Sport Psychology as Viewed by Chairpersons of APA-Approved Clinical Psychology Programs

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 1990, 4, Sport Psychology as Viewed by Chairpersons of APA-Approved Clinical Psychology Programs Arnold LeUnes and Sue Ann Hayward Texas A&M University Departmental chairpersons of American Psychological Association-approved clinical psychology programs responded to a questionnaire concerned with selected aspects of sport psychology. Of 147 chairs, 102 (69.4%) returned the instrument. The nine questions comprising the instrument were aimed at assessing the current percpion of and future predictions for sport psychology. Data analysis is supportive of the viability of sport psychology but also indicates that it is not a major curricular component in selected psychology departments at the present time. Sport psychology appears to be positively perceived by the current respondents, and there is little evidence of an impending turf war between psychology and physical education over who will control the field. However, the use of the term sport psychologist is seen as contentious in view of statelprovincid licensing laws, but no clear-cut answer to credentialing is foreseen. The world of sport and fitness (hereafter called sport) offers a most viable forum for the study of psychological phenomena such as group processes, leadership, anxiety reduction, performance enhancement, and personality, to name just a few. Too, the study of developmental psychology and women's issues is facilitated within this sport domain. It makes as much sense to study assorted psychological phenomena within the sport world as it does in the military or businessfindustrial settings, yet there are those who would challenge the validity of a discipline that concerns itself with what some would view as frivolous or trivial, namely sport. One of the anonymous respondents in the recent survey we conducted and which is the focus of this paper, said, "The idea that one should devote one's life to 'bringing out the best' in sports performance is repulsive to me... it's a sign that we have a lot of misordered values in our society." It is this controversiality of sport and its role in both the scientific community and the larger society that prompted the present undertaking. Given that sport has a rich history, is a multibilliondollar business, is a large part of national identity, and has entertainment value for the masses so in need of healthy outlets for a The authors are with the Department of Psychology at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

2 Sport Psychology as Viewed 19 variety of emotional needs-including the need to identify with something outside oneself and the need for healthy expression of physical skills and prowesswho is to say that such an undertaking is trivial? Acting on the assumption that sport is not a trivial pursuit at all but rather a most important undertaking, sport psychologists have enthusiastically attempted to contribute where they can to make the sport experience a rewarding one for athletic administrators, coaches, competitors at all skill levels, and spectators alike. Sport psychology traces its roots back to the turn of the 20th century with the publication of studies such as the one reported in the 1903 volume of the American Journal of Psychology in which G.T.W. Patrick discussed theories of play as they applied to spectator behavior at football contests. Some 20 years later, Coleman Griffith, generally acknowledged to be the father of sport psychology, created the first sport psychology laboratory at the University of Illinois. Griffith also wrote two of the earliest classics in sport psychology: Psychology of Coaching (1926) and Psychology and Athletics (1928). In 1932 Griffith discontinued the operation of his laboratory, and sport psychology, for all practical purposes, went into hiding for the better part of three decades. In 1965, a small group of interested sport psychology figures assembled in Dallas, Texas, and laid the groundwork for the first meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity (NASPSPA), probably still the most influential professional organization representing sport psychology in the world today (Salmela, 1981). Over the next 15 or 20 years there was an explosion of interest in sport and fitness, and a preoccupation with the scientific study of the accompanying phenomena burst forth accordingly. Contemporary developments include the introduction of a number of journals devoted exclusively to sport psychology (e.g., Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, The Sport Psychologist, Journal of Sport Behavior, International Journal of Sport Psychology, Quest, Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics, and Journal of Applied Sport Psychology), the creation of a new society devoted to the practice of sport psychology-the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP)-and the addition of a 47th division, Exercise and Sport Psychology, to the ranks of the American Psychological Association (APA). All of these developments attest to the continuing fascination with the interplay between sport and the broad field of psychology. However, a crucial question remains: Is sport psychology here to stay or is it, in the words of a second respondent to the aforementioned survey, a "flash in the pan, soon to die"? In a 1982 article in the APA Monitor, it was suggested that sport psychology would move from "back stairs to center court," thereby becoming a significant movement of the 1980s within the broader field of psychology (Fisher, 1982). A number of articles dealing with the professionalization of sport psychology have surfaced in the various journals in close temporal proximity to Fisher's work, and the pertinent issues continue to be debated today. One issue concerns the "authenticity" of sport psychology (Silva, 1984, p. 46). It is vital to the future of sport psychology that it be viewed as a valid enterprise by professionals both within and outside the sport domain. A second topic of continuing interest within the discipline is territoriality. The majority of sport psychologists have been trained in traditional physical education/movement science departments, hence sport psychology has largely been their province. There remains a mild paranoia in the minds of some, however,

3 20 LeUnes and Hayward that departments of psychology may want to usurp this prerogative, particularly if the stakes become more lucrative in terms of monetary gain and power. A big part of the problem here is that psychologists are thought to be academically well trained in their subject matter but may have deficiencies in academic training and actual hands-on experience as exercise scientists, athletes, and coaches, thereby undermining their effectiveness as sport psychologists. On the other hand, there are those who would take the opposite side of the same argument which suggests that, yes, physical educators may have a good understanding of sport science and the subtle nuances about sport that can probably only be gained from competition, but their training in psychology lacks depth and breadth. Which of these points of view is correct, if either, remains largely unresolved. A third item of discussion, particularly in recent years, has centered around the highly volatile and contentious issue of credentialing. Critical to any discussion of credentialing is an understanding of the licensing laws in the United States as well as the provinces of Canada. At the heart of the issue is who shall be allowed to be called a psychologist. The term is presently restricted to individuals who have a doctoral degree in a psychologically oriented curriculum, have met stringent training standards, and have passed a rigorous licensing examination. Where then does this leave the sport psychologist? No one is quite sure yet, but no prohibitions have been invoked thus far that would limit the practice of sport psychology as we know it today. Feltz (1987) has written an irn~ortant article in which she looks at the future of graduate education in sport and exercise science from the perspective of the sport psychologist. One major trend she sees in the future is the development of further specializations in sport psychology within psychology departments, a trend she links to the creation of the previously mentioned sport and exercise psychology division within APA. Feltz views this trend toward absorption of sport psychology within mainstream psychology departments as a mistake. Her counterproposal is that student interest should dictate the direction of graduate study; if the prospective sport psychologist has a primary interest in psychology, he or she should major in psychology and take a cognate in sport science. On the other hand, if the student is primarily interested in human performance, a movement science major supplemented by a cognate in psychology would be the preferred training route. Feltz is adamant in her assertion that the courses and faculty in sport psychology should remain in sport science. The preceding discussion of validity, territoriality, and credentialing, coupled with the creation of Division 47 within APA and Feltz's predictions for the future of sport psychology, led to the creation of a brief questionnaire that we sent to departmental chaqersons of the 147 APA-approved clinical psychology programs. We were interested in how one group of psychologists perceive the authenticity of their sport psychology colleagues, their views on territoriality and credentialing, and their thoughts on the future of sport psychology. It is readily conceded that chairpersons of departments offering an approved program in clinical psychology represent only one source of input on these important issues within sport psychology. For example, a most meaningful body of opinion rests with chair; of departments of physical education; their exclusion in the present case in no way diminishes their significance. Rather, it was decided for the present study to limit the sample to the aforementioned chairpersons, the underlying assumption being that they are important sources of information but hardly theonly

4 Method Sport Psychology as Viewed 21 Department chairpersons of 147 MA-approved clinical psychology programs were asked to respond to a 9-item questionnaire concerning selected aspects of sport psychology; 102 responses were returned, yelding an overall response rate of 69.4%. The intent was that only department chairpersons would fill out the questionnaire; in three cases, individuals other than the chair responded in their stead. These three responses were included in the present analysis; in the other 99 cases it is assumed that the responses were in fact from the departmental chairpersons. Some questions were aimed at assessing the current status of sport psychology within these various departments, others were designed to measure attitudinal components of the respondents, and the final question was an open-ended additional comments question. Initial coding of all data was conducted by the junior author; areas of arnbiguity were treated jointly by both authors once the initial coding was completed. As is sometimes the case in questionnaire research, some items were left unanswered by the respondents, thereby resulting in variations in the total responses to the nine items. Therefore not all questions will add up to the number of respondents (102), though most are near that figure. Results A convenient point of departure for the present discussion is to look at the status of sport psychology courses within traditional psychology departments (as well as what we thought might be other nontraditional offerings). Accordingly, the first question asked the respondents to merely check whether or not they had courses in those areas found in Table 1. The courses in this portion of the questionnaire were chosen because it was anticipated that they would vary in the frequency with which they were offered at the various schools and because most fall somewhat outside the conventional core course offerings that might be expected in most psychology curricula. Further, Table 1 Selected Psychology Course Offerings Undergraduate Graduate Psychology of Women (62) Psychopharmacology (36) Psychology of Law (30) Environmental Psychology (29) Psychology of Religion (1 9) Psychology of Sport (16) EngineeringlDesign Psychology (15) Analytical Psychology (10) Psychology of Nutrition (5) Psychopharmacology (73) Psychology of Women (41) Psychology of Law (39) Environmental Psychology (24) Analytical Psychology (22) EngineeringlDesign Psychology (1 3) Psychology of Religion (1 1) Psychology of Sport (10) Psychology of Nutrition (3)

5 22 LeUnes and Hayward it was anticipated that they would lend additional perspective on just where sport psychology might fit in the overall scheme of things within traditional psychology departments. Clearly, titles at a number of schools are at variance with those we chose for this questionnaire; it was assumed that the respondents would bridge the semantic gaps thereby imposed and give us the closest approximation possible. Data relevant to this question are portrayed in Table 1; the figures in parentheses are the number of programs offering courses in these selected areas of study, and they are ordered by frequency count by undergraduate and graduate levels. The data generally support what has been accepted as a foregone conclusion, namely that sport psychology courses are seldom offered in traditional psychology departments. It is encouraging to see that there is some interest in the area, however, with 16 undergraduate and 10 graduate offerings in sport psychology. However, it is also a bit sobering for those who have predicted that psychology departments would become more involved in sport psychology to note that 72 of 78 respondents (92%) indicated they had no plans to create such a course in the foreseeable future. Part of this reluctance may be explained in terms of already existing courses in sport psychology within physical education departments in these various universities. Nevertheless, it would appear that there is no landslide movement at this time toward absorption of sport psychology into traditional psychology departments. A summary of the remainder of the responses to the questionnaire resulted in the following conclusions: 1. Fifty-two chairs (51 %) indicated they could identify faculty members within their departments who had expressed some degree of interest in sport psychology. They were overwhelmingly supportive in their approval of the idea of offering a sport psychology course should a faculty member propose one; 73 of 86 (85%) indicated they would support such a proposal should it arise. An additional 64 of 91 (70%) respondents (again, not everyone answered all questions) said they would encourage a faculty member who might choose a career specialty in sport psychology. 2. In terms of the perception of sport psychology as an area of teaching, research, and practice, the responses covered the gamut of a 7-point Likert scale. With 7 representing the most favorable view and 1 the least favorable, the responses were as follows: 7 (1 l), 6 (9), 5 (18), 4 (21), 3 (19), 2 (lo), and 1 (6). In summary, 38 (40%) responded favorably, 35 (38%) unfavorably, and 21 (22 %) took a neutral stance on this issue. Summing those who were positive with those of a neutral persuasion, approximately 2 of 3 respondents could be counted on as either allies or at least not as enemies of sport psychology. The negative camp was well represented in the comments section of the questionnaire by the two quotes cited earlier in this paper and by a third one: "I read some articles in sport psychology journals. They weren't very sophisticated. Some articles were truly awful." All in all, however, it seems that the field of sport psychology has strong supporters within the broader field of psychology and must try harder if it wants to win the dissidents over. 3. Concerning the issue of territoriality, the respondents were almost evenly divided as to whether sport psychology is a specialty area within psychology or physical education. Thirty seven (39%) cited psychology, 29 (30%) cited physical education, and 30 (31 %) exceeded our boundaries and created a "both" category

6 Sport Psychology as Viewed * 23 we had not anticipated. The potential for collaboration across disciplines is exceptional given the responses, and this air of detente was summarized best by one chair who said, As far as I can see, the area you call sports psychology is an application of principles from many fields-psychology, nutrition, physiology, physical education. I don't think it fits well in a psychology department, but it is (and appropriately so) an interdisciplinary area. It needs experts from a variety of fields, including those interested in basic science questions and those interested in applications. At my own school... there is a distinguished tradition of people working in "movement science" (sometimes "sport psychology"). None of them are psychologists but we have excellent relations with them. Their students attend some of our graduate courses, and our faculty sit on their doctorallmaster's committees. Depending on the problem, there is much reason for interaction, but the field does seem broad to be included in a psychology setting alone. 4. The issue of credentialing occupies a prominent position in terms of its controversiality among both psychologists and sport psychologists, and the current respondents were no exception. More heat than light was generated, and no immediate answers to this thorny question were forthcoming. Forty seven of the 84 persons (56%) who answered the question about the need for credentialing of sport psychologists felt it was an issue of importance for the field. On restricting the use of the term sport psychologist to those individuals who have been licensed by the various statelprovince boards, there was a virtually even split; 48 % (41 of 84 respondents) were in favor of such limitations and 52 % took the opposite view. APA and statelprovince licensing boards were viewed as the appropriate credentialing forces by over 60% of the respondents; only 14 viewed AAASP as the source of credentialing and 5 chose NASPSPA. Some of the weakness of the latter response is undoubtedly attributable to a lack of familiarity with the sport psychology organizations on the part of mainstream psychologists. Summary In summary, there is no major movement at this time to absorb sport psychology into mainstream psychology departments insofar as the responses of 102 chairpersons from APA-approved departments of clinical psychology are concerned. Course offerings in sport psychology within psychology departments are sparse, and plans for future development are quite limited. Overall, sport psychology is viewed positively by these respondents, though there are some skeptics with regard to the validity of the discipline. There is no consensus as to the proper place of sport psychology within the academic community; some see it as a psychology subspecialty, others view it as a subdomain within physical education or movement science, and others see it as a collaborative enterprise within both disciplines. Finally, credentialing is generally seen as necessary and APA is considered to be a most viable forum for conducting this process. Nearly 50 % of the respondents would like to see sport psychologists practice only if they have met the licensure requirements of the various states or provinces. Overall, the results of

7 24 * LeUnes and Hayward this survey indicate that the newly developing field of sport psychology is neither the movement of the 1980s nor a flash in the pan. Its validity or invalidity remains an empirical question to be answered by future developments. References Feitz, D.L. (1987). The future of graduate education in sport and exercise science: A sport psychology perspective. Quest, 39, Fisher, K. (1982). Sport psychology comes of age in the 80's. APA Monitor, 13(9), 7-9. Salmela, J. (1981). The world sport psychology sourcebook. Ithaca, NY: Mouvement. Silva, J.M. (1984). The status of sport psychology: A national survey of coaches. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 55(7), Manuscript submitied: March 14, 1988 Revision received: July 6, 1989 STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION OF THE SPORTPSYCHOWGIST (ISSN ), as required by 39 U.S. Code 3685: The Sport Psychologist (ISSN ) is published 4 times a year (quarterly). Subscription fees are $30 for individuals and $60 for institutions. The owner of Re Sport Psychologist is Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc., whose office of publication is located at 1607 North Market St., Champaign, IL The editor is Dan Gould, whose address is Dept. of Physical Education, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC The publisher is Rainer Martens, whose address is Box 5076, Champaign, IL There are no bondholders, mortgagees, or other security holders. Average number of copies printed per issue (net press run) during the preceding 12 months is 1173; number of copies nearest to filing date is Average number of copies of each issue distributed after mass mailing to subscribers is 186; number of copies nearest to filing date is 78. Average number of copies of each issue distributed in mass mailing to subscribers is 657; number of copies nearest to filing date is 688. Average number of copies of each issue distributed free is 31; number of copies nearest to filing date is 32.