volume 12 number 1 – Page 2 – The Sport Journal

Motives for Sport Participation as Predictors of Motivation Outcomes in Track and Field: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Submitted by: Taruna Bhatnagar and Costas I. Karageorghis – Brunel University

Abstract

The extent to which motives for sport participation predict motivation outcomes was investigated in a study embracing self-determination theory and couched in Vallerand’s hierarchical model of motivation at the contextual level. Data were collected from 159 collegiate athletes. Motives for sport participation were assessed using the Sport Motivation Scale. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral measures were used to assess contextual motivation outcomes. Linear regression analyses examined the extent to which sport motives predicted motivation outcomes (satisfaction, concentration, and persistence). Amotivation emerged as a strong negative predictor of the outcome measures. External and introjected regulations and three intrinsic motives did not predict any of the motivation outcomes. The results do not support previous findings and offer only limited support of Vallerand’s model.

Motives for Sport Participation as Predictors of Motivation Outcomes in Track and Field: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, have been of particular interest to researchers in the field of sport psychology (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008; Vallerand, 1997, 2001). Intrinsic motivation entails participation in an activity for the feelings of fun, pleasure, excitement, and satisfaction associated with it, while extrinsic motivation involves participation for the attainment of such rewards as money, trophies, and social approval or to avoid punishment. One of the most widely applied theoretical approaches to these types of motivation is self-determination theory, or SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT also involves the concept of amotivation, or having no sense of purpose and lacking intent to engage in a particular behavior. SDT posits that the different types of motivation range on a continuum from high to low self-determination: intrinsic motivation–extrinsic motivation–amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).

Vallerand (1997, 2001) embraced elements of SDT and integrated them within a hierarchical theory of motivation. His model asserts that social factors, mediators (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), motivations, and consequences (affect, cognition, and behavior) exist at three levels, the global level, contextual level, and situational level. A number of studies have indicated that behavioral regulations spanning the SDT continuum would lead to a corresponding pattern of consequences (Ratelle, Vallerand, Chantal, & Provencher, 2004; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003; Standage & Vallerand, 2008; Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Standage, 2008; Vlachopoulos, Karageorghis, & Terry, 2000; Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, & Murray, 2004). That is, autonomous regulations and intrinsic motivation are expected to correspond with more positive outcomes, whereas less self-determined forms of regulation (external and introjected regulations) correspond with more negative outcomes, such as poor focus, burnout, and dropout. Vallerand’s proposals have found broad support in a range of sport and physical activity contexts (Standage et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2004; Ntoumanis, 2001, 2005; Spray, Wang, Biddle, & Chatzisarantis, 2006); however, to date no study has examined these proposals in the context of a single sport.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which motives for sport participation predicted motivation outcomes at the contextual level of motivation, thus affording a direct test of Vallerand’s (1997, 2001) model. On the basis of previous work (Ntoumanis, 2001; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995; Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006), it was hypothesized that identified regulation and the dimensions of intrinsic motivation would be significant positive predictors of motivation outcomes, while amotivation would be a significant negative predictor.

Method

Participants

A sample of 159 volunteer track and field athletes was tested at eight athletics clubs in the London, United Kingdom, area (66 women and 93 men). Their mean age was 19.7 years (SD = 2.8). English was the first language of all participants. Full details of the ethnicity and level of participation of participants can be requested from the second author. Eighty-five athletes participated in sprint events (53.5%), 30 in middle distance events (18.9%), 33 in throwing events (20.7%), 4 in long-distance events (2.5%), and 7 in multievents (4.4%). Their years of experience in track and field ranged from 1 to 18 (M = 5.8 years, SD = 3.5).

Measures

Sport Motivation Scale. The 28-item Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) was based on SDT and designed to assess contextual intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Athletes respond to the item “Why do you practice your sport?” with responses from a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly). The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) consists of seven subscales with four items attached to each. The participation motives operationalized by the SMS, ranging from the most to the least self-determined, are as follows: intrinsic motivation to know (“for the pleasure of discovering new training techniques”); intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment (“for the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities”); intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (“for the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity”); identified regulation (“because in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet people”); introjected regulation (“because I must do sports regularly”); external regulation (“to show others how good I am at my sport”); and amotivation (“it is not clear to me anymore; I really don’t think my place is in sport”). The SMS has strong psychometric properties (Pelletier et al.; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to support the factor structure, while correlations between subscales and criterion measures were consistent with theoretical predictions. Further, internal consistency estimates were acceptable for all subscales (α = .74– .80) with the exception of identified regulation (.63).

Affective outcome measure. Satisfaction was used as an affective outcome and was assessed using a single item: “I am satisfied with my participation in the sport I currently practice” (Vlachopoulos et al., 2000). Participants responded on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I do not at all feel satisfied) to 7 (I feel extremely satisfied).

Cognitive outcome measure. Concentration was used as a cognitive outcome and was assessed using the dimension of concentration on task at hand from the Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (Jackson & Eklund, 2002). This dimension consists of four items (e.g., “I have total concentration”) and participants provided responses on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Behavioral outcome measure. The behavioral outcome of persistence was assessed using the mean of three items: “I intend/I will try/I am determined to continue participation in the sport I currently practice during this year” (Vlachopoulos et al., 2000). Responses were provided on a semantic differential scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely).

Procedure

The study was approved in accordance with the published procedures of the Brunel University Ethics Committee. Coaches and team managers were approached by both authors, in order to obtain permission to administer questionnaires to athletes. The general purpose of the study was explained, and, subsequently, written informed consent was sought from participants. Only two athletes did not provide informed consent and thus did not participate in the study.

Prior to a training session, participants provided demographic details, then completed the SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995). Following a gap of 1 week, the contextual motivational outcomes were assessed prior to the corresponding training session. The time gap was used to reduce the possibility of any extraneous environmental factors impacting upon the relationship between motives for sport participation and motivation outcomes (Kelly, 1988).

Data Analysis

Data screening was undertaken to check for missing data and to ensure that values were within expected ranges. Univariate outliers were identified using z scores > ±3.29 and multivariate outliers using the Mahalanobis distance method (p < .001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Cases that had multiple univariate outliers or were multivariate outliers were deleted from the data file, while additional univariate outliers were reduced by modifying their raw score toward the mean, to a unit below the next least extreme raw score (Tabachnick & Fidell, p. 77). Checks were conducted for the parametric assumptions underlying standard linear regression, specifically normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals. Standard linear regression analyses were used to predict the three outcome
measures from the seven SMS subscales.

Results

Following data screening, three cases that had multiple univariate outliers and one case that was a multivariate outlier were identified and deleted. Also, 11 univariate outliers were identified and transformed to ensure that the corresponding z score fell within the accepted range (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The mean Sport Motivation Scale scores were highest for the self-determined motives (see table 1), indicating that the present sample participated in sport predominantly for intrinsic and identified reasons rather than external and introjected reasons.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Sport Motivation Scale and Outcome Measures

VariableMSDRangeSkewnessKurtosis

Sport Motivation Scale
Amotivation	7.46	4.24	4.00-2.00	1.24	0.97
External regulation	15.35	4.68	4.00-27.00	0.14	-0.45
Introjected regulation	15.90	5.53	4.00-28.00	0.25	-0.67
Identified regulation	15.98	4.74	4.00-28.00	0.10	-0.42
Intrinsic motivation to know	19.88	4.34	9.00-28.00	-0.19	-0.57
Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishments	21.50	3.92	10.00-28.00	-0.56	-0.38
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation	20.68	3.72	11.00-28.00	-0.26	-0.35
Outcome measures
Satisfaction	5.40	1.25	1.00-7.00	-1.25	1.42
Concentration	15.26	2.18	9.00-20.00	0.19	-0.15
Persistence	6.89	0.27	6.00-7.00	-2.46	4.92

Normality checks of skewness and kurtosis values indicated that the only problematic variable among the 10 examined was persistence (see table 1). This is indicative of the fact that participants generally indicated strong intentions to persist in track and field. Given that this was the only problematic variable, a decision was taken not to apply logarithmic transformation.

Thereafter, three separate linear regression analyses were conducted to predict each outcome measure from the SMS subscales (see table 2). Collectively, independent variables revealed a significant (p < .01) overall prediction within each regression equation. Amotivation emerged as a strong negative predictor of each of the three motivation outcomes. Contrary to expectations, the intrinsic motives did not predict the outcome measures in any of the equations. The predictor variables accounted for the highest degree of percentage variance in the outcome of satisfaction (16%), followed by concentration (9%), and persistence (6%).

Table 2

Standard Linear Regression to Predict Motivation Outcomes from Motives for Sport Participation

Dependent variablePredictor variableStandardized beta (β)

Satisfaction	Amotivation	-0.40*
	External regulation	0.18
	Introjected regulation	-0.06
	Identified regulation	-0.02
	Intrinsic motivation to know	0.05
	Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment	0.02
	Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation	0.09
R = 0.45
R² = 0.16
Concentration	Amotivation	-0.24*
	External regulation	0.19
	Introjected regulation	-0.02
	Identified regulation	-0.06
	Intrinsic motivation to know	-0.16

Note. The analysis of variance corresponding with each linear regression analysis was significant (p < .01).

* p < .01.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which motives for sport participation predicted motivation outcomes at the contextual level of motivation in a single sport. More specifically, this study examined the proposition that more self-determined forms of motivation are positively associated with motivation outcomes than either their controlling counterparts or amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Results indicated that amotivation negatively predicted the contextual motivation outcomes, which corroborates recent findings pertaining to this dimension (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Wilson et al., 2004). However, neither intrinsic motives nor external or introjected regulations predicted any of the outcome measures. Collectively, the present results appear to offer only very limited support for the research hypothesis; autonomous regulations and intrinsic motivation were not positive predictors of the motivation outcomes.

Contrary to expectations, the present findings do not support those of previous studies which showed that identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were positively associated with motivation outcomes at the contextual level of motivation (Wilson et al., 2004; Ntoumanis, 2001; Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006). It is plausible that the predictive efficacy of intrinsic motivation to know may be lower in track and field than in some other sports, because track and field is primarily a motoric sport involving relatively few tactics; athletes follow their coaches’ instructions closely and do not exhibit a particularly deep desire to explore new performance strategies. However, it is acknowledged that anecdotal evidence suggests this may not generalize to elite performers (Johnson, 1996; Lewis & Jeffrey, 1990). A further plausible cause for the anomalous findings is that coaches emphasize and strongly encourage peer or social comparison (competition) among athletes, which may well weaken the link between intrinsic motivation and outcomes (Spray et al., 2006; Whitehead, 1993).

The regression analyses predicted a relatively small percentage of the variance in the cognitive and behavioral outcomes but a considerable percentage of the affective outcome (16%). This indicates that behavioral regulations are strong predictors of how people feel about their participation in sport. Most notably, amotivation was found to be a strong antithetical marker of satisfaction, a finding that is entirely consistent with theoretical predictions (Ntoumanis, 2001; Wilson et al., 2004). This implies that if coaches are to address the potentially deleterious effects of amotivation, an effective strategy would be to apply mood- and emotion-regulation strategies and to demonstrate some sensitivity toward athletes’ affective states.

Another interesting aspect of track and field which may, to a degree, account for the somewhat anomalous findings, is its multidisciplinary nature. This means not only are psychological needs underlying intrinsic motivation being frustrated by the sport’s coactive nature and emphasis on social comparison, there is in addition a further level of competition between event groups, for example sprints versus throws or jumps versus distance running. Proponents of each event group vie for use of facilities, limited financial resources, and media attention. This fusion of conflicting forces makes track and field a very distinct sport, which may account for the present results’ lack of support for the propositions of SDT. This is indeed the first study in the sport literature to offer a voice of dissent by suggesting that SDT has very limited predictive efficacy in terms of motivation outcomes.

Limitations of the Present Study

Data for the present study were collected at the height of the summer track and field season, and participants were, consequently, immersed in their preparations for competition. A strong orientation toward performance outcomes may have served to undermine their intrinsic motivation to a degree. More specifically, the overt emphasis on competition at that time of year may have promoted an external locus of causality, given that competition is
inherently controlling in nature (Fortier, Vallerand, Briere, & Provencher, 1995; Vansteenkiste & Deci, 2003).

The varying participation levels of athletes in the present sample could also have accounted for unexpected findings pertaining to the predictive efficacy of self-determined forms of motivation. Essentially, it is conceivable that different combinations of motives may be relevant to athletes competing at different levels. For example, the external regulation score of international athletes (M = 16.37) indicated that their sport participation was less self-determined than was the participation of their recreational counterparts (M = 14.71), albeit this difference did not reach statistical significance (p < .05).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The present findings provide very limited support for Vallerand’s (1997, 2001) hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and, indeed, for posits of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Contrary to expectations, results indicated that amotivation was the only predictor of the contextual motivational outcomes.

The practical implications of the present findings lie in promoting factors that underpin intrinsic motivation in track and field. Perceptions of autonomy and individual mastery will nurture intrinsic motivation and ultimately improve sport performance (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006; Whitehead, 1993; Wilson & Rodgers, 2004). Coaches should emphasize positive sensations such as fun and excitement that result from participation, while tempering their emphasis on peer comparison (Taylor et al., 2008; Whitehead, 1993). Further, coaches should be trained in the principles underlying emotional intelligence, given that the present findings suggest that sensitivity to athletes’ affective states is likely to buffer the potentially negative consequences of amotivation.

A promising direction for further research would be to investigate the psychological need for relatedness, given that much past sport motivation research has focused on the need for autonomy and the need for competence (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2008; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). It appears likely that the need for relatedness may be frustrated in track and field, owing to the track and field sports’ potential for conflict and coaches’ overt emphasis on peer comparison.

Future research should explore additional motivation outcomes, for example cognitive outcomes such as attention span and level of learning (Ntoumanis, 2001). Moreover, additional research is warranted into the antecedents of amotivation, in order to minimize negative consequences such as burnout and dropout. Finally, replication of the present study during the off-season would yield insightful comparative data, since participation in track and field is orientated more toward self-development than it is toward peer or social comparison. The predictive efficacy of sport motives may well vary from competitive periods to noncompetitive periods, and this would hold important implications for theory development.

References

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-68.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.

Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). A test of self-determination theory in the exercise domain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 2240-2265.

Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., & Provencher, P. (1995). Competitive and recreational sport structures and gender: A test of their relationship with sport motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 24-39.

Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 133-50.

Johnson, M. (1996). Slaying the dragon. New York: HarperCollins.

Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1988). On time and method. London: Sage.

Lewis, C., & Jeffrey, M. (1991). Inside track: My professional life in amateur track and field. London: Sphere Books.

Ntoumani, C. T., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). The role of self-determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and physical self-evaluation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 393-404.

Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-42.

Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444-453.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.

Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Chantal, Y., & Provencher, P. (2004). Cognitive adaptation and mental health: A motivational analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 459-76.

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397-428.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.

Spray, C. M., Wang, C. K. J., Biddle, S. J. H., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2006). Understanding motivation in sport: An experiment test of achievement goal and self determination theories. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 43-51.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 97-110.

Standage, M., & Vallerand, R. J. (2008). Self-determined motivation in sport and exercise groups. In M. R. Beauchamp & M. A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics advances in sport and exercise psychology: Contemporary themes (pp.179-199). New York: Routledge.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 75-94.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 29 (pp. 271-360). New York: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263-320). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620.

Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142-69.

Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Competitively contingent rewards and intrinsic motivation: Can losers remain motivated? Motivation and Emotion, 27, 273-99.

Vlachopoulos, S. P., Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Motivation profiles in sport: A Self-determination Theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 387-97.

Whitehead, J. R. (1993). Physical activity and intrinsic motivation. Physical Activity and Fitness Research Digest, 1, 1-8.

Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2004). The relationship between perceived autonomy support, exercise regulations and behavioral intentions in women. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 229-242.

Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Fraser, S. N., & Murray, T. C. (2004). Relationships between exercise regulations and motivational consequences in university students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 81-92.

U.S. Sports Academy2016-04-01T09:43:41-05:00October 7th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Advantages of Diversifying the Funds of Sports Organizations

Submitted by: Aaron G. Lawson – Acworth, Georgia

Advantages of Diversifying the Funds of Sports Organizations

Diversification of funds is a hot topic in the business world. The sports world must adapt and apply diversification principles in order to maximize the stability of sports organizations. Diversification is a generic term that can be applied to assets, funds, and investors. Making sure these financial factors are well maintained is critical to the overall fiscal success of a sports organization. This paper seeks to establish the importance of diversifying funds within sports organizations. It also investigates the financial advantages of diversification, which include percentage return, stability, and investors. The paper is an exploration tailored to individuals who want to discover the importance of diversification, for example coaches, administrators, and the general public.

One definition of diversification is “an investment fund that contains a wide array of securities to reduce the amount of risk in the fund” (Diversified Fund, n.d.). The logic beneath advocating diversification is that “Actively maintaining diversification prevents events that affect one sector from affecting an entire portfolio, making large losses less likely” (Diversified Fund, n.d.). Diversification, then, is a key component of achieving long-term financial stability and success.

In discussing diversification of funds, one acknowledges two general categories of funds, the diversifiable and undiversifiable. Diversifiable funds are those that can be controlled by the company, for example choosing where to invest monies, choosing the amount of money to be diversified, the business and financial risk associated with types of investments, and the current status of diversification options. Undiversifiable funds involve matters beyond an organization’s control, such as rates of currency exchange, political developments, fluctuations in investment fields, and interest rates. To become and remain financially sound, a sports business must take all of these under consideration as it identifies the method of diversification that best serves its needs (Chamberlain, 2003).

Diversifying funds is a serious endeavor for financial organizations. There are many factors to consider before reaching a final decision. An organization must decide if diversification will benefit its financial needs, including determining any long-term benefits to its fiscal well-being (Brooks & Kat, 2002). Every sports organization has unique needs; every team in a league has its own unique needs, as well, given that different team-owning corporations emphasize different areas of finance. Deciding on the proper amount of diversification can be an arduous task, but it is worth the time and effort, because the economic stability of the organization is at stake.

Because diversification has become increasingly popular, diversification options have expanded. Many banks, other financial outfits, and sports establishments now offer guidance or services aimed at funds diversification. Understanding one’s organization’s particular needs is essential in determining the most effective diversification method. Its monetary structure must be thoroughly scrutinized. Investing without fully understanding the organization’s status could prove disastrous.

Importance of Liquid Cash

Liquidity describes “how fast something can be turned into cold hard cash” (Kennon, n.d.). Keeping much liquid cash is considered by many to be a waste of investment potential; however, it has proved beneficial in some instances. For example, when catastrophe strikes some area (or areas) of investment, those portions of a financial portfolio which are liquid would suffer minimal damage. The September 11, 2001, events, for example, had a tremendous negative effect on financial stability. In the wake of the attacks, many of the United States’ financial structures suffered from a dramatic decrease in consumer confidence. Stock market investors even had to endure a 4-day freeze on their holdings. This had an incredible impact on America’s confidence in the market. Because catastrophe in inherently unpredictable, there is a sense of security in keeping some part of an organization’s finances liquid (Kennon, n.d.).

Traditionally, bank accounts have been regarded as a safe alternative to investments. Although savings accounts generally offer less return on one’s money, the money in such accounts is generally secure even in the event of an emergency. Having quick access to money can be the difference between a business’s success and its failure. When companies or sports organizations have most of their money tied up in nonliquid investments or holdings and an immediate need for funds arises, it can be difficult to fulfill that need. If a sports organization is going through a downturn in terms of ticket sales or sponsorships, the team may find itself unable to make payroll, which requires liquid cash. Such instability can have far-reaching effects on consumer support, fan support, and the general appeal of the organization within the sports community. Keeping adequate supplies of liquid cash allows sports organizations to continue to function throughout trying economic periods, and persisting in rocky times will allow an organization to develop and achieve success.

Diversification of finances helps to eliminate the effects of sudden changes in particular areas of investment. These specific changes are generally referred to as unsystematic risks, and they strike when least expected, by their very nature producing devastating effects on those invested too heavily in the stricken area. In this instance, the term unsystematic means that the investment did not meet expectations, but was drastically affected by an unforeseen circumstance like fire, strike, or scandal. Unpredictable, unsystematic risks frequently influence the liquidity of an investment.

Liquidity, again, is the capacity of a financial holding to be turned into cash without being affected by the present economy. The liquidity of diversification can prove to be extremely beneficial to sports organizations, because of their constant need for liquid cash. Furthermore, the more liquid the diversified investment, the safer is the money that was invested. However, liquidity’s price is often a lower return. Common forms of liquid assets are certificates of deposit, stocks, and bonds. While most experts consider certificates of deposit to be relatively liquid, there is a penalty for withdrawing funds froms certificates prior to a date set as the certificates’ date of maturity. Stocks and bonds are regarded as slightly less liquid than certificates of deposit, although both can typically be converted into cash within a couple days.

Liquid cash is viewed as an organization’s heart and soul. This is particularly relevant to sports organizations because of their direct need for cash. Operational cash flow must be sustained by the organization if the organization is to be deemed successful. Banks are the safest course for organizations aiming to maintain operational cash flow, because banks often act as a mediator between investments and ready cash. The basic rule of liquidity is simple and finite within a sports organization: If the organization cannot meet its financial needs, it will fail.

Savings Accounts

Savings accounts are commonplace in today’s economic structure. They are a safe alternative to risking money in investments which may never produce a return. Savings accounts are a way to save money that does not immediately need to be spent; the money is considered liquid because it is easily accessed—although it is not as liquid as funds in a checking account. Checking accounts are the most fluid form of investment, because banks administering the accounts assume the money will be promptly retrieved. For this reason, checking accounts tend to offer lower interest rates than savings accounts. Banks offer many types of savings accounts, but it is important to research associated fees and interest rates before determining which savings account is right for one’s business. Because savings accounts are not accessed as frequently as checking accounts, banks pay a higher interest rate on savings. Savings account interest rates are often between 1% and 3%, depending on the institution and type of account.

Savings accounts have changed over the past 20 years. Online banking services have led to a transitioning of the traditional savings account, one in which deposited savings slowly built interest. Owners of savings accounts in the past had to wait for earned interest, which was applied to deposits only on a few preset dates throughout the year. With online banking, interest is applied minute by minute, making an account’s maturity instantaneous.

Banks can pay interest on savings deposits because they use the money to fund loans, on which they charge interest greater than the interest paid to savers. In short, the banks are selling the money (Pritchard, n.d.). Savings accounts are viewed as safe because the money is insured. If something were to happen to the bank, the money would always be recoverable, thanks to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a government bank-insurance program established after the Great Depression.

Sports organizations often take advantage of savings accounts to keep their resources in a safe place, out of the hands of individuals, since there is a history of individuals mishandling teams’ funds. Keeping money in a secured savings account eliminates part of that problem, because the money is easily traced to and from the bank. Professional sports teams that have substantial sums to keep in savings accounts can benefit greatly from interest earned. In short, it has become a necessity for businesses to possess savings accounts. Savings accounts allow businesses to store money and yet, simultaneously, gain interest. One of the prime advantages of a savings account is that the money stays separate from the normal circulation of funds.

Investors

Obtaining investors is one of the most challenging, and also most potentially profitable, aspects of stabilizing a business’s finances. When businesses begin operations, money is often hard to come by; money from investors can mean the difference between success and failure. Investors are individuals or businesses that provide money to an organization, in hopes of receiving a financial return on their investment. Investors can invest money in various facets of organizations, ranging from advertisement to stocks and bonds. The bottom line is that organizations have a great need for investors’ money during the start-up phase, and investors expect financial progress on an organization’s part, in order to maximize return on their investments. It is a situation not free of stress: The start-up business and its investors are concerned that the business become financially stable and able to turn a profit (Arnold, n.d.). And investor confidence is time sensitive; the longer it takes the business to become established, the greater the impact on investor confidence.

Small sports companies and entrepreneurs may be able to fund their business opportunities helped by friends and family only. Or, they may look to “angel investors.” Corporations must be cautious about involving angel investors (Advani, 2006). They typically do not have access to large amounts of money, and a corporation will need to ensure that the funds offered are actually available.

Information is the key to attracting investors. Investors need to know the current status of the organization and the rate of growth within its market. Having information about an organization’s competition can also enhance investors’ confidence. Many investors require the signing of an investment agreement establishing a framework, rules, and guidelines for the investment, outlining the steps to be followed to achieve success. An investment agreement makes clear that a new business is serious about its long-term profitability. Companies often use two forms of communication to maintain healthy investor relationships, the record of growth statement and the financial statement. The information in these statements provides investors the bottom line on their investments’ current status. If used properly, the statements also show investors that the business is able to set and meet (or at least approach) goals, which can be a great advantage in maintaining investor confidence.

Stock and Bonds

Professional sports organizations that own sufficient resources have an opportunity to make investments of their own—in stocks and bonds. If the investments are sound, the organization’s worth can grow markedly. Purchasing stocks and bonds is a common means of diversifying funds. Stocks can be purchased by the general public and represent ownership in companies. The price of stock issued by companies that are experiencing success goes up, allowing the investor to receive more money than he or she invested. The price of stock issued by companies that struggle goes down, and an investor may not only see no return on investment, he or she may lose the money initially paid for the stock. Unlike stocks, bonds do not represent ownership, being more akin to a loan. A company issues a bond in order to raise money to fund its daily operations. The purchaser of a bond is essentially loaning the purchase price to the company for a specified time, having been promised by the company that when the time elapses, the loan and interest will be returned. Both stocks and bonds are means of diversification that are considered lucrative and are readily accessible in today’s financial structure.

In the stock market, where stocks are bought and sold, the basic strategy is, of course, buy low and sell high. But investors regularly fall short of this aim, since the market can be unpredictable. In such instances, diversification can play a major role in investors’ overall success in the stock market. To use the old cliché, not putting all the eggs in one basket—in other words, investing in more than one kind of stock—can protect an investor, since falling stock prices in one area of the market may not affect prices in other areas. Diversifying the categories of stocks in which one invests is also a protective measure. If all of one’s eggs are transportation-related—if one purchases only automotive and aerospace and railroad stocks—the development of adverse economic conditions affecting transportation could wipe out the investment. Bonds are viewed as more stable than stocks, since they comprise a financial agreement between investors and bond issuers. Because they entail fewer risks, bonds generally yield smaller returns than stocks.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversification

The basic reasoning behind diversification is to make a financial portfolio less volatile. Diversification lowers the possibility of one bad investment affecting the stability of a financial portfolio. In order to take full advantage of diversifying a portfolio, one must invest in different types of assets that move in different directions and to different rhythms. The following are some key advantages of diversification, according to Klein and Saidenberg (1998):

Money is invested in various assets, not consolidated in one
Investors may benefit financially from many markets
Investors are not wholly financially affected by one poor investment
Return on diversified investments is higher, traditionally, than return on money kept in cash holdings
Diversification adds stability to and reduces volatility within a financial portfolio

While diversification tends to serve investors well, overdiversification is not advisable. Overdiversification means spreading investments over too many opportunities too thinly. Overdiversified investments lack opportunity to prosper. While essential in today’s economy, diversification of funds does have a limit, and most experts set it at 20 investments or assets at one time (Dangers of Over-Diversification, n.d.). An organization that invests in more than 20 entities may well find that its funds begin to plateau rather than increase, because the amount of money available for each investment does not carry its own weight within the investments (Dangers of Over-Diversification, n.d.).

Summary and Conclusions

Anything a sports organization possesses or controls is considered an asset. How its assets are managed determines the financial steadiness of an organization. Today, sports organizations’ assets typically extend far beyond bank accounts. For example, corporate funds are invested in stocks and bonds. In order to achieve financial success, professional sports organizations must acquire funding. When it is not forthcoming from a league, it may be obtained from other corporations, from private investors, or in the form of secured bank loans.

Diversification of assets may have become a buzzword, fun to discuss, but it should be remembered that diversification requires understanding and serious preparation, including trial and error that frequently comes with a price tag. To truly diversify one’s funds requires constant monitoring of one’s investments. Investments are never foolproof; unavoidable risk is the nature of investment. Businesses that seek to diversify their funds do so to reduce the volatility of their financial portfolio. Many sports organizations benefit from diversification, in light of the financial fluctuations which occur from month to month and, especially, season to season. In the course of a competitive season, a sports organization may be responsible to pay out millions of dollars. It is thus vital that the organization maintain a sound financial structure providing ready access to needed funds. If a sports organization is unable to fund its own team, the consequences reach beyond angry players; they can shake the foundation of the organization: fan support, community support, ticket sales, consumer sales, advertising sales, consumer confidence. Diversification acts against such a situation by sustaining investments in various investment fields, increasing the chances of having accessible money.

Ready availability of the professional sports organization’s money can mean success; the lack of it can mean failure. Professional sports businesses are always in need of cash—not just assets, but cash. But keeping assets in cash means the money is not earning much interest or otherwise making the organization money. Money will always earn more when it is placed in the hands of financial institutions that loan or invest it. Because professional sports organizations require a frequent turnover of funds, a smaller portion of their overall worth is available to be invested. Thus the recommended ratio of liquid funds to other funds is different for professional sports organizations than for many other corporations: 60:40. Professional sports organizations are unlike many other businesses in needing substantial amounts of cash to sustain day-to-day operations. Of course, from team to team, unique and varying needs and financial statuses mean that the 60:40 rule is actually a rule of thumb.

Diversification today is looked on as a prerequisite for securing financial permanence. The world has embraced the concept, and many options are offered for taking full advantage of diversification’s benefits. Professional sports corporations operate within a highly volatile system that nevertheless demands financial stability. Diversification of funds helps sports organizations develop a solid base able to withstand bumps in the road. The telephone, when it was newly available, seemed a luxury for the few; today it seems a necessity. The same can be said of funds diversification; once a strategy for investment adepts to consider, it has become a necessity for operating corporations. Knowledge of diversification is key, and the sports organization that does its homework is likely to benefit greatly from diversification, minimizing the strategy’s risks.

References

Advani, A. (2006, October 12). Raising money from informal investors: The devil’s in the details when taking money from—and structuring a deal with—friends, family and angel investors. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.entrepreneur.com/money/financing/startupfinancingcolumnistasheeshadvani/article168860.html

Arnold, R. (n.d.). Finding investors and hard money lenders. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from the Creative Real Estate Online.com website: http://www.creonline.com/money-ideas/mm-038.html

Brooks, C., & Kat, H. M. (2002). The statistical properties of hedge fund index returns and their implications for investors. The Journal of Alternative Investments, 26-44.

Chamberlain, G. (2003). Funds, factors, and diversification in arbitrage pricing models. Econometrica, 51, 1305-1323.

The Dangers of Over-Diversification. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/051601.asp

Diversified fund: What does it mean? (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2008, from the Investopedia website: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/diversifiedfund.asp

Kennon, J. (n.d.). The importance of liquidity and liquid assets: A lesson from September 11th. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from the About.com website: http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/banking/a/091102a.htm

Klein, P. G., & Saidenberg, M. R. (1998). Diversification, organization, and efficiency: Evidence from bank holding companies (Working Paper No. 97-27). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Center for Financial Institutions.

Pritchard, J. (n.d.). Bank savings accounts: Best uses for bank savings accounts. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from the About.com website: http://banking.about.com/od/savings/a/savingsaccount.htm

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-07T11:41:44-05:00October 7th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management|Comments Off

An Examination of Preservice Routines of Elite Tennis Players

Submitted by: Noah B. Gentner – Ithaca College, Theodore J. McGraw – University of Tennessee, Stephen Gonzalez and Daniel R. Czech – Georgia Southern University

Abstract

A preperformance routine may support consistent optimal performance. Preperformance routines’ benefits for closed skills are largely accepted, but effects of time and situational factors are little understood, nor have results of altering movements of preperformance routines been much studied. This observational study investigated preservice routines of 4 elite tennis players. Inconsistent with much prior research, the presence of a routine did not enhance performance in this study: Mean serving percentage measured 66% for players with routines, 69% for others. The findings do support Jackson (2003) and Jackson and Baker (2001), studies of rugby players forced to alter routines during competition. Observation of preservice routines and performance over several months at various tournaments may advance the research on this topic.

An Examination of Preservice Routines of Elite Tennis Players

The development and administration of a preperformance routine has been linked to optimal and consistent performances in many activities. Past research has shown the positive effects of preperformance routines in various sports, including tennis (Moore, 1986), golf (Cohn, Rotella, & Lloyd, 1990), bowling (Kirschenbaum, Ordman, Tomarken, & Holtzbauer, 1982), basketball (Czech & Burke, 2003; Lobmeyer & Wasserman, 1986; Wrisberg & Pein, 1992), and skiing (Orlick, 1986). Preperformance routines seem most beneficial within closed skill and self-paced tasks found in these sports, for example free-throw shooting in basketball, serving in tennis, kicking in football, and putting in golf.

Previous research has shown that preperformance routines can help athletes focus attention, enhance confidence, eliminate distractions, and reduce anxiety (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). Eliminating distractions and focusing attention creates an ideal state of concentration prior to performance; consistently replicating this state of concentration can create consistent performances (Schmidt & Peper, 1998). Focus and concentration allow for other psychological skills (i.e., visualization and relaxation) to be implemented during the preperformance routine, which helps block any external stressors and unwanted environmental stimuli (Schmidt & Peper, 1998). The ability to eliminate distractions before a performance may be the difference between a good athlete and a great one (Orlick, 1997).

Another benefit of preperformance routines is that they structure and organize the time leading up to a desired task, mentally preparing the athlete for the performance (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). For example, Crews and Boutcher (1987) observed the preperformance routines of golfers in the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), measuring the time taken for routines. Results indicated that all the golfers were automatic in their routines, starting and finishing with consistent and purposeful actions and completing their routines in a consistent amount of time. Purposeful behavior is key to consistent and effective performance during a preperformance routine. Foster, Weigand, and Baines (2006) studied free-throw shooters found to have superstitious behaviors and attempted to implement a preperformance routine among the athletes. Surprisingly, the effect of preperformance routines and of superstitious behavior differed little (performance worsened when neither was conducted before shooting). Purposeful behavior, whether based on superstition or on a structured preperformance routine, resulted in consistent and effective performances.

A preperformance routine can also help athletes reactivate appropriate physiological and mental processes before each shot, hit, service, or putt, increasing the chance of a successful performance (Schmidt, 1982). Boutcher and Zinsser (1990) studied the cardiac, respiratory behavior patterns of elite and nonelite golfers during a putting task. Elite golfers’ consistent preperformance routines resulted in slower breathing and heartbeats, indicating relaxation and focus on the task. Nonelite golfers lacked consistent preperformance routines and had higher heart rates. Physiologically, preperformance routines prepare the body for competition and sync mind and body for better control.

Some research argues that consistency of performance as a result of using a preperformance routine involves more than simply keeping the routine to a consistent time period. For example, Southard and Miracle (1993) conducted a study of female basketball players that manipulated how fast their free-throw routines occurred (time for the routine was doubled, was cut in half, etc.). Despite the manipulations of time, the results showed that the relative time to complete the routine did not vary, and that the rhythm of the routine was most important to successful performance.

While there is little argument about the positive effects of preperformance routines on closed skills, external variables make each skill unique, making necessary the investigation of various skills. Lobermeyer and Wasserman (1986), Gayton, Cielinski, Francis-Keniston, and Hearns (1989), and Wrisberg and Pein (1992) have investigated the effects of preshooting routines in basketball extensively, but the literature reflects little research on preservice routines in tennis (Moore, 1986). Additionally, little research is found on the effects of time and situation (i.e., winning or losing) on preperformance routines. Research shows that altering the movements of a preperformance routine can lead to poor or inconsistent performances (Gayton et al., 1989).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the preservice routines of 4 elite tennis players. Observation of the players was expected, ultimately, to yield visual identification of the presence of a preservice routine. Then, correlation would be sought between use of a preservice routine and successful service attempts.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 4 professional tennis players (2 men and 2 women) who were competitors belonging to the United States Tennis Association or the Women’s Tennis Association.

Procedure

Videotapes were viewed of 2 male participants playing in the Australian Open and 2 female participants playing in the Olympic Games. Data were collected during several matches in each tournament. To control for external variables, only first services were examined. The Preservice Routine Index (appendix) was developed to record data. Each researcher recorded data independently; then the data were compared and combined to produce a single set of final data to be used in analysis. Data discrepancies were discussed by the researchers until all felt comfortable with the data.

Collection of the data was initiated when a server placed his or her feet in their final ready position. For each service the following information was collected: server’s gender, server’s score in the game or match (i.e., leading or trailing the opponent), success of the service, and preservice routine. After several practice trials, racket position (low/high, horizontal/vertical) as well as number of times the player bounced the ball prior to serving were identified as the predominant variables in a preservice routine. These two elements were the most consistent and measurable preservice actions the players displayed. A minimum of 30 services were needed to determine the presence or absence of a preservice routine. A service was counted only if the server was fully visible from the time he or she set his or her feet until the final service motion was initiated.

Data Analysis

The first step of data analysis was identification of a preservice routine. Each player’s preservice data was examined to determine whether or not a consistent routine was present. Looking at the data, the researchers established for each player his or her most common racket position and the typical number of bounces used prior to a service. These comprised the player’s preservice routine, which in this study had to precede at least 80% of a player’s services in ordered to be considered a consistent preservice routine. Players who did not follow the identified routine at least 80% of the time were assigned to one of two groups in the study, the nonroutine group.

For each player, the researchers calculated the percentage of services (over all 30 trials) featuring the identified preservice routine. Restricting the calculation to first services only, they also computed the serving percentages for the entire tournament, in an effort to balance effects of emotion across “good” and “bad” matches. The serving percentages were compared by gender and by group (routine, RG, or nonroutine, NRG). Use or omission of a routine by players in the routine group was evaluated in the context of the player’s score (game and match) at the time of each service.

Results

Only one study participant, Player 1, could be assigned to the routine group; the remaining players showed limited consistency of preservice actions. Player 1 used a preservice routine 83% of the time and had an overall serving percentage of 66% over the entire tournament. Player 2’s use of a preservice routine had the second-highest rate of consistency, 67%. Players in the nonroutine group had an overall successful serving percentage of 69%: Player 2 was successful 65% of the time; Player 3, 78% of the time; and Player 4, 63% of the time. Overall for the tournament, the routine group had a mean serving percentage of 66%, while the nonroutine group had a mean serving percentage of 69%.

One of the two men in the sample had a detectable preservice routine, while neither of the women had a detectable routine. Mean serving percentage for the men was 65%; for the women, mean serving percentage was 70%.

Finally, the participant who used a detectable preservice routine seemed to do so more frequently when he trailed, rather than led, his opponent in either the game or match. Player 1 followed his routine 100% of the time when he was losing a game and 82% of the time when he was losing a match. He followed his routine 72% of the time when he was winning a game and 68% of the time when he was winning a match.

Discussion

In light of the performance benefits research shows to derive from a preperformance routine, the studied elite tennis players’ lack of consistency in using such routines was unexpected. The findings could be explained in three ways. First of all, research suggests that preperformance routines can be cognitive in nature. Imagery and self-talk are two examples of mental skills that could play a very important role in the preperformance routine (Wrisberg & Anshel, 1989). Cognitive preperformance strategies may or may not have constituted significant elements of our participants’ preservice rituals. With videotape observation the sole means of data collection, cognitive routines were undetectable. It is quite possible that the presence or absence of a cognitive strategy influenced effects of the psychomotor aspects of positioning the racket and bouncing the ball. For example, Player 3’s high percentage of successful services could have been supported by focused, consistent use of imagery before each service. Future research on preservice routines definitely should include interviews aimed at understanding players’ preservice cognitive strategies.

A second explanation of our study’s findings is the limited time span of the play we observed. Relatively unchanged situational factors from match to match may have positively or negatively affected the data. For instance, perhaps one of the study participants had an injury affecting performance. In addition, it was unknown whether any players used a specific number of preservice bounces, a number that might have changed during the rest of the tournament. Our findings are interesting, given that traditional research focuses on consistency of the preperformance routine, and they support previous findings reported in Jackson (2003) and Jackson and Baker (2001). Jackson and Baker (2001) studied professional rugby players in a highly competitive environment and found that preperformance routines were often altered during competition due to factors beyond players’ control (i.e., time running out, players out of position, speeding or delaying in response to others, and the like). Future research should include several months of observation of the participants’ services, involving a variety of different tournaments. An expanded time frame would help control such external variables as injuries, skill constraints, and development of the preservice routine.

A final explanation for the discrepancy between participants’ behavior reflected in this study and in earlier research findings on preperformance routines is that in tennis, serving may not be positively affected by a preperformance routine. While earlier researchers have found a positive correlation between free-throw success and preshooting routines, it is entirely possible that environmental, physiological, and psychological aspects of closed skills from basketball and closed skills from tennis differ enough to drastically affect the results of a preperformance routine. But this is unlikely. In our study Player 1, whom we observed to employ a consistent preservice routine, is consistently ranked (by the United States Tennis Association) among the best tennis players and servers in the world. Individual differences must also be taken into account. Preservice routines are as unique as the players who use them, meaning each routine’s benefits are likely to be unique as well.

One strength of our study is that the services were observed in the most elite competitive venues. Player 1 and Player 2 were videotaped competing in a grand slam competition; Player 3 and Player 4 were videotaped contending for Olympic gold. Environmental distractions during each of these tournaments were significant. In addition, it can be assumed that each player tried his or her best to serve successfully in each observed trial. Many consider first-service success an important component of elite competitive tennis. Such anecdotal evidence can certainly be challenged, but it is useful to consider. Future research might also explore the benefits of a preservice routine to second services.

References

Boutcher, S. H., & Zinsser, N. (1990). Cardiac deceleration of elite and beginning golfers during putting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 37-47.

Cohn, P. J., Rotella, R. J., & Lloyd, J. W. (1990). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention on the preshot routine and performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 33-47.

Crews, D. J., & Boutcher, S. H. (1987). An exploratory observational behavior analysis of professional golfers during competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 51-58.

Czech, D. R. & Burke, K. L. (2003). An examination of the maintenance of pre-shot routines in basketball free throw shooting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 3, 23-32.

Foster, D. J., Weigand, D. A., & Baines, D. (2006). The effect of removing superstitious behavior and introducing a preperformance routine on basketball free-throw performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 167-171.

Gayton, W. F., Cielinski, K. L., Francis-Keniston, W. J., & Hearns, J. E. (1989). Effects of pre-shot routine on free-throw accuracy of intercollegiate female basketball players. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 343-346.

Jackson, R. C. (2003). Preperformance routine consistency: Temporal analysis of goal kicking in the Rugby Union World Cup. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 803-814.

Jackson, R. C., & Baker, J. S. (2001). Routines, rituals, and rugby: Case study of a world class goal kicker. Sport Psychologist, 15, 48-65.

Kirschenbaum, D. S., Tomarken, A. J., & Ordman, A. M. (1982). Specificity of planning and choice in adult self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 576-585.

Lobmeyer, D. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1986). Preliminaries to free-throw shooting: Superstitious behavior? Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 70-78.

Moore, W. E. (1986). Covert-overt service routines: The effects of a service routine training program on elite tennis players. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.

Orlick, T. (1986). Psyching for sport: Mental training for athletes. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Orlick, T. (1997). In pursuit of excellence (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Schmidt, A., & Peper, E. (1998). Strategies for training. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 316-328). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Schmidt, R. A. (1982). Motor control and learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Southard, D., & Miracle, A. (1993). Rythmicity, ritual, and motor performance: A study of free throw shooting in basketball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 3, 284-290.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1995). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Wrisberg, C. A., & Anshel, M. H. (1989). The effect of cognitive strategies on free throw shooting performance of young athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 95-104.

Wrisberg, C. A., & Pein, R. L. (1992). The pre-shot interval and free throw shooting accuracy: An exploratory investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 14-23.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T21:17:08-06:00October 7th, 2008|Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management|Comments Off