us oc talent development

8/12/2019 Us Oc Talent Development

1/133

The Development of PsychologicalTalent in U.S. Olympic Champions

FINAL GRANT REPORT

December 2001

Daniel Gould, Ph.D.Michigan State University

210 IM Sports Circle BuildingMichigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48864-2041517-432-0175 (phone)

517-353-5363 (fax)[email protected]

Kristen Dieffenbach, M.S. & Aaron Moffett, M.S.University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Department of Exercise & Sport Science


2/133

Olympic Talent Development 2

Contents

Contents.................................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements ....................................................... ........................................................ 5

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................6

Scientific Abstract ............................................... ........................................................ .......... 17

Rationale and Literature Review ..................................................... ...................................... 20

Method...................................................................................................................................23

Sample .................................................. ....................................................... ..23Interview Guides ....................................................... .................................... 24

Interviewer and Interview Procedures...........................................................25Mental Skills and Attributes Assessments ................................................. ...25Trait Anxiety ...................................................... ............................... 25Hardiness .................................................. ......................................... 26Multidimensional Perfectionism ...................................... ................. 26Optimism ................................................. .......................................... 26Hope ............................................... ................................................... 27Sport Motivation................................................................................27Task and Ego Orientation..................................................................27Test of Performance Strategies..........................................................28Athletic Coping Skills Inventory 28...............................................28

Results ............................................ ................................................... .................................... 29

Data Analysis.................................................................................................29Quantitative Assessment Psychological Characteristics .............................. 30

Sport (Trait) Anxiety Scale .................................................. ............. 30Hardiness Personal Views Survey II ......................................... .....30Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale..............................................30Optimism Life Orientation Test Revised .................................... 31The Adult Trait Hope Scale...............................................................31Task and Ego Orientation Questionnaire .......................................... 31Sport Motivation Scale......................................................................31Test of Performance Strategies..........................................................32Athletic Coping Skills Inventory 28...............................................33

Qualitative Assessment Psychological Characteristics ................................. 34General Personality Characteristics and Values................................36Performance Enhancement................................................................37Motivational Issues and Orientations ......................................... .......39Ability to Handle Adversity and Pressure and Psychological

Characteristics to Overcome Adversity.................................39Other Psychological Categories .................................................. ......40


3/133


4/133


Negative Factors................................................ ................................ 75Taught................................................................................................76

Coaching Practices ................................................. ....................................... 79Coaching Overview...........................................................................79Coach-Athlete Relationship...............................................................81

Coach Style and Characteristics ................................................... .....84Goals..................................................................................................86Motivational Climate.........................................................................87Support ....................................................... ....................................... 88Taught................................................................................................88Other..................................................................................................91

Discussion..............................................................................................................................92

Characteristics of Outstanding Athletes .................................................. ......92Psychological Strengths and Characteristics.....................................92

Motivation for Involvement ................................................ .............. 94Physical Characteristics.....................................................................94The Development of Psychological Talent ........................................... ........95

Sources and Modes of Psychological Talent Development .............. 95The Role of Parents .................................................. ........................ 95The Role of Coaches ................................................... ...................... 96

Dealing with Adversity and the Costs of Talent Development.....................97Strengths and Limitations..............................................................................98Future Research Directions ................................................... ........................ 98Implications for Guiding Practice .......................................... ....................... 99Psychological Characteristics Results Implications for Coaches..................99Talent Development Parenting Education.....................................................101Conclusion.....................................................................................................104

References .................................................. ........................................................ ................... 105

Footnotes ...................................................... ....................................................... .................. 108

Appendices .................................................. ....................................................... ................... 109

A. Athlete Interview Guide ............................................... ........................... 109B. Coach Interview Guide............................................................................113C. Parent/ Guardian/ Significant Other Interview Guide ............................. 116D. Athlete Psychological Assessments ............................................... .........119


5/133


Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Sport Science and TechnologyDivision of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). The authors would like to thank

the sport psychology staff for their assistance. A special thanks is extended to the athletes,coaches and parents/ significant others/ siblings who so freely gave of their time to take partin this project.


6/133


The Development of Psychological Talent in U.S.Olympic ChampionsExecutive Summary

Need for the Present Study

If the USOC is to sustain its competitive excellence in Olympic competition, muchmore must be known about talent development in U.S. athletes. Several large-scale studies(Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, Whalen, & Wong, 1993) on talent developmentacross a variety of domains (music, art, science, sport) show that helping individuals developtheir abilities is not just a process of identifying talented people or providing them withfinancial support. To turn talent into actual achievements, talented individuals must developspecific psychological skills, orientations, and habits and have the opportunity to developtheir mental and physical skills in supportive environments comprised of significant others

who provide various types of support. However, few studies to date have been conducted ontalent development in elite athletes, especially Olympic champions. A need, then, existed to better understand the psychological characteristics of Olympic champions and how theydeveloped these talents.

Project Purpose

This study was designed to examine the process of psychological talent developmentin Olympic champions by first identifying the psychological talents of these outstanding

performers and then determining what individuals / institutions, and strategies influenced thedevelopment of these talents. Particular emphasis was placed on identifying parenting and

coaching practices perceived to have influenced psychological talent development, especiallyas they pertained to Blooms (1985) three phases of the elite athletes career.

How Was the Study Conducted

Ten current or former U.S. Olympic champions with outstanding performances took part in in-depth interviews, as were one of their coaches (n = 10), and a parent, guardian, orsignificant other (n =10). These athletes had competed in one or more Olympic Games andhad an average of 2.4 Olympic games each (range 1 to 4). They were chosen based on ananalysis of Olympic Games performance records and participant availability. Between themthese athletes had won 32 Olympic medals (28 gold, 3 silver, and 1 bronze), with an averageof 3.2 Olympic medals per participant (range 1 to 5). Questions focused on the psychologicaland emotional attributes of the athlete, the process by which these attributes developed, andthe culture supporting his or her psychological talent development. A battery of psychologicalinventories (trait anxiety, hardiness, perfectionism, optimism, trait hope, sport motivation,task and ego goal orientation, psychological skills and strategies, coping) was alsoadministered to each athlete to identify his or her psychological strengths.

All interviews were tape recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then content analyzed bythree investigators. Specifically, each investigator studied tapes of the interviews and read and


7/133


reread verbatim transcripts. Raw themes (quotes or paraphrased quotes representing ameaningful point or thought) were individually identified and consensually validated in 300hours of group meetings with the three investigators present. Raw themes were then organizedinto patterns of like responses in the data (e.g., confidence to try new things, believed inself, never doubted self), and a summary label for the category was determined (self-

confidence). Athlete, coach, and parent responses were summarized for each medal winner,and an integrated profile of each case was comprised.

Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to examine the quantitative data obtainedfrom the battery of psychological inventories administered to the participating athletes.Psychological strengths and limitations were determined by examining the magnitude of the

participants own responses on the psychological instruments administered. In cases whereelite athlete norms exist (e.g., TOPS), participant scores were compared to existing norms forelite athletes. Results were also compared with findings from other studies that assessed eliteathletes.

Major Findings

Characteristics of Champions

After an extensive review of the literature, Williams and Krane (2001) identified anumber of psychological characteristics of highly successful athletes, as well as the mentalskills these athletes used to achieve optimal psychological states. Characteristics includedself-regulation of arousal, high confidence, better concentration and focus, an in control butnot forcing it attitude, positive imagery and self-talk, and high determination andcommitment. Skills used to achieve peak psychological states included imagery, goal setting,thought control strategies, arousal management, well-developed competition plans, well-developed coping strategies, and pre-competitive mental preparation plans. The quantitativeand qualitative results collected with these Olympic champions paralleled these results almostexactly. Specifically, as a group these Olympians were found to be characterized by:

The Ability to Focus Mental Toughness Hope/ Goal Setting Ability

Sport Intelligence Ability to Cope Competitiveness

Confidence Coachability High Drive

Intrinsic Motivation High Optimism Adaptive Perfectionism

Automaticity: The Ability to Click Into Automatic Performance

Emotional Control: Ability to Relax and Activate


8/133


What Strategies Were Used to Influence Psychological Talent Development

Results showed that many individuals and institutions were perceived to influence thedevelopment of psychological attributes in these outstanding performers. These included:

the community, family, non-sport personnel (e.g., teachers, friends), the individual athlete him or herself, sport environment/ personnel (e.g., coaches, agents), and the sport process itself.

Moreover, modes of influence were both direct, like teaching or emphasizing certain psychological lessons, and indirect, involving modeling or unknowingly creating certain psychological environments.

These results supported the work of Bloom (1985) and Csikszentmihaly andcolleagues (1993) in showing that the psychological development of outstanding athletestakes place over a long-time period and is influenced by a variety of individuals and factors.This long-term process involves both the talented person as well as a strong support system.

Although the interview guide was organized around Blooms (1985) three career phases of elite performer development it became clear that all 10 athletes experiences easilyfit into these stages. Hence, in the first stage (the early years) the athlete developed a love forthe sport, had a great deal of fun, received encouragement from significant others, was free toexplore the activity, and achieved a good deal of success. Parents also instilled the value ofhard work and doing things well during the early years. In the second phase (the precision

phase) a master coach or teacher promoted long-term systematic skill learning in the talentedindividual. The focus was on technical mastery, technique, and excellence in skilldevelopment. Finally, in the third phase (the elite years) an individual continued to work witha master teacher (coach) and practiced many hours a day to turn training and technical skillsinto personalized performance excellence. During this phase there was a realization that theactivity was significant in ones life.

The Role of Parents

Not surprisingly, parents and families were perceived to play a critical role in

psychological talent development. They were found to provide financial, logistical, andsocial-emotional support. Specifically, they: were very committed to their child, modeled an active life style, exposed their child to different sports, transported their child, attended games and practices, and provided considerable encouragement and support.


9/133


While families clearly supported and encouraged participation, in most cases they exertedlittle pressure to win.

Most interesting were the findings that families emphasized an optimistic belief in thechilds ability to succeed or can do attitude. This is consistent with research that has found

that a higher rate of parental encouragement was correlated with perceived physicalcompetence for children. Families also modeled hard work and discipline, a finding consistentwith research showing that parents of highly successful individuals espoused or modeledvalues related to achievement, such as hard work, success, being active and persistence.

This optimistic achievement-oriented climate created by parents, then, helped developthe confidence and motivation these athletes needed for future success. At the same time

parents emphasized the attitude, if you are going to do it, do it right. They also modeled ahard work ethic, held high (but reasonable) expectations and standards for their child, andemphasized a stick to it and follow-through on commitments attitude. These results areconsistent with Blooms (1985) conclusion that the successful development of a talented

individual requires the facilitation of disciplined involvement while avoiding excessiveexpectations. This is also consistent with Csikzentmihalyi et al.s (1993) complex familynotion that these families are both integrated and differentiated. Integrated in that they werestable in their sense of support and consistency. Differentiated in that they encouraged theirchildren to individually seek out new challenges and opportunities.

Finally, with current concerns on early sport specialization and excessive pressure towin, it is interesting that in the early phase of the athletes career, the majority of these

parents did not have winning or the Olympic Games as an objective of participation. Instead,they focused on their childs happiness, a balance of fun and development, and the generaldevelopmental benefits of participation. While there was some emphasis on winning andsuccess, these were not the predominant objectives of participation. At the same time parentsemphasized working hard, having a positive attitude, and discipline. Throughout the middleand elite phases of the athletes career, many parents also played an important role in helpingto keep winning and success in perspective. The roles of the parents also changed over time(from leader to follower role over three phases) supporting the research of Ct (1999).

The Role of Coaches

Like parents, coaches were also found to be a primary influence on the athletes psychological development. They did this in a number of ways including:

emphasizing certain things such as hard work and discipline or having fun,

having characteristics that facilitated athlete trust, proving encouragement and support, directly teaching or fostering mental skills, and understanding these athletes.

Looking across the interviews it was also clear that the same coaching strategies were notappropriate for each athletedifferent athletes required different things from their coaches atdifferent points in their careers. This certainly emphasizes the importance of coaches readingathletes psychological needs and utilizing different approaches at different times and indifferent situations. Some evidence (Hanson & Gould, 1988) indicates, however, that many


10/133


coaches are not skilled at reading their athletes psychological needs. A need exists to betterunderstand this process.

Establishing a strong coach-athlete relationship was critical for these champions. Thisfinding was reported as being especially important in the middle and elite years of the

athlete's career. Moreover, participants indicated that key factors in this relationship involvedcoach credibility (elite status, knowledge), reciprocal trust and respect, understanding athleteneeds and responding accordingly, and caring about the athlete as a person, not just a

performer.

In terms of Blooms (1985) career phases, a win focus on the part of coaches did notemerge for most athletes until the middle years. Fun and development were stressed in theearly years. High expectations and standards and hard work and discipline seemed to beespecially important coaching practices in the last two phases. Lastly, it was interesting tonote that many of the participants mentioned that early coaches did not damage the athlete

psychologically, verifying the conclusion that youth coaching can have an important effect on

the psychological development of elite competitors.The importance of coaching psychology emerges from these findings. Coaches were

reported to create motivational climates that pushed these champions in good ways. As previously mentioned, they emphasized hard work and had high expectations and standards. Itwas also reported that the coaches played an important role in helping the athletes keepsuccess in perspective. Finally, the coaches were very involved in teaching these athletesmental skills such as imagery, goal setting, and mental preparation. This, then, certainlyemphasizes the importance of coaches of elite competitors being well versed in psychologicalskills training.

Dealing With Adversity and Costs of Talent DevelopmentWhile not the major focus of this study, costs of talent development were noted, such

as giving up aspects of a social life outside of sport or having difficulty separating ones sportand self-identity. This is consistent with Howes (1999) conclusion that any intense effort todevelop talent will have costs as well as benefits. In future studies it would be interesting toexplore the process of how athletes balance such costs and benefits over time.

It must also be emphasized that while the majority of factors identified were positive,the participants at times struggled and faced adversity. Adversity factors experienced by theathletes included such things as injury, training frustrations, performance disappointments,

and two athletes in this study even experienced clinical issues. Hence, Olympic champions,while having some outstanding psychological characteristics and talents are not supermen orsuperwomen immune to common or even severe psychological roadblocks or issues. Duringthe course of their career, all athletes will face minor difficulties and some will experiencemajor psychological difficulties during their development. Appropriate resources must befocused on helping them deal with such difficulties.


11/133


Study Strengths and Limitations

This investigation had a number of strengths. First, a very elite group of athletes werestudied. Seldom before have so many high level elite athletes been interviewed and surveyed.This was supplemented with interviews with significant others and coaches who knew them

very well. Thus, triangulating findings across methods (surveys and interviews) and sources(athletes, coaches, significant others) was a strength. Interviewing the three sources alsoallowed us to gain three unique views of psychological characteristics and talent in Olympicchampions. A third strength was the three-person consensual validation procedure employed.In addition, previous studies on psychological characteristics of athletes have used only one ortwo inventories. This study employed both an extensive battery of tests as well as qualitativeinterviews. Finally, a broad scope was taken to the study.

Like all investigations, this study had several limitations. First, only 10 athletes weresurveyed and interviewed. While they were certainly unique in their performanceaccomplishments, their total number is small and no comparison group of less successful but

elite athletes of comparable experience (and their significant others and coaches) weresurveyed and interviewed. Similarly, elite athlete norms for most of the inventories were notavailable for comparison purposes. Third, only two minority athletes were included in thesample and only one participant would be considered poor growing up. Finally, because thedata was collected in a retrospective fashion, results are subject to memory bias effects. Thesesample limits must be kept in mind when interpreting these findings. It should also be notedin interpreting the findings that most of the coaches were not directly involved with theathletes during the early phase of their careers. Results, therefore, could be biased by a lack ofknowledge in this area.

Recommendations for Talent Development

This study, while exploratory, when combined with the other research in the area, hasa number of implications for guiding practice. Clearly, for example, the psychologicaldevelopment of outstanding athletes takes place over a long-time period and is influenced bya variety of individuals and factors. This long-term process involves both the talented personand a strong support system. Short-term approaches to talent development will not suffice andsystematic educational efforts for both coaches and parents are needed.

In addition, to the above general recommendation for guiding practice, the presentstudy has two particularly important implication areas: (1) psychological characteristic resultsimplications and (2) talent development parenting practice implications.

Psychological Characteristics Implications

The psychological characteristic and motivation results of this study provided a good profile of the mental ingredients characterizing champion athletes. Before planning a mentalskills training program, for example, coaches may think about their athletes relative to each ofthese components. The degree athletes possess each characteristic can be rated. Then,

particular characteristics to be improved can be identified and psychological skills training programs developed.


12/133


Similarly, a number of National Sport Governing Bodies, such as USA Swimming,US Figure Skating, and USA Tennis, have developed listings of psychological competenciesthat should be developed in athletes at certain points in their careers. The present resultsshould be addressed in such psychological competency listings. Moreover, the psychologicaltalent development strategies identified in this study provide important information on both

factors affecting and strategies for developing these psychological characteristics.

The profile of champions might also be used as a recruiting tool. In identifying talentcoaches could rate athletes on each of these attributes and look for individuals who eithercurrently demonstrate or have the potential to demonstrate many of them. However, it must beremembered that no one exact formula of mental skills is absolutely essential for athleticsuccess. For example, one Olympic champion we interviewed in the present study did not useimagery at all in her career while another gold medal winner relied heavily on imagery in hismental training. However, both employed the vast majority of mental skills identified in thisstudy. Hence, coaches could use the champions profile for identifying athletes characteristicsand attributes for the purpose of understanding the athlete better. However, coaches should

not worry if any one attribute or skill is not fully developed. It is also important to recognizethat psychological attributes are only part of what is needed for athletic success. As the resultsof this study show, physical talent and endowments are critical considerations.

Talent Development Parenting Implications

These results have important implications for parenting athletes. First, although the popular media highlights some prominent examples of parents entering their child into sportsfor the purpose of developing them into an elite athlete (e.g., Tiger Woods, Venus Williams),this and other studies of youth sport participation and elite performers have demonstrated thatthat strategy is probably not the best approach to take. Rather, our results support the work of

Bloom (1985) and Ct (1999) and show that most champion athletes did not start their sportcareers with Olympic aspirations in mind. Instead, they were exposed to active lifestyles,numerous sports, and encouraged to participate for fun and developmental reasons. Theyfound the right sport for their body type and mental make-up and only later after they fell inlove with the activity did they develop elite sport aspirations. Moreover, once they developedOlympic dreams, parents and coaches provided the athletes with the support they needed toturn their dreams into reality. What is needed, then, are programs to expose large numbers ofchildren to Olympic sports. These programs should emphasize fun and fundamentals, andonce young athletes exhibit talent, parents should be educated as to the most productive waysto foster that talent. Parents and coaches should also understand the best ways to facilitate

psychological development at each stage of the athletes career.

Given these results we recommend that the USOC consider developing practicalguides for coaches and parents aimed at developing athletic talent. Guides should focusaround Blooms (1985) stages of talent development and emphasize many of the guidelinesuncovered in this study relative to fostering psychological talent. Especially important is theneed to understand the support and encouragement necessary at the entry levels of sport. Theimportance of not pressuring athletes to win early in their careers but to teach values such ashard work, optimism and a can do attitude seem paramount. Moreover, practical advice likethat coming from the participants in this study should be emphasized.


13/133


Finally, this information should be conveyed in a number of forms. A written guidecould be developed and disseminated (e.g., The USOC Guide to Athletic Talent

Development ). A video developed and shown in all USOC Training Facility visitor centers.USA Today and Sports Illustrated columns on developing athletic talent could be initiated,and during the Olympic Games television coverage U.S. Olympic champions could tape

public service spots focusing on important talent development and sport parenting messages.

Participant Recommendations

In the final portion of the interview the participants were asked to identifyrecommendations for those working with talented athletes. These lessons learned aresummarized in the table below:

Parenting Champions: Advice from Athletes, Parents, and Coaches

Achievement Strategies

Emphasize a can do / Dont quit attitude. Allow kids to learn on their ownstand on own feet. Challenge your child to reach as far as he or she can. Encourage your child to problem solve in a healthy and constructive manner (e.g., explore all

the options, seek advice and help when necessary). Expose your child to elite achievers in a variety of settings. Let them see that "ordinary"

people just like them can achieve extraordinary things. Help athletes understand and value the connection between hard work and achievement. Strive to provide your child with the optimal push - a mix of unconditional support and

parental motivation. Recognize that the optimal amount of push will change as your childages, and it will vary from child to child.

Help your child cope with failure and frustration. Help him or her see set backs as a normaland helpful part of striving for and achieving success.

Encouragement

Be enthusiastic and encouraging. Give encouragement. Be supportive/ your childs biggest fan. Don't criticize your child.

Self-Motivation

The child-athlete needs to be self-motivated and self-driven. As a parent you can help yourchild-athlete maintain his or her motivation, but you can't create it for him or her.

Understand that the key to developing talent in any area is to first foster and build an internallove of the activity and a solid base of healthy psychological skills (e.g., healthy copingmechanisms, determination, focus).

Long term commitment to an activity or a goal needs to come from within your child. Be dedicated to your child-athlete's goals - but make sure the goals are his or hers.


14/133


Discipline

Help kids make and follow-through on short-term commitments, especially during the early years. Provide your child with both discipline and guidance.

Development

Allow the child to be a kid, especially during early years of involvement in activities. Listen to your athlete and strive to understand his or her developmental needs. Maintain a focus on development and enjoyment, especially during the early years. Sport involvement will help your child's confidence, provide him or her with a source of self-

pride, and can help an adolescent through the perils of puberty. Encourage your child toremain involved in sport and physical activity, even if they decide to leave the competitivecomponent.

Coaching

Emphasize the importance of coach respect and good sportspersonship. Find a good coach, then let them do their job. Don't be a stage parent. During the early years, focus on finding coaches that will interact with your child, who will

keep the activity fun, and who will not harm your child or his or her enthusiasm Maintain a good relationship with your child's coach based on mutual trust and respect. Monitor your child's early coaches to ensure that they do not push too hard.

Unconditional Love and Support

Let your child know you value who he or she is not just what he or she does or what he or shecan accomplish.

Make sure you child knows that your love and support is unconditional.

Role Model

Lead by example. Be a role model - model the behaviors you would like to see your child exemplify (e.g.,

determination, an active lifestyle).

Perspective

Maintain a sense of sibling/ family member equality in the home. Help your child keep his or her sport identity and winning in perspective with the rest of his or her

life. Stress the importance of education and maintaining a well-rounded sense of being. Avoid an outcome-oriented philosophy (e.g., focusing only on winning). It will decrease

motivation and enjoyment over time and may lead to the termination of the sport experience.Instead, focus on process and performance achievements.

If your child experiences success early, strive to help him or her remain 'normal'. (e.g.,winning Olympic gold does not exempt one from doing his or her chores)

Focus on performance expectations/ keep your expectations realistic and low key.


15/133


General

Provide your child-athlete with a safe and enjoyable environment. Don't try to live through your child. Encourage open and honest communication. Don't criticize the athlete's coach or teammates in front of the athlete .

Final Thoughts

The results of this study have shown that these Olympic champions were characterized by a number of important psychological characteristics. Hence, we have a very good idea ofthe psychological characteristics of champions. It must be remembered, however, that theseare group results. No one Olympian was characterized by all the factors identified. Inaddition, each was unique in how the factors were combined to comprise his or her distinctive

psychological make-up.

Findings also clearly revealed that psychological talent development is best thought ofas a complex system made up of a variety of factors of influence. It is a long-term process thatrequires proper nurturing if success is to be achieved. Any number of individuals and agenciesinfluence this process and do so in a variety of direct and indirect ways.

It is our hope that as we begin to study the process of psychological talentdevelopment in outstanding athletes, we will be better equipped to help all athletes betterdevelop mentally so that they can achieve their personal performance and well-beingobjectives. For as Howe (1999, p. 182) has indicated:

We cannot map peoples lives in advance, but much can be doneto make desirable outcomes more likely. Acquiring high abilitiesis one such outcome. We can and should act to make it happenmore often.


16/133


References

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people . NY: Ballantine.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of

success and failure . NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ct, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The SportPsychologist , 13 , 395-417.

Hanson, T., & Gould, D. (1988). Factors affecting the ability of coaches to predict theirathletes trait and state anxiety levels. The Sport Psychologist, 2 , 298-313.

Howe, M. J. A. (1999). The psychology of high abilities. Washington Square, NY: New YorkUniversity Press.

Williams, J. M., & Krane, V. (2001). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. InJ.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 137-147). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.


17/133


Scientific Abstract

Although considerable research has been conducted on the psychologicalcharacteristics of more versus less successful elite athletes (see Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996;and Williams & Krane, 2001, for detailed reviews), less is known about how these skills are

cultivated and developed. Several large-scale studies (Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi,Rathunde, Whalen, & Wong, 1993) on talent development across a variety of domains (e.g.,music, art, science, sport) have been conducted, however. Findings showed that to turn talentinto actual achievements, individuals must develop specific psychological skills, orientations,and habits and have the opportunity to develop their mental and physical skills in supportiveenvironments comprised of significant others who provide various types of support. Morerecently, Ct (1999) studied the influence of athletes families on the development of talentin sport, finding that they played an extremely important role. Expanding on this initialresearch, this study was designed to examine the process of psychological talent developmentin Olympic medal winning athletes.

In the present study, 10 current or former U.S. Olympic champions with outstanding performance records over time (winners of 28 Olympic gold, three silver, and one bronzemedals) were interviewed, as were one of their coaches (n = 10), and a parent, guardian, orsignificant other (n =10). Questions focused on the psychological and emotional attributes ofthe athlete, the process by which these attributes developed, and the culture supporting his orher psychological talent development. A battery of psychological inventories (trait anxiety,hardiness, perfectionism, optimism, trait hope, sport motivation, task and ego goal orientation,

psychological skills and strategies, and coping) was also administered to each athlete toidentify his or her psychological strengths.

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the psychological inventory quantitativedata related to the psychological characteristics of the athletes. Psychological strengths andlimitations were determined by examining the magnitude of the participants responses. Incases where elite athlete norms existed, participant scores were compared to existing normsfor elite athletes. Results revealed that these athletes exhibited low levels of Sport AnxietyScale (Smith, Smoll, & Schultz, 1990) somatic (M =16.7 out of 36) and worry (M = 11.2 outof 36) trait anxiety. They also exhibited high agency hope--the ability to begin and continuealong a selected goal pathway (M = 29.1 out of 32) on the Adult Trait Hope Scale (Snyder,Cheavens, & Michael, 1999). Relative to multidimensional perfectionism (Frost, &Henderson, 1991), the athletes scored high in an absolute level on adaptive perfectionismsubscales (M personal standards = 28 out of 35, M organization = 24 out of 30) and low onmaladaptive subscales (M parental expectations = 12 out of 25, M parental criticism = 6.0 outof 20, M doubts about actions = 8 out of 20). Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier, Fortier,Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995) results showed that the athletes exhibited very highlevels of intrinsic motivation -- to know (M = 18.7 out of 28), to accomplish (M = 23.3 out of28), and to experience simulation (M = 21.5 out of 28). On the Athletic Coping SkillsInventory 28 (Smith, Schultz, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1995), the Olympians scored one standarddeviation higher on goal setting and mental preparation (M = 9.2 out of 16) compared to

professional baseball players (M = 6.56). Taken together, these findings verify current sport psychological research on psychological characteristics associated with peak performance(Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Williams & Krane, 2001). They also suggest that adaptive


18/133


perfectionism, hope, and optimism are especially important new variables associated withelite athletic success.

Qualitative data was analyzed using hierarchical content analysis (Gould, Eklund, &Jackson, 1993; Gould, Jackson, & Finch, 1993a; 1993b; Gould, Greenleaf, Dieffenbach,

Lauer, Chung, Peterson, & McCann, 1999), triangulating across data sources (athletes,coaches, and parents). Characteristics of champions identified by the participants in the open-ended interviews triangulated most of the quantitative findings. Specifically, these championswere characterized by the ability to focus, high optimism, mental toughness, drive,competitiveness, confidence, sport intelligence, coachability, and the ability to handle stress.Major motives for involvement included achievement/ competence, fun and enjoyment, loveof the sport, achieving the Olympic dream, and affiliation. Motives were found to vary tosome degree across Blooms (1985) phases of talent development.

Relative to the series of questions asking what factors influenced the psychologicaldevelopment of these champion athletes; results showed that many individuals and institutions

were perceived to influence the development of these outstanding performers. Specifically,sources of influence included the community, family, non-sport personnel, the individual himor herself, sport environment/ personnel and the sport process. Moreover, modes of influencewere both direct, such as teaching or emphasizing certain psychological lessons, and indirectinvolving modeling or unknowingly creating certain psychological environments. Theseresults, then, supported the work of Bloom (1985) and Csikszentmihalyi and colleagues(1993) in showing that the psychological development of outstanding athletes takes place overa long time period and is influenced by a variety of individuals and factors. This long-term

process involves both the talented person and a strong support system.

Not surprisingly, parents and families were perceived to play a critical role in psychological talent development. They were found to provide financial, logistical, andsocial-emotional support. Specifically, parents were very committed to their child and didsuch things as modeled an active life style, exposed their child to different sports, transportedtheir child, attended games and practices, and provided considerable encouragement andunconditional support. While families clearly supported and encouraged participation, in mostcases they exerted little pressure to win. Families also emphasized an optimistic belief in thechilds ability to succeed or a can do attitude. Families also modeled hard work anddiscipline, a finding consistent with research by Monsaas (1985), Sloboda & Howe (1991),Sloan (1985), and Sosniak (1985), who showed that parents of highly successful individualsespoused or modeled values related to achievement such as hard work, success, and beingactive and persistence. At the same time, parents emphasized the notion, if you are going todo it, do it right. They also held high (but reasonable) expectations and standards for theirchild, and a stick to it and follow-through on commitments attitude. These results areconsistent with Blooms (1985) conclusion that the successful development of a talentedindividual requires the facilitation of disciplined involvement while avoiding excessiveexpectations. This is also consistent with Csikzentmihalyi et al.s (1993) complex familynotion. That is, these families are both integrated and differentiated. Integrated in that theywere stable in their sense of support and consistency. Differentiated in that they encouragedtheir children to individually seek out new challenges and opportunities.


19/133


Finally, in the early phase of the athletes career, the majority of these parents did nothave winning or the Olympic Games as an objective of participation. Instead, they focusedon their childs happiness, a balance of fun and development, and the general developmental

benefits of participation. While there was some emphasis on winning and success, these werenot the predominant objectives of participation. At the same time, parents emphasized

working hard, having a positive attitude, and discipline. Throughout the middle and elite phases of the athletes career, many parents also played an important role in helping theathlete keep winning and success in perspective. The roles of the parents also changed overtime (from leader to follower role over three phases) supporting the research of Ct (1999).

Like parents, coaches were also found to be a primary influence on athlete psychological development. They did this in a number of ways including emphasizing certainthings such as hard work and discipline or having fun, having characteristics that facilitatedathlete trust, providing encouragement and support, directly teaching or fostering mentalskills, and by understanding these athletes. Looking across the interviews, it was also clearthat the same coaching strategies were not appropriate for each athlete, different athletes

required different things from their coaches at different points in their careers. Thisemphasized the importance of coaches reading athletes psychological needs and utilizingdifferent approaches at different times and in different situations.

Establishing a strong coach-athlete relationship was critical for these champions. Thiswas reported as being especially important in the middle and elite years. Participants indicatedthat key factors in this relationship involved coach credibility (e.g., elite status, knowledge),reciprocal trust and respect, understanding athlete needs and responding accordingly, andcaring about the athlete as a person and not just a performer.

In terms of Blooms career phases, a win focus on the part of coaches did not emergefor most athletes until the middle years. Fun and development were stressed in the early years.High expectations and standards, hard work, and discipline seemed to be especially importantcoaching practices in the last two phases. Lastly, it was interesting to note that many of the

participants mentioned that early coaches did not damage the young athlete psychologically, verifying the conclusion that youth coaching can have an important effect onthe psychological development of elite competitors.

The importance of coaching psychology emerges from these findings. Coaches werereported to create motivational climates that pushed these champions in good ways. Itwas also reported that the coaches played an important role in helping the athletes keepsuccess in perspective. Finally, the coaches were very involved in teaching these athletesmental skills such as imagery, goal setting, and mental preparation. This, then, certainlyemphasizes the importance of elite level coaches being well versed in psychological skillstraining.

In summary, a better understanding of psychological talent development and thefactors that influence psychological talent development was gained in this study. The findingsand their implications are discussed relative to previous athlete talent development studies(Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, Whalen, & Wong, 1993; Ct, 1999; Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2001) and psychology of peak performance research (Hardy, Jones, &Gould, 1996) is emphasized. Practical implications and future directions are also emphasized.


20/133


Rationale and Literature Review

Historically, teams and individual athletes from the United States have been amongthe most successful in Olympic history. Indeed, the US Olympic Committee has beencommitted to helping athletes achieve performance excellence at the Olympic Games and,

today, this is considered its primary goal. Maintaining this level of performance success willnot be an easy task, however. More and more athletes from more and more countries are preparing for Olympic success. In addition, other countries are developing improved trainingfacilities and foreign governments are placing higher priority on elite performance. Indeed,today Olympic contests are more competitive than any other time in history.

Maintaining its record of Olympic performance success will be no easy task for theUSOC. In fact, several special programs have been initiated to facilitate athlete development.For example, through partnerships created with selected cities, several Olympic DevelopmentCenters have been started. Additionally, a survey study of athlete talent development has beeninitiated. Hence, it is recognized that if the United States is to continue to be successful in

Olympic competition, individuals with athletic talent will need to be identified, nurtured in the proper environment, and supported in numerous ways throughout all phases of their athleticcareers.

In order for the USOC to sustain its competitive excellence in Olympic competition,much more must be known about talent development in athletes. Interestingly, several large-scale studies (Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, Whalen, & Wong, 1993) on talentdevelopment across a variety of domains (music, art, science, and sport) show that helpingindividuals develop their abilities is not just a process of identifying talented people or

providing them with financial support. To turn talent into actual achievements, talentedindividuals must develop specific psychological skills, orientations, and habits and have theopportunity to develop their mental and physical skills in supportive environments comprisedof significant others who provide various types of support.

Bloom (1985) was one of the first to study talent development in world-class performers. Specifically, 120 individuals (renowned artist, academicians, musicians,mathematicians, swimmers, and tennis players) at the top of their fields were studied. A gooddeal of consistency was found across domains in terms of the investments of tangible andintangible resources found to be essential in nurturing promising individuals with talent. Inaddition to financial support and transportation to numerous competitions and performances,

parents found ways to provide social emotional support facilitating disciplined involvementwhile avoiding excessive expectations and pressure. The parents also served as models fordisciplined independence and fostered disciplined independence in their talented children.Blooms results, then, clearly show that talent development is a long-term process thatinvolves more than the talented person, but also a strong support system.

Interestingly, Bloom (1985) also found that these talented individuals careers fell intothree distinct stages: the early years, or based on the work of Whitehead (1929) what has beenlabeled the romance phase; the middle years, labeled the precision phase; and, the elite yearsor the integration phase. In the early years (Romance Phase) the child developed a love for theactivity, had a great deal of fun, received encouragement from significant others, was free toexplore the activity, and achieved a good deal of success. Parents also instilled the value of


21/133


hard work and doing things well. In the Precision Phase or the middle years, a master coach orteacher promoted long-term systematic skill learning in the talented individual. The focus wason technical mastery, technique and excellence in skill development. Finally, in the elite yearsor the Integration Phase, an individual continued to work with a master teacher (coach) and

practiced many hours a day to turn training and technical skills into personalized performance

excellence. There was a realization that the activity was significant in ones life. These phasesoccurred over a 15 to 20 year time period where each person moved through each phase in adevelopmental sequence, without skipping phases.

More recently, Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, Whalen, and Wong (1993) chronicled thedevelopment of 208 outstanding high school students who were identified by their teachers ashaving strong talent in art, athletics, mathematics, music, or science. These students weretracked from their first to final years of high school for the purpose of determining how theydiffered from their peers whose talents were more ordinary. These investigators also wantedto determine why some of the students developed their talent while others failed to do so.Based on their findings, Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues (1993) concluded that talent

must be viewed as a developmental process rather than an all-or-nothing phenomenon andcannot be developed unless it is valued by society and recognized and nurtured by parents,teachers, and coaches. Specifically, these investigators suggested that for talent to develop,information or knowledge relative to demands of the domain must be provided. Motivation isalso needed and is greatly influenced by the support and encouragement of those in the fieldand family members. Finally, discipline is needed that allows the talented teen to study his orher domain long enough to acquire the skills needed for superior performance.

Most relevant to the present study were Csikszentmihalyi and colleagues (1993)finding that talent development involves the acquisition of a mature personality during theteenage years a personality that allows the individual to cope with all the opportunities andobstacles that they will face in their chosen endeavor. To nurture his or her gift, the talentedteen must have discipline as well as talent. Talented individuals were also found to spendmore time practicing the activity, less time working outside of school, less time socializingwith friends, more time on hobbies, and less time doing chores than their less talentedcounterparts. The investigators also concluded that (1) teenagers cannot develop talent unlessthey are intrinsically motivated and enjoy the activities of their domain while working hard toachieve their goals, (2) conflicts inherent in the development of talent (e.g., making difficultchoices and coming to terms with the implications of their individuality) cannot be avoided,and (3) no child succeeds unless he or she is supported by caring adults. Talented teens werealso very attuned to the quality of teaching in their talent area, giving very specific detailsabout positive and negative behaviors of their most and least favorite teachers and coaches.Lastly, talent development came easier to youngsters who learned habits conducive to talentdevelopment.

Finally, in one of the first sport psychological studies on the topic, Ct (1999)studying four elite athletes and their families (mothers, fathers, and siblings), found thatfamilies play an important role in elite athlete development as they progress through whatwere identified as sampling, specializing, and investment years. Results of in-depth interviewsrevealed that during the sampling years (ages 6 13) the child participated in multiple sportsfor fun as parents encouraged such involvement, fueled by a belief that sport contributed tothe childs overall development. They also allowed and encouraged the child to sample a wide


22/133


variety of sports. During the specializing years (ages 13-15), parents became committedsupporters as their child focused on a limited number of sports. Little pressure was placed onthe child to participate in any one sport and parents took on more of a follower/ supporterversus a leadership role, making financial and time sacrifices to optimize their childs

participation. Lastly, during the investment years (ages 15 and over) the child focused on

deliberate practice in an effort to pursue performance excellence. In this phase, parents also provided an important source of social support, especially when their child faced adversity orhad to deal with setbacks. Little pressure was placed on the child in these years.

One thing is clear from this initial research; talent alone is not enough to insurecompetitive athletic excellence. Psychological skills and habits are needed and must becultivated in the right kind of social-emotional climate created by caring parents and coaches.It would seem, then, that the development of talent in Olympic athletes would require thesesame attributes.

Given the above contentions, it is surprising that sport psychology researchers have

not conducted any studies of athletic talent development and its relationship to emotionalintelligence, psychological skills, and habits. Moreover, although considerable research has been conducted on the psychological characteristics of more versus less successful eliteathletes (See Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996 and Williams & Krane, 2001, for detailed reviews)little is know about how these skills are cultivated and developed.

This study was designed to examine the process of psychological talentdevelopment in Olympic champions. To do this required that the psychological talents ofthese outstanding athletes be identified. The first purpose of this study, then, was to identifythe psychological characteristics and strengths of these individuals. Specifically, their

psychological characteristics, mental skills and strategies used, and motives for involvementwere identified. The second purpose focused on identifying those individuals who influencedthese athletes psychological development as well as the specific ways in which these

psychological talents were developed across time. Particular emphasis was placed on parenting and coaching practices, especially as they pertained to Blooms (1985) three phasesof elite athlete development.

Given the exploratory nature of the topic the primary method used was qualitativeinterviews. Additionally, participants were asked to complete psychological assessments ofmental skills and attributes theorized to be important in the development of athletic talent,emotional intelligence, and performance excellence. Because it is thought that talent must benurtured in a supportive emotional climate, interviews were also conducted with a coach and a

parent, guardian, or significant other familiar with the athletes development and career.These additional interviews were used to triangulate themes identified by the athletes.


23/133


Method

Sample

Participants interviewed included 10 Olympic champions representing nine different

Olympic sports (e.g., skiing, wrestling, swimming, ice hockey, speed skating, track and field).These athletes had competed in one or more Olympic Games between the years of 1976 and1998 with an average of 2.4 Olympic games each (range 1 to 4). They were chosen based onan analysis of Olympic Games performance records and participant availability. Betweenthem these athletes had won 32 Olympic medals (28 gold, 3 silver, and 1 bronze), with anaverage of 3.2 Olympic medals per participant (range 1 to 5). Four of the athletes participatedin winter Olympics while the remaining six athletes were summer game participants. Six maleand four female athletes comprised the final sample. At the time of the interview, the averageage of the participating athletes was 35.1 years with a range of 24 to 42 years old. Eight of theathletes participating in the study had retired from elite competition in their sport while theremaining two were still training and competing at the elite level.

The primary method used for the overall project was in-depth qualitative interviews,ranging for 60 to150 minutes in length. Interviewing 10 athletes allowed the investigators todraw conclusions about the medallists as a group while at the same time allowing theinterviews to be carried out in the depth needed to richly describe each athletes unique

psychological development. Ten interviews were also considered to be the maximum numberthat could be conducted while maintaining the feasibility to conduct corroborating interviewswith coaches and the parent/ guardian/ significant other (note: 30 interviews in all) andconduct content analysis across sources.

Participating athletes were selected based on the first authors contacts with them orvia USOC/ NGB staff contacts. Emphasis was placed on seeking out individuals who had notonly won Olympic gold medals, but had also who have been very consistent outstanding

performers in their chosen sports over a number of years (e.g., placing in the WorldChampionships several years in a row).

Once athletes agreed to participate in the study, a packet containing a studyintroduction letter, a written consent form, the paperwork necessary to receive the $200

participation stipend provided by the USOC, the battery of psychological assessments, and astamped addressed return envelope for the consent form and survey was mailed. Additionally,each athlete was asked to identify and provide contact information for a coach and a parent,sibling, or significant other who would be familiar with his or her career and development.Athletes were also provided with stamped postcards to mail to the individuals that theyrecommended for interview participation. These postcards contained a brief studydescription, indicating that the athlete gave his or her permission for the individual to speak tothe interviewer regarding his or her knowledge of the athlete and his or her history, and

provided a place for the athletes signature.

10 coaches (one coach identified by each of the athletes) were interviewed.Specifically, each athlete recommended the coach who was most familiar with his or hercareer to be interviewed; one who he or she felt knows him or her the best. All coachessuggested by the athletes agreed to participate in the study. Of the 10 coaches, nine were


24/133


males and one was female. Seven of these individuals coached the athlete in Blooms (1985)elite career phase, one in both the elite and middle phases, one in the middle phase, and one inthe early phase. Coaches were interviewed for the purpose of determining each athletesmental skill and social-emotional development abilities as well as how he or she developedthese competencies during and across each of Blooms (1985) career stages.

Finally, 10 parents, siblings, or significant others were interviewed, one for eachathlete. Eight of these individuals were parents (5 mothers and 3 fathers), one a sibling, andone a significant other. All parents/ sibling/ significant others recommended by the athletesagreed to participate in the study. The purpose of interviewing the parent, sibling, orsignificant other was to determine how psychological skills and abilities developed in theathlete and the environment that existed to foster the development of such competencies.Interviewing coaches and parents/ siblings/ significant others created a more detailed pictureof the athletes nature, development, and career. Additionally, the supplementary interviews

provided a means of triangulating the data across sources. (Note: For the sake of simplicity inthis manuscript, the term 'significant other' will be used to refer to the interviews conducted

with the athlete's parent, sibling, or significant other and the data received from thesesources.)

Interview Guides

Interview guides were used to help standardize all interviews across participants andto minimize bias. The interview guides used in this study (see Appendix A, B, and C) weredesigned based on the talent development related literature and were evaluated by USOCsport psychology staff as well as UNCG sport psychology research laboratory colleagues.The athlete interview began with general questions about the athletes career (e.g., when theathlete began participating in the sport, competing, what support they received from parentsand coaches). Next, the focus of the interview questions turned to the athletes mental skillstrengths, which was stimulated by a discussion of the results of the various psychologicalinventories administered prior to the interview. Finally, questions focused on how the athletedeveloped these strengths relative to each of Blooms (1985) career phases, the early, middle,and elite years, as well as specific questions focusing on issues identified in theCsikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) talented teen research.

Coach and significant other interviews were always completed after the correspondingathlete interview had been conducted. In general, the coach and parent interviews followedthe same interview guide format by asking the same questions as those posed to the athletesand relevant to the appropriate career phase each individual had knowledge of (e.g., the elitecoach was not asked about the athletes early development unless they knew the athlete priorto coaching him or her, parents were asked about the athletes entire career). Additionally,

based on the results from the athlete interviews, specific questions about each particularathletes characteristics and development were posed (e.g., if an athlete mentioned a specificillness or injury and the impact it had on him or her, this was mentioned to the coach andsignificant other if they did not bring it up during their respective interviews).


25/133


Interviewer and Interview Procedures

The same interviewer performed all 30 interviews in this study. She was a 30-year-oldfemale in the advanced stages of her doctoral degree work in sport psychology. Training forthe interview portion of this study included reading qualitative interviewing technique books

(e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990) and conducting several pilot interviews. Pilot interviews conducted by the interviewer were tape recorded andcritiqued by the principal investigators and colleagues.

Athlete interviews were scheduled after individual consent forms and surveys had been received and scored. Coach and significant other interviews were scheduled andconducted only after the corresponding athlete interview was complete.

The interviewer had the opportunity to review the participants survey results prior toconducting each athlete interview. Additionally, the interviewer reviewed the athleteinterview prior to conducting the coach and significant other interviews. While the

interviewer followed a structured interview guide, she was free to proceed in the directiondictated by the natural flow of the conversation for all interviews. However, all participantswere asked all of the major questions on the interview guide by the end of the interview.

Finally, in the general introduction to the interviews, participants were assured ofcomplete confidentiality and anonymity of their remarks (e.g., efforts would be made todisguise sports and athlete genders whenever possible). It was emphasized that participantsshould feel free to voice both their positive and negative opinions. They were also informedthat there were no right or wrong responses, and that if they felt uncomfortable answering anyquestion at any time, they were free to simply state that they would rather not discuss thatissue. This option, however, was not employed by any of the participants.

Mental Skills and Attributes Assessments

To help determine components of the athletes mental skills and attributes thought to be key to elite performance, a series of psychological tests was administered to each athlete prior to his or her interview. The instruments administered (see Appendix D) included thefollowing:

Trait Anxiety

The Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schultz, 1990) was used to measuretrait anxiety, the personality disposition that assesses the degree that individuals perceivecompetition as more or less threatening and become nervous. The SAS is a 21-itemquestionnaire that measures three types of trait anxiety: somatic anxiety (the perceptions of

physiological states), worry (concern about performance), and concentration disruptions(ability to focus). Participants were asked to respond to statements regarding how they usuallyreact to competition using a 4-point Likert scale (e.g., I feel tense in the stomach, 1 = not atall to 4 = very much so). The SAS yields subscale scores for somatic anxiety, worry, andconcentration disruptions as well as an overall trait anxiety score. The SAS has been subjectedto rigorous psychometric testing and has been shown to demonstrate good psychometric

properties (Smith, Smoll & Schultz, 1990).


26/133


Hardiness

Because hardiness is considered to be a key attribute within Golemans (1995) notionof emotional intelligence, this construct was included in the psychological assessmentadministered to the participants. Specifically, the Personal Views Survey III (PVS-III; The

Hardiness Institute, 1994) was used to measure individuals hardiness level. This 30-iteminventory requires participants to rate their agreement to statements on a 4-point Likert scale(e.g.,, Most of my time gets spent doing things that are worthwhile, 0 = not at all true to 3 =completely true). The PVS-III is divided into three subscales consisting of 10 items each.The challenge subscale encompasses ones view of life changes as challenging rather thanthreatening. The second subscale, control, is the view of internal personal control overindividual outcomes, and the third subscale, commitment, is the view of commitment ratherthan alienation towards work and life. The three subscales are combined to provide an overallhardiness score for each individual. The PVS-III is scored via a computer program provided

by The Hardiness Institute (1998) and scores are reported in percentages with the subscalesranging from 0 (low) -33% (high) and the overall hardiness score ranging from 0 (low

personal hardiness) to 100% (high personal hardiness). The Hardiness Institute (1989) hasdemonstrated adequate reliability and validity for the PVS - III.

Multidimensional Perfectionism

Perfectionism is defined as the setting of excessively high standards of performancecombined with a tendency to make overly critical self-evaluations. Frost, Marten, Lahart, &Rosenblate (1990) developed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) that has beensuccessfully employed to study athletes. This 35-item scale asks respondents to indicate on a5-point Likert scale the degree to which they agree or disagree with statements related to

perfectionistic tendencies (e.g., I should be upset if I make a mistake, 1 = strongly agree to5 = strongly disagree). The MPS yields an overall perfectionism score as well as six subscalescores. The subscales on the MPS include (a) concern over mistakes, (b) personal standards,(c) parental expectations, (d) parental criticism, (e) doubts about actions, and (f) organization.The MPS has been shown to have good internal consistency and convergent validity.Interestingly, some of these subscales (e.g., personal standards) have been shown to be

positively correlated to achievement striving while others (e.g., concern over mistakes) arenegatively related. The overall perfectionism score is derived by adding all the subscalestogether resulting in scores ranging from 35 (low perfectionism) to 175 (high perfectionism).The concern over mistakes subscale had a possible maximum score of 45 and a minimumscore of 9. The personal standards subscale ranged from a low of 7 to a high of 35. The

parental expectations subscale had a possible minimum score of 5 and a maximum score of 25while the parental criticism and doubts about actions subscales ranged from 4 to 20. Finally,the organization subscale range of scores was 6 to 30.

Optimism

The revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) is a 10-item scale that assesses individual levels of optimism. Optimism is defined as expectanciesfor the future. While pessimists are more doubtful, hesitant, and anticipate disaster, optimistsassume adversity can be handled successfully. The LOT-R asks participants to rate eachstatement on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., In uncertain times, I expect the best, 1 = strongly


27/133


disagree to 5 = strongly agree). An optimism score ranging from a low of 6 to a high of 30 isdetermined by the LOT-R. Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994) have demonstrated bothacceptable reliability and validity for the LOT-R.

Hope

Another scale used in psychological assessment of the study participants was theAdult Trait Hope Scale (Snyder, Cheavens, & Michael, 1999; Snyder, Harris, Anderson,Holleran, Irving, Sigmon, Yoshinobu, Gibb, Langelle, & Harney, 1991). This 12-item scalemeasures hope using two subscales: agency (the will; the perceived ability to begin as well asto continue along a selected pathway to a goal) and pathway (the way; the perceptions of

being able to produce one or more workable routes to goals). The Adult Trait Hope Scalealso yields a total score that is defined as an individuals reciprocally derived sense ofsuccessful agency and pathway. Respondents use an 8-point Likert scale to indicate how falseor true each statement is for him or her (e.g., I energetically pursue my goals, 1 = definitelyfalse to 8 = definitely true). Subscale scores for agency and pathway range from 4 to 32,

while overall scores range from 8 to 64. The strength of the validity and reliability of theAdult Trait Hope Scale has been demonstrated by Snyder, Cheavens, and Michael (1999).

Sport Motivation

The 28-item Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) developed by Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand,Tuson, Briere, and Blais (1995) was included to measure the sources of athlete motivation.Specifically, the SMS subscales measure various sources of intrinsic and extrinsic motivationin sport as well as amotivation or lack of motivation. Respondents were asked to indicate theextent to which the items corresponded to his or her reasons for participating in sport using a7-point Likert scale (e.g.,, Why do you practice your sport? For the pleasure it gives me toknow more about the sport that I practice, 1 = does not correspond at all to 7 = correspondsexactly).

The SMS consists of seven subscales. There are three intrinsic motivation subscales:(a) motivation to know (e.g., for the pleasure of discovering new training techniques), (b)accomplishment (e.g., for the pleasure I feel while executing certain difficult movements),and (c) to experience stimulation (e.g., the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences).There are three extrinsic motivation subscales: (a) introjection (e.g., behaviors are reinforcedthrough guilt or anxiety), (b) to be identified (e.g., for the prestige of being an athlete), and(c) external regulation (e.g., behavior is controlled by rewards). The seventh subscale of theSMS is amotivation (e.g., I dont know anymore, I have the impression Im not capable ofsucceeding in sport). Each subscale contains four items and has a score range of 4 to 28. TheSMS has been shown to have strong psychometric properties (Pelletier, et al., 1995).

Task and Ego Orientation

Duda (1989) developed the Task Ego Orientation Scale Questionnaire (TEOSQ) toexamine individuals task and ego orientation in sports. The TEOSQ uses a 5-point Likertscale rating (e.g., I feel most successful in sport when Im the best, 1 = strongly disagree to5 = strongly agree) and consists of 13 items. Two subscale scores, task involvement and egoinvolvement, are determined from the TEOSQ with scores ranging from 1 to 5 on each


28/133


subscale. The TEOSQ has been found to have acceptable psychometric properties (Duda,1989).

Test of Performance Strategies

The Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) is a newly developed instrument thatassesses mental skills that have been shown to influence performance and are used by athletesin competition and practice (Thomas, Murphy, & Hardy, 1999). The TOPS consist of 64

behavior-based statements that athletes assess using a 4-point Likert scale rating to indicatehow frequently they engage in each behavior (e.g., I visualize my competition going exactlythe way I want it to go, 1 = never to 5 = always).

Four items make up each of the 16 subscales examining psychological skills athletesuse during competition and practice. The eight psychological skills used during practiceassessed by the TOPS include goal setting, relaxation, activation, imagery, self-talk,attentional control, emotional control, and automaticity. Eight psychological skills used

during competition are also assessed by the TOPS. The measured competition skills includegoal setting, relaxation, activation, imagery, self-talk, negative thinking, emotional control,and automaticity. Competition and practice skill subscale scores were obtained by averagingitem scores to create a range of 1 (never use this skill) to 5 (always use this skill) for eachsubscale. Using 472 athletes competing in a range of performance levels and sports, Thomaset al. (1999) found good initial support for the proposed factor structure of the TOPS.

Athletic Coping Skills Inventory 28

The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory 28 (ACIS-28; Smith, Schultz, Smoll, &Ptacek, 1995) is a 28-item scale measuring seven classes of sport-specific psychologicalcoping skills including coping with adversity, peaking under pressure, goal setting and mental

preparation, concentration; freedom from worry, confidence and achievement motivation, andcoachability. Individuals were asked to respond to each statement by indicating how oftenthey experience different situations using a 4 point scale (e.g., I put a lot of pressure on myself

by worrying about how I will perform, 0 = almost never to 3 = almost always). Eachsubscale consists of four items that are averaged to provide a subscale range of 0 to 3.Additionally, the seven subscales are summed and averaged to provide a total personal copingresource score. Psychometric properties of the scale have been demonstrated via confirmatoryfactor analyses and preliminary evidence for construct and predictive validity have beenfound with high school athletes and professional baseball players (Smith, Schultz, Smoll, &Ptacek, 1995).


29/133


30/133


Quantitative Assessment Psychological Characteristics

Sport (Trait) Anxiety Scale

The Olympic champions in this study had a mean somatic trait anxiety subscale score

of 16.7, (SD = 4.52) ranging from 11 to 23. The mean worry subscale score for these medalwinners was 11.2 (SD = 3.43) with a range of 8 to 19. Concentration disruption scores for participants in this study ranged from 5 to 12 with a mean score of 7.0 (SD = 2.58). Finally,the overall SAS score ranged from 24 to 49 with a mean score of 34.9 (SD = 8.57).

In a study by Smith and colleagues (1990) using the SAS, 123 college football playersdemonstrated a mean trait somatic anxiety scale of 18.98 (SD = 5.48), a mean trait worryscore of 14.17 (SD = 4.47), a mean concentration disruption score of 7.71 (SD = 2.21), and anoverall mean of 40.86 (SD = 9.99). In contrast, the Olympic athletes surveyed in this studydemonstrated lower mean anxiety scores on all three anxiety subscales (16.7, 11.2, and 7respectively) and for the overall score (34.9).

Hardiness - Personal Views Survey III

The PVS-III (The Hardiness Institute) was used to assess hardiness. This measure provided three subscales, challenge, control, and commitment, as well as a total hardinessscore. Each subscale resulted in a percentage score which, when totaled together, created theoverall hardiness score (max score = 100%). A high score on each of the subscales and a highoverall hardiness score indicates high hardiness in that area. On the challenge subscale,

participants had a mean score of 19.9% (SD = 2.88%) with a range of 16% to 24%. On thesecond subscale, control, the mean score for these Olympians was 23.5% (SD = 2.91%) witha range of 20% to 28%. The third subscale, commitment, revealed a mean score of 22.6%(SD = 2.99%) and a range score of 17% to 27% for these participants. Finally, the mean totalscore was 66% (SD = 4.99%) with a range 59% to 75% out of 100%. Currently, there are noavailable norms for the PVS-III.

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

The concern over mistakes subscale had a possible range of 9 to 45. For theseOlympians the mean score for this subscale was 17.6 (SD = 7.01) with a range of 10 to 29.The second subscale, personal standards of achievement, has a possible range of 7 to 35. The

participants in this study had a range of 17 to 35 and a mean score of 28 (SD = 5.25). Scoreson parental expectations, the third subscale, had a potential range of 5 to 25. The scores for

participants in this study ranged from 5 to 16 (M = 11.8, SD = 3.74). On the parentalcriticism subscale, scores could potentially range from 4 to 20. These athletes had a range of4 to 13 and a mean score of 6.2 (SD = 2.66). The doubts about actions subscale had a

potential range of 4 to 20. These gold medallists had a range of 4 to 15 for this subscale with amean score of 8 (SD = 3.92). The last subscale, organization, had a range of 6 to 30. TheseOlympians had a range of 18 to 30 (M = 23.9, SD = 4.01). Finally, adding the subscalestogether yielded a total perfectionism score, with a potential score ranging from 35 (low

perfectionism) to 175 (high perfectionism). These participants had a scoring range of 72 to113 and a mean score of 95.5 (SD = 16.55). Currently there are no available norms of eliteathletes on the MPS.


31/133


Optimism - Life Orientation Test Revised

Athletes in this sample had LOT-R (dispositional optimism) scores ranging from lowof 19 to high of 28 (M = 24.7, SD = 2.54). This mean score of almost 25 was much higherthan the mean score of 14.33 (SD = 4.28) of 2055 college students as reported by Scheier,

Carver, & Bridges (1994).

The Adult Trait Hope Scale

In this sample the athletes agency scores yielded a mean score of 29.1 (SD = 2.13)with a range of 24 to 31. The mean pathway subscale score for this sample was 26.8 (SD =2.35) with a range of 23 to 31. Combined, these subscales yielded an overall hope score meanof 55.9 (SD = 3.48) with a range of 51 to 61.

Task and Ego Orientation Scale Questionnaire

For the task orientation subscale, the participants had a scoring range of 3.86 to 4.86with a mean of 4.36 (SD = 0.37). On the ego orientation subscale, the Olympians scoresranged from 1 to 3.83 with a mean of 2.87 (SD = 0.81). Duda (1989) studied 193 eleventh andtwelve grade females and 128 males and found that the males had a task orientation of 4.28and an ego-orientation of 2.89 while the females task orientation score was 4.45 and egoorientation score 2.59.

Sport Motivation Scale

Pelletier and colleagues (1995) developed the SMS to assesses three different kinds ofextrinsic and three kinds of intrinsic motivation as well as amotivation. The scoring range forall the subscales is 4 to 28. The athletes in this study had a mean amotivation score of 5.7 (SD= 2.50) with a range of 4 to 9. The Olympians mean score on the external regulation subscalewas 9.7 (SD = 5.77) with a range of 4 to 27. The extrinsic motivation introjected subscalemean score was 9.7 (SD = 6.11) with scores ranging from 5 to 23. On the third extrinsicmotivation identified subscale, athletes had a mean score of 12.6 (SD = 4.47) with a range of7 to 21.

For the first intrinsic motivation subscale, to know, participants had a mean score of18.7 (SD = 5.50) and a range of 9 to 27. The Olympians in this study demonstrated a meanscore of 23.3 (SD = 4.00; range 16 to 28) on accomplishment, another intrinsic motivationsubscale. Finally, the intrinsic motivation of experience stimulation revealed mean score of21.5 (SD = 4.77) with a range of 13 to 28. Table 1 provides a comparison of participants inthis study with other elite athlete samples.


32/133


Table 1. Sport Motivation Scale subscale scores for this sample and comparison studies

SMS Subscales M SD M SD M SD M SD Range

Amotivation 5.7 2.50 6.89 3.00 6.98 3.10 6.15 3.77 4 - 28

Extrinsic Motivation -Extrinsic regulation 9.7 10.82 10.82 3.59 11.56 3.72 12.52 5.43 4 - 28

Extrinsic Motivation -Introjection 12.7 12.46 12.46 4.04 12.29 3.70 20.84 5.22 4 - 28

Extrinsic Motivation -Identified 12.6 13.13 13.13 3.24 12.90 3.15 18.14 4.57 4 - 28

Intrinsic Motivation -To know 18.7 13.05 13.05 3.37 12.42 3.47 18.85 5.78 4 - 28

Intrinsic Motivation -Accomplishment 23.3 14.88 14.88 3.40 14.17 3.30 21.98 4.56 4 - 28

Intrinsic Motivation -

Experiencesimulation 21.5 14.57 14.57 3.49 14.76 2.99 22.51 3.96 4 - 28

This Sample FemaleUniversityAthletes

(Pelletier etal.,1995)

MaleUniversityAthletes


Quebec JuniorCollegeAthletes


Test of Performance Strategies

The TOPS yields sixteen subscale scores, assessing eight psychological skill

performance strategies in both pr

us oc talent development

Documents