Recently in Sport Category

This post is dedicated to Ali and UNI for upsetting Kansas.  Ali has become nationally known for his two clutch shots at the end of the games of UNLV and especially Kansas.  Blogs and analysts are all amazed at this guy's incredible guts and confidence in himself to take a shot like he did at the end of the Kansas game with so much on the line. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMmBCHwqOM&feature=related

 In my chapter nine analysis, I looked at UNI's team self-efficacy:

"First, self-efficacy is the generative capacity in which an individual organizes his or her skills to cope with the demands and circumstances that arise. Thus, it's an important aspect of competent functioning as situations arise, especially within sporting events, which are stressful, ambiguous, and unpredictable. As the environment changes, one's self-efficacy is put to the test.

For UNI in their 2nd round game vs. Kansas, their team self-efficacy (belief whether or not they would advance in the tournament) was a judgment formed through multiple sources, specifically the following: personal history trying to execute that particular behavior, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological state.

First, their personal history affected their belief they could win. While this season they had won many games, UNI had never defeated the #1 team in the nation in the past and had never even advanced to the sweet sixteen. Next, vicarious experience; UNI has watched other teams defeat Kansas, yet they have also seen Kansas be victorious a great number of times. Also, past history of the NCAA tourney shows that 2nd round upsets of the #1 seed are possible, yet few and far in between. Also, the team could have looked at UNI's 1990 team which also pulled off a shocker against Mizzou in a 3 vs. 14 matchup. Verbal persuasion; Ben Jacobsen and the team knew they had a shot at knocking them off, yet much of the media had been telling them they had no shot at even competing with the best team in the nation. I think the coach's and individual's verbal persuasion on the team definitely outweighed the media's, providing them an efficacy boost, generating motivation. This led to a solid physiological state in which there appeared to be an absence of tension, fear, and anxiety about playing Kansas.

Overall, it seemed UNI had positive self-efficacy beliefs through their speech and their actions on the court as they shocked the nation defeating Kansas!"

 

In the video below, the sport psychologist describes self-confidence as the strength of your belief in your ability to execute.  He talks about a global self-confidence, which is the perceptive belief in your ability to win and your team can win.  Also, there is task specific confidence, the belief in which you can shoot the ball into the basket.  This confidence is fluid depending on the task and course of the game. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIIqxYJX_I4

Confidence is controllable, yet it can be destroyed from allowing outside sources like the media or within the course of the game, the opposing team.  In the UNI/Kansas game, Ali had a stable, longlasting confidence which many athletes desire.  While he started the game off hot, he was 0-6 in the second half before the 3-pointer in the final minute.  Kansas was making their big run, UNI was turning the ball over, and Ali was cold shooting the ball.  Yet, Ali knew his teammates had confidence in him and he maintained confidence in himself, giving him the guts to shoot the shot many players would not have taken.  This confidence, individually and as a team, gave UNI a strong outcome expectation, which is a judgment that a given action (playing the game), once performed, will cause a particular outcome (winning the game).  For Ali, his efficacy expecations (his judgment of his capacity to make the 3-pointer) were strong enough to allow him initiate his behavior of shooting the basketball during such a crucial point of the ballgame. Now on the sweet sixteen!!

 

 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/15/health/la-he-marathon-20100315

This article is about different factors that motivate people to participate in marathons. Some of the information seems fairly obvious, especially to people in this class, but it is still interesting to consider these findings. I found it especially interesting that the reason a person runs can make a difference in if they finish the race. In short, it was the people with high intrinsic motivation who tended to finish the training and marathon itself. It said that "The 75 who did not finish were those most likely to have been motivated by the wish to lose weight or gain recognition from others."

This finding makes sense to me, and I think it fits rather well with our individualistic culture. Many of us feel that it should be up to each person how they want to live, we should not spend our lives trying to please others. It would be interesting to see if this finding holds up in collectivistic cultures. If it would, we could be more confident than intrinsic factors of motivation may be inherently more powerful in influencing whether or not a person ultimately finishes a marathon.

This article mentioned that more and more people are creating bucket lists on which they include marathons. The article said this was a form of extrinsic motivation because it is being done for recognition, but I would argue that it really depends on the person. There are undoubtedly some people who will do extreme activities just to brag about them, but there are others (using the bucket list) who simply enjoy the challenge.

I find it rather interesting that some people do it for loved ones, and I have heard that others still do it for Christ. From what we first read (that  the people with high intrinsic motivation tend to finish the marathons), it would seem that these motivations are extrinsic (being done for the approval of others). I think this certainly does seem true, but there are probably exceptions. If a Christian is doing the marathon as a type of self-imposed penance because they feel guilty about past wrongdoings or because they simply want to make a sacrifice for the Lord, that would probably be intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, if a Christian does the marathon as penance to avoid the fires of Hell, it seems that would probably be a form of extrinsic motivation. In retrospect, this past paragraph sounds somewhat like a bad joke, but I believe it is never the less very true.

Another point which merits attention is about endorphins. Over the past couple years I have read very contradictory "findings" on endorphins. You commonly hear that exercising and physical activities releases endorphins, and others have claimed that the level of physical exertion one must undertake to actually release significant levels of endorphins is dangerously high (with such physical activities doing actually more harm than good overall). I honestly do not know which view is objectively correct, so if anyone else might be able to shed light on this area, I would very much appreciate it.

One final point I would like to write about is that there obviously can be both primary and secondary motivations. The article also mentioned that specific reasons for making the commitment to a marathon may change over time. For example: physical health benefits may become dominant. Although raising money for charities seems to be partly be an extrinsic form of motivation, I really do not believe you can place it exclusively in a single category - there may be elements of both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation present (recognition from others and feeling happy that you have helped others).   

When I was in high school, specifically my junior and senior year, our football program hadn't made it to the playoffs in years.  We weren't the best team, especially my junior year.  Therefore, our team set a long-term goal to make the playoffs that year.  Specifically, we had a goal of winning five games that year in conference, which would allow us to compete in the playoffs.  That was our hoped-for ideal state of mind that year, a future, higher goal than in the past.  As we discussed in class, people who set goals outperform those without goals.  I think this is often mistakes coaches make when leading their teams.  They don't make it clear what their target goal is and what they want to accomplish.  Within the present status of our team, however, there existed a discrepancy (discrepancy creation) which helped provide a motivational basis for our actions. 

This wasn't an impossible goal, but the goal difficulty was enough (moderately difficult) to energize and increase our performance.  Each game provided the necessary feedback for our success and failures, helping determine how close or far we were from making the playoffs. With this feedback, our efforts were arguably enhanced as these specific short-term goals of winning a game energized our efforts, our persistence, and by directing attention and strategy.  This feedback of victories and defeats, or knowledge of results, allowed  us to keep progress of our results.

In the end, we accepted this goal, set extrinsically by the coaches even though many of the players were already intrinsically motivated to achieve this goal.  This goal really worked because game-by-game we were rewarded (or punished) based on the result of the football game.  They provided us each week a short term goal which, when repeated successfully, provide committment boosting opportunities for reinforcement.

In the article below,

 http://www.mindtools.com/page6.html

personal goal setting is expanded upon: 

 "Goal setting techniques are used by top-level athletes, successful business-people and achievers in all fields. They give you long-term vision and short-term motivation. They focus your acquisition of knowledge and help you to organize your time and your resources so that you can make the very most of your life.

By setting sharp, clearly defined goals, you can measure and take pride in the achievement of those goals. You can see forward progress in what might previously have seemed a long pointless grind. By setting goals, you will also raise your self-confidence, as you recognize your ability and competence in achieving the goals that you have set."

 

It also has an interesting section on achieving more with focus within personal goals as well as lifetime goals, which is something I may expand upon more in future blogs.

We see it in movies and TV shows, but is it true in real life? The common stereotype that athletes dominate on the field but they also party just as hard on the weekend it present in our media in today society. But how does the research hold up to this societal perspective? As I look back on my high school and their policies I remember one specific one that was implemented during my sophomore year. This police targeted athletes and the use of alcohol. Student athletes that were caught using alcohol for the first time were suspended from a portion on their sports season. The second offense was suspension for the entire year, and the third was elimination from sports for the rest of their high school time. This gave off the impression that alcohol consumption and athletics were strongly correlated. A study done and presented on ABC's Health website targets this idea. 1300 students were surveyed linking violence, drinking and binge drinking to the competition attitudes of athletes; more specifically this article target competitive, contact sports such as football.  I this study, researches found that men who participated in these sports were more likely to develop violent behaviors that stemmed from the glory, power, and special behavior they were treated to on and off the field by their peer, coaches, and parents.  Researchers argue that these results do not mean men who play football are more likely to drink and demonstrate violent behavior but men that play football in general have more characteristics that lead them to become more apt to participate in these behaviors. These researchers strongly support that football does not cause these behaviors but co-exist with these individuals. Other researcher beg to differ in that parents and coach are neglecting to distil values in these athletes therefore they feel as though the rules do no apply to them eliciting this violent behavior and adolescent alcohol consumption obsession that we see among athletes. This article brought up some very interesting thoughts about the rules and regulation of athletes. After reading this blog and the article did you school have a alcohol policy outline in their code of conduct as mine did? If so, what was it? Also, do you think that completive sports such as football are the cause of this violent behavior that we are seeing in young adolescent men or do you take the stand that this is not a causation correlation but merely a co-existing characteristic overlap and children who are more violent and drawn to alcohol are teen are more apt to choose to participate in competitive and contact sports such as football?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/team-sports-linked-teen-drinking-violence/story?id=9019219&page=1

I've always been interested in sports, but particularly athletes and what drives them to become athletes in the first place and then stay interested in sport thoughout their lives. I once read a quote that someone had written that I think is true for a lot of competitive athletes :"People don't play sports because it's fun. Ask any athlete, most of them hate it, but they couldn't imagine their life without it. It's part of them, the hate/love relationship. It's what they live for, the competition, friends, memories, pain. It's who WE are." I know this quote relates to a lot of athletes and alsothe psychological needs that are different between athletes and non-athletes. The article that I found that discusses some of the motivational differences between your average athlete and olympic/pro athletes.

The article, provided by Montana State University-Bozeman, discussed these differences. Most athletes participate in sport for an array of reasons:

Improving skills

Having fun Being with friend

Experiencing thrill and excitement

Achieving success

Developing fitness

 

These are personal factors that most athletes share.  The difference is the value of social affiliation and having fun vs. achievement and success. A lot of olympic/pro athletes tend to value things such as personal achievement, winning, and competition more than others who aren't necessarily at their level.  Other athletes tend to value the social affiliation that they achieve with sport and just the enjoyment they feel when they are involved with sport. This isn't saying that those who are not pro athletes do not love the competition or strive to be the best that they can be, but the amounts that they feel this are different.

Things such as the feeling after completing a competition or game,feeling good about one's self, being fit, personal identity, social affiliation, and body/self image are all values that a lot of athletes possess that lead them to become athletes in the first place, which most likely is different from what those who chose not to be athletes value.  Also, it was found that for male runners, they tended to value competition and fitness more than female runners, and women tended to value weight control and the elevated mood after the run more than men.  Both sexes valued the challenge one faces to be important, though.

Overall, i think that different social and psychological needs play a huge role in who decides to become an athlete and who doesn't and also who takes it to the extreme and makes it their life, like pro and olympic athletes.

http://btc.montana.edu/olympics/physiology/pp02.html

Anyone have any opinions on the difference between different athletes or between athletes and non athletes?

NBA superstar and Dallas Maverick's player Caron Butler has an addiction. Actually he has two of them.  For his most recent addiction, the NBA has now gone on to ban this behavior during games due to safety concerns.  What is it you ask?  Has to be something performance enhancing or drug related right? Actually, the NBA has banned Butler for chewing straws during the game, of which he goes through at least 12 a game--60 per day!  Talk about quite an oral fixation.  This got me thinking, why does he do this?  There's obviously a reason for this behavior.  Well Butler stated in his blog that this habit calmed him down, especially helpful during NBA games I imagine.  His motivation for this behavior was to satisfy his physiological response of stress and anxiousness.  Arguably, this was a performance enhancer of sorts for him.  It'll be interesting to see how much the extinction of this behavior will affect him.  Looking back, this behavior could possibly be correlated/as a consequence of his first habit:

In summer 2009, Butler blogged on NBA.com that he had lost 11 pounds just by giving up his daily "addiction" of drinking at least six 12-ounce bottles of Mountain Dew.

"I was going through withdrawals," Butler said on NBA.com. "... Honestly, those first two weeks without The Dew [were] the roughest two weeks of my life. I'm talking headaches, sweats and everything."

Like the straws became a psychological need and fixation, Butler had conditioned his body to the physiological extremes with his habitual caffeine intake.  It had really become an addiction. 

It will be interesting to see how Butler's behavior will be affected by the NBA's banning of chewing straws during games.  Will he take up another habit to help calm him down?  We'll see.  Here's a link to a video clip and article discussing the situation.  It's funny to watch the video and see all the fans and radio broadcasters who came to the game chewing straws in support of Butler's behavior.  It's also interesting to note in the sportsnation poll that 54% of people in America enjoyed chewing on straws...:

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=4945104

I was recently reading an article abaout an olympian ice skater that still performed her routine after losing her mother to a heart attack only a few days prior. The mother had died of an unexpected heart attack two days before her daughter was scheduled to perform her much practiced short performance routine in front of 14, 000 people. The skater went on and preformed very well, getting the highest score of the short performances. Even though she was visablly upset, as anyone would be, she still decided that it was for the best to continue with her skating. I wondered if sometimes, a person's motivation can outweigh their emotions. I've tried to think of times when something terrible has happened to me and how I reacted. Usually I drop everything and focus all my energy and emotions on the bad event. I couldn't image doing something like ice skating when my mom had just passed away. But I think it was the fact that this girl had trained so hard for so long all for this day, that she didn't want it all to be for nothing. I think she thought her mother would have felt the same way. So I was wondering if her drive for achivement and recognition for her hard work and persistence at skating could help her overcome her sad emotions enough for her to go out there and skate. This is not to say that she wanted to compete more than she was sad for her mother's death, but just to ask the question, If you are highly motivated to do soemthing, can it temporarly overcome your emotions, enough to get the job done? Other situations could be that you really want to go out with your friends on a Thursday night, but you have a big test the next day you have to do well on so you skip the fun and study instead. It's not exactly the same, but you are still choosing your motivation over your emotions.

What do you guys think? Can you think of any circumstances that you have really wanted something even though your emotions were saying something different? If one is stronger, what usually makes you do something, your motivation or your emotions?

Here is the link...http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/24/olympics.rochette/index.html?hpt=C1

As many of you know, the winter Olympics began last Friday.  I LOVE the olympics and seem to have it on at all times.  Last night (February 17, 2010) was the halfpipe competition.  During the competition Shawn White did a trick that had never been done before.  That trick, the Double McTwist 1260, was not done to win the competition - because his previous run had locked the gold metal - it was done during what was a victory lap.  The Double McTwist 1260 is when a rider competes 3 1/2 turns while also flipping head-over-heals two times.  His victory run was said to have been "epic."

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

http://www.wisegeek.com/can-drinking-too-much-water-be-unhealthy-or-even-dangerous.htm

 

        In the Understanding Motivation and Emotion textbook, on page 86 there is a discussion about the dangers of drinking flavored water and how drinking too much water can be downright dangerous. Specifically, the book says, "When factors such as a sweet taste offer a high incentive value for drinking, human beings drink excessively and sometimes consume dangerously high amounts ... Both alcohol and caffeine (introduce biological processes) that motivate people to drink in excess."

 

I have to admit, I was very surprised by this finding. I did not think that mere flavoring in water could cause people to drink dangerous levels of water. The book also mentions that the "Drink 8 glasses of water per day" rule has absolutely no scientific basis. Of course most of us know about the dangers involved with alcohol, and the nutritional deficiencies that can arise from excessive amounts of alcohol, but I think most people are not aware that drinking too much water can kill you. When I was little I actually remember hearing about a girl who drank too much water and died because of it, but my mother assured me that she must have drank an extremely excessive amount for it to be a problem. I do not think the amount need be so excessive to prove fatal.

 

 This article mentioned that the 6-8 glasses of water per day probably does not do any harm because it still falls within the normal range, but it mentions that sometimes dieters and athletes try to get an "extra edge" by drinking more. One of the major problems is that "too much water can quickly deplete electrolytes like sodium compounds" and "(This sodium depletion) can rupture cells" either from the inside or outside of the cells. The symptoms arise quickly.

 

In hindsight, perhaps I should not be too surprised that I did not know this information. I have not yet taken Personal Wellness or been active in any sports programs. This may be common knowledge among certain groups, but I for one did not know any of this. I had assumed that the thirst satiety response cycle would be exactly the same for both flavored and regular water.

 

 Another question arose in my mind as I read about this problem among athletes. If drinking dangerous amounts of water can sometimes give an athlete an edge, it is probable that some people will continue to partake in excessive drinking even after learning about the dangers. In some ways this directly relates to the debate over steroid use. What motivates athletes to use steroids when some of the side effects can be very serious?

 

 I think it is important to note that we must never allow ourselves to become too comfortable with anything that could be dangerous. There is probably not a day in our lives when we have gone without water. We often think of it as completely harmless, but in reality in sufficient quantities there are a great many things that can kill a person. I think there is also a desensitization problem with dangerous machinery. I used to do occasionally work on projects in woodworking and had a couple close calls, which I think I can attribute to my lack of attention because after so many uneventful encounters with the dangerous machinery my fear response seemed to decline substantially.  

 

While the problem of drinking too much water is by no means an epidemic, I think it is a potential problem we need to be aware of, especially as energy drinks and flavored water drinks are becoming more common. There are serious dangers to even moderate amounts of certain energy drinks.

 

Another related topic I wanted to briefly bring up here is the food sold in fast food restaurants, the cigarettes sold in stores, and the drugs (such as caffeine) put in energy drinks. I am curious as to what others think regarding possible regulation for fast food restaurants, cigarette companies, and energy drink companies. If some of their products are found to be extremely harmful and found to contain addictive ingredients that encourage addiction and excess, should the public be simply warned through information campaigns or should the government set regulations that prevent certain unsafe products from being sold? One might argue that a black market of sorts would arise and people would just have to find ways around the regulations, but do we have a moral obligation to take greater action against these problems? There is a great deal more about the fast food restaurants and smoking companies using that could be said in this discussion, but I suppose that would be best left for another time.

 

The main reason why I believe this discussion is relevant and applicable to our class is because these chemicals and ingredients in these products directly influence the behavior of consumers and sometimes motivate them to do things against their best interests. I believe people are generally smart enough to make decisions on their own and excessive regulations can become ridiculous, but it is my opinion that a few extra standards may need to be implemented regarding these products.   

 

This is just a small excerpt from the main article I hyperlinked in case anyone would like to read the conclusion of the article without going to the hyperlink...

 

Generally too much water is defined as water consumed above what the kidneys can process in an hour. Extremely healthy kidneys would be able to process about 30 ounces of water in an hour. A person with kidney problems or with only one kidney should drink much less, as per doctor's instructions.

 

The person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what the kidneys can process. For a person with kidney problems or with one kidney, too much water might be defined as just an ounce or two over the recommended amounts.

 

For people with healthy kidneys it should be perfectly safe to drink two cups of water an hour, and for the dieter, even one cup an hour will fulfill requirements for getting plenty of water. However, drinking too much water in rapid succession can prove fatal and should definitely be avoided.