“Best” Chance U

Buddy Stephens, the cantankerous coach at EMCC, was asked by a reporter whether he felt the show created any misconceptions about his program.

“I think the name,” he said. “We’re not really last chance. In a lot of ways we’re best chance.”

He’s right, of course. Stephens has built a powerhouse, a junior programme that every Division I coach knows they need to scout. That’s why so many of the drop down players (who’ve left or been kicked out of Division I schools for some reason) end up there. For most of the players depicted in Last Chance U, Scooba was mostly a pit stop. A bizarre and humbling one, yes, where they agree to juggle trying to help a coach which psychopathic tenancies win another championship, whilst attending classes and following the tuition of an academic adviser who knows just what they need to do academically to get back to the next level.

Ronald Ollie was charming and lovable in Season 1. Dakota Allen brought an admirable and hardened wisdom to Season 2. The quarterbacks — John Franklin III and De’Andre Johnson — were charismatic. The show works because the producers help you make easy connections to the players involved.

There was one player over the two season of Last Chance U that viewers really got to know. Only one relationship between viewer and East Mississippi Community College athlete went deeper. Running back Isaiah Wright appeared in both seasons and was in many ways the focus of the second as a year that should have launched him toward that long-sought-after Division I scholarship slipped away in the haze of injury and personal turmoil. Through it all, Wright bluntly tells the story of his troubled past. Honestly, I was amazed at the ease with which he discussed growing up with his brothers in a series of homes (his father was in jail, his mother would disappear), telling his past of fighting abusive foster parents or resorting to stealing from shops when they ran out of food. But soon I realised: Wright had been waiting for somebody — anybody — to listen to his story for a long time. Of course his story took a dark turn after the second seasons’ conclusion,  with Wright and his brother, former Indiana football player Camion Patrick, were arrested and charged with criminal homicide in the stabbing death of an 18-year-old in Tennessee in late July 2017.

The success of the series has also highlighted the need for Division I schools to ensure their players go through the media training offered to them. Those players are, in turn, more guarded, and as a consequence more professional. Which is perhaps why the producers have decided to turn away from Scooba for season 3, and to a school where the players are more raw, and more open to having their stories heard, much like Isaiah.

For most of the talent going through EMCC, that next level is all but assured. Those players are talented enough. They’ve been there before, and they know what it takes.

Imitation through Observation continued- Can we learn through gaming?

The following article is continued from the previous post entitled, “Imitation through Observation”, and aims to apply the social learning theory to a potential way that we can learn new skills, not through simply observing, but from interactive gaming.

After learning about Social Learning Theory, a thought came into my head that when I, myself personally, am asked to watch someone else and learn from what I have seen, I tended to struggle with this in my younger years, as I was not a strong visual learner. I always learnt best kinetically (through “doing” the task), and I’m certain many individuals are the same. This then led me to consider how the two could be mixed.

So this is what I tried to examine in my own study, titled “Does heavy usage of soccer simulation games have an effect on decision making?”.

Being in a role where I teach children, it is incredible to see how often kids try and copy whatever sporting moment was popular that week. Even with the games that kids play on consoles, they still attempt to imitate what they see. Very recently for example, a new trick that was exclusive to this years Fifa game was the “El Tornado”.

Decision making was the aspect of competition chosen to be examined, as decision making is a key characteristic which underlies expert performance in team ball sports. Following on, the present study draws from the Baker, Cote & Abernethy (2003) study that found that expert athletes perceived watching games on television beneficial for developing perceptual skills.

The study examined 24 male footballers (2 groups of 12), matched for ability, age, number of hours spent training, and the number of hours spent watching football matches on Tv. The sole difference between the groups was the number of hours spent playing football simulation games per week (e.g. Fifa or PES).

In a 20 question test of decision making, those individuals who were in the high playing group scored an average of 1.67 more correct answers.

The findings from this current study provided support, for the suggestion by Baker, Cote & Abernethy (2003) that athletes perceive watching games on television beneficial in developing perceptual skills, such as decision making. Herein lies its key strength as the potential applied applications for this study could potentially be used across a large variety of sporting domains in order to enhance the accuracy of decisions made by performers.

Tell us what you think! Could you learn positive, new skills from the games you play?

Thank you for reading!

Imitation Through Observation

It has been common knowledge for decades that children copy what they see. This is illustrated during the famous Bobo doll experiment (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961). Whether it be copying their parents, individuals they see on television, or role models they see during their days. This phenomenon is more commonly referred to as, “observational learning”, and has lead to things such as age ratings on films and video games.

Observational learning derives from Social Learning Theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, who suggested that behaviour is made up of environmental and behavioural factors. Bandura stated that for successful observational learning to take place, individuals had to go through four stages:

1. Attention: Observers cannot learn unless they pay attention to what’s happening around them. This process is influenced by characteristics of the model (person you are observing), such as how much one likes or identifies with the model, and by characteristics of the observer, such as the observer’s expectations or level of emotional arousal.
2. Retention/Memory: Observers must not only recognize the observed behavior but also remember it at some later time. This process depends on the observer’s ability to code or structure the information in an easily remembered form or to mentally or physically rehearse the model’s actions.
3. Initiation/Motor: Observers must be physically and/intellectually capable of producing the act. In many cases the observer possesses the necessary responses. But sometimes, reproducing the model’s actions may involve skills the observer has not yet acquired. For example, it is one thing to carefully watch a circus juggler, but it is quite another to go home and repeat those acts.
4. Motivation: Observers must have the necessary motivations to perform the skill (e.g. to deal with challenges, to impress peers). Coaches also give pep talks, recognising the importance of motivational processes to learning.

This form of learning will be more likely to occur if the model being observed is someone of authority or higher status in an environment, such as a parent, friend, sibling, or just somebody the person looks up too. Also, the model should be somebody the observer identifies with (i.e. if the observer is sporty, the model should also be sporty), consequently, individuals are more likely to imitate behaviour modelled by people of the same gender.

Bandura clearly reiterates that unless motivated, a person does not produce or demonstrate a learned behaviour. This motivation can come from external reinforcement, such as the promise of a reward, or it can come from vicarious reinforcement, based on the observation that models are rewarded. High-status models can affect performance through motivation. For example, girls aged 11 to 14 performed better on a motor performance task when they thought it was demonstrated by a high-status cheerleader than by a low-status model (Weiss et al., 1992).

Observational learning is very beneficial when there are positive, reinforcing peer models involved. Although individuals go through four different stages for observational learning: attention; retention ; initiation; and motivation, this does not simply mean that when an individual’s attention is captured that it automatically sets the process in that exact order. One of the most important ongoing stages for observational learning, especially among children, is motivation and positive reinforcement.

Performance is enhanced further when individuals are positively instructed on how they can improve a situation, for example, where children actively participate alongside a more skilled person. Examples of this are scaffolding and guided participation. Scaffolding refers to an expert responding contingently to a novice so the novice gradually increases their understanding of a problem. Guided participation refers to an expert actively engaging in a situation with a novice so the novice participates with or observes the adult to understand how to resolve a problem.

It is important to note that this is not the only way we can learn behaviours. On top of this, Social Learning Theory does not explain the effects that biology/ our genetic make up can play on our behaviour.

Thank you for reading this short post on SLT, a future post will further examine the role this theory can play on achieving mastery in sports!

Below is a brief outline of the Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961) study on observational learning with children:

Aim – To demonstrate that aggression can be learned through modelling

Method – 72 children aged between 3 and 6 years old were put into one of three groups for 10 minutes. In all groups there were equal numbers of boys and girls. Half saw male models and half saw female models.

(aggressive model) played in a room while an adult hit and shouted at a “Bobo doll”.

(non-aggressive model) played in a room while an adult played quietly with a construction set.

(control) did not see a model.

Later the children were observed while they spent 20 minutes alone in a room with a range of aggressive and non-aggressive toys including the Bobo doll.

Results – Children who saw the aggressive model produced more aggressive acts than those in either other group. Boys imitated same sex models more than girls. Girls imitated more physical aggression if they saw male models, and more verbal aggression if they saw female models.

Conclusion – Aggression can be learned through modelling.

Is your Captain Fantastic?

This following article was the topic for my post-graduate independent project, which had the title:

“A Study of the Perceived Role of Captains within Elite Association Football”.

Leadership might broadly be considered “the behavioural process of influencing individuals and groups towards set goals”. This definition is useful because it encompasses many dimensions of leadership. In sport and exercise, these dimensions include making decisions, motivating participants, giving feedback, establishing interpersonal relationships, and directing the group or team confidently (Weinberg, 2007). Weinberg later goes to the describe characteristics of a good leader, stating how “A leader knows where the group or team is going and provides the direction and resources to help it get there. Coaches who are good leaders provide not only a vision of what to strive for but also the day-to-day structure, motivation, and support to translate vision into reality. Coaches, teachers, and exercise specialists are leaders who seek to provide each participant with maximum opportunities to achieve success. And successful leaders also try to ensure that individual success helps achieve team success”.

Before the time of my study, the role of athlete leaders, whilst no less important, has received far less attention than the role of coaches/ managers (Fransen, Vanbeselaere, De Cuyper, Vande Broek, & Boen, 2014). Given the influence athlete leaders can exert upon the team and its processes, it would have been assumed that there is a sizeable gap in our understanding of leadership.

Three players, two coaches, and the captain of a professional English League, Association Football Club agreed to take part in an open, structured interview, with the goal to explore individual views on the duties/ role of their captain, and the duties/ role of their ideal captain.

After analysing the responses from participants, four meta-themes were proposed and explained to link to how to measure the success of a club captain: On-field leader; Off-field leader; Manager relationship; and the ideal captain. Each of which will now be explained.

On-field leader- The meta-theme of the on-field leader simply refers to the role/ affect the captain has on his teammates during matches (excluding pre-game, half-time, and post-game interactions). This was identified as an important theme when undertaking the thematic analysis, all three players, both the coaches and the captain himself all identified the importance of the on-field role both their captain, and their ideal captain can have on the squad. For example, in the interviews with the players, player three (P3) mentions how, “The team captain in the side is also the team’s leading goal scorer. On the field, he definitely inspires the team through the goals he scores” (P3, line 4). Following on from this, interviews with both player one (P1) and player two (P2) both explain how, on the field, their captain exhibits confidence when performing, which can be used to inspire his teammates. The positivity towards the captains on field ability continued when analysing the interviews from coach one (C1) and coach two (C2). C1 mirrors the views of P3 on regards to the captain’s ability, stating how, “On the field, I feel that he (the captain) is of a very high ability, and exhibits that with the high number of goals that he scores for the side. The team have confidence in his ability as a footballer” (C1, 6). The congruency between players and coaches also continued with C2, making links to the captain’s confidence, “I believe that he exhibits confidence when he performs and that confidence has the ability to spread across the field” (C2, 6). These were the only two points of congruence between players and coaches made during the interviews.

In regards to the captain himself, perhaps unsurprisingly his responses towards his role focused more on his teammates, rather than have a more ego-based, individual focus. For example, when asked about his on-field role, the captain responded, “it is my job during games and training to ensure that everyone’s mind is focused on the goal and nobody is getting distracted for any reasons” (Captain, 6). The captain later does also go on to rank the ability to focus his teammates and increase their performance as his most important role as captain.

Off-field leader- This meta-theme relates to responses that gave information as to the role/ affect the captain has on his teammates of the field (e.g. training, social events, team meetings). This theme appeared as a counter to the first “on-field leader”, as a sports leader’s job does not end when the match ends.

When examining the responses from the players, there were a significantly larger proportion of responses referring to the captain’s off-field role when compared to the on-field role. When first inspecting P1, comments such as, “he is not afraid to order players off the training field if they are not behaving or playing appropriately” (P1, 6), and “there still is an opportunity for the team to still have a laugh which reflects well onto the other players” (P1, 10). These two quotes both could be linked to the captains understanding of situations and adapting his input to best suit each scenario. P2 also elaborates on the off-field interactions from the captain, “he is able to include all players of the team in activities both related and unrelated to football, he is a strong character which many look up to (P2, 4). P3 reaffirms both P1 and P2’s views on the captain’s good understanding of his teammates. First, P3 states that, “Off the field he tries to inspire his team to get on well with one and another and I feel he has been successful in doing so (P3, 5). Secondly, “when if the captain in focused and serious about training competition, much of the team is in the same mind set as him, and vice-versa if he is in a more jovial mood then his team usually adopt that mood as well” (P3, 9).

Both coaches also spoke about the captain’s ability to understand his teammates. Coach one spoke about how, “there can be lots of messing around at training for example, but in spite of that I think that he improves the chemistry of the players” (C1, 10), whilst coach two discussed how, “he is very sociable and tries to involve everyone, particularly making an effort with those on the outside of the team, trying to dispel cliques” (C2, 7). However, it was noted from the coaches how this may throw up negative consequences, for example, “certain individuals try to please the captain too much and in these situations his conduct may influence how others behave. Like other players see this brown nosing so to speak and it can rub a few players wrong if the captain handles that poorly” (C2, 10), or in other words, the captain’s relationship with certain players may have negatively affected others within the team without the captain’s knowledge. This insight may provide some evidence as to how coaches have different views and insights into a group when compared to the individuals within the group.

The captain also speaks in regard to his off-field role in congruence with players, explaining how he plays a role in integrating new players into the side. In addition, the captain also speaks about the understanding of his squad, and how his understanding/ input differs with senior players compared to rookies, stating that, “with the players I have been around the most, I understand these boys more than the rookies so to speak… so they require must less input from myself” (Captain, 54).

Manager Relationship- The meta-theme of manager relationship is perhaps the most influential. The captain, in essence, is the appointed sub-leader of the club, and the captain’s appointment is made solely by the manager.

Beginning again with the players, the focus of the conversations firstly focused on the duty of the manager and how his roles differ from those of the captain which were mentioned in the first two meta-themes. P1 began by discussing the link between the two, how the captain motivates the players, but the manager is responsible for motivating the captain to fulfil his duties. P1 then continued by suggesting that, “the manager has to plan and decide everyone’s jobs on top of this, which the captain does not do” (P1, 32). P3 gives a more summative view of the two roles, explaining how, “I feel the captain deals more in issues of morale and on pitch motivation, whereas the manager may deal more in issues of selection and strategy” (P3, 26).

Whilst it is advised that the players view the manager-captain positively, as this can only affect them positively in return, the most important view to best understand the relationship, and be able to answer the studies hypotheses, is from the captain of the present side, who when asked to describe his relationship with the manager, believed that, “I think the main difference is that when I’m with the manager, I am the one who does the listening and absorbs the information to then distribute” (Captain, 31). The captain explains this further mentioning the hierarchy system in place, so he is there to mediate between players and the manager. A second point made by the captain referred to himself and the manager having a similar view on the best way for the team to perform, and correspondingly the pair have a similar outlook on how to approach upcoming matches.

Ideal Captain- The final meta-theme to be explored relates more to the multidimensional model of leadership, and how their current captain matches up to each individual’s ideal/ preferred leader. The theory dictates that the best quality leaders will match the requirements and preferred needs of the group they lead.

This meta-theme will be predominately focused upon the opinion of the players, as the multidimensional model of leaderships suggests that players will be most affected be the behaviours/ actions of leaders. When asked to describe the ideal skills/ attributes of a captain, all three players gave varied responses when compared to the other two players. For example, players one & three both believed that the ideal captain would be the player within a group that possesses very high ability when performing, whilst player two did not agree that this was the case, stating how, “he does not have to be the best player at the club technically” (P2, 27).

When conducting analysis on the players data sets, the researchers only discovered one sub-theme that was consistently mentioned between the three sets of players was that their ideal captain would possess an excellent understanding of those he is leading. Upon further exploration, the ideal captains understanding of his team would come in one of two forms, the first of which was motivation. Player three believed the ideal captain, “…should be excellent in developing and maintaining squad morale, keeping his team focus and ready on the goals set by the manager” (P3, 37), whilst also maintaining that he needs to, “understand in detail the personality of his squad and how to motivate each player to the levels required” (P3, 17). Ultimately, the ideal captain for these players believed a strong understanding allowed for the captain to adapt his communication in order keep each individual focused and motivated.

In summary, the interview analysis revealed meta-themes suggesting that the captain’s role can be measured against how well he inspires his team on the field, understands his team off the field, how strong his dynamic is with his manager, and how well he compares to each individual player ideal captain.

I appreciate this was a lengthy post. Thank you for taking the time to read it all. If you enjoyed it, please spread the word about this page!

 

 

 

Siege

Siege mentality- a shared feeling of victimisation and defensiveness. In its original definition, the term derived from the actual experiences of real sieges by military defences. It is a collective state of mind whereby a group of people believe themselves constantly attacked, oppressed, or isolated in the face of the negative intentions of the social world around them. Although a group phenomenon, the term describes both the emotions and thoughts of the group as a whole, and as individuals.

So what does this term have to do with Sports Psychology?

The reported consequences of a group possessing a strong siege mentality are mainly negative in nature, black and white thinking, social conformity, and lack of trust. However, having this mentality can also lead to a preparedness for the worst and a strong sense of social cohesion, two factors known to be linked with high levels of performance.

There are plenty of recent examples of coaches in football trying to, or calling for their team and fans to create a “it’s us versus everyone” mentality.

A sporting example of teams (or more specifically, managers) trying to instil a siege mentality comes from Jose Mourinho during his second spell at Chelsea. During a game against title rivals Manchester City, the music being played from the speakers before kick-off and at half-time was reportedly deliberately chosen, carrying a message from Jose of pure defiance after a testing week when the Chelsea manager and his club, his striker Diego Costa and the supporters all felt victimised. “People try to put us down” came the words from Roger Daltrey with The Who’s My Generation. Such sentiments summed up Mourinho’s demeanour after what was an eventful few days. Opponents, rival managers and fans, officials, television pundits and the authorities have all tried to put Chelsea down according to Mourinho.

It can be argued that this mentality Mourinho created that season in particular proved successful, with Chelsea winning the Premier League by 8 points that season. Jose has also been reported by Manchester United player Juan Mata to being aware of creating a siege mentality in an effort to improve results, stating, “we try to cheer ourselves up. When a player doesn’t play and has less football, the other players have to help him, especially with the mentality, as we all know the qualities we have.”

Before a promotion deciding game against Leeds, Newcastle boss Rafa Benitez issued a rallying call, and said: “I think that the fans realise after these four or five games we don’t have an explanation why (things are going against Newcastle) and they realise they have to support the team because we are on our own and we have to fight for ourselves.”

Their are also plenty more examples from football, such as Sir Alex Fergurson and Jurgen Klopp, but also from sports such as Cycling, and American Football.

I will leave this article with 5 tips from psychologist Dan Abraham’s on how clubs can create a siege mentality:

• Turn negatives into positives
• Make the most of Senior players
• Make players feel valued at all times
• Create a common cause for the club
• Defend players publicly- ALWAYS!

 

“Shock Therapy” Does changing your coach improve performance?

It is becoming a regular thought for professional sportsmen and women, to sack or not to sack. Athlete’s are constantly aiming for improvement regardless of current form, however, when times are tough for athlete’s and sports teams, the individuals are programmed to blame external factors for these performance decrements (i.e. blaming decisions, the conditions, luck). Continuation of poor performances however, and naturally fingers begin to point at coaches and managers.

In football, the examples are endless of recent head coach sackings. In the NFL, there is “Black Monday”. In individual sport, in May of this year, Novak Djokovic had a complete clear-out of his support staff; including his coach of 19 years. Coaching changes happen, and literature is plentiful on dealing with these changes as a performer, but the question statisticians ask is, does changing coach positively affect performance?

Dutch economist Dr Bas ter Weel has his views:

“Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term,” he says. “But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result.”

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis. He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form.

De Paola & Scoppa also suggested that, “From our analysis, it emerges that coach replacement does not produce statistically significant effects on team performance. This result turns out both when we estimate the impact of coach change including among controls team fixed effects and when using a matching estimator, in which selection on the treatment depends on team performance in the latest rounds.”

According to writer David Sally, football clubs can be seen as any other business or company. Business research suggests that structural factors – such as how long it has been operating and which industry it is part of – are much more important than who the chief executive is. In money terms, around 15% profitability can be determined by the quality of the man or woman in charge and the same can be said for football managers, Sally estimates.

Both attempted to apply there findings to the English Premier League, during the 2012/13 season, the same week in March which spurred Sunderland to change the personnel in charge, Aston Villa were sitting at 17th in the table, struggling against relegation.

Villa too had been struggling to find form. Instead of dispensing with the services of manager Paul Lambert, however, the Villa board hung on and witnessed a turnaround in form. Over the same period of five matches Villa notched up two wins, a draw and two losses – exactly the same results that Paolo Di Canio achieved in his first five games in charge.

Although the statistics from these studies are accurate, they struggle to factor in coach ability, simply stating how the best coaches will naturally end up at the best jobs available.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it better to stick or twist with managers/ head coaches? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Happiness

If you read a book on happiness, more often than not it will instruct you to set clear goals on what you want to achieve (e.g. weight loss or wealth), and they map out a plan on how to achieve it. Goal setting is fantastic for improving individual qualities or achieving tasks, but in regards to happiness, goal setting in this way does not really work.

Sure, if you do this you might reach your ideal weight or become a millionaire at age 30, but by being so focused on this structure, but you then realise you’ve neglected the here and now of life, and in the long run success in one area can mean unfulfilment in another (e.g. maintaining relationships). Alternatively, if we do not achieve our goals, we as people feel lost and choose to blame ourselves. The point being, when we live for our goals in life, we forget the here and now of life. As philosopher Alan Watts stated, “we don’t just listen to the end of a song because that’s where it comes together”.

It’s not just the future we fixate on, it is also our pasts. We all know people who say. “oh I’m this type of person because of this and this…”. Many philosophers state how the past is just thoughts we tell ourselves in the present, we let the past define who we are as individuals. Suggesting that it’s not events that characterise us, but our reactions to those events. Additionally, we can be sceptical of our past if it benefits us, we can choose to change those stories to change how we perceive ourselves.

A philosopher by the name of Epictetus around 2000 years ago suggested that their our things in our life we can control, and things we cannot. However, he also suggested we can only control two things: our thoughts, and our actions. If people can distinguish what we can or cannot control (through mental training), and accept negative events are not in our control, we become happier. This idea, despite being simplistic and dated, still is something we take forward with us in many forms of psychotherapy.

That is something hopefully to keep your mind ticking.. I will add one more positive point now to counterbalance.

Picture our emotions as a cup. Throughout the day the cup fills up with various emotions such as anxiety, fear, worry, happiness, excitement etc… however, the only emotion we will show is whatever the latest emotion is, in other words, the emotion at the top of the cup. If 90% of the cup is sadness, and the top 10% is happiness, your brain thinks the entire cup is filled with happiness.

In other words, the more the cup gets filled with all these varying emotions, the stronger the emotional response will be, until the point we experience a cathartic relief or release of this emotion, usually once the cup is full. So, as an example, imagine it’s somebodies birthday, and everyone around him forgets about it. The person who’s birthday it is will begin to feel varying negative emotions towards their friends, family and loved ones forgetting this event, and the longer this happens, the more and more the emotional cup gets filled. However, later they discover they have been thrown a surprise party, then despite 90% of the cup being filled with negative emotions, the final 10% is filled with joy and excitement, and therefore the person experiences 100% joy.

 

This idea could also be applied, for example, to someone around a crush, whereby if the person is around a their crush, the cup begins to fill rapidly, and therefore the emotional reaction to the interaction can become amplified (e.g. if the interaction is negative over a minor dispute, this reaction becomes larger due to the emotions being experienced before the interaction/dispute).

Hopefully this has been an insightful read, thank you for taking the time.

Manipulation

Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.

It is important to note the difference between psychological manipulation, which is often negative and may be extremely harmful (e.g. Sales tactics; Propaganda; Dysfunctional Relationships) and with “Healthy social influence” occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships (e.g. Changing negative behaviours).

In the general world, manipulative techniques involve:

Lying; Rationalisation; Seduction; Denial; Shaming; Playing a victim; Vilifying; Ignorance; Feigning emotion and intimidation, among with others.

Now I understand it is not the cheeriest of topics, but current events in the sporting world along with my fears being exposed with influence from a certain psychological mastermind and really started me thinking how much aspects of manipulation are so heavily used in professional sport.

The first that came to mind was Home Advantage. Whilst teams may not necessarily alter their own stadium or field of play to benefit players response to atmosphere, or in order to play to their strengths (e.g. a large pitch in football to exhaust oppositions), home advantage will still be present, as long as the individual feels ownership or even a sense of familiarity, both of which are seen as an advantage, as if you lack ownership of an environment, research will suggest you are more exposed to further manipulation; leading to performance decrements.

Sunderland’s Stadium of Light is said to be painted yellow and blue, which according to interior design specialists, has the effect of making players “cold and ill”.

In his recent tour of Chelsea’s stadium facilities The Nation journalist, Jintana Panyaarvudh, observed a series of features designed to undermine the visitors.

The coat-hangers are said to be fitted very high up to force players to put strain on their ankles, arms and hamstrings (yes, really). A board for the manager’s tactics is kept of the back of the dressing room door, which must be kept open at all time as a fire exit. Even the mirrors are designed to unnerve opponents. Positioned just by the door, they are desgined to be significantly narrower than usual to give the impression of being smaller than they actually are before they leave the pitch.

With Joshua v Klitschko looming this weekend, within the boxing world, manipulation exists in order to disrupt the usual processes of the opponent, leading the the feeling of not being prepared for a fight. Not all of this manipulation  is obvious (e.g. Much of the Fury v Klitschko build up), but can be subtle differences in order to disrupt the “sweet science”. Even something as simple as the colour of the shorts you wear can disrupt these cognitive processes.

So what can individuals do to combat those manipulating their environments or themselves?

Well, literature has extensively examined personality types, along with vulnerabilities of those who are more susceptible to manipulation (see Simon, 1996), including low self confidence, loneliness, high conscientiousness. If we as practitioners are able to identify these traits in people through the varying personality questionnaires and interviews available to use, we can begin to positively affect change in order to protect performers, making them more prepared in future scenarios.

A touch rushed this post, in the mist of deadlines and trying to find my next step career wise. Still always thankful for feedback and thanks to those who already have! I will hopefully be making efforts in the near future to grow Apperception into more than a hobby!

 

 

Form is temporary?

With the Women’s European Football Championships fast approaching, one story that I feel has slipped under the radar was in regards to the Mark Sampson’s squad announcement.

The main talking point was the exclusion of the Womens Super League One Top Scorer Eniola Aluko.

Following her exclusion from the squad, she has since spoken out against the message this sends, that good performance isn’t enough, stating to the BBC that “the message and values the England team represents should be about hard work, putting your best foot forward and getting rewards for that”. She goes on to say how “The message this is sending out is if you are popular with the manager you get into the team. You don’t have to perform”. This feeling was worsened with the news of Fran Kirby earning selection despite only recently returning to injury after a year long injury.

So just how dangerous a message could this be?

From the perspective of someone who has played football since they were 6, I immediately thought about my playing days as a child; how it was evident at some teams that although players lack quality, they were still being selected due to other variables. At that age notably, with the manager often being the parent of a player, ability was not always the determining factor to how many minutes players got that season.

As a psychologist, those who may not fully understand aspects of team dynamics may feel if consistent performance does not merit international selection, then what is the point of trying to improve on performance? To young, female footballers, seeing this at a national level may hamper motivation if they feel that the England squad is unreachable for them. Even more so as the squad selection in question does not include any players under the age of 23.

But… Was Sampson’s selection understandable? This is where team dynamics may provide an answer.

19 of the 23 women selected for the 2017 tournament squad were also involved in the 2015 world cup squad where England finished 3rd.

It has been reported within psychology literature that team leaders often struggle to make sense of change within a team in a way that did not harm performance. The literature also suggests that the best way to combat negative affects of changes to any team or organisations is too communicate the concerns and the potential benefits change may bring.

Having a settled team may also have given Mark the opportunity to create a strong sense of cohesion and apply aspects of goal setting across the two year period between the two tournaments. Alternatively, within a team, a manager must consider the personalities and motivations of each individual player within the side (e.g. The big 5  personalty traits).  If the manager feels he has an optimal mix of these traits then they will in turn be less inclined to chop and change players.

Thanks for reading, Like Comment and Share!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39477888 for the full BBC article with Aluko and interview with England manager Mark Sampson

Monday

So I was faced with a situation I am commonly faced with these days now I’m over 20. Whenever I meet anyone I am asked, ‘what do you do?’. And 95% of the time, once I’ve told them that I am a psychology student they immediately make a long ‘ooooo’ noise before showing some nervousness believing that I’m now analysing them or reading their minds. It becomes an unsettling stigma for psychology students trying to meet new people, or even today at the barbers when she was cycling through the usual hairdresser chat, I told her I what I do and the nerves hit and she clipped my ear.

Another thing that I have found, especially since I began my MSc, I tend to wear my psychology hat whilst doing everyday things. As has been pointed out to me a lot in the past few weeks, the Fresh Prince of Bel-air recently was made available on Netflix, so in my down time I’ve been reminiscing about how bad some of those cheesy pick up lines i used to use were. Anyway whilst I was watching the show I began to think about the use of the live audience reactions within the programme (it’s mostly just added laughter, same thing other 80’s/90’s sitcoms such as Friends), but it made me wonder what brought on that decision to include external laughter in tv shows, and why it is predominately dictated by comedy, and whilst this thought process was going on I accepted the fact that this is my life now, becoming psychology obsessed.

My last thought for this post, was unfortunately related to football. I try now to enjoy football with a complete neutral head on, due to it being the field I hope to have a job in by the end of this year. One such aspect that has caught my attention because of this is the process of crowd manipulation. Examining the problems being but forward by West Ham fans as an example regarding the London Stadium, and how it is suggested that the stadium is, ‘not built for football’, it made me curious as to what that exactly meant to be purpose built for individual sport (e.g. basketball arenas tend to have fans ‘courtside’). Or changing sports for sports entertainment, and how if you watch episodes of WWE, the crowd are so involved in watch goes on, but they way they behave is nearly completely controlled and almost conducted by the person in the ring at the time (certain phrases elicit boo’s, some chanting, some cheers).

Less science in this post, just some thoughts I’d been having throughout the week. As always like, share, email, tell your friends or pets.

Happy New Year!