Psychological Foundations of Coaching: Similarities and Differences Among Intercollegiate Wrestling Coaches

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 1987, 1, Psychological Foundations of Coaching: Similarities and Differences Among Intercollegiate Wrestling Coaches Daniel Gould, Ken Hodge, Kirsten Peterson University of Illinois Linda Petlichkoff Boise State University This study was designed to assess the psychological principles used by coaches and to determine if various categories of coaches differed in the psychological skills and strategies they employed. Intercollegiate wrestling coaches (N= 101) completed an extensive survey that assessed their opinions concerning the importance of, use of, frequency of problems arising with, and degree of success they feel they have had in changing or developing 21 psychological skills. Descriptive statistics revealed that the psychological attributes of mental toughness, positive attitude, individual motivation, and attention-concentration were judged to be most important for success in wrestling. Anxiety-stress control, attention-concentration, lack of confidence, and mental toughness were reported as the areas in which wrestlers most frequently experienced problems. The coaches indicated that the strategies most easily developed with their athletes were goal setting, team cohesion, and mental practiceimagery. Finally, the coaches felt they were most successful in enhancing team cohesion and communication, and developing sportsmanship and goal setting. Discriminant function analyses revealed that coaches who had attended USA wrestling sport science certification clinics significantly differed on several psychological principles from coaches who had not attended clinics. Coaching education implications of the results are discussed, and future research recommendations are forwarded. Outlining the functions of the field in 1925, Coleman Griffith, the father of American sport psychology, indicated that the first task of the sport psychology specialist was "to make plain to young and inexperienced coaches those psycho- About the Authors: Daniel Gould, Ken Hodge, and Kirsten Peterson are with the University of Illinois, Department of Kinesiology, 906 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL Linda Petlichkoff is with the Department of HPER at Boise State University, Boise, ID

2 294 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Petlichkoff logical laws and principles that are implied in the success of our best coaches" (p. 194). Sport psychology has progressed a long way since the Griffith era. It is ironic, however, that so little is known about the psychological principles employed by successful coaches. In fact, although sport psychologists have extensively tested psychological theories in laboratory and field settings, they have spent little time observing and interviewing coaches and identifying the effective psychological strategies coaches employ. It is time to tap this important source of sport psychology knowledge-the experience of coaches who employ psychological principles and strategies every day. Although sport psychology research has largely ignored the identification of psychological principles employed by coaches, there are some exceptions. A number of studies, for example, have examined effective coaching behaviors (Horn, 1985; Peterson & Gould, 1987; Smith, Smoll, Hunt, Curtis, & Coppel, 1979; Smith, Zane, Smoll, & Coppel, 1983; Tharp & Gallimore, 1976). Unfortunately, although these investigations have provided valuable information about effective behavioral coaching, they have focused primary attention on pedagogical issues such as coach feedback and reinforcement strategies. Other important psychological issues such as stress management, goal setting, mental practice, and the development of team cohesion have not been examined in their relation to actual coaching use. In an initial attempt to rectify this situation, Mechikoff and Kozar (1983) surveyed outstanding coaches from a number of sports. These investigators interviewed 22 outstanding coaches with regard to how they incorporated psychological strategies and methods into their coaching. Topics discussed included motivating athletes, awards, match or game preparation, goal setting, and confidence development. It was found, for example, that Nebraska football coach Tom Osborne strongly believes in stressing an overall performance goal of the team playing as well as they can, as opposed to an outcome goal of winning every game. In contrast, Darrell Royal, former University of Texas football coach, spent little time goal setting but focused much attention on practice organization. Finally, Francis Allen, University of Nebraska gymnastics coach, provides no immediate feedback to an athlete after a disastrous performance. Instead he waits 1 or 2 days after the performance and provides feedback when the athlete is more relaxed. Although this series of interviews provides an interesting source of experiential knowledge about the psychology of coaching, it has several major limitations. First, questions were not standardized across all coaches, making it impossible to generalize what psychological strategies if any were successful across the sample. Second, although all the coaches were defined as being successful, coaching success was never operationalized. Third, while the authors indicated that they interviewed "scores" of high school and college coaches, interviews from only 22 coaches were presented and no rationale was given for the selection of these particular coaches. Fourth, direct comparisons between experienced and inexperienced coaches, as well as successful and less successful ones, were not presented. In summary, while the qualitative research of Mechikoff and Kozar (1983) sheds considerable light on the coaching psychology of specific individuals, problems of selectivity and lack of standardization combine to preclude any generalizations to the larger coaching population. In a related area of research, Silva (1984) surveyed 236 high school and

3 Psychological Foundations 295 college coaches representing a variety of sports, in an effort to determine the sport psychology topics most important to those individuals and to find out how coaches would like to integrate sport psychology into their programs. Results revealed that over 90% of the coaches felt that sport psychology could assist them in their coaching. Moreover, the coaches identified lack of player confidence, player misunderstanding of role, underachievement, dealing with competitive stress, concentration, emotional control, personal problems, and selfishness as critical issues in sport psychology. On the other hand, the most frequent problems they encountered were lack of team cohesion, player misunderstanding of role, underachievement, poor coachability, poor concentration, poor practice behavior, selfishness, lack of discipline, lack of confidence, and little emotional control. Silva's (1984) investigation provided important descriptive findings about the sport psychological information that coaches want most. However, no attempt was made to assess how successful the coaches were in solving the sport psychological problems they encountered with their teams. Greater insight would also have been gained if differences had been examined between various categories of coaches (e.g., successful vs. less successful, experienced vs. inexperienced) on the importance of the various problems encountered. The investigation was also limited in that usable data were obtained on only 37% of the original 640 coaches contacted. Thus, the lack of generalizability of these findings to a larger population is problematic. There is a need to learn more about the psychological foundations of coaching, particularly with regard to the strategies coaches commonly use to mentally prepare, communicate with, and motivate athletes, as well as the degree of success they perceive in using such techniques. The present investigation was designed to address these issues. It had two purposes: 1. An assessment of psychological principles and strategies used by intercollegiate wrestling coaches, with particular emphasis placed on exarnining how important mental factors are in determining wrestling success, how frequently problems arise with wrestlers who use various psychological skills or have particular mental attributes, the degree to which psychological skills or attributes can be developed andlor changed, and how successful coaches perceive themselves in changing or developing mental skills and attributes; 2. An examination of whether coaching success, coaching education, coaching experience, and NCAA Division status influenced the coaches' psychological skill and strategy variable ratings. A limitation of the present investigation is that coaches from only one sport were studied. We recognized this limitation from the beginning but felt it was most important to adequately sample a large number of coaches from one sport, coaches who represented universities of varying sizes, different degrees of coaching success, varied amounts of coaching experience, and different coaching education backgrounds. Obtaining a high survey return rate was also deemed critically important since previous studies have had problems in this area. Wrestling coaches were employed in this study because we felt that surveying coaches from this particular sport would satisfy the above stated conditions.

4 296 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Petlichkof Sample Characteristics Method The subjects in this study consisted of a national sample of 126 collegiate wrestling coaches, ranging in age from 25 to 62 years (M=40, SD=8.82). Completed questionnaires were returned by 101 coaches, or 80% of those contacted, with 50 % of the coaches representing Division I, 19 % Division 11, 19% Division 111, and 12% representing NAIA universities. On the average, the coaches had coached wrestling for 16.8 years (SD=8.90), ranging from a low of 2 to a high of 42 years. The coaches estimated that they spent 38 hours per week coaching and that throughout their careers their teams had won 66% of all matches wrestled. Some 68% of the coaches had a master's degree and 70% had earned at least one degree in physical education or recreation. Finally, 37% had competed in wrestling at the collegiate level and 32 % at the postcollegiate level, while 15 % had competed on an international team, 46% were collegiate all-americans, and 20 % were collegiate national champions. Procedures In the fall of 1985, a total of 126 intercollegiate wrestling coaches were asked to voluntarily participate in this study. Those selected represented universities consistently finishing in the top 10 in the NCAA Division I, II, 111, and NAIA national tournaments during the years 1975 to This was done to ensure that coaches of the most consistently successful teams in the country would be included in the investigation. Also included was a random sample of coaches representing a proportional number of NCAA and NAIA division universities not appearing in the top 10. All coaches were contacted by phone and asked to cornplete an extensive psychological-foundations-of-wrestling coaching questionnaire. Questionnaire The psychological-foundations-of-wrestling coaching questionnaire comprised a number of sections, each consisting of many individual items. The results of three of those sections are discussed in this article. In particular, one section focused on assessing coaching experience, degree of coaching success, and background characteristics of the coach. Responses from this section were used to describe the sample and create subcategories of coaches (e.g., less vs. more experienced). Another section of the questionnaire comprised general wrestling psychology items and examined the coaches' opinions on several psychological factors in coaching wrestling (e.g., the importance of mental factors in wrestling success, coaches' use of activation and relaxation strategies with wrestlers, how often they give reinforcement and punishment). The third section listed 21 psychological skills and/or strategies. The coaches rated the importance of, frequency of problems with, changeability of, and their success in using each skill or strategy. These 21 items were identified for inclusion in the questionnaire based on a review of applied sport psychology literature, previous research by Silva (1984), and interviews with collegiate wrestling coaches.

5 Results General Wrestling Psychology Responses Psychological Foundations 297 In this section of the questionnaire, the coaches rated the importance of psychological factors for wrestling success and their use of general psychological techniques (e-g., reinforcement-punishment) during practices and competitions. Specifically, the coaches rated the importance of mental skills in determining wrestling success at various levels of wrestling competition on a 10-point Likert scale (1 =not important, 10 =extremely important). Results revealed that mental factors were rated to be most important by coaches at the postcollegiate-international levels (M=9.39, SD= 1.11) and college (M=9.26, SD=0.95), followed by high school wrestling (M= 8.53, SD = 1.32), with the lowest mean being found for age-group wrestling (M=6.56, SD=2.51). The coaches also indicated that they used emotional behaviors (e.g., yell, physical gestures) an average of % of the time to "fire-up" or activate their wrestlers before competition, and certain other behaviors (e.g., acting confident, relaxed) 64.36% of the time to calm down or relax their wrestlers.' Additionally, 75 % of the coaches felt it was effective to coach from the side of the mat during competition (25 % felt it was ineffective), and they generally believed that a wrestler can peak 3.36 times a season for tournament competition (range 1-15 times, SD= 1.87). The most effective ratio of praise to punishment the coaches felt to be useful during practice was 80% praise (range %, SD= 12.40) to 20% punishment (range.01-50%, SD= 11.61). This ratio increased slightly during competition in that the coaches indicated that a ratio of 86% praise (range %, SD= 14.02) to 14% punishment (range.01-60%, SD= 13.74) was appropriate. Specific Psychological Skill and Strategy Responses The coaches' ratings of the importance and frequency of problems with, and use and success in, changing or developing 21 psychological skills and techniques are contained in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All ratings were made on 1-to-7 Likert scales, with 1 representing not important, infrequent, unchangeable, or unsuccessful and 7 representing very important, frequent, changeable, and successful. Table 1 reveals that mental toughness, positive attitude, individual motivation, attention-concentration, goal setting, and prematch mental preparation were the psychological skills judged to be most important for wrestling success. Attributes or skills judged to be least important in determining wrestling success included underachievement, negative attitude, and overconfidence. However, it should be noted that even the items judged to be least important received relatively moderate ratings on the 7-point Likert scales (M = 4>). Table 2 contains the coaches' ratings of how frequently problems arise with wrestlers in each area. In particular, the coaches identified the areas of anxietystress control, attention-concentration, lack of confidence, mental toughness, fear of failure, and negative attitude as those in which wrestlers mostfrequently experienced problems, although none of the items was judged to occur very frequently.

6 298 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Petlichkoff Table 1 Importance Ratings of Psychological Techniques or Skills in Determining Wrestling Success 010 of all coaches Mean rating importance important Psychological technique or skill Rank rating SD (7) Mental toughness Positive attitude individual motivation Attention-concentration Goal setting Prematch mental preparation Coachability Aggression-assertive behavior Emotional control Anxiety-competitive stress control Mental practice-imagery Leadership Communication problems with wrestlers Poor practice behavior Fear of failure Team cohesionlunity-harmony Lack of confidence Sportsmanship-character Overconfidence Negative attitude Underachievement Note. lmportance ratings were made on scales, with 1 representing not important and 7 very important. Sportsmanship-character, overconfidence, communication, team cohesionlunityharmony, and leadership were rated as the attributes or skills on which coaches least frequently perceived problems. Table 3 shows that the coaches rated goal setting, team cohesion, mental imagery, communication problems, poor practice behavior, prematch mental preparation, and positive attitude as the skills most easily changed or developed. In contrast, coaches indicated that aggression, underachievement, and fear of failure were the psychological skills or attributes most difficult to change and develop. Once again, however, it should be recognized that all of these items were identified as being somewhat changeable, as all had a mean rating of 4 or above. Finally, Table 4 reveals that the coaches stated they were most successful in developing andfor changing team cohesion, communication skills, sportsrnanship-

7 Table 2 Psychological Foundations 299 Ratings of How Frequently Problems Arise in Wrestlers in Each Area % of all coaches Mean rating importance frequent Psychological technique or skill Rank rating SD (7) Anxiety-competitive stress control Attention-concentration Lack of confidence Mental toughness Fear of failure Negative attitude Mental practice-imagery Positive attitude Individual motivation Aggression-assertive behavior Prematch mental preparation Emotional control Underachievement Goal setting Coachability Poor practice behavior Leadership Team cohesionlunity-harmony Communication problems with wrestlers Overconfidence Sportsmanship-character Note. Frequency of occurrence ratings were made on scales, with 1 representing never and 7 very frequently. character, goal setting, and poor practice behavior. Skills and strategies that the coaches rated they were least successful in developing andlor changing included aggressive-assertive behavior, underachievement, fear of failure, lack of confidence, and anxiety-competitive stress. Psychological Skill and Strategy Differences Between Coaches Descriptive and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to assess whether successful versus less successful coaches, educationally certified versus noncertified coaches, more versus less experienced coaches, and NCAA Division I versus I1 versus 111 coaches differed ontheir psychological skills and strategy ratings. In all cases, if the discriminant function analysis was significant, the univariate F and discriminant function coefficients were examined to ascertain which

8 300 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Peflichkoff Table 3 Ratings of the Degree That Psychological Techniques or Skills Can be Changed or Developed 010 of all coaches Mean rating importance changeable Psychological technique or skill Rank rating SD (7) Goal setting Team cohesionlunity-harmony Mental practice-imagery Communication problems with wrestlers Poor practice behavior Prematch mental preparation Positive attitude Attention-concentration Sportsmanship-character Individual motivation Overconfidence Emotional control Negative attitude Anxiety-competitive stress control Coachability Mental toughness Lack of confidence Leadership Fear of failure Underachievement Aggression-assertive behavior Note. Degree of change or development ratings were made on scales, with 1 representing not changeable and 7 very changeable. psychological variables consistently differentiated the groups. Predictor variables employed in all analyses included the coaches' ratings of importance, frequency of problems with, and use and success in changing the 21 psychological skills and strategies discussed in the previous section. Coaching Success. Coaches whose teams consistently finished in the top 10 in the NCAA Division I, 11, HI, or NAIA tournaments in the last decade (n = 30) were compared to coaches whose teams did not (n=69). No significant findings were obtained with the discriminant analysis on any of the ratings. NCAA Division. No significant differences were found between ratings made by coaches from NCAA Division I (n =50), Division 11 (n = 19), and Division IIIINAIA universities (n=31) on any of the psychological skill andlor strategy ratings.

9 Psychological Foundations 301 Table 4 Success in Changing Psychological Techniques and Skill Ratings oh of all coaches Mean rating importance successful Psychological technique or skill Rank rating SO (7) Team cohesionlunity-harmony OO 24 Communication problems with wrestlers Sportsmanship-character O1 17 Goal setting Poor practice behavior Positive attitude Individual motivation Attention-concentration Prematch mental preparation Coachability OO 5 Emotional control OO 3 Leadership Mental toughness Mental practice-imagery Overconfidence Negative attitude Anxiety-competitive stress control Lack of confidence Fear of failure Underachievement Aggression-assertive behavior Note. Success ratings were made on scales, with 1 representing nonsuccessful and 7 very successful. Coaching Experien~e.~ To assess whether differences in psychological skill and strategy ratings were evident between coaches of varying levels of coaching experience, the sample was trichotomized into coaches with 2 to 11 years of experience (n=33), coaches with 12 to 20 years of experience (n=34), and coaches with 21 to 42 years of experience (n=34). No significant discriminant function coefficients were found. Educational Cerlzpcation. Of the coaches in the sample, 26 had participated in the USA wrestling coaches education certification program and received considerable sport psychology training, and 75 had not. When these groups were compared, significant discriminant function coefficients were found on the coaches' ratings of how amenable psychological skills are to change (Wilks' lambda =.56, p <.001), and how successful the coaches felt they were in developing psychological skills and attributes (Wilks' lambda =.67, p <.04). The discriminant function coefficients and univariate F test results contained in Tables 5 and 6 show

10 302 Gourd, Hodge, Peterson, and Petlichkoff Table 5 Results of Discriminant Function Analysis of Certified Versus Non- Certified Coaches: Degree That Variables Can be Changed Predictor variable Standardized discriminant function Univariate Certified coefficients F(1, 97) M SD Noncertified M SD Aggression-assertive behavior Anxiety-stress control Positive attitude Negative attitude Emotional control Attention-concentration Mental practice-imagery Overconfidence Lack of confidence Cohesion Coachability Underachievement Poor practice behavior Individual motivation Mental preparation Communication problems Leadership Goal setting Mental toughness Fear of failure Sportsmanship-character * * * * * *Significant at.05 level. that a number of variables had significant F s or high discriminant function coefficients. However, in accordance with the recommendations of Tatsuoka (1971), only those items that differed significantly on the univariate tests and that had high discriminant function coefficients were identified as the key variables contributing to the differences between groups. Hence, the results contained in Table 5 reveal that certified coaches felt they could develop or change prematch mental preparation and mental toughness more so than noncertified coaches. Certified coaches also felt they were more successful in developing or changing prematch mental preparation than noncertified coaches (see Table 6 for specific results). However, noncertified coaches felt they were more successful in developing team cohesion than certified coaches. No between-group differences were found on the importance of or frequency of problems arising with the various psychological skill and attribute ratings.

11 Psychological Foundations 303 Table 6 Results of Discriminant Function Analysis of Certified Versus Non- Certified Coaches: Success in Changing Variables Standardized discriminant function Univariate Certified Noncertified Predictor variable coefficients F(1, 93) M SD M SD Aggression-assertive behavior Anxiety-stress control Positive attitude Negative attitude Emotional control Attention-concentration Mental practice-imagery Overconfidence Lack of confidence Cohesion Coachability Underachievement Poor practice behavior Individual motivation Mental preparation Communication problems Leadership Goal setting Mental toughness Fear of failure Sportsmanship-character *Significant at.05 level. Discussion General Wrestling Response Findings When asked how important psychological factors are in determining wrestling success, the coaches indicated that mental factors were most important in determining success at the higher levels of competition (collegiate and international levels). This finding supports the work of Morgan (1980), who found that psychological variables were very important predictors of success in elite Olympic wrestlers. However, it must be recognized that when the absolute values of the importance ratings made for all levels of competition are examined, psychological factors were rated as being important at all levels of involvement. Hence, the coaches believed that mental factors are key ingredients needed for wrestling success, no matter at what level the athlete competes.

12 304 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Petlichkoff The coaches also indicated that they more often tried to calm wrestlers down prior to competition than to activate or arouse them. It appears that coaches have learned through experience what previous research by Percival(1971) has shown; that is, athletes more often need to relax before competition than to be aroused. However, the fact that the coaches reported using both energizing and relaxing techniques frequently suggests that they individualize their treatment of athletes, arousing some wrestlers while relaxing others depending upon each athlete's needs. Again, this practice is consistent with the arousal management recommendations documented in the applied sport psychology literature (e.g., Harris, 1986; Orlick, 1986). With regard to continuous coaching feedback, Martens, Christina, Harvey, and Sharkey (1981) have suggested that coaching athletes while they are performing is often ineffective because it interferes with the athlete's flow or concentration state. But this sample of coaches emphatically disagreed with this recommendation. In fact, 75 % of them felt it was effective to coach from the side of the mat, whereas only 25% felt it was not. A fruitful area of follow-up research would involve a more in-depth examination of when and how coaches provide feedback and instructions to athletes during competition. Is this instructional information only given during lulls in the action? Do athletes attend to it or block it out? And do coaches provide brief "shorthand" types of instructional feedback or cues that athletes can automatically process without performance disruptions? Observational and interview studies would answer these questions and provide a much needed data base for sport psychologists when making recommendations to coaches. It was also found that the coaches felt their athletes could peak an average of three times per season. The wide range of responses found on this item (from reflect differences in the coaches' definitions of peaking, however. this finding reflects our lack of knowledge about peaking as a psychoomenon and reinforces the need to examine this important issue in, the coaches reported that the most effective praise-to-punishment both practices and competitions was approximately four praises for every ishment. This is remarkably similar to the praise-to-criticism ratio of 3 recommended by behavior modification specialists who stress the highly ide effects of using excessive punishment (see Martin & Lumsden, 87). Hence the coaches assessed in this study espouse a positive approach --aching, wherein positive feedback outweighs the use of punishment and mand. Spec bific Psychological Skill and Stra Based on the re :suits of hi concluded that the more t raditional areas of athlete and attention-c Zoncentra -esent study lend support to this notion, as the mo nal areas c mess, positive attitude, individual mo tivation, i ion-concc the attributes rated as most importanl : for wres. :ess (ratec m. t by 59 to 82 % of all coaches). Tnls aoes not mean tne nontraditi were rate lowever. I or tech- :S were rl " import above).

13 Psychological Foundations 305 Hence the coaches felt all the items played an important role in wrestling success. This emphasizes the need for sport psychology specialists to look at the mental state-athletic performance relationship as a multivariate rather than a univariate phenomenon. Moreover, coaches must have knowledge of these diverse mental training strategies that need to be used with different athletes in different situations at different times. Anxiety, attention-concentration, lack of confidence, and mental toughness were the mental attributes or skills on which problems were most frequently reported. It is encouraging to note that three of these areas (anxiety, attentionconcentration, confidence) have received much attention by researchers in applied sport psychology. Hence, these may be fruitful topics on which to disseminate scientific findings to coaches and athletes. However, mental toughness is a previously unexplored research area that deserves further definition and attenti~n.~ This is an especially pertinent attribute for high energy-demand contact sports such as wrestling, which require exhausting physical efforts in order to reach peak performance. Goal setting, team cohesion, mental practice-imagery, and communication were perceived as the areas most easily changed or developed by the coaches. In contrast, fear of failure, underachievement, and aggressive-assertive behavior were judged as being more difficult to change. From these results it appears that stable personality factors such as fear of failure and underachievement are considered to be less amenable to change by a coach. However, psychological states such as goals, cohesion, imagery, and communication skills appear to be more easily changed by the coach. If this finding is further verified, more emphasis could be placed on these topics that are readily amenable to change in coaching education programs. Moreover, the need for coaches to develop long-term, systematic mental skills training programs for changing more stable psychological skills and attributes should be emphasized. Team cohesion, communication, sportsmanship-character, goal setting, and poor practice behavior were the skills or attributes the coaches perceived the most success in developing and/or changing. Coaches reported the least success in utilizing and/or changing aggressive-assertive behavior, underachievement, fear of failure, and lack of confidence. It is encouraging to note, however, that contemporary sport psychology texts (see Carron, 1984; Orlick, 1986; Williams, 1986) have identified a number of techniques coaches can employ to change many of those behavioral attributes rated as less malleable by the coaches (e.g., mental practice-imagery, anxiety-stress control, lack of confidence). Hence, concerted efforts should be made to disseminate this information to wrestling coaches via coaching education programs. Psychological Skill and Strategy Rating Differences The most important finding identified from the comparisons of the varying categories of coaches was that coaches who had attended USA wrestling certification clinics differed from noncertified coaches in that they rated the psychological skills of mental preparation and mental toughness as more amenable to change. In addition the certified coaches, as compared to noncertified coaches, indicated they were more successful in changing the psychological skill of mental preparation. These differences may be explained by the fact that the certified

14 306 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Petlichkoff coaches had attended a USA wrestling certification clinic and received 3 hours of sport psychology instruction (focusing on individual motivation, communication, mental preparation, and anxiety management) and 2 hours of motor learning instruction (focusing on phases of skill acquisition, demonstrations and explanations, and feedback). They also read the book Coaching Young Athletes (Martens, Christina, Harvey, & Sharkey, 1981) and completed a comprehensive self-study exam on it. No between-group differences were found on the importance or frequency of problems arising with particular psychological strategy ratings. This finding demonstrates that the two groups were equivalent in their appraisal of the importance of psychological skills and attributes, and their assessment of the frequency of problems arising in selected areas. While the design of this study prohibits the determination of a causal relationship between these variables, these results are encouraging for those involved in coaching education, and they call for intervention studies specifically designed to examine the utility of disseminating sport psychology knowledge to coaches. Although the coaching education findings are encouraging, the lack of significant findings relating to the skills or attributes of individual motivation, anxiety-stress control, fear of failure, and lack of confidence are surprising given the emphasis placed on these topics in the USA wrestling coaches certification program. In particular, although the mean differences on these topic ratings favored the certified coaches, they were not found to be significant discriminators between groups. Moreover, the finding that noncertified coaches rated themselves as being more successful in changing team cohesion than certified coaches would suggest that coaching education was associated with less success in this area. These inconsistent findings clearly emphasize the need to conduct intervention studies specifically designed to examine the utility of disseminating specific types of sport psychology knowledge to coaches. Surprisingly, coaching success and coaching experience had no effect on the psychological skiu and strategy ratings. Since collegiate wrestlers have been found to differ on a number of psychological skills and/or attributes (Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981), the present findings may suggest that successful coaches do not use different psychological strategies than less successful coaches but instead recruit athletes who already have these skills, athletes who respond better to efforts to enhance them, or athletes who are more effective in utilizing these techniques. Caution must be taken in making such interpretations, however, since as a group the 101 coaches comprising the sample in this study were quite successful (M career wins = 66%). Similarly, the mean level of coaching experience for the sample was 17 years, with comparisons made between coaches with 2 to 1 1, 12 to 20, and 21 to 42 years experience. Hence the group of least experienced coaches actually had a good deal of experience. Summary and Future Research Directions Taken together, these results are very encouraging. The findings show that a group of experienced intercollegiate coaches are very interested in mental skills and their development, further verify a number of important sport psychology findings (e.g., it is more important to relax athletes than emotionally activate them), identify

15 Psychological Foundations 307 important problem areas that need further study, and provide ideas for the types of sport psychology information coaches most need. They also suggest that coaching education efforts are positively associated with the use and success of some psychological skill training strategies, although no cause-effect relationship was demonstrated. It must be recognized that although these findings are encouraging and reveal that coaches are an important untapped data base of sport psychology knowledge, only one methodological approach was employed in this investigation (e.g., a self-report questionnaire). The survey approach has limitations. As with any selfreport measure, the problems of social desirability and questions concerning the correspondence between what the coaches say and what they actually do must be considered. For this reason it is highly recommended that this approach be supplemented in future investigations by actual observations of coaches in practices and competitions, and by indepth interviews that allow for the acquisition and interpretation of rich qualitative data. Only through such a multimethod approach will this potential knowledge base on the psychological foundations of coaching be fully realized. References Carron, A.V. (1984). Motivation: Zmplic&.ons for coaching and teaching. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics. Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981). Psychological characteristics of successful and nonsuccessful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, Griffith, C.R. (1925). Psychology and its relation to athletic competition. American Physical Education Review, 30, Harris, D.V. (1986). Relaxation and energizing techniques for regulation of arousal. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak pelformance (pp ). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Horn, T.S. (1985). Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their physical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, Martens, R., Christina, R.W., Harvey, J.S., & Sharkey, B.J. (1981). Coaching young athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Martin, G.L., & Lumsden, J.A. (1987). Coaching: An effective behavioral approach. St. Louis: Times MirrorIMosby. Mechikoff, R.A., & Kozar, B. (1983). Sport psychology: The coach's perspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Morgan, W. (1980). Test of champions: The iceberg profile. Psychology Today, 14(2), 92-93, 97-99, 102, 108. Orlick, T. (1986). Psyching for sport: Mental training for athletes. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press. Percival, L. (1971). Question clinic and commentary on Part 2. In J.W. Taylor (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Znternutional Symposium on the Art and Science of Coaching. Willowdale, Ontario: F.I. Productions. Peterson, K., & Gould, D. (1987). An examination of coaches' expectations and the contingency of theirperformance feedback. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NASPSPA Conference, Vancouver. Silva, J.M. (1984). The status of sport psychology: A national survey of coaches. Jouml of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 55(9),

16 308 Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and PetlichkofJ Smith, R., Smoll, F., Hunt, E., Curtis, B., & Coppel, D.B. (1979). Psychology and the bad news bears. In G.C. Roberts & K.M. Psychology of motor behavior and sport-1979 (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, R., Zane, N., Smoll, F., & Coppel, D. (1983). Behavioral assessment in youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children's attitudes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15, Tatsuoka, M.M. (1971). Multivariate analysis: Techniques for educational and psychological research. New York: Wiley & Sons. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). Basketball's John Wooden: What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today, 9(8), Williams, J.M. (Ed.). (1986). Applied sportpsychology: Personal growth topeakperformance. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Notes 'These responses do not total 100% because coaches were asked what percentage of the time they fire-up or calm-down their athletes in two independent questions. Tor the coaching experience variable, trichotomized variable levels were created in an effort to maximize differences between subgroups while at the same time placing approximately an equal number of subjects in each subgroup. 3Mental toughness was included as one of the 21 psychological skills and attributes assessed because, in interviews conducted with coaches as part of the questionnaire construction phase of the project, it was repeatedly identified as important. Although seldom defined in the sport psychology literature, the coaches interviewed viewed this attribute as the ability to persist and exhibit consistently high levels of motivation, especially in the face of adversity such as repeated failure, intense fatigue, and goal blockage. Thus it seems most closely related to self-efficacy and motivation. Acknowledgments This project was partially supported by a grant from USA Wrestling Science and Medicine. Appreciation is also extended to the 101 coaches who freely gave of their time to take part in this investigation. Manuscript submitted: July 22, 1987 Revision received: October 1, 1987