Psychology of athletic endeavor

Abstract

A considerable amount of human behavior occurs within the context of sports. In recent years there have been notable advances in psychological science research applied to understanding athletic endeavor. This work has utilized a number of novel theoretical, methodological, and data analytic approaches. We review the current evidence related to developmental considerations, intrapersonal athlete factors, group processes, and the role of the coach in explaining how athletes function within the sport domain. This body of work sheds light on the diverse ways in which psychological processes contribute to athletic strivings. It also has the potential to spark interest in domains of psychology concerned with achievement as well as to encourage cross-domain fertilization of ideas.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 74 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Full text

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 1
1
The Psychology of Athletic Endeavor
2
3
Accepted for Publication in Annual Review of Psychology:
4
Citation: Beauchamp, M.R., Kingstone, A., & Ntoumanis, N. (in press). Psychology of athletic
5
endeavor. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-012722-045214
6
7
Mark R. Beauchamp (University of British Columbia, Canada), mark.beauchamp@ubc.ca,
8
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8909-3896
9
Alan Kingstone (University of British Columbia, Canada), alan.kingstone@ubc.ca,
10
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0025-855X
11
Nikos Ntoumanis (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), nntoumanis@health.sdu.dk,
12
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7122-3795
13
Submitted January 27, 2022
14
Accepted April 25, 2022
15
16
Correspondence should be addressed to:
17
18
Prof. Mark R Beauchamp, PhD, CPsychol
19
Professor of Exercise and Health Psychology
20
School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia | Vancouver Campus
21
122-6081 University Blvd | Vancouver BC | V6T 1Z1 | Canada
22
Phone 604 822 4864 | Fax 604 822 6842
23
E-mail: mark.beauchamp@ubc.ca
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 2
Abstract
1
A considerable amount of human behavior occurs within the context of sports. In recent years there
2
have been notable advances in psychological science research applied to understanding athletic
3
endeavor. This work has utilized a number of novel theoretical, methodological, and data analytic
4
approaches. We review the current evidence related to developmental considerations, intrapersonal
5
athlete factors, group processes, as well as the role of the coach in explaining how athletes function
6
within the sport domain. This body of work sheds light on the diverse ways in which psychological
7
processes contribute to athletic strivings. It also has the potential to spark interest in domains of
8
psychology concerned with achievement as well as encourage cross-domain fertilization of ideas.
9
10
Keywords: early specialization, athlete motivation, social cognition, stress regulation, coaching, group
11
processes.
12

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 3
Table of Contents
Introduction
4
Early Life Developmental Experiences
Diversification versus specialization
Early life adversity and critical life events
6
7
9
Intra-individual Athlete Psychological Processes
Perfectionism: A double-edged construct
Efficacy appraisals
Goal motives and goal regulation
Performing under pressure
10
10
13
15
18
Group Processes and Athletic Achievement
22
Coaches as Catalyzing Agents of Athlete Engagement
Interpersonal styles of communication and psychological needs
27
30
Conclusion
33
Methodological Challenges and Directions for Future Research
35

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 4
Introduction
1
A considerable amount of human behavior takes place within the context of sports. From a
2
developmental perspective, this involves children and adolescents developing important life skills in
3
sports clubs and school settings (e.g., co-operation, teamwork, and perseverance) to older adults
4
playing sports for health and psychological well-being. From an achievement striving and performance
5
perspective, this involves elite-level athletes performing at the upper bounds of human potential. To
6
illustrate the pervasiveness and value that sport holds across cultures and continents, one only needs to
7
look at the extent to which societies across the globe were impacted during the first year of the
8
COVID-19 pandemic. In the early months of this global event, governments across the planet sought to
9
ensure that professional sports were able to resume, within prevailing health guidelines, as a means of
10
restoring some semblance of normality and morale within society (DiFiori et al., 2021); and when
11
deemed safe, public health agencies encouraged the resumption of sport among youth as an important
12
means of supporting their physical and mental health (Watson & Koontz, 2021). As the United States
13
President, Joe Biden, emphasized at the time “what we discovered is that we need sports more than we
14
ever realized” (Wagner, 2021).
15
In many respects, sport can be considered a living laboratory in which the behaviors of its
16
constituent participants are readily observable (Furley, 2019). At the elite (i.e., professional) levels,
17
sport is characterized by the recording of enormous amounts of data based on objective measures (often
18
stored in publicly accessible repositories) of adaptive (e.g., passes, assists, points scored,
19
sportspersonship) and maladaptive (e.g., aggressive behavior, fouls, cheating) human behavior. These
20
data allow researchers to test particularly novel research questions (Grijalva et al., 2020, Mukhergee et
21
al., 2019). As one example, Grijalva et al. (2020) sought to examine the relations between narcissism
22
among professional athletes in the National Basketball Association (NBA), as assessed via analyses of
23
their Twitter feeds, and subsequent team outcomes. Using game-level longitudinal data, they found that
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 5
teams with high levels of athlete narcissism displayed worse coordination and subsequently performed
1
worse than teams with low levels of narcissism. Such investigations capture human behavior in situ
2
(i.e., with high ecological validity) in which the effective execution of tasks, roles, and responsibilities
3
can have direct consequences for both individual athletes (e.g., contract renewals and on-going
4
employment, deselection) and the teams of which they are members (e.g., promotion and relegation,
5
wins v losses).
6
Almost 40 years ago, Browne and Mahoney (1984) published an overview in the Annual
7
Review of Psychology of the fledgling field of ‘sport psychology’. Since then, the only other paper in
8
the journal that remotely relates to athletic endeavor is Ericsson and Lehmann’s (1996) review on
9
expertise (which devoted about a quarter of their article to expertise within sports), but again that paper
10
was published over 25 years ago. In recent years, and over the past decade in particular, there have
11
been considerable advances in the application of psychological science to understanding human
12
cognition, emotion, and behavior in sport. In this review, we look to chronicle these advances and
13
explain how and why individuals and groups thrive within the athletic domain, or fail to do so despite
14
ostensibly possessing the requisite physical, psychological, and sometimes financial resources. We do
15
so with a view to not only direct ongoing work in this rapidly evolving field, but also to spark interest
16
in other domains of achievement psychology, and encourage cross-fertilization of ideas.
17
In this article, we use the term athletic endeavor to reflect the range of behaviors that are
18
pursued by athletes to achieve a set of targeted outcomes (i.e., athletic performance/success) in their
19
chosen domain. It should also be noted, however, that understanding athletic endeavor involves more
20
than ascertaining the direct predictors/determinants of performance outcomes in sport; it also involves
21
the intermediary mechanisms (i.e., mediators) and boundary conditions (i.e., moderators) that
22
contribute to athletic achievement.
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 6
We structure our review by taking a socio-ecological approach, to explicate the multiple (and
1
often interacting) levels at which these psychological processes operate. We begin by examining some
2
of the formative developmental processes that shape the initial sport achievement trajectories of
3
children and youth as they track into later life, and then delve into the various (intra-personal) athlete
4
and group processes that underpin athletic endeavor, as well as the role of the coach as a catalyst of
5
athlete engagement.
6
Early Life Developmental Experiences
7
Childhood and adolescence represent key periods of human development that prepare people
8
for adulthood, a life of employment, and offer guidance to effectively enact various social roles related
9
to friendships and family involvement. From a developmental perspective, youth involvement in sports
10
and sport-based programs has been found to result in improvements in task persistence at school and in
11
the home environment (Allen et al., 2015), socio-emotional well-being (Graupensberger et al., 2021;
12
Young et al., 2019), cardiorespiratory fitness and locomotor development (Cohen et al., 2015; Morgan
13
et al., 2019), and provide opportunities to develop leadership competencies (Nathan et al., 2017). A
14
recent systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that interventions designed to enhance positive
15
youth development in sport resulted in small to medium sized effects on outcomes such as improved
16
competence, confidence, and life skills (Bruner et al., 2021). Longitudinal analyses that tracked
17
adolescents as they progressed to adulthood found evidence that youth involvement in team-based
18
sports (when compared to non-sport participants or those who discontinued team sport after
19
adolescence) prospectively predicted lower stress and better coping levels in early adulthood (Murray
20
et al, 2021). Some research also exists in support of sport and physical activity involvement to foster
21
emotional self-regulation and academic achievement among youth (Barbosa et al., 2020; Vasilopoulos
22
& Ellefson, 2021).
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 7
Balanced against the evidential benefits of youth involvement in sport, it is also critical to note
1
that the sport context is not a developmental panacea. Among other factors, involvement in organized
2
youth sports has been found to be associated with increased alcohol use (Kwan et al., 2014), accrual of
3
injury including concussion (Pfister et al., 2016), and depleted self-perceptions such as body related
4
concerns especially among girls (Koulanova et al., 2021). On top of these factors, the pernicious effects
5
of controlling and/or abusive coaching and parenting on youth athletes is well established, with youth
6
subjected to such behaviors displaying impaired mental health and quality of life (Bean et al., 2014).
7
Diversification versus Specialization
8
In recent years there has been a notable increase in the research attention on performance
9
attainment and early specialized practice. In a recent consensus statement by the American Medical
10
Society for Sports Medicine, Kliethermes et al. (2021) noted that while early specialization might be
11
beneficial for enabling youth to achieve elite status in a few technical sports (e.g., gymnastics), such
12
early specialization does not appear to predict athletic success in the adult years in most sports.
13
A recent meta-analysis by Güllich et al. (2021) sheds particular, and nuanced, light on this issue
14
by distinguishing between (relative) short- and long-term effects of early specialization versus
15
diversification. They found that junior athletes who achieved early successes (i.e., during childhood
16
and adolescence) were more likely to engage in early specialization by starting their main sport earlier,
17
playing other sports to a lesser extent, and spending more time practicing their main sport in
18
childhood/adolescence, than those who did not perform as well during this life stage. Of particular note,
19
however, those predictors of athletic success during youth differed markedly from the predictors of
20
success over the long term into adulthood. Specifically, by contrasting the lifespan trajectories of adult
21
world-class athletes (i.e., those who won medals and placed in the top 10 in major international
22
championships) with national-level performers (i.e., national team selection but without the same
23
successes as the former group), world-class athletes tended to engage in more multisport practice in
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 8
childhood/adolescence, they started their main sport at a later stage, and initially progressed more
1
slowly (and with less main sport practice) than national-level athletes. Unearthing whether early life
2
diversification (i.e., varied experiences of sampling different sports) protects against burnout, increases
3
the likelihood of a person ultimately finding a well-suited sport, or facilitates cross-domain learning
4
transference (Güllich et al., 2021) is a worthwhile future research endeavor. In any case, these findings
5
have implications for talent identification and development in both sport as well as other occupational
6
settings. Indeed, Güllich et al. concluded their meta-analysis by noting parallels with the career
7
trajectories of Nobel Laureates (in physics, chemistry, economy, and medicine/physiology) who
8
accrued a variety of early life work experiences.
9
Recent longitudinal research by Rees and colleagues (2022) tracked elite youth cricketers for
10
two years following their transition into an elite talent development program in the United Kingdom.
11
They found that adolescents who were members of more social groups outside of cricket (involving
12
both sport and non-sport groups) demonstrated better post-transition health measures (i.e., satisfaction
13
with life, positive affect, and self-esteem), as well as higher levels of coach-rated performance, when
14
compared to those with fewer group memberships. When this evidence is taken together with the meta-
15
analytic review by Güllich et al. (2021), it seems evident that in order for developing athletes to
16
achieve success at a high level in a particular sport and psychologically flourish, time spent in other
17
sporting (and non-sport) activities beyond those that constitute their main sport would be a beneficial
18
developmental investment.
19
Parenthetically, although such diversification would appear to support youth athletes achieving
20
success at the elite/international levels, from a population-health perspective the extant empirical
21
evidence also suggests that when youth sample more sports in adolescence they also tend to engage in
22
more frequent health-enhancing exercise behavior during adulthood (Sylvester et al., 2020). Thus, it
23
would seem that encouraging youth to engage in a variety of activities/sports during this formative
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 9
stage in life is likely to result in both long-term performance outcomes as well as sustained
1
involvement in health-enhancing physical activity.
2
Early Life Adversity and Critical Life Events
3
With regard to understanding the role and contribution of early life experiences through sport,
4
some interesting research has taken a unique lifespan psychosocial biographical approach to identify
5
salient developmental experiences among ‘super-elite’ athletes. Super-elite athletes represent those
6
who have won gold medals at Olympics or World Championships (Rees et al., 2016). Given that the
7
pool of athletes who meet this criterion is relatively very small, there are limits on the types of research
8
designs that can be used, especially with regard to deriving inferences of causality. Working within
9
these constraints, Hardy and colleagues conducted extensive in-depth interviews (including structured
10
quantitative and unstructured qualitative interview sequences) with super-elite athletes, their parents,
11
and coaches (Hardy et al., 2017). They also augmented these data with pattern recognition analyses
12
using machine learning (Güllich et al., 2019) and compared the data with that derived from matched
13
elite athletes who had not accrued the same degree of success. The results from both content analyses
14
of the interview data and machine learning analyses of 336 characteristics identified from the
15
interviews, revealed some noteworthy factors that appeared to discriminate between the two groups of
16
athletes (Güllich et al., 2019; Hardy et al., 2017). In particular, super-elite athletes were characterized
17
by a greater propensity to experience a foundational negative life experience during childhood or
18
adolescence coupled (in close temporal proximity) with a significant positive sport-related experience
19
during that life stage. Although future research is needed to examine the robustness of this ‘negative
20
early life event’ by ‘significant positive sport experience’ interaction, this work highlights the
21
importance of examining the role of critical life events in contributing to personality development and
22
goal pursuit (Kaźmierczak et al., 2020).
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 10
As a final comment on developmental processes, it is worth reflecting on recent advances in the
1
sport domain that have the potential to support healthy adolescent development both within sport (vis-
2
à-vis retention and engagement) and beyond with regard to general quality of life. In particular, recent
3
efforts have sought to examine the contributions of bio-banding, in which adolescents are grouped with
4
others on the basis of their maturity status to account for substantive differences in size, physical
5
strength, and power (Malina et al., 2019). Although research on the effectiveness of bio-banding is at
6
an early stage, there is some evidence that both early and late-maturing adolescents derive benefits
7
from this approach (Bradley et al., 2019). In the study by Bradley et al. with youth soccer players, both
8
early and late maturing players reported having more opportunities to participate in leadership and
9
contribute to game-play to a greater extent in a bio-banded format. Given the well-established benefits,
10
highlighted above, for youth who regularly participate in sport (versus those who drop-out), bio-
11
banding appears to have considerable potential to undergird the socio-emotional well-being of youth,
12
motor skill development, and potentially long-term achievement outcomes.
13
Intra-individual Athlete Psychological Processes
14
As distinct from work that has explicated some of the developmental processes involved in
15
supporting athlete functioning, a growing body of work has sought to examine some of the
16
intrapersonal psychological factors that enable athletes to flourish or, conversely, impair such
17
flourishing within the cauldron of competition. In this section we cover this burgeoning literature with
18
a particular focus on sport-based research that has examined the contributions of perfectionism, goal
19
striving and regulation, efficacy appraisals, as well as performing under pressure.
20
Perfectionism: A Double-edged Construct
21
Recent evidence indicates that perfectionism has markedly increased over the past few decades,
22
at least within the Western World, with observed increases in self-oriented perfectionism, other-
23
oriented perfectionism (i.e., individuals’ demanding of others), and socially prescribed perfectionism
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 11
(Curran & Hill, 2019). Against this backdrop of societal increases in perfectionism, research in the
1
sport domain has explicated the dual, and sometimes countervailing, effects of perfectionism in relation
2
to athlete achievement. Specifically, perfectionism involves an orientation towards, and pursuit of, very
3
high performance-standards that also simultaneously involve highly critical personal appraisals of
4
one’s performance accomplishments (Frost et al., 1990). While such perfectionism might foster
5
attention towards performance optimization, for some people such efforts also might result in
6
debilitative (and sometimes crippling) cognitions that impair long-term achievement and well-being.
7
In a recent analysis of the perfectionism literature in sport, Hill et al. (2020) examined the
8
effects of different facets of perfectionism in relation to athlete motivation, well-being, and
9
performance. Across 63 studies, they examined the differential effects of two higher-order dimensions
10
of perfectionism, namely perfectionistic striving (i.e., setting high performance standards) and
11
perfectionistic concerns (i.e., concerns over making mistakes and negative evaluations by others).
12
Combinations of high and low levels on each dimension are reflected in a 2 x 2 model (Gaudreau &
13
Thompson, 2010) whereby: (a) low perfectionistic striving and low perfectionist concerns are
14
indicative of non-perfectionism, (b) high perfectionistic striving and low perfectionistic concerns
15
reflect ‘pure personal standards perfectionism’, (c) low perfectionistic striving but high perfectionistic
16
concerns reflect ‘pure evaluative concerns perfectionism’, and (c) mixed perfectionism reflects those
17
who score high on both dimensions. The results reported by Hill et al. (2020) revealed that when
18
athletes displayed pure personal standards perfectionism, they reported improved well-being, self-
19
esteem, and self-determined motivation and produced superior performance, compared to those
20
displaying non-perfectionism, with large effect sizes being observed. The results also highlighted that
21
when athletes displayed pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, this was frequently associated with
22
worse outcomes such as a greater fear of failure, amotivation, and depleted well-being, when compared
23
to athletes who displayed non-perfectionism. When athletes scored high in both perfectionistic striving
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 12
and perfectionistic concerns (i.e., mixed perfectionism), they tended to fare better (e.g., improved well-
1
being, performance) than those with pure evaluative concerns perfectionism. Finally, pure personal
2
standards perfectionism was associated more frequently with better outcomes than mixed
3
perfectionism. When the results of the perfectionism in sport literature are taken together, it appears
4
that athlete motivation, well-being, and indeed achievement outcomes suffer when athletes display high
5
perfectionistic concerns, regardless of whether those cognitions are accompanied by perfectionistic
6
striving or not (Hill et al., 2020). These results also point to improved achievement outcomes (and
7
psychological thriving vis-à-vis wellbeing markers) when athletes displayed perfectionistic striving
8
without perfectionistic concerns. Given the potential for dimensions of perfectionism to interact to
9
derive both adaptive as well as maladaptive athlete outcomes, this construct can be considered a
10
double-edge one (Stoeber, 2014), or at least a paradox worth additional investigation (Hill et al., 2020).
11
With regard to the etiology of perfectionism, meta-analytic evidence with youth and emerging
12
adults suggests that excessive parental expectations and criticism exert small-to-moderate effects on
13
self- and other-oriented perfectionism, but also large effects on socially-prescribed perfectionism
14
(Curran & Hill, 2022, Study 1). With particular relevance to socially-prescribed perfectionism, some
15
evidence in the sport domain points to parents contributing to the development of perfectionism among
16
junior athletes (Olsson et al, 2020), with other evidence suggesting that coaches may play a more
17
influential role than parents in propagating perfectionism among youth athletes (Madigan et al, 2019).
18
While all three dimensions of perfectionism represent risk factors for impaired mental health (Hewitt et
19
al, 2022), the effects of socially prescribed perfectionism appear to be particularly destructive, with an
20
increased incidence of depression, suicidal ideation, psychopathology, as well as debilitated
21
interpersonal adjustment (Flett et al, 2022; Limburg et al, 2017).
22
Recent experimental research indicates that when athletes display self-critical perfectionism
23
(comparable to perfectionistic concerns described above), they might be particularly vulnerable to
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 13
negative normative feedback and report substantive declines in feelings of competence (De Muynck et
1
al., 2021). This work points to important considerations for salient social agents, such as parents and
2
coaches, with respect to how they might best communicate with athletes who display heightened
3
perfectionism. Among parents, this might involve efforts to dissuade them from communicating
4
excessive (norm-related) expectations to their children (Curran & Hill, 2022) regarding their sporting
5
exploits. Among coaches, this might involve a particular emphasis on providing feedback that focuses
6
on personal improvement rather than normative comparisons with others. We discuss the role of
7
coaches in shaping athlete achievement in the section below on inter-personal relationships, but it is
8
worth noting that such an analysis also has particular implications for other domains, such as education
9
and family counseling where teachers and parents can be provided with the appropriate guidance to
10
support youth, in particular, those who display such perfectionistic attributes.
11
Efficacy Appraisals
12
Does it help to be supremely confident in sport or are there costs to such elevated confidence
13
appraisals? On the basis of Bandura’s (1986) seminal social cognitive theory, an extensive body of
14
research accumulated over the ensuing decades focused on the relations between a person’s beliefs in
15
their capabilities, namely self-efficacy appraisals, and achievement behaviors in sport (Beauchamp et
16
al, 2019). This work has mirrored research taking place in a range of other settings (e.g., organizational,
17
educational, health care) finding that self-efficacy is a consistent correlate of performance in sport
18
(Mortitz et al., 2000). On the basis of this evidence, the promotion of self-efficacy is often heralded as
19
an applied ‘evidence-informed’ target for those concerned with supporting athletic achievement.
20
What has emerged recently, however, is a much more nuanced insight into the role of self-
21
efficacy appraisals. This work has revealed that the nature and direction of efficacy-performance
22
relations differ depending on whether between- or within-person effects are considered, as well as the
23
presence (or absence) of salient moderators (Beattie et al., 2016, Vancouver, 2018). That is, while
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 14
athletes who display elevated self-efficacy beliefs relative to others may be more likely to display
1
improved achievement outcomes and performance, the nature of the efficacy-performance relationship
2
may differ markedly when intra-individual effects are examined.
3
Meta-analytic evidence based on studies conducted both within sport and beyond, point to
4
notable variability in the direction of within-person effects with some studies displaying positive, some
5
negative, and others displaying null effects. This is the case for studies that have examined the self-
6
efficacy/performance within-person relationship (Sitzmann & Yeo, 2013), as well as data derived from
7
computational modeling (Vancouver & Purl, 2017). Of particular note, Vancouver and Purl’s (2017)
8
computational modeling approach provides insight into the boundary conditions that might explain
9
those different within-person trajectories. These authors found that when information and feedback
10
related to the task are ambiguous within-person effects tend to be negative, but when such information
11
and feedback are unambiguous within-person effects tend to be positive. Experimental research by
12
Beattie et al. (2016) from the sport domain (i.e., golf putting) provides direct support for these putative
13
moderation effects. Specifically, when participants were provided with performance feedback, elevated
14
levels of self-efficacy were related to improved subsequent performances. However, when such
15
feedback was not made available, the self-efficacy/performance relationship was negative. This points
16
to a potential coasting effect, whereby individuals fail to allocate sufficient resources based on their
17
over-estimated sense of their capabilities, which thus impairs subsequent goal achievement (Yeo &
18
Neal, 2006).
19
The implications of this recent body of evidence points to the catalyzing contribution of self-
20
efficacy beliefs, provided that individuals have sufficient information to base their capability
21
judgements. Without such critical information, mis-calibrated appraisals of one’s capabilities (e.g.,
22
over-confidence) may result in insufficient goal-directed effort (Vancouver & Purl, 2017). Other
23
research in sport points to task complexity as a moderator of the within-person self-
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 15
efficacy/performance relationship, in which positive effects are found when tasks are dynamic/complex
1
(as they often are in real-world sport settings), but those effects disappear when tasks are less
2
unchangeable/simple (Beattie et al., 2014). Given the potential for self-efficacy beliefs to both support
3
enhanced performance, but also impair performance (when people are devoid of high-quality
4
feedback/information related to task execution), it would seem imperative for future self-efficacy
5
research to test within-person associations, and to also examine additional moderators that might
6
represent viable targets for intervention.
7
Goal Motives and Goal Regulation
8
The athletic domain is a ubiquitous context in which goal striving takes place, and as such it is
9
perhaps not surprising that researchers have sought to examine ways through which goal motives and
10
regulations support or thwart athletic endeavor. Some particularly insightful work conducted in sport,
11
but with clear relevance for other achievement settings (e.g., education, performing arts, business), has
12
focused on motivational factors that predict whether individuals will persist with difficult but attainable
13
goals, and whether they will disengage from the pursuit of unattainable goals (Ntoumanis et al., 2014a;
14
2014b). This work by Ntoumanis and colleagues was based on Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) self-
15
concordance model, which has been used to study the “why” of goal striving in relation to academic,
16
personal development, sport, and work-related goals. Specifically, research based on this model has
17
broadly categorized the reasons (i.e., the “why”) underpinning goal pursuit as being autonomous/self-
18
concordant (e.g., based on enjoyment or personal value of the goal) or controlled/non-self-concordant
19
(e.g., driven by feelings of guilt, coercion, or to gain approval and rewards from others). In general,
20
work using this framework has shown that when goals are pursued for autonomous motives,
21
individuals show greater persistence, goal progress and attainment, as well as psychological well-being,
22
compared to when goals are pursued for controlled motives (Sheldon, 2014). Of particular note,
23
however, this line of work has typically failed to consider how goal motives might influence how
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 16
individuals regulate their goal strivings when their goals become increasingly more difficult and
1
potentially unattainable, as often happens in sport.
2
Ntoumanis et al. (2014a) addressed this issue by examining goal striving and increased goal
3
difficulty in sport, where triumph over mounting adversity is often considered a hallmark of success. In
4
two studies they tested how self-reported (Study 1) and primed (Study 2) autonomous and controlled
5
goal motives predict objectively assessed persistence toward a goal of increasing difficulty. The
6
participants were British athletes who strived to attain an individually-tailored goal of increasing
7
difficulty on an electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer in a lab setting. The results revealed that
8
autonomous goal motives predicted goal persistence and attainment (measured in terms of heart rate
9
and number of trial minutes completed) via challenge appraisals and task-based coping (Study 1).
10
Controlled goal motives predicted increased use of threat appraisals and disengagement coping, and
11
were unrelated to goal progress and attainment. In Study 2, the contrast of primed autonomous versus
12
controlled goal motives again predicted greater goal persistence and attainment on a similar cycle
13
ergometer task, greater changes in positive affect, and stronger future interest to participate in similar
14
tasks. These findings are particularly pertinent for goal striving settings such as sport (but also others
15
such as education and work), in which goals become increasingly harder over time, and point to the
16
pervasive utility of selecting goals that are personally enjoyable or important, as drivers of
17
perseverance.
18
It should also be noted, however, that persistence with goal pursuit might not always be the
19
most adaptive goal regulatory response. Research in social and health psychology (e.g., Wrosch et al.,
20
2013) has documented the various benefits of early disengagement from unattainable goals, often
21
coupled with reengagement in alternative goals (e.g., scaled down or compatible goals). Whilst
22
research in those fields (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 2017) has documented the negative consequences
23
associated with pursuing unattainable goals (e.g., low self-worth, distress, future avoidance of
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 17
challenging goals) and the benefits (e.g., well-being, productivity) of goal reengagement,
1
comparatively little is known about how such self-regulation processes can be facilitated for effective
2
goal pursuit. Sport is an ideal achievement domain to study issues related to goal re-investment and
3
futile persistence, given that dropout from sport been identified as a significant problem in the extant
4
literature (e.g., Quested et al., 2013).
5
With this in mind, Ntoumanis et al. (2014b) examined the role of autonomous and controlled
6
motives when pursuing an unattainable goal without (Study 1) or with (Study 2) the opportunity for
7
goal reengagement. Participants were British athletes who pursued an individually-tailored distance-
8
related goal on a cycle-ergometer. Unaware to the participants, the experiments manipulated the
9
feedback (continuously displayed as “actual” distance covered vs expected distance) participants
10
received during the 8-minute trial, so that the goal appeared unattainable. In both studies, autonomous
11
goal motives were negative predictors of the cognitive ease of disengagement from the unattainable
12
goal (i.e., they were less likely to mentally abandon unfulfilled goals), which stands to reason as such
13
motives reflect personal investment and commitment to the pursued goal. Nevertheless, autonomous
14
goal motives were also positively associated with greater cognitive flexibility in the form of ease of
15
goal reengagement, for those individuals who realized earlier in the goal pursuit the unattainability of
16
the goal. Controlled motives predicted neither ease of disengagement nor ease of reengagement. When
17
taken together, these findings suggest important synergies between motivation and self-regulation
18
literatures by identifying how autonomous motives are associated with goal flexibility or rigidness in
19
the face of goal unattainability. In particular, the results indicate that individuals with high levels of
20
autonomous motivation have cognitive difficulty with disengaging from unattainable goals, but the
21
early realization of the unattainability of a goal can facilitate adaptive self-regulation responses (‘letting
22
go’) of cherished goals and alternative goal engagement.
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 18
The studies by Ntoumanis et al. (2014a, b) examined the role of feedback, goal commitment,
1
and controlled for individual differences in goal efficacy and other goal-related variables. A recent
2
review revealed that most goal setting intervention studies in sport have tended to include small
3
samples and generally failed to examine putative moderators of the goal setting-goal effectiveness
4
relationship (Jeong, et al., 2021) such as feedback, commitment, individual differences (e.g.,
5
knowledge/skill), and situational factors (see Locke and Latham, 2019). Indeed, despite the wide-
6
spread use of goal setting as a mental skill in sport, research on goal setting has been less thoroughly
7
implemented in sport than in other performance domains (Chen, 2021; Epton et al., 2021). Beyond the
8
need for future work to examine the active ingredients of goal effectiveness in sport, as well as
9
potential boundary conditions and mediators, future work should evaluate the efficacy of unconscious
10
goal priming (and goal motives priming, as in Ntoumanis et al., 2014a). In occupational settings,
11
unconscious goal priming has been found to enhance task/job performance (d = .44) and need for
12
achievement (d = .69), with particularly pronounced effects observed when those primes were context-
13
specific (versus generalized) and made use of visual (versus linguistic) primes (Chen et al., 2021).
14
Indeed, despite the ubiquity of goal setting in sports, and in spite of some innovative work on aspects of
15
goal setting such as goal reinvestment (e.g., Ntoumanis et al., 2014a,b), more work is clearly needed to
16
better explicate the active ingredients of effective goal setting in sport, and examine the mechanisms
17
that account for those putative effects.
18
Performing Under Pressure
19
Understanding human endeavor within sport settings would be incomplete without an
20
examination of the psychological processes required to perform under pressure within high-stakes
21
settings. Sport represents a prototypical context to examine stress-response processes and human
22
resilience that may similarly hold value in other walks of life (e.g., education, work, military). The
23
finding that perceptual, psychomotor, and decision-making skills suffer when athletes perform under
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 19
high pressure scenarios is well established (Harris et al., 2019; Jordet et al., 2007; 2012; Parkin &
1
Walsh, 2017a), although notable variability in such responses exist when examining elite athletes
2
(Parkin & Walsh, 2017b).
3
Research into the mechanisms responsible for impaired performance under pressure-invoking
4
situations, as well as strategies to mitigate those effects, has largely focused on two areas of inquiry.
5
The first relates to the role of attention and the second corresponds to athletes’ regulation of stressors.
6
With regard to the role of attention, there is an extensive body of lab- and field-based evidence which
7
suggests that those engaged in motor task execution, such as athletes, perform better when they are able
8
to focus on task-relevant cues and are not distracted by irrelevant stimuli. From a mechanistic
9
perspective, performance suffers when athletes exhibit heighted levels of anxiety under (perceived
10
and/or actual) pressure-invoking situation, and either become distracted (i.e., a distraction explanation;
11
Eysenck et al., 2007) or their conscious attention becomes allocated to focus on proceduralized skill
12
execution (i.e., a self-focus explanation; Maxwell & Masters, 2008). In contrast to attentional
13
explanations for performance failure under (perceived) pressure, research on the regulation of stressors
14
has sought to examine the cognitive appraisals and coping strategies used by athletes to deal with
15
stressors, and targeted these as a means to buffer against the potentially maladaptive effects of these
16
stressors (Murdoch et al., 2019). From an intervention perspective, adherents to the former attentional
17
explanations of skill deficits under pressure have primarily sought to implement strategies concerned
18
with maintaining an optimal attentional focus while performing under pressure, but are generally not
19
concerned with seeking to reduce performance-related anxiety per se (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019). In
20
contrast, adherents to stress-regulation explanations of performance deficits under pressure have
21
generally sought to help athletes manage demands that are perceived to be stressful (Murdoch et al.,
22
2019).
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 20
From an attentional perspective, recent research using eye-tracking technology has examined
1
the nature of athletes’ gaze prior to and during task execution. Research on the ‘quiet eye’ has
2
identified that not only do experts display longer and steadier gaze prior to skill execution (e.g.,
3
basketball free throw) but also differentiate between successful and unsuccessful performances within
4
individuals (d = .58; Lebeau et al., 2016). The establishment of a quiet eye has been shown to relate to
5
the experience of flow states (Harris et al, 2017), with some experimental work in tennis suggesting
6
that attentional control training can mitigate inhibition, reduce distractability, and improve motor
7
performance (Ducrocq et al., 2017). Of particular note, a quiet eye can also be trained through
8
intervention; in a recent systematic review of interventions designed to alleviate ‘choking’, quiet eye
9
training was identified as being among the most effective approaches (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019).
10
Other attention-related interventions identified in the review by Gröpel and Mesagno (2019) as
11
being effective included pre-performance routines (50% of experimental studies) and left-hand
12
contractions (100% of experimental studies). While pre-performance routines involve strategies to
13
maintain task-related attention (through cue words, mental imagery, and external focus), left-hand
14
contractions (e.g., squeezing a ball before task execution) are posited to prime visuo-spatial processing
15
capabilities (Beckman et al., 2013). In addition, when individuals were exposed to acclimatization
16
training (i.e., gradually increased exposure to pressure and its anxiety-invoking effects), self-focused
17
acclimatization training showed positive effects when performing under pressure, whereas distraction-
18
focused acclimatization resulted in worsened performance under pressure (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019).
19
One of the strengths of this body of work corresponds to the high degree of ecological validity attached
20
to these studies. Indeed, as Kingstone et al. (2008) note, the contrived pressurized environment created
21
in a lab is unlikely to match that which occurs in real world settings such sport, both in terms of how
22
pressure arises, as well as its intensity and duration.
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 21
A notable limitation of the Gröpel and Mesagno (2019) review was that in evaluating the
1
efficacy of pre-performance routines, studies subsumed within the review comprised multi-modal
2
intervention components making it difficult to discern the effects of specific subcomponents. For
3
example, while the studies coded as utilizing pre-performance routines used cue words to direct
4
participants’ attention they also included other strategies such as relaxation. A separate, but closely
5
related, body of research has sought to examine the efficacy of self-talk interventions to optimize
6
athlete attention (Hardy, 2006; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011). The directed use of overt and covert self-
7
statements (i.e., self-talk) has been extensively used within clinical and counseling settings. In the
8
athletic domain, instructional self-talk is regularly used to direct performers to attend to task-relevant
9
cues; meta-analytic evidence indicates self-talk interventions in sport (that were not accompanied by
10
other attention-regulation strategies) produce a medium sized effect (d = .48; Hatzigeorgiadis et al.,
11
2011) in relation to performance outcomes. Such interventions were found to work with both beginners
12
and experienced athletes, with no differences occurring if the self-talk was self-selected or assigned,
13
and worked well with both novel and well-learned tasks (although the effects were more pronounced
14
when undertaking novel tasks, d = .73). Of note, those interventions were more efficacious when
15
participants received some training in self-talk (d = .80), in comparison to when no training was
16
provided (d = .37; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011). Despite evidence for the effectiveness of self-talk in
17
sport settings, much more work is needed to elucidate explanatory mechanisms that account for, and
18
mediate, those effects (Galanis et al., 2016).
19
While the above research work points to the efficacy of attention-directed strategies to optimize
20
performance while under pressure, a separate body of work has sought to examine the efficacy of stress
21
regulation strategies as a means of supporting athlete functioning. In a recent meta-analysis of
22
interventions that were evaluated in sport settings using randomized controlled trial designs, Murduch
23
et al. (2021) found that stress-regulation interventions resulted in a significant medium-sized effect (g =
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 22
.52) on performance outcomes. The review included controlled experimental studies that used
1
biofeedback, cognitive strategies designed to regulate athletes’ interpretations of stressors (e.g.,
2
reappraisal of symptoms), mindfulness/meditation, multi-modal strategies, as well as relaxation
3
training. The results of moderation analyses revealed medium-to-large and large effects, respectively,
4
for multimodal (g = .67) and biofeedback (g = 1.05) approaches, although the authors also noted that
5
the non-significant effects for the remaining strategies were likely a result of the analyses being
6
underpowered with only k = 21 studies included in the analyses. Although much more work is clearly
7
needed to examine the robustness of these effects and, in particular, the psychological mechanisms that
8
might account for these performance improvements, it appears that stress regulation interventions
9
represent a promising means of supporting athletes when confronted with performance-related
10
stressors. Such findings would also appear to have practical relevance for those involved in the
11
performing arts (dance, theatre) or public speaking, where performers are frequently confronted with
12
(perceived) performance-related stressors.
13
As a final observation, related to stress regulation, while acknowledging that efforts to help
14
athletes regulate their engagement with stressors (e.g., cognitive reappraisals) appear to be beneficial
15
(Murdoch et al., 2019), there is also insightful evidence that some of the most successful performers
16
actually seek out, and thrive on, anxiety-invoking contexts offered by high-pressure sport. In their
17
Great British Medalists project, Hardy et al. (2017) found that over half of the super-elite athletes that
18
comprised their study displayed a counter-phobic attitude, in which they reported actively seeking out,
19
and being drawn towards anxiety-provoking situations. It remains to be seen how prevalent the
20
existence of counter-phobic attitudes might be within competitive sport, whether such attitudes causally
21
contribute to athletic achievement, and whether (if found to be facilitative) they can be developed
22
through intervention.
23
Group Processes and Athletic Achievement
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 23
In sports, human behavior involves a considerable degree of inter-dependent and conjoint
1
interaction, which allows researchers to examine how teams can optimize their pooled/collective
2
resources, and the mechanisms that drive individual and collective achievement. One foundational
3
question that has beset researchers with an interest in sport performance (as well as those from the field
4
of organizational psychology) is how to build successful teams by selecting and then training team
5
members to become cohesive and effective units. Recently, researchers have sought to ascertain
6
whether the accumulation of talent within sports teams is linear and beneficial, or whether at some
7
point the addition of more talent on those teams might have adverse effects on team performance (Gula
8
et al., 2021; Swaab et al., 2014). That is, can there be too much talent on a given team? With this in
9
mind, Swaab and colleagues (2014) presented a series of studies involving international soccer teams
10
qualifying for the 2010 and 2014 FIFA World Cups, the National Basketball Association (NBA), and
11
Major League Baseball (MLB), and examined the non-linear relations between intra-team talent and
12
team performance. They found that for interdependent teams (basketball and soccer), performances
13
increased to a certain point with ‘more talent’, but then the marginal benefits of intra-team talent
14
decreased and, in a curvilinear manner, turned negative. They also examined team co-ordination as a
15
mechanism that might explain those effects using the NBA data, and reported evidence for mediation.
16
That is, teams with high levels of talent underperformed due to depleted co-ordination. No support was
17
found for the too-much-talent-effect among baseball teams, to which the authors explained that those
18
teams require less interdependence and co-ordination among team members.
19
This finding received notable attention, even leading some to suggest these findings have
20
considerable potential to inform (interdependent) team selection in workplace settings as they
21
highlighted the downside of building teams with too many ‘stars’ (Galinsky & Sweitzer, 2015; May,
22
2014). Against this backdrop, and other “too-much-of-a-good-thing” arguments in several areas of
23
psychology (Busse et al, 2016; Stavrova & Ren, 2020), Gula et al. (2021) re-examined the too-much-
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 24
talent effect using (but also extending) the original Swaab et al. (2014) dataset (across 64 seasons in the
1
NBA) and found that Swaab et al.’s original conclusions likely reflected a methodological artifact,
2
associated with modeling quadratic functions (rather than operationalizing log functions), that occurs
3
when the data are sparse beyond the apex of a curve. Gula et al. pointed out that, although the relation
4
between intra-team talent and team performance was curvilinear in nature, the analyses did not support
5
the existence of intra-team talent composition having a negative effect and harming co-ordination or
6
team success. Of relevance to other disciplines (e.g., organizational psychology), the authors concluded
7
that the “too-much-of-a-good-thing” phenomena in other contexts involving human behavior might be
8
underpinned by the same methodological confound.
9
Beyond the methodological contributions of this work, the curvilinear effects reported by Gula
10
et al. (2021) between intra-group talent composition and team performance (albeit with notable
11
heterogeneity) also point to other interpersonal and team factors (beyond member talent) that might
12
contribute to team success. The study of intra-group coordination as well as the motivation losses (e.g.,
13
social loafing) and gains derived from competing in groups has a rich history in sport settings, the
14
origins of which can be traced to the early work of Triplett (1898) with cyclists. While evidence has
15
emerged for effort losses when athletes compete with others, (e.g., in relay teams), when compared to
16
competing on their own (Neugart & Richardi, 2013), more nuanced insight has emerged related to the
17
boundary conditions that might differentially explain both effort losses and effort gains within (sport)
18
teams.
19
In one study that comprised 302,576 individual and relay swimming races, Hüffmeier et al.
20
(2017; Study 1) compared relay swimming efforts relative to individual swimming performances at
21
elite levels (e.g., Olympics, World Championships, European Championships) with sub-elite levels
22
(e.g., national or local championships), and controlled for whether teams had a likely high expectation
23
for the team’s outcome in a given race (i.e., operationalized by finishing in the top four versus fifth
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 25
place or lower). What they found at the elite level (operationalized as a high valence condition) was
1
that, among teams with a likely high outcome expectation of success, the relay member in position 1
2
performed worse (relative to their individual performance), but that those in positions 2 and 3 displayed
3
small improvements, and that the team member in position 4 displayed marked improvements in
4
performance (even after controlling for reaction time differences between individual and relay
5
competitions). In contrast, among teams with lower likelihood of a successful outcome at the elite
6
levels (high valence condition), athletes in the starting relay position swam comparable times to their
7
individual performance, whereas the remaining swimmers performed worse than their individual swim
8
times. Hüffmeier et al. (2017) concluded that working in ‘action’ teams (especially those in which
9
performance occurs within a brief timeframe) can be highly motivating, provided that there is a
10
reasonable chance of achieving positive team outcomes.
11
In addition to the insights derived from examining intra-team talent composition and potential
12
synergistic effects among members of sports teams, research in sport settings has yielded notable
13
perspectives about how athlete leaders can foster the confidence and embodied performance of others
14
(i.e., athletes) by building a sense of shared identity. In two experimental studies, Fransen and
15
colleagues (2015, 2016) sought to examine the efficacy-contagion effects that occur when athlete
16
leaders display confidence in their teammates. With one study conducted in a basketball setting
17
(Fransen et al., 2015) and the other in soccer (Fransen et al., 2016), the researchers had athlete leaders
18
(as confederates in the studies) display either high or low confidence in the capabilities of their
19
teammates who formed 4-member teams. In the basketball study, performance was operationalized in
20
terms of team members’ performance on a free throw shooting competition (that was ostensibly
21
presented to participants as a national competition). In the soccer study, performance was
22
operationalized via a soccer-based dribbling and shooting task. Those teams in which the athlete leader
23
displayed confidence in the team subsequently displayed improved collective efficacy, via a confidence
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 26
contagion effect, and also improved athletic performance. In addition, the extent to which team
1
members socially identified with the team (by expressing a sense of ‘us’) mediated the effects of
2
leaders’ confidence in the team on collective efficacy. When one thinks of the most influential social
3
agents that operate within sport settings, one invariably thinks of the role of the coach. What these data
4
indicate, is that athlete leaders are able to substantively foster confidence in other team members and
5
nurture the performances of the constituent team members by encouraging team members to strongly
6
identify with the team.
7
While the body of work described above centers on the bright side of group processes that can
8
facilitate athletic motivation and behavior, other noteworthy work points to the potentially deleterious,
9
or dark side, of team and cultural factors in sport. Research using archival data of mountaineering
10
teams revealed that cultural factors related to status hierarchies can explain both success and adverse
11
events in these high stakes teams (Anicich et al., 2015, Study 2). Specifically, teams (but not solo
12
expeditions) from countries with hierarchical cultural values had more climbers reach the summit of
13
Himalayan expeditions than those from countries with egalitarian values, but in so doing also exhibited
14
greater mortality levels. Comparable experimental data (Anicich et al., 2015, Study 1) with expert
15
climbers from 27 countries indicated that hierarchical team cultures can improve intra-team team
16
coordination, but also thwart psychological safety and intra-team communication processes, when
17
compared to those teams with egalitarian cultures.
18
In relation to sports characterized by inter-group competition, Christie and Barling (2010)
19
examined how team status hierarchies affect individual performance and health outcomes among
20
professional basketball players (NBA) over a six-year period. Athlete status was operationalized via
21
five indicators in each season (salary, games started, tenure, awards/recognitions, and celebrity status)
22
and was modelled in relation to objective measures of athlete performance (player efficiency and
23
player’s contribution to team wins). Those performance measures were comprised of established
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 27
performance indicators such as points scored, rebounds, assists, blocked shots, steals, and free throws.
1
Status inequality was assessed via the dispersion of status indicators on each team. Christie and Barling
2
(2010) also assessed the extent to which players accumulated suspensions and game ejections as an
3
indicator of player transgressions (i.e., uncooperative behavior). Several findings are of note. In
4
particular, after controlling for relevant covariates (e.g., past performances), low status athletes who
5
were on teams that displayed high status inequalities displayed depleted performance over time.
6
Interestingly, on teams that had low status inequalities, performance levels did not suffer among those
7
in low status positions. In addition, the relations between athlete status, intra-team status distributions,
8
and personal performance outcomes were moderated by whether athletes engaged in
9
transgressive/uncooperative behaviors. Specifically, when low status members engaged in more
10
transgressive/uncooperative (e.g., suspensions) the effects on depleting their performance levels was
11
more pronounced when they were on teams with high intra-team status inequalities (i.e., greater
12
dispersion of inequalities among members) than on teams with lower inequalities. The finding was also
13
augmented by additional analyses which found that low status athletes were absent more often (through
14
illness and injury) when they engaged in transgressive behaviors on teams with greater inequalities than
15
those with less inequalities. These findings, using objective performance and health data (based on
16
multiple indicators), reveal how low status members suffer on teams characterized by greater
17
inequalities. While these data explain how intra-group status inequalities might impair both task
18
performance and member health among high performing teams, they also point to potential ways in
19
which such disparities might affect the daily functioning and well-being of minority group members
20
within other ‘action teams’ (e.g. medical units/teams). Such issues are certainly worthy of future
21
investigation.
22
Coaches as Catalyzing Agents of Athlete Engagement
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 28
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the study of coaches and coaching behaviors has received notable
1
attention with regard to their capacity to support or undermine the (psychologically) healthy
2
functioning of athletes under their guidance. Jowett (2017) has argued that the quality of this
3
relationship is the defining characteristic of coaching effectiveness and proposed a 4C model which
4
identifies four key components of such a relationship: closeness (affective bonds), commitment
5
(intention to remain in the partnership), complementarity (behavioral displays of cooperation and
6
reciprocity), and co-orientation (alignment/similarity between coach and athlete in their perceptions of
7
closeness, comment, and complementarity). In reviewing an extensive line of research using the Coach-
8
Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004), Jowett (2017) reported that athletes
9
who experience better quality relationships with their coaches tend to receive better quality coaching,
10
are more motivated, and tend to display improved physical self-concept, and at the group level display
11
enhanced team cohesion and collective efficacy. This finding holds direct parallels with research in
12
organizational settings which suggests that the quality of leader-follower relations provides important
13
cues to followers about both person–organization ‘fit’ and person–job ‘fit’, which in turn catalyze
14
improved occupational work behaviors and performance (Badawy et al., 2019).
15
Research based on achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989; Ames, 1992) has shown that when
16
coaches emphasize self-referent improvement among their athletes through developing task-involving
17
climates, those athletes tend to exhibit adaptive developmental behaviors (e.g., behavioral investment),
18
when compared to athletes whose coaches focus on emphasizing norm-referent comparisons (i.e., being
19
better than other athletes). As one illustration, Ntoumanis et al. (2012) found that when coaches created
20
task-involving climates within their teams, this was prospectively related to intra-individual change in
21
pro-social attitudes over the course of a year, and also explained between-athlete differences. That is,
22
the effects of task-involving coaching accounted for differences between athletes on different teams,
23
but also explained changes in prosocial attitudes that developed among athletes over the course of a
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 29
season. The development of task-involving coaching climates also predicted reduced athlete burnout,
1
while ego-involving coach climates (i.e., emphasis on normative superiority) predicted increased
2
adolescent athlete burnout (Ntoumanis et al., 2012).
3
Consistent with evidence from these observational longitudinal studies, experimental research
4
underpinned by achievement goal theory has similarly demonstrated that when coaches promote athlete
5
mastery, this results in lower levels of athlete (cognitive and somatic) performance anxiety indicators at
6
the end of the season, when compared to preseason levels and relative to control athletes (Smith et al.,
7
2007). A more recent experimental study by Fransen et al. (2018), combining social theory identity
8
(Haslam et al., 2011) and self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017) perspectives, examined
9
the effects of motivational feedback in relation to psychological needs satisfaction and task execution
10
among adolescent athletes engaged in a highly interactive basketball task. Participants were
11
randomized to a control condition or one of three experimental conditions in which a coach (research
12
confederate), athlete leader (via instructions from the coach), or both coach and athlete leader provided
13
motivational feedback to team members. When athletes were provided with feedback by the coach or
14
athlete leader, this resulted in increased psychological need satisfaction (competence), self-determined
15
motivation, as well as improved objective measures of performance. Interestingly, objective
16
performance was optimized when both coaches and athlete leaders provided motivational feedback
17
(i.e., an augmentation effect).
18
Balanced against this work that points to some of the ways in which coaches can catalyze and
19
support athlete achievement, objective behavioral data from professional sports also illustrate how
20
coaches can markedly impede successful athlete functioning. For example, consistent with a social
21
learning perspective (Bandura, 1986), Carleton and colleagues (2016) sought to examine whether
22
displays of abusive leadership by NBA coaches become mirrored in athletes’ own displays of
23
aggressive behavior (assessed through technical fouls), as well as depleted performance among
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 30
athletes. Performance was assessed using the same objective performance indicators as in the Christie
1
and Barling (2010) study described earlier, with aggressive behavior assessed via technical fouls, and
2
abusive leadership operationalized via analyses of coach biographies. Using multilevel longitudinal
3
modeling, Carleton et al. (2016) found that after controlling for covariates (e.g., tenure, salary, team
4
winning percentage, absence due to injuries), when athletes were exposed to abusive leadership, this
5
was associated with increased displays of athlete aggression and lowered task performance that
6
persisted across the span of players’ careers. Much of the previous work on abusive leadership within
7
organizational settings has been based on self-report measures of leader behavior and used cross-
8
sectional research designs (Martinko et al., 2013). This work thus provides evidence that the pernicious
9
effects of abusive leadership on salient athlete outcomes (including performance) may be long lasting
10
in nature.
11
Interpersonal Styles of Communication and Psychological Needs
12
Research on coaching influences in sport has also drawn from SDT to examine how coach
13
interpersonal styles of communication influence athlete motivation and well-being. Early work in the
14
wider SDT literature distinguished between autonomy supportive (similar to democratic) and
15
controlling (similar to autocratic) interpersonal communication styles (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Often the
16
two styles were treated as opposite ends of the same continuum, with high scores of autonomy support
17
treated as indicative of low controlling style. Bartholomew et al. (2010) argued that coaches may use
18
both controlling and autonomy-supportive communication to different degrees (for example, a coach
19
may use intimidation techniques but may also provide a clear rationale for his/her demands, which is a
20
facet of autonomy support). Bartholomew et al. showed that a controlling coaching style is
21
multidimensional, and developed a questionnaire to assesses four dimensions: controlling use of
22
rewards, conditional regard, intimidation, and excessive personal control. They demonstrated that these
23
dimensions of a controlling style were only moderately correlated with autonomy support (r’s ranged
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 31
from -.18 to -.50). Curran et al. (2016) showed that perceptions of coach autonomy support and control
1
had implications for athlete engagement. Testing a three-wave model with data collected at the
2
beginning, mid and end of a competitive soccer season, they found that perceived coach autonomy
3
support at the beginning of a season predicted increases in athletes’ end-of-season behavioral
4
engagement, via the mediation of mid-season psychological need satisfaction. In contrast, perceived
5
beginning-of-season coach control predicted reductions in end-of-season athlete engagement via
6
reduced mid-season psychological need satisfaction. In a field experiment, Cheon et al. (2015) assigned
7
33 coaches and their 64 athletes from 10 sports, who prepared for the September 2012 London
8
Paralympic Games, into either an autonomy supportive or control group. Athletes in the intervention
9
group reported stable scores on motivation, engagement, and functioning from mid-June to early
10
August 2012 (in contrast to those in the control group who experienced significant reductions in these
11
measures) and won significantly more Olympic medals.
12
This work in sport influenced subsequent research in the SDT literature in other life domains
13
(e.g., teaching, Amoura et al., 2015; parenting, Laurin & Joussemet, 2017) which has operationalized
14
autonomy support and control as orthogonal constructs. More recently, the labels of these two
15
constructs have been changed to need support and need thwarting, respectively (Ryan & Deci, 2017),
16
as these styles are purported to influence individuals’ basic psychological needs for competence and
17
relatedness, not just for autonomy.
18
More recently, evidence has emerged in the sport domain that a third type of communication
19
style should be assessed, which is neither supporting nor thwarting of the three psychological needs
20
identified in the SDT literature. Bhavsar et al. (2019) advocated for and provided empirical evidence
21
for an interpersonal style that is need indifferent. These authors argued that conceptualizations and
22
measurements of interpersonal styles in the wider SDT literature did not distinguish between styles that
23
suppress others’ psychological needs (e.g., coaches punishing athletes), and styles that are “passive” or
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 32
“indifferent” to those needs (e.g., coaches being emotionally distant). As an example, Bhavsar et al.
1
referred to the construct of “chaos”, which has been regarded in the parenting literature as a facet of
2
need thwarting (Skinner et al., 2005). A chaotic style is unstructured and inconsistent; although it might
3
slow down skill development, it is not a style that actively undermines others’ psychological needs.
4
Hence, a chaotic style is more representative of a need indifferent than a need thwarting
5
communication. Expanding theory and measurement in the SDT literature, Bhavsar et al. (2019) argued
6
that interpersonal styles can be distinguished in terms of their function (support, thwart, indifferent)
7
In a series of 3 studies, Bhavsar et al. (2019) provided validity evidence for scores derived from
8
a scale that assesses athletes’ perceptions of overall need supporting, indifferent, and thwarting coach
9
styles. Bhavsar et al. also showed that a need indifferent style is likely to be less “motivationally
10
damaging” than a thwarting style, but more detrimental than a need supportive style (e.g., in terms of
11
cognitive interference and dedication to sport). This is because a need indifferent style does not actively
12
undermine athletes’ psychological needs as a thwarting style does, but at the same time, it does not
13
foster those needs to the degree that a need supportive style does. Evidence for the role of a need
14
indifferent style is also emerging in other life domains. For instance, as in Bhavsar et al. (2019), a
15
three-factor (need support, need thwarting, and need indifferent) model structure was the best fit to the
16
data provided by several samples of English- and French-speaking employees who rated their
17
supervisors’ communication style (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., 2021).
18
A related line of work in the SDT literature in the sport domain has focused on the satisfaction
19
and frustration of athletes’ psychological needs. Similar to the aforementioned work on the distinction
20
between autonomy support and control, Bartholomew et al. (2011a) argued that the satisfaction and
21
frustration of the three psychological needs discussed in the wider SDT literature (autonomy,
22
competence, and relatedness) should be measured as independent constructs. Up to that time, the
23
measurement of the three needs was confined to items that tapped their satisfaction only, with the
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 33
assumption being that low scores on these items are indicative of need frustration. Bartholomew et al.
1
provided empirical evidence that the frustration of each of the three needs can be measured
2
independently of their satisfaction. Consequently, Bartholomew et al. (2011b) provided evidence for
3
“bright” and “dark” motivational pathways. Specifically, athletes’ perceptions of coach autonomy
4
support predicted athletes’ psychological need satisfaction which in turn was associated with positive
5
outcomes such as vitality and positive affect. In contrast, perceptions of controlling coaching predicted
6
athletes’ need frustration, which in turn was associated with maladaptive outcomes, namely feelings of
7
burnout, disordered eating patterns, depression, negative affect, and immunological markers of elevated
8
arousal. The distinction between the bright and dark side of psychological needs now features
9
prominently in the SDT literature (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2017), with applications in education, parenting,
10
work, and interpersonal relationships (e.g., Longo et al., 2016; Vanhee et al., 2018; Vansteenkiste et al.,
11
2020).
12
Conclusions
13
Sport pervades cultures, continents, and indeed many facets of daily life. Although the study of
14
athletic endeavor has accelerated in recent years, much remains to be understood. In this review, we
15
began with an analysis of early life experiences, with one of the most telling (and practical) findings
16
corresponding to the role of diversification in supporting both athletic excellence and the adoption and
17
maintenance of health-enhancing physical activity at a population level. Indeed, if one is concerned
18
with supporting the long-term development of youth, there appear to be no substantive advantages with
19
encouraging early specialization. Balanced against this observation, what is less clear are the exact
20
mechanisms (i.e., mediators) responsible for these effects. While involvement in a variety of activities
21
appears to be the psychological spice for a healthy and successful (sporting) life, it would seem
22
important to ascertain whether multi-domain involvement fosters cross-domain (visuo-spatial, motor
23
skill, and social) learning, protects against burnout, or supports long-term achievement via other
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 34
intermediary processes. Such insights would have important implications for talent development in
1
sport, and more broadly, child development.
2
From an intrapersonal perspective, there appear to be a cluster of psychological processes that
3
allow athletes to thrive. These include striving for excellence, provided that such pursuits are not
4
accompanied by perfectionistic concerns; and holding firm efficacy beliefs, provided that individuals
5
have sufficient information to ensure those beliefs are well grounded. There also exist a range of
6
psychological strategies that allow athletes to perform under the glare of competition. Some appear to
7
be widely used such as pre-performance routines, but others such as quiet eye training would appear
8
more novel. Nevertheless, given the efficacy of these strategies to buffer against choking (Gröpel &
9
Mesagno, 2019), they have potential to be applicable in a range of performative settings where motor
10
skill failure occurs when under pressure. The reviewed work on motivational regulations also points to
11
some of the motivational processes needed to succeed when performers are confronted with goals of
12
increased difficulty. It should also be noted that work on goals in the athletic domain is surprisingly
13
underdeveloped, with most field-based experimental studies suffering from small sample sizes and
14
failing to examine the active ingredients of effective goal setting (via moderator analyses).
15
The highlighted research on groups provides useful insights, using big-data based on objective
16
measures from professional sports, to illustrate how status inequalities in relation to other group
17
members can impair both day-to-day athlete functioning but also their well-being (Christie & Barling,
18
2010), and how prior conclusions related to intra-team talent dispersion might be misplaced (Gula et
19
al., 2021). This work also highlights the utility of shared/distributed leadership as being advantageous
20
for group achievement, which would appear to have clear relevance for many occupational/work
21
settings (Fransen et al., 2015, 2016, 2017). Finally, with regard to the role of the coach, the extant
22
evidence points to the capacity of coaches to shape pro-social attitudes among athletes (Ntoumanis et
23
al., 2012) and support their basic psychological needs (Bartholomew et al. (2011b) as well as athlete
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 35
engagement (Curran et al., 2016). Against this backdrop, evidence from the coaching realm in youth
1
and professional sports points to the capacity of abusive coaches to impair the long-term health and
2
functioning of the athletes under their charge (Carleton et al., 2016).
3
Methodological Challenges and Directions for Future Research
4
Notwithstanding the insights derived from this body of work, a number of methodological
5
challenges confront researchers interested in studying the psychology of athletic endeavor. In this
6
section we discuss some of these challenges, identify potential solutions, and also provide an overview
7
of pressing directions for future research. From a methodological perspective, many of the
8
psychological processes involved in athletic pursuits fluctuate over relative short time periods (within
9
and across training periods as well as prior to, during, and following competition), and yet the field has
10
largely been slow to examine microtemporal psychological processes and how these relate to discrete
11
athletic behaviors (Reifsteck et al, 2021). Recent advances in the use of intensive longitudinal methods
12
(ILMs) have considerable potential to enable researchers to better understand how dynamic
13
psychological processes emerge, change, and/or relate to one another over time (Ryan et al. 2019).
14
Some recent research from the field of health psychology, for example, has examined the nature and
15
direction of various psychological processes, such as affective states, in relation to the pursuit of
16
moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity using continuous-time modeling. This work has
17
revealed that within-person incidental affect may be a stronger predictor of physical activity than
18
physical activity predicting subsequent affect (Ruissen, Beauchamp, et al, in press). Via the use of
19
ILMs, research can shed light on any temporally lagged effects (and feedback loops) in the relations
20
between psychological experiences and behavioral responses, and could be adopted to examine the
21
trajectories of psychological processes during training and/or competition in sport, and well as the
22
cross-lagged effects (and feedback loops) of those psychological processes in relation to engagement
23
behaviours (Ruissen, Zumbo et al, in press).
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 36
Relatedly, the use of ILM also have the potential to substantively inform the delivery, and
1
evaluation, of more targeted person-centred interventions (Ryan & Haymaker, 2021). As one example,
2
the use of Just-In-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) has emerged in recent years, primarily from the
3
field of precision medicine, to deliver behavior change techniques and supports at the most optimal
4
time to support the specific needs of the recipient (Heckler et al, 2020). In a practical sense, sport
5
coaches often deliver messages to their athletes during training and competition, on an on-going basis,
6
with a goal of influencing athlete cognition, emotion, and behaviour. Yet, limited research has sought
7
to explicate the effects of such JITAIs (i.e., short time-bound supports and communications) on salient
8
athlete outcomes. Although logistical, design, and analytic challenges will invariably confront
9
researchers interested in evaluating the micro-temporal effects of JITAIs in supporting athletic
10
endeavour, by fully embracing these challenges research in the field has considerable potential to
11
inform a better understanding of what (intervention) works, under which conditions, and for whom
12
(Nahum-Shani, et al, 2018).
13
A final example of the substantive methodological challenges that confront researchers
14
interested in the psychology of athletic endeavor concerns the adversarial nature of competition,
15
something that does not exist (at least to the same extent) in other achievement settings. Of course,
16
considerable research on teamwork has been conducted in occupational settings, including education
17
(Rosenfield et al, 2018), health care (Rosen et al, 2018), and emergency response teams (Power, 2018),
18
yet those teams do not directly compete against other teams. In contrast, in sport, those opposing teams
19
typically change from one week to the next. This often requires the pursuit of different strategies (or
20
teamwork execution processes) in order for teams to effectively compete against the changing nature of
21
one’s opposition. Interestingly, at the athlete-level, some evidence (using data from the NBA, NHL,
22
and major European soccer leagues) indicates that professional players tend to perform better against
23
their former clubs (Assanskiy et al. 2022), with the authors speculating that emotion and motivational
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 37
factors might account for these effects. At a minimum, this suggests that psychological factors related
1
to athlete engagement might vary depending on the nature of one’s opposition. Although researchers
2
interested in isolating the effects of psychological process on athlete behavior often effectively account
3
for the effects of physical capabilities and skills in their analyses (e.g., Mukherjee et al, 2019), few
4
studies account for the dynamic and changeable nature of the opposition when operationalizing a
5
study’s dependent measures (e.g., athletic motivation, performance).
6
As a complement to considering (and addressing) the methodological challenges described
7
above, we further highlight some pressing lines of research that have the potential to further the field’s
8
understanding of the psychology of athletic endeavor. Previous research in the health domain has
9
sought to directly compare multiple, and potentially competing, interventions in relation to promoting
10
behavior change (Milkman et al., 2021). In a similar regard, research on supporting athletic endeavor
11
would appear well placed to directly compare competing/alternate theories and intervention strategies.
12
A notable example corresponds to the distinct mechanisms, and corresponding interventions, purported
13
to explain how athletes can optimally function under pressure. As highlighted earlier, some evidence
14
exists for the role of attentional processes and interventions to prevent athlete choking (Gröpel &
15
Mesagno, 2019), while a separate body of work points to the utility of athletes regulating their
16
engagement of stressors to support athlete performance, (Murdoch et al., 2021). With this in mind, it
17
would seem particularly worthwhile to directly compare the efficacy of these separate approaches, and
18
potentially also examine the utility of combining them by both harnessing stress regulation strategies
19
while also utilizing attention control strategies.
20
In addition, sport is often used as a metaphor for other life contexts (especially within the field
21
of organizational psychology), and yet the transference effects derived in sport are often not evaluated
22
in those comparative domains. While we would agree that sport represents a viable ‘living laboratory’
23
(Furley, 2019) through which human behavior can be studied, it is critical that phenomena examined in
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 38
sport be directly studied in situ in those other contexts. In addition, sport is a domain in which ideas,
1
theories, and models from psychology could be blended with those from other disciplines such as
2
anthropology, sociology/cultural studies, history, marketing (e.g., soccer as a global brand), even
3
criminology (e.g., illegal sports betting). As one example, when Colin Kapernick ‘took a knee’ in
4
protest against police brutality in the United States, this played a prominent role in shaping public
5
opinion (Stepp & Castle, 2021). From an athlete development perspective, it would seem worthwhile to
6
examine the extent to which actions by prominent role models such as Colin Kapernick contribute to
7
athlete social justice discourse/activism within the domain of sport itself, but also more broadly across
8
society in relation to child/youth development. In a similar regard, in recent years there have been
9
several high-profile cases of athletes dealing with, and talking about, their mental health challenges
10
(e.g., Longman, 2021, Newbury, 2018), with several promotional campaigns drawing directly from
11
athletes’ voices to normalize help-seeking behaviors among the general public (Bell Canada, 2020).
12
With this in mind, it would seem invaluable to examine the extent to which norms related to the
13
evolving landscape of mental health in Olympic and professional sports might translate into improving
14
help-seeking efforts both within and outside of the sports.
15
On a directly related note, given the pervasive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health
16
and well-being of societies across the globe, it would be remiss not to reflect on how this global event
17
has revealed insights into the psychology of athletic endeavor. Initial evidence from the pandemic
18
pointed to the depleted mental health of athletes during this period, that mirrored what was being
19
observed among non-athlete populations (McGinty et al, 2020), with athletes reporting increases in
20
negative emotions (e.g., depression) and impaired sleep quality (Jureka et al, 2021; Roche et al, 2021).
21
By the middle of 2020, many (professional) sports implemented the use of biologically secure
22
environments to enable athletes to compete, by restricting them from interactions with the ‘outside
23
world’ (to prevent virus contagion). Early reports emerged of athletes displaying impaired mental
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 39
health when confined to such ‘bio-bubbles’, with the prominent basketball player Lebron James
1
commenting that “I would be lying if I sat up here and (said I) knew that everything inside the bubble,
2
the toll that it would take on your mind and your body and everything else, because it’s been extremely
3
tough” (Tennery, 2020). Although some evidence exists that coaches were able to play an important
4
role in buffering against intrusive (pandemic-related) cognitions in relation to mental health outcomes
5
(Sun et al, 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic notably revealed that the effects of social isolation on
6
depleted mental health previously found among non-athlete populations (Holt-Lunstad et al, 2015) can
7
also emerge on among otherwise healthy professional athletes (Roche et al, 2021). This finding also
8
reinforces the notion that factors outside of sport can have notable effects on the psychology of athletes
9
within the sport arena. Whether this relates to examining the effects of the pandemic on athlete
10
functioning, or other extraneous variables, future research would seem warranted that examines how
11
various life events outside of sport affect the psychological functioning of athletes in training and
12
competition.
13
Another worthwhile direction for future research corresponds to examining the psychological
14
processes involved in e-sports. By 2023 it is estimated that there will be over 3 billion gamers
15
(Statistica, 2020) which is over a third of the global population. Some highly innovative work has
16
started to emerge in relation to the psychological factors implicated in e-gaming (Mukhergee et al.,
17
2019; Trotter et al., 2021). For example, Mukhergee et al. (2019) found across multiple professional
18
sports (basketball in the NBA, soccer in the English Premier League, cricket in the Indian Premier
19
League, baseball in Major League Baseball, and in the e-sport ‘Defense of the Ancient’s) that after
20
controlling for the skills of individual members, the act of sharing in prior success among members of
21
sports teams contributed to subsequent success. That study provided comparable evidence in an e-sport
22
setting to that derived from other professional sports (Mukhergee et al., 2019), and highlighted the
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 40
potential viability of both expanding the landscape of studying human behavior in competitive settings
1
(to e-sports), as well as sampling a demographic who may be less interested in traditional sports.
2
Finally, given its widespread appeal, sport has the potential to derive positive change at the
3
societal level. For example, in a particularly innovative study, Mousa (2020) randomized Iraqi
4
Christians displaced by the Islamic State to either an all-Christian soccer team or a team mixed with
5
Muslims. She found that a soccer-based intervention improved Christians’ behaviors and attitudes
6
toward their Muslim peers. Although those prosocial behaviors and attitudes did not transfer to other
7
social settings (outside of the soccer context), the results suggest that competitive sport settings could
8
be structured to mitigate divisions between otherwise adversarial groups. Given the increased
9
divisiveness that appears to have emerged in recent years, especially across North America (Rathj et
10
al., 2021), sport may have the potential to foster achievement behavior and health promotion as well as
11
also facilitate greater empathy and understanding among those with distinct social identities.
12
Addressing such a pressing issue would certainly seem to be a challenge worth pursuing by those
13
interested in sport and/or enhancing societal cohesion.
14

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 41
Summary Points
1
1. This review synthesizes research on the developmental, intra-individual, coach-related, and
2
group-based psychological factors that contribute to athlete functioning in sport.
3
2. Competitive sport frequently allows for the collection of vast amounts of behavioral data, based
4
on objective measures, which can be used to facilitate a greater understanding of psychological factors
5
that contribute to athletic endeavor and, potentially, human behavior more generally.
6
3. From a developmental perspective, early life experiences play an important role in supporting
7
athletic achievement, with long-term success underpinned by athletes’ engagement in diversified
8
sporting pursuits.
9
4. The review revealed the importance of several intra-personal psychological processes that can
10
contribute to athlete functioning, such as the use of goal engagement, disengagement, and re-
11
engagement strategies, attentional control, and stress regulation techniques to enable athletes to
12
perform under pressure.
13
5. Some intra-individual psychological constructs reveal complex relations with indices of athlete
14
achievement, including the within-person relations between self-efficacy beliefs and performance
15
outcomes that are contingent on the availability of sufficient information to judge one’s capabilities, as
16
well as the contribution of perfectionism which can both drive achievement outcomes but also impair
17
athletes’ psychological health.
18
6. Research on group processes in sport has revealed unique insights into the relations between
19
intra-composition and achievement outcomes, synergistic effects among athletes within interdependent
20
teams, as well as the extent to which athlete leaders can facilitate efficacy contagion by fostering a
21
sense of social identity.
22

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 42
7. Research illustrates the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ motivational pathways through which coaches can
1
support and frustrate the psychological needs of athletes, as well as the mechanisms through which
2
coaches can nurture athletes’ prosocial attitudes and engagement behaviors.
3
8. We suggest that research would benefit from a greater recognition of the dynamic nature of
4
psychological process that exist in sport, and embrace recent methodological advances such as
5
intensive longitudinal methods to examine (a) the time-bounded relations between psychological
6
factors and athlete functioning in situ, and (b) the efficacy of interventions that are delivered to
7
optimally meet the specific needs of athletes at the specific time(s) that they might need them most.
8

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 43
Glossary
1
Early Specialization: Intensive participation in a single sport with a focus on achieving high
2
performance standards.
3
Perfectionism: Orientation towards, and pursuit of, very high performance-standards that also involves
4
highly critical personal appraisals.
5
Efficacy-contagion Effects: Transmission of efficacy beliefs from one social agent to another through
6
interpersonal cues and communication.
7
Attentional Control: Capacity of athletes to focus on task-relevant cues and not be distracted by task-
8
irrelevant cues.
9
Stressor Regulation: Access to and use of strategies that help athletes regulate their engagement with
10
stressors.
11
Goal Reengagement: Engagement in an alternative goal, following disengagement from an
12
unattainable goal.
13
Goal Motives: The reasons that underlie the adoption and pursuit of a given goal.
14
Interpersonal Styles of Communication: Verbalizations and behaviors that are supportive, thwarting,
15
or indifferent to athletes’ psychological needs.
16
Intensive Longitudinal Methods: Collecting many repeated observations from the same participant(s)
17
to examine within-person processes in everyday settings.
18
Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions: An intervention that involves providing the right support at an
19
optimal time to derive a desired effect.
20

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 44
Abbreviations
1
COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019
2
SDT: Self-determination Theory
3
ILM: Intensive Longitudinal Methods
4
JITAI: Just-in-Time Adaptive Intervention
5

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 45
References
1
The nine boldened references (below) can be annotated, with the accompanying annotation
2
provided directly below each reference.
3
Allen, M.S., Vella, S.A., Laborde, S. (2015) Sport participation, screen time, and personality trait
4
development during childhood. British Journal of Development Psychology, 33(3):375-90. doi:
5
10.1111/bjdp.12102
6
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
7
Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
8
Amoura, C., Berjot, S., Gillet, N., Caruana, S., Cohen, J., & Finez, L. (2015). Autonomy-supportive
9
and controlling styles of teaching. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74(3).
10
https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000156
11
Anicich, E.M., Swaab, R.I., & Galinsky, A.D. (2015) Hierarchical cultural values predict success and
12
mortality in high-stakes teams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (5) 1338-
13
1343. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408800112
14
Assanskiy, A., Shaposhnikov, D., Tylkin, I., & Vasiliev, G. (2022) Prove them wrong: Do professional
15
athletes perform better when facing their former clubs? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
16
Economics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101879
17
Badawy, R. L., Gazdag, B. A., Brouer, R. L., Treadway, D. C (2019). The role of leader relationship
18
quality in the development of employee fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
19
49, 86–98. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12567
20
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engelwood
21
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 46
Barbosa, A., Whiting, S., Simmonds, P., Scotini Moreno, R., Mendes, R., & Breda, J. (2020). Physical
1
activity and academic achievement: An umbrella review. International Journal of Environmental
2
Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165972
3
Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., & Ryan, R., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011a). Psychological need
4
thwarting in the sport context: Development and initial validation of a psychometric scale.
5
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 75-102. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.75.
6
Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R., Bosch, J., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011b). Self-
7
Determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and
8
psychological need thwarting Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459–1473.
9
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125
10
[Provides evidence from self-determination theory on “bright” and “dark” motivational
11
pathways]
12
Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The controlling interpersonal
13
style in a coaching context: development and initial validation of a psychometric scale. Journal of
14
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(2), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.2.193
15
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of
16
incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 610–
17
620. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.3.610
18
Bean, C. N., Fortier, M., Post, C., & Chima, K. (2014). Understanding how organized youth sport
19
maybe harming individual players within the family unit: a literature review. International
20
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(10), 10226–10268.
21
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111010226
22

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 47
Beattie, S., Fakehy, M., & Woodman, T. (2014). Examining the moderating effects of time on task and
1
task complexity on the within person self-efficacy and performance relationship. Psychology of
2
Sport and Exercise, 15(6), 605-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.06.007
3
Beattie, S., Woodman, T., Fakehy, M., & Dempsey, C. (2016). The role of performance feedback on
4
the self-efficacy–performance relationship. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5(1),
5
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000051
6
Beauchamp, M. R., Crawford, K.L., & Jackson, B. (2019). Social cognitive theory and physical
7
activity: Mechanisms of behavior change, critique, and legacy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
8
42, 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.009
9
Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrlenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-
10
specific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
11
General, 142(3), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029852
12
Bell Canada (2020). Results and impact. Bell Let’s Talk. Retrieved from
13
https://letstalk.bell.ca/en/results-impact/2015/.
14
Bhavsar, N., Ntoumanis, N., Quested, E., Gucciardi, D., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Ryan, R., Reeve, J.,
15
& Bartholomew, K. J. (2019). Conceptualizing and testing a new tripartite measure of coach
16
interpersonal behaviors. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 44, 107-120.
17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.05.006
18
Bradley B, Johnson D, Hill M, McGee D, Kana-Ah A, Sharpin C, Sharp P, Kelly A, Cumming SP, &
19
Malina RM. (2019). Bio-banding in academy football: player's perceptions of a maturity matched
20
tournament. Annals of Human Biology, 46(5):400-408. doi: 10.1080/03014460.2019.1640284.
21
Browne, M. A., & Mahoney, M. J. (1984). Sport Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 605-
22
625. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.003133
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 48
Bruner, M. W., McLaren, C. D., Sutcliffe, J.T., Gardner, L. A., Lubans, D. R., Smith, J. J., & Vella, S.
1
A. (2021) The effect of sport-based interventions on positive youth development: A systematic
2
review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance
3
online publication. doi 10.1080/1750984X.2021.1875496
4
Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Bode, C. (2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-
5
thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs.
6
Organizational Research Methods, 19, 131–153. doi:10.1177/1094428115579699
7
Carleton, E., Barling J., Christie, A.M., Trivisonno, M., Tulloch, K., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2016).
8
Scarred for the rest of my career? Career-long effects of abusive leadership on professional
9
athlete aggression and task performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(4), 409-
10
422. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0333
11
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2017). Self-regulatory functions supporting motivated action. In A. J.
12
Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 4, p. 1–37). Academic Press.
13
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2017.02.002
14
Chen, X., Latham, G. P., Piccolo, R. F., & Itzchakov, G. (2021). An enumerative review and a meta‐
15
analysis of primed goal effects on organizational behavior. Applied Psychology: An International
16
Review, 70(1), 216–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12239
17
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2015). Giving and receiving autonomy support in a high-
18
stakes sport context: A field-based experiment during the 2012 London Paralympic
19
Games. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 59-
20
69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.02.007
21
Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. (2010). Beyond status: Relating status inequality to performance and
22
health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 920–934.
23
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019856
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 49
Cohen, K.E., Morgan, P.J., Plotnikoff, R.C., Callister, R., & Lubans, D.R. (2015) Physical activity and
1
skills intervention: SCORES cluster randomized controlled trial. Medicine and Science in Sports
2
and Exercise, 47(4):765-74. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000452
3
Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort
4
differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429.
5
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138
6
Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2022). Young people’s perceptions of their parents’ expectations and
7
criticism are increasing over time: Implications for perfectionism. Psychological Bulletin.
8
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000347
9
[Review of changes in parental expectations of young people and their effects on perfectionism]
10
Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Ntoumanis, N., Hall, H. K., & Jowett, G. E. (2016). A three-wave longitudinal
11
test of self-determination theory's mediation model of engagement and disaffection in youth
12
sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-
13
0016
14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
15
New York, NY: Plenum.
16
De Muynck, G.-J., Vansteenkiste, M., Morbée, S., Vandenkerckhove, B., Vande Broek, G., & Soenens,
17
B. (2021). The interplay between normative feedback and self-critical perfectionism in predicting
18
competitive tennis players’ competence, tension, and enjoyment: An experimental study. Sport,
19
Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000234
20
DiFiori, J.P., Green, G., & Meeuwisse W, et al (2021) Return to sport for North American professional
21
sport leagues in the context of COVID-19. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(8), 417-421.
22
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/8/417
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 50
Ducrocq, E., Wilson, M., Vine, S., & Derakshan, N. (2016). Training attentional control improves
1
cognitive and motor task performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(5), 521-
2
533. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2016-0052
3
Epton, T., Currie, S., & Armitage, C. J. (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change:
4
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(12),
5
1182–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000260
6
Ericsson, K.A., & Lehmann, A.C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal
7
adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology. 47, 273-305. doi:
8
10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273
9
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
10
performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
11
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Simon, Napeon. T, Sherry, S. B., Smith, M. (2022). The destructiveness and
12
public health significance of socially prescribed perfectionism: A review, analysis, and
13
conceptual extension. Clinical Psychology Review, 93, 102130.
14
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102130
15
Fransen, K., Boen, F., Vansteenkiste, M., Mertens, N., & Vande Broek, G. (2018). The power of
16
competence support: The impact of coaches and athlete leaders on intrinsic motivation and
17
performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28(2), 725–745.
18
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12950
19
Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., & Boen, F. (2015).
20
Believing in “us”: Exploring leaders’ capacity to enhance team confidence and performance by
21
building a sense of shared social identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(1),
22
89–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000033
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 51
Fransen, K., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Vanbeselaere, N., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2016).
1
We will be champions: Leaders' confidence in 'us' inspires team members' team confidence
2
and performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(12), 1455–1469.
3
doi: 10.1111/sms.12603
4
Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive
5
Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967
6
Furley, P. (2019). What modern sports competitions can tell us about human nature. Perspectives on
7
Psychological Science, 14(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618794912
8
Galanis, E., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2016). Why self-talk is effective?
9
Perspectives on self-talk mechanisms in sport. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A.-M. Elbe,
10
& A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research: From theory to practice
11
(pp. 181–200). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803634-1.00008-X
12
Galinsky, A., & Schweitzer. M. (2015). The problem of too much talent. The Atlantic.
13
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/hierarchy-friend-foe-too-much-
14
talent/401150/
15
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2×2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality
16
and Individual Differences, 48(5), 532–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031
17
Graupensperger, S., Sutcliffe, J., & Vella, S. A. (2021). Prospective Associations between Sport
18
Participation and Indices of Mental Health across Adolescence. Journal of Youth and
19
Adolescence, 50(7), 1450–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01416-0
20
Grijalva, E., Maynes, T. D., Badura, K. L., & Whiting, S. W. (2020). Examining the “I” in team: A
21
longitudinal investigation of the influence of team narcissism composition on team outcomes in
22
the NBA. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0218
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 52
Gröpel, P. & Mesagno, C. (2019). Choking interventions in sports: A systematic review,
1
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 176-201. doi:
2
10.1080/1750984X.2017.1408134
3
[A review of attention-based interventions to alleviate choking in sport]
4
Gula B, Vaci N, Alexandrowicz RW, Bilalić M. (2021). Never too much—The benefit of talent to team
5
performance in the National Basketball Association: Comment on Swaab, Schaerer, Anicich,
6
Ronay, and Galinsky (2014). Psychological Science, 32(2):301-304.
7
doi:10.1177/0956797620960396
8
Güllich, A., Hardy, L., Kuncheva, L., Woodman, T., Laing, S., Barlow, M., Lynne, E., Tim, R.,
9
Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Chelsea, W., & Wraith, E. (2019). Developmental biographies of
10
Olympic super-elite and elite athletes: A multidisciplinary pattern recognition analysis. Journal
11
of Expertise, 2(1), 23-46.
12
https://www.journalofexpertise.org/articles/volume2_issue1/JoE_2019_2_1_Gullich.html
13
Güllich, A., Macnamara, B. N., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2021). What makes a champion? Early
14
multidisciplinary practice, not early specialization, predicts world-class performance.
15
Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication
16
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974772
17
[A well-powered meta-analysis of developmental contributions to the success of world-class
18
athletes]
19
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and
20
Exercise, 7(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002
21
Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (2017). Great British
22
medalists: Psychosocial biographies of Super-Elite and Elite athletes from Olympic sports.
23
Progress in Brain Research, 232, 1–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.03.004
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 53
[An in-depth analysis of the life histories of super-elite athletes]
1
Harris, D.J., Vine, S.J., & Wilson, M.R. (2017). Flow and quiet eye: The role of attentional control in
2
flow experience. Cognitive Processing, 18(3), 343-347. doi: 10.1007/s10339-017-0794-9.
3
Harris, D. J., Vine, S. J., Eysenck, M. W. & Wilson, M. R. (2019) To err again is human: exploring a
4
bidirectional relationship between pressure and performance failure feedback. Anxiety, Stress &
5
Coping, 32(6), 670-678. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2019.1643459
6
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity,
7
influence and power. Psychology Press.
8
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and sports
9
performance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(4), 348–356.
10
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611413136
11
Hekler, E., A Tiro, J. A., Hunter, C. M., & Nebeker, C., (2020). Precision health: The role of the social
12
and behavioral sciences in advancing the vision. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(11), 805–
13
826, https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa018
14
Hewitt, P. L., Smith, M. M., Ge, S. Y. J., Mössler, M., & Flett, G. L. (2022). Perfectionism and its role
15
in depressive disorders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des
16
sciences du comportement, 54(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000306
17
Hill, A. P., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., Madigan, D. J. & Jowett, G. E. (2020). Perfectionism in sport,
18
dance, and exercise: An extended review and reanalysis. In Tenenbaum, G., & Eklund, R. C.
19
(Eds.). Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed., pp. 121-157). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 121-157.
20
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119568124.ch7
21
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social
22
isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological
23
Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 54
Hüffmeier, J., Filusch, M., Mazei, J., Hertel, G., Mojzisch, A., & Krumm, S. (2017). On the boundary
1
conditions of effort losses and effort gains in action teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
2
102(12), 1673–1685. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000245
3
Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, T., Morin, A.J.S., Ntoumanis, N., Berjot S., & Gillet, N. (2021). Assessing
4
interpersonal styles of communication in the work context. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5
Jeong, Y.H., Healy, L.C., & McEwan, D. (2021) The application of Goal Setting Theory to goal setting
6
interventions in sport: a systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise
7
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2021.1901298
8
Jordet, G., & Elferink-Gemser, M. T. (2012). Stress, coping, and emotions on the world stage: The
9
experience of participating in a major soccer tournament penalty shootout. Journal of Applied
10
Sport Psychology, 24(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2011.619000
11
Jordet, G., Hartman, E., Visscher, C., & Lemmink, K. A. (2007). Kicks from the penalty mark in
12
soccer: The roles of stress, skill, and fatigue for kick outcomes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(2),
13
121–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600624020
14
Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion
15
in Psychology, 16, 154-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006
16
Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q):
17
development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4),
18
245–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x
19
Jurecka, A., Skucińska, P., & Gądek, A. (2021). Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic on
20
physical activity, mental health and quality of life in professional athletes: A systematic review.
21
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9423.
22
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179423
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 55
Kaźmierczak, I., Sarzyńska-Wawer, J., Wawer, A., & Chądzyńska, M. (2020). Describing a critical life
1
event and its psychological consequences: The type of language used by patients suffering from
2
depression and its relationship with personality development. Current Psychology. Advance
3
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00944-5
4
Kingstone, A., Smilek, D. & Eastwood, J. D. (2008). Cognitive ethology: A new approach for
5
studying human cognition. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 317 - 345.
6
Kliethermes SA, Marshall SW, LaBella CR, Watson, A,M., Brenner, J. S., Nagle, K. B., Jayanthi, N.,
7
Brooks, M. A., Tenforde, A. S. Herman, D. C., DiFiori, J. P., & Beutler, A. I. (2021). Defining a
8
research agenda for youth sport specialisation in the USA: the AMSSM Youth Early Sport
9
Specialization Summit. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(3), 135–143.
10
doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102699
11
Koulanova, A., Sabiston, C. M., Pila, E., Brunet, J., Sylvester, B. Sandmeyer-Graves, A., & Maginn
12
(D. (2021). Ideas for action: Exploring strategies to address body image concerns for adolescent
13
girls involved in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56, 102017. doi:
14
10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102017.
15
Kwan, M., Bobko, S., Faulkner, G., Donnelly, P., & Cairney, J. (2014). Sport participation and alcohol
16
and illicit drug use in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review of longitudinal studies.
17
Addictive behaviors, 39(3), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.11.006
18
Laurin, J. C., & Joussemet, M. (2017). Parental autonomy-supportive practices and toddlers’ rule
19
internalization: A prospective observational study. Motivation and Emotion, 41(5), 562–575.
20
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9627-5
21
Lebeau, J.C., Liu, S., Sáenz-Moncaleano, C., Sanduvete-Chaves, S., Chacón-Moscoso, S., Becker, B.J.,
22
& Tenenbaum G. (2016). Quiet eye and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport
23
and Exercise Psychology, 38(5), 441-457. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2015-0123.
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 56
Limburg, K., Watson, H. J., Hagger, M. S., & Egan, S. J. (2017). The relationship between
1
perfectionism and psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73(10),
2
1301–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22435
3
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century
4
retrospective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127
5
Longman (2021, July 28). Simone Biles rejects a long tradition of stoicism in sports. New York Times.
6
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/sports/olympics/simone-biles-mental-health.html
7
Longo, Y., Gunz, A., Curtis, G. J., and Farsides, T. (2016). Measuring need satisfaction and frustration
8
in educational and work contexts: The need satisfaction and frustration scale (NSFS). Journal of
9
Happiness Studies, 17, 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9595-3
10
Madigan, D. J., Curran, T., Stoeber, J., Hill, A. P., Smith, M. M., & Passfield, L. (2019). Development
11
of perfectionism in junior Athletes: A three-sample study of coach and parental Pressure. Journal
12
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 41(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2018-0287
13
Malina, R.M., Cumming, S.P., Rogol, A.D., Coelho-E-Silva, M.J., Figueiredo, A.J., Konarski,
14
J.M., & Kozieł, S.M. (2019). Bio-banding in youth sports: Background, concept, and
15
application. Sports Medicine, 49(11):1671-1685. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01166-x
16
[Provides an easy-to-read overview of the concept of bio-banding]
17
Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Brees, J.R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision
18
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 120-137. doi: 10.1002/job.1888
19
May, C. (2014) The surprising problem of too much talent. Scientific American.
20
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-problem-of-too-much-talent/
21
Masters, R. & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport and
22
Exercise Psychology, 1(2), 160-183, doi: 10.1080/17509840802287218
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 57
McGinty, E.E., Presskreischer, R., Han, H., & Barry, C.L. (2020). Psychological distress and loneliness
1
reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324
2
(1), 93–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9740
3
Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D., Ho, H., Kay, J. S., Lee, T. W., Pandiloski, P., Park, Y., Rai, A.,
4
Bazerman, M., Beshears, J., Bonacorsi, L., Camerer, C., Chang, E., Chapman, G., Cialdini, R.,
5
Dai, H., Eskreis-Winkler, L., Fishbach, A., Gross, J. J., Horn, S., … Duckworth, A. L. (2021).
6
Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature, 600(7889), 478–483.
7
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04128-4
8
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy
9
measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
10
Sport, 71, 280-294. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2000.10608908
11
Morgan, P. J., Young, M. D., Barnes, A. T., Eather, N., Pollock, E. R., & Lubans, D. R. (2019).
12
Engaging fathers to increase physical activity in girls: The “Dads And Daughters Exercising and
13
Empowered” (DADEE) randomized controlled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(1), 39–
14
52. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay015
15
Mousa S. (2020). Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-
16
ISIS Iraq. Science, 369(6505), 866–870. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3153
17
Mukherjee, S., Huang, Y., Neidhardt, J., Uzzi, B. & Contractor, N. (2019). Prior shared success
18
predicts victory in team competitions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 74–81.
19
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0460-y
20
Murdoch, E. M., Lines, R. L. J., Crane, M. F., Ntoumanis, N., Brade, C., Quested, E., Ayers, J., &
21
Gucciardi, D. F. (2021). The effectiveness of stress regulation interventions with athletes: A
22
systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. International
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 58
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance online publication.
1
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1977974
2
Murray, R. M., Sabiston, C. M., Doré, I., Bélanger, M., & O'Loughlin, J. L. (2021). Association
3
between pattern of team sport participation from adolescence to young adulthood and mental
4
health. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 31(7), 1481–1488.
5
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13957
6
Nahum-Shani, I., Smith, S. N., Spring, B. J., Collins, L. M., Witkiewitz, K., Tewari, A., & Murphy, S.
7
A. (2018). Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: Key components and
8
design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(6),
9
446–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9830-8
10
Nathan, N., Sutherland, R., Beauchamp, M.R., Cohen, K., Hulteen, R.M., Babic, M., Wolfenden, L.,
11
Lubans, D. R.. (2017). Feasibility and efficacy of the Great Leaders Active StudentS (GLASS)
12
program on children’s physical activity and fundamental movement skill competency: A non-
13
randomised trial. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(12), 1081-1086. doi:
14
10.1016/j.jsams.2017.04.016
15
Neugarta, M & Richiardi, M. G. (2013) Sequential teamwork in competitive environments: Theory and
16
evidence from swimming data. European Economic Review, 63, 186-205.
17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2013.07.006
18
Newbury (2018, May 22). 'Way bigger than ever winning gold medals': How Michael Phelps embraced
19
mental health as his new cause. National Post. https://nationalpost.com/sports/olympics/ap-
20
interview-phelps-says-mental-health-is-new-passion
21
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press.
22

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 59
Ntoumanis, N., Healy, L.C., Sedikides, C., Duda, J.L., Stewart, B., Smith, A., & Bond, J. (2014a).
1
When the going gets tough: The “why” of goal striving matters. Journal of Personality, 8, 225-
2
236. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12047
3
Ntoumanis, N., Healy, L.C., Smith, A.L., Sedikides, C., & Duda, J.L. (2014b). Self-regulatory
4
responses to unattainable goals: The role of goal motives. Self and Identity, 13, 594-612. doi:
5
10.1080/15298868.2014.889033
6
[Provides a model linking goal regulation with goal motives]
7
Olsson, L. F., Hill, A. P., Madigan, D. J., & Woodley, G. (2020). Development of perfectionism in
8
junior athletes: Examination of actual and perceived parental perfectionism. Journal of Sports
9
Sciences, 38(6), 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1723387
10
Parkin, B. L., & Walsh, V. (2017a). Gunslingers, poker players, and chickens 2: Decision-making
11
under physical performance pressure in subelite athletes. Progress in Brain Research, 234, 317–
12
338. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.08.010
13
Parkin, B. L., Warriner, K., & Walsh, V. (2017b). Gunslingers, poker players, and chickens 1: Decision
14
making under physical performance pressure in elite athletes. Progress in Brain Research, 234,
15
291–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.08.001
16
Pfister T, Pfister K, Hagel B, Ghali, W. A., & Ronksley, P. E. (2016). The incidence of concussion in
17
youth sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50:292-
18
297. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094978
19
Power, N. (2018). Extreme teams: Toward a greater understanding of multiagency teamwork during
20
major emergencies and disasters. American Psychologist, 73(4), 478–490.
21
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000248
22
Quested, E., Ntoumanis, N., Viladrich, C., Haug, E., Ommundsen, Y., Van Hoye, A., Mercé, J. Hall,
23
H.K., Zourbanos, N., & Duda, J. L. (2013). Intentions to drop-out of youth soccer: A test of the
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 60
basic needs theory among European youth from five countries. International Journal of Sport
1
and Exercise Psychology, 11(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2013.830431
2
Reifsteck, E. J., Anderson, S. N., Newton, J. D., & Maher, J. P. (2021). A practical guide and empirical
3
example for implementing ecological momentary assessment in sport psychology research with
4
athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(3), 408–422.
5
https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000252
6
Roche, M., Sainani, K, Noordsy, D, & Fredericson, M. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on mental health
7
and training in US professional endurance athletes. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. Advance
8
Online Publication. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000983
9
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on
10
social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118.
11
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118
12
Rees, T., Hardy, L., Güllich, A., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H., Laing, S., &
13
Warr, C. (2016). The Great British Medalists Project: A review of current knowledge on the
14
development of the world's best sporting talent. Sports Medicine, 46(8), 1041–1058.
15
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2
16
Rees, T., Jodie Green, J., Peters., K. Stevens, M., Haslam, S. A., James, W., & Timson, S. (2022).
17
Multiple group memberships promote health and performance following pathway transitions in
18
junior elite cricket. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 60, 102159. doi:
19
10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102159
20
Rosen, M. A., DiazGranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., Pronovost, P. J., &
21
Weaver, S. J. (2018). Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care.
22
American Psychologist, 73(4), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000298
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 61
Rosenfield, S., Newell, M., Zwolski, S., Jr., & Benishek, L. E. (2018). Evaluating problem-solving
1
teams in K–12 schools: Do they work? American Psychologist, 73(4), 407–419.
2
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000254
3
Ruissen, G. R., Beauchamp, M. R., Puterman, E., Zumbo, B. D., Rhodes, R. E., Hives, B., Sharpe, B.
4
M., Julio, V. H., Low, C., & Wright, A. G. C. (in press). Continuous-time modeling of the
5
bidirectional relationship between incidental affect and physical activity. Annals of Behavioral
6
Medicine. doi: 10.1093/abm/kaac024
7
Ruissen, G.R., Zumbo, B.D., Rhodes, R. E., Puterman, E., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2021). Analysis
8
of dynamic psychological processes to understand and promote physical activity behaviour
9
using intensive longitudinal methods: A primer. Health Psychology Review. Advance online
10
publication. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2021.1987953
11
[A primer on data analysis when using intensive longitudinal methods in physical activity
12
research]
13
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
14
development and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
15
Ryan, O., & Hamaker, E. L. (2021). Time to intervene: A continuous-time approach to network analysis
16
and centrality. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09767-0
17
Ryan, O., Kuiper, R. M., & Hamaker, E. L. (2018). A continuous time approach to intensive
18
longitudinal data: What, why and how? In K. van Montfort, J. H. L. Oud, & M. C. Voelkle (Eds.),
19
Continuous time modeling in the behavioral and related sciences. Springer International
20
Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77219-6_2
21
Sheldon, K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection.
22
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 349–365.
23
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538549
24

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 62
[A comprehensive review of the self-concordance model]
1
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:
2
The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497.
3
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.3.482
4
Sitzmann, T., & Yeo, G. (2013). A meta‐analytic investigation of the within‐person self‐efficacy
5
domain: Is self‐efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance?
6
Personnel Psychology, 66, 531-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12035
7
Skinner, E., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions of parenting: A motivational model.
8
Parenting: Science and Practice, 5 (2), 175–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0502_3.
9
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Cumming, S.P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for
10
coaches on young athletes' sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
11
29(1):39‐59. doi:10.1123/jsep.29.1.39
12
Stavrova, O., & Ren. D. (2021) Is more always better? Examining the nonlinear association of social
13
contact frequency with physical health and longevity. Social Psychological and Personality
14
Science, 12(6):1058-1070. doi:10.1177/1948550620961589
15
Statistica (2020). Number of active video gamers worldwide from 2015 to 2023.
16
https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-gamers-world/
17
Stepp, K.K., & Castle, J. J. (2021) Research note: authoritarianism, racial resentment, and attitudes on
18
the Colin Kaepernick protests. The Social Science Journal. Advance online publication. doi:
19
10.1080/03623319.2021.1884781
20
Stoeber, J. (2014). Perfectionism in sport and dance: A double-edged sword. International Journal of
21
Sport Psychology, 45(4), 385–394.
22

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 63
Sun, S., Zhang, S. X., Jahanshahi, A. A., & Jahanshahi, M. (2022). Drilling under the COVID-19
1
pandemic: A diary study of professional football players’ mental health and workout
2
performance. Stress and Health, 38(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3059
3
Swaab, R.I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E.M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A.D. (2014). The too-much-talent
4
effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough.
5
Psychological Science, 25(8):1581-1591. doi:10.1177/0956797614537280
6
Sylvester, B. D., Gilchrist, J. D., O’Loughlin, J., & Sabiston, C. M. (2020). Sampling sports during
7
adolescence, exercise behaviour in adulthood, and the mediating role of perceived variety in
8
exercise. Psychology & Health, 35(11), 1368-1383.
9
https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1743843
10
Tennery, A. (2021, September 29). Living through ‘bubble’ LeBron's biggest career challenge so far.
11
Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/basketball-nba-lal-mia-james-idINKBN26L0J0
12
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of
13
Psychology, 9, 507–533.
14
Trotter, M. G., Coulter, T. J., Davis, P. A., Poulus, D. R., & Polman, R. (2021). Social support, self-
15
regulation, and psychological skill use in e-athletes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722030.
16
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722030
17
Vancouver, J. B. (2018). Self-efficacy’s role in unifying self-regulation theories. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.),
18
Advances in Motivational Science (vol. 5, p. 203-230). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.
19
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2018.01.005
20
Vancouver, J. B. & Purl, J D. (2017). A computational model of self-efficacy’s various effects on
21
performance: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 599–616.
22
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000177
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 64
Vanhee, G., Lemmens, G. M., Stas, L., Loeys, T., & Verhofstadt, L. L. (2018). Why are couples
1
fighting? A need frustration perspective on relationship conflict and dissatisfaction. Journal of
2
Family Therapy, 40, S4-S23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12126
3
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R.M. & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements,
4
critical themes, and future directions. Motivation & Emotion, 44, 1–31
5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
6
Vasilopoulos, F., Ellefson, M.R. (2021) Investigation of the associations between physical activity,
7
self-regulation and educational outcomes in childhood. PLoS One, 16(5):e0250984. doi:
8
10.1371/journal.pone.0250984
9
Wagner, J. (2021, July 2). Biden says pandemic showed ‘we need sports more than we ever realized’ as
10
he welcomes Dodgers to White House. Washington Post.
11
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/02/joe-biden-live-updates/
12
Watson, A., & Koontz, J.S. (2021) Youth sports in the wake of COVID-19: a call for change. British
13
Journal of Sports Medicine, 55 (14), 764.
14
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/16/bjsports-2020-103288
15
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal adjustment capacities, subjective well-being,
16
and physical health. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7(12), 847–860. doi:
17
10.1111/spc3.12074
18
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and
19
performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
20
91(5), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1088
21
Young, M.D., Lubans, D.R., Barnes, A.T., Eather, N., Pollock, E.R., Morgan, P.J. (2019). Impact of a
22
father-daughter physical activity program on girls' social-emotional well-being: A randomized
23

ATHLETIC ENDEAVOR 65
controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(3):294-307. doi:
1
10.1037/ccp0000374
2