Pyschological Perspectives - An Overview

As was outlined at the end of chapter 1, being in control of your life - what you do, what you think and how you react, is a primary requirement for making the most of athletic, as well as any other kind of potential. (See again figure 7 “Steps to Success”, page overhead used by former UKA sport psychology co-ordinator Alma Thomas with, among others, elite female athletes) This means being in charge of one’s own life, not curbing one’s hopes, wants, desires and ambitions in order to conform to the expectations or needs of others. This implies balance, based on a high degree of self-knowledge – the ability to be on one’s own agenda when it is appropriate and to respond to the needs of others when appropriate.

Central to women’s dilemma is the eternal conflict between personal needs and traditional feminine roles. For modern women, the impetus of feminist thinking has put personal fulfilment, including career and/or sporting success, at the top of the female agenda. Unfortunately economic conditions and support structures have not kept up with these changed expectations and women still maintain, to a greater or lesser extent, the traditional role and concomitant behaviour of nurturer and support system to partner, family, friends and, frequently, also in the workplace. These ambitions, as every working mother, athlete or not, knows – are highly conflictual. Furthermore, gender differentiated thinking and behaviour (which incidentally, are observable at very early ages and in a variety of cultures) place males and females in very different social processes even when agreed objectives are the same (as in the workplace or on the track). This, of course, reinforces the traditional divisions of labour even when feminist expectations are incorporated into the thinking of both males and females.

To make matters worse, various pieces of research show that, whilst female roles and expectations have diversified and developed, the behaviour and expectations of males (severely hamstrung by the work ethic, economic and employment patterns) have, on the whole, changed little.

Figure 5 (How We See Ourselves) illustrates the conclusions of a variety of studies on psychological gender difference and the consequent differences of meaning attributed to verbal communication by the sexes (Deborah Tannen – You Just Don’t Understand, Virago 1992, and other popular and scholarly works on gender and communication). John Gray’s best seller Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, ( Thorsons 1993,) makes similar points and is also based on a sound academic framework.) As previously noted (Chapter 1) The work of Connell, Ashenden, Kessler and Dowsett (1982) on The Systematic Effects of Gender Relations (figure 6) provides us with a societal backdrop to these highly personal issues. The point about CHANGE is really the relevant one for athletics.

Figure 13, Women and Performance, illustrates the point.

For coaches working intensively on the minutiae of the day to day facts of athletics life, it may well be hard to associate these theoretical analyses and collective dilemmas with their immediate concerns. In 1992 the Women’s Advisory Group to the now defunct British Athletics Federation surveyed 120 elite women athletes (junior and senior national squads). The objective was to ascertain athletes’ views of their own requirements and, in the process, gather data on their self perception and personal development needs. The psychological findings (Q’s designed and responses collated and assessed by an accredited sport psychologist) resulted in findings that were entirely consistent with the conflicts outlined above:-

The group perceived their strengths to be (priority order):- DEDICATION; DETERMINATION; PERSEVERANCE; RELIABILITY; ADAPTABILITY; GOOD UNDER PRESSURE; COMPETITIVE; HARD WORKING; ABILITY TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS; HIGH PAIN TOLERANCE.

The group perceived their weaknesses to be (priority order) LACK OF SELF-CONFIDENCE; FEELING NERVOUS AND ANXIOUS; LACK OF ABILITY; NEGATIVE THINKERS AND FEAR OF FAILURE; LACK OF EXPERIENCE; LACK OF CONCENTRATION; LACK OF COMPETITIVENESS AND ASSERTIVENESS; OTHER COMMITMENTS; LACK OF FINANCE; OTHER PEOPLE’S EXPECTATIONS.

NO ATHLETES SAID THEY WERE GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO.

56% found it difficult to be an assertive athlete
46% found that they had not learned how to be an assertive athlete
83% felt unable to assert themselves in a confrontational situation
82% did not initiate change in training schedules
53% did not believe that showing assertiveness was an important part of being an athlete
56% were happy to let the coach make decisions for them
16% thought that assertiveness was unfeminine
57% found it difficult to forget emotion concerned with poor performance
57% found it difficult to forget anger that builds up for some reason

Note: It was clear from the responses and the resulting direct work with the athletes, that many could not distinguish between aggressive and assertive behaviour and were frightened of being seen as aggressive. A 4 day personal development course was designed it fit the survey results by Alma Thomas (Performance enhancement consultant and accredited sport psychologist) and Brian Patman (Organisation and management development consultant). Approximately 50 athletes and their coaches undertook the programme and follow up work in the first 2 years. Immediate feedback showed very positive results which, in may cases, were assessed by the participants as making a real contribution to improved athletic performance. Even more significantly, a sample group of 12 athletes and their coaches took part in a formal evaluation process 6 months after the end of the programme. Results showed the following improvements had been maintained:-

SELF BELIEF + 28%

PERSONAL GOAL SETTING + 25%

ASSERTIVENESS + 28%

ABILITY TO HANDLE CONFLICT + 23%

CONTROL OVER PERFORMANCE + 23%

No follow up to this successful work for women was commissioned by BAF. The Women’s Advisory Group ceased to function due to lack of resources.

The question “Should males and females be coached the same way” has provoked some research, mainly in the USA. Holbrooke and Barr (1997) concluded that while coaching females is not significantly different from coaching males, gender differences do occur in some psychological domains, and, again, these findings are consistent with the contention that there are inherent conflicts between systematic gender relations and performance requirements., i.e.

Females and males respond differently to feedback (Females more likely to internalise responsibility for failure)
Females seem to value personal improvement over winning more than males
More motivated by team/group unity

But Holbrook and Barr emphasised that these differences have nothing to do with female athletes’ skill levels, desire and willingness to work, capacity to learn or mental toughness.