only came 4th or 3rd…” But he’d say, “It doesn’t matter, I’m where I need to be… I know what I’ve got to do… and you don’t have to go out and win every single race… Yes, it’s nice but it’s not… absolutely imperative… it’s one race at a time… if you have a bad race, you’ve got to bin that and get onto the next one”.

D-SE further describes his mastery focus when speaking about why he kept coming back to the sport – following his medal-winning success – despite all the set-backs he experienced: There was just a belief that… potentially I haven’t reached my best I would say … My biggest drive is to be the best I can be and then I feel if I’ve done a good performance. I’m content with myself, I’m at ease with myself and I’m like “that’s all I can do”, in which case you don’t actually care about the end result because it’s a self-expectation or self-pressure, whatever [label] you want to put on it.

O-SE suggested he grew-up being, “one of the best kids in the country for [his] age group” and was used to being the best. However, beating other people did not

85

86

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

become his sole focus. Rather, he chose to work on the weaknesses that put him “at the backend of the group” because he knew it would be for his long-term good: I enjoyed training… [and] the environment of being with great people with similar motivations to me. As a competitive beast I will be competitive in training and thrive off other people, and compete to continue to raise my performance in training. I wasn’t the best at everything… and I spent part of the year being at the back of the group, but I knew that my biggest gains [would] come from, my weakest area, so if I can improve, then that will be a great benefit [in the] long-term. But from a mental point of view, there’s no positive aspects of going through 8 sessions and coming at the backend of the group when I was supposed to be a world champion.

Similarly, regarding the coping strategy he used to deal with the fact that he felt he was not competing in a drug-free sport, O-SE said, “I had to get on with it and just do what I possibly could to achieve the best I could get from myself and hopefully that was still good enough to get on the rostrum.” O-SE-Coach clearly explained that having a “be-the-best-you-can-be” attitude does not mean that an athlete does not also desperately want to beat other people: “O-SE could never lose. Never lose. No, no. Every race, he went to the line – he [performed] for his life.” L-SE suggested his aim was “…beating other people and being first.” However, to do that L-SE is clear about the importance of focusing on “being-the-best-hecan-be.” Results from L-SE demonstrated that one potential benefit of being able to focus on “being-the-best-you-can-be” at specific moments in time is that it gives the athlete on an internal locus of control and thus reduces anxiety. Regarding the moments immediately prior to his Olympic appearance, L-SE said: It was literally one of those moments [where] I said [to my coach], “What if I [perform badly] or what if [this situation happens]?” and I rambled on for a bit and I said, “All I can do is the best I can isn’t it?” and he just looked at me. That moment really gave me what I can only term as an anchoring thought. So [immediately pre-competition] I just thought, “I’m just going to be as good as I can be” and when I [finished] I looked at the board to see where it had got me. I wasn’t trying to win a gold medal. I was just trying to be the best that I could be, with what I had, because I can’t affect him over there; he might be better than me… He might have better equipment than me, he might have better luck; I don’t know, but all that is beyond my control. [L-SE-Coach] just got me to bring my focus back to what I could actually do. The dream, the gold medal, is the point of being here; that’s why we did all this. But I can only affect the goals; my choices, what equipment, what position, what strategy, what speed, all those things I can control and [L-SE-Coach] just made me bring it back to that … It’s a very, very intense battle place isn’t it? The new ‘war’ is sport. So [L-SE-Coach] gave me the fundamental tools when he taught me that it doesn’t matter if there are 62 million people watching live, it doesn’t matter how much

3 Results

money is involved, it doesn’t really matter if people are going to live or die, you still can only do the best you can, and hang on to that, and it’s quite liberating… It is all about beating other people and being first. But to cope with that I would force my attention to being the best that I can be. There is a subtle difference. I had to keep forcing my attention there. It doesn’t matter if it brings the win, afterwards we cross the line and see what happens. But ultimately thinking about the outcome doesn’t help and it never helped anyone thinking about the outcome unless it is going to make you make a decision to do this or not do this. That is the only way to think about the outcome. If you are already committed to doing it, it just gets in the way.

L-SE-Coach confirmed this attitude saying: He’s never struck me as someone who is particularly bothered about his peers unless they were beating him. He was interested in himself. I think it was, ‘What does this mean to me? How can this make a difference to me?’ And the rest can worry about what they’re doing.

G-SE-Parent talked about an outcome focus: “I don’t think he thinks about failure… [his attitude is] if it’s not gold why bother.” Whereas G-SE-Coach was very clear that G-SE had both an outcome and mastery focus: He was always absolutely completely driven to be the best that he could be; and I hope, now, he thinks he was. Winning in itself wasn’t actually enough. Sometimes a soft win was just completely ignored, it had to be challenging… Sometimes winning can be way off as good as you can be. You can win a race and there was no contest, so it doesn’t matter what you were like. Other times you can win and you have been the best you could possibly ever be and that can be great but other times you can lose and be the best you can be… Since he set off to be the best he could be, I hope that when he walked away from the Olympics – they [competed] very well in [that Olympics] – and that he was frustrated that he didn’t win, but he was able to retire with completion which I think is important… Obsessive compulsive disorder; it’s endemic. Everybody is just 24/7 and everybody wants to be the best of the best of the best and you’ve just got to go with that. You’ve got to understand it. Some people are only there to win and everything else is completely failure. Other people, like G-SE, are a little bit more rounded and he wanted to be the best he could be … He didn’t necessarily want to be the best, he wanted to be the best he could be. His best was important to him. Winning at all costs was not in his mind-set. Being the best he could be was; which is a difference I think … The reason people take drugs in sport is to win; it’s to be better than you are and therefore winning is more important than being the best you could be… It’s not true of all the [athletes of this sport] but it’s true of a lot of them; they just want to be the best they can be. Some of them are little too locked into just the winning thing… I’m sure he can lie on his bed and stare at the ceiling and say, “I got to be as good as I could be”.

87

88

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

G-SE confirmed this idea: I couldn’t live with saying that I came [nth] in [an Olympics] for the rest of my life. I felt really ashamed of that. Whereas, crossing the line in [next Olympics], I thought, “Shit, we didn’t win”. A lot of people expected me to be much more… depressed because we hadn’t won. But… interestingly, very quickly, [I thought], “OK I didn’t win but I can live with that and I can move on and I can hold my head up”.

3.3.3.2 Elite group Ten of 16 Elite athletes reported solely having an outcome focus. Specifically, beating other people was their primary aim and this was not accompanied by an express desire to be the best they could be (i.e., a mastery focus). For example, D-E said: I always struggled a bit with the mentality of being the best I can be. I think [my squad mate’s] psychology was always about being the best [he could be]… I was definitely much more about beating other people… It was to get medals, if you are on the podium you are in the right ball park… simple things like always wanting to be in front [whilst] bike riding and jogging and always wanting to do better than everyone around me with school results. Everything along the way [was] always about wanting to do it better than people around me… I can see what’s driving [athlete name] this [Olympic cycle] because it makes him the most medalled person; he’s an icon for British sport blah di blah, that I get. Some of them, it’s like their third Olympics and they still haven’t got a medal. I just can’t see why you would keep doing it, just to keep coming like 5th or 6th.

Similarly, O-E demonstrated a clear outcome focus: I worked so hard to beat my brother at basketball. My brother would wipe the floor with me and wipe the floor with pretty much everyone but I worked so hard because I just wanted to be able to beat him… I remember… in the middle of the [competitive] season I went round there to play about 8 pm and I just kept saying, “Yeah, just one more….” because I’m getting closer and closer. I didn’t beat him but I just couldn’t stop. I ended up going home about 1 o’clock. Even now when we play the PlayStation 3 I want to win and I hate losing.

J-E said: The first time that I ever won a running race, I just loved that feeling of winning and beating everybody else… I didn’t always win but with my [sport] especially, it was something that I loved; the fact that I could beat [others].

Additionally, as explored above, when J-E was at school he became “a bit of a celebrity in the school” because he was good at sport. He said, “I liked that… it was quite easy to be a big fish in a small pond.” Also, he recognized that he was “very outcome focused and it came from a young age that if I used to win things my mum would buy me presents.” Speaking of the impact of these things, he said, “I evolved to being very outcome focused when it came to winning.” While speaking about training, J-E said:

3 Results

I was very motivated [to train] for quite a few years but towards the end, less so. I was never first-in last-out but I would be in there and I would probably be knackered by the time I got out. I would generally, always try to beat the first [athlete] to the [first marker of performance] and be the first one to the [next marker of performance]. I would try to be faster than the others and it probably didn’t necessarily work like that but I was always like that, I always wanted to be the best. Whether I liked the praise I got from the coach or I craved attention a lot as a kid? I used to like it when I was champion at school. So yes, I just loved that feeling of winning and beating everybody else… I get immense satisfaction out of beating people.

L-E-Coach stated, “I think L-E was [motivated] to win. What I mean by that is, if he didn’t think he stood much of a chance of winning, I don’t think he would work hard, he’d just work enough to [complete the race].” L-E-Parent confirmed this, “There’s no point coming second… for him it was winning and he was good but wasn’t the best.” In direct contrast to the mastery focus I-SE reported (above) during competition, I-E said that, during competition, his focus was directly on his opponent(s): “I’ve got to beat these guys, I’ve got to beat these guys, they were next to us and so you just focused on them. Yeah, stay in front, stay in front.” I-E-Coach recognized how his “beat others” attitude could have a negative effect on I-E’s training: With I-E, if you did a piece of work with him [in training], at a prescribed rate [of distance or speed], he would always want to be first. The motivation wouldn’t necessarily be ‘to train correctly’ the motivation would be ‘to get over the line first’ and in many respects; whatever it took.

G-E’s focus, within training, was clear when he spoke of having an “advantage” over his training partners so he could “win” a cycling “race”, even though cycling was not his sport: We went on a cycling training camp… Having done quite a bit of cycling not that long before, I was quite fast in terms of the group. That’s a massive advantage, and the hierarchy completely changes when you’re on a cycling camp because it’s something different. [I thought] “Great, this is something I can be the best at!”. … So I was in one of the fastest cycling groups and I was determined to stay in that fastest cycling group. Even as everyone else caught up with the motion of cycling and definitely got a lot faster, I was determined that I was going to stay in this group. So I was probably working above what I should have been working at every day: really, really, long cycling trips.

One of the potential long-term consequences of having this sole focus is clear when G-E goes on to say: It seemed to be fine the first week but the second week… I just got more and more and more exhausted. Until on one test [not cycling but specific to his sport] that we had to do, I just physically couldn’t do it and was a crumbling mess at the end of it. Then I wasn’t allowed to do the bike race the next day which was the thing I really

89

90

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

wanted to do because I wanted to win that … The [coaches] made me back off because I wasn’t able to do [the full training volumes]. I wanted to be in the fastest group and I wanted to be cycling as fast as I could.

F-E suggested that at “club level… aged 10” he wanted to “win” everything. At school, F-E recalls two top awards for being the best [athlete] that “I didn’t win one year and I thought, ‘Seriously come on! What’s going on?’ Then being awarded, both of them the following season. I always wanted to be considered one of the best in the school-sports.” F-E said his sole motivation was: [I] wanted to be the best; to be able to say, “I’m the best in the world, the Olympic champion”. That is what gets you out of bed in the morning. I wanted to have my name in lights and I didn’t really care about what anybody else thought. That was what I had set out [toward] from a young age. From watching [a famous GB Olympian] [win at the Olympics] and thinking “Yeah I want some of that”.

3.3.3.3 Exceptions M-SE was the only Super-Elite athlete who did not report a conjoint mastery and outcome focus (another Super-Elite athlete was classified neutrally on the present variable). The potentially moderating factors, enabling M-SE to attain Super-Elite status despite this are discussed in Section 3.2.1.3. M-E was the only Elite athlete to exclusively demonstrate a mastery focus; albeit seemingly at a lower level then the Super-Elite group. This lower level may be related to his reported low level of need to succeed (see Section 3.2.1.2): I haven’t got a killer instinct to win, I don’t need to win. I’m not particularly too bothered about winning… I just wanted to do well and if I had done well, I was happy… the challenge of bettering myself… comes first before winning.

Three Elite athletes mirrored the Super-Elite athletes in so much that they demonstrated a consistent mastery and outcome focus with regard to their sport performances (one Elite athlete was classified neutrally on the present variable). A-E’s earlier results have already mirrored the results of the Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables (see Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3), and he did so again with regard to mastery and outcome focus, “A lot of [my motivation] has come from myself; trying to be the best and doing all it takes to get to the top. It is my selfdedication… I [was] actually just striving to be as good as I could be definitely.” Similarly, N-E said: I wanted to be the best I could be, that’s was definitely more me… I just wanted to be the best I could… Whenever I do anything I want to be the best… that’s why I trained so hard; I just wanted to be the best I could and win medals… So I would put pressure on myself to win medals really.

However, although N-E claimed to demonstrate both a mastery and outcome focus neither focus was pursued with obsession or perfectionism (see Section 3.2.3.2.2).

3 Results

Indeed, N-E did not demonstrate a high need to succeed (Section 3.2.1) or a high commitment to training (Section 3.3.1). First, this may account for why N-E did not attain Super-Elite status, and second it appears to somewhat contradict the statement above regarding a strong mastery focus. As with A-E, B-E’s earlier results mirrored those of the Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables (see Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, and 3.3.3). Similarly, with regard to mastery and outcome focus, B-E said, “For me the two [focuses] ended up converging because at some point the idea of being the best athlete I could be naturally went hand in hand with winning something pretty big.” K-E was the only Elite athlete for whom there was no clear evidence of a strong desire to be either the best he could be (mastery focus) or beat other people (outcome focus). This was consistent with K-E’s low levels of conscientiousness (see Section 3.2.3.1). With regards to his competitive nature growing up, K-E said of himself, “I was probably a little bit competitive… [I wanted] to win, but then if I didn’t win, after 5 min of [finishing] it was sort of forgotten about.” K-E-Coach suggested that, eventually in his career, K-E did not demonstrate either a mastery or outcome focus: By the time I got to work with K-E he wasn’t a winner, he played a support role [to the rest of the squad]… I don’t think I ever talked to him about winning Olympic medals … he had been immersed in this comfortable place for so long that [he’d] forgotten what performance looked like. They were athletes, don’t get me wrong. They trained full time, they were fit. They were good [at their sport] but there was not this desire to win or be the best [you can be].

3.3.3.4 Summary Super-Elite and Elite athletes were differentiated regarding their achievement focus. Elite athletes were generally focused exclusively on outcome. That is to say, results suggest Elite athletes focused on beating-other-people. This focus pervaded both training and competition. With specific regard to competition, this exclusive outcome focus seemed to negatively impact the Elite athletes’ ability to perform under pressure (see Section 3.3.4). With specific regard to training, Elite athletes sometimes reported confusing training with performance. The Elite athletes’ outcome focus appeared panoptic in so much as they often demonstrated a strong desire to beat other people regardless of whether it was an Olympic final, a normal squad training session, or simply a game in the garden with a sibling. Indeed, results suggest that most Elite athletes were so focused on beating other people in training that this may have led them to overtrain, ignore the goal of the session, focus more on other people than themselves, have a short term, rather than long term, training mind-set, and disconnect the process of training from the outcome. In contrast, Super-Elite athletes were focused on both outcome and mastery. Clearly, Super-Elite athletes demonstrated a strong desire to beat other people and win medals (outcome focus), but the results suggest that this was combined with a strong desire to be the best they could be (mastery focus). With specific regard to

91

92

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

competition, this dual focus seemed to positively impact the Super-Elite athletes’ ability to perform under pressure (see Section 3.3.4). With specific regard to training, Super-Elite athletes demonstrated a more long term, rather than short term, view of the purpose of training, and a strong link between the process and the outcome/ performance. That is to say, they did not always need to be at the top of their training cohort – constantly beating their peers – or indeed winning every single midseason competition. They knew that if they focused their training on being the best they could be then this would likely mean that ultimately they would beat other people when it counted. This mastery focus meant Super-Elite athletes often demonstrated total preparation for, and enhanced performance in, competition (see Section 3.3.4.1.2) by leaving no stone unturned. Other biographical evidence supports the present finding. For example, Jesse Owens, four-time Olympic gold medalist, demonstrated an outcome focus when he said, “If you don’t try to win… you might as well hold the Olympics in somebody’s back yard. The thrill of competing carries with it the thrill of a gold medal. One wants to win to prove himself the best” (Witt, 2012, p. 74). However, he also demonstrated a clear mastery focus “I wasn’t in Berlin to compete against any one athlete. The purpose of the Olympics, anyway, was to do your best… the only victory that counts is the one over yourself” (Gentry, 2005, p. 5). Owens also said, “The battles that count aren’t the ones for gold medals. The struggles within yourself – the invisible, inevitable battles inside all of us – that’s where it’s at” (Whitaker, 2011, p. 684). Similarly, Kieren Perkins, two-time Olympic Gold medalist swimmer, suggested his focus was to “be the best” (Lister, 2010). However, Perkins demonstrates his focus was more than simply beating other people, “To be your best has nothing to do with how many times you win or lose. It has no relation to where you finish in a race or whether you break world records… whatever the outcome, your greatest competition is not the person standing on the blocks next to you, but yourself” (Lister, 2010). Similarly, Ian Thorpe, five-time Olympic gold medalist swimmer, demonstrated a strong mastery focus, “For myself, losing is not coming second. It’s getting out of the water knowing you could have done better. For myself, I have won every race I’ve been in” (Hutchinson, 2002, p. 81). Again, Thorpe suggests, “When I go out and race, I’m not trying to beat opponents, I’m trying to beat what I have done… to beat myself, basically” (Hartley, 2012, p. 3). However, Thorpe goes on to acknowledge that despite displaying a strong mastery focus that it is his conjoint outcome focus that may externally appear the most prominent: “people find that hard to believe because we’ve had such a bias to always strive to win things” (Hartley, 2012, p. 3). In conclusion, Super-Elite athletes have a conjoint mastery and outcome focus whereas Elite athletes have a sole focus on outcome. Super-Elite athletes appear to understand better that the goal of becoming the best in the world is best achieved by focusing on what is needed to become the best they can be.

3.3.4 Performing under pressure The ability to perform under high levels of pressure is an obvious prerequisite for Super-Elite performers (for review, see Rees et al., 2016). The next section examined whether this ability distinguished Super-Elite athletes from Elite performers and, if it

3 Results

did, what underpinned the greater ability of Super-Elite athletes. The results indicate that 14 of 16 Super-Elite athletes, but only two of the Elite group, were able to maintain a high level of performance in a competitive environment perceived as highly stressful. The characteristics and processes that appear to underpin this difference between Super-Elite and Elite athletes are discussed below.

3.3.4.1 Super-Elite group Fourteen of 16 Super-Elite athletes were able to maintain a high level of performance in a competitive environment perceived as highly stressful. Interestingly, Super-Elite athletes demonstrated at least one, but sometimes both of, two separate processes by which they were able to do this: (1) a counterphobic attitude and (2) total preparation for competition. 3.3.4.1.1 Counterphobic attitude. Results suggest that 9 of 16 Super-Elite athletes thrive-on, or are drawn to, the intense emotions elicited in high-level competition. In the present study, the most commonly reported emotion experienced within highlevel competition was anxiety. Knowingly approaching intense negative emotions, such as anxiety, is counter to normal emotion regulation (Thompson, 1994). Since being drawn to anxiety-provoking situations is the opposite of a phobia, the term counterphobic is used to describe such an attitude (Fenichel, 1939). Fenichel (1939) proposed that individuals who have experienced negative foundational critical events in their primary developmental years – such as the SuperElite athletes in the present study – may experience internalized uncontrollable low-level anxiety in everyday life. Sport may enable such individuals to experience a specific, and externally derived, intense anxiety within the competition setting. For certain individuals, this anxiety may be an attractive alternative to the internal anxiety of everyday life, since externalized tangible threats are more readily interpreted as within the individual’s influence. Research suggests that individuals struggling to cope with the perceived internal emotional threats of daily life can compensate by becoming hypervigilant at regulating intense emotion in a domain that is felt to be externally threatening (Barlow et al., 2013; Gogarty and Williamson, 2009; Woodman et al., 2010a). Managing their targeted anxiety (fear) in the sporting domain, is likely particularly attractive to such individuals because they rarely have that opportunity with regard to their internalized more general anxiety in everyday life. Fenichel (1939) suggested that when an individual is “able to overcome without fear a situation which would formally have overwhelmed [him/her] with anxiety, [s/he] experiences a certain kind of pleasure… This pleasure is the basic component of the counter-phobic attitude” (p. 266). In other words seeking out, experiencing, and regulating emotion, in a sporting setting, provides the athlete with a reward and, potentially, a transferred sense that they are now better able to cope with the (internalized) anxieties of everyday life. Counterphobic processes are largely unconscious. As such, the data that evidence such an attitude is athletes speaking of approaching threats, and loving, coping, or thriving under the moments of intense pressure. The expressed idea is that although they may not like the anxiety, those moments of anxiety are the athlete’s moment to shine, they “belong” in those moments and high-level competition is their stage on

93

94

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

which they can demonstrate – to themselves and others – that they can deal with (their own internalized) intense emotion. Referring to moments of perceived extreme pressure, such as an Olympic final, N-SE said: I love those moments; that’s what sport’s about. I hated it when people used to say, “Oh I can’t perform under the pressure of knowing that winning is the difference between getting funding or not” I just remember thinking, “Dude that’s what sport is about; it’s about dealing with pressured situations… and coping under pressure” … I loved those [moments]… if it was [a very tight situation]… I would want to be there instead of someone else… I would get nervous but I used to relish it because I know that I used to like those situations and [my opponent] probably won’t like those situations. So I always had that knowledge that 9 times out of 10 I knew that I liked it more than everyone else. That whole gladiator thing; you’re on show and who can hold their nerve.

N-SE-Parent confirmed this: He thrived on it [pressure of the big occasion]… because that was his stage… he thrived on it and he felt the pressure and he felt nervous… but once he was out there it was “I’ve got a job to do here… I’ve got to win this”… he knew he belonged there…so it was a case of “come on let’s show what we can do”.

G-SE-Coach said: There’s [only a few] people alive in this country who know what it’s like to [be at] the start of an Olympic Games final, and it is blinking awful, because your whole life is flashing before you. Everything is down to this moment. Now some people come up for that moment, other people go [down] with that moment.

G-SE confirmed that he was one of those athletes who was able to “come up for that moment” only after the painful experience of not performing well under pressure. G-SE’s counterphobic attitude is clearly displayed in the following statement: The World Championships was a very significant performance. Up to that point I had always been slightly scared at competitions; I hadn’t got the balance right, I hadn’t sufficiently controlled the fear that you get with the excitement. Having the opportunity taken away, made me never-again fear a race because I suddenly [realised] how much I wanted to [race]. I didn’t realise [that], until I couldn’t race that semi-final. I really want to be here and I really want to do this race… Every start line thereafter I would feel as though there was a gun to my head and I would want to run away… But, I would always know that I don’t want to run away because I have done that… so I know I want to be here. I know the feeling of not being able to [compete to win] and that was very empowering… One of the kind of themes that [has] come out in our conversation is this tendency to intensity which I have that I think suited [my sport] well and suited the whole Olympic project… It made me feel alive! There is a great intensity about racing, racing

3 Results

more than the nerves perhaps but you can’t do one without the other. So, I wanted that and I enjoyed that and I liked other people who looked at you and thought ‘yes’.

G-SE reports what psychodynamic theorists would suggest is the “reward” of the counterphobic attitude, “It probably made me feel stronger to be under that pressure and come through.” G-SE goes on to say: The other things I like to do, even [in my work] I’ve ended up specialising in areas [involving intense emotion]; that’s the bit that’s most exciting… but it’s also the bit that’s… quite-full on in terms of human experiences and, again, [I’m] drawn to that… [Everyday life] is not exciting enough… There’s an indulgence almost when you are [doing your sport]… you don’t have to do the real-life stuff; you hide from that… It’s just that [everyday life] is mundane, not exciting.

F-SE also demonstrates a counterphobic attitude. He displayed this attitude from his childhood experiences of sport: “[I] still laugh when I think about it… early on… the week before a big [school sport] tournament my stomach would get nervous and that made me think I was ready to do it.” F-SE was participating in one sport where he “competed weekly.” However, he describes how it did not allow him to seek out and control intense emotion; a foundational principle of counterphobia: It became very mundane and very routine and I didn’t get particularly nervous. You can almost know where you are going to finish before the event happens. I found it very hard to ‘get up’ and really create a peak performance. Whereas the fantastic thing about [my sport] in particular is you compete so infrequently that that peak-performance is something that you really prepared for in it … I love being [nervous]. People laugh at me because I get so nervous I would go to the toilet a thousand times before an event. That was part of it for me. It is something I really, really enjoyed… I feel very alive [during competition] although I wish I was dead during those [mundane] times [in everyday life]. I absolutely love the start line; really enjoyed competing. I hated the process of that nervous feeling although I still love it… I was not like, “This is great.” It was what I knew I needed to go through. I was probably addicted to that cycle. I am addicted. Being out of my comfort zone and trying new things, I really do enjoy that and I think the more you do it the more you can see what is possible if you do it.

Consequently, “finding” a sport that suited his counterphobic attitude was likely a key event for F-SE. 3.3.4.1.2 Total preparation. Nine of 16 Super-Elite athletes reported that having a perceived sense of total preparation was what enabled them to maintain a high level of performance under a high level of perceived competitive pressure. This attitude seemed to be typified by athletes who recognized that they cannot compete free from fear. Rather, fear – being an ever present – had the potential to overwhelm them and thus destroy their performance. Since experiencing such a “loss” would be such a devastating thought (see Section 3.2.1) these Super-Elite athletes could not risk fear

95

96

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

overwhelming them and negatively impacting their performance. As such, they ensured that they arrived at the start line having undergone total preparation; or to use a phrase that occurred repeatedly in the Super-Elite interviews having “ticked all the boxes.” Specifically, the Super-Elite athletes perceived they had done all the requisite training sessions, they had “left no stone unturned” in their preparation, and they could not have done any more to be better prepared for this high-pressure moment. The mastery focus that Super-Elite athlete’s also exhibit (see Section 3.3.3), together with their obsessiveness and perfectionism (see Section 3.2.3.2.1), are clearly linked to this process. By focusing on their own performance, and not on the performance of their competitors, Super-Elite athletes were able to know that they had done all that they could to be the best that they could be; then they simply had to deliver that performance. If that yields a win, great. If not, then so-be-it; at least they would know they could not have done any more. In this way, Super-Elite athletes seemed able to maintain a high level of performance without experiencing the crippling effects of uncontrolled anxiety. It is noteworthy that three Super-Elite athletes evidenced both the counterphobic attitude and a desire to tick all the boxes demonstrating these two processes can be complementary. J-SE suggested that he did not innately have high levels of confidence that would allow him to thrive under pressure situations. Although he was ultimately able to cope with, and perform well in, high-pressure situations the requisite confidence came from knowing he had done all the necessary preparation: It’s ticking those boxes… That gives you the confidence to know that, come competition, you’ve done the training and you should be able to go out there and do it. I am the last person that if I had a bit of a cold or something… would not go [training]; I would just keep on going. I wouldn’t like to start missing [training] and feeling like I was getting behind… I think having a lot of self-belief and selfconfidence sometimes isn’t something that is just [innately] there beforehand, it comes through what you do, through training, and through knowing that you’ve done your training programme.

Although A-SE suggested he was confident in competitions, it was clear that this confidence was dependent on perceiving he totally prepared regarding the upcoming high-pressure situation: I would always [think], “You’ve done everything right, you’ve done every training session, you can’t do anymore”. It was all about ticking the box, doing the sessions, it’s in the bank, it’s done. Then I was a really confident… I have to tick all the boxes and stand [at the start] and know that I’d done all those training sessions and I hadn’t missed one. These things were a really important part to it; so no excuses… If I’m going to do something I have to make sure that I’ve got all the preparation and everything in place and I am a real ticked off a box sort of person still now.

A-SE-Parent confirmed that this level of preparation was actually essential for A-SE to perform optimally:

3 Results

The pressure… is the bit that can mess [the performance] up… not the training, not the strength work, not the endurance work, not the nutrition, it’s that bit, that last bit in the last 10 minutes… where you control it and have to almost give in to it and let the process take over… and that’s why the box ticker, comes into their own because they’ve got to the line having ticked the box… and that’s why A-SE needed to tick boxes.

A-SE-Parent went on to speak about his understanding of the fine line between performing under pressure and cracking under pressure: He was very intense… in terms of getting the outcome. So he wouldn’t dare leave anything unturned. He would explore absolutely every angle there was. I think it’s something that’s there in all elite performers… I see young kids that probably have got as good a talent as A-SE but their ability to overcomplicate things is huge… some of them… self-sabotage themselves… when they’ve probably got more physical talent than A-SE ever had… it’s such a fine, fine, line from getting it right and getting it disastrously wrong… when you get up to that top level, it’s really, really difficult. You know when A-SE was competing, against [a specific rival athlete]… in both the Olympics and the World Championships… [the rival athlete] should have won both those races, by a long, long, way… but he didn’t… because he didn’t believe he could beat A-SE… A-SE had done something to get to him… and A-SE just knew, deep down inside… he’ll crack, he’ll crack.

E-SE recognized that his confidence was much higher and his ability to not “freak out” in high-pressure situation was much greater, when he won his first Olympic medal than during his previous nonmedal-winning Olympic appearances. Since this ability (to thrive in high-pressure situations) was absent during his first two Olympic appearances, but present during his next Olympic appearance, it would suggest – as E-SE identified – that thriving in perceived high-pressure situations was more due to E-SEs preparation than an innate ability to deal with intense emotion: After [my non-medal winning appearances at the Olympics] I was a different competitor… I had confidence that I suddenly wouldn’t freak out. I had confidence in my preparation as well, which is crucial. In [my medal winning appearance at the Olympics], I could watch people fall by the way side even before we had hit that start and I knew they were beaten because I had just seen them make mistakes in their preparation. I remember going into [my medal winning Olympics], we were pretty well prepared, and the confidence [came] from the preparation.

The previous examples elucidate instances of athletes thriving under pressure due to a sense of preparedness. N-SE-Coach clearly articulates the converse situation; if N-SE felt unprepared he found it impossible to thrive under high-pressure situations: If he knew that something was short, or there was an area that was lacking, or there was one little ingredient that hadn’t enough attention that could kill him. That could weigh him down completely. So it was a big part of my role to make

97

98

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

sure that, in his mind, we rolled up at any [competition] with all the boxes ticked and crossed off and we had got them under the belt and we were ready. If we didn’t have that, then that could become an issue… I think he could fall apart under pressure if he hadn’t got total preparation. If he was really aware of some inefficiencies or something that wasn’t ready he got in a flap and then the pressure hit him… I hadn’t thought of it like that before but it is ticking boxes and that’s definitely the way for him. I knew we had to get everything spot on and… it was hard but when he was fully prepared… then “Look out world, here I come!”

F-SE also recognized the importance of having all the “boxes ticked” and feeling fully prepared even for athletes who are drawn to intense emotion. Prior to his medal-winning Olympic performance F-SE suggested: There was fear [in the qualifiers] that I wasn’t keyed up enough and not nervous [enough]… but we won. We had 2 days before the final and the coach took us to watch [our main competitors]. I remember watching and thinking, “Bloody hell they look amazing”. They were [technically better] than us and I just remember thinking, “What are they going to do in the finals?” They looked like they had another gear and I knew [my partner] and I probably didn’t and so we knew then we had to do something massively special in the final to make sure we did get that medal and we’d practiced it in the [qualifiers] and it worked well. There was a mixture of fear and excitement then because I knew we had a really strong race plan. I knew we could put [together] the best [performance]… [On the day of the final] It was terrifying and the minutes went horribly slowly and I felt sick. We had done all that work; no matter how hard it was and how horrible you felt we’ve done everything. Once I got onto the warm up the nerves were almost gone and just getting on with the job and then once you’re in the race you do what you’ve been trained to do… [Afterwards]… such relief. Such a release; it’s quietness in your brain… When I won it was silence. The gremlin shut up for a while, until the next one.

There are strong elements of counterphobia in this quote as well as total preparation. Theoretically, counterphobia is a cycle. If the unconscious, low level, anxiety is not dealt with then the relief (silence) that the athlete experiences as a result of their counterphobic engagement is only temporary. Sooner or later the unconscious, low level, gnawing, anxiety (the gremlin) will return, so the athlete must repeat the counterphobic cycle. The active approach toward, and subsequent regulation of, intense emotion needs to be repeated to continually provide the athlete with a renewed sense of control over emotion in their life generally. Thus, the counterphobic athlete must repeat the counterphobia cycle as F-SE goes on to describe: I got my Olympic medal and having got it, it was really hard to stop because it was fantastic and I wanted more and I wanted a shinier one… I had so much experience and I knew my body so well [and] how to push myself. I felt there were elements of the training program that weren’t suiting me anymore and

3 Results

I wanted to change it and that’s why I tried [a different event]. Also, I wanted to be so scared again that I couldn’t breathe, because it is scary [in the new event].

C-SE knew that they had “done everything we said we were going to do” in their preparation and thus was able to deliver a high-level performance under pressure; he was also able transfer this feeling to his team mates. It is interesting to note that, unlike the other Super-Elite data above, C-SE’s data displays an elevated degree of narcissism which appears advantageous, in this specific instance, in dealing with the perceived pressure of high-level competition (Roberts et al., 2013; Wallace and Baumeister, 2002). C-SE-Coach said: I didn’t see the crucial element that C-SE would play [until] the World Championships… [Their main rival] was absolutely dominating the landscape… really formidable… Massive, massive tension whenever they were walking past each other in the [competition venue], and oodles and oodles of pressure on both [teams]… [C-SE’s main rival] was basking in the glory of the media whereas [C-SE’s team] were quietly confident in their results and their performances and the fact that basically every time they [competed] against [their main rivals] they beat them and were beating most others… [It] was probably the most tense event of the whole [Olympic cycle]. The tension was absolutely crackling, there’s no words to describe it… just absolute hostility and tension created between the 2 teams. It was phenomenal; hairs on the back of the neck stuff, you know. Everything that you do counts at that stage and C-SE just slowly but surely led, led, led, led, led. His belief, his quiet confidence and his [attitude of], “We’re the best, we’ve done everything we said we were going to do. We’re the best team, we’ve got the best coach. Of course we’re going to win!” and not actually saying any of those words but just walking it, living it… That gave so much power to all of us, me included, but it especially gave power to [his team mate] because [his team mate] was thinking, “I’ve [trained] with you for 4 years and I know that you’re only ordinary and yet look at you! You just look like you’re invincible! You just look like no one is going to take you. If you can feel like that why can’t I?”… Anyway, they won because of C-SE; because of his belief and absolute unshakeable confidence that he was going to win and that he was going to deliver. He was the most solid when it came to the performances [under extreme pressure]… Without C-SE there they wouldn’t have won that event. No question about it. If it would have been anyone else in the world, they wouldn’t have won that event. Even with the best [athlete], even with somebody who had more [technical] skill and all the rest of it. They wouldn’t have won that event without C-SE’s quiet, assured confidence [pause]; arrogance I think you would probably call it.

3.3.4.2 Elite group Twelve of 16 Elite athletes could not maintain high levels of performance under high pressure. B-E-Parent suggested a lack of pressure within the club environment was central to his early sporting success. Of B-E’s first club, B-E-Parent says, “The club

99

100

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

was very unpressured… it wasn’t cut throat and… lack of pressure was a big thing.” Indeed, B-E’s subsequent choice of University was very much influenced by access to a club that could continue to provide an unpressurised and supportive environment. Interestingly, although B-E mirrored Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables (Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.3.3), it may well be that his apparent inability to perform under intense pressure was a key moderating influence in his ultimate levels of achievement. B-E suggested: I was a big thinker; I always have been. I think about a lot of big things like life and, what does this mean and what happened here. I think too much in a way and, especially from a young age, I used to think myself into a bit of a tizz about [competing] and I would get very nervous. I remember having serious problems with nerves and it wasn’t very enjoyable. I was so nervous before every race, and to be honest that never really went away… I remember never really enjoying going [to competitions]. When I was very young, I hated it… because I was always worried that I didn’t really fit in… I always felt a bit out of my comfort zone… I feel like everyone is laughing at me… and to be honest I never really got over that… I didn’t love going [to competitions] even when I was a senior… A big part of trying to be a better [athlete] was trying to figure out how to just let myself do it and not get all constrained by all these worries… [I’d be] standing [at the start], feeling all those nerves that I feel, and having to put up with thinking, “What if I don’t [perform] as [well] as I wanted to? What if I get beaten?”… I would always rise to the occasion in smaller meets, so British Championships for example, and I would beat everyone by miles because I had so much confidence. I would still be really nervous but overall… I knew I was going to win, and because of that I was just really confident… If I’m honest I don’t think I’ve ever done a best time in a major international event… which I think is telling… I couldn’t feel that I could just embrace [the Olympics], and sink my teeth into it, in the same way that I can with all the ones where I feel a bit more at home and I feel a bit more in control of the situation basically because I know all my competitors… If the first time [you face an opponent] is in the Olympic finals you don’t know their strengths and weaknesses; you think they are somebody invincible.

E-E suggested, “The most enjoyable times for me were preparing for events and training. I didn’t really enjoy the stress of the event.” E-E produced his best performances under conditions of lower, rather than higher, pressure. Once, E-E was required to fill-in for an injured athlete and, as such, felt little expectation regarding his ultimate performance as he was there simply “to help out”: I went – to help out – it was exactly the same event that I had done before but I did so much better than I had done before because there wasn’t the pressure. Having that pressure off, I remember really enjoying that event and doing much better. So I think that although I was quite competitive I found it pretty stressful going to the [perceived high-pressure] events.

M-E believed that, for him, his inability to thrive under pressure was innate:

3 Results

By nature I am going to be nervous [about] the moment [of], “Can I deliver this performance I have trained for, for so long?” I hated [that feeling]. It was horrible, I would have done anything to get away from it at the time but it was unavoidable… I used to tell myself, “This race isn’t important” just to relieve the pressure. I am far more fluid and less rigid when I don’t put pressure on a performance. I cope much better not under pressure and I don’t cope well under pressure at all.

Despite having a bit of a reputation for inability to perform under pressure, N-E suggested that he did not really know if he could or could not handle the highpressure occasions: I had a few key [competitions] that were very close that I lost, so I would say that people would classify me as bit of a ‘bottler’ yeah. On the other hand, there were close [competitions] that I needed to win and I won. So I don’t really know if I’m honest… When there were no expectations of me, I did very well. When people began to expect of me, that’s when I would sometimes falter. So would I perform well under pressure? My coach might be a better person to speak to!

As N-E suggested, N-E-Coach had a much clearer understanding about his athlete’s ability to thrive in high-pressure situations: N-E struggled under pressure. He was very sensitive, vulnerable, and scared that actually he wasn’t good enough; lacking in that self-confidence under pressure. He could deliver under pressure, but no way would you rely on him. All his skillsets he’d struggle with under pressure… when somebody’s bearing down at you, they would waver… If I could chose N-E or [another athlete who is a Super-Elite athlete in the present study] to [perform] in a pressure situation, [the other athlete] would be 100 times ahead of N-E… In a preparation event N-E beat some of the best [opponents] in the world; but it didn’t mean anything, it wasn’t when it really mattered. They won [the competition] but it was a completely relaxed [competition]. He relaxed and performed… and won. No-way I believe that could have happened in [an important] competition because he doesn’t have that real mindset to win. I might be being unfair, I don’t know, but I don’t believe it.

Unlike F-SE, who as reported above, suggested he “felt sick” with nerves prior to major competitions and yet experienced it as “…something I really, really enjoyed,” G-E did not enjoy the nervous feelings typically associated with precompetition pressure: Some people really love [being in high-pressure competitive situations] and I definitely wasn’t one of them. It was only the build-up [to competitions] that I absolutely hated … I probably preferred… the training or the feeling after training, the endorphins that you get after training rather than the competition. I’d definitely feel physically sick every time I’d have to compete and I didn’t like that; that’s something I haven’t missed at all. I do miss [competing], but the type of [competing] I loved was [competing with other squad members in training] when it didn’t matter.

101

102

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

G-E-Parent confirmed this saying, “He perseveres at things, doesn’t give up, he’s determined, dedicated – but a bit of a ‘panicker’.” H-E-Coach suggested his athlete “had all the capabilities and the attributes of being by far the best in the world.” However, H-E-Coach went on to say: Every now and again, this situation would arise where he either got a fear-ofwinning or phantom-illnesses – they might have been phantom illnesses but they really prevented him from doing anything meaningful athletically – it did write him off. Yet the minute the pressure was over, he would revert back and be as happy, normal, himself.

H-E-Coach described his first experience of this decline in performance in highpressure situations: H-E got to the [competition], and was extraordinarily ill. He’s green; he looked absolutely awful. He was retching, he couldn’t even walk, and he had to have people hold him up! So I had to get [the doctor] to come and look at him and [the doctor] said, “His pulse was normal, temperature’s normal. I can’t find anything wrong with him”… H-E insisted he couldn’t compete [and didn’t]. Within an hour of the [event finishing], H-E was up chatting to all the [team members of the opposite sex], eating chocolate cake without a care in the world and I thought, “Oh ****!”

H-E-Coach describes how this did not happen under low pressure conditions but continued to happen under high-pressure conditions. At one event: He won all the trials, he won all the [early rounds], and there are any number of incidences I can relate where we thought, “Oh no, here it comes!” This mist came over him, his eyes stick out and he would plummet into this, not necessarily illness, but a complete drop off in performance. For all that, he never ever got past a semifinal … One time it was a first-to-the-final [event] so you got the feeling that he hadn’t remembered that he didn’t have a semi-final. So he blitzed the first round and then blitzed the final and I said, “What’s the problem?” At the pre-Olympic training camp we ruled the roost; we were beating everybody. [The performance director] said, “Ohhh, I’ve never seen such a performance!”… but [the performance director’s] fear was, that we would get to the semi’s and it would happen again. [At major events] you live in fear of it, you’re watching for it all the time… In the end… [the performance director] said, “Why are we investing time and money on this [athlete] if he is going to keep doing that every time there’s a pressure situation?”… In the first round he [competed] absolutely brilliantly and beat the reigning world champion. [A coach from a different nation], who was a guru coach, a legendary figure in [the sport] and knows a thing or two about [the sport], said: “Oh, you’ve got a future World Champion…” I said, “Yeah? Hmmm, we’ll see.” and in the next round, H-E stopped at halfway; literally he stopped. He was leading the race, leading the world and he stopped, and

3 Results

they all went by him… I said, “What happened?” He said, “Oh, I got to [halfway] and it was all going round and then suddenly I saw stars and all these lights going off in my head”.

J-E-Coach described an athlete who never demonstrated the confidence that might have allowed him to maintain high-level performances under pressure: He always under rated himself. In this period, the British squad was the number 1 squad in the world. So, when you have training partners who are World Champion, European Champion, Team Champion or Olympic Champion around you, you really have to raise your game if you want to beat them. I’m not debating that it was a challenge but he never said to himself, “I can beat them”… You’re not competing [against] anybody else, you have to beat your own nerves, you have to control your mind, you have to have the strength that you don’t doubt. Now this is what the [the Super-Elite athlete I coached] managed, overcame and selfregulated. [The Super-Elite athlete] accepted, “I need a change, I’m going with it”. It doesn’t matter what you are doing, J-E would not open the door for hope. There was always that, “Yeah, but I’m not good at it.”

3.3.4.3 Exceptions B-SE was the only Super-Elite athlete who was not classified as reporting a consistent ability to deliver high-level performances under perceived high-pressure competitive situations. He said, “I think for myself I am quite a big worrier, it’s just me. I worry about the stupid little things that are really insignificant.” One specific coach was able to help B-SE with this difficulty and thus facilitate high-level performances under pressure, which enabled B-SE to attain Super-Elite status, but generally B-SE struggled to perform under pressure. B-SE said: Becoming World Champion – going from nobody to suddenly everyone knows who you are… before an Olympic year [meant] everyone’s hopes and dreams were suddenly on my shoulders. It was just extra pressure from outside [and] from yourself without really realising it. [The Olympic year] was probably the best training year that I’ve ever had. Everything was better, the [performances in training] were [better], so everything was going in the right direction but mentally I was shot. I couldn’t focus. I just couldn’t do anything I wanted to do. It became a real big deal because I was over-thinking everything. Before a couple of competitions I was having panic attacks, I couldn’t physically [compete] because it was a full on panic attack. It was probably a fear of failing because of all the pressure and from being [World Champion].

It is important to note that B-SE attained Super-Elite status relatively early in his career and thus prior to this career turning point. Results suggest that B-SE-Coach believed B-SE had the potential to achieve even greater competitive successes than were actually realized in his career. An inability to deal with perceived competitive

103

104

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

pressure seems to have moderated this potential and triggered a significant career turning point away from sport (see Section 3.1.3). F-E’s data mirrored the data of the Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables, including the present variable (see Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, and 3.3.4). Despite this, results suggest that the critical determining factor, that may have prevented F-E becoming a Super-Elite athlete, was his relationship with his coaches. Specifically, F-E perceived that at key moments in his career, his coaches did not meet his needs for emotional support and protection from overtraining (see Barlow et al., in preparation for full discussion). Regarding performing under pressure, F-E said: I always perform better at an international [competition], rather than internal domestic [competitions]… I can always be proud and say, as an individual [in highpressure situations], I definitely performed better than had been expected of me… [My squad mate] is the strongest, the most phenomenal athlete I’ve ever had the opportunity to work with and we achieved results because of his amazing power. I think what I brought to the [table] was more of the technical skill and maybe a bit more hardness and robustness in attitude and how to deal with the knocks and just go, “You know what? You might have a bad [moment in the competition] but who [cares]? [I’ll focus on the] next [stage]” kind of attitude. I don’t think [my squad mate] had that.

F-E-Coach confirmed this saying, “He’d always step up. With [his squad mate] you would never know what you were going to get, but with F-E, you knew he would step up; [He’s] a little bit more robust than he lets on.” P-E’s data also mirrored that of the Super-Elite athletes on multiple variables, including the present one (Sections 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.4). The factors that appeared to have prevented P-E attaining Super-Elite status are discussed in Section 3.1.2.3. Regarding the present variable P-E suggested he “thrived” in high-pressure situations. Asked how he was able to do this when others around him were not he said: I was able – when I was under pressure – to [turn it] into a positive and use that to beat people and then they feared me. I don’t know if they feared me before then but I knew that they feared me afterwards because they would mention that: “He’s here today [at the competition]. We’ve had it.”

3.3.4.4 Summary Super-Elite athletes were able to maintain a high level of performance within highpressure competitive situations to a degree that Elite athletes were not. Super-Elite athletes were able to do this by demonstrating either or both of a counterphobic attitude or total preparation. The difference between Super-Elite and Elite athletes in total preparation is perhaps unsurprising given the differences between them on: Need to succeed (Section 3.2.1); Obsessiveness and Perfectionism (Section 3.2.3); and the relative

3 Results

importance of sport (Section 3.3.2). Equally, since counterphobia “may really be regarded as a never-ending attempt at the belated conquest of an unmastered infantile anxiety” (Fenichel, 1939, p. 267) it is unsurprising that this is associated with SuperElite athletes who have undergone negative foundational critical events (see Section 3.1.2). It is important to note that the results suggest that Super-Elite athletes do not innately and consistently demonstrate unshakable self-belief. Rather, through counterphobic processes and total preparation Super-Elite athletes are able to control their emotions (such as anxiety and fear) and maintain high levels of performance in highpressure situations. This finding stands opposed to the lay perspective or typical media standpoint that Super-Elite athletes are always highly confident and do not experience anxiety in the face of high-competitive pressures. Indeed, other biographical quotes – taken out of context – can support the idea that Super-Elite athletes do not experience the emotion of high-pressure competition. For example, Johnson (1996), four-time gold medalist sprinter, said, “Pressure… is nothing more than the shadow of great opportunity” (p. 180). However, the total preparation that Johnson reported prior to allowing himself to confront high-pressure situations suggests that his quote could just as easily be part of a much longer athletic truth; “With total preparation, pressure is nothing more that the shadow of great opportunity but, without total preparation, pressure is the shadow of great failure.” Indeed, the language that Super-Elite athletes use in the present study could be misinterpreted, when taken out of context, as suggesting they do indeed consistently display unshakable self-belief. For example, K-SE said his advice to other athletes would be “Anything is possible.” However, he then qualified this statement speaking of both a mastery focus (see Section 3.3.3) and total preparation, “You can’t blame anyone else. You are totally responsible for your results… If you 100% put in the workload and you don’t leave any stone unturned, then basically you will get out what you put in.” Furthermore, the external picture that athletes attempt to paint is clearly not always representative of the emotional battles within. For example, C-SE said, “Fundamentally, sport is all about lying. You never tell the truth because you are always competing with people and you don’t want them to know [how you actually] feel.” J-SE reported that for him “having a lot of self-belief and self-confidence sometimes isn’t something that is just [innately] there” rather, the evidence above suggests it comes through total preparation. However, his external demeanor may have suggested that he had these qualities innately: You go out there and you [perform] like you are already the Olympic champion. Assuming that role makes you stand that little bit taller, put your head up that little bit higher, actually make you that little bit better, and try that little bit harder each time. That was another key thing which I took into training; just act like how an Olympic champion would act in this situation. It’s that positive thinking.

Similarly, A-SE reported he had “complete self-belief and putting [that confidence] in the right place in my head and working on that was just enormous” in contributing

105

106

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

to his success. Again, however, this “complete self-belief” was as a consequence of “ticking the box, doing the sessions, it’s in the bank, it’s done. Then I was a really confident.” Other biographical evidence supports the present findings. For example, speaking of total preparation, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, two-time Heptathlon Olympic gold medalist and Long jump Olympic gold medalist, said: Achieving success… in athletics has less to do with wins and losses than it does with learning how to prepare yourself so that at the end of the day… you know that there was nothing more you could have done to reach your ultimate goal. Flegel (2008, p. 29).

4 GENERAL DISCUSSION The present chapter reports the psychosocial findings from a very large multidisciplinary study of commonalities and discriminators between Super-Elite and Elite athletes. Both Elite and Super-Elite athletes shared a common family value of a culture of striving. This culture of striving manifested itself in one or more of four different ways: (1) an environment, and expectation, of achievement; (2) a strong work ethic; (3) a highly competitive home environment; and (4) high value on mastery and outcome. In line with this shared developmental experience, Elite and Super-Elite athletes also displayed similar levels of conscientiousness and commitment training. Super-Elite and Elite athletes could be discriminated by the experience of a foundational negative critical life event that occurred in close temporal proximity to a positive sport-related event. They could also be discriminated by the experience of a (mid-career) significant turning point that increased the focus, motivation, or determination of Super-Elite athletes but decreased the focus, motivation, or determination of Elite athletes. In Sections 3.2 and 3.3, further discriminators emerged. In Section 3.2, it was seen that Super-Elite athletes demonstrated a higher need to succeed, more selfishness and ruthlessness with regard to their engagement with sport, and higher levels of obsessiveness and perfectionism with regard to sport. In Section 3.3, sport held relatively more importance than other aspects of life for Super-Elite athletes but not Elite athletes; Super-Elite athletes had a dual mastery and outcome focus with a strong link between the process of training and the outcome of mastery or winning, whereas Elite athletes tended to have a single focus on winning and did not always link the process of training to that outcome; and Super-Elite athletes were able to maintain high levels of performance under pressure but Elite athletes could not. With regard to the latter finding, Super-Elite athletes maintained their higher levels of performance by one or both of total preparation or having a counterphobic attitude.

4 General discussion

4.1 SOME POTENTIALLY CAUSAL LINKS Family values underpinned by a culture of striving were a commonality, rather than a discriminator, between Super-Elite and Elite athletes in the present study. Thus, it would appear that being brought up in a culture of striving may be an important influence on getting to an international level in any sport. This finding is consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) in that conscientiousness and commitment to training (presumably an outcome of being brought up in a culture of striving) were also high for both Super-Elite and Elite athletes. The experience of a foundational significant negative life event coupled with a significant positive sport-related event did, however, discriminate between SuperElite and Elite athletes. The contemporaneous positive sport-related event is probably very important because traumatic life events in childhood are generally associated with a number of negative mental health consequences (Roy, 2004; Roy et al., 2007; Wiersma et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the finding that all Super-Elite athletes experienced a foundational significant negative life event is consistent with previous theoretical arguments and anecdotal reports that highlight a link between early childhood trauma and the development of genius and other intellectual talent (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Gardner, 1994; Ochse, 1993; Simonton, 1992; Winner, 1996). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge the present research is the first systematic study to report such a finding empirically. According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1979; Bretherton, 1992; Freud, 1999; Miller and Rodgers, 2001), the sense of loss induced by a traumatic event in early childhood creates a strong unconscious need to avoid such experiences in the future. Such a need might manifest itself in a number of ways, including guilt (the loss was something I could have stopped from happening), achievement striving (if I try hard enough it won’t happen again), and need for success (so that I can be worthy of the attention/love that I did not get because of the loss). The positive critical sport-related event is probably what causes this need for success to be focused on sport in the present participants. It is not difficult to see how such a need to succeed focused on sport would lead to sport having a greater importance than other aspects of life, as well as obsessive, perfectionistic, ruthless, and selfish behavior in the sport domain, plus the most total preparation possible for major events. The experience of foundational traumatic events is also associated with the counterphobic attitude and the resilience and mental toughness necessary to maintain high levels of performance under pressure (cf. Collins and MacNamara, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hardy et al., 2014). Finally, it is reasonably well documented in other achievement domains that highly talented individuals have a need to succeed which transcends merely beating others and focuses on complete mastery of their domain (Ochse, 1993; Winner, 1996) (Fig. 1). In the following sections, the most important discriminators between Super-Elite and Elite athletes are discussed in a more detail.

107

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

How they behaved av

Achievement

Career turning point

Mastery and outcome focus

Ruthlessness and selfishness

Total preparation for competition

Counterphobia

Importance of sport

Obsessiveness and perfectionism Need for success

Experiences

Who/What they became

108

Early negative life event plus positive sport event

FIG. 1 Most important psychosocial discriminators between Super-Elite and Elite athletes. Discriminators are clustered under three headings: experiences that were a major influence on development; who/what the athlete became (personality attributes); and how the athlete behaved.

4.2 NEGATIVE CRITICAL LIFE EVENT COUPLED WITH A POSITIVE SPORT-RELATED EVENT This is probably the most contentious finding in the study, but as noted above it is entirely consistent with other theoretical arguments and anecdotal evidence that have been presented regarding the underpinnings of genius and other exceptional talent (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Gardner, 1994; Ochse, 1993; Simonton, 1992; Van Yperen, 2009; Winner, 1996). Furthermore, as argued above, this finding could be the key to understanding a number of other discriminating factors that were identified in the present findings, most notably the need to succeed, together with the associated personality characteristics of obsessiveness/perfectionism and ruthlessness/selfishness in the sport domain, the relative importance of sport over other aspects of life, and the ability to perform under pressure. It should be noted that the foundational negative critical life events occurred in close proximity to and almost always before the positive sport-related event. The positive nature of this second event is probably very important in countering the negative mental health consequences that typically accompany childhood trauma

4 General discussion

(Roy, 2004; Roy et al., 2007; Wiersma et al., 2009). Furthermore, the fact that the positive event was sport related almost certainly accounts for the fact that Super-Elite athletes were successful in sport as opposed to some other domain, and also for the relative importance of sport over other domains. Clearly, from a talent identification perspective, exploitation of this finding would be fraught with ethical problems. However, using information about traumatic events in childhood as a starting point for analyzing the developmental needs of highly talented athletes would be much less ethically problematic (cf. Collins and MacNamara, 2012). Furthermore, helping coaches and other athlete support staff to learn how to work effectively with athletes who have experienced such developmental problems would also likely prove to be a very effective way of utilizing the present finding. This is because those athletes that the “system” may view as “problematic athletes” (i.e., they that do not fit into the system) may well be the same athletes that have the sufficient underlying motivation to deliver the system’s objectives (i.e., repeatedly medal). In other words, this finding points to the clear need for the athlete to be given a central, and carefully individualized, role within a flexible coaching system (this issue is discussed in more detail in Barlow et al., in preparation). Finally, it is worth noting at this point that there is something of a dearth of empirical research in the sport psychology literature that takes a psychodynamic perspective. More specifically, it could be that the nature of the experienced trauma may be important in terms of the skills that athletes develop, and therefore the sports in which they might flourish; for example, possibly as a result of the extent of childhood physical abuse, Maradona became hypervigilant evading threats from opposing players (Gogarty and Williamson, 2009). Such a line of reasoning would be worthy of further exploration in future research.

4.3 EXPERIENCED A TURNING POINT THAT ENHANCED MOTIVATION OR FOCUS It is difficult to fully explain this factor. According to attachment theory, it is quite plausible that negative events occurring during an athlete’s career could reactivate the earlier experience of loss that Super-Elite athletes reported having, and thereby “reignite the flame” of their motivation. Furthermore, other researchers (e.g., Collins and MacNamara, 2012) have also proposed that negative events during an athlete’s career may be crucial to the development of mental toughness and resilience. However, 5 of 15 Super-Elite athletes who reported experiencing career turning points in the present study reported that these turning points centered around positive events rather than negative events. It was not clear from the available evidence what the mechanisms by which positive events might enhance motivation could be, but it is at least plausible that they have a directly inspirational or supportive effect. Furthermore, it is also plausible that all athletes must reach at least one turning point in their careers where they either turn away from sport or reengage with it. Perhaps, the finding is simply a reflection of a more optimistic

109

110

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

attitude on the part of Super-Elite athletes than Elite athletes (cf. Gould et al., 2002; Nicholls et al., 2008). However, this explanation remains speculative. Alternatively, it could be that because Super-Elite athletes have a much more narrowly defined sense of self (other aspects of life are unimportant to them), they have few alternatives but to reengage with their sport with greater intensity when confronted by significant career turning points mid-career. Regardless of the speculative nature of the above explanation, it seems that encouraging performers to find the positive opportunities in all critical events, regardless of their nature, would be a reasonable conclusion to draw.

4.4 NEED TO SUCCEED Perhaps the most important implication of this finding is “what happens when Super-Elite athletes’ sport careers come to an end?” It may be that, without directly addressing the negative critical life event that underpins their need to succeed, some Super-Elite athletes obtain such a strong transfer effect from their repeated success that their “gremlins” remain relatively quiet for the rest of their lives after retirement. However, this seems unlikely to be true for many, especially given the relatively early age at which most Olympic athletes retire (see also Gogarty and Williamson, 2009). Rather, it seems highly likely that the majority of Super-Elite athletes will need to find a new vehicle to satisfy their need for success. The difficulty of finding such a second “life’s work” should not be underestimated, and the tabloids are replete with examples of what occurs when this does not happen.

4.5 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SPORT OVER OTHER ASPECTS OF LIFE This finding is possibly unsurprising but it nevertheless puts sport managers, coaches, and other support staff in an ethically difficult place. At first sight, the most obvious applied implication might appear to be to encourage aspirant performers to elevate the importance of sport above everything else in their lives because that is clearly what the Super-Elite athletes in the present study did. Furthermore, research in clinical psychology has shown that it is possible to influence the importance that people attach to different domains in life (Moriarty, 2003). However, Moriarty’s research focused on broadening the number of domains that people attached importance to, not narrowing it. It is also well known that such a narrow approach to life can lead to one-dimensional self-esteem (see, for example, Crocker and Wolfe, 2001; Hardy and Moriarty, 2006; James, 1890; Shavelson et al., 1976) and a host of other potentially negative, mental health consequences including burnout, especially in performers who are obsessive and/or perfectionistic (Coakley, 1992, 2007; Cresswell and Eklund, 2006; Gould et al., 1996). The ethical exploitation of this finding therefore requires serious consideration before clear recommendations can be made.

4 General discussion

4.6 RUTHLESS, SELFISH, OBSESSIVE, AND PERFECTIONISTIC In just the same way that experiencing a foundational critical negative life event may well be the fundamental source of Super-Elite athletes’ need to succeed, so their need to succeed is probably the source of their obsessive/perfectionistic, and ruthless/selfish, attitudes to sport. However, this contention cannot be directly tested using the present data. It is worth noting that the obsessive motivation part of this finding does not sit very comfortably with the traditional sport psychology approach to motivation which tends to argue that high-level performers’ motivation is self-determined rather than obsessive (Cresswell & Eklund, 2006; Mallett and Hanrahan, 2004). However, it joins other evidence from non-Elite athletes (Vallerand et al., 2008) which suggests that obsessive motivation may be a stronger predictor of deliberate practice, and thereby sports performance, than more self-determined motivation. The finding for perfectionism reflects a growing body of research which suggests that not all perfectionism is detrimental to mental well-being (Gould et al., 2002) and self-driven perfectionism may be advantageous to both achievement and the avoidance of burnout (Appleton et al., 2009; Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber et al., 2009). From an applied perspective, perhaps the most relevant observation is that SuperElite athletes are (unsurprisingly) more single minded about their pursuit of excellence than their less successful colleagues. This conclusion is evidenced by both the findings being currently discussed and the earlier finding that Super-Elite athletes rate the relative importance of sport over other aspects of life more highly than Elite athletes. It is also worth noting that ruthlessness, selfishness, obsessiveness, and perfectionism are characteristics of narcissism and psychoticism. Furthermore, there is evidence that from non-Elite sport that narcissists perform better under pressure than nonnarcissists (Roberts et al., 2013; Wallace and Baumeister, 2002; Woodman et al., 2011), and from other nonsport achievement domains (actually, US Presidents) that certain aspects of psychoticism are associated with high achievement (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). In summary, at least two conclusions can be drawn from these findings: (1) fairly extreme single mindedness is essential for achievement at the highest levels in sport and (2) such single mindedness may not be attractive to everyone.

4.7 MASTERY AND OUTCOME FOCUS The emphasis that Super-Elite athletes placed on both a mastery and an outcome focus runs slightly counter to the traditional sport psychology view that an outcome focus is maladaptive from a motivational perspective (e.g., Duda, 1992). However, most of this research literature has not examined the interactive effects of mastery and outcome focuses and is not concerned with truly Elite performance. Furthermore, the conclusion that outcome goals are always detrimental has been challenged on several occasions (see, for example, Hardy, 1997; Hardy et al., 1996; Harwood et al., 2000). Nevertheless, it is reassuring to have empirical evidence that speaks directly to the question.

111

112

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

The key to applying this finding is probably to maintain a balanced perspective between defining success in terms of winning and encouraging athletes to strive to genuinely be the best that they can be. At this level of performance, “be the best that I can be” is probably not a vague “do your best” goal. Elite and Super-Elite athletes probably know their bodies so well that they will know in their “heart of hearts” if they really have done their best. Furthermore, given their perfectionistic and obsessive nature, potential Super-Elite athletes are probably their own worst critic, and being the best that they can be is probably harder to achieve than beating other people most of the time. It is this aspiration of being the best that they can be that likely drives Super-Elite athletes to “leave no stone unturned” in their total preparation for competition. Furthermore, such total preparation may allow them to deal with the high levels of pressure associated with performing at the Super-Elite level because there is no need to worry if one has done everything one can do – there simply is nothing left that can be done. It is also possible that Super-Elite athletes’ triple focus on winning, being the best that they can be, and leaving no stone unturned, helps them to make the link between outcome, performance, and process a very “tight” one, which some have argued is an important influence on maintaining high levels of performance under pressure (see, for example, Hardy et al., 1996; Kingston and Hardy, 1997). Furthermore, given the Super-Elite athletes’ very high need to succeed and perfectionism/obsessiveness, there remains the distinct possibility that beating the opposition or themselves is simply not good enough for them. Rather, they need to beat the opposition and themselves. However, all these conjectures are just that, conjectures.

4.8 PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE The finding that Super-Elite athletes perform better under pressure than Elite athletes is self-evident. However, the means by which they achieve such high levels of performance under pressure are worthy of further attention. As noted above, the total preparation approach which some Super-Elite athletes report using integrates well with their need to succeed and their mastery orientation (be the best that I can be). Furthermore, at an applied level, this finding only reinforces an “old message” that has perhaps not always been properly heard or fully appreciated: for most people, high levels of performance under pressure can only be achieved by total preparation. The counterphobic attitude finding is new. Counterphobia is a process by which people externalize their internal, unconscious, anxieties by projecting them onto concrete objects, or situations. They can then gain a sense of control over those anxieties by confronting the concrete object or situation (fear) onto which the anxieties have been projected (Fenichel, 1939). In this way, they can “conquer” and gain “freedom” from those anxieties. One of the more interesting aspects of counterphobia is that it is cyclical in nature. If the unconscious, low level, anxiety that underpins the counterphobic behavior is not dealt with, then the relief that the athlete experiences as a result of their counterphobic engagement is only temporary. Sooner or later the unconscious, low level, gnawing, anxiety will return, so that the athlete must repeat the

5 Concluding remarks

counterphobic cycle. Thus, in the specific context of multiple medal winning, counterphobia provides the necessary long-standing drive to win, because winning provides only a temporary relief from the athlete’s internal anxiety (i.e., no long-term relief ). The cycle of active approach toward, and subsequent regulation of, intense emotion needs to be repeated to keep providing the athlete with a renewed sense of control over emotion in their life generally (Fenichel, 1939). Counterphobia is clearly related to the behavioral reenactment of trauma proposed by Van der Kolk (1989) and could be described as a relatively prosocial form of reenactment. Furthermore, Van der Kolk (1989) and Solomon (1980) have presented evidence to suggest that trauma victims can become compulsively attracted to reenactment. At an applied level, these links provide much “food for thought” with regard to Super-Elite athletes. It seems possible that over the course of time and repeated transfer effects, some athletes acquire a more long-term relief from their unconscious anxieties; but it seems likely that for many athletes their transfer effect will only ever be short term. Then, one day, they stop winning medals and have to retire. Now, they must find another way to regulate their emotion (e.g., a new career to be successful in)… or escape from their unconscious anxieties through some other means (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse). A second problem surrounding counterphobia (and reenactment) is the question of to what extent might interventions be considered to help potentially Elite athletes address and come to terms with their underlying unconscious anxieties. This question raises enormous ethical issues. If the athlete addresses their underlying anxieties then why would they want to compete any longer at a high level? We suspect that most counterphobics are pretty comfortable with how they are and do not want to be “cured.” Counterphobia has only recently begun to be studied in sport, and only then in the context of dangerous sports (see Barlow et al., 2013; Castanier et al., 2010). However, it appears equally applicable to high-level sport. From an applied perspective, total preparation is theoretically easy, although one suspects that sport psychologists, coaches, and performers have not always fully understood quite how total total is. The desensitization approach developed by Bell et al. (2013) to train mental toughness may also be of some interest here because it is relatively simple and seems to work. Teaching performers a counterphobic attitude is theoretically more complex, but anecdotal evidence suggests that some performers may learn such an attitude, possibly via cognitively reframing the way that they think about performance anxiety.

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS The major findings of the present study are the Super-Elite athletes typically experience some sort of foundational negative critical life event during their developmental years in close temporal proximity to a positive sport-related event. They also have a stronger need to succeed, are more selfish and ruthless in their pursuit of their sport,

113

114

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

and more obsessive and perfectionistic with regard to that sport than Elite athletes. They attach relatively more importance to sport than other aspects of their life, adopt a dual outcome and mastery focus, and maintain high levels of performance under pressure. They achieve these high levels of performance under pressure by one or both of two processes, total preparation or counterphobia. While it is difficult to demonstrate causal links in a qualitative study such as the present one, it seems unlikely that these discriminating factors are unrelated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study reported in this paper was part of a collaborative project between UK Sport, Bangor University, Exeter University, and Cardiff Metropolitan University. The project was sponsored by UK Sport.

REFERENCES Adderholdt, M., Goldberg, J., 1999. Perfectionism: What’s Bad About Being Too Good? Free Spirit Publishing, Minneapolis, MN. Agassi, A., 2010. Open: An Autobiography. Harper Collins Publishers, London, UK. Allen, M.S., Greenlees, I., Jones, M., 2011. An investigation of the five factor personality model and coping behaviour in sport. J. Sports Sci. 29, 841–850. American Psychiatric Association, 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth ed. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. Text Revision. Appleton, P.R., Hall, H.K., Hill, A.P., 2009. Relations between multidimensional perfectionism and burnout in junior elite male athletes. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 10, 457–465. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.12.006. Armstrong, L., 2004. Every Second Counts. Yellow Jersey, New York, NY. Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Barlow, M., Woodman, T., Hardy, L., 2013. Great expectations: different high-risk activities satisfy different motives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 458–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033542. Barlow, M., Hardy, L., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., Warr, C. (in preparation). Great British coaches: coach–athlete relationships of Super-Elite and Elite athletes from Olympic sports. BBC, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/diving/17038040. Bell, J., Hardy, L., Beattie, S., 2013. Enhancing mental toughness and performance under pressure in elite young cricketers: a 2 year longitudinal intervention. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 2, 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033129. Bloom, B.S., 1985. Developing Talent in Young People. Ballantine, New York, NY. Bowlby, J., 1979. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Tavistock Publications, London. Bretherton, I., 1992. The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev. Psychol. 28, 759–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10155-029. Brown, L., 2012. Dame Kelly Holmes: I used to cut myself and even thought of suicide because the pressure to win was so great. Retrieved March 03, 2013, from

References

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204005/Double-gold-Olympic-medallist-DameKelly-Holmes-reveals-long-battle-self-harming-admits-thought-taking-life.html. Carducci, B.J., 2009. The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., 1998. On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Castanier, C., Le Scanff, C., Woodman, T., 2010. Mountaineering as affect regulation: the moderating role of self-regulation strategies. Anxiety Stress Coping 24, 75–89. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615801003774210. Cervone, D., Pervin, L.A., 2008. Personality Theory and Research, 10th ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Coakley, J., 1992. Burnout among adolescent athletes: a personal failure or social problem? Sociol. Sport J. 9, 271–285. Coakley, J., 2007. Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies. McGraw Hill, Boston, MA. Collins, D., MacNamara, A., 2012. The rocky road to the top: why talent needs trauma. Sports Med. 42, 907–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03262302. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Neo PI-R Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Centre, Odessa, FL. C^ote, J., 1999. The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. Sport Psychol. 19, 395–417. Cresswell, S.L., Eklund, R.C., 2006. Athlete burnout: conceptual confusion, current research, and future research directions. In: Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D. (Eds.), Literature Reviews in Sport Psychology. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp. 91–126. Crocker, J., Wolfe, C.T., 2001. Contingencies of self-worth. Psychol. Rev. 108, 593–623. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1990. Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper and Row, New York. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., Whalen, S., 1993. Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success and Failure. Cambridge University Press, New York. DCshoesFilm, 2010. DC shoes: Travis Pastrana all in [Video file]. Retrieved from, http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v¼2GH5H7Lbtj8. Dearmore, J., 2013. Quotations from everywhere. Retrieved May 03, 2013, http://www. gospelweb.net/Americana/shortquotes3.htm. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Duda, J.L., 1992. Motivation in sport settings: a goal perspective approach. In: Roberts, G.C. (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, pp. 57–91. Duda, J.L., 1997. Perpetuating myths: a response to Hardy’s Coleman Griffiths address. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 9, 303–309. Duval, S., Wicklund, R.A., 1972. A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness. Academic Press, New York. Ericsson, A.K., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-R€omer, C., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100 (3), 363–406. Fenichel, O., 1939. The counter-phobic attitude. Int. J. Psychoanal. 20, 263–274. Flegel, M.J., 2008. Sport First Aid: A Coach’s Guide to the Care and Prevention of Athletic Injuries, fourth ed. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Fontana, A., Frey, J.H., 2005. The interview: from neutral stance to political involvement. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 695–727.

115

116

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

Fotheringham, W., 2008. Pooley’s silver adds shine to team’s hopes. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/14/emmapooley.cycling. Fredricks, J.A., Eccles, J.S., 2005. Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation and involvement. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 27, 3–31. Freud, S., 1999. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Translated by J. Strachey, in collaboration with Anna Freud, and assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson, 24 vols. Vintage, New York. Gardner, H., 1994. The fruits of asynchrony: a psychological examination of creativity. In: Felman, D.H., Csikszentmihalyi, M.C., Gardner, H. (Eds.), Changing the World. A Framework for the Study of Creativity. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 47–68. Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York, NY. Geertz, C., 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. Basic Books, New York, NY, 244 pp. Gentry, T., 2005. Jesse Owens: Champion Athlete. Chelsea House Publishers, New York, NY. Gifford, B., 2008. Greg LeMond vs. The World. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from http://www. mensjournal.com/magazine/greg-lemond-vs-the-world-20130318?page¼7. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago. Glendenning, B., 2012. 50 stunning Olympic moments: Eric Moussambani flails way to glory. Retrieved April 08, 2013, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jan/25/olym pic-games-eric-eel-moussambani. Gogarty, P., Williamson, I., 2009. Winning at All Costs: Sporting Gods and Their Demons. JR Books Ltd., London. Gotwals, J.K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J.G.H., Stoll, O., 2012. Are perfectionistic strivings in sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence. Can. Psychol. 53, 263–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030288. Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., Loehr, J., 1996. Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. Sport Psychol. 10, 341–366. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., Moffett, A., 2002. Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 14, 172–204. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10413200290103482. Hardy, L., 1997. The Coleman Roberts Griffith address: three myths in applied consultancy work. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 9, 277–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10413209708406487. Hardy, L., 1998. Responses to the reactants on three myths in applied consultancy work. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 10, 212–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209808406389. Hardy, L., Moriarty, T., 2006. Shaping self-concept: the elusive importance effect. J. Pers. 74, 377–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00379.x. Hardy, L., Jones, G., Gould, D., 1996. Understanding Psychological Preparation for Sport. Wiley, London. Hardy, L., Bell, J.J., Beattie, S.J., 2014. Preliminary evidence for a neuro-cognitive model of mental toughness. J. Pers. 105, 458–475. Hartley, S., 2012. Peak Performance Everytime. Routledge, New York, NY. Harwood, C.G., Hardy, L., Swain, A.B., 2000. Achievement goals in sport: a critique of conceptual and measurement issues. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 22, 235–255. Hassall, P., 2009. Bill Shankly in quotes. Retrieved from, http://liverpoolfc.com/news/latestnews/bill-shankly-in-quotes. Hindley, C.B., 1979. Problems of interviewing in obtaining retrospective information. In: Moss, L., Goldstein, H. (Eds.), The Recall Method in Social Surveys. University of London Institute of Education, London, pp. 100–108.

References

Hurrelmann, K., 2009. Social Structure and Personality Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Hutchinson, G., 2002. The Best Australian Sports Writing 2002. Schwartz Publishing, Victoria, Australia. IMDb, 2012. Biography for Bruce Jenner. Retrieved April 08, 2013, from http://www.imdb. com/name/nm0421063/bio. James, W., 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Johnson, M., 1996. Slaying the Dragon. Piatkus Books, London. Kingston, K., Hardy, L., 1997. Effects of different goals on processes that support performance. Sport Psychol. 11, 277–293. Lester, J., 1983. Wrestling with the self on Mount Everest. J. Humanist. Psychol. 23, 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022167883232005. Lilienfeld, S.O., Waldman, I.D., Landfield, K., Watts, A.L., Rubenzer, S., Faschingbauer, T.R., 2012. Fearless dominance and the U.S. Presidency: implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 489–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029392. Lincoln, Y., Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Lister, C., 2010. Australian inspiration. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from http://www. australianinspiration.com.au/motivation.html. Maccoby, E.E., 1992. The role of parents in the socialisation of children: an historical overview. Dev. Psychol. 28 (6), 1006–1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28. 6.1006. Macionis, J.J., Gerber, L.M., 2011. Sociology. Pearson Canada, Toronto. Mallett, C.J., Hanrahan, S.J., 2004. Elite athletes: why does the ‘fire’ burn so brightly? Psychol. Sport Exerc. 5, 183–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00043-2. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, second ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Miller, A., 1997. The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self. Basic Books, New York, NY. Miller, W.B., Rodgers, J.L., 2001. The Ontogeny of Human Bonding Systems: Evolutionary Origins, Neural Bases, and Psychological Manifestations. Springer, New York, NY. Mishler, E.G., 1986. The analysis of interview-narratives. In: Sarbin, T.R. (Ed.), Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct. Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 233–255. Morgan, P.B.C., 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. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.007. Moriarty, T., 2003. Self-concept: alternative perspectives and clinical applications. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. Moss, L., 1979. Overview. In: Moss, L., Goldstein, H. (Eds.), The Recall Method in Social Surveys. University of London Institute of Education, London, pp. 159–169. Nicholls, A.R., Polma, R.C.J., Levy, A.R., Backhouse, S.H., 2008. Mental toughness, optimism, pessimism, and coping among athletes. Personal. Individ. Differ. 44, 1182–1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.011. Nvivo 10, 2012. http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx. Ochse, R., 1993. Before the Gates of Excellence. The Determinants of Creative Genius. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Oldenziel, K., Gulbin, J.P., Gagne, F., 2003. How Do Elite Athletes Develop? A Look Through the Rear-View Mirror. Australian Sports Commission, Canberra.

117

118

CHAPTER 1 Great British medalists: A psychosocial enquiry

Orlick, T., Partington, J., 1988. Mental links to excellence. Sport Psychol. 2, 105–130. Pampel, F.C., 2007. Drug and Sports. Infobase Publishing, New York, NY. Pari, J., Nesti, M., Robinson, S., Watson, N., 2007. Sport and Spirituality. Routledge, New York, NY. Partridge, J.A., Brustad, R.J., Stellino, M.B., 2008. In: Horn, T.S. (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology, third ed. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, pp. 269–291. Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation Methods, second ed. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Piedmont, R.L., Hill, D.C., Blanco, S., 1999. Predicting athletic performance using the fivefactor model of personality. Pers. Individ. Dif. 27, 769–777. Pucin, D., 1996. Dyslexia caused Steve Redgrave, then 16, to leave school and pick up an oar. Retrieved March 03, 2013, from http://articles.philly.com/1996-07-21/sports/25620901_ 1_aladar-gerevich-bobsled-pusher-steve-redgrave. Rees, T., Hardy, L., G€ullich, A., Abernethy, B., C^ ote, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H., Laing, S., Warr, C., 2016. The Great British medalists project: a review of current knowledge on the development of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Med. 46, 1041–1058. Richards, B., 2009. The Heart of a Champion: Inspiring True Stories of Challenge and Triumph. Revell books, Grand Rapids, MI. Roberts, R., Woodman, T., Hardy, L., Davis, L., Wallace, H.M., 2013. Psychological skills do not always help performance: the moderating role of narcissism. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 25, 316–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.731472. Romanov, N., Robson, J., 2008. Pose Method of Triathlon Techniques. Pose Tech Press, Florida. Roy, A., 2004. Relationship of childhood trauma to age of first suicide attempt and number of attempts in substance dependent patients. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 109, 121–125. http://dx. doi.org/10.1046/j.0001-690X.2003.00234.x. Roy, A., Hu, X.-Z., Janal, M.N., Goldman, D., 2007. Interaction between childhood trauma and serotonin transporter gene variation in suicide. Neuropsychopharmacology 32, 2046–2052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301331. SearchQuotes.com, 2013. Dawn Fraser quotes. Retrieved March 03, 2013, from http://www. searchquotes.com/search/dawn+fraser/. Segrave, J., 2000. Sport as escape. J. Sport Soc. Issues 24, 61–77. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0193723500241005. Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., Stanton, G.C., 1976. Self-concept: validation of construct interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res. 46, 407–441. Simon, H.A., Chase, W.G., 1973. Skill in chess. Am. Sci. 61, 394–403. Simonton, D.K., 1992. The child parents the adult: on getting genius from giftedness. In: Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., Ambroson, D.L. (Eds.), Talent Development: Proceedings From the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Trillium, New York, NY, pp. 278–297. Solomon, R.L., 1980. The opponent process theory of motivation: the costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. Am. Psychol. 35, 691–712. Spradley, J.P., 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY. Stoeber, J., Uphill, M.A., Hotham, S., 2009. Predicting race performance in triathlon: the role of perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal goal setting. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 31, 211–245. Stoll, O., Lau, A., Stoeber, J., 2008. Perfectionism and performance in a new basketball training task: does striving for perfection enhance or undermine performance? Psychol. Sport Exerc. 9, 620–629.

References

Stricker, G., Widiger, T.A., Weiner, I.B., 2004. Handbook of Psychology, Clinical Psychology, vol. 8. Wiley, New York, NY. Thompson, R.A., 1994. Emotion regulation: a theme in search of a definition. In: Fox, N.A. (Ed.), The Development of Emotion Regulation: Biological and Behavioral Considerations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 25–52. Vallerand, R.J., Mageau, G.A., Elliot, A.J., Dumais, A., Demers, M.A., Rousseau, F., 2008. Passion and performance attainment in sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 9, 373–392. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.05.003. Van der Kolk, B.A., 1989. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimisation, and masochism. In: Psychiatric Clinics of America. Treatment of Victims of Sexual Abuse, vol. 12. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 389–411. Van Yperen, N.W., 2009. Why some people make it and others do not: identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. Sport Psychol. 23, 317–329. Wadey, R., Evans, L., Hanton, S., Neil, R., 2012. An examination of hardiness throughout the sport-injury process: a qualitative follow-up study. Br. J. Health Psychol. 17, 872–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02084.x. Wallace, H.M., Baumeister, R.F., 2002. The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 819–834. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.819. Weaver, P., 2013. Sebastian Vettel leads home Mark Webber for dramatic Malaysian GP win. Retrieved May 01, 2013, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/24/sebastianvettel-wins-malaysia-gp. Weber, R.P., 1985. Basic Content Analysis. Sage, Beverley Hills, CA. Whitaker, M.C., 2011. Icons of Black America: Breaking Barriers and Crossing Boundaries. Greenwood, Santa Barbara, CA. Wiersma, J.E., Hovens, J.G.F.M., van Oppen, P., Giltay, E.J., van Schaik, D.J.F., et al., 2009. The importance of childhood trauma and childhood life events for chronicity of depression in adults. J. Clin. Psychiatry 70 (7), 983–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.08 m04521. Winner, E., 1996. Gifted Children: Myths and Realities. Basic Books, New York. Witt, R., 2012. A Lifetime of Training for Just Ten Seconds: Olympians in Their Own Words. Bloomsbury, London, UK. Woodman, T., Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Le Scanff, C., 2010a. Motives for prolonged engagement high-risk sports: an agentic emotion regulation perspective. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 11, 345–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.002. Woodman, T., Hardy, L., Zourbanos, N., Beattie, S., McQuillan, A., 2010b. Do performance strategies moderate the relationship between personality and training behaviours? An exploratory study. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 22, 183–197. Woodman, T., Hardy, L., Roberts, R., Callow, N., Rogers, C.H., 2011. There is an “I” in TEAM: narcissism and social loafing. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 82, 285–290. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599756.

119

CHAPTER

On elite and super-elite Great British athletes: Some theoretical implications from Hardy et al.’s (2017) findings

2

Timothy C. Howle*,1, Robert C. Eklund† *Indigenous Primary Care Reporting Unit, AIHW, Canberra, ACT, Australia College of Education, Office of the Dean, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +02 6244 1098, e-mail address: [email protected]

†

Abstract We present commentary focused on the theoretical implications of Hardy et al.’s (2017) study of elite (E) and super-elite (SE) UK athletes. Athlete developmental experiences are first discussed, and we consider how Hardy et al.’s findings fit with extant and emerging theory regarding motivation and experiences of adversity. We then focus on athlete characteristics and propose a complementary theory-based interpretation of Hardy et al.’s findings based on the idea that SE athletes may be more focused on agency than E athletes. We consider this proposition in light of theory and empirical research addressing the agency and communion theoretical distinction.

Keywords Sport, Performance, Growth, Agentic, Communal

Hardy et al. (2017) have collected rich and compelling data through which to examine the early life and sporting life of elite (E) and super-elite (SE) UK athletes. The authors provide an interesting and useful “peak behind the curtain” of the experiences of these high-level sportspeople. In this commentary, we focus on some theoretical implications of Hardy et al.’s findings by addressing (a) developmental experiences and (b) athletes’ characteristics. Rather than discussing one theory in particular, our aim is to discuss the relevance of Hardy et al.’s findings for sport psychology theorists and highlight some prospective research opportunities that arise from this discussion.

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.001 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

121

122

CHAPTER 2 Theoretical implications from Hardy et al.’s findings

1 DEVELOPMENTAL EXPERIENCES With regards to the development of E and SE athletes, it is notable that SE athletes (and a minority of E athletes) reported the experience of a significant negative life event in their developmental years. The data from athlete interviews were interpreted by Hardy et al. as indicating that SE athletes were driven by an obsessive form of motivation and that hard-work was encouraged, expected, and often explicitly or implicitly demanded by the parents of both E and SE athletes. As the authors note, it is interesting that the experiences of the high-level athletes, particularly the SE sample, depart somewhat from the experiences that have been theorized to be linked to optimal performance (cf. Deci and Ryan, 2000). For example, rather than reporting more self-determined motivation and autonomy supportive conditions, athletes’ reports often indicated that their motivation was more obsessive, and the conditions they experienced were often controlling. For theorists, at least two important questions are raised. First, were these athletes successful because of these experiences or in spite of them? That is, is it our theoretical understanding of high-level performers that is limited? Or, could Hardy et al.’s sample of athletes have been even more successful if their experiences more closely mirrored the theoretically ideal conditions? Obviously it goes without saying that these are not questions that can be answered retrospectively. Second, how did athletes personally experience the reported questions at the time that they were living through them? For example, is it possible that through processes postulated in Organismic Integration Theory, athletes were able to live their experiences in a more intentionally self-determined fashion (rather than being obsessively perfectionistic per se) relative to what was readily evident in their autobiographical accounts? As is encapsulated by a question posed by the interviewers, “so it’s that uncomfortable truth that maybe a bit of unhappiness is not such a bad thing?” (p. 44), one notable finding was that Hardy et al.’s (2017) sample reported developmental experiences that included dealing with adversity. Recent sport psychology research (e.g., Sarkar et al., 2015; Tamminen et al., 2013) provides some indication that other elite athletes also report experiencing adverse conditions. The nature of this adversity appears to be broad, including experiences of isolation and withdrawal, emotional disruption, questioning one’s athletic identity, managing expectations, and impressions (Tamminen et al., 2013) as well as nonselection, sporting failure, injury, political unrest, and the death of family members (Sarkar et al., 2015). Although these reports may cause some concern for high-level athletes’ well-being, there is cause for some optimism. Both research groups (i.e., Sarkar et al., 2015; Tamminen et al., 2013) raised the possibility that experiences of adversity can contribute to personal growth, including the facilitation of performance (see also Howells and Fletcher, 2015). Thus, it may be important to consider not only athletes’ experiences of adversity but also how they are able to respond to these experiences. In Hardy et al.’s work, positive sporting events, when they occur in close proximity to experiences of adversity, are discussed as a factor that may potentially guide athletes to pursue and

2 Athlete characteristics

develop within their chosen sport. In light of these findings, it may be worth drawing from theory to better understand how growth through adversity may be achieved (see, for example, Joseph and Linley, 2005, 2006).

2 ATHLETE CHARACTERISTICS One purpose of Hardy et al.’s (2017) study was to distinguish between E and SE athletes. In the remainder of this commentary, we turn our attention to the reported characteristics of these high-level athletes and propose a way to distinguish between E and SE athletes (at least as it pertains to Hardy et al.’s sample) based on these characteristics. Specifically, our proposition is that SE athletes may be more focused on agency (i.e., differentiating the self from others, personal goal attainment, influence, mastery, and task functioning; Abele and Wojciszke, 2014; Bakan, 1966) than E athletes. We do not see our view as conflicting with or departing from the interpretation provided by Hardy et al. Instead, we see our proposition as a complementary and parsimonious interpretation that indicates how the results fit within extant theory. Hardy et al.’s (2017) interpretation was that SE athletes (relative to E athletes) had a greater need for success, were more perfectionistic, obsessive, ruthlessness, selfish, were focused on winning as well as mastering tasks, embraced situations characterized by performance pressure, went to extraordinary lengths to ensure they were totally ready for competition, and prioritized their sporting life over and above other life domains. What is striking to us about these observations is that they appear to be parsimoniously represented by the possibility that SE athletes are more agentic (at least in the sporting domain) than E athletes. Agency and communion (i.e., focusing on one’s interpersonal connections and relationships with others) have been used by theorists to understand human motivation, traits, values, and behaviour (Abele and Wojciszke, 2014; Bakan, 1966). For example, agency is reflected through developing task mastery and competence and seeking to separate the self from others, whereas communion is reflected through forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships (Abele and Wojciszke, 2014). The agency/communion theoretical distinction is also emerging in sport psychology research, with researchers using these constructs to understand antisocial sport behaviour (Kaye and Hoar, 2015) and self-presentation motives (Howle et al., 2015). With respect to Hardy et al.’s (2017) sample, the relative difference in career success between SE (i.e., more successful) and E (i.e., not as successful) athletes is consistent with the idea that SE athletes may be more focused on agency. Research evidence indicates that agentic traits positively predict career success approximately one and a half years (Abele, 2003) and 10 years (Abele and Spurk, 2011) later. Researchers have also found that when individuals provide autobiographic information (as Hardy et al.’s sample did), agency is expressed through themes relating to self-mastery, status, achievement/responsibility, and empowerment

123

124

CHAPTER 2 Theoretical implications from Hardy et al.’s findings

(McAdams, 2001). These themes seemingly align with much of the autobiographical discussion provided by the SE athletes in Hardy et al.’s sample. In relation to communion, it is interesting to note that for 15 of 16 SE athletes (but only 3 E athletes) sport was emphasized over life domains (e.g., interpersonal relationships). Given this, it is possible that SE athletes (but not E athletes) focus more on agency than communion. Although the proposed agentic interpretation is speculative, it is plausibly supported by the findings discussed earlier and does provide a theory-based framework through which to parsimoniously view differences between E and SE athletes. It is also important to note that although agency in the absence of communion may adversely affect individuals’ health and well-being (Helgeson, 1994), a focus on agency does not necessarily implicate potential psychopathology or social dysfunction in the pursuit of athletic excellence (clinical diagnostic interviews may be informative in this regard). Instead, it is recognized by theorists that, in interpreting their own behaviour, individuals are often interested in emphasizing agentic traits that have been self-profitable (Abele and Wojciszke, 2014). In the context of the athlete interviews conducted by Hardy et al., it therefore makes theoretical sense that SE athletes would highlight the agentic characteristics they view as important in helping them achieve athletic success.

3 CONCLUSION In this commentary, we have discussed a number of theoretical implications of Hardy et al.’s (2017) target article. In the first section of this commentary, we considered how the researchers’ work contributes to an understanding of the conditions that may facilitate the development of high-level performance. Although the athletes within Hardy et al.’s sample reported having some experiences that were far from ideal, they were nonetheless highly successful in their careers. These athletes indicated that they experienced adversity, and consistent with recent theoretical developments, many of the athletes appear to have subsequently grown from this adversity. In the second section of this commentary, we considered differences in the characteristics between SE and E athletes. We proposed a theory-based interpretation of these differences by suggesting that the SE athletes were more focused on agency than their E counterparts. It is a testament to the work of Hardy et al. that such interesting and varied theoretical issues arise from their work, and we encourage sport researchers to further consider the theoretical implications of their findings.

REFERENCES Abele, A.E., 2003. The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: findings from a prospective study. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 (4), 768–776. Abele, A.E., Spurk, D., 2011. The dual impact of gender and the influence of timing of parenthood on men’s and women’s career development: longitudinal findings. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 35 (3), 225–232.

References

Abele, A.E., Wojciszke, B., 2014. Communal and agentic content in social cognition: a dual perspective model. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 50, 195–255. Bakan, D., 1966. The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western man. Beacon, Boston, MA. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11 (4), 227–268. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Helgeson, V.S., 1994. Relation of agency and communion to well-being: evidence and potential explanations. Psychol. Bull. 116 (3), 412–428. Howells, K., Fletcher, D., 2015. Sink or swim: adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16 (3), 37–48. Howle, T.C., Jackson, B., Conroy, D.E., Dimmock, J.A., 2015. Winning friends and influencing people: self-presentation motives in physical activity settings. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 8, 44–70. Advance online publication. Joseph, S., Linley, P.A., 2005. Positive adjustment to threatening events: an organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 9 (3), 262–280. Joseph, S., Linley, P.A., 2006. Growth following adversity: theoretical perspectives and implications for clinical practice. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 26 (8), 1041–1053. Kaye, M.P., Hoar, S., 2015. Antisocial sport behaviors survey: instrument development and initial validation. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 37 (2), 164–179. McAdams, D.P., 2001. The psychology of life stories. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5 (2), 100–122. 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. J. Sci. Med. Sport 18 (4), 475–479. Tamminen, K.A., Holt, N.L., Neely, K.C., 2013. Exploring adversity and the potential for growth among elite female athletes. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14 (1), 28–36.

125

CHAPTER

The psychosocial development of world-class athletes: Additional considerations for understanding the whole person and salience of adversity

3

Daniel F. Gucciardi1 School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +61-8-9266-3653; Fax: +61-8-9266-3699, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract In the target article, Hardy and colleagues provided an incisive analysis of retrospectively reported psychosocial factors associated with the development and careers of 32 former athletes from Olympic sports. They found that Super-Elite athletes (“serial” medal winners at major international championships, i.e., World Championship or Olympic Games) differed from matched Elite performers (won medals at international competitions but not major championships) with regard to several important psychosocial factors (e.g., negative life events, turning point, relative importance of sport). In this commentary, I critique and extend upon these key findings to delineate additional considerations for understanding the whole person (i.e., traits, characteristic adaptations, narrative identity) and salience of adversity (i.e., timing, frequency, and duration) with the goal to stimulate future research and theory on the psychosocial development of Olympic champions.

Keywords Cumulative life adversity, Multilayered personality, Psychological self, Resilience

Hardy and colleagues provided an incisive analysis of retrospectively reported psychosocial factors associated with the development and careers of 32 former athletes from Olympic sports. Of particular interest was an exploration of commonalities and Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.11.006 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

127

128

CHAPTER 3 Gucciardi commentary

discriminators between Super-Elite (“serial” medal winners at major international championships, i.e., World Championship or Olympic Games) and matched Elite athletes (won medals at international competitions but not major championships). I congratulate Hardy and colleagues on their efforts to shed light on the complex relations among childhood and sporting experiences, psychological factors, and behavioral dimensions considered central to the development of world-class athletes. In this commentary, my goals are to critique and extend upon two key findings reported in the target article in a way that I hope will stimulate future research and theory on the psychosocial development of Olympic champions.

1 CONTEXT OF ADVERSITY: HOW MUCH? HOW OFTEN? The notion that past experiences of adversity, particularly during childhood, may have a “steeling effect” (i.e., decrease vulnerability/strengthen resistance) on future encounters with adversity is not new (e.g., Garmezy, 1986). Hardy and colleagues’ findings (see also Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) are consistent with and extend this proposition to the psychosocial development of Super-Elite athletes. One interesting finding is that negative foundational events occurred in close proximity to a positive sporting incident, most often shortly afterward. Although not acknowledged by Hardy and colleagues, many of the positive sporting events reported by the Super-Elite athletes resemble the broad domains of posttraumatic growth, whereby individuals report a greater appreciation of life; relationships with others that are closer, more intimate, and meaningful; heightened or greater awareness of personal strengths; new possibilities or paths for one’s life; and greater engagement with spiritual or existential matters (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). Nevertheless, as with much of the work on posttraumatic growth, the cross-sectional and retrospective nature of Hardy and colleagues’ research means little can be gleaned about the temporal dynamics between negative and positive life experiences. Clarity regarding the salience and temporal dynamics of critical life events for the psychosocial development of Super-Elite performers requires contextual information on their timing, frequency, and duration (Gest et al., 1999; Schoon et al., 2002). Each of the Super-Elite athletes experienced at least one foundational negative critical event, yet Hardy et al. excluded any detail regarding their cumulative lifetime adversities. Research supports a quadratic rather than linear association between cumulative lifetime adversity and human growth and development, such that a moderate number of adverse events are most beneficial (e.g., Seery et al., 2010, 2013). Elsewhere Olympic champions recalled repeated exposure to nonselection for international competitions as the most salient adversity experienced during their careers (Sarkar et al., 2015). Future research would do well to consider systematically cumulative lifetime adversity and its relations with important athlete behaviors and outcomes (e.g., performance). The issues of timing and duration are also important considerations for a nuanced understanding of the salience of adverse events. Most of the negative foundational

2 Athletes as actors, agents, and authors

experiences reported by the Super-Elite athletes encompassed enduring periods of stress, such as an absent father, mental health issues of family members, and bullying at school, rather than one-off incidents. For several athletes, their enduring periods of adverse events encompassed multiple adversities such as financial problems alongside parental divorce and mental illness (N-SE). As adverse events often cooccur over the lifetime (Green et al., 2010), it is difficult to understand the effects or subjective experience of a single incident when it occurred alongside other adversities. For example, the death of a loved one is an acute event but can have enduring effects within which time individuals may experience other adversities (e.g., bullying). Analogous to building physical fitness, intermittent exposure to stressors can enable individuals to develop or enhance future capacities (e.g., “toughening”; Dienstbier, 1989), yet chronic or prolonged experiences may have stronger effects on functioning (e.g., Ackerman et al., 1999; Bronfenbrenner and Evans, 2000). Knowledge of when adverse events occurred and for how they long they endured can shed light on important developmental processes, such as critical periods of vulnerability (e.g., childhood exposure is more consequential than adolescent events) and phenomenological differences (e.g., immediate or delayed effects). However, this detail was largely absent from Hardy and colleagues’ exposition of the findings. Such information will prove fruitful for future work, for example, mapping life events against archival data to better understand the effects of adverse events on athletes’ performance trajectories.

2 ATHLETES AS ACTORS, AGENTS, AND AUTHORS Consistent with models of talent (e.g., Gagn
e, 2009) and athletic (e.g., Bergeron et al., 2015) development, Hardy and colleagues’ findings underscored the importance of ongoing interactions among an array of environmental (e.g., foundational critical events) and personal factors (e.g., conscientiousness) throughout an athlete’s life. Much has been written about talent development environments, including the identification and classification of essential structures and processes (for a review, see Li et al., 2014). Researchers have identified several fundamental psychological characteristics that foster positive interactions with the environment and outcomes from those experiences (e.g., Gould et al., 2002; MacNamara et al., 2010), many of which are echoed in the findings of Hardy and colleagues. However, missing from Hardy et al.’s analysis and past work on the psychological characteristics associated with athletic excellence is the integration of these different aspects of the self in a coherent and meaningful manner that provides clarity regarding the “whole person” who is situated in social and cultural contexts. One integrative model of the psychological self is that of three broad metaphors, namely, the social actor, motivated agent, and autobiographical author (McAdams, 2013). This metaphorical perspective builds on a conceptualization of human personality in which individuality is understood across three separate yet related layers of psychological content (McAdams and Pals, 2006). The foundation of personality

129

130

CHAPTER 3 Gucciardi commentary

is dispositional traits, which reflect consistencies in people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across situations, contexts, and time as they “act” on the social stage and are observed by others (McAdams, 2013). Most readers will be familiar with this layer of personality in terms of the “Big Five” traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Traits emerge from birth (e.g., temperament) and begin to stabilize during adolescence, yet evolve continuously over time through complex interactions between genes and environment, particularly during early adulthood (Roberts et al., 2006). Referred to as characteristic adaptations, the next layer of personality is contextualized in time, place, and/or social role and reflects people as motivated agents (McAdams and Pals, 2006). In this sense, agency captures people’s wants, goals, and values for the future, and how they go about achieving those objectives in purposeful and goal-directed ways (McAdams, 2013). This dynamic layer of personality emerges around mid-to-late childhood and varies depending on the time, context, and/or social role (McAdams and Pals, 2006). Layered over one’s reputational signature of the present and motivational agenda for the future are internalized stories that integrate and make sense of one’s past, present, and future self in ways that offer unity, purpose, and coherence (McAdams and McLean, 2013). The autobiographical author emerges during early adulthood (McAdams and Pals, 2006) and evolves through efforts to draw insight and meaning from important experiences (e.g., turning points) and arrange multiple episodes or events in ways that provide causal inferences about their development and who they are (Habermas and Bluck, 2000). As reported by Hardy and colleagues, the psychological characteristics associated with sporting excellence are evident across all three layers of personality, including the social actor (e.g., conscientiousness), motivated agent (e.g., need for success), and autobiographical author (e.g., “finding” sport as an alternative means for recognition or acceptance). However, the limited integrative analysis of these dimensions means the key strength of breadth of information regarding the psychological makeup of Super-Elite athletes is diluted. Elsewhere my colleagues and I have called for scholars to embrace a multilayered perspective of personality within sport and exercise psychology contexts (Coulter et al., 2016; Gucciardi and Hanton, 2016), and demonstrated the usefulness of this integrative framework to understand mentally tough behaviors (Gucciardi et al., 2015). Future research on the psychological makeup of athletic excellence would benefit from bringing together diverse data on each of these three unique layers of personality in an attempt to understand the person in full.

3 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS The impressive array of findings reported by Hardy et al. offers an important insight into the psychosocial factors of sporting excellence. My hope is that the value of their work for guiding future research is maximized through (i) systematic efforts to delineate contextual information on the timing, frequency, and duration of adversities

References

experienced during one’s upbringing and involvement in sport, and (ii) integrative approaches to understanding unique layers of the psychological self.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding statement. D.F.G. is supported by a Curtin Research Fellowship.

REFERENCES Ackerman, B.P., Izard, C.E., Schoff, K., Youngstrom, E.A., Kogos, J., 1999. Contextual risk, caregiver emotionality, and the problem behaviours of six- and seven-year-old children from economically disadvantaged families. Child Dev. 70, 1415–1427. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1467-8624.00103. Bergeron, M.F., Mountjoy, M., Armstrong, N., Chia, M., C^ ot
e, J., Emery, C.A., et al., 2015. International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. Br. J. Sports Med. 49, 843–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094962. Bronfenbrenner, U., Evans, G.W., 2000. Developmental science in the 21st century: emerging theoretical models, research designs, and empirical findings. Soc. Dev. 9, 115–125. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00114. Coulter, T., Mallett, C.J., Singer, J., Gucciardi, D.F., 2016. Personality in sport and exercise psychology: integrating a whole person perspective. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 14, 23–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1016085. Dienstbier, R.A., 1989. Arousal and physiological toughness: implications for mental and physical health. Psychol. Rev. 96, 84–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.84. Gagn
e, F., 2009. Building gifts into talents: detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In: MacFarlane, B., Stambaugh, T. (Eds.), Leading Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska. Prufrock Press, Waco, TX, pp. 61–80. Garmezy, N., 1986. Developmental aspects of children’s responses to the stress of separation and loss. In: Rutter, M., Izard, C.E., Read, P.B. (Eds.), Depression in Young People: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 297–323. Gest, S.D., Reed, M.G.J., Masten, A.S., 1999. Measuring developmental changes in exposure to adversity: a life chart and rating scale approach. Dev. Psychopathol. 11, 171–192. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457949900200X. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., Moffett, A., 2002. Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 14, 172–204. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10413200290103482. Green, J.G., McLaughlin, K.A., Berglund, P.A., Gruber, M.J., Sampson, N.A., Zaslavsky, A.M., et al., 2010. Childhood adversities and adult psychiatric disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication I: associations with first onset of DSM-IV disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 67, 113–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/ archgenpsychiatry.2009.186. Gucciardi, D.F., Hanton, S., 2016. Mental toughness: critical reflections and future considerations. In: Schinke, R., McGannon, K., Smith, B. (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Sport Psychology. Routledge, New York, pp. 439–448.

131

132

CHAPTER 3 Gucciardi commentary

Gucciardi, D.F., Jackson, B., Hanton, S., Reid, M., 2015. Motivational correlates of mentally tough behaviours in tennis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 18, 67–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jsams.2013.11.009. Habermas, T., Bluck, S., 2000. Getting a life: the emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychol. Bull. 126, 748–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.748. Howells, K., Fletcher, D., 2015. Sink or swim: adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 37–48. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004. Li, C., Wang, C.K.J., Pyun, D.Y., 2014. Talent development environmental factors in sport: a review and taxonomic classification. Quest 66, 433–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00336297.2014.944715. MacNamara, A., Button, A., Collins, D., 2010. The role of psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 1: identifying mental skills and behaviours. Sport Psychol. 24, 52–73. McAdams, D.P., 2013. The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 272–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464657. McAdams, D.P., McLean, K.C., 2013. Narrative identity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622. McAdams, D.P., Pals, J.L., 2006. A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. Am. Psychol. 61, 204–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X. 61.3.204. Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., Viechtbauer, W., 2006. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 132, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. 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. J. Sci. Med. Sport 18, 475–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010. Schoon, I., Bynner, J., Joshi, H., Parsons, S., Wiggins, R.D., Sacker, A., 2002. The influence of context, timing, and duration of risk experiences for the passage from childhood to midadulthood. Child Dev. 73, 1486–1504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00485. Seery, M.D., Holman, E.A., Silver, R.C., 2010. Whatever does not kill us: cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 1025–1041. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0021344. Seery, M.D., Leo, R.J., Lupien, S.P., Kondrak, C.L., Almonte, J.L., 2013. An upside to adversity? Moderate cumulative lifetime adversity is associated with resilient responses in the face of controlled stressors. Psychol. Sci. 24, 1181–1189. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797612469210. Tedeschi, R.G., Calhoun, L.G., 2004. Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol. Inq. 15, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01.

CHAPTER

The journey of a thousand miles…: Notes on Hardy et al.’s Great British Medalists Project

4 Joseph Baker1

School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-416-736-2100 ext. 22361; Fax: +1-416-736-5774, e-mail address: [email protected]

1

Abstract The Great British Medalist Project is an exceptional project that is destined to generate much discussion among researchers in psychology, skill acquisition, and expertise. The authors should be congratulated for a project of incredible growth and scope. This brief commentary highlights a range of interesting findings, some novel and some supportive of previous research, but urges caution until their validity, reliability, and generalizability can be determined. Several directions for further research are also briefly discussed.

Keywords Expertise, Psychology, Sport

1 A NOTE OF CONGRATULATIONS The Great British Medalists Project is a prime example of the kind of research that can be accomplished when researchers and sport stakeholders work together. The authors are to be congratulated for a project of incredible growth and scope that is destined to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the psychology of sporting success. In this monograph (which makes up part of a much larger project), the authors aim to explore psychological differences between athletes who won multiple medals at major championships and a matched group of high performance athletes who did not achieve the same level of success. This short commentary does not provide the space for an adequate review and discussion of the breath of results from this project, which range from novel effects such as the value of psychological qualities such as selfishness and ruthlessness, to results that extend current research Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.12.001 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

133

134

CHAPTER 4 The journey of a thousand miles…

such as the work by Collins and MacNamara (2012) among others (e.g., Rees et al., 2016) on the potential value of early “negative life events.” It is particularly noteworthy that the authors have considered a complex range of psychological characteristics rather than focusing on the developmental influence of a single variable. The former undoubtedly reflects the nuances and gradations associated with the psychology of optimal performance but is usually unfeasible for individual researchers working in isolation.

2 A NOTE OF CAUTION Despite intriguing results, we need to be cautious about what these results mean. The authors have chosen to use in-depth qualitative interviews, which are a good choice for exploring these types of questions. However, this approach is associated with important limitations concerning generalizability and the extent to which conclusions can be drawn from these data. On the one hand, this type of qualitative approach (i.e., a convenience sample that participated in “relatively unstructured interviews … in which athletes were asked to tell the interviewer their life story starting from the earliest time they could recall” p. 9) is excellent for the generation of wide-ranging comprehensive data on a multitude of topics, which makes it extremely valuable for exploring the research team’s range of questions. However, this approach, because it does not use randomization in participant selection, standardization in data collection methods (e.g., ensuring everyone is exposed to the same questions presented in the same way at the same time of the interview), or generation of data that is objectively quantifiable, generalization of these results beyond the current sample is not possible, and extensive replication with superior methods is required. If we consider the “level of evidence” from the current study using methods developed from other fields (i.e., medicine, see Burns et al., 2011; Sackett, 1989), the data from this study would be considered relatively low, and while guidelines from these fields are obviously not always applicable to sport science (e.g., randomized control trials, the “gold standard” of evidence are arguably not an appropriate approach for a large proportion of elite athlete research), they serve as a reminder that recommendations need to come from the highest levels of evidence. Moreover, generalizing beyond this sample may not be advisable. Sport systems and the developmental environments the create are constantly in flux, rapidly changing as political and social desires change. It is essential to remember that these types of studies explain the antecedents of optimal development for athletes who competed in the past and may have limited relevance for athletes outside this generation. This is especially important in countries like the UK, which have gone through extensive change in the pre- and post-Games periods after the London Games. These experiences have changed the developmental landscape for the next generation of aspiring Olympians from the UK.

References

3 A NOTE OF OPTIMISM Ultimately, these results will be evaluated and contextualized in the years and decades ahead, although there are some obvious areas of future work in the more immediate future. First, despite what appear to be consistent differences between “super-elite” and “elite” groups, for each of the outcomes examined there were athletes in both skill groups who reflected “exceptions.” These exceptions are important, for they highlight that the path to sporting expertise is much more nuanced than “one size fits all” models of development suggest. With the above in mind, a critical area of future research involve replicating and extending these findings to samples that are more diverse and more homogenous. More diversity would involve sports that might not be captured among those that are targeted for funding in UK sport and/or athlete samples from outside the UK sport system. A sample that is more homogenous would reduce some of the limitations in the current study that come from using a sample that is highly heterogeneous for age (range 30–50 years of age), level of success (obtaining between 2 and 18 medals), and career length (competing for between 8 and 32 years). If these findings are robust, future work may wish to consider the long-term consequences of embracing concepts such as ruthlessness and selfishness, which may have relevance for long-term high performance athlete development but are generally seen as undesirable qualities in society at large. Furthermore, does possession of these qualities affect outcomes such as the ease of transition out of sport or the ability to navigate through the post-elite-sport world? These latter questions remind us that development does not stop with Olympic or World Championship success and that qualities we value or facilitate in one domain may have repercussions for other areas of development (for more details, see Baker et al., 2015). In conclusion, I will reiterate my opening congratulations to the authors for what I believe is an important piece of scholarship and emphasize that the true value of this work will only be realized through extensive replication and extension. If we consider understanding the enormously sophisticated and complex psychology of elite performance as the proverbial “journey of a thousand miles,” this study may not be the first or the last step, but it is an important step nonetheless.

REFERENCES Baker, J., Safai, P., Fraser-Thomas, J., 2015. Health and Elite Sport: Is High Performance Sport a Healthy Pursuit? Routledge, London. Burns, P.B., Rohrich, R.J., Chung, K.C., 2011. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence based medicine. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 128, 305–310. Collins, D., MacNamara, A., 2012. The rocky road to the top: why talent needs trauma. Sports Med. 42, 907–914.

135

136

CHAPTER 4 The journey of a thousand miles…

Rees, T., Hardy, L., Abernethy, B., C^ ote, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H., Laing, S., Warr, C., 2016. The Great British Medalists Project: a review of current knowledge on the development of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Med. 46, 1041–1058. Sackett, D.L., 1989. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 95, 2S–4S.

CHAPTER

Embedding the psychosocial biographies of Olympic medalists in a (meta-) theoretical model of dynamic networks

5

Ruud J.R. Den Hartigh1, Nico W. Van Yperen, Paul L.C. Van Geert University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Corresponding author: Tel.: +31-50-363-9726, e-mail address: [email protected]

1

Abstract Based on in-depth interviews, Hardy et al. focused on the role of psychosocial factors in the development of elite and super-elite athletes. They reveal interesting differences and commonalities in the frequencies at which certain aspects related to life events, personality, contextual factors, etc. were reported. Here, we argue that insights in the development of (super-)elite athletes will advance if we go beyond explanations in the frequency-domain, and search for process explanations in the time-domain. This means that we should investigate how athletes develop from one time point to the next, and the next, etc., thereby examining how (psychosocial) factors change and combine across time, as well as how the timing of events can shape an athlete’s further developmental trajectory. We therefore present a process-oriented dynamic network model of talent development, assuming that (super-)elite performance develops out of structures of dynamically interacting (psychosocial) factors, which we illustrate using the outcomes of Hardy et al.

Keywords Complexity, Dynamical systems, Achievement motivation, Goals, Sport performance, Talent development

In the past decades, research on talent and excellence in sports has attempted to untangle the factors distinguishing between elite and sub- (or non-)elite athletes. Findings suggest that a variety of physical, psychological, and environmental factors are important for reaching the highest level in one’s sport, including psychosocial factors such as goal commitment, resilience, and social support (e.g., Rees et al., 2016; Van Yperen, 2009). The target article written by Hardy and colleagues provides an Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.11.007 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

137

138

CHAPTER 5 Dynamic network model of talent development

interesting contribution to the extant literature not only by discussing potential explanatory factors to attain the (super-)elite status but also by providing insights into idiosyncrasies, developmental trajectories, and the role of timing of critical factors and events during development. Indeed, the explanatory factors of athletic performance identified in previous research may not only change over time, the timing at which particular factors rise up (such as coaching support) may be critical as well. While reading the target article, we considered Hardy et al.’s qualitative work as an important springboard for theorizing about talent development. They primarily focus on commonalities and differences between the developmental biographies of super-elite and elite athletes at the group-level. In our view, the next step should be to examine how the explanatory factors underlying (super-)elite performance combine across time and how the timing of critical events can accelerate or dampen individual athletes’ performance development. Hardy et al. discuss several factors distinguishing super-elite athletes from elite athletes, in terms of personality, psychological, and environmental factors. Other factors that are likely related to the timing at which they occur, such as early negative life events plus positive sport events and career turning points, are also discussed as discriminating factors and are displayed as such in their figure. This means that Hardy et al. provide explanations in the frequency-domain (i.e., how often certain factors turn up), whereas the time-domain is not elaborated on (i.e., how athletes developed from one time point to the next, and the next, etc. in an ongoing process). We propose that further theoretical and practical progress can be made when taking a more critical look at process-oriented explanations for developing into an (super-) elite athlete, for which the dynamic network model provides a suitable framework (Den Hartigh et al., 2016). This dynamic network model should not be considered as (again) another specific model or framework. Rather, in line with the authors’ intention to provide an integral overview of the underpinnings and developments of success of actual elite and super-elite athletes, the dynamic network model is a comprehensive (meta-)theory in which outcomes of the current study and future research may be embedded. Among other things, the model can account for athletes’ idiosyncratic developmental trajectories. A dynamic network perspective on talent development departs from the idea that (super-)elite performance develops out of structures of dynamically interacting (personal and environmental) factors or components, in the form of direct and indirect loops of reinforcement or diminishment. Referring to the target article, one could think of the interacting social components within the “culture of striving” that have (in)direct connections with the athlete’s need to succeed, coping strategies, etc. in an ongoing pattern of dynamic reinforcement. Furthermore, a drop and rise in performance is not just determined by a single component or event, but by the timing at which such components or events appear or disappear and the network structure of the individual athlete. This entails that positive or negative events may sometimes have cascading influences that serve as a trigger for a positive (or negative) turning point. This event may be a brief “perturbation” that shakes up the network, and thereby triggers a boost or breakdown in the development of existing components

Dynamic network model of talent development

and/or a reconfiguration of connections between components. Such a scenario fits, for example, with the death of K-SE’s father, which the coach describes as a “shake” after which the athlete went through a transformational phase, and the athlete himself notes that he was more focused, committed, and motivated to succeed after this serious event. Another possibility is that a component appears or disappears from the network. A new component may establish dynamic relationships with other components in the network, thereby also spreading its influence and shaping the athlete’s developmental trajectory. For instance, finding a significant (sporting) other may generate a pattern of positive network interactions, exemplified by several athletes such as D-SE, who also notes that he “may have been lost had he not found his future coach.” In the same vein, a negative developmental pattern may be set in motion when a particular network-component disappears, such as in the case of B-E, who experienced a dramatic decline in performance when his coach was taken away. Note that, in terms of network dynamics, whether or not such positive or negative spirals are set in motion is not just determined by the event or (dis)appearing component, but by how this event or component combines with the athlete’s network structure that has developed over time (Den Hartigh et al., 2016). In line with the dynamic network perspective, at certain points Hardy et al. thus mention the dynamism of athlete characteristics that may or may not develop across time, in connection with events and components that may appear or disappear with time. Furthermore, a general point of the authors is that personality and behavior are shaped by childhood influences, and that critical events likely influence the development of attributes such as robustness, resilience, ruthlessness, and motivation. Following up on the study by Hardy and colleagues, a fruitful research avenue would therefore be to reconstruct the dynamic networks from which elite and super-elite athletes develop. This entails that the developmental aspect, and the role of timing, should explicitly be taken into account rather than just be considered as a possible explanatory factor independent of the developmental process. In other words, researchers should attempt to not only explain athletic development in the frequency-domain, but certainly also in the time-domain. In line with the study by Hardy et al., we believe that research focused on individual trajectories to the (super-)elite status are highly relevant, and we argue that such research can greatly contribute to modeling these trajectories based on a generic (dynamic network) model. Biographical research such as the target article, in combination with computer simulation (Den Hartigh et al., 2016) and longitudinal research that lends itself to discover the dynamic connections that shape the development of individual athletes, would be a suitable research strategy to proceed with. Researchers in the domain of psychopathology have recently started to design methods to reveal individual networks of mental strengths and vulnerabilities in addition to studying cross-sectional results (e.g., Van Der Krieke et al., 2016), and major advances on understanding network dynamics have been made in the rapidly developing domain of complexity science (Baraba´si, 2016). Such advances also provide a welcome breeding ground to further explore questions such as: Which athlete

139

140

CHAPTER 5 Dynamic network model of talent development

network-structures are most resilient to negative events? Why may positive and negative events have cascading influences at some times or for some athletes, but not at other times, or for other athletes? What is the role of the timing of events? And may particular components, such as motivation and commitment, guide the dynamics of the network (cf. Liu et al., 2011)? Ultimately, we may be in a better position to capture the complex process of individual athletic development (Den Hartigh et al., 2016), and understand why and how some make it whereas others do not (Van Yperen, 2009). To conclude, embracing the complex interactions across factors related to the performer, environment, practice, and training, remains the most obvious future research direction (cf. Rees et al., 2016). Bringing the results of Hardy et al. and recent advances from complexity science together, a dynamic network perspective provides a fruitful framework to understand how athletes develop over time, as well as when and why some excel to exceptional levels of performance (Den Hartigh et al., 2016). The dynamic network model can be used as a general framework to study the population of athletes, but it can also be “individualized” to single cases of athletic development. The route to discover the dynamic networks underlying (super-)elite athletes is probably labor-intensive, but Hardy et al. have demonstrated that designing labor-intensive, in-depth research on athletic development is worth the investment.

REFERENCES Baraba´si, A.L., 2016. Network Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Den Hartigh, R.J., Van Dijk, M.W., Steenbeek, H.W., Van Geert, P.L., 2016. A dynamic network model to explain the development of excellent human performance. Front. Psychol. 7, 532. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00532. Liu, Y.Y., Slotine, J.J., Baraba´si, A.L., 2011. Controllability of complex networks. Nature 473, 167–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10011. Rees, T., Hardy, L., G€ullich, A., Abernethy, B., C^ ote, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H., Laing, S., Warr, C., 2016. The great British medalists project: a review of current knowledge on the development of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Med. 46, 1041–1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2. Van Der Krieke, L., Jeronimus, B.F., Blaauw, F.J., Wanders, R.B.K., Emerencia, A.C., Schenk, H.M., De Vos, S., Snippe, E., Wichers, M., Wigman, J.T.W., Bos, E.H., Wardenaar, K.J., De Jonge, P., 2016. HowNutsAreTheDutch (HoeGekIsNL): a crowdsourcing study of mental symptoms and strengths. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 25, 123–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1495. Van Yperen, N.W., 2009. Why some make it and others do not: identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. Sport Psychol. 23, 317–329.

CHAPTER

Assessing risk factors for athletic excellence

6 Kielan Yarrow1

Cognitive Neuroscience Research Unit, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +44-20-7040-8530; Fax: +44-20-7040-8580, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract Hardy et al. present a qualitative interview study to identify differences between elite and super-elite athletes, but their approach closely parallels the case–control methodology developed and discussed primarily within the epidemiological literature. The strengths and weaknesses of this approach may be less familiar to a psychological or sports-science audience. Here, I comment on this methodological choice and the implications it has for the robustness and value of the inferences that are drawn. I conclude that while Hardy et al. have made valuable progress in dissecting the factors that generate elite athletic performance, their work is best considered as exploratory, and would benefit greatly from confirmation via a prospective cohort approach.

Keywords Case–control, Cohort, Elite, Athlete, Retrospective

In their thought-provoking paper, Hardy et al. use a qualitative analysis of interviews with (matched) elite and super-elite athletes in order to identify putative life events, and also personality and motivational factors, that differed between these groups. They particularly highlight eight features that are seen in a much higher proportion of the super-elite athletes compared to their elite colleagues. In most cases, I found the observed differences both intriguing and well evidenced by the supporting quotations.a In what follows, I examine their basic research methodology at a fairly

a

The exception, for me, was the ability to perform under pressure, which in itself seemed rather tautological, and when interpreted via the psychodynamic concept of counterphobia appeared a slightly bewildering leap of faith in light of what the athletes had actually said. Still, seven out of eight is pretty good. Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.11.008 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

141

142

CHAPTER 6 Assessing risk factors for athletic excellence

abstract level. This approach leads me to conclude that the data presented in this target article are intriguing and suggestive, but some way away from being conclusive. Hardy et al. use an interview methodology that generates rich qualitative data, but their approach is nonetheless recognizable as a case–control study (with the super-elite multimedal-winning athletes as the cases, and the elite athletes that never medalled at the World Championships or Olympic games as the controls). The defining feature of a case–control study is that cases are identified, then matched with controls, and the two groups are compared retrospectively in order to determine the relative frequencies of exposure to one or more hypothesized risk factors. In Hardy et al.’s paper, risk factors are instead called variables, reflecting the psychological rather than medical tradition in which they work. Case–control approaches rarely receive explicit mention within Psychology, but the strengths and weaknesses of this kind of study are well known from the epidemiological literature (e.g. Coggon et al., 2003; Sedgwick, 2015). In general, case–control studies are ranked below randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in terms of their methodological persuasiveness, but of course they are much easier to run. That said, for the kinds of variables considered here, it is unlikely we could ever envisage a true experiment, with random allocation to conditions and so forth. However, a cohort study might be feasible. I certainly do not wish to belittle what has been accomplished, but we should be realistic about its limitations. Here, I will consider three aspects of Hardy et al.’s work in a bit more detail: the robustness of statistical inference, the reliability of retrospective data, and the appropriateness of the controls. I will not comment in detail on the essentially correlational nature of the data, as I think Hardy et al. are already fairly clear in their caveats on that front, but this should of course also be borne in mind.

1 ROBUSTNESS OF STATISTICAL INFERENCE Hardy et al. tread a slightly opaque path between a qualitative and quantitative methodology, in which they identify risk factors, and the frequencies with which they occur in both super-elite and elite athletes, but do not present the inferential stats that might typically accompany these descriptions. Thankfully, even the least discriminating of their differences (the “need for success,” found in 13 of 16 super-elites but only 6 of 16 elites) is in fact conventionally significant (w2½1 ¼ 6:35, P ¼ 0.0118). However, this issue does deserve a little further thought. In a typical case–control study, the risk factors of interest are identified in advance, legitimizing an a priori statistical comparison. Here, the variables are generated from the qualitative analysis of an interview. Although themes are clearly identified in advance, the actual risk factors within each theme emerge only after engagement with the data. Hence we are in the realm of post hoc analysis, but with an ill-defined number of variables to consider for the correction of familywise error rates. I certainly do not think that this invalidates Hardy et al.’s findings, but it should lead us to weigh the study as an

3 The appropriateness of the controls

exploratory, rather than confirmatory, exercise. I look forward to subsequent confirmatory work.

2 THE RELIABILITY OF RETROSPECTIVE DATA Hardy et al. allude to the fragility of human memory in their methods section and make efforts to confirm their data via interviews with coaches and parents. This is laudable. What worries me slightly is the potential for a kind of groupthink in the narratives that athletes, coaches, and their families develop to account for life outcomes. I do not doubt that the super-elite athletes did experience negative early life events around the time of a significant (re)commitment to their sport, but I wonder how pondering one’s past from the position of having to explain subsequent tremendous success might affect the interpretation and rehearsal of teenage memories. And could there be some post hoc rationalization by the elites, when contemplating the role that their personality, motivation, and lifestyle played in their failure to reach the highest heights? Did they fail because they “wanted it” but did not “need it,” or did they conclude that they did not “need it” because they failed? These are the sorts of concerns that elevate prospective longitudinal studies over retrospective ones.

3 THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CONTROLS This is an important issue in case–control methodology, and one which, in fairness, Hardy et al. score well on. The super-elites were matched with athletes of the same sex/sport/age/era who had been recognized as worthy investments by a national sporting body but never medalled at major events. That seems both clear and sensible to me. One possible issue is that we are not told how these controls were actually selected. Ideally, they would have been picked completely at random from all those who met the matching criteria, and indeed this may have been the case. The worry would be that (unconsciously or otherwise) the researchers were directed to controls that exhibited the sorts of traits and histories that coaches believe undermined their success. Note that I am not accusing the study team of any such bias, intentional or unintentional. I am simply highlighting some of the subtle confounds that can occur in even well-conducted research. To summarize then, Hardy et al. use what is essentially a case–control methodology to identify factors that differentiate super-elite athletes from elite athletes and come up with some interesting potential risk factors for Olympic gold, such as escaping an early life trauma through sport, and the ruthless pursuit of athletic goals. The case–control methodology is well established and has helped us to move forward with many important questions. For example, a case–control study provided the first evidence that smoking causes cancer (Doll and Hill, 1950). However, it is important not to get carried away with the allure of this design, which might be falsely

143

144

CHAPTER 6 Assessing risk factors for athletic excellence

enhanced when supplemented by powerfully persuasive anecdotes (as here). The tobacco companies were defeated by cohort, not case–control, studies. Ultimately, we will need additional evidence to corroborate what has been hinted at by Hardy et al. about the factors that generate athletic greatness. Fortunately, with their meticulous approach, they seem just the people to provide it.

REFERENCES Coggon, D., Barker, D., Rose, G., 2003. Epidemiology for the Uninitiated, fifth ed. BMJ Publishing Group, London, U.K. Doll, R., Hill, A.B., 1950. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung: preliminary report. BMJ 2 (4682), 739–748. Sedgwick, P., 2015. Bias in observational study designs: case-control studies. BMJ 350, h560.

CHAPTER

7

In search of the golden skill

John W. Krakauer1 The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-410-614-3402, e-mail address: [email protected]

1

Abstract Athletes devote their lives to practicing their chosen sport so as to attain the highest level of skilled performance. A perennial question is why are some athletes better than others? Most debates on this issue reduce to genetics (natural abilities) vs differences in accumulated deliberative practice. In contrast, the target article under discussion here reports on a study that identified psychosocial factors (obsessiveness, ruthlessness) and early life experiences (trauma or loss) that distinguished those athletes at the Olympics and World Championships that medaled over those that did not. The interpretation seems to be that other factors and not just skill make true winners. The point will be made here, however, that psychosocial factors might just predict more devotion to practice at the expense of everything else. If this is true then perhaps the most successful athletes really are just the most skilled.

Keywords Skill, Practice, Athletes, Motor, Winning

Motor skill has long been of interest to neuroscientists and experimental psychologists, and usually studied under laboratory conditions using simplified tasks. For example, a subject may be asked to generate a sequence of finger movements as fast and accurately as possible. Such tasks seem like a far cry from the multifaceted and complex requirements of a sport. A clue to the fundamental differences between sports and the motor skill tasks studied in laboratories is suggested by the target article “Great British Medallists: A Psychosocial Enquiry,” (Hardy et al., 2017). Experimental psychologists seek algorithmic and computational descriptions of the components of motor skill and characterize acquired motor skills with respect to how they are best assessed, trained, and retained. Neuroscientists share many overlapping interests with the psychologists but are particularly interested in the neural implementation of the processes associated with skilled behaviors. Thus, it is possible to distinguish, when it comes to the study of motor skill, between an emphasis on the rules of behavior vs the properties of neurons, circuits, and brain networks. Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.011 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

145

146

CHAPTER 7 In search of the golden skill

Almost all of this work can be, and mainly has been, done on rats, monkeys, and garden-variety undergraduates, rather than Olympians. The reason why most people would not compare a trained rat to an athlete is because they intuit that being the best of the best as an athlete encompasses more than having a very high level of motor skill after a lot of training. But then what is the special “X factor” that only the very top athletes possess? What did Muhammad Ali have over his rivals? The target article attempts to answer this question by looking for psychosocial differences between Super-Elite athletes, those who have won multiple medals at world championships, and Elite athletes, those who had the requisite skill to also compete at world championships but nevertheless did not medal. Every month it seems a new book on the science of athletic prowess and sporting success comes out. I would venture that this is because sport is perceived to lie at the interface between bottom-up and top-down accounts of human achievement, and because physical abilities may be more amenable to various forms of performance enhancement. By bottom-up I mean reductionist scientific accounts that discuss molecules, drugs, genes, and circuits. By top-down, I mean explanations that depend more on psychological and behavioral concepts. The bottom-up perspective is epitomized by David Epstein’s book “The Sports Gene” (Epstein, 2013). Whereas the top-down perspective is exemplified by Anders Ericsson’s book “Peak,” in which he summarizes his large body of work showing that it is the amount of deliberative practice that determines the best at sport rather than genetically determined abilities (Ericsson and Pool, 2016). Innate ability and deliberative practice accounts of elite performance are not necessarily alternatives to the psychosocial factors that the target article is about. This is because the psychosocial factors identified could, in their effects, reduce to the lower level factors that experimental psychologists and neuroscientists are more familiar with. For example, one finding reported in the target article is that Super Elite athletes show more obsessiveness and perfectionism than Elite athletes. But perhaps these traits have a genetic basis and just lead to more time spent practicing. Indeed Ericsson states in his book; “I suspect that genetic differences—if they exist—are most likely to manifest themselves through the necessary practice and efforts that go into developing a skill… Some people might, for instance, be naturally able to focus more intently and for longer periods of time than others…” Thus, seen this way, psychosocial factors might exert their effects via deliberative practice, i.e., more time-on-task. If this is the case then it is not clear that the study of super elite or elite athletes is going to add much to the neuroscience and psychology of practice and skills. General principles of practice and the neural correlates of skill may be discoverable at any level of expertise and not require either the study of extreme skills or examination of the psychosocial make-up of elite athletes. It could be envisaged, however, that there is more to Super Elite athletes than those psychosocial factors that map onto propensity to practice more and better than Elite athletes. The obvious difference between the simple motor tasks studied in the lab and sports is the notion of winning. Once we talk about winning, we unavoidably cross a threshold conceptually, scientifically, and philosophically. This is because while it might be possible to conceive of a continuum between how humans and

In search of the golden skill

nonhuman animals improve with practice, the desire to defeat an opponent and to win glory are both categorically in the domain of human psychology. For example, even in a sport as seemingly beholden to anatomy and physiology as sprinting, a nervous athlete may start out of the blocks slowly and lose despite being a faster sprinter. Such a distinction cannot be explained away by positing that one can practice not being nervous. The critical point is that for any given level of long term practice-related skill there are additional short-term modulating effects that can enhance or depress skill at that moment or in that game. For example, reward and knowledge can have instantaneous augmenting effects on skill (Galea et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2015). There is almost certainly meaning to the idea of having an “off day”—perhaps a Super Elite athlete has fewer of them than an Elite athlete, even though they have comparable skills. The ability to take advantage of short-term positive modulators of skill and suppress the effects of negative modulators may relate to different psychosocial factors from those that lead to more practice per se. This way of framing the question, however, was not pursued in the target article. In fact, I find surprisingly little in the target article to suggest that the capacity to win, in this case medals, dissociates to any large degree from mastery of a skill as acquired through practice. This assessment may appear to be contradicted by the finding that dedication to practice was not different between Super Elite and Elite athletes, as this might suggest that both groups attain similar mastery. If this were true then something else would need to break the tie, which opens the possibility of psychosocial factors that affect the ability to win independent of level of skill, i.e., which do not reduce to just having practiced more. What makes winning-specific factors difficult to identify, however, is the finding that differences in psychosocial factors may lead to differences in the content of practice, even if the amount is the same. Indeed Anders Ericsson’s concept of practice has always been somewhat fuzzy with respect to what counts as deliberative, which means that one can always state somewhat unsatisfyingly that certain psychosocial factors may make practice by Super Elite athletes more deliberative than Elite athletes. Luckily, the target study revealed something more concrete than this, namely, that almost all of the Super Elite athletes placed an emphasis on both mastery and outcome (winning), whereas the Elite athletes focused for the most part on winning, i.e., beating their opponent. There is a paradoxical implication here—you are more likely to beat your opponent when you focus on self-mastery rather than on actually beating them. The reasons for this are unclear but one possibility is that exploring your ability to master a sport (leaving no stone unturned) is more likely to lead to your true optimum performance, as compared to finding a local optimum in the smaller space of opponents. The only performance advantage in Super Elite athletes compared to Elite athletes not potentially reducible to effects on practice was performing better under pressure, which the authors related in part to what is called the counterphobic attitude. The idea here is that Super Elite athletes are drawn to and thrive in high-anxiety-provoking but controlled sporting encounters in order to avoid the low-level uncontrollable anxiety of their everyday lives. This counterphobia might be causally related to the most troubling finding of the study, which was that the

147

148

CHAPTER 7 In search of the golden skill

Super Elite athletes, as compared to the Elite athletes, had a negative critical life event in their primary developmental years. It is notable that the negative life event also seems to relate to other factors in the Super Elite athletes: ruthlessness, selfishness, obsessiveness, and the prioritizing of sport over other domains of life. It is likely no coincidence that the hero origin story in countless movies involves loss of parents followed by finding a mentor or mission—think Luke Skywalker, Spiderman, and Batman. That said, elimination of promising athletes’ parents early on in their lives by coaches or scouts is not likely to become a widely adopted practice. Overall the target article seems to have mainly identified those psychosocial factors that maximize dedication to optimal deliberative practice. It is not clear, however, that these factors inform as to how practice itself increases skill, and therefore, the article may not be of greatest use for understanding the neuroscience of practice and skill acquisition. By analogy, failing to wash one’s hands, stress, and sleep deprivation may increase one’s chances of catching a cold but do not fundamentally inform as to how cold viruses cause upper respiratory symptoms, i.e., epidemiology and virology are separate disciplines. The article’s main contribution may be to find ways to train athletes to win gold medals without the need to experience negative early life events or develop some of the unpleasant personality traits identified.

REFERENCES Epstein, D., 2013. The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance. Current, the Penguin Group, New York, NY. Ericsson, A., Pool, R., 2016. Peak: Secrets From the New Science of Expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, NY. Galea, J.M., Mallia, E., Rothwell, J., Diedrichsen, J., 2015. The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning. Nat. Neurosci. 18 (4), 597–602. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Wong, A.L., Lindquist, M.A., Haith, A.M., Krakauer, J.W., 2015. Explicit knowledge enhances motor vigor and performance: motivation versus practice in sequence tasks. J. Neurophysiol. 114 (1), 219–232.

CHAPTER

Much Ado about…? A response to Hardy et al.

8

Dave Collins*,†,1, A´ine MacNamara* *Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom † Grey Matters Performance Ltd., Royal Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +44-7595-513540; Fax: +44-1789-750828, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract Our response to the Great British Medallist (GBM) study focuses on three concerns. First, we discuss the extent to which the findings presented are actually novel and offer practitioners genuine guidance and information about how to structure talent development pathways. Second, we suggest that a lack of critical consideration of the findings against the considerable body of knowledge that already exists in this domain is a significant limitation. Finally, and most pertinently from a practitioner perspective, we highlight our concerns about the extent to which the findings presented may be prematurely adopted by practitioners without a genuinely appropriate evidence base.

Keywords Evidence base, Talent development, Pracademic, Criticality, Challenge, Psychobehavioral skills

First of all we must commend the editors of this special edition for their innovative method of providing a balanced view. As researchers of several years standing in the area of Talent Identification and Development (TID), we have been increasingly frustrated at the lack of opportunity to submit critical responses to papers across a number of journals. Soliciting critique, as the editors have done, offers a good way forward, which we would commend to others. That said, we are particularly pleased to comment on this paper, we believe, its genesis, presentational style, and subsequent distribution seem to have been designed to confirm a seminal status; most relevantly (and we will suggest, concerningly) with practitioners. Aware of the space allocated, and the number of our fellow critique-ers, we will confine ourselves to three concerns. As pracademics Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.12.002 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

149

150

CHAPTER 8 Much Ado about…?

(cf. Collins and Collins, 2016) we will place an emphasis on the applied implications and consequences of the content.

1 QUESTION 1: HOW MUCH OF THE CONTENT IS GENUINELY NEW? There are a number of features which seem designed to “sell” the study. For example, the GBM study offers substantial detail on its approach, the quantity of data, etc. However, we would argue that the findings from this apparently exhaustive process are neither particularly novel nor offer practitioners sufficient new information to guide their practice. Details of experts consulted (coincidentally, we wonder how many of those were invited to comment here), the length of time taken and even the number of person–years taken to transcribe are provided; but does this really confirm what is said or obviate the need for a genuinely considered approach? More specifically, is it really new to stress that … Rather, through counterphobic processes and total preparation Super-Elite athletes are able to control their emotions (such as anxiety and fear) and maintain high levels of performance in high-pressure situations. This finding stands opposed to the lay-perspective or typical media-standpoint that Super-Elite athletes are always highly confident and do not experience anxiety in the face of high competitive pressures. (GBM, p. 163)

We would suggest that this is both well known and commonly catered by those who work in high performance sport. So why report this in such detail? The “culture of striving” (p. 17) is another example of a construct which has been well evidenced and even, perhaps, more thoroughly considered by other authors (e.g., Smith et al., 2007; Stoll et al., 2008). In short, it is surprising that the GBM authors did not skirt over findings that are well accepted, citing the original research to support their findings, so that more detail (and indeed, a more succinct presentation) could be offered on more original insights.

2 QUESTION 2: HOW MUCH OF THE CONTENT IS CRITICALLY CONSIDERED? We are always pleased to get a mention when others write about one of our target areas, although we would have to question the veracity of some of the things we are referenced for in the GBM study! Our Rocky Road paper, for example (Collins et al., 2016a), is cited six times but, interestingly, none of our other work, all very pertinent to the GBM study, is even mentioned. Of greatest relevance, our recent paper on Superchamps, Champs, and Almosts (Collins et al., 2016b) is omitted, despite the fact that it offers compelling evidence in complete contradiction to what the GBM study itself acknowledges as “contentious” but also “consistent” with

3 What are the key messages for practice?

other research; namely, the existence and importance of foundational negative critical events. In our study, 18 contrasting triads, drawn from a number of sports, were examined in a similar fashion to the GBM approach. Even with specific probing, however, we failed to identify the uniform experience seen as such an important discriminating factor by Hardy et al.; indeed, if any trend was apparent it was for the Almosts (successful as young performers but not at top level) to report more trauma, although even this was nowhere near the levels reported in the GBM study. The paper is open access and has, to date, received over 10,000 downloads yet it is not cited. Our earlier investigations which highlight the existence of skills and transformational challenge in the development of elites across a variety of performance domains (e.g., Kamin et al., 2007; MacNamara and Collins, 2011; MacNamara et al., 2006, 2008, 2010a,b) are also unreported. Furthermore, this oversight is not exclusive to our work. For example, work in mental toughness (e.g., Crust, 2007; Crust and Clough, 2011) and self-regulation (Toering et al., 2011), both pertinent and potentially differing constructs to the GBM perspective, are missed while more recent work which “supports” the GBM standpoint (e.g., Morgan et al., 2015) is included. We hope our point is acknowledged as more than professional pique. It is surely crucial to offer a balanced critique, especially in papers and reports like the GBM study which are designed to have such a broad influence. This is especially important when consumers of this study (e.g., coaches, NGBs, and athletes) may well be swayed by the authority (e.g., professional standing, accreditation, or certification) of the authorship team, together with its uncritical endorsement by the UK Sport. On this basis, we suggest that the lack of criticality and debate about opposing findings are a major limitation of the GBM study as well as a surprising feature given that the authors were not constrained by manuscript length as is the case for peer-reviewed publications; as such, the opportunity to respond is very welcome.

3 QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE THE KEY MESSAGES FOR PRACTICE AND HOW FAIR ARE THE CLAIMS MADE? Quite apart from the points made earlier, we feel that the GBM study and this subsequent paper need to more carefully consider what implications are offered and even, perhaps, whether these are premature. Once again, our points relate to what is said and how it is presented. We present two examples: first consider this statement: Although all 16 Super-Elite athletes experienced foundational negative critical event(s), these negative critical events occurred in close temporal proximity to the experience of a positive critical event(s) within, or specifically linked to, the sporting domain. This temporal proximity, between the negative and positive critical events, was likely an important factor in preventing the negative outcomes typically associated with negative critical foundational events highlighted above. (cf. Rees et al., 2016; Wiersma et al., 2009; GBM p. 28)

151

152

CHAPTER 8 Much Ado about…?

Our question would be how this speculative and, as yet, unsupported contention should be interpreted by practitioners. In the applied summary document for coaches, this finding is presented as: All of the Super elite athletes reported experiencing foundational negative critical events during their early developmental years in close proximity to a positive critical event related to sport. Only four of the 16 Elite athletes reported experiencing a combination of negative events and positive sport related events. (UK Sport, p. 3)

Concerningly, however, the implications of this unequivocally presented finding are not explored. In fact, and somewhat tangentially, the applied guidelines presented are “Athletes should be allowed to develop coping strategies through appropriate levels of support and challenge.” We completely concur with this last statement; indeed, it is the basis of the Rocky Road process which we espouse (Collins et al., in review). However, it is not clear to us at all how the findings logically lead to the advice, or the extent to which a practitioner now knows what to do with the information on foundational negative critical events. In fact, it occurs to us that uncritical acceptance and application of these ideas may have some seriously negative consequences. As a second concern, we would question the extent to which these qualitative findings on one group of 16 individual sport athletes have been taken forward. For example, findings seem to be being presented without qualification or critique across sports by the same authors. As one example, the study has been used as a direction for the English Rugby Union, despite the fact that there were no team athletes in the original study. This reflects the authoritative way in which results have been presented but surely represents bad practice. In short, a shiny presentation should not be allowed to make up for a lack of evidential “meat” nor the absence of clear translational links. After all, many would argue that qualitative study aims to generate a useful map of the world rather than a correct one (Strean, 1998).

4 CONCLUSION In short, given the points made earlier, we are concerned (though perhaps not surprised given precedents in this area such as the adoption of LTAD policy) at the traction suggested for the GBM study with the sporting community and its potential role in guiding practice in TID. We mostly question the lack of criticality with which the findings seem to be adopted and endorsed within the UK sport. If such a study is to guide policy and practice it is surely important that there is a strong degree of criticality apparent. In our opinion the GBM lacks this critical thinking on a number of fronts; presenting evidence that disconfirms (and confirms) their findings, presenting a robust evidence base, and deducing and inferring conclusions from the available facts.

References

REFERENCES Collins, L., Collins, D., 2016. Professional judgement and decision making in the planning process of high level adventure sports coaching practice. J. Advent. Outdoor Learn. 16, 256–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2016.1162182. ´ ., McCarthy, N., 2016a. Putting the bumps in the rocky road: optiCollins, D.J., Macnamara, A mising the pathway to excellence. Front. Psychol. 7, 1482. http://dx.dsboi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.01482. ´ ., McCarthy, N., 2016b. Super champions, champions, and alCollins, D., MacNamara, A mosts: important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Front. Psychol. 6, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009. Crust, L., 2007. Mental toughness in sport: a review. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 5, 270–290. Crust, L., Clough, P.J., 2011. Developing mental toughness: from research to practice. J. Sport Psychol. Action 2 (1), 21–32. Kamin, S., Richards, H., Collins, D., 2007. Influences on the talent development process of non-classical musicians: psychological, social and environmental influences. Music Educ. Res. 9 (3), 449–468. ´ ., Collins, D., 2011. The development and initial validation of the psychologMacNamara, A ical characteristics of developing excellence questionnaire. J. Sports Sci. 29 (12), 1273–1286. ´ ., Holmes, P., Collins, D., 2006. The pathway to excellence: the role of psyMacNamara, A chological characteristics in negotiating the challenges of musical development. Br. J. Music Educ. 23, 3–7. ´ ., Holmes, P., Collins, D., 2008. Negotiating transitions in musical developMacNamara, A ment: the role of psychological characteristics of developing excellence. Psychol. Music 36 (3), 335–352. ´ ., Button, A., Collins, D., 2010a. The role of psychological characteristics in MacNamara, A facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 1: identifying mental skills and behaviours. Sport Psychol. 24, 52–73. ´ ., Button, A., Collins, D., 2010b. The role of psychological characteristics in MacNamara, A facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 2: examining environmental and stage related differences in skills and behaviours. Sport Psychol. 24, 74–96. Morgan, P.B.C., 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. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.007. Rees, T., Hardy, L., Gullich, A., Abernathy, B., Cote, J., Woodman, T., Warr, C., 2016. The Great British Medallists Project: a review of current knowledge on the development of the World’s best sporting talent. Sports Med. 46, 1041–1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s40279-016-0476-2. Smith, A., Ntoumanis, N., Duda, J.L., 2007. Goal striving, goal attainment, and well-being: adapting and testing the self-concordance model in sport. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 29 (6), 763–782. Stoll, O., Lau, A., Stoeber, J., 2008. Perfectionism and performance in a new basketball training task: does striving for perfection enhance or undermine performance? Psychol. Sport Exerc. 9 (5), 620–629. Strean, W.B., 1998. Possibilities for qualitative research in sport psychology. Sport Psychol. 12, 333–345.

153

154

CHAPTER 8 Much Ado about…?

Toering, T.T., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Jordet, G., Jorna, C., Pepping, G.J., Visscher, C., 2011. Self-regulation of practice behavior among elite youth soccer players: an exploratory observation study. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 23, 110–128. Wiersma, J.E., Hovens, J.G.F.M., van Oppen, P., Giltay, E.J., van Schaik, D.J.F., et al., 2009. The importance of childhood trauma and childhood life events for chronicity of depression in adults. J. Clin. Psychiatry 70 (7), 983–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.08m04521.

CHAPTER

9

The stress test: Does what doesn’t kill me, make me a super-elite athlete?

Ian H. Robertson1 Global Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +353-18962684; Fax: +353-18962343, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract Super-elite athletes succeed in part because: (a) previous hardship builds resilience, (b) success breeds success, and (c) they can rename anxiety as excitement. It is unlikely that most of their outstanding success is due to psychodynamic compensatory mechanisms.

Keywords Sport, Success, Winning, Anxiety, Resilience, Winner effect

1 INTRODUCTION In their excellent paper, Hardy and his colleagues identify a number of factors distinguishing elite from super-elite athletes. In this commentary, I will focus on three of these and will take a neuroscientific perspective to complement and test the psychodynamic perspective of the authors. I will consider in turn: (a) the experience of a foundational negative life event combined with a foundational positive sport-related event; (b) need for success; and (c) the role of counterphobic attitudes.

1.1 FOUNDATIONAL NEGATIVE LIFE EVENT Nietzsche’s aphorism “What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger” (Nietzsche, 2001) is strongly supported by a number of studies (Robertson, 2016). One such study, of over 2000 US adults (Seery et al., 2010), found that people who had endured moderate degree of adversity in their pasts—illnesses, injuries, assault, bereavement, severe financial difficulties, for example—had much higher levels of emotional functioning and life satisfaction compared to people with very low or very high levels of adversity in the past. Comparable findings were obtained in children (Gunnar et al., 2009) and moderate levels of adversity were also shown to be linked Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.12.003 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

155

156

CHAPTER 9 The stress test

to much better pain tolerance compared to very low or very high levels (Seery et al., 2013). Finally, moderate (as opposed to very low or severe) stressors among people in their 70s were associated with lower levels of cognitive decline over a 2-year period in cognitive fragile older people (Comijs et al., 2011). The psychodynamic explanation offered for these negative previous experiences by Hardy et al. is a motivational one—the attempt to repair or make good early trauma through a driven focus on sporting achievement. But if that were the main reason for the linkage between super-elite status and early adversity, then one would not predict the inverted U-shaped function between adversity and achievement/ function but rather a linear one whereby the greater the trauma, the greater the motivation to repair early trauma. That is not the case (Robertson, 2016) so while this psychodynamic factors may play a part in motivating to ward off anxiety, there is likely also a strong additional element of familiarization with anxiety and failure that builds resilience and ability to work through setbacks and failure, fostering perseveration, and hence greater success.

1.2 NEED FOR SUCCESS I recognize that some people are driven because they are unconsciously attempting to preempt past negative experiences such as failure, humiliation, or punishment, through an intense effort for achievement in sport. However, there is another— possibly more powerful explanation—called “the winner effect” (Robertson, 2012). This is a phenomenon first predicted mathematically in 1951 (Landau, 1951a,b) and first demonstrated in the green sunfish in 1968 (McDonald et al., 1968) and only finally demonstrated in human beings in 2014 (Zilioli and Watson, 2014). The winner effect is where the probability of increasing a contest is increased by a previous success, even though against a very poor competitor such as a drugged fellow-mouse or a human boxer who is past his prime (the US boxing community call this sort of person “a tomato can”). Success, therefore, breads success, through increasing testosterone and related hormones in a way that produces enduring levels of aggression and motivation during subsequent competitions (Fuxjager et al., 2010). Need for success, therefore, may be as much as a result of experiencing success, as it is a factor in causing sporting success.

1.3 COUNTERPHOBIC ATTITUDES Continuing on the psychodynamic theme whereby high motivation and achievement are unconscious attempts to ward off early anxieties, Hardy and colleagues explain the super-athlete’s positive approach to preperformance nerves in these terms. Another, simpler and more parsimonious explanation, is however available.

References

Sympathetic autonomic arousal is a common feature of several different emotional states including excitement, anger, sexual arousal, and anxiety (Dutton and Aron, 1974; Schachter and Singer, 1962) and more recently, simply asking performance-anxious people to say “I am excited” to themselves (Brooks, 2014) significantly improves performance in a highly stressful public performance. Simple changes in context—including those induced by very small mental shifts—can dramatically change the nature of an emotion experienced from one of threat and anxiety to one of challenge and excitement. It is very likely that the reason for such counterphobic tendencies among super-athletes is much more parsimoniously explained by this mechanism by the rather convoluted and somewhat repetitive psychodynamic explanation of trying unconsciously to protect against early trauma. This however is a pioneering study and the authors deserve great credit for a fascinating and important piece of work.

REFERENCES Brooks, A.W., 2014. Get excited: reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 (3), 1144. Comijs, H.C., et al., 2011. Cumulated and differential effects of life events on cognitive decline in older persons: depending on depression, baseline cognition, or ApoE e4 status. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 66B, 111–120. Dutton, D.G., Aron, A.P., 1974. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30 (4), 510. Fuxjager, M.J., et al., 2010. Winning territorial disputes selectively enhances androgen sensitivity in neural pathways related to motivation and social aggression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (27), 12393–12398. Gunnar, M.R., et al., 2009. Moderate versus severe early life stress: associations with stress reactivity and regulation in 10–12-year-old children. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34 (1), 62–75. Landau, H.G., 1951a. On dominance relations and the structure of animal societies: 1. Effect of inherent characteristics. Bull. Math. Biophys. 13, 1–19. Landau, H.G., 1951b. On dominance relations and the structure of animal societies: II. Some effects of possible social factors. Bull. Math. Biophys. 13, 245–262. McDonald, A.L., et al., 1968. Social modification of agonistic behaviour in fish. Anim. Behav. 16 (4), 437–441. Nietzsche, F.W., 2001. Twilight of the Idols with the Antichrist and Ecce Homo. Wordsworth Editions, London. Robertson, I., 2012. The Winner Effect: How Power Affects Your Brain. Bloomsbury, London. Robertson, I., 2016. The Stress Test: How Pressure Can Make You Stronger and Sharper. Bloomsbury, London.

157

158

CHAPTER 9 The stress test

Schachter, S., Singer, J., 1962. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychol. Rev. 69 (5), 379. Seery, M.D., et al., 2010. Whatever does not kill us: cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99 (6), 1025. Seery, M.D., et al., 2013. An upside to adversity? Moderate cumulative lifetime adversity is associated with resilient responses in the face of controlled stressors. Psychol. Sci. 24, 1181–1189. Zilioli, S., Watson, N.V., 2014. Testosterone across successive competitions: evidence for a ‘winner effect’ in humans? Psychoneuroendocrinology 47, 1–9.

CHAPTER

10

Adversity-related experiences are essential for Olympic success: Additional evidence and considerations

Mustafa Sarkar*,1, David Fletcher† *School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom † School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +44-11-5848-6359, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract Drawing on Hardy et al.’s study as the target article, in this commentary, we focus on the adversity-related experiences and consequences of the Olympic and/or World champions that they sampled. With this in mind, we divide the narrative into two main sections. In the first section, we explore the association between adversity-related experiences and Olympic success, and provide additional evidence in support of the notion that adversity-related experiences are essential for success at the highest level of sport. In the second section, we discuss the role of adversity-related experiences in Olympic success considering a series of important psychosocial processes that are required for superior performance. In ending, we reflect on the salient (contentious and ethical) issues in the study and practice of adversityrelated experiences and sport performance. We hope that our commentary adds to the extant literature and is useful for future study and practice in performance sport.

Keywords Adversity, Elite, Excellence, Psychosocial, Sport performance

It is with pleasure that we comment on Hardy et al.’s study of British Olympic athletes. First, because we have for some time admired the work and contributions of the authors to sport psychology and talent development. Second, because we have a longstanding interest in the psychosocial aspects of Olympic champions (Fletcher, 2008; Fletcher and Sarkar, 2010, 2012; Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015). There is much to commend about the study including its purposive sample, Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.11.009 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

159

160

CHAPTER 10 Adversity-related experiences and Olympic success

comparative design, and comprehensive data. If we were to quibble, it could have been more explicit in places how the findings (see also Rees et al., 2016) are situated in relation to previous research in this area, and why some methodological-related procedures were conducted. That said, given the wealth of findings reported, it is understandable why the authors focused their attention largely on the results and their interpretation. Indeed, it is with this in mind that we focus on the adversity-related experiences and consequences of the Olympic and/or World champions that they sampled (cf. Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012; Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Morgan et al., 2013, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015).

1 ADVERSITY-RELATED EXPERIENCES AND OLYMPIC SUCCESS As Hardy et al. recognized, the notion that the experience of adversity could be important for sporting success has received increasing attention in recent years. In our 2012 study of Olympic champions, for example, we reported that “most of the participants argued that if they had not experienced certain types of stressors at specific times, including highly demanding adversities … they would not have won their gold medals” (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012, p. 672). In a follow-up study designed to specifically explore this observation, we found that these stressors related to both sport and nonsport (life) adversities that the Olympic champions considered were essential for winning their gold medals, including repeated nonselection, significant sporting failure, serious injury, political unrest, and the death of a family member (Sarkar et al., 2015). A more comprehensive list of sport and nonsport (life) adversities were identified in Howells and Fletcher’s (2015) study of Olympic swimming champions: developmental stressors (e.g., ADHD), external stressors (e.g., family dysfunction), embodied states (e.g., injury), psychological states (e.g., depression), and externalized behaviors (e.g., self-harm). Comparable adversities were reported in Hardy et al.’s study with all of the Olympic and/or World champions sampled experiencing an early life (i.e., nonsport) adversity and the majority experiencing a later career (sport or nonsport) adversity. Thus, a convergence of evidence supports the notion that adversity-related experiences are essential for success at the highest level of sport. Interestingly and importantly, by explicitly distinguishing between early life and later career adversities, Hardy et al. begin to unravel some of the temporal and contextual nuances underpinning the association between adversity and achievement. More specifically, that early life (i.e., nonsport) adversity is essential and that later career (sport or nonsport) adversity has the potential to act as a developmental catalyst. Another significant contribution that Hardy et al. make relates to the experience of the early life adversity in close temporal proximity to a positive sport-related event. Howells and Fletcher (2015) similarly observed that, following adversity, Olympic champion swimmers used the pool as a sanctuary and searched for meaning in their lives. In their study, however, Hardy et al. expand on these findings by

2 The role of adversity-related experiences in Olympic success

suggesting that the positive sport-related event involves finding a sport in which the individual felt that they could thrive, finding a significant sport coach or mentor, and/ or experiencing an inspirational sporting pathway moment. However, although Hardy et al. argue that the positive nature of this event may counter the negative mental health consequences that typically accompany childhood trauma, we suggest that this positive event may only mask these undesirable outcomes with the positive virtues commonly associated with and expressed by successful Olympic athletes. Either way, the relationships between adversity, mental health, and performance represent a fruitful area for future research.

2 THE ROLE OF ADVERSITY-RELATED EXPERIENCES IN OLYMPIC SUCCESS The experience of adversity is, of course, not enough on its own to guarantee Olympic success. Coupled with a positive sport-related event (Hardy et al., 2017) and growthrelated transitional processes (Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015), there are a series of important psychosocial processes that are required for superior performance. We concur with Hardy et al.’s conclusion that trauma plays an influential role and have argued that “[emotional] trauma stemming from adversity can leave an indelible impression on an individual’s psyche and schema, to the extent that his or her raison d’^etre is established or altered” (Sarkar et al., 2015, p. 478; see also Howells and Fletcher, 2015). There are similarities between the “demonstration of high achievement and superiority becoming fundamental psychological exigencies for that individual” (Sarkar et al., 2015, p. 478), adversity-related traumas “acting as extreme motivational triggers” (Howells and Fletcher, 2015, p. 45) and fuelling ambition, effort, and application (Sarkar et al., 2015), and what Hardy et al. term “a deepseated need to succeed” (p. 65). Similarly, parallels can be drawn between “a ‘dark side’ of core psychological processes” (Sarkar et al. 2015, pp. 477–478), including a “self-serving indifference and disturbing malevolence” (Sarkar et al. 2015, p. 478), “a single-minded, narcissistic desire to prove one’s worth” (Sarkar et al. 2015, p. 478), “highly driven mindsets that bordered on the obsessional” (Howells and Fletcher, 2015, p. 45), and what Hardy et al. describe as “obsessive/perfectionistic, and ruthless/selfish, attitudes to sport” (p. 171). Perhaps the most significant advance that Hardy et al. make in these areas is the profundity of both the relationships between and the role of these psychosocial characteristics and Olympic success. Some of the most novel and interesting interpretations of Hardy et al.’s work are, in our opinion, the links they make with psychodynamic and attachment theories. We are not aware of any previous research in Olympic sport that has examined these areas and Hardy et al. draw some well-reasoned and intriguing conclusions based on the interface between their original data and existing theory. As they suggest, future researchers would do well to reflect on their observations and design studies to further explore related concepts in more detail. Given previous research in this area and the nature of the reported data, we were somewhat surprised that theories relating to

161

162

CHAPTER 10 Adversity-related experiences and Olympic success

adversarial growth (Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015), social support (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012; Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Morgan et al., 2013, 2015), and learning (Morgan et al., 2013, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) did not feature and, therefore, may also warrant future inquiry in Olympic sport. Another related worthwhile area of research is the extent to which Olympic champions deceive themselves in terms of their perceptions of adversity-related experiences and the role they play in their development and performance (cf. Howells and Fletcher, 2016).

3 CONCLUDING REMARKS In 2015, we recognized that “to add to our studies of superior Olympic performance, researchers could compare in more depth the developmental journeys of serial gold medalists … and those who underperformed, to better understand differences in their respective adversity-related experiences …” (Sarkar et al., 2015, p. 478), so we were excited to see Hardy et al.’s study—and we were not disappointed after reading it. Notwithstanding the advances that their research makes, it is important to note that the topic of adversity-related experiences and sport performance raises some contentious and ethical issues that require further consideration, something that Hardy et al. acknowledge. In Table 1, we take this opportunity to reflect on the salient issues that we have encountered following the presentation and publication of our research in this area. We hope that our commentary adds to the extant literature and is useful for future study and practice in performance sport. Table 1 Salient Issues in the Study and Practice of Adversity-Related Experiences and Sport Performance Issue

Reflections

Are adversity and trauma really essential for Olympic success? Do all Olympic champions experience adversity and trauma at some point in their lives?

The available evidence to date that has sampled Olympic champions and investigated adversity and trauma (viz. Hardy et al., 2017; Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) has found that they have experienced adversity and trauma, and that they are perceived as playing an essential role in their success To date, there is no evidence of any Olympic champions who have not experienced some adversity and trauma at some point in their lives The evidence suggests that he or she will not be successful at the highest levels (i.e., winning an Olympic gold medal and, in particular, winning gold medals across Olympic Games)

What about Olympic champions who have not experienced adversity and trauma?

If an athlete has not experienced adversity and trauma at some point in his or her life does that mean that he or she cannot be successful in Olympic sport?

3 Concluding remarks

Table 1 Salient Issues in the Study and Practice of Adversity-Related Experiences and Sport Performance—cont’d Issue

Reflections

To be successful at Olympic level, should adversity and trauma be imposed on (aspiring) athletes?

No, that would be unethical and potentially abusive and harmful. Briefly, the main implications of the research are threefold: (1) if a child or athlete experiences adversity and trauma he or she may potentially grow and develop as a result of this experience, to the point that it enhances his or her sport performance (Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015); (2) that athletes should be exposed to relevant and progressively demanding stressors that, with appropriate support, become surmountable challenges (Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015); and (3) that athletes who grow from adversity and cope with stressors will, all things being equal, have a competitive advantage over those who do not (Hardy et al., 2017) No, there are a multitude of psychosocial and nonpsychosocial factors that are needed to grow from adversity and also to achieve at the highest levels of sport Both. The environment needs to balance and combine the support offered to and challenges imposed on athletes, depending on a wide range of contextual and developmental factors No. Most people who experience adversity and trauma are not successful at the highest levels. The evidence suggests that a positive sport-related event (Hardy et al., 2017) and growth-related transitional processes (Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) are also essential features of the adversity-related experience, not to mention a multitude of other psychosocial and nonpsychosocial factors that are needed to be successful Probably, but most people do not also experience a positive sport-related event and growth-related transitional processes, together with developing a multitude of other psychosocial and nonpsychosocial factors, and that is why they do not experience Olympic success

Should talent be identified and subsequently selected on the basis of experiencing adversity and trauma? Should athletes be supported through adversity or challenged to cope with demanding stressors?

Is adversity and trauma all you need to be successful?

Doesn’t everyone experience adversity and trauma at some point in their life? But not everyone experiences Olympic success

Continued

163

164

CHAPTER 10 Adversity-related experiences and Olympic success

Table 1 Salient Issues in the Study and Practice of Adversity-Related Experiences and Sport Performance—cont’d Issue

Reflections

Does adversity and trauma cause or produce Olympic success? Or rather do talented athletes need adversity and trauma to succeed?

Adversity and trauma do not cause or produce Olympic success (see previous page). Rather, the available evidence to date indicates that early life (i.e., nonsport) adversity is essential for the development of talent to the highest levels, and that later career (sport or nonsport) adversity has the potential to act as a developmental catalyst for talented athletes (Hardy et al., 2017; see also Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) Although the genetic and preexisting psychosocial characteristics that an individual has will contribute to how he or she responds to and potentially grows from adversity, the evidence indicates that it is the adversity-related experience that is essential in the emergence of new psychosocial characteristics (Hardy et al., 2017; Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015). The psychosocial skills that athletes already have or bring to the adversity and trauma will not be enough on their own (even if they are further developed) to achieve at the highest levels The available evidence to date that has sampled Olympic champions and investigated adversity and trauma indicates that early life (i.e., nonsport) adversity is essential for the development of talent to the highest levels (Hardy et al., 2017; Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) Although it appears that adversity and trauma, together with a positive sportrelated event (Hardy et al., 2017) and growth-related transitional processes (Howells and Fletcher, 2015; Sarkar et al., 2015) are important for Olympic success, it remains unclear if this counters or masks undesirable mental health consequences Probably. Practitioners will likely need to make difficult decisions relating to whether an intervention enhances sport performance but might compromise mental health or improves mental health but limits sport performance

Rather than adversity-related experiences being essential for Olympic success, isn’t it the psychosocial skills that athletes already have and that are further developed as a consequence of the trauma that are essential?

Life or nonsport adversity and trauma are not essential for Olympic success

What about the evidence that traumatic adversities in childhood are related to a number of undesirable mental health consequences?

Is there conflict, or at least a tension, between sport psychologists’ desire to enhance sport performance and their ethical obligation to optimize mental health, particularly at the highest levels of sport?

References

REFERENCES Fletcher, D., 2008. The Psychological Architecture of Olympic Champions: What Makes the World’s Best Athletes Tick? British Olympic Association London 2012 Olympic Games Preparation Report, Centre for Olympic Studies and Research, Loughborough, UK. Fletcher, D., Sarkar, M., 2010. The Psychological Resilience of Olympic Champions: British Olympic Association London 2012 Olympic Games Preparation Report, Centre for Olympic Studies and Research, Loughborough, UK. Fletcher, D., Sarkar, M., 2012. A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 669–678. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Howells, K., Fletcher, D., 2015. Sink or swim: adversity- and growth-related experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 37–48. Howells, K., Fletcher, D., 2016. Adversarial growth in Olympic swimmers: constructive reality or illusory self-deception? J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 38, 173–186. Morgan, P.B.C., Fletcher, D., Sarkar, M., 2013. Defining and characterizing team resilience in elite sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14, 549–559. Morgan, P.B.C., 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. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 91–100. Rees, T., Hardy, L., G€ullich, A., Abernethy, B., C^ ote, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H., Laing, S., Warr, C., 2016. The Great British medalists project: a review of current knowledge on the development of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Med. 46, 1041–1058. 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. J. Sci. Med. Sport 18, 475–479.

165

CHAPTER

11

Getting gritty about practice and success: Motivational characteristics of great performers

Nicola J. Hodges*,1, Paul R. Ford†, David T. Hendry*, A. Mark Williams‡ *School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Centre for Sport, Exercise Science and Medicine, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK ‡ Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, College of Health, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-604-822-5895; Fax: +1-604-822-6842, e-mail address: [email protected] †

Abstract We consider the data reported in the target article with respect to key motivational frameworks and characteristics, including grit and self-determined forms of motivation. Empirical data are reviewed that highlight the relationships between these concepts and practice and success. We highlight the concept of grit as a defining characteristic of the super-elite athletes, in reference to both their continued perseverance in the face of obstacles, as well as the increased motivation seemingly caused by such obstacles or setbacks. We discuss the dynamic nature of motivation with respect to cross-sectional and longitudinal age-related comparisons in athletes. Such research is necessary to better understand the characteristics that are potentially transitory or that are a consequence of success, rather than being causal in nature. In the final section, we provide evidence consistent with a profile of a super-elite athlete that is best defined with respect to coexisting types of motivations that have traditionally been considered both positive and negative with respect to their outcomes. The between group comparisons of highly successful athletes in the target article, is unusual yet important if we are to better understand the psychosocial profiles necessary to succeed, that are unbiased by age, practice, and competition experience.

Keywords Grit, Self-determined motivation, Expertise, Sport

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.003 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

167

168

CHAPTER 11 Getting gritty about practice and success

“What really makes that person have that real difference to really want it to make it?” (Hardy et al., 2017, p. 68). This quote from one of the super-elite athletes in the paper by Hardy and colleagues seems to capture the very essence of their study and why, as scientists, we seek to understand the minds and behaviors of highly elite athletes. The approach taken by Hardy and colleagues to assess multiple factors that may contribute to variance at the highest levels of sport is timely and important. This approach has been underscored by significant shortcomings identified with current methods that rely solely on developmental practice history profiling to discriminate athletes performing at the highest levels (cf., MacNamara et al., 2016). Hardy et al. present a unique dataset, full of rich insights, describing the psychosocial characteristics and environments of athletes that have been extremely successful at the international level. In our response, we relate some of these data to popular motivational characteristics and frameworks that have been applied to the study of sport expertise. We consider what these data, frameworks, and characteristics mean for key outcomes, such as engagement in training activities and attainment in competition. Several psychological characteristics are considered necessary for the attainment of high levels of success in sport, including grit (e.g., Duckworth et al., 2007), resilience (e.g., Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012; Galli and Vealey, 2008), intrinsic or self-determined motivation (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2002), desire or passion (e.g., Vallerand et al., 2008), and perfectionism (e.g., Hall, 2006; Stoeber, 2011). The profiles of the super-elite athletes in the Hardy et al. paper show elements commensurate with these various motivational perspectives. We focus both on the concept of grit as a driver of success at the super-elite level and review data with respect to self-determined vs more controlling forms of motivation, within a self-determination framework. These motivational frameworks were either not considered or only given passing commentary in the paper by Hardy and colleagues, despite their potential relevance in explaining their data and athlete success in general.

1 GRIT Grit has been defined as the “sustained and focused application of talent over time” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087) and “the tenacious pursuit of a dominant superordinate goal despite setbacks (Duckworth and Gross, 2014, p. 319)”. Grit accounts for more variance in success across a range of domains than just conscientiousness (Duckworth et al., 2007). The fact that Hardy et al. failed to show that differences in conscientiousness separated the elite from the super-elite, underscores the fact that it was not enough just to be high on this “big C” variable. It was the perseverance over time and resilience to setbacks that was a critical discriminator. What is interesting and perhaps extends the literature on grit, is that the super-elite athletes reported an increase in motivation as a result of setbacks, rather than just a failure to be deterred.

2 Controlled motivation

In some of our own work, “grit” has been shown to be related to differences in the amount of training as well as performance on perceptual–cognitive skills among elite youth soccer players in Australia (Larkin et al., 2016). Players classified as higher in grit had engaged in more training and competition hours compared to a lower grit group and grit showed a correlation of 0.32 with training hours. Similarly, one of the key characteristics to show up among Olympic athletes in Australia was “showing perseverance and determination when facing obstacles” (Gulbin et al., 2010, p. 159). The dataset presented by Hardy and colleagues further highlights the importance of motivational concepts such as grit, which place emphasis on the desire to practice and achieve in the face of adversity, in the attainment of a high level success in sport (see also Collins and MacNamara, 2012). Although the motivational profile among the super-elite athletes is commensurate with the concept of grit, a high commitment to training, defined with respect to the duration and intensity of this activity, did not consistently differentiate the super-elite (14 out of 16 athletes) from the elite athletes (9 of 16 athletes). However, duration (e.g., G€ ullich and Emrich, 2014; Hornig et al., 2016) and intensity of practice (e.g., Hodges and Starkes, 1996) do not consistently differentiate among elite adult athletes engaging full-time in the sport. The super-elites likely engaged in a greater quality of practice compared to the elites, as a result of their obsessive, adaptive perfectionist tendencies, and high mastery focus (for evidence concerning differences in practice quality among elite vs less-elite athletes, see Coughlan et al., 2013; Ford et al., 2015). Hardy et al. summarize this difference as “Super-Elites left no stone unturned in their preparation” (p. 148). We have argued elsewhere that the forming of a deliberate environment is important for elite success, in which all of the decisions and associated behaviors across the athlete’s life are goal-directed and optimized toward improving performance and achieving success (Ford et al., 2013, 2015). It is likely that the “grit” evidenced by the super-elites, toward mastery and “the need to succeed” is the driver behind their sustained engagement in high-quality practice, lifestyle, and their eventual outstanding achievements (see also Duckworth et al., 2010).

2 CONTROLLED MOTIVATION Self-determination theory assumes that motivation lies on a continuum of self-determination with more self-determined, autonomous, and intrinsic motivation at one end and more controlled, extrinsic at the other (Deci and Ryan, 1987). More self-determined motivations (or regulations) have been shown to be positively correlated with effort, persistence, and performance (Vallerand and Miquelon, 2007). The satisfaction of three basic needs related to competency, autonomy, and social relatedness are thought to lead to motivations that are more self-determined/intrinsic (Deci and Ryan, 2000). What is noteworthy is that the super-elites appeared low for satisfaction of relatedness (e.g., terminating interpersonal relationships and lack of

169

170

CHAPTER 11 Getting gritty about practice and success

engagement in other activities), yet high for the need for autonomy and competence, whereas satisfaction of relatedness was more important for elites. Contrary to ideas that the motivation levels of highly elite performers were self-determined (e.g., Cresswell and Eklund, 2005; Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2002; Mallett and Hanrahan, 2004), profiles of the super-elite athletes were better defined by more controlled forms of motivation (or obsessive passion e.g., Vallerand et al., 2003), which Hardy and colleagues argued was a driving force behind the high amounts of practice and success (see also Vallerand et al., 2008). In our own work with elite soccer players at youth levels, the athletes are typified by more self-determined forms of motivation up until age 16 years (Hendry et al., 2014). After which point, data based on cross-sectional age comparisons show a decrease in autonomous motivation (see also Ward et al., 2007). In a longitudinal study using the same youth players involved in Hendry et al. (2014), we showed a related pattern of results, with player motivation becoming less self-determined and more controlled after age 16 years (Hendry & Hodges, 2017). Since this developmental trend was observed in an elite sample of players who were on the brink of adult professional soccer, but no age-related changes were noted in an age matched, competitive, yet nonelite sample, the data suggest that winning, external rewards, and the lure of a professional career (or elite success) start to change the athlete’s reasons for engagement. It may be the case that this change in motivation is necessary for “super-elite” success, although in a follow-up of these youth athletes, it did not discriminate players who were later “retained” on a professional contract or “released.” Moreover, the elite sample scored higher on overall measures of self-determined motivation and autonomous motivation than the subelite sample. An important point to take from this age-related, cross-sectional, and longitudinal research is that these motivations are dynamic (and potentially multifaceted, see later). There are clear problems in trying to determine precursors to success at a single time point.

3 COEXISTING TYPES OF MOTIVATION With respect to the profile of a super-elite athlete as being best defined in terms of several coexisting types of motivation, similar findings exist in other sports (e.g., Gillet et al., 2009, 2012). In one study (Gillet et al. 2012), the best junior national fencers at the end of a season were those that were classified as “high” (22% of the sample) on both indices of intrinsic/autonomous and controlled motivations, as well as low on amotivation. This finding was based on a cluster analysis of five behavioral regulations identified in self-determination theory and the subsequent classification of athletes as high, medium, or low in both or one of autonomous and controlled motivation. In a second study reported in the same paper, extreme runners showed a similar “high” motivation profile. It is noteworthy that some super-elite athletes did not find training enjoyable but were motivated to engage in it because of its value to improving performance and attaining success. These findings support the motivational constraint outlined in

References

deliberate practice theory, which holds that “deliberate practice is not inherently enjoyable and that individuals are motivated to engage in it by its instrumental value in improving performance” (Ericsson et al., 1993, p. 371; for a review, see Ford et al., 2015). Super-elite athletes were identified as being simultaneously mastery oriented and outcome oriented in their motivations (based on concepts developed by Duda, 1992). High levels of task or mastery motivation in expert performers have been described elsewhere by Winner (1996) as a “rage to master” consisting of an extreme desire to master a domain and its tasks. The data showing high levels of ego or outcome motivation in super-elites show they also have a “rage to succeed” in the domain, described by Hardy and colleagues as a “need to succeed,” which the elites did not.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS One of the key contributions of this research is in alerting us to subtle, yet potentially important discriminators of success at the highest levels. In addition to successfully discriminating across skill levels based on the amount and quality of practice (cf., Ericsson et al., 1993), expert performance can be further delineated based on comparisons of exceptional or “super” performing individuals with high performing, but less successful elites. It is at this high level that characteristics related to gritty motivational profiles, which may be somewhat obsessive and driven by coexisting motivations (both bad and good), add to our understanding of highly elite performance. Although it is still unclear what the causes of these motivational characteristics may be (such as trauma) and how adaptable they are across development, these characteristics appear necessary for sustained engagement in quality practice, despite setbacks and for eventual success at the highest level of the sport.

REFERENCES Collins, D., MacNamara, A., 2012. The rocky road to the top. Sports Med. 42, 907–914. Coughlan, E.K., Williams, A.M., McRobert, A.P., Ford, P.R., 2013. How experts practice: a novel test of deliberate practice theory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 40, 449–458. Cresswell, S.L., Eklund, R.C., 2005. Motivation and burnout in professional rugby players. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 76, 370–376. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, New York. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 1024–1037. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2002. Handbook of Self-Determination Research. University Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, USA.

171

172

CHAPTER 11 Getting gritty about practice and success

Duckworth, A., Gross, J.J., 2014. Self-control and grit: related but separable determinants of success. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 319–325. Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., Kelly, D.R., 2007. Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 1087–1101. Duckworth, A.L., Kirby, T., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., Ericsson, K., 2010. Deliberate practice spells success: why grittier competitors triumph at the national spelling bee. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2, 174–181. Duda, J.L., 1992. Motivation in sport settings: a goal perspective approach. In: Roberts, G.C. (Ed.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, pp. 57–91. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-R€ omer, C., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100, 363–406. Fletcher, D., Sarkar, M., 2012. A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 669–678. Ford, P.R., Hodges, N.J., Williams, A.M., 2013. Creating champions: the development of expertise in sports. In: Kaufman, S.B. (Ed.), Beyond Talent: The Complexity of Greatness. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 391–414. Ford, P.R., Coughlan, E.K., Hodges, N.J., Williams, A.M., 2015. Deliberate practice in sport. In: Baker, J., Farrow, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Sport Expertise. Routledge, London, pp. 347–362. Galli, N., Vealey, R.S., 2008. “Bouncing back” from adversity: athletes’ experiences of resilience. Sport Psychol. 22, 316–335. Gillet, N., Berjot, S., Gobance, L., 2009. A motivational model of performance in the sport domain. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 9, 151–158. Gillet, N., Berjot, S., Vallerand, R.J., Amoura, C., Rosnet, E., 2012. Examining the motivation-performance relationship in competitive sport: a cluster-analytic approach. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 42, 79–102. Gulbin, J.P., Oldenziel, K.E., Weissensteiner, J.R., Gagne, F., 2010. A look through the rear view mirror: developmental experiences and insights of high performance athletes. Talent Dev. Excell. 2, 149–164. G€ullich, A., Emrich, E., 2014. Considering long-term sustainability in the development of world class success. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 14 (Suppl. 1), S383–S397. Hall, H.K., 2006. Perfectionism: a hallmark quality of world class performers, or a psychological impediment to athletic development. In: Hackforth, D., Tenenbaum, G. (Eds.), Essential Processes for Attaining Peak Performance. Meyer & Meyer Verlag, Oxford, pp. 178–211. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Hendry, D.T., Hodges, N.J., submitted, 2017. Predicting success from practice data: A longitudinal follow up of Elite youth soccer players. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. Hendry, D.T., Crocker, P.R.E., Hodges, N.J., 2014. Practice and play as determinants of self-determined motivation in youth soccer players. J. Sports Sci. 32, 1091–1099. Hodges, N.J., Starkes, J.L., 1996. Wrestling with the nature of expertise: a sport-specific test of Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-R€omer’s (1993) theory of “deliberate practice” Int. J. Sport Psychol. 27, 400–424. Hornig, M., Aust, F., G€ullich, A., 2016. Practice and play in the development of German top-level professional football players. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 16, 96–105.

References

Larkin, P., O’Connor, D., Williams, A.M., 2016. Does grit influence sport-specific engagement and perceptual-cognitive expertise in elite youth soccer? J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 28, 129–138. MacNamara, B.N., Moreau, D., Hambrick, D.Z., 2016. The relationship between deliberate practice and performance in sports: a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 333–350. Mallett, C.J., Hanrahan, S.J., 2004. Elite athletes: why does the ‘fire’ burn so brightly? Psychol. Sport Exerc. 5, 183–200. Stoeber, J., 2011. The dual nature of perfectionism in sports: relationships with emotion, motivation, and performance. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol 4, 128–145. Vallerand, R.J., Miquelon, P., 2007. Passion for sport in athletes. In: Lavallee, D., Jowett, S. (Eds.), Social Psychology in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, pp. 249–262. Vallerand, R.J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G.A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C.F., Leonard, M., et al., 2003. Les passions de l’^ame: on obsessive and harmonious passion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 756–767. Vallerand, R.J., Mageau, G.A., Elliot, A.J., Dumais, A., Demers, M.A., Rousseau, F., 2008. Passion and performance attainment in sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 9, 373–392. Ward, P., Hodges, N.J., Starkes, J.L., Williams, A.M., 2007. The road to excellence: deliberate practice and the development of expertise. High Abil. Stud. 18, 119–153. Winner, E., 1996. Rage to master: the decisive role of talent in the visual arts. In: Ericsson, K.A. (Ed.), The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 271–300.

173

CHAPTER

Great British medalists: A commentary based on a developmental systems theory perspective

12

Martin I. Jones1, Mark R. Wilson1 Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom Corresponding authors: Tel.: +44-0392-724747; Fax: +44-1392-724726, e-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected]

1

Abstract In their target article, Hardy and colleagues outline some psychosocial factors that were proposed to underpin the development of serial sporting champions. In this commentary, we suggest that the psychodynamic compensatory mechanisms model described by Hardy et al. is limited by its failure to consider the role of the broader developmental systems in which an individual exists (including funding structure, community, culture, and historical niche). We suggest that any workable talent development model needs to consider the bidirectional relationships between individuals and their contexts, and as such, should be guided by a more dynamic, developmental systems theory approach.

Keywords Talent development, Sporting culture, Plasticity

In their target article, Hardy and colleagues outline some psychosocial factors that were common and distinguished between super-elite (consecutive gold medal winning) athletes and their less successful (but still elite) counterparts. We applaud the authors and others (e.g., Collins and MacNamara, 2012; Collins et al., 2016; Krebs, 2009), on their considerable efforts to explore the complex relationships between ontogenetic and sporting experiences, psychological and biological factors, and the development of super-elite athletes. We hope to add to the debate on talent development by suggesting that researchers examine the results of Hardy et al. through the lens of developmental systems theories. While we do not necessarily disagree with the psychodynamic compensatory mechanisms outlined by Hardy et al., we suggest that a fuller and alternative picture might be provided by a developmental systems theory approach. Specifically, Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.12.004 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

175

176

CHAPTER 12 Developmental systems commentary

we contend that Hardy and colleagues have focused their analysis on the person, specifically, one’s personal dispositions, experiences, knowledge, and skills (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998). However, broader developmental systems including (but not limited to) the funding structure and culture of the sport, community, culture, and historical niche (and importantly how these systems interact) play an integral role in facilitating the development of people (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). Developmental systems theory is not a single theory but rather a metatheory or set of theoretical and empirical perspectives on the development and evolution of organisms (Robert et al., 2001). Developmental systems theorists eschew the reductionist tendency to split facets of development into opposing dualisms (e.g., nature vs nurture, stability vs instability, experiencing an adverse life event vs not experiencing a negative life event). In place of these dualisms lies an integrated model of human development that emphasize the integration of developmental systems to understand how people develop (Lerner and Schmid, 2013). Instead, the fundamental tenet of all developmental systems theories is causal cointeraction where developmental systems interact in complex, often in nonadditive ways (Robert et al., 2001). Lerner et al. (2013) phrased these interactions as bidirectional relationships or developmental regulations between individuals and their contexts. When those interactions are mutually beneficial, they are labeled adaptive developmental regulations (Lerner and Schmid, 2013). For example, in the case of coach–athlete interaction, an athlete develops skills and attributes that permit the transition to the next athletic stage and the coach refines his/her skills (and develop new ones) to facilitate progression of other athletes. A separate core tenet of developmental systems theories is the concept of (relative) plasticity. This idea is based on the premise that all people have the potential for change because of the naturally occurring changes in the individual and context interactions. Because change is both possible and expected, there are means to improve (i.e., talent development). Everybody can achieve change because plasticity is a strength present in all people (Lerner, 2005). In the sporting domain, it is possible, and probable, that two super-elite athletes have very different developmental trajectories because of the limitless number of developmental regulations. Simonton (2001) stated that two individuals in the same talent domain (e.g., sport) do not have to inherit the same traits to the same degree. The product of the talent constituents determines the extent of achievement. Assuming that no talent component is completely absent, the two individuals can possess extremely different profiles and still exhibit the same overall level of talent. In the context of Hardy and colleagues findings, we believe that although insightful, the psychosocial aspects of elite and super-elite athlete’s development and career are not and can never be universally applicable. In line with a developmental systems approach to development and Simonton’s talent research, we believe that athletes can exhibit the same level of achievement through any number of developmental trajectories. The interaction of the psychosocial aspects of elite and super-elite athlete’s development and career and the personal assets that facilitate these interactions are the key omissions from Hardy et al. in our opinion.

Developmental systems commentary

Richard Lerner, one of the pioneers of the developmental systems theory approach to human development, stated that the “…potential for systematic change in behavior exists as a consequence of mutually influential relationships between the developing person and his or her biology, psychological characteristics, family, community, culture, physical and designed ecology, and historical niche” (Lerner, 2004, p. 18). Hardy and colleagues provided a rich and detailed account of the person; however, there was a paucity of information on the broader developmental system and an understanding of the complex interactions between a person and his/her environment. We understand the need for confidentiality, but not disclosing relevant information about basic settings and training environments leaves readers unaware of potentially valuable contextual information that likely influence why some athletes achieved super-elite status. It would have been interesting to learn about the nature of competition that athletes experienced, whether several participants were in the same sport, or which sport they represented. In the case of some sports, failure to achieve super-elite status could have been attributed to uncontrollable features of the competition, despite the acquisition of a rich repertoire of developmental experiences. For instance, an athlete may not have achieved super-elite accolades if one other athlete (e.g., Usain Bolt’s domination of the 100 and 200 m) or a small selection of athletes dominated the sport. In this case, knowledge of the sport and the current state of play (e.g., knowledge of rivals) are crucial facets that help to explain why some athletes do or do not achieve elite and super-elite status. Similarly, some of Hardy et al.’s participants could have dominated their sports because of a particular anthropometric (or technological) gift that gave them an essential edge over the competition despite having very similar psychosocial competencies to their opponents. It is evident that some UK sports have achieved “blue ribbon” status (e.g., rowing and cycling) and the associated training environments have been dubbed medal factories (i.e., the Manchester velodrome where GB track cycling train). From the perspective of a developmental systems approach, an appreciation of how the person develops in such a system, how the system has changed over time, and how the person influences the context is crucial information in the context of talent development that is missing from Hardy and colleague’s report. For instance, one could draw attention to the success of GB cycling and note that former cyclists’ personalities and training behaviors have influenced the training environment (i.e., an adaptive developmental regulation) that has subsequently changed other cyclist’s development. In a similar fashion, current super-elite athletes affect the next generation because of the reciprocal nature of adaptive developmental regulations. From a temporal perspective, it is important to recognize the adage that “success breeds success,” so teams like GB cycling now have resources that other sports do not have (e.g., the infamous secret squirrel club). In this example, the idea of historical niche and how developmental systems and people change over time comes into play when considering talent development (Krebs, 2009). Ultimately, we believe that you may find athletes with all of the psychological aspects identified by Hardy and colleagues, but they do not achieve elite or super-elite achievements. The apparent

177

178

CHAPTER 12 Developmental systems commentary

lack of elite or super-elite success may be linked to the absence of organizational support and various auxiliary contexts that potentially underpin success (e.g., coach education, sports science support, parent–coach interactions, societal support and emphasis on success, and opportunities for grassroots participation). We also agree with Collins et al.’s (2016) idea that reaction to challenge (or negative life events) is potentially greater than just the existence of a negative life event. With this thought in mind, we refer to Bronfenbrenner (1995) sentiment that there are two types of “person characteristics” that shape an individual’s development. The first set of components comprises common measures of personality and ability (i.e., capacity to cope with stress) that are typically measured with psychological tests. Hardy and colleague’s work is replete with these types of development assets and experiences. However, the second category of more dynamic person attributes that reflect the individual’s capacity to be an active agent in, and on, his or her environment is much rarer. These psychological assets and experiences correspond with a proclivity to set in motion, sustain, and enhance processes of interaction between the individual and features of the various supporting contexts. We believe that this second category is closer to what Collins and colleagues discussed when referring to how athletes react to the challenge (i.e., can athletes develop and use social support networks?). We conclude by reiterating our belief that the interaction of developmental systems and the psychological assets that augment interaction are mostly missing from Hardy et al., yet they are potentially salient when understanding talent development. Moreover, such interactions are critical when attempting to establish a highperformance talent development system for a particular sport. We recommend future researchers and practitioners consider using a relationship developmental systems metatheory when considering the development of elite and super-elite athletes and the implementation of talent development programs.

REFERENCES Bronfenbrenner, U., 1995. Developmental ecology through space and time: a future perspective. In: Moen, P., Elder Jr., G.H., L€uscher, K. (Eds.), Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 619–648. Bronfenbrenner, U., Morris, P.A., 1998. The ecology of developmental processes. In: Lerner, R.M. (Ed.), Theoretical Models of Human Development, fifth ed. Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 993–1028. ´ ., 2012. The rocky road to the top: why talent needs trauma. Sports Collins, D., MacNamara, A Med. 42, 907–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03262302. ´ ., McCarthy, N., 2016. Super champions, champions, and almosts: Collins, D., MacNamara, A important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Front. Psychol. 6 (2009), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009. Krebs, R.J., 2009. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development and the process of development of sports talent. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 40 (1), 108–135.

References

Lerner, R.M., 2004. Liberty: Thriving and Civic Engagement Among America’s Youth. Sage Publications, London, UK. Lerner, R.M., 2005. Promoting positive youth development: theoretical and empirical bases. In: Paper Presented at the White Paper Prepared for the Workshop on the Science of Adolescent Health and Development, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. National Academies of Science, Washington, DC. Lerner, R.M., Schmid, C., 2013. Relational developmental systems theories and the ecological validity of experimental designs. Hum. Dev. 56 (6), 372–380. Lerner, R.M., Agans, J.P., DeSouza, L., Gasca, S., 2013. Describing, explaining, and optimizing intraindividual change across the life span: a relational developmental systems perspective. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17 (2), 179–183. Robert, J.S., Hall, B.K., Olson, W.M., 2001. Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology. Bioessays 23 (10), 954–962. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/bies.1136. Simonton, D.K., 2001. Talent development as a multidimensional, multiplicative, and dynamic process. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10 (2), 39–43.

179

CHAPTER

13

Eventual sport performance level: What about the role of type of sport, perception of critical life events, and practice quality?

Tynke Toering1 Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway Corresponding author: Tel.: +47-2-3262459, e-mail address: [email protected]

1

Abstract The target article describes an interesting study, which provides some challenging findings regarding athletes’ pathway to excellence. The suggested links between critical life events, need for success, personal characteristics, and eventual performance level make sense from a psychodynamic perspective. This commentary will discuss some critical points related to the application of the findings in talent identification and -development programs. These are (1) the possible effect of the selection of participants on the results (including the impact of dependence on others for team sport athletes and the opportunity for multiple medal attainment), (2) a lack of detail in the description of how the athletes approached the critical life events (the perception of an event may contribute more to development than the event itself), and (3) a lack of detail in the description of the practice process throughout development. Some interesting differences were found in the motivation for and approach to practice, but little detail was given about what the athletes exactly were doing at the time. The concept of self-regulated learning may be useful in explaining how super-elite athletes action their goals through quality practice.

Keywords Expertise, Talent development, Self-regulation, Practice quality, Challenge

The target article describes a very interesting study, which provides some challenging findings regarding athletes’ pathway to excellence. The suggested links between critical life/sport events, need for success, personal characteristics/behaviors, and eventual performance level seem to make sense from a psychodynamic perspective.

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.004 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

181

182

CHAPTER 13 The effect of type of sport, perception of critical life

The current commentary will discuss three points of critique related to application of the findings in talent identification and -development (TID) programs. First, the type of sport that athletes perform may affect how much control they have over their progress on the pathway to the top. Team sport athletes could be regarded as more dependent on others for their performance than athletes from individual sports. In addition to being “just” one of the individuals who together as a team produce a performance, this is also relevant for playing time and positions in the squad. For instance, a young player may get playing time because another player in that position got injured, and he/she then happens to thrive. Or a coach may decide to try out a player in a new position because there are few players in the squad who can play this specific position, which turns out to be a success. Research has indeed indicated that awareness of opportunities and acting upon this awareness is one of the psychosocial characteristics that distinguish soccer players who make the transition from youth to professional from those that do not (e.g., Mills et al., 2012). One could therefore argue that the requirements for becoming a super-elite athlete in a team sport can be quite different compared to those for individual athletes. Hence, one can question whether findings for team and individual athletes should be presented separately if these findings are to be applied in TID programs. In addition, type of sport is related to medal opportunities. It is more likely for an athlete who has several medal opportunities within a single event to end up in the super-elite group than an athlete who has only one medal opportunity per event (cf. Collins et al., 2016). This may have affected the results of the study. Second, it is possible that athletes’ perception of the early negative critical life event contributes more to their further development than the event itself. A recent, comparable study on super-champions, champions, and “almosts” indicated that it is not the number of negative events but rather their impact that seems to be associated with eventual athletic performance level (Collins et al., 2016). It is certainly possible that the combination of a positive sport event following the negative life event exemplifies the athletes’ interpretation of and coping with the negative life events. The subcategories of finding sport, finding a significant sporting other, and experiencing an inspirational sporting pathway moment could be interpreted as supporting this notion. In this regard, it is not only the events that determine what athletes become (Collins et al., 2016). A study on soccer players showing that the players who made it to the top more often had a difficult background also revealed that these players used more adaptive coping strategies (Van Yperen, 2009). This could be a consequence of their difficult background—they may have learned through focusing on their sport—but it may just as well be that they did not even perceive their backgrounds as particularly difficult. It is possible too that the careers of many potential super-elite athletes never even got started because of what these potential athletes brought to the table to begin with. That is, they may have experienced similar negative life events as the athletes who eventually succeeded, which they perceived or coped with in a less favorable way. This may in turn mean that they did not get to experience the following positive sport event. Given as these potential super-elite athletes are not part of the sample (if ever

The effect of type of sport, perception of critical life

possible), we cannot draw final conclusions. In line with the target article, successful athletes have been found to show strong goal commitment and determination to succeed (e.g., Durand-Bush and Salmela, 2002; Gould et al., 2002; MacNamara et al., 2010). Self-determined motivation and goal commitment may serve as a buffer to be able to tolerate the uncomfortable short-term consequences of stretching oneself to attain a goal (e.g., Toering and Jordet, 2015). This is consistent with findings from the approach and avoidance motivation literature, indicating that approach motivation is related to high performance and avoidance motivation to low performance (e.g., Roberts et al., 2007). In addition, it supports the findings related to obsessiveness and perfectionism, the combination of mastery and outcome goals, and total preparation for competition in the target article. Future research should examine the relationship of all these variables with the impact of negative life events and the need for success. Third and last, the description of the training process and quality of practice throughout development lacks some detail. Interesting differences were found in the motivation for and approach to practice and competition, but little detail was given about what the athletes exactly were doing during training at the time. For example, one could discuss whether the capacity to link the training process to competition and long-term goals, and the ability to focus on what one can control indicate a focus on mastery goals or, alternatively, represent an awareness of what is required to perform in competition or attain a long-term goal. The latter seems to be better defined as a strategy. Goal commitment is necessary but not sufficient to progress from youth to senior elite levels of sport. Knowing what it takes to attain expert performance levels and acting accordingly is just as important as striving for success. Several studies on expertise development have indicated that young athletes who progress to elite senior levels of performance take more responsibility for their development and are more aware of what it takes to get at such a high performance level (e.g., Gould et al., 2002; MacNamara et al., 2010; Mills et al., 2012). This seems to be in line with the results of the target article: the super-elite athletes were better able to relate the training process to competition and long-term goals, and to focus on what they could control. One of the processes that helps developing these strategies is self-regulated learning. According to Zimmerman (2008), self-regulation in the context of learning refers to self-directed processes that enable individuals to transform their thoughts into performance skills. This means that individuals have a goal which they are motivated to reach, they know what to do to attain the goal and how to do this, and they actually do what is necessary to reach the goal. In sport, it has been suggested that experts are better self-regulators than nonexperts and novices, while self-regulation failure has been found to decrease performance (e.g., Anshel and Porter, 1996; Cleary and Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas and Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulation processes have been proposed to help people learn more effectively as opposed to immediately produce high levels of expertise (Zimmerman, 2006). This is important to keep in mind, as self-regulated learning is a dynamic process and not a fixed individual characteristic.

183

184

CHAPTER 13 The effect of type of sport, perception of critical life

Athletes who self-regulate their learning well seem to benefit more from practice than others (e.g., Cleary and Zimmerman, 2001; Toering et al., 2009). A study within a group of elite youth soccer players showed that international level players scored higher on reflection than national level players (Toering et al., 2012). The amount of practice per week in both groups of players was equal. This indicates that the international level players may derive more from the same amount of practice than national level players by being more engaged in reflection. Similar results have been found in Dutch youth athletes from several individual and team sports other than soccer (e.g., Jonker et al., 2010). Other research has also indicated that self-regulation may be one of the factors facilitating the development of promising performers (e.g., Baker and Young, 2014; Mills et al., 2012). The self-regulated learning process seems to help athletes become aware of what is required at several performance levels, which then sets the standard for their practice efforts. The exact features of this process must be further investigated. In conclusion, the target article suggests some challenging links between athletes’ life experiences, character development, behavior, and eventual performance level. These possible links must be further assessed though longitudinal studies. This would enable researchers to look deeper into details related to type of sport, athlete development before/during/after critical life events, and practice quality, which would provide results that are better applicable in TID programs.

REFERENCES Anshel, M.H., Porter, A., 1996. Self-regulatory characteristics of competitive swimmers as a function of skill level and gender. J. Sport Behav. 19, 91–110. Baker, J., Young, B., 2014. 20 years later: deliberate practice and the development of expertise in sport. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 7, 135–157. Cleary, T.J., Zimmerman, B.J., 2001. Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 13, 185–206. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149883. Collins, D., MacNamara, A., McCarthy, N., 2016. Super champions, champions and almosts: important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Front. Psychol. 6, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009. Durand-Bush, N., Salmela, J., 2002. The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: perceptions of world and Olympic champions. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 14 (3), 154–171. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., Moffett, A., 2002. Psychological talent and their development in Olympic champions. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 14, 172–204. Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Visscher, C., 2010. Differences in self-regulatory skills among talented athletes: the significance of competitive level and type of sport. J. Sports Sci. 28, 901–908. Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B.J., 2002. Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: a microanalytic study. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 14, 91–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200252907761.

References

MacNamara, A., Button, A., Collins, D., 2010. The role of psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance part 2: examining environmental and stage-related differences in skills and behaviors. Sport Psychol. 24, 74–96. Mills, A., Butt, J., Maynard, I., Harwood, C., 2012. Identifying factors perceived to influence the development of elite youth football academy players. J. Sports Sci. 30, 1593–1604. Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C., Conroy, D.E., 2007. Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity: an achievement goal interpretation. In: Tenebaum, G., Eklund, R.C. (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology, third ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 187–196. Toering, T., Jordet, G., 2015. Self-control in professional soccer players. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 27, 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2015.1010047. Toering, T.T., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Jordet, G., Visscher, C., 2009. Self-regulation and performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players. J. Sports Sci. 27, 1509–1517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410903369919. Toering, T., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Jordet, G., Pepping, G.J., Visscher, C., 2012. Self-regulation of learning and performance level of elite youth soccer players. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 43, 312–325. Van Yperen, N.W., 2009. Why some make it and others do not: identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. Sport Psychol. 23, 317–329. Zimmerman, B.J., 2006. Development and adaptation of expertise: the role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In: Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J., Hoffman, R.R. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 705–722. Zimmerman, B.J., 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Am. Educ. Res. J. 45, 166–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.

185

CHAPTER

Is a peaceful mind a winning mind? Comment on Hardy et al. (2017)

14 Li-wei Zhang1

Sport Science College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China Corresponding author: Tel.: +86-10-62989565; Fax: +86-10-62989297, e-mail address: [email protected]

1

Abstract This commentary on Hardy and colleagues’ discussion of psychosocial biographies of British super-elite athletes discusses cultural differences from a Chinese perspective. While British super-elite athletes might cope with high pressure by a counter-phobic attitude or total preparation, Chinese super-elite athletes achieve that by “Pingchangxin,” a concept originated from Hongzhou Buddhism. This concept is difficult to translate but includes having no evaluation of good and evil, maintaining a peaceful mind in adversity and frustration, letting nature take its course, so as to reach the realm of freedom. While it is necessary to have a fighting spirit to achieve our sporting goals during tough training and competitions, on the other hand, we also need Pingchangxin to deal with high pressure in critical moments, and ups and downs in competitions. This chapter outlines how Chinese athletes and coaches think of ways leading to Pingchangxin and methods used by Chinese sport psychologists to cultivate this mentality; such as psychological education, group discussion, and calligraphy workshops. Finally, this chapter proposes a three-level psychological construction system for Chinese super-elite athletes.

Keywords Pressure, Coping, Competition, Self-control, Chinese culture, Buddhism

It is not easy for me to finish reading such a long paper by Hardy and his colleagues (Hardy et al., 2017). However, I understand that it was a much more difficult undertaking for the research group to finish such a big project on commonalities and discriminators of British super-elite vs elite athletes. Some detailed illustrations of the athlete interviews aroused my emotional ups and downs, because I was a table tennis player for the Chinese national team in the1970s and had quite similar experiences as described in their chapter. After reading this instructive chapter, I asked myself: if I were required to do such a project could I do it in a better way? Or would I do it in a different way? The answer Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.12.005 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

187

188

CHAPTER 14 Is a peaceful mind a winning mind?

to the first question is “no.” I think that the authors conducted a high quality study, which covers comprehensive profiles of athletes’ self-development from early childhood to great athletes standing on the podium. The picture they described leads us to better understand why and how the super-elite athletes have achieved their elevated status. But the answer to the second question is “yes.” I would certainly add some Chinese culture elements to the qualitative research, ask a few different questions (although a lot of same questions), and get some different answers from athletes (although a lot of similar findings). I have been working with the Chinese rhythmic gymnastics team, trampoline team (for summer Olympic Games), free-style aerial team (for Winter Olympic Games), and some individual Olympic athletes for a long time. One of my most important tasks is to help them cope with high pressure in competitions. So I am especially interested in the difference between super-elite and elite athletes in terms of maintaining a high level of performance within high-pressure competitive situations described by the authors (4.1.9 Performing under pressure). Hardy et al. (2017) found that the British super-elite athletes achieved that by a counter-phobic attitude or total preparation. I think that Chinese athletes might use some different as well as similar strategies to cope with high pressure. When we are talking about coping with high pressure, Pingchangxin is very often used by Chinese athletes and coaches. This term originally comes from Hongzhou Buddhism, one of the Buddhist schools created by Ma Zudaoyi (709–788). He advocated that Pingchangxin, which consists of maintaining a peaceful mind and uncomplicated behavior and letting nature take its course, is the highest principle people should follow. Pingchangxin has since been used as a strategy to support peak performance mentality in important competitions by many Chinese athletes. For example, Yi-Fu Wang, after winning the gold medal in the air pistol final in the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, said that at any time we should be able to “do extraordinary things with Pingchangxin.” Zi-Ge Liu, the gold medalist in the 200 m butterfly at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, contributed her success to her belief in “plain as water, firm-like gold.” Wen-Jun Guo, the gold medalist of 10 m air pistol in both 2008 Beijing and 2012 London Olympic Games, also accredited her victory to “win in Pingchangxin.” Dong Dong, the gold medalist of trampoline in 2012 London Olympic Games and the silver medalist in 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, talked to the press about his mentality before and during the final: “For me Pingchangxin is to take everything as no good and no bad. I keep this Pingchangxin mentality today, therefore, I take everything that happened today as normal. The Olympic Games is nothing more than one of many competitions. What we finished is no more than what we needed to do. Don’t think too much of results. I am still an ordinary person even after I won the gold medal in the Olympic Games”. Baya (2013).

Pingchangxin is a spiritual and philosophical ideology in Chinese culture. Its core idea is to conform to nature, have no evaluation of good and evil, maintain a peaceful mind in adversity and frustration, so as to reach the realm of freedom. In sports on

Is a peaceful mind a winning mind?

one hand, we do need fighting spirit for our goals in tough training and competitions. On the other hand, we also do need Pingchangxin to deal with high pressure in critical moments and ups and downs in competitions. These two mentalities are two sides of one coin. Dialectics tells us that we should keep balance between two sides (Zhang and Zhang, 2011b). However, it seems more difficult to maintain Pingchangxin in an emotionally charged situation when facing a critical moment in a competition or a promotion chance in a big company or uncertainty in the stock market. One of the major tasks for Chinese sport psychologists is to help athletes carry out Pingchangxin in competitions. We use a variety of methods to nurture this mentality including psychological education, group discussion, as well as psychological skills training such as relaxation training and concentration training (Zhang and Wang, 2014). We have organized group activities such as visits to the China National Museum and Beijing Planetarium to broaden athletes’ view in understanding “who I am” and “where I am” in terms of such a long human history and such a big cosmos. We have arranged calligraphy workshop for athletes, aiming at improving their skill of concentration and inhibiting distracters while learning Chinese culture (Sun and Zhang, 2014). We have also held athlete forums and asked athletes to make presentations on topics such as “the universe in my view” and “Hero in my eyes.” It is interesting to know how athletes and coaches think of ways leading to Pingchangxin. This question is similar to one of 43 questions Hardy and his research group had in their research plan: “How do super-elite athletes learn to use their anxiety as a positive stimulus, and maintain concentration and focus when anxious?” In a small qualitative study (Baya, 2013), we interviewed eight elite athletes and six elite coaches and found that five strategies came out from the content analyses for maintaining Pingchangxin, which are closely related to “maintain higher levels of performance under pressure” as discussed by Hardy et al. (2017). They are concentration, enhanced motivation, self-control, accumulated experience, and communication between coaches and athletes. The last strategy (communication) was only proposed by coaches. These strategies were different from Hardy et al. (2017) findings (total preparation or/and counter-phobic attitudes). The question we asked and the question Hardy et al. (2017) asked are similar but obviously they are not the same question. This might lead to different answers from athletes and coaches. However, even if we asked the same question, we would expect some different answers because China and

FIG. 1 Psychological construction system for Chinese athlete (Zhang and Zhang, 2011a).

189

190

CHAPTER 14 Is a peaceful mind a winning mind?

British have many differences in sport culture, even if we share a lot of commonalities. Recently, Zhang and Zhang (2011a) proposed a three-level psychological construction system for Chinese athlete as shown in Fig. 1. As displayed in Fig. 1 at the bottom level, we teach athletes the basic psychological skills focusing on how. At the middle level, we educate athletes through psychology principles on why we need to do it this way, focusing on why. At the highest level, we help athletes to have a larger vision over their sport career and life, focusing on where (I will finally go in my life journey). I believe that both Hardy and his colleagues and Chinese sport psychologists share the same goal: helping athletes not only win a medal in their sport but also keep a peaceful mind in their life.

REFERENCES Baya, L.G., 2013. Pingchangxin: explanation by athletes and coaches. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Sun, G., Zhang, L.W., 2014. Calligraphy practice improves stability of fine motor (oral presentation). In: Asian-South Pacific Association of Sport Psychology. Japanese Society of Sport Psychology, (Eds.), 7th ASPASP International Congress Accepted Abstract (in CD). Asian-South Pacific Association of Sport Psychology, Japanese Society of Sport Psychology, Tokyo. Zhang, L.W., Wang, J., 2014. Psychological training for Chinese Olympic athletes: system and practice (oral presentation). In: Association of Applied Sport Psychology, (Ed.), 2014 Conference Proceedings and Program. Association of Applied Sport Psychology, Las Vegas, p. 170. Zhang, K., Zhang, L.W., 2011a. Doctrine and method: what Chinese culture can contribute to athletes’ psychological training and consultation (in Chinese). J. Tianjin Sport Univ. 26 (3), 196–199. Zhang, L.W., Zhang, K., 2011b. Dialectics for self control: approaches to help athlete cope with eight relationships (in Chinese). J. Tianjin Sport Univ. 26 (3), 185–190.

CHAPTER

15

Super-elite athletes: Some complimentary observations from Australia and some lessons for sports expertise research: Comment on Hardy et al.

Damian Farrow1 *Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia † Skill Acquisition, Australian Institute of Sport, Belconnen, ACT, Australia 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +61-3-99195001, +61-3-99194000, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract This commentary provides an Australian perspective through the lens of former Australian tennis players’ reflections of their journey to becoming super/elite tennis players. Their observations are largely supportive of the findings of the target article. Further, the experimental design and terminology used in the target article are contextualized from the perspective of sports expertise research.

Keywords Expertise, Tennis, Sport, Elite, Talent development

This commentary is written from the perspective of an applied practitioner who has worked with “super” and “elite” athletes in the provision of skill acquisition support and also as a researcher interested in the development of sports expertise. Consequently, my commentary will focus on reaction to the paper from these perspectives.

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.005 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

191

192

CHAPTER 15 Australian observations and sports expertise lessons

1 AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE ON SUPER-ELITE ATHLETES Recent work (Mathews, 2015) examining “elite and super-elite” Australian tennis players highlight some consistencies with the target article. Former Australian professional men’s players were compared on the basis of whether they were ranked in the Association of Tour Professionals top 100 or not. Generally speaking attainment of a top 100 world ranking is considered a metric of success at the elite level. Further, within the top 100 was a subset of players who were either Grand Slam winners, or regularly ranked in the top 20 players in the world over multiple seasons and arguably “super-elite.” While the research questions posed in the two projects were different, there were a number of commonalities with the Hardy et al. findings which are worth reinforcing. To do this I have provided supporting quotes from the athletes interviewed by Mathews (2015) but placed them under the themes developed by Hardy et al.

1.1 TOTAL PREPARATION FOR COMPETITION For the top 100 ranked players (not just the super-elite) achieving good results against higher ranked opponents and working hard in their preparation and competition appeared to underpin their self-belief and confidence. …Hard work comes with winning matches, winning matches brings confidence…I got the confidence there because I’d done so much hard work… And I always figured that, “I’m going to work harder than these blokes. I’m going to get my edge up there. I might not be as talented, but they’ve left a big gaping door open that I can just walk through because of … [their] lack of work ethic to me”. And my attitude was that if I work harder than anyone else out there then I’m going to be more successful; and that was certainly the case. [S6] I always knew if I’d done my physical work, then I’d be mentally strong. And, I mean, there is no other answer; if you have nailed your physical work, it makes you mentally strong. If you haven’t, you are going to be mentally weak because it’s just—that’s how it is, you know that. [S2]

1.2 OBSESSIVENESS AND PERFECTIONISM Commitment and motivation was not an obstacle at all because once I - I mean, I’m obsessive when I found something that I love or want to do. [S1] …never had lack of commitment, motivation…Because purely just determination and ability to train. I suppose motivation and determination. I know they’re all clich
e, but I just think I trained harder than anybody and I had the desire to as well. The desire for perfection, in a sense, or desire to make it as good as I could. [S3] Probably determination more than anything else. People saying, “No, you can’t do it”. I remember one guy when I actually left [high school] in my last year

1 An australian perspective on super-elite athletes

of school said, “No, you’ve got no chance of making it”. And I always, in the back of my head, I want to try and prove that guy wrong. [S7]

1.3 RUTHLESSLY COMPETITIVE While Mathews’ data demonstrated both higher and lower ranked players were “competitive,” consistent with Hardy et al. the “super-elite” players were “ruthlessly competitive.” So my strengths were very competitive. I mean, I used to debate anything, argue anything, compete with anything, it didn’t matter what it was, I loved it. Just thirsty for competition…. I think that I was probably more competitive naturally than some of them. I locked in better. [S1] I think it was probably one of my biggest assets, was my mental attributes, I’m pretty tough…mental toughness just second to none, and I still am just competitive. If I play you in anything, I could kill you to beat you, sort of thing. I realised at age 17 how mentally tough I was as well…. For me, my weapon was my tactics and my mental toughness. [S3]

1.4 DEALING WITH PRESSURE …I’m convinced, now, that it comes down to mental. It really does, at the highest level. Guys are hitting 30,000, 50,000 balls, you know… And I’ve worked out the scenario if you can go out on the court and see the 300th player in the world hitting it with number 50th player in the world, that you probably can’t tell any difference. But you put him into a situation where it’s pressurized, and things happen at 30:40 and they’ll make wrong decisions at number 300 relative to the number 50 guy in the world. [S7]

1.5 LESSONS FOR SPORTS EXPERTISE RESEARCH The authors should be complimented for the execution of a well-constructed design. The sports expertise literature is largely based on a similar set of methodological principles as to what was displayed in the target article. The key difference is that we (sports expertise researchers) have rarely examined differences between superelite athletes and “just elite” athletes. Arguably this was a fundamental starting position for the work of Ericsson et al. (1993) in their study of musicians but this has not been an obvious focus of sports expertise work. While this may be in part due to many sports expertise researchers being focused on the development of expertise rather than its manifestation, it also highlights a significant gap in the extant literature that the Hardy et al. paper has begun to fill as it pertains to psychosocial manifestations of expertise.

193

194

CHAPTER 15 Australian observations and sports expertise lessons

Related to the above point, Hardy and colleagues adoption of the term “superelite” ignites another prevalent issue in the sports expertise field; the adoption of a generally accepted taxonomy for the definition of an expert (or elite) performer. Even narrowing the issue down to only defining the level of athletes featured in the target article remains remarkably contentious. An agreed defining feature as used in the current paper is that “super-elite” athletes demonstrate longevity in their top placing accomplishments that sits beyond current definitions of an “expert.” That is, rather than simply being an Olympic medal winner they are multiple winners at more than one Olympic Games. In the sports expertise literature, a variety of terms have been proposed to define such expertise including “transcendent experts” (Starkes et al., 2004), “masters” (Chi, 2006), or more recently “eminence” (Baker et al., 2015). It is time for all those working in elite/expert sports performance and research to develop an agreed taxonomy to allow more systematic, powerful (e.g., meta-analytic), cross-discipline, sport, and country examinations of expertise to occur (see Baker et al., 2015 for a review). While ethical considerations were understandably at the forefront of Hardy et al. research planning, one minor criticism of the report was the absence of knowledge of the sports the athletes competed in. While the generality of many of the constructs reported is accepted, it is also well established that expertise is task specific, and consequently, there may be some important caveats to the conclusions drawn. Based on the data presented, I surmised that the athletes represented more physiologically based sports measured in centimeters, grams, or seconds (cgs sports) (Moesch et al., 2011) rather than more technical skill-based sports. Similarly, the athletes appeared to largely come from individual rather than team sports. Considerable differences have been demonstrated between these sports classifications that may have particular mediating effects on some aspects of the current data. For example, to quote an Australian “super-elite” team sport athlete: Early on it’s all about being selfish but then once you get established in the team, it’s about selflessness. I don’t think individual sport athletes need to be like that.

This quote highlights that what is required to develop expertise as a team sport athlete may be different to what is required to maintain one’s expertise. Or maybe it is another definitional issue!

2 CONCLUSION Hardy et al. have contributed a significant body of knowledge that can be used to assist those involved in the high performance setting better understand our very best athletes and potentially maximize the conversion of elite talent to super-elite performance. The experimental approach adopted is a pertinent reminder to sports expertise researchers concerning the value of placing a premium on the understanding of expertise rather than simply its description. Notably Hardy et al. compared not just experts with novices but sought to understand critical differences within the upper

References

echelons of expert performance. Finally, strong commonalties between the target paper and recent data from Australian professional tennis players add further weight to the salience of the underpinning themes discussed.

REFERENCES Baker, J., Wattie, N., Schorer, J., 2015. Defining expertise: a taxonomy for researchers in skill acquisition and expertise. In: Baker, J., Farrow, D. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 145–155. Chi, M.T.H., 2006. Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In: Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., Hoffman, R. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 121–130. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-R€omer, C., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100, 363–406. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363. Mathews, A., 2015. Examining the barriers and facilitators of the junior to senior transition experience in Australian tennis: an in-depth analysis of the journey towards a professional tennis career. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Victoria University, Australia. Moesch, K., Elbe, A.-M., Hauge, M.-L.T., Wikman, J.M., 2011. Late specialization: the key to success in centimeters, grams, or seconds (cgs) sports. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 21, 282–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01280.x. Starkes, J.L., Cullen, J.D., MacMahon, C., 2004. A model of the acquisition and retention of expert perceptual-motor performance. In: Williams, A.M., Hodges, N.J. (Eds.), Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 259–281.

195

CHAPTER

A culture of striving augments use of working memory? Implications for attention control

16

Tim Buszard*,†,1, Rich S.W. Masters‡,§ *Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living/College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia † Game Insight Group, Tennis Australia, Richmond, VIC, Australia ‡ Te Oranga School of Human Development and Movement Studies, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand § School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +61-3-9919-4512; Fax: +61-3-9919-9480, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract A culture of striving was notable in the developmental background of many of the elite and super elite athletes in the Hardy et al. study. Critically, a culture of striving was credited with a positive influence on a range of issues relevant to elite sports performance, including performance under pressure. Of the six athletes who did not reveal a culture of striving, five reported the greatest difficulty performing in high-pressure situations. We suspect that a culture of striving facilitates the development of attention control ability, which subsequently assists performance under pressure. We discuss attention control from the perspective of working memory and hypothesize that a culture of striving trains individuals to maximize their working memory capacity.

Keywords Working memory capacity, Attention control, Culture, Sport, Pressure

1 INTRODUCTION Twenty-six athletes in the Hardy et al. study revealed a culture of striving in their life. This was evidenced by: (1) an environment, and expectation, of achievement, (2) a strong work ethic, (3) a highly competitive home environment, or (4) high Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.006 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

197

198

CHAPTER 16 Culture, working memory, and attention control

value on mastery and outcome. Notably, however, six athletes did not report being exposed to a culture of striving and five of these athletes demonstrated other commonalities, including poorer ability to maintain high performance under pressure. Hardy et al. hypothesized that “Exposure to a highly competitive environment from a young age potentially provided opportunities for the child to develop the requisite coping strategies for dealing with highly pressured competitive environments” (p. 27). We wish to elaborate on this hypothesis by specifically speculating that a culture of striving facilitates development of important cognitive abilities, such as attention control, which helps mitigate the negative effects of high-pressure environments.

2 PERFORMING UNDER PRESSURE AND THE ROLE OF ATTENTION CONTROL Poor performance under pressure often manifests when anxiety causes a shift in attention toward task irrelevant thoughts (e.g., worrying about failure) or toward the step-by-process of executing a skill (e.g., consciously controlling movements). Some individuals are more prone to failing under pressure, including those with poor attention control ability (Bijleveld and Veling, 2014; Wood et al., 2015) or with personality traits that predispose them to be overly conscious of their movements (e.g., movement specific reinvestment; Masters and Maxwell, 2008). For example, Bijleveld and Veling (2014) found that attention control ability, represented by individual differences in working memory capacity (Kane et al., 2001), positively correlated with performance under pressure during decisive sets of tennis. Additionally, Wood et al. (2015) found, in a laboratory-based shooting experiment, that participants with high working memory capacity experienced fewer disruptions of attention focus compared to participants with low working memory capacity and that their performance was better when anxiety increased. It appears that larger working memory capacity provides an individual with better ability to maintain focus of attention on information that is important for successful performance while simultaneously inhibiting thoughts and stimuli that may interfere with performance (for a comprehensive discussion on the role of attention control in sport, see Furley and Wood, 2016). Qualitative evidence of the importance of attention control is evident in statements by athlete B-SE in the Hardy et al. study. B-SE was a super elite athlete who was not exposed to a culture of striving and was considered to be a poor performer under pressure. Not surprisingly, B-SE used statements such as “I couldn’t focus” (p. 161) when discussing performance in high-pressure competitions. Unfortunately, Hardy et al. contains no statements about high-pressured performance by the four other athletes who were not exposed to a culture of striving.

4 Implications for working memory capacity: Maximizing potential

3 EVIDENCE THAT CULTURE INFLUENCES ATTENTION CONTROL Recent evidence highlights the influence that environment has on attention control. In a study comparing participants from America and East Asia, it was observed that participants’ neural activation over attention control networks differed depending on the type of task being performed and the culture of the participant (Hedden et al., 2008). American culture is thought to emphasize the separation of objects from their context, therein facilitating absolute judgements, whereas East Asian culture is thought to emphasize more relative judgements, in which objects are considered in relation to the context. The study showed that neural activation differed between American and East Asian participants depending on whether the task required absolute or relative judgements. As such, the authors concluded that culture has a powerful influence on the level of attention control required for the type of task being performed. Using this as a catalyst for our hypothesis, we argue that a culture that emphasizes a strong desire for achievement will train individuals to habitually maintain attention to task goals, which will subsequently aid attention control ability.

4 IMPLICATIONS FOR WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY: MAXIMIZING POTENTIAL Given that attention control is a key function of working memory, we speculate that a culture of striving facilitates the ability to use working memory resources. Critically, we do not think that instilling a culture of striving can enlarge working memory capacity, despite working memory capacity appearing to be malleable (for a review, see Constantinidis and Klingberg, 2016). Rather, we propose that most individuals do not utilize the full capacity of their working memory when performing tasks, so a culture of striving trains individuals to use more of their capacity. Consequently, the elite athletes in the Hardy et al. study who reported a culture of striving in their development likely learnt how to utilize working memory capacity maximally when performing tasks, and this was probably most advantageous when performing in high-pressure environments. To be more precise, a culture of striving produces a relentless focus on achieving success. Indeed, it is not uncommon for athletes to be considered obsessive in pursuit of their goals. Although attention control typically relates to sustaining focus on task goals in the present moment, as opposed to long-term goals, it seems likely that a culture of striving will encourage individuals to set task goals in the pursuit of the bigger picture. Importantly, the drive for success probably trains individuals to maintain attention on the smaller task goals without letting distractions interfere with performance.

199

200

CHAPTER 16 Culture, working memory, and attention control

This maximal cognitive potential hypothesis that we propose also provides an explanation for why elite athletes have not been reported to display above average scores on measures of working memory capacity (see Furley and Wood, 2016, for a comparison of working memory scores in previous studies). While the working memory capacity of elite athletes might not necessarily be larger than normal, their ability to maximize use of their capacity is likely to be superior.

5 FINAL REMARK We argue that training athletes to control attention, either via deliberate means or via a more holistic approach, such as developmental exposure to a culture of striving, will maximize their ability to use important cognitive resources, namely, attention control (or working memory). While our argument is only based on the observed commonalities of participants in the Hardy et al. study, we feel that the connection between environment and cognitive functioning is not farfetched. To test this hypothesis, researchers should consider exploring novel paradigms that compare individuals of similar cognitive abilities, but who have been exposed to different cultures. If our hypothesis is correct, the translational impact is clear—a culture of striving for success will augment a person’s ability to use important cognitive functions, such as attention control.

REFERENCES Bijleveld, E., Veling, H., 2014. Separating chokers from nonchokers: predicting real-life tennis performance under pressure from behavioural tasks that tap into working memory functioning. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 36, 347–356. Constantinidis, C., Klingberg, T., 2016. The neuroscience of working memory capacity and training. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17, 438–449. Furley, P.A., Wood, G., 2016. Working memory, attentional control, and expertise in sports: a review of current literature and directions for future research. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 5, 415–425. Hedden, T., Ketay, S., Aron, A., Markus, H.R., Gabrieli, J.D., 2008. Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control. Psychol. Sci. 19, 12–17. Kane, M.J., Bleckley, M.K., Conway, A.R., Engle, R.W., 2001. A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130, 169–183. Masters, R.S.W., Maxwell, J., 2008. The theory of reinvestment. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1, 160–183. Wood, G., Vine, S.J., Wilson, M.R., 2015. Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure. Psychol. Res. 80, 510–517.

CHAPTER

The tales athletes tell: Narrative structure and identity in Great British medalists

17

Tristan J. Coulter*,1, Clifford J. Mallett†, Jefferson A. Singer{ *The School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia † The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia { Connecticut College, New London, CT, United States 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +61-7-3138-3522; Fax: +61-7-3138-3980, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract Using a life story approach, Hardy and colleagues present a study examining the similarities and differences in the psychosocial development of UK-based elite and super-elite athletes. We found this work to be a highly personal account into the lives of these cohorts, which advances knowledge concerning the psychology and influencing events and circumstances that separate the good from the great performers. We make some suggestions for how to enrich the study’s findings and approach, by (1) adopting McAdams’ multilayer framework of personality, as an overarching structure for assessing the whole person, and (2) encouraging the authors to explore the narrative structure of the presented life stories and go beyond simply an interpretation of their content.

Keywords Whole person, Dispositional traits, Characteristic adaptations, Narrative identity, Elite, Athletes, Development

Through a psychobiographical lens, Hardy et al. (2017) have presented a person-centered approach (Allport, 1937; Murray, 1938) that compares the psychology and developmental experiences of super-elite vs elite performers in sport. We commend the authors on this approach for what is a comprehensive and detailed empirical study of successful international athletes. There is considerable rigor in the research process and we praise the careful and collaborative efforts of the research Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.11.010 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

201

202

CHAPTER 17 Narrative identity in elite sporting talent

team in their production of a large-scale qualitative inquiry. As such, the results are appealing and make several important contributions to the literature. For instance, they add to current perspectives on serial-winning coaches in sport (Mallett and Lara-Bercial, 2016), shed light on new research avenues in sport psychology (e.g., the role of unconscious forces in high performance; Gogarty and Williamson, 2009), and challenge existing notions about the mind-set of highly resilient and mentally tough athletes (e.g., their potential pathological tendencies; Dutton, 2012). With the goal of understanding the unique qualities and experiences of super-elite athletes, the primary focus of the study is to reveal what distinguishes these individuals from elite athletes using a whole-person perspective. Focusing on areas like personality traits, motivation, and critical life events speaks to, what personality psychologists refer to as, the holistic assessment of psychological individuality. In the personality field, a well-regarded model for examining the whole person is McAdams’ integrative framework (McAdams, 1995, 2013; McAdams and Pals, 2006). This framework has recently been proposed as a new way of defining personality in sport (Coulter et al., 2016; Mallett and Coulter, 2016) and depicts personality across three different domains or “layers”: dispositional traits (broad consistencies in behavior, thought, and feeling), characteristic adaptations (typical goals and values expressed in time, place, and social role), and narrative identity (personal narratives that define meaning, unity, and purpose in life). McAdams’ three layers are useful for consolidating and, indeed, extending the results of Hardy et al.’s study. At layer one, super-elite athletes have a core set of dispositional traits that sets them apart from their elite peers. These traits include very high levels of perfectionism, obsessiveness, ruthlessness, and selfishness. At layer two, characteristic adaptations stress the desires and goals people have that reflect their motivational agenda in certain roles and contexts (McAdams, 1995, 2013). Here, we can locate super-elite athletes’ desperate need for success in sport. We also find this need reinforced by particular goal strivings (e.g., avoid the deep-rooted pain associated with loss/failure; winning; being the best one can be) and coping strategies (e.g., compensatory mechanisms, counterphobic attitudes), which drive and compel these individuals to relentlessly pursue their ambitions. Examining athletes through their traits and characteristic adaptations is useful, to an extent, but lacks the information offered at the third layer of personality— narrative identity (McAdams, 1995, 2015). Life story interviews are often the common method for collecting accounts of people’s personal narratives (McAdams, 2012). Hardy et al., on the surface, have primarily situated their study at this third level by collecting narrative accounts of life experiences from their participant athletes. However, we would encourage the authors to delve deeper into a narrative analysis of the data. On the one hand, we appreciate the inductive/deductive approach adopted, which mainly focuses on the content of the life stories (i.e., what was said), and the valence and significance of particular episodes (positive, negative, turning points) in the development of super-elite performers. Through a psychodynamic lens, the authors make a good case of explaining the impact these events might

Narrative identity in elite sporting talent

have on the human psyche. On the other hand, though, from what is presented, there are structural properties in how the stories are told, which provide important information to revealing who these super-elite athletes are. To complement Hardy et al.’s findings, we suggest that a distinguishing feature of the personalities of super-elite athletes is the story they live by that has generated a resounding sense of meaning and purpose in their lives (McAdams, 1993). In broad contrast to the narratives provided by the elite cohort, the life stories of super-elite athletes are filled with standout themes of agency, redemption, legacy, and unity. Specifically, they recall an overwhelming ability to effect change in their lives, told through tales that emphasize themes of self-mastery, status, and achievement (agency). The critical episodes shared (e.g., low points, turning points) tend to be described in ways that shift from bad to good (redemption). The significance of their sporting journey is measured against what they will eventually leave behind them (legacy). And, most important of all, there is a compelling unity and simplicity to their identities that articulates, both now and retrospectively, who they were in the past, who they are in the present, and who they will become in the future (McAdams, 2013, 2015). These themes work around a narrative plot where the protagonist experiences some form of disadvantage early in life, finds refuge and liberation through sport, and then invests a strong, unwavering commitment to the search for a personal legacy. It is a story based on reconstructions of the past (I was once bullied/dyslexic/ mistreated, etc., but, through sport, I have found my place in the world) and imagined anticipations of the future that create a powerful sense of purpose and destiny (i.e., athletic greatness). It resembles what Tomkins (1987) called a commitment script, emphasizing the story of a character who doggedly pursues a life-long goal. This internalized narrative allows the super-elite athletes to justify their behaviors (e.g., self-absorption, total preparation) and commit to high performance and mastery in sport to obsessive levels. It also helps to explain why these individuals want what they want (e.g., intense need for success) and reinforces a conviction that the efforts and tenacity invested today will be rewarded tomorrow. Alongside particular traits and characteristic adaptations, then, Hardy et al.’s findings suggest to us that the personality profile of a super-elite athlete may draw upon a certain type of narrative construction that is less common in elite athletes. This holistic perspective implies that what distinguishes the good (elite) from the great (super-elite) athletes is a collection of personality constructs that spans across all three domains of McAdams’ (2013, 1995) framework and finds full expression in a unique form of narrative identity. Two further aspects of McAdams’ model are relevant to the study’s focus on athlete development. First, it accounts for both continuity and change in personality, and how social forces differentially manifest across each of the three layers (McAdams and Olson, 2010). Coinciding with Hardy et al.’s results, traits represent the most stable aspect of personality and are strongly influenced by a combination of genetic (e.g., temperamental) and early environmental influences (Krueger and Johnson, 2008). Characteristic adaptations—what people want and value—are more susceptible to the opportunities and constraints of time and context (e.g., timely access to a

203

204

CHAPTER 17 Narrative identity in elite sporting talent

world class coach). Life stories, however, are especially prone to the impact of social and cultural forces (McAdams and Pals, 2006). For instance, it is noted that elite and super-elite athletes came from families that emphasized a culture of striving. This master narrative (Hammack, 2008) in the family context may have presented an initial blueprint from which all the athletes learned how to live; that is, from an early age, they were exposed to an ideal that clearly stated what a “good” and “worthy” life story is or should be. We encourage the authors to consider the different social influences across each layer of personality as they reflect further on their findings. Another consideration concerns the proposed causal linkages. In this regard, Hardy et al. admit there is speculation in their interpretation of the results. For example, time is spent discussing the proposed link between particular life events (e.g., trauma) and the development of exceptional talent. From a narrative perspective, however, there is evidence to suggest that it is not the events in themselves that matter most, but rather how the individual makes sense of and draws meaning from these events that shapes their growth, desire, and resilience (Pals, 2006). In this regard, we cannot help but be drawn to the particular change agents reported in the athletes’ stories, for example, the role of the coach as a catalyst for the development of redemptive scripts in the narrative. If there is such a thing as a fourth layer of personality, it is the relational dynamic between two actors that shapes behavior (Singer, 2005). While relationship dyads are the main topic of a forthcoming report by the authors, it is argued, here, that portraying super-elite athletes through their traits, goals, and life stories alone is somewhat lacking if one does not also appreciate who they are with in time. Regardless, with various conjectures proposed by Hardy et al., McAdams’ framework may be useful for clarifying the possible causal interrelationships among traits, characteristic adaptations, and key events in the life story (McAdams, 2015; McAdams and Manczak, 2015). It helps to delineate different types of personality constructs through which to propose and later test these assumptions. Hardy et al.’s paper is a revealing study into the psychological lives and experiences of super-elite vs elite athletes. In our comment, we have brought an emphasis on narrative structure and identity, which sits within a broader framework for considering the whole person in high performance sport.

REFERENCES Allport, G.W., 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. Hold, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Coulter, T.J., Mallett, C.J., Singer, J.A., Gucciardi, D.F., 2016. Personality in sport and exercise psychology: integrating a whole person perspective. Int. J. Sport. Exerc. Psychol. 14, 23–41. Dutton, K., 2012. The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success. Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

References

Gogarty, P., Williamson, I., 2009. Winning at All Costs: Sporting Gods and Their Demons. J.R. Books, London. Hammack, P.L., 2008. Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12, 222–247. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Krueger, R.F., Johnson, W., 2008. Behavioral genetics and personality: a new look at the integration of nature and nurture. In: John, O.P., Robins, R.W., Pervin, L.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, third ed. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 287–310. Mallett, C.J., Coulter, T.J., 2016. The anatomy of a successful Olympic coach: actor, agent, and author. Int. J. Sports Coach. 3, 113–127. Mallett, C.J., Lara-Bercial, S., 2016. Serial winning coaches: people, vision, and environment. In: Raab, M., Wylleman, P., Seiler, R., Elbe, A.M., Hatzigeorgiadis, G. (Eds.), Sport and Exercise Psychology Research: Theory to Practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 289–322. McAdams, D.P., 1993. The Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self. Guidford Press, New York. McAdams, D.P., 1995. What do we know when we know a person? J. Personal. 63, 365–396. McAdams, D.P., 2012. Exploring psychological themes through life narrative accounts. In: Holstein, J.A., Gubrium, J.F. (Eds.), Varieties of Narrative Analysis. Sage, London, pp. 15–32. McAdams, D.P., 2013. The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 272–295. McAdams, D.P., 2015. The Art and Science of Personality Development. Guildford Press, New York. McAdams, D.P., Manczak, E., 2015. Personality and the life story. In: Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. 4. American Psychological Association Press, Washington, pp. 425–446. McAdams, D.P., Olson, B.D., 2010. Personality development: continuity and change over the life course. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61, 517–542. McAdams, D.P., Pals, J.L., 2006. A new big five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. Am. Psychol. 61, 204–217. Murray, H.A., 1938. Explorations in Personality. Oxford University Press, New York. Pals, J., 2006. Constructing the “springboard effect”: causal connections, self-making, and growth within the life story. In: McAdams, D.P., Josselson, R., Lieblich, A. (Eds.), Identity and Story: Creating Self in Narrative. American Psychological Association Books, Washington, pp. 175–199. Singer, J.A., 2005. Personality and Psychotherapy: Treating the Whole Person. Guildford Press, New York. Tomkins, S.S., 1987. Script theory. In: Aronoff, J., Rabin, I., Zucker, R.A. (Eds.), The Narrative Study of Lives. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 59–99.

205

CHAPTER

Great British medalists: Response to the commentaries

18

Lew Hardy*,1, Matthew Barlow*, Lynne Evans†, Tim Rees‡, Tim Woodman*, Chelsea Warr§ *Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, United Kingdom ‡ Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom § UK Sport, London, United Kingdom 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: +01248-382-823; Fax: +01248-371-053, e-mail address: [email protected] †

Abstract Hardy et al. (2017) reported the findings of a large-scale, multisource, qualitative study that examined the commonalities of, and discriminators between, a group of super-elite (SE) and a group of elite (E) athletes who were matched on gender, sport, discipline, and era. Fifteen research teams who are actively engaged in research in the domain then provided critical commentaries on the target paper. In our response to these commentaries, we briefly remind the reader of the primary findings of the original paper and then deal with the commentaries under the subheadings: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Elite Performance; Mediating and Moderating Variables; Methodological Issues; Omissions; and Alternative Approaches. Finally, we discuss the very small number of disagreements that we have with any of the commentaries.

Keywords Elite, Super-elite, Athletes, Development, Biographies

We would like to thank the editors of Progress in Brain Research for giving us the opportunity to publish the psychosocial findings from the Great British medalists (GBM) study in a single paper (Hardy et al., 2017) not least because the scale and scope of the study and its qualitative methodology made the paper somewhat voluminous. We would also like to thank the researchers who have offered critical and constructive commentaries on the paper. The primary findings of the original target paper (Hardy et al., 2017) were that there were no differences between super-elite (SE) and elite (E) athletes with regard to family values, conscientiousness, or commitment to training. However, SE Progress in Brain Research, Volume 232, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.03.005 © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

207

208

CHAPTER 18 Responses to commentaries

athletes were more likely than E athletes to demonstrate some combination of the following characteristics: (1) the experience of a foundational negative life event coupled with a foundational positive sport-related event; (2) the experience of a career turning point that enhanced motivation and focus for their sport; (3) the need for success; (4) obsessiveness and/or perfectionism with regard to training and performance; (5) ruthlessness and/or selfishness in the pursuit of their sporting goals; (6) a dual focus on both mastery and outcome; (7) the use of counterphobic attitudes and/ or total preparation to maintain higher levels of performance under pressure; and (8) the relative importance of sport over other aspects of life.

1 NECESSARY AND/OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR SE ACHIEVEMENT Several commentaries argued that the eight attributes that we found to discriminate between SE and E athletes were neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for SE achievement. Rather, they pointed out a number of potentially important factors had not been considered or had been insufficiently explored. Examples of such factors included political and social context (Baker, 2017; Jones and Wilson, 2017; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2017), cultural differences (Farrow, 2017; Zhang, 2017), practice and training conditions and quality (Hodges et al., 2017; Krakauer, 2017; Toering, 2017), and the ability to take advantage of short-term modulators (Krakauer, 2017). We wholeheartedly agree that the discriminating attributes we reported were neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve SE status. Furthermore, we did not at any point in the target article attempt to suggest that that they were. All that we claimed was that those eight attributes did discriminate between SE and E athletes in our sample of 32 athletes, and that they would likely have some predictive potential for other groups of similar athletes. Noteworthy here is that, even though all 16 of the SE athletes in our study reported experiencing a negative critical life event, we do not actually agree with Sarkar and Fletcher (2017) that such events are essential to achieve SE status. Rather, we agree with Baker (2017) that there are most likely multiple pathways to excellence and there will always be exceptions to every “rule.” With regard to the other potential factors identified by the commentators and listed above, we in fact collected: a limited data set on demographic factors, which may speak partially to political context; a fairly substantial data set on social context with reference to family background and relationships with coaches, other athletes, family, and friends; extensive data on practice and training conditions, plus limited data on quality of practice; but no data explicitly addressing athletes’ ability to take advantage of short-term modulators, and very little data examining cultural differences. Within the commentaries, Buszard and Masters (2017), Farrow (2017), and Zhang (2017) provide some evidence regarding cultural moderators of the SE profile identified in the target paper. However, the absence of data on the ability to take advantage of short-term modulators is a shame. In our opinion, both of these research directions are worthy of further exploration in future research.

3 Methodological issues

From the data that we have on the other commentator issues listed above, only the results on family background were reported in the target paper. The results relating to the training environment and relationships with coaches, other athletes, family, and friends will be reported in a second paper (Barlow et al., in preparation). Similarly, results relating to demographics, and practice, training, and competition histories will be reported in a third paper.

2 MEDIATING AND MODERATING VARIABLES A substantial number of the commentaries focused on potential mediator variables that might explain our findings. These included: focus on agency (Howle and Eklund, 2017); deliberate practice (Krakauer, 2017); the development of grit, resilience, and toughness (Gucciardi, 2017; Hodges et al., 2017; Howle and Eklund, 2017; Robertson, 2017; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2017); relabeling of anxiety symptoms (Robertson, 2017); and the development of attention control (Buszard and Masters, 2017). In our opinion, all of these potential mediators are worthy of further research. However, we would contend that it is extremely unlikely that there is any one universal explanation such as deliberate practice (cf. Krakauer, 2017). In particular, it is difficult to see how the effects of counterphobic attitude, significant turning points, or joint focus on mastery and outcome could be explained by deliberate practice. A much smaller number of commentaries focused on the importance of considering moderated effects rather than just simple “main effects” (cf. Baker, 2017; Den Hartigh et al., 2017; Toering, 2017). We wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion. Indeed, it was because of the complexity of the potential interactions that we adopted a qualitative method, and although one could interpret our findings as mere “main effects,” this would misconstrue the data. The finding regarding the importance of a negative critical life event coupled with a positive sport-related event is one very clear and important example of such an interaction.

3 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES There are clearly a substantial number of methodological limitations to the study reported in the target article due to its qualitative nature as a case–control study (Yarrow, 2017). Limitations identified in the commentaries include: a lack of generalizability and the need for replication with both more homogenous and heterogeneous samples (Baker, 2017); the lack of reliability of retrospective recall (Yarrow, 2017); and the lack of information provided about the sports in which the athletes performed as well as the potential confounding effect of sport differences (Baker, 2017; Farrow, 2017; Toering, 2017). We “hold our hands up” to all these criticisms. However, we would also ask the reader to consider the following points. The notion of generalizability in qualitative research is fairly contentious (Patton, 1990). Some qualitative protagonists would argue that generalizability

209

210

CHAPTER 18 Responses to commentaries

in its true sense is not a goal of qualitative research, and some would argue that their research should be judged by its transferability (which may only be subtly different—but is nonetheless different). Others align with their research’s ability to inform future working hypotheses, and still more suggest the ability to extrapolate the findings might be a more appropriate yardstick. Either way, there is a paradigmatic tension in the notion that qualitative studies should be generalizable which needs to be acknowledged here. Much less contentious is Baker’s, Yarrow’s, and Den Hartigh et al.’s recommendation that the study needs to be replicated using a prospective cohort design in single sports and across a diverse range of multiple sports—indeed, we are currently in the process of conducting several such studies. The target article did not provide any information about the specific sports represented in the sample because of the need to protect the identity of the athletes. This was a very early ethical decision. Many of the athletes were household names who provided us with very personal and sometimes highly sensitive information. It was therefore a very high priority to us that all participants could be assured of complete anonymity. Furthermore, when we started the study in 2010 there were very few Great British athletes who met our SE criteria, and we made another ethical decision not to include athletes who were still performing. Yarrow (2017) raised a question regarding the appropriateness of our control group, quite rightly pointing out that we do not give details of how randomly these participants were selected. In fact, we selected all of the SE athletes first by convenience methods with the aim of representing as many Olympic sports as possible. We then tried to match these SE athletes with E athletes with regard to gender, sport, discipline, and era. This matching process was very difficult and we rarely ended up with more than one athlete who was a good match. On the small number of occasions that we had a choice, the matched control athlete was selected as randomly as possible. Finally, Yarrow raises one other issue regarding the philosophical contradiction of using frequency counts within a qualitative study, and the lack of any statistical tests on these frequencies. We were somewhat caught between “a rock and a hard place” on this one. If we had not reported frequency counts, the reader would have had no indicator of the magnitude of the effects observed. However, if we had performed goodness-of-fit tests, we would (as Yarrow points out) have been performing multiple analyses of a post hoc nature with all of the Type I error problems that such analyses present. In the present paper, we tried to stay truer to the qualitative ethos and decided not to report any statistics, but we felt that frequency counts gave some potentially useful interpretative information for the reader. In the fourth and final paper of the series that will be produced from the GBM study, we convert all the qualitative attributes reported in this target paper into quantitative assessments of the extent to which each athlete possessed each attribute. We then combine these data with the quantitative data on athlete demographics, practice, training, and competition histories and use machine learning techniques (Hall et al., 2009; http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/)

4 Psychosocial omissions

to perform multidisciplinary pattern recognition analyses on the data. This enables us to identify the most important collection of attributes that discriminate between the SE and E athletes.

4 PSYCHOSOCIAL OMISSIONS Den Hartigh et al. (2017), Gucciardi (2017), and Hodges et al. (2017) all identify that our approach is essentially frequency focused and lacks a temporal component. This shortcoming is important because, as Gucciardi posits, to more fully understand the impact of any (negative critical life) event one needs to be able to describe the duration, frequency, and timing of the event(s). Related to this temporal aspect is the observation made by both Gucciardi (2017) and Robertson (2017) that we could have examined cumulative lifetime adversity in more detail because it usually has a quadratic relationship with the development of resilience. There is also a temporal aspect to Baker’s (2017) recommendation that future research should examine how socially undesirable psychological characteristics, which might be important for achievement (for example, ruthlessness and selfishness, obsessive perfectionism), impact upon subsequent transitions out of elite sport at the end of athletes’ careers. We agree that the absence of a structured temporal analysis is quite a serious limitation of the target paper. However, we do address this issue in the second paper in the series on athletes’ relationships with their coaches, family, and other performers (Barlow et al., in preparation), and in our current prospective work. The issue will also be addressed in some detail in the third paper in the current series reporting the findings of our study with regard to demographic factors and practice, training, and competition histories (Gullich et al., in preparation). We also agree with the recommendations of Gucciardi (2017), Sarkar and Fletcher (2017), and Robertson (2017) that future research should examine factors that contribute to adversarial growth in E and SE athletes from both a performance and a mental health perspective. Indeed, this is an area of research where high-level sport could be used as a model for high achievement in other domains of life. Coulter et al. (2017) and Gucciardi (2017) both suggest that our analysis and presentation of results would have benefitted from the use of McAdams’s (2013) multilayered framework for personality. As Coulter et al. and Gucciardi indicate, McAdams proposed that personality manifests itself at three levels: in dispositional traits reflected by broad consistencies in behavior, thought, and feeling; in characteristic adaptations reflected by the goals and values a person adopts in different temporal and social contexts; and in narrative identity reflected by the personal life stories that people use to define meaning and purpose in life. Coulter et al. and Gucciardi point out that while the target paper provides a reasonable perspective on the dispositional traits and characteristic adaptations of SE athletes, it does not explicitly address their narrative identities. However, very generously, Coulter et al. used the results presented in our target paper to outline such a narrative identity for SE

211

212

CHAPTER 18 Responses to commentaries

athletes. We agree with the criticisms of both research teams and are very appreciative of Coulter et al.’s efforts to redeem us. We would also draw the reader’s attention to the section in Howle and Eklund’s (2017) commentary that discusses the agency focus of SE athletes, as this also contributes to an understanding of their narrative identity. Incidentally, it is perhaps worth noting that Barlow et al. (2013) identified a similar agentic focus in high-level mountaineers. A number of commentators made the point that the target paper could have related the findings more to the extant literature. We agree, but we also feel that the scale and scope of the paper meant that we could never be exhaustive in this regard—the paper already contains over 10 pages of references. Furthermore, there was an important philosophical reason for not citing previous qualitative research that has examined the psychological skills and strategies that E and SE athletes use. The interview schedules used in such research typically ask athletes explicit questions about the skills and strategies that they use. Understandably, the results yielded by such an approach are replete with the psychological skills and strategies that athletes believe they use. Our starting point was philosophically different in that we did not want to tap into athletes’ declarative knowledge about what they considered the most important psychological skills and strategies for high-level performance. We wanted to unearth who they were, what had shaped them as athletes, and how that shaping occurred including, for example, their personalities and the more basic, unconscious, processes that might have underpinned their high achievements. We feel that this is a strength of our research as opposed to a weakness.

5 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES Den Hartigh et al. (2017) and Jones and Wilson (2017) both proposed systems theory models as a means to better understand the talent identification and development process. Den Hartigh et al. outlined several novel approaches to exploring talent development which included the application of dynamic systems theory, network analysis, and computer simulation. Jones and Wilson proposed developmental systems theory as a way of better understanding the interactions of the individual with the social context. We agree that all of these approaches present exciting opportunities and look forward to reading the researchers’ future research in these areas.

6 DISAGREEMENTS Robertson (2017) and Yarrow (2017) argue that our psychodynamic explanation of the findings is fundamentally flawed. Yarrow describes it as a leap of faith, and Robertson argues that such an explanation cannot be true because if need for success develops from the experience of adversity, then this would imply a linear relationship between adversity and resilience. We disagree with this “implication.” As several other commentators point out (Coulter et al., 2017; Gucciardi, 2017; Howle and

6 Disagreements

Eklund, 2017; Jones and Wilson, 2017; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2017; Toering, 2017), the effects of any negative critical life event are dependent on the recipients’ perception and response; that is, the effects of negative critical life events will likely be moderated by a number of other variables and therefore not be linear in nature. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the data reported in the target article are entirely consistent with such moderated effects. We regard our psychodynamic interpretation as completely consistent with, and reflective of, the data, and we certainly do not regard it as a leap of faith. We were left with the feeling that Yarrow’s and Robertson’s rejection was perhaps a result of philosophical dissonance with our own position, and based on an “in principle” rejection of the application of psychodynamic theory, rather than a detailed analysis and interpretation of the data. From our perspective, the fact that one would be hard pressed to produce true experimental, or even quasi-experimental, evidence to support psychodynamic theory does not reduce its explanatory value. Indeed, it probably has explanatory value in all high achievement contexts (for some applications to sport, see Gogarty and Williamson, 2009). Unlike the other commentators, Collins and MacNamara (2017) apparently saw nothing positive in the target article but instead used their invitation as an opportunity to launch into their now trademark tirade of misrepresentation and hubristic ranting. Collins and MacNamara have gained much notoriety across the field for employing this tactic (see, for example, Bakker and Boschker, 1998; Gulbin et al., 2014; Landers, 2003; Phillips et al., 2011). Gulbin et al. (2014) probably summed up the feelings of many responsible researchers when they wrote: While we welcome constructive peer review and acknowledge the positive contribution this can make to further the concepts and ideas of others, we must reinforce the importance of making factual and unbiased observations in science, and the requirement to pay close attention to aspects of terminology and to the original article itself. We note that this duo have previously attempted to discredit other authors and reviewers using similar techniques (Collins and MacNamara, 2011; MacNamara and Collins, 2011). It seems that we are not the only group to have dispensed cautionary advice about misinterpreting original ideas (Phillips et al., 2011). Gulbin et al., p. 800

Regarding Collins and MacNamara’s specific criticisms, we offer the following rebuttal: (a) How much of the content is genuinely new? Scientific enquiry builds on previous research and many of the findings in the target article have been previously hinted at in other research. What is new about our study is its scale and scope, its multiple source multidisciplinary method, its implicit life story approach, and its rigor. Interestingly, Collins and MacNamara singled out our finding with regard to counterphobia as an example of something “that is both well-known and commonly catered for by those who work in high performance sport.” We know of no previous research that demonstrates counterphobia in SE athletes (or any other athletes for that matter), and we note that Collins and MacNamara do not cite any previous research

213

214

CHAPTER 18 Responses to commentaries

to support their claim; (b) How much of the content is critically considered? Collins and MacNamara seem to have taken exception to the data from our study showing that all of the SE athletes experienced a negative critical life event in close proximity to a positive sport-related event. Collins and MacNamara chose to ignore the most important part of this interactive finding and criticized the target article as though it reported a main effect for trauma. We found and reported no such main effect in the target article. (c) What are the key messages for practice and how fair are the claims made? We discussed the applied implications of our findings in the penultimate section of the target article, but Collins and MacNamara ignored this discussion and instead criticized a quotation from a completely different article written by different authors. We conducted a large-scale study, with a high degree of methodological rigor, reported some interesting data, and responsibly discussed these data and their likely implications. We did not “claim” anything, and we have treated no one unfairly. (d) The work of Collins and associates is not cited. We have already dealt with this in Section 4.

7 CONCLUDING REMARKS As we stated at the start of this response, we welcome the editors’ decision to allow us to publish the psychosocial findings from the GBM study in this format, and we are grateful to our fellow researchers who provided such insightful and constructive commentaries. As we have indicated, the GBM study was a massive project that took several years to complete and offers up many hypotheses to be tested in future research. We do not claim that the findings are definitive. However, we believe that the findings of the GBM study represent the strongest evidence that is available regarding psychosocial aspects of SE performance to date.

REFERENCES Baker, J., 2017. The journey of a thousand miles…: notes on Hardy et al.’s Great British medalists project. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 133–136. Bakker, F.C., Boschker, M.S.J., 1998. Creating your own imaginary world: a reply to Collins and Hale (1997). J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 20, 321–327. Barlow, M., Woodman, T., Hardy, L., 2013. Great expectations: different high-risk activities satisfy different motives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 458–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0033542. Barlow, M., Hardy, L., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (in preparation). Great British coaches: coach-athlete relationships of super-elite and elite athletes from Olympic sports. Buszard, T., Masters, R.S.W., 2017. A culture of striving augments use of working memory? Implications for attention control. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 197–200.

References

Collins, D., MacNamara, A., 2011. Comments on “expert performance in sport and the dynamics of talent development” Sports Med. 41, 609–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11593020000000000-00000. Collins, D., MacNamara, A., 2017. Much Ado about….? A response to Hardy et al. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 149–154. Coulter, T.J., Mallett, C.J., Singer, J.A., 2017. The tales athletes tell: narrative structure and identity in Great British medalists. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 201–205. Den Hartigh, R.J.R., Van Yperen, N.W., Van Geert, P.L.C., 2017. Embedding the psychosocial biographies of Olympic medalists in a (meta-)theoretical model of dynamic networks. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 137–140. Farrow, D., 2017. Super-elite athletes: some complimentary observations from Australia and some lessons for sports expertise research: comment on Hardy et al. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 191–195. Gogarty, P., Williamson, I., 2009. Winning at All Costs: Sporting Gods and Their Demons. JR Books Ltd., London, UK. Gucciardi, D.F., 2017. The psychosocial development of world-class athletes: additional considerations for understanding the whole person and salience of adversity. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 127–132. Gulbin, J.P., Croser, M.J., Morley, E.J., Weissensteiner, J.R., 2014. A closer look at the FTEM framework. Response to “More of the same? Comment on ‘An integrated framework for the optimisation of sport and athlete development: a practitioner approach’” J. Sports Sci. 32, 796–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.855806. Gullich, A., Hardy, L., Laing, S., Wraith, L., Warr, C., Jackson, A., Rees, T., Abernethy, B., Cote, J., Kuncheva, L., Barlow, M., & Evans, L. (in preparation). Great British medallists: demographic, practice, training, and competition histories of super-elite and elite athletes from Olympic sports. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H., 2009. The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. 11, 10–18. 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. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 1–119. Hodges, N.J., Ford, P.R., Hendry, D.T., Williams, A.M., 2017. Getting gritty about practice and success: motivational characteristics of great performers. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 167–173. Howle, T.C., Eklund, R.C., 2017. On elite and super-elite Great British athletes: some theoretical implications from Hardy et al.’s (2017) findings. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 121–125. Jones, M.I., Wilson, M.R., 2017. Great British medalists: a commentary based on a developmental systems theory perspective. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 175–179. Krakauer, J.W., 2017. In search of the golden skill. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 145–148. Landers, D.M., 2003. Thanks anyway, but I0 m not smoking what you’r e smoking: a reply to Hale, Holmes, Smith, Fowler, and Collins. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 25, 410–413. MacNamara, A., Collins, D., 2011. Comment on “talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes” J. Sports Sci. 29, 1353–1356. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02640414.2011.568510. McAdams, D.P., 2013. The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 272–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464657. Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation Methods, second ed. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

215

216

CHAPTER 18 Responses to commentaries

Phillips, E., Davids, K., Araujo, D., Renshaw, I., Portus, M., 2011. The authors’ reply. Sports Med. 41, 610–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11593710-000000000-00000. Robertson, I.H., 2017. The stress test: does what doesn’t kill me, make me a super-elite athlete? Prog. Brain Res. 232, 155–158. Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., 2017. Adversity-related experiences are essential for Olympic success: additional evidence and considerations. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 159–165. Toering, T., 2017. Eventual sport performance level: what about the role of type of sport, perception of critical life events, and practice quality? Prog. Brain Res. 232, 181–185. Yarrow, K., 2017. Assessing risk factors for athletic excellence. Prog. Brain Res. 232, 141–144. Zhang, L.-W., 2017. Is a peaceful mind a winning mind? Comment on Hardy et al. (2017). Prog. Brain Res. 232, 187–190.

Index Note: Page numbers followed by “f ” indicate figures, “t” indicate tables, and “np” indicate footnotes.

A Actors, athletes as, 130–131 Adversity, 155–156 developmental experiences, 122–123 and psychosocial development of world-class athletes, 128–129 related experiences and Olympic success, 159–164 salient issues in study and practice of, 162–164t temporal proximity to positive sport-related event, 160–161 Agency, 123–124 Agents, athletes as, 130–131 American culture, 199 Anxiety, 156–157 Athlete Personal Awards (APAs), 2–3 Athletes. See also specific types of athletes as actors, 130–131 as agents, 130–131 as authors, 130–131 characteristics, 123–124 interview process, 8–9 performance, 138 personality, 130 Athletes lifestyle behavior commitment to training, 65–74 Elite athletes, 68–70 exceptions, 70–74 Super-Elite athletes, 66–68 mastery, outcome, and process, 81–92, 111 Elite athletes, 88–90 exceptions, 90–91 Super-Elite athletes, 83–88 performing under pressure, 92–106, 112–113 Elite athletes, 99–103 exceptions, 103–104 Super-Elite athletes, 93–99 relative importance of sport, 74–81, 110 Elite athletes, 78–79 exceptions, 79–80 Super-Elite athletes, 75–78 Athletes’ psychosocial development, 2 commitment, motivation, and desire to compete, 4 context and environment, 4 critical events, positive and negative, 3 interviews, 6–7, 10

athletes, 8–9 coach, 9 parent, 9–10 volume and timeframe, 10 need to succeed, 42–50, 110 Elite athletes, 45–48 exceptions, 48–49 Super-Elite athletes, 43–45 personality, 4 pressure zone and emotional regulation, 4 ruthlessness, 111 Elite athletes, 53–55 exceptions, 55 Super-Elite athletes, 50–52 selfishness, 50–56, 111 Elite athletes, 53–55 exceptions, 55 Super-Elite athletes, 50–52 Attachment theory, 161–162 Attention control culture influences, 199 role, 198 Attitude, counterphobic, 93–95, 147–148, 156–157 Authors, athletes as, 130–131

B Big Five traits, 129–130 Blue ribbon status, 177

C Case-control studies, 142 appropriateness of controls, 143–144 Characteristic adaptations, 129–130, 202–204 Chinese athlete Pingchangxin, 188 psychological construction system, 189f, 190 Chinese sport psychologists, 189 Cluster analysis, 170 Coach-athlete interaction, 176 Coach interview process, 9 Cohort studies, 142–144 Commitment script, 203 Communion, 123–124 Complexity science, 139–140

217

218

Index

Conscientiousness, 168 Elite athletes, 57 exceptions, 57–58 Super-Elite athletes, 57 Controls, appropriateness of, 143–144 Counterphobic attitude, 93–95, 147–148, 156–157 Critical events athletes’ psychosocial development, 3 and psychosocial development of world-class athletes, 128 timing, and athletes’ performance, 137–139 Criticality, 150–151 Culture of striving, 150 attention control culture influences, 199 role, 198 formative experiences, athletes, 11–18 performance under pressure, 198 working memory capacity, 199–200 Cumulative lifetime adversity, athletes, 128

D Developmental systems theory, 175–177, 212 Discriminators, psychosocial. See Psychosocial discriminators Dispositional traits, 202 Dynamic network model, embedding psychosocial biographies of Olympic medalists in, 137–140

E East Asian culture, 199 Elite athletes, 2, 2np career turning point, 38–39, 109–110 characteristics, 123–124 conscientiousness, 57 context and environment, 4 critical events, positive and negative, 3, 108–109 culture of striving, 11–18 environment and expectation of achievement, 12–13 exceptions, 17–18 highly competitive environment, 15–16 high value on mastery and outcome, 16–17 strong work-ethic, 13–15 developmental experiences, 122–123 formative experiences, 11–42 foundational critical events, 27–30 lifestyle behavior commitment to training, 68–70 relative importance of sport, 78–79, 110 mastery, outcome, and process, 88–90, 111 motivation, 109–110

need to succeed, 45–48, 110 obsessiveness, 61–62, 111 participants, 4–6, 5t perfectionism, 58–59, 61–62, 111 performing under pressure, 99–103, 112–113 personality, 4 potentially causal links, 107 psychosocial discriminators, 108f (see also Psychosocial discriminators) research questions, 2–4 ruthlessness, 53–55, 111 selfishness, 53–55, 111 Eminence, 194 Eventual sport performance level negative critical life event, athletes’ perception of, 182 practice, quality of, 183 self-regulation process, 183–184 sport, type of, 182 training process, 183 Expertise, 135, 183, 194

F Formative experiences, athletes, 11 career turning point, 33–42 Elite athletes, 38–39 exceptions, 39–40 Super-Elite athletes, 33–38 culture of striving, 11–18 environment and expectation of achievement, 12–13 exceptions, 17–18 highly competitive environment, 15–16 high value on mastery and outcome, 16–17 strong work-ethic, 13–15 foundational critical events, 18–33 Elite athletes, 27–30 exceptions, 30–31 Super-Elite athletes, 20–27 Frequency of critical events, and athletes’ performance, 138

G GB cycling, 177–178 Great British medalists (GBM) athletes, 177 blue ribbon status, 177 coach-athlete interaction, 176 criticality, 150–151 developmental systems theory, 175–177, 212 disagreements, 212–214 genuine guidance, 150

Index

individual’s capacity, 178 methodological issues, 209–211 moderated effects, 209 narrative structure and identity in, 201–204 person characteristics, 178 plasticity, 176 potential mediator variables, 209 practice, key messages for, 151–152 psychosocial omissions, 211–212 sports, 177 success breeds success, 177–178 Super-Elite athletes achievement, conditions for, 208–209 athletes, 176 talent development, 212 Great British Medalists Project, 133–135 generalization of results, 134 replication and extension of findings of, 135 Grit, 168–169

I In-depth qualitative interviews, 134 Inductive/deductive approach, 202–203 Integrative framework, 202 Interviews, 142 athletes’ psychosocial development, 6–10 coach, 9 parent, 9–10 volume and timeframe, 10 in-depth qualitative, 134

L Life events, causal linkages between, 204 Life stories, 203–204 interviews, 202–203

M Maximal cognitive potential hypothesis, 200 Mental health, and adversities, 160–161 Motivation athletes, 109–110 coexisting types of, 170–171 controlled, 169–170 deliberate environment, 169 deliberate practice, 170–171 grit, 168–169 Motor skill, 145–146

N Narrative identity, 201–204 National Governing Bodies (NGBs), 5np

Negative critical life event, 208, 212–213 athletes’ perception of, 182 Network dynamics. See Dynamic network model Neuroscientists, 145–146 NGBs. See National Governing Bodies (NGBs)

O Obsessiveness Elite athletes, 61–62 exceptions, 62–64 Super-Elite athletes, 59–61 Olympic medalists, psychosocial biographies, 137–140 Olympics success, and adversity-related experiences, 159–164 Organismic integration theory, 122

P Parent interview process, 9–10 Perfectionism, 111 Elite athletes, 61–62 exceptions, 62–64 Super-Elite athletes, 59–61 Personality, 129–130, 211–212 athletes, 4, 130 continuity and change in, 203–204 integrative framework, 202 Person-centered approach, 201–202 Pingchangxin, 188–189 Plasticity, 176 Pracademics, 149–150 Psychodynamic factors, 156 Psychodynamic theory, 161–162 Psychological assets, 178 Psychological self, 129–130 Psychopathology, 139–140 Psychosocial development of world-class athletes, 128–131 Psychosocial discriminators, Elite and Super-Elite athletes, 108f need to succeed, 43–48, 110 obsessiveness, 59–62, 64–65, 111 perfectionism, 59–62, 64–65, 111 Psychosocial factors, 146–147

R Randomized control trials, 134 Research Advisory Team (RAT), 2–3, 6–7 Research questions, refinement and validation of, 2–4 Resilience, 156 Retrospective data, reliability of, 143

219

220

Index

Risk factors of athletic excellence, 141–144 appropriateness of controls, 143–144 reliability of retrospective data, 143 robustness of statistical inference, 142 Robustness of statistical inference, 142 Rocky Road process, 152

S Salience of adverse events, 128–129 Self-determination theory, 169–170 Self-development, 187–188 Self, psychological, 129–130 Self-regulation process, 183–184 Social actors, athletes as, 129–130 Sport performance, salient issues in study and practice of, 162–164t Sports expertise researchers, 193 Statistical inference, robustness of, 142 Steeling effect, 128 Stress test counterphobic attitudes, 156–157 foundational negative life event, 155–156 need for success, 156 Super-elite (SE) athletes, 2–3, 2np, 150, 152, 176 agency, 123–124 Australian perspective dealing with pressure, 193 obsessiveness and perfectionism, 192–193 ruthlessly competitive, 193 sports expertise research, lessons, 193–194 total preparation for competition, 192 career turning point, 33–38, 109–110 characteristics, 123–124, 207–208 commentaries, 208 commitment, 4 conscientiousness, 57 context and environment, 4 controlled motivation, 169–170 counterphobia, 147–148 critical events, positive and negative, 3, 108–109 culture of striving, 11–18 environment and expectation of achievement, 12–13 exceptions, 17–18 highly competitive environment, 15–16 high value on mastery and outcome, 16–17 strong work-ethic, 13–15

developmental experiences, 122–123 formative experiences, 11–42 foundational critical events, 20–27 grit, 168–169 lifestyle behavior commitment to training, 66–68 relative importance of sport, 75–78, 110 mastery, outcome, and process, 83–88, 111 motivation, 109–110 need to succeed, 43–45, 110 negative critical life event, 208 obsessiveness, 59–61, 111 participants, 4–6, 5t perfectionism, 58–59, 61–62, 111 performing under pressure, 93–99, 112–113 personality, 4 potentially causal links, 107 pressure zone and emotional regulation, 4 psychosocial discriminators, 108f research questions, 2–4 ruthlessness, 50–52, 111 selfishness, 50–52, 111 social context, 208 stress test, 155–158 Swimming champions, Olympic and adversities, 160–161 Sympathetic autonomic arousal, 157

T Talent development, 137–138, 176–178, 212 dynamic network perspective on, 138–139 environment, 129 Temporal proximity, 151 Timing of critical events, and athletes’ performance, 137–139 Transcendent experts, 194 Trauma, adversity-related, 161

W Winner effect, 156 Working memory capacity attention control, 199 culture of striving, 199 participants, 198 World-class athletes, psychosocial development of, 127–131