Estudos Sociológicos da Sala de Aula

Symptomatic of a lack of knowledge being an inhibitory factor, the examination of various athlete support and health professions indicates that practitioners are yearning for a greater understanding of the application of psychological skills. Such examples include physiotherapy, in which despite implementing varying psychological techniques pertinent to the injury, rehabilitation practitioners are voicing a need for further knowledge in the application of psychological strategies (Ninedek & Kolt, 2000; Hemmings & Povey, 2002). Furthermore, despite the appreciation that particular regulatory strategies are beneficial to the rehabilitation process, physiotherapists are unsure as to the applications of such techniques (Ninedek & Kolt, 2000). Nonetheless, in refuting earlier studies in which the health profession indicated such regulatory

38

cognitive strategies as unimportant (Wiese et al., 1991), it is evident that perceptions are shifting towards the benefits of integrated psychological support.

However, this is not a universal opinion, with particular skill sets considered unimportant from the perspective of physiotherapists (Francis et al., 2000). The apparent inconsistency in opinions, especially considering equivalent sample pools, is interesting. Despite the perception that such cognitive skills are unimportant, the results indicated a disparity between an appreciation of particular regulatory cognitive skills and the need to understand stress and anxiety manifestations (Francis et al., 2000). This may imply that there is an appreciation of an outcome that is required yet the processes to achieve such an outcome are not understood.

Owing to the lack of knowledge being a prime motive for the underutilisation of psychology by ‗helping profession‘ practitioners, the educational pathways are a noteworthy discussion. Arvinen-Barrow et al. (2010) suggested that the methods of integrating psychological aspects of rehabilitation into applied practice was neglected within physiotherapy training and it would be beneficial to include such training. This would suggest that many interventions are based on intuition or ‗gut-instinct‘ formed through experiential learning (Arvinen- Barrow et al., 2010).

Further evidence for the ineffectiveness of formal training in equipping practitioners with the required psychological skill set is found in the analysis of research drawing comparisons between those that received formal education in

39

psychology as part of professional training and those that did not (Ninedek & Kolt, 2000; Hamson-Utley et al., 2008). Such examples conclude that there is no difference in attitudes or applications depending on formal education, consequently implying that the formal education of psychology is ineffective in equipping practitioners with competencies additional to those developed through experience. It appears evident that it is not the underpinning knowledge of psychology, but rather the experience of practical applications which is contributing to the underutilisation of psychological skills and strategies.

It is unfortunate that aside from research exploring the work of rehabilitation professions, the vast majority of the existing literature examines the perception towards using psychology within sport through the means of employing a sport psychology consultant. Nonetheless, this offers the opportunity to explore the barriers to incorporating psychology within sport. It is evident that there are misconceptions as to what sport psychology comprises.

Various studies have identified that a lack of understanding exists within coaching and administrative staff as to what comprises a sport psychology session (Ferraro & Rush, 2000; Gardner, 2001; Pain & Harwood, 2004; Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007; Zakrajsek et al., 2011). It is apparent that, certainly within particular domains, there is a stigma present towards the use of psychology, with the sporting fraternity equating the work of a sport psychologist consultant to that of other mental health specialists, for example councillors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists (Ravizza, 1988; Linder et al., 1991; Van Raalte et al., 1996). This is apparent more recently within English association football in which the

40

sport psychologist consultant was referred to as a ‗shrink‘ (Pain & Harwood, 2004) with little purpose over and above offering quick-fix solutions to ‗problem players‘.

It is interesting that the naivety is attributed to a lack of confidence in the role psychology has in benefiting sporting performance. Indeed, lacking confidence in sport psychology has been demonstrated as the largest predicting factor for a coach to employ such strategies, greater than both stigma tolerance and personal openness (Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007; Zakrajsek et al., 2011). This would indicate that, encouragingly, the stigma towards sport psychology may be diminishing over time, however sports personnel are unaware of the psychological strategies and how this may improve sport performance; this would partially support earlier studies in which the difficulty in quantifying the benefits was highlighted (Pain & Harwood, 2004).

An outcome of examinations of coaches‘ perceptions towards psychology is the development of a four factor model comprising stigma tolerance, confidence, personal openness, and cultural preferences (Zakrajsek et al., 2011). This unequivocally states that there is progress yet to be made in incorporating psychology within sport settings. An interesting observation is that the efficacy of coaches in implementing selected mental skills is comparable to that reported by psychologists (Zizzi et al., 2009). Thus, notwithstanding the potential of a skewed sample as the result of response bias (due to the respondents‘ interest in psychology), it is evident that sport coaches, contrary to rehabilitation practitioners, perceive themselves to be as equipped as psychologists regarding

41

the administration of mental training skills and yet still a underlying lack of confidence in the benefits of psychology exists.

A disconnect exists in which sports coaches perceive they have efficacy in implementing certain mental skills, yet the broader review suggests that coaches have a reduced confidence in the outcome of using such skills. An alternative analogy may be that it is not the confidence in the benefits of psychology per se resulting in an underutilisation; rather it is the notion that psychology is ‗common sense‘ and the role of a sport psychologist is redundant, resulting in the low confidence in approaching sport psychology consultants.

The conception that coaches can apply psychological techniques equally with psychologists is especially pertinent when examining economical and logistical barriers associated with employing additional personnel (Kremer & Marchant, 2002; Pain & Harwood, 2004). However, ultimately, this demonstrates a naïve approach to the processes and application of psychological strategies and is an area worth further exploration.

1.10.2.Time

Whilst it is apparent that knowledge of the application of psychology poses a considerable barrier, there is a perception that time availability may be a limiting factor. When examining the receptivity of athletes to psychological interventions the notion of lacking time was evident with collegiate ice hockey players expressing reservations over the implementation of psychology programme due to reducing the amount of time in order to prepare for the game

42

(Dunn & Holt, 2003). There was the opinion that the introduction of psychological skills training was a distracting feature in the lead up to competition.

Despite valuing the contribution of psychology, the concept of time presents when examining experiences of using psychology during rehabilitation processes. Time availability was considered fundamental, with physiotherapists often stating insufficient time with impending rehabilitation goals approaching resulted in psychological interventions becoming inconsequential (Arvinen- Barrow et al., 2010).

From the perspective of employing a psychology-titled professional, the aspect of time is also prevalent with the time taken away from training noted a reason for not employing the sport psychology consultant (Kremer & Marchant, 2002; Pain & Harwood, 2004). It is pertinent to acknowledge time constraints, particularly when strength and conditioning coaches are often quoted as suffering time pressures implying that additional training elements would be introduced if the time was available with the responsibility of various responsibilities resulting in an increased burden (Massey et al., 2009).

It is evident that the notion of time is a barrier to the applied use of psychology however it is possible that the perceived lack of time may be a manifestation of insufficient knowledge, either concerning the benefits of psychology or the time efficient integration of strategies. Indeed, Creasy (2009) identified that if the integration of psychological skills could be confined to 15

43

minutes per week coaches were unanimous in considering introducing a psychological component to training.

1.10.3.Culture

As previously discussed, knowledge and understanding is an instrumental factor in promoting psychology, with researches advocating the need for outreach programmes to improve understanding (Gardner, 2001; Pain & Harwood, 2004; Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007; Wilson et al., 2009). However specific cultural differences appear to contribute to the reluctance to incorporate psychology.

The ‗negative halo‘ surrounding psychology has been reported to carry expected ridicule from peers and fans at the expense of psychological support (Linder et al., 1991). Drawing possible relationships between stigma tolerance and knowledge and understanding there is evidence that coaches with a higher standard of formal education demonstrate more positive attitudes toward psychology (Zakrajsek et al., 2011). This is also reflected in athletes, as high school athletes had a marginally more negative attitude than their older collegiate counterparts (Martin, 2005).

It remains evident that within sport coaching there is a stigma attached to the use of psychology. Stigma tolerance is regarded as a limiting factor when considering the application of psychological skills (Martin, 2005; Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007; Wrisberg et al., 2009; Gee, 2010; Zakrajsek et al., 2011). The misconception prevails that sport psychology is synonymous with other mental health professions for example psychotherapy and clinical psychology (Linder et

44

al., 1991; Gee, 2010). Therefore, it is worthy to explore the reasons attributing to the presence of such a stigma. The role of stigma tolerance is pertinent in coaches and athletes alike and a predictor of intentions to employ sport psychology consultants (Martin et al., 2004; Martin, 2005; Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007; Wrisberg et al., 2009; Gee, 2010; Zakrajsek et al., 2011).

Greater prevalence of stigma exists in athletes competing in contact sports compared to those competing in non-contact sports (Martin et al., 2004; Martin, 2005). Gender role socialisation, the norms and ideologies shaping the attitudes and behaviours of constituting being either male or female (Curry, 1993; Steinfeldt & Steinfeldt, 2010; Zakrajsek et al., 2011), are influenced by sporting involvement, especially those sports that require a significant amount of physical contact to demonstrate prowess (Messner, 1995). Such sports require physical dominance demonstrated via confrontation and reinforce the perception that pain acceptance and physical risk is necessary to demonstrate masculinity (Messner, 1995).

Being involved in such contact sports can impact on help-seeking behaviour under the misconception that psychology is for the weak or even implies femininity (Zakrajsek et al., 2011). Thus, the ‗macho‘ element of sport participation is perceived to be at risk should the athlete demonstrate help-seeking behaviour. This is further emphasised by the prevalence of research demonstrating a greater stigma presented by males than females (Linder et al., 1991; Martin et al., 2004; Martin, 2005; Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007), with females more receptive to psychological input and less prone to identify with their own culture (Martin et

45

al., 2004) or associate risk and pain acceptance with their social identity (Messner, 1995).

Specific to cultural differences, demographic variations appear to be a contributing factor to the openness towards psychology. Inconsistencies are presented in what shapes intentions to use psychological interventions. For example, age and competitive level were predictive of intentions to seek additional services in North America (Martin, 2005), but not in New Zealand (Anderson et al., 2004), offering indications that the culture in New Zealand is more accepting towards psychology. In directly comparing perceptions from North America, the United Kingdom and Germany, Martin et al. (2004) identified that attitudes towards psychology can be attributed to nationality, in addition to gender and sport type. It was concluded that athletes from North America were more prone to exhibit a stigma towards psychology than those of the other examined nationalities (Martin et al., 2004). This was attributed to the cultural differences formed through capitalist ideologies devaluating individuals seeking aid, evident in the United States of America, whilst promotional campaigns have been thought to promote the use of help-seeking behaviours (Martin et al., 2004).