Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
136 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Motivation |
-requirements/desires that lead people to behave in a particular way in a particular setting -situational -tendency & likelihood (does not guarantee you will act certain way) -psychological, diff. from arousal (physical) |
|
|
Dispositional Attributions |
-inferences about internal factors, character, personality traits, qualities -"they must have done that because of who they are as a person" |
|
|
Attribution Theory |
(external) what someone judges about others' motivations |
|
|
Need Achievement |
(internal) what we judge about our own motivation |
|
|
Causal Attributions |
Inferences about why a behavior happened |
|
|
Informational Bias |
-We know more about ourselves and why we do things than we do about others -We are more likely to excuse ourselves for the same behaviors |
|
|
Perceptual Bias |
-Others have diff. perceptions of us than we do of ourselves -We assume they have the same perceptions -We tend to make external instead of personal (dispositional) attributions about our own behavior "I wrecked my car bc it was raining. Not bc I'm a bad driver." |
|
|
Motivation Bias |
-We assume too much credit for success and too little for failure -Protects ego "We won bc of me. We lost bc of bad luck." |
|
|
Weiner's Cognitive Attribution Model |
O= outcome (behavior) A= ability E= effort T=task difficulty L=luck These are causal explanations for behavior (you can use these to make inferences about outcomes) |
|
|
Weiner's 3-Dimensional Taxonomy |
Stability: ability and task are stable, effort and luck are unstable Locus of Causality: ability and effort are internal, task difficulty and luck are external Controllability: task diff., luck, and ability are uncontrollable, effort is controllable |
|
|
Self-Efficacy |
-belief in one's ability to accomplish a task -high self-efficacy (belief in yourself), you put in more effort |
|
|
Perceived Competence |
-evaluations by important others affect the outcome of achievement behaviors (coaches) -parents are TERRIBLE evaluators bc they always think you do well -positive evaluations increase feeling of mastery and well-being, which increases chances of success |
|
|
Goal Achievement Approach |
-what motivates someone -interaction between types of goals 1. mastery: internal reasons for motivation; performing to please self 2. competitive: ego, external reasons, social comparison; performing to impress/please others |
|
|
Outcome Expectancy |
person's belief about the likelihood that a behavior will produce a certain outcome |
|
|
Collective (team) Efficacy |
-sense of group's ability to accomplish a task -expectancy of the combination of abilities within a team -team chemistry |
|
|
Need for Achievement |
The need or drive to overcome obstacles, exercise power, strive to accomplish something difficult |
|
|
Thematic Apperception Test |
-designed to measure differences in motivation -you are shown a picture, you are to create your own story using the picture, you put your own thoughts/feelings/motivation into the picture |
|
|
McClelland-Atkinson Model |
-Motivation is a mix between approaching success and avoiding failure -Hope for success: positive outlook, active, seeking, motivation to achieve success -Fear of failure: negative, passive, motivation to avoid failure |
|
|
Extrinsic Motivation |
(external) -motivation by which people participate for a reward -money, praise, medals, trophies |
|
|
Intrinsic Motivation |
(internal) -motivation by which people participate for their own enjoyment -competency, self-worth, self-determination -rewards can devalue intrinsic motivation -control and information enhance IM |
|
|
Causal Dimension Scale |
-measures the various causal explanations for events, how someone explains outcome -now has 12 scales -measures stability and locus of causality -works well w/team sports but not individuals |
|
|
Functional Attributional Models |
-motivation is to maintain or enhance self-esteem -attributing success to internal factors and failure to external factors protects self-esteem "They lost." "We won!" |
|
|
Conclusions about Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation |
1. if a player perceives the sport is played for rewards (extrinsic), then intrinsic motivation decreases 2. recognition by teammates actually increases intrinsic motivation (helps player's self-image) 3. Overjustification Hypothesis: reinforcement that is given beyond what is necessary can cause player to question reason for playing 4. Discounting Principle: when rewarded, internal reward is stripped of value, which decreases value of behavior |
|
|
Ways to Increase Intrinsic Motivation |
1. Structure activities to guarantee some amount of success 2. Give athletes more power in decision-making and goal setting (increases control) 3. Give praise to all players 4. Set realistic goals 5. Vary content/timing/sequence of practices |
|
|
Locus of Control |
-How one perceives control of a situation -Internal vs. External (luck, fate, others)
|
|
|
Rotter's I-E Scale |
-29 items measure locus of control -Forced choice between I or E (internal or external) -Group sport players are more internal than individual players and non-sport |
|
|
Levenson's Multidimensional IPC Scale |
-24 items measure LOC -Internal, External divided into 2 dimensions: Powerful Others and Chance (we took this in class) |
|
|
Nowicki-Strickland Scale |
-measures LOC in children -older players more internal than younger ones -athletically-prone children more internal than average children |
|
|
Self-Concept |
-Mental image of self; self-portraiit 3 Dimensions Cognitive: Beliefs about the self Affective (self-esteem): Positive/negatives feelings about self, like/dislike Behavioral: Predisposed way to act, consistent with cognitive and affective |
|
|
5 Aspects of Self |
1. The physical self (biology) 2. The self-as-process (how you perceive and respond to problems) 3. The social self (your social roles) 4. The self-concept (your view of your personality traits, appearance, goals, motives) 5. The self-ideal (what you could be) |
|
|
Self-Actualization |
-Human potential for personal growth, complete self-understanding -Being the best you can be -Tendency to realize your potential -Ideal self |
|
|
Sport Self-Confidence |
-Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory: measures belief/degree of confidence in ability you have to succeed in sport
-State Sport-Confidence Inventory: measures belief/degree of confidence in ability you have to succeed right nowin a competition, game, etc. |
|
|
Sport Motivation Scale |
MAS- Motive to achieve success MAF- Motive to avoid failure MAP- Motive to achieve power |
|
|
SMART Goal Setting |
1. specific 2. measurable 3. action-oriented 4. realistic & reasonable 5. timely |
|
|
Explanatory Style |
The way in which a person accounts for positive and negative happenings Pessimists vs. Optimists |
|
|
Optimists vs. Pessimists |
-Pessimists attribute failures to stable internal factors and successes to unstable, specific, external factors -Effect is lower performance in competition, generalizes across situations, and can lead to low resiliency from failure |
|
|
Behavior Theory of Leadership |
-Focus on effective leadership behaviors -Consideration: establishing trust, bilateral communication, & showing concern for subordinates -Structure: planning, organizing, making decisions, assigning roles, motivating |
|
|
Contingency Model of Leadership |
-Combines characteristics of leader and situation -Leadership Style: autocratic (task-oriented) vs. democratic (relationship-oriented) -Favorableness of Situation: leader-members interactions, task structure, power position of leader |
|
|
Path-Goal Theory |
-Based on behaviors of leader -An effective leader makes goals for followers and keeps path to goals free of obstacles; mindful of followers' satisfaction |
|
|
Life Cycle Theory |
-Based on behaviors of subordinates -Effective leader depends on maturity of followers |
|
|
4 Styles of Leadership |
1. LOW task- HIGH relationship: telling, assertive, one-way communication 2. HIGH task- HIGH relationship: two-way communication, social support 3. HIGH task- LOW relationship: participating, assertive, two-way communication, shared decision-making 4. LOW task- LOW relationship: delegating, decision-making done by followers |
|
|
Functional Model of Leadership |
-Success of group depends on meeting expressive and instrumental needs -Expressive needs: interpersonal, social, emotional, interaction of followers, group cohesion -Instrumental needs: task related, goal-directed, achievement |
|
|
Multidimensional Model of Sport Leadership |
-Situational Characteristics -Leader Characteristics -Member Characteristics -Required Behavior -Actual Behavior -Preferred Behavior |
|
|
Player Leaders |
-Excellent performers -More experienced -Intrinsically motivated -Strong-minded -Extroverted -Emotionally stable -Higher in competitive trait anxiety (extremely concerned with winning; don't give up) |
|
|
Group Cohesion |
-dynamic process where group sticks together in pursuit of a particular goal 1. Degree of attraction (to sport) 2. Commitment (to each other) 3. Collective Involvement (pursuing goal as group) |
|
|
Pendular Model (Model of Team Cohesion) |
-Early cohesion comes easily w/expectations of winning and training together -Cohesion lessens as specialties emerge (positions) -Competition increases cohesion (we vs. them) -Losing, competition for playing time, coach favorites = decreased cohesion |
|
|
Linear Model: 4 Progessive Stages (Model of Team Cohesion) |
1. Forming: identification as group 2. Storming: conflict from personalities, competition 3. Norming: cooperation, conflict, resolution 4. Performing: trying to achieve team goals |
|
|
Four Factors that Affect Cohesion |
1. Group size: harder to establish cohesion in larger teams -Ringelman effect: group effort decreases w/size -Social Loafing: individual effort decreases w/presence of others 2. Task: amount of effort required by sport -Interactive (team) vs. Coactive (individual) 3. Team Tenure: how long a team has been together 4. Satisfaction: leads to cohesion |
|
|
Group Environment Questionnaire |
measures cohesion 1. Individual attractions to group-social: “some of my best friends are on this team” 2. Individual attractions to group-task: “I am happy with my team’s level of desire to win” 3. Group integration-social: “our team members party together” 4. Group integration-task: “our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance” |
|
|
Social Facilitation |
performance of easy tasks increase due to presence of others, but difficult tasks are performed worse w/presence of others |
|
|
Mere Presence Hypothesis |
performance is facilitated by others simply being around during performance
|
|
|
Audience Type Affects Performance |
-Audience type affects performance (hostile, neutral, supportive) -Supportive audiences detrimental to performance due to fear of failure and futile caution |
|
|
Evaluative Apprehension |
-Drive to perform is facilitated by the presence of someone who can evaluate performance |
|
|
Non-Drive Models of Social Facilitation |
Duval & Wicklund: self-aware performers strive to minimize differences btw actual and ideal performance in front of others Bond: motivation to appear competent in front of others facilitates performance |
|
|
Home Field ADVANTAGE |
-Social support from friendly audience -Differences in aggressive play: 1. Functionally Aggressive: follows rules and regulations 2. Dysfunctionally Aggressive: outside of rules, illegal play |
|
|
Home Field DISADVANTAGE |
In critical games at high levels of competition, being at home can be a disadvantage bc of pressure- CHOKING |
|
|
5 Theories of Social Facilitation |
1. Mere Presence Hypothesis 2. Type of Audience 3. Evaluative Apprehension 4. Duval & Wicklund 5. Bond |
|
|
BIRGing |
Basking in Reflective Glory -increased association w/winning team -WE won |
|
|
CORFing |
Cutting off Reflected Failure -decreased association w/losing team THEY lost |
|
|
Choking |
Performance decreases in pressure situations -increased self-consciousness in front of friendly crowd leads to poorer performance -sympathetic and parasympathetic systems interfere w/performance -stereotype threat: player's awareness of his social identity affects performance |
|
|
Pro-Social Aggression |
Aggression used to halt or prevent social wrong |
|
|
Anti-Social Aggression |
Aggression that is socially unacceptable; has undesirable consequences for another person |
|
|
4 Dimensions of Aggression |
1. Aversiveness: level of unpleasantness 2. Intent: was act meant to harm? 3. Unwillingness of victim: target isn't seeking act 4. Expectancy of success: perpetrator expects to accomplish goal with act |
|
|
Displaced Aggression |
Aggression directed toward something (one) other than the real source of the of theaggression, indirect |
|
|
Hostile Aggression |
infliction of aversive stimulus to cause pain/suffering, hurting someone else, not tied to competitive goals at all |
|
|
Instrumental Aggression |
infliction of aversive stimulus (causing pain or other undesirable stimulus) to attain a certain outcome (winning)
|
|
|
Sport Assertiveness |
-assertive behavior that is not intended to cause harm but to play with maximal effort, determination, force as is legally permitted
-Easy to cross the line from sport assertiveness to instrumental aggression |
|
|
Violent Behavior |
uncontrolled hostile aggression unrelated to competitive goals, ignores rules- COMPLETELY independent from competition, worst |
|
|
Genetic Aggression (Explaining Aggression) |
specific genes relate to level of aggression, evolutionary explanation XXY chromosomal pattern thought to be related to violent criminal behaviors in males (only about 5%) |
|
|
Neurological Hypothesis (Explaining Aggression) |
-relationship between hypothalamus, limbic system, & temporal lobe to aggressive behavior
-Anecdotal evidence only |
|
|
Hormonal Hypothesis (Explaining Aggression) |
-interaction of certain hormones (testosterone, estrogen) with learned/cognitive factors (acceptance of aggression, expectations, decision-making)
-Males with children are less aggressive than males the same age who have children |
|
|
Instinct Theory (Explaining Aggression) |
we have a need to aggress; instinct toward aggression for survival, territory; aggression is not learned |
|
|
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Explaining Aggression) |
frustration (blocking of goal attainment) leads to aggression, so aggression is always preceded by frustration |
|
|
Social Learning Theory of Aggression (Explaining Aggression) |
-Aggression is reinforced, not reduced, by aggression
-Aggression is reinforced by a lack of punishment Acquisition: Biological factorsand learned Instigated: Models, aversive treatment, instruction Regulation: External rewards & reinforcement |
|
|
Contagion Theory (Fan Aggression) |
as tensions mount, impulsive behavior becomes more likely, that impulsive behavior can spread to the whole group |
|
|
Convergence Theory (Fan Aggression) |
common interests (like team affiliation) cause diverse individuals to unite due to highly emotional state of sporting event |
|
|
Emergent Norm Theory (Fan Aggression) |
group interaction causes situation specific standards to gradually emerge over time, only at sporting event |
|
|
Value-Added Theory (Fan Aggression) |
1. Structural conduciveness: aspects of setting relating to aggressive acts 2. Structural strain: differences between desired actions & actual actions 3. Dissonance reduction: possible reduction of differences between desired & actual actions due to on-field activity 4. Specific precipitator: certain negative event that signals transfer from inaction to action (one thing that sets everyone off; i.e. a bad call by a ref) 5. Mobilization: interaction of crowd, physical setting, and emergence of leadership force action 6. Breakdown: disregard for reasonable boundaries of action including physical barricades & social norms |
|
|
Physical Factors Promoting Aggression |
Temperature -Linear: higher temps = higher aggression -Curvilinear: higher temps = more aggression initially, but after optimal point, lead to less Noise: increased arousal from greater noise level may lead to greater probability of aggression Crowding: density of crowd can facilitate already existing aggressive tendencies |
|
|
How to Measure Aggression |
-Naturalistic Observation -Lab research (not realistic) -Questionnaires (ppl not always honest) -Personality Tests -Projective tests |
|
|
Psychological Factors Promoting Aggression |
1. Reinforcement/Modeling 2. Direct External Rewards (money, recognition) 3. Deindividuation (loss of self in crowd) 4. Desensitization to Violence |
|
|
Sport Factors Promoting Aggression |
Point Spread: close games and runaways have fewer aggressive acts Home vs. Away: Home teams stick to functional aggression, away turns toward dysfunctional Outcome: Winners aggress less than losers League/Division Standing: Teams lower in standings tend to be more aggressive Period of Play: winning teams showed more linear aggression, losing teams show curvilinear |
|
|
Catharsis Hypothesis |
engaging in organized violence (playing a sport) and/or watching violence relieves our aggressive tendencies in a safe way |
|
|
Assertive Dominance Hypothesis |
engaging in organized violence (playing a sport) and/or watching violence satisfies an innate drive to dominate others
(cathartic) |
|
|
Enjoyment of Drama Hypothesis |
aggression is the height of human competitive drama (cathartic) |
|
|
Continuum of Aggression in Sports |
Sport Assertiveness --> Instrumental Aggression --> Hostile Aggression --> Violent Behavior |
|
|
Direct Injury |
result of participation in practice or game play (i.e. concussion) |
|
|
Indirect Injury |
result of failure in one or more bodily systems caused by exertion while playing sport (practice or game) or a complication which was caused by a direct injury (i.e. infections, heat stroke, heart defects) |
|
|
Smith's Typology of Sport Violence |
1. Body Contact: blocks, checks, blows 2. Borderline Violence: fighting 3. Quasi-criminal Violence: violates rules of game and informal code of conduct, suspensions, fines 4. Criminal Violence: violation of legal boundaries beyond sport, legal action often taken |
|
|
Intimate Violence |
-murders, rapes, robberies, assaults committed by spouses, exes, boyfriends, or girlfriends -young women 16 to 24 most likely victimized -no evidence for any difference in level of violence in athletes and non-athletes |
|
|
Representativeness Bias |
athletics are violent, so athletes are violent; when you only see someone in a certain context, you assume they are always like that |
|
|
Availability Bias |
cases of violent athletes are publicized making them easy to recall |
|
|
Reducing Violence in Sport: What can Management do? |
1. Restrict use of alcohol at sporting event 2. Encourage whole family participation at sporting events 3. Make players aware that violence will not be tolerated by organization |
|
|
Reducing Violence in Sport: What the Media can do? |
1. Don't glorify violent players to audience 2. Don't promote hostility between teams 3. Don't glamorize violence |
|
|
Reducing Violence in Sport: What Officials, Coaches, and Players can do |
1. Encourage pro-social behavior in athletes 2. Learn emotional control techniques such as mental rehearsal and visualization 3. Learn to anticipate, recognize, and control potentially violent situations |
|
|
Personality |
Pattern of enduring & distinctive thoughts, emotions, & behaviors that characterize person’s activities and adaptation to environment 2 Important Features: 1. Individuality 2. Stable: Persists over time & across situations- Personalities don’t really change |
|
|
Somatotypes |
Personalities based on body types 1. Endomorph: relaxed, sociable, jolly -physically out of shape -big (fat) 2. Mesomorph: energetic, assertive, leader -highly active -confident -good looking and they know it 3. Ectomorph: restrained, lean, tense, introverted -anxious -withdrawn |
|
|
Freud's 3 Structures of Personality |
1. Id: Unconscious urges, desires & instincts (sex) 2. Superego: morality & conscience (what society expects us to do) 3. Ego: mediates between the other two, deals with demands of reality, "self" |
|
|
Humanistic Approach to Personality |
-People are basically good & growth based on free choice is what’s important
-Goal of self-actualization -Social pressures interfere with growth & realization of potential -Realize own choices instead of what other people want you to do -RealSelf: Who/What you really are -IdealSelf: What you want to be/What your parents/society want you to be |
|
|
Behavioral Personality Theory (AKA None) |
-Skinner thought the concept of ‘personality’ was counterproductive -You aren’t born good or born bad; yourexperiences shape you -Personality is observable behavior only, nothing more. Your actions are your personality -Reinforced Behavioral Tendencies: your parents reward you or punish you. This shapes who you are |
|
|
Trait Theory (Personality) |
Traits: Relatively consistent tendencies, predispositions to respond similarly across different situations (i.e. kind, athletic, smart, aggressive)
PersonalDisposition: Our unique combination of traits CardinalTrait: So dominant in our personality, it permeates all behaviors CentralTrait: Very consistently picked by others; how others describeus |
|
|
Allport's Personality (Peripheral states and responses) |
Coretraits: basic personality, stable, known to others
Peripheralstates: dynamic, highly influenced by situations (classroom, lunchroom, home) Typicalresponses: everyday behaviors done in typical situations, not as entrenched as core, more malleable to change Role-relatedbehaviors: superficial, highly dependent on situation |
|
|
The Big 5 Personality Traits (OCEAN) |
1. Extroversion (outgoing)
2. Agreeableness 3. Conscientiousness (focuses on details) 4. Neuroticism (anxiety, high-strung, energetic) 5. Openness (to Experience) |
|
|
Situationism |
personality varies considerably from one context to another
|
|
|
Interactional |
both trait and situation variables are important to understanding personality
|
|
|
Reciprocal Determinism |
-interactive relationship between environment, cognitive/personal factors, and behavior -behavior affects environment, environment affects behavior |
|
|
Problems that exist within the current research of sport personality |
1.Research has been conducted without a theoretical approach
2. Limited samples, so limited generalizability 3. No use of multivariate approaches 4. Response bias: faking good, faking bad, social desirability 5. No longitudinal research 6. Little repeated measures research 7. Generalizing from team to individual sports & vice versa 8. inferring causation from correlation |
|
|
What is a Test? |
Systematic, objective, standardized procedure for observing behavior (or anything) and describing it quantitatively and/or qualitatively |
|
|
Reliability |
Ability of test to produce consistent and precise (stable) results
|
|
|
RELIABILITY Test-Retest Alternate Forms Split-Half Odd-Even Item-Total |
Test-Retest (should be able to get same grade on first and second time of the test)
Alternate Forms Reliability (students with different versions should have same level of difficulty) Split-Half (half questions’ responses’ score should be about the same as other half) Odd-Even (all odd questions’ score should be about the same as all even questions’ score) Item-Total (compare response on one item on test to overall score; all items on test should be similar to total score; some questions may need to be thrown out) |
|
|
Validity |
To what degree have you been accurate in measuring or manipulating avariable |
|
|
VALIDITY Ecological Content Criterion- Concurrent & Predictive |
Ecological Validity (or external validity): extent to which results can be generalized to other situations, especially the real world Content Validity: extent to which test questions represent the totality of the concept being measured Criterion Validity: extent to which results realize a preset standard for performance ---Concurrent Validity: individual score’s present standing relative to a criterion Predictive Validity: individual score’s ability to generate a prediction which can then be compared to a criterion later |
|
|
VALIDITY Construct- Face, Convergent, Divergent |
Construct validity: how well does a measure assess what it is intended to assess
Face Validity: making a judgment as to how well a measure assesses what is theoretically supposed to assess Convergent Validity: scores from that measure are related in predictable ways to other variables Divergent Validity: a measure is not related to variables to which it shouldn’t be related |
|
|
Norms of Testing |
-Summaries of the characteristics and scores of those taking the test
-allow comparison of new scores to existing database(i.e. IQ) |
|
|
Measurement Error |
-Every measure of a variable is composed of 2 parts: the true score & measurement error
-measurement error is the inaccuracy or variability of your measure |
|
|
True Score |
-Every measure of a variable is composed of 2 parts: the true score & measurement error -true score represents exactly what the value of the variable should be without any error or unreliability |
|
|
Faking Good and Faking Bad (Errors in Testing) |
-Faking Good: trying to project the most positive image possible without regard for truth
-Faking Bad: trying to project the most negative image possible without regard for truth |
|
|
Conservative Style Response (Errors in Testing) |
trying to answer in the least controversial way possible |
|
|
Impression Management (Errors in Testing) |
Deliberate presentation of self in a certain way |
|
|
Self-Deceptive Enhancement (Errors in Testing) |
positive bias toward self, but person thinks he/she is being honest |
|
|
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory |
-Answer “True” or “False”or “Can’t Say” to 338 statements to differentiate among psychiatric categories
-50 scales total: –12 higher-order and restructured clinical scales –14 somatic, cognitive, internalizing scales –10 externalizing, interpersonal, interest scales –5 personality psychopathology scales –9 validity scales |
|
|
16 Personality Factor Questionnaire |
-185 questions determine how you rate on 16 different factors (started with 18,000 adjectives) -5 global factors: Extroversion, Anxiety, Tough-mindedness, Independence, Self-control -Considered the best of thepersonality tests |
|
|
Eysenck Personality Inventory/Questionnaire |
-57 questions determine how you rate on 3 superfactors –Extraversion–Neuroticism–Psychoticism -The nervous system is the basis for the theory -The extraverted nervous system -The neurotic nervous system -The high-psychoticism nervous system |
|
|
Profile of Mood States |
-65 words or phrases measure 6 temporary mood states –Tension-Anxiety –Depression-dejection –Anger-Hostility –Vigor-Activity –Fatigue-Inertia –Confusion-Bewilderment |
|
|
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory |
-40 statements to measure both Trait anxiety (enduring personality factor) & State anxiety (temporary influence of situations)
-20 items each |
|
|
Athletic Motivation Inventory |
-190 items: true, in between, falseor often, sometimes, never -Athletes different from non on all 3 subscales: desire to be successful in athletics, ability to withstand emotional stress of competition, dedication to coach & sport |
|
|
Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style |
-144 items designed to measure 17 Attentional & Interpersonal variables (assess, act/react, analyze, rehearse) |
|
|
Iceberg Profile |
Iceberg Profile: configuration of scores derived from the Profile of Mood States and applied to sports research to distinguish successful from less successful athletes in terms of personality states |
|
|
Psychological Skills Inventory for Sports |
-45 items: 5-point Likert scale of agreement
-6 subscales: concentration, anxiety management, self-confidence, mentalpreparation, motivation, team emphasis |
|
|
Athletic Coping Skills Inventory |
-28 items measuring 7 skills: coping with adversity, peaking under pressure, goalsetting/mental preparation, concentration, freedom from worry,confidence/achievement motivation, coachability
|
|
|
Test of Performance Strategies |
-8scales: attentional control, goal setting, imagery, relaxation, activation,self-talk, emotional control, automaticity |
|
|
Likert Scale |
an attitude assessment procedure where subjects are asked to respond using preselected items along a continuum, usually 1 to 7 |
|
|
Semantic Differential Scale |
a technique for attitude assessment using a series of bipolar adjectives on a 5 or 7 point scale |
|
|
Thurstone Scale |
a technique for assessing attitudes where the ratings of the judges are critical in scale construction -check statements in which you agree |
|
|
Nideffer's Model of Attentional Focus |
-athletic performance is closely related to attentional style or focus, and once this style is isolated (by using the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style), predicting athletic performance in a variety of situations becomes possible -broad vs. narrow focus (linebackers vs. golfers) -Internal vs. external focus (people wrapped up in their own thought vs. tuned into outside forces) -balance is preferable |
|
|
Three ways of measuring attitudes? |
Likert scales, Thurstone scales, and Semantic Differential Scales |
