Quest 2006, 58, 128-159
© 2006 National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box:
The Paradigmatic Evolution
of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Robin S. Vealey
The objective of this article is to describe the historical development of sport and
exercise psychology, with a particular emphasis on the construction and evolution of the “box” through history. The box represents the dominant paradigm that
serves as the model for research and application as it evolves through successive
historical eras (Kuhn, 1962). Seven historical eras related to the development of
sport and exercise psychology are discussed. Of particular interest for this review
were individuals whose curiosity and motivation established the roots for the study
of sport and exercise psychology, as well as the controversies and tensions in
both kinesiology and psychology that shaped the field. Suggestions for the future
include a problem-based approach to scholarship and a cultural praxis version of
sport and exercise psychology to enhance relevancy and social impact.
Dave, a graduate student of mine, leaned across the desk and in a soft voice not
much louder than a whisper asked me, “What are we trying to discover?” His eyes
were wide with anticipation as he stared intently at me waiting for my enlightening response that would reveal to him the mysteries awaiting exploration by sport
psychology researchers. He posed his question just after I had briefed him on his
responsibilities for an upcoming research study we were conducting. At the time,
I was amused by Daveʼs question, and although touched by his sincerity, I thought
he was quite naive about the research process. I didnʼt realize it at the time, but I
was the one being naive, not Dave. I was busy testing psychological theory, safe
inside my paradigmatic box, in fact so safe and comfortable that I lost sight of the
meta-questions that take precedence over all others. Why do I do research? What
makes my work relevant and meaningful? What am I trying to discover?
Have Smocks and Jocks
Escaped the Box?
I believe it is critical for those in any field to periodically ask “what are we
trying to discover?” Aristotle said that human inquiry is grounded in wonder. When
The author (AAKPE Fellow #449) is with Miami University, Department of PHS, Oxford, OH 45056.
E-mail: [email protected]
128
11Vealey(128) 128
1/15/06, 11:55:31 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
129
life is moving along in predictable and accustomed ways, we forget to wonder, to
puzzle, and to stop and ask important questions. Once a paradigm, or the “box,”
is entrenched, there is a tendency to sit back and enjoy the bounty, to retreat to
the security of established methods and questions within the box, and each day to
rediscover the validity of hard-won but now well-worn principles (Robinson, 1972).
To maintain our needed Aristotelian wonder, itʼs important to explore where the
“facts” came from, the constructions we place on these facts, and the assumptions
on which they are based. That is, we need to examine the box.
My purpose in writing this article is to describe the historical development
of the field of sport and exercise psychology, with a particular emphasis on the
historical development of the box as it was constructed and evolved through the
years. What were we trying to discover by establishing this field of study? How
did our motivation to discover evolve through the historical eras of the field? Why
did we do the work that we did at that time, and how has that influenced the work
that we do now?
Kuhn (1962) refers to a paradigm, or “normal science,” as accepted examples
of scientific practice, including theory, application, and measurement, that serve
as a model for a particular coherent tradition of research. He advocates the critical
analysis of the history of a discipline, beyond a mere anecdotal chronology of events,
as a means to gain perspective on the paradigmatic assumptions and boundaries
that define yet also limit the discipline. Thus, my objective for this article was to
take Kuhnʼs (1962) advice and extend the historical review of sport and exercise
psychology to not simply understand what happened in each era, but to try and
understand why it happened in relation to the individual and social motivations
and tensions that shaped the field.
The box, or paradigm based on normal science, in sport and exercise psychology was first questioned by Martens in his 1979 article titled, “About Smocks and
Jocks.” Martensʼ main point was that his dissatisfaction with the paradigm for
doing sport psychology research had led him to discard his laboratory “smock”
for his more sport contextually-relevant “jock.” Martensʼ article stimulated a disciplinary move to field research from the prior focus on experimental laboratory
research. However, his advocacy for a change in paradigms for sport psychology
or moving outside the box was either unaccepted, overlooked, or set aside as a
good idea but too overwhelming or risky to contemplate actually doing, at least in
that time period. So what has transpired since then? Does the history of sport and
exercise psychology show that weʼve moved our smocks and jocks outside the box?
Have we even stepped outside the box just to look back to see whatʼs in it to gain
perspective on our field and where itʼs going? As the historical overview in this
article will show, it was the ability of certain exceptional individuals throughout
history to step outside the current boxes of the time to establish our field and move
it forward in important evolutionary ways.
Sport and exercise psychology is a subdiscipline within the discipline of kinesiology, or the study of physical activity. Thus, the subdiscipline is best described
as the psychology of physical activity, with a focus on the study of a wide range of
physical activities, including competitive sport, recreational sport, physical activity
leisure pursuits, physical education, and exercise and fitness activities. Sport and
exercise should be viewed as umbrella terms encompassing a range of physical
11Vealey(128) 129
1/15/06, 11:55:33 AM
130
Vealey
activities. Although sport and exercise psychology is a subdiscipline of kinesiology,
it obviously has close ties to the discipline of psychology. Psychology is the science
that deals with mental processes and behaviors, and sport and exercise psychology is the study of the mental processes and behaviors of individuals involved in
physical activity. Although sport and exercise psychology evolved through the
dual theoretical, methodological, and paradigmatic influences of kinesiology and
psychology, it has traditionally been recognized as a subdiscipline of kinesiology,
not psychology (Feltz & Kontos, 2002).
A limitation of this article is based on Voltaireʼs point that “history is written
by the victors.” My review of history reported here is unfortunately not based on
months of dust-clearing primary source discoveries. Rather, it is a review and
analysis of historical accomplishments that have been chronicled in the literature
by others. This includes gender bias, in which the contributions of many women in
the development of sport and exercise psychology have been unknown, ignored, or
minimized (Gill, 1995; Oglesby, 2001). An additional limitation of this article is my
personal biases. I completed a doctorate in sport psychology under the direction of
Rainer Martens at the University of Illinois in the early 1980s. My research focus
is on the social psychological aspects of competitive sport, because I gravitated
to the field based on my curiosity about sport psychology as a college athlete and
coach. I am an American, and this review focuses mainly on the evolution of North
American sport and exercise psychology.
Historical Eras Related to the Development
of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Evolution: an unfolding, opening out, or working out process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of gradual progressive change.
(Websterʼs New World Dictionary, 1980)
Why study sport and exercise psychology? Who decided to do that, and why?
How has sport and exercise psychology evolved, unfolded, opened out, or moved
from a simple to complex field of study? The link between mental health and
physical activity has been noted throughout history. However, it was not until the
1970s that sport and exercise psychology was formally established and recognized
as a subdiscipline of kinesiology. Like most fields, and similar to human development, the historical development of sport and exercise psychology did not follow
a smooth and continuous pattern. Rather, it evolved through growth spurts as well
as periods of dormancy. I attempted to characterize these various periods into seven
historical eras that impacted the development of sport and exercise psychology into
what we know it as today.
Philosophy Begat Psychology: The 1800s
Psychology began as “experimental philosophy” as part of the struggle to
separate psychological “science” from the “subjectivity” of philosophy. Until the
middle of the 19th century, scholars had not accepted the possibility that the subject
matter of philosophical psychology was amenable to the methods of science. But as
11Vealey(128) 130
1/15/06, 11:55:35 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
131
realism was applied to philosophical problems, a science of the mind emerged as
philosophers entered laboratories and came to be known as psychologists. A timeline
of representative events for this era is shown in Table 1. The two most prominent
individuals typically cited in the emergence of psychology are Wilhelm Wundt,
who established the first psychological laboratory at the University of Leipzig in
Germany and William James, whose influential Principles of Psychology blended
philosophy, physiology, psychology, and personal reflection. Wundtʼs students,
G. Stanley Hall and James M. Cattell, were also influential in establishing American psychology.
What paradigmatic foundations do you see in this early formation of psychology as shown in the chronology in Table 1? Psychology directly descended from
philosophy, yet as psychology evolved in the 19th century, it developed a seemingly neurotic need to separate from philosophy and be seen as scientific, similar
to physics (Sarason, 1981). This need led the field to reject the subjective world
(the person). Sarason (1981) exclaims that what should have been the quintessential domain of psychology was set aside—not because it was not germane to
psychology, but because it was not germane to physics! If psychology were truly
Table 1 Timeline of Representative Events in Emergence
of Psychology: 1800s
1862
1874
1875
1879
1881
1883
1884
1886
1887
1887
1889
1889
1890
1890
1892
11Vealey(128) 131
Wilhelm Wundt teaches course titled Psychology as a Natural Science
Wundt publishes Principles of Physiological Psychology
William James teaches course titled The Relationships Among the Physiology
and the Psychology at Harvard University
Wundt establishes first psychological laboratory at the University of Leipzig
(Germany)
First doctoral degree granted in experimental psychology at the University
of Leipzig
First American psychology laboratory established by G. Stanley Hall at
Johns Hopkins University
First sport/exercise psychology case study on effects of hypnosis on muscular endurance (Rieger)
First doctorate in American psychology awarded at Johns Hopkins University
Term philosophy dropped from titles of several early journals to separate
experimental psychology from philosophy
James M. Cattell first designated professor of psychology in U.S. at University of Pennsylvania
First psychology laboratory established in Canada at University of Toronto
First International Congress of Psychology
James publishes Principles of Psychology
Cattell publishes “Mental Tests and Measurements” in Mind
American Psychological Association founded by G. Stanley Hall
1/15/06, 11:55:36 AM
132
Vealey
to become a science, it had to learn from and emulate natural science. Hence,
Wundt taught a course titled “Psychology as a Natural Science” in 1862, and the
term philosophy was dropped from the titles of several journals that evolved into
psychological journals. Ironically, the “soft” social sciences followed the model
for how the natural sciences became “hard” (through depersonalized mechanistic
rules, experimental research, and sophisticated statistical analyses). Cattellʼs (1890)
article “Mental Tests and Measurements” marks the move toward quantification
and standardized, nomothetic measures of human experiences, which are prevalent
in sport and exercise psychology today.
The founders of psychology embraced positivism, the basic postulate that
there is an objective reality that is absolutely true, and with proper methods, we
can come to know that reality. But an examination of history reveals the underlying sociopolitical motives for the rise of positivism. Positivism emerged from the
early writings of Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Comte (1798-1857), and its ideas
were in response to the French Revolution. It called for a positive philosophy to
“preserve the existing social order” as opposed to revolution and social change.
Scientists and industrials were to serve as societyʼs elite, dictating the application
of science to preserve the status quo. So even if we do embrace positivism, or
use its tenets to pursue knowledge, we should at least understand the basis of this
epistemology and that this basis is to preserve the social order, or the box. And we
should not forget that William James asserted in 1890 that laboratory research based
on positivist epistemology could not possibly establish itself as the only legitimate
way to acquire psychological knowledge. Indeed, the first published work in sport
and exercise psychology was a case study by Rieger in 1884 (as cited in Morgan,
1972), which found that hypnotic catalepsy facilitated muscular endurance. How
refreshing for the original work of a discipline steeped in positivism to have used
an “alternative” methodology!
Foreshadowing of Sport and Exercise Psychology:
1895–1920
The second historical era related to the development of sport and exercise
psychology encompasses the years between 1895-1920, which foreshadowed the
current field for several reasons (see Table 2 for chronology of events during this
time period). First, professionals in psychology and physical education were writing of the psychological benefits of physical activity, including exercise to combat
depression (Franz & Hamilton, 1905) and physical education (Hall, 1908) and sport
(Kellor, 1898; Scripture, 1899) to enhance character and mental culture. Scriptureʼs
work was noteworthy in that he utilized a series of case studies based on the effects
of sport and other physical activities on the self-control and general behavior of
young felons in a reformatory. Second, the field of physical education emerged via
the development of the Association for the Advancement of Physical Education
(now AAHPERD), the Academy of Physical Education (now AAKPE) and the
establishment of kinesiology laboratories and university programs of study.
Third, experimentally-based motor behavior research began to examine how
motor skills are learned and controlled. For example, George Fitz of Harvard
investigated reaction time in 1895, and William Anderson published a series of
11Vealey(128) 132
1/15/06, 11:55:38 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
133
Table 2 Timeline of Events That Foreshadowed Sport and Exercise
Psychology: 1885 - 1920
1885
1891
1893
1895
1898
1898
1899
1899
1903
1904
1904
1905
1908
1910
1911
1912
1914
1916
William Anderson leads formation of Association for the Advancement of
Physical Education
First kinesiology laboratory established in U.S. at Harvard University by
George Fitz
Harvard becomes first U.S. university to confer degree in physical education
Fitz publishes study on reaction time in Psychological Review
Frances Kellor writes “A Psychological Basis for Physical Culture” in Education
Norman Triplett publishes first research on social psychology of sport
E.W. Scripture reports case study findings on character development through
sport participation
Anderson publishes experiments on mental practice and transfer of learning
G.T. Patrick publishes “Psychology of Football” in American Journal of Psychology
Mary Calkins of Wellesley College elected first female president of the American Psychological Association (although denied a PhD from Harvard because
she was a woman)
Luther Gulick organizes an Academy of Physical Education to promote scientific work
Effects of exercise on depression published by S.I. Franz and G.V. Hamilton
G. Stanley Hall advocates physical education for the sake of mental and moral
culture
First masterʼs degree offered in physical education (Teachers College, Columbia University)
L.P. Ayres publishes social facilitation study in American Physical Education
Review
G.E. Howard writes “Social Psychology of the Spectator” in American Journal
of Sociology
Cummins (1914) studies effects of basketball practice on motor reaction, attention, and suggestibility
Margaret Washburn publishes Movement and Mental Imagery
experiments on mental practice, transfer of learning, and transfer of muscular
strength in 1899. Later, motor learning research in this era examined distribution
of practice (Murphy, 1916) and the effects of basketball practice on motor reaction, attention, and suggestibility (Cummins, 1914). Margaret Washburn published
Movement and Mental Imagery in 1916, suggesting that slight muscular contractions occur during imagery, and that imagined experiences may serve to enhance
motor performance. Many of her ideas later became areas of inquiry in the mental
practice/imagery literature, and although Jacobson (1932) is widely cited as the first
11Vealey(128) 133
1/15/06, 11:55:40 AM
134
Vealey
to scientifically demonstrate muscular activity during imagery, it was Washburn
who thoughtfully proposed this important link between mind and muscle. This early
work on cognitive processes related to motor learning and control foreshadowed
the later development of sport and exercise psychology as the study of cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral aspects of sport and exercise participation.
Fourth, the social psychology of sport began to gain interest, although social
psychology as a branch of psychology was not yet formally recognized. Norman
Triplett, a psychologist at Indiana University, is well known for conducting the first
systematic social psychology research in 1898. His study on the effects of pace
making and competition on performance is significant because he successfully
combined his analysis of archival bicycling records with a laboratory experiment
designed to follow up his archival findings. Triplettʼs “theory of dynamogenesis”
suggested that the bodily presence of others is arousing to the human competitive
instinct, and thus nervous energy is released that cannot be released individually.
This work was an important precursor and stimulant to social facilitation research
that marked one of the first major areas of inquiry in sport psychology in the 1960s
and 70s (Landers, Bauer, & Feltz, 1978; Landers & McCullagh, 1976; Martens,
1969; Martens & Landers, 1969a, 1969b, 1972; Singer, 1965, 1970, 1972).
I remember reading Triplettʼs 1898 article in my first graduate course in
sport psychology, and I was struck by his offering of various theories as possible explanations for his finding of better performance in paced and competition
races. These theories were the precursors of later research in social reinforcement
(encouragement theory), cognitive anxiety (brain worry theory), attention (theory
of hypnotic suggestions and automatic theory), and arousal (dynamogenic theory).
Triplettʼs motivation to understand the influence of competition on performance
was the result of his extreme interest in athletic competition, and the fact that he
was a competitor himself. However, his famous study was his Masterʼs thesis, and
for various reasons, he did not continue work in the social psychology of competition (Davis, Huss, & Becker, 1995). Additional work in the social psychology
of sport from this era included Patrickʼs (1903) application of theories of play to
explain spectator interest in football, Howardʼs (1912) “Social Psychology of the
Spectator” published in the American Journal of Sociology, and Ayresʼ 1911 study
(as cited in Singer, 1972) that supported the stimulating effects of band music on
performance in a bicycle race.
Pioneers—But No Wagon Trains:
1920-1939
The decades of the 1920s and 1930s continued certain trends established earlier (see Table 3). Interest continued regarding the benefits of sport and physical
activity in building “character,” as Charles McCloy and his students published a
series of studies in Research Quarterly (McCloy, 1930; OʼNeal, 1936; Richardson,
1936). They candidly concluded that understanding “character” was complex and
that further research on character development was needed. Research continued
in motor learning and control (e.g., Miles, 1928, 1931; Noble, 1922) and the first
psychology of motor learning text was published (Ragsdale, 1930). Early work on
the effects of exercise on depression Vaux (1926) and the concept of body image
11Vealey(128) 134
1/15/06, 11:55:41 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
135
Table 3 Timeline of Events Influencing Sport and Exercise Psychology from 1920-1939
1920
1924
1924
1925
1925
1925
1926
1926
1928
1930
1930
1930
1930
1931
1932
1935
1936
1937
1938
1938
Carl Diem establishes sport psychology laboratory at Deutsche Sporthochschule in Berlin
First PhD offered in physical education (Teachers College, Columbia University)
Floyd Allport publishes Social Psychology
A.Z. Puni establishes sport psychology laboratory in Leningrad (St. Petersburg)
Coleman Griffith establishes first sport psychology laboratory in North America
Griffith writes “Psychology and Its Relation to Athletic Competition”
Griffith publishes Psychology of Coaching
C.L. Vaux proposes physiological explanations for why exercise relieves
depression
Griffith publishes Psychology and Athletics
Clarence Ragsdale of University of Wisconsin writes The Psychology of Motor
Learning
Charles McCloy publishes “Character Building Through Physical Education”
First publication of Research Quarterly
American Academy of Physical Education officially chartered
Mabel Lee first female president of the American Physical Education Association
Dorothy Yates publishes Psychological Racketeers, describing her work with
boxers
Paul Schilder publishes book that first defines concept of body image
Muzafer Sherif publishes The Psychology of Social Norms
Gordon Allport publishes Personality: A Psychological Interpretation
Henry Murray publishes Explorations in Personality
Griffith hired as sport psychology consultant by the Chicago Cubs
Schilder (1935) foreshadow major research emphasis on these topics in contemporary exercise psychology.
Most noteworthy during this time period was the work of two significant
pioneers who established a frontier of knowledge development and application
for sport psychology. Unfortunately, neither pioneer was followed in a systematic
way after retirement from the area. So, as the story goes, no wagon trains followed
the significant beginnings carved out by these groundbreaking pioneers. However,
their work stands as important historical markers in the development of sport and
exercise psychology.
Coleman Griffith established the first sport psychology laboratory in North America at the University of Illinois in 1925. (Sport psychology
laboratories were also established in the early 1920s by Carl Diem in Berlin and
A.Z. Puni at the Institute for Physical Culture in Leningrad, now St. Petersburg.)
Coleman Griffith.
11Vealey(128) 135
1/15/06, 11:55:43 AM
136
Vealey
Some representative accomplishments of Griffith, along with other significant
milestones from this era, are shown in Table 3.
Griffithʼs exploits are widely chronicled (e.g., Gould & Pick, 1995; Green,
2003; Kroll & Lewis, 1970) including the publication of two books: Psychology of
Coaching (1926) and Psychology and Athletics (1928). Between 1919 and 1931,
he published over 40 articles, over half of which dealt with sport psychology and
taught courses at the University of Illinois in sport psychology (Gould & Pick,
1995). It is very interesting to read through his two books, as many of the topics
discussed are readily recognized as the precursors of contemporary sport psychology. In 1938, he was hired by the Chicago Cubs to improve the performance of
the team. An outstanding chronicle of Griffithʼs experience with the Cubs appears
in the History of Psychology by Christopher Green (2003) and the 16 short reports
of the “Chicago League Ball Club Experimental Laboratories” written by Griffith
and assistant John Sterrett that is in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
Griffithʼs legacy is unique because he was the first individual to systematically engage in research, teaching, and professional service in sport psychology.
He mapped out three objectives for sport psychology in his 1925 article titled
“Psychology and Its Relation to Athletic Competition”:
1. Systematically record observations of outstanding coaches to understand
effective use of psychological principles that can then be taught to novice
coaches;
2. Apply information in the published literature to sport; and
3. Use scientific method and experimental studies to discover new knowledge to
aid the practitioner in the field.
All three of Griffithʼs objectives focus on the application of knowledge. He
supports the use of the scientific method of the time, but even that objective emphasizes the use of science for the purpose of facilitating practice. Indeed, what made
Griffith the model pioneer for the field were his abilities not only as a researcher and
teacher, but also as a practitioner in applying knowledge in an attempt to enhance
the performance of athletes and coaches. In my mind, either Griffith was working
way outside of the box of his era, or more importantly, he created a template for a
box that was not adopted simply because he was not followed in a systematic way so
that a recognizable discipline of sport and exercise psychology was not established
at this time. He had one student, C.O. Jackson (1933), who analyzed the effects of
fear on muscular coordination for his masterʼs thesis. However, there is no direct
connection between Griffith and the first generation leaders who established the
field in the 1960s and 1970s.
Another pioneer from this historical era was Dorothy Hazeltine
Yates, who taught at Stanford and San Jose State College, and worked as a psychologist in private practice in Los Altos, CA (Kornspan & MacCracken, 2001).
Yates engaged in mental training interventions with boxers and aviators, primarily
focusing on a “relaxation set-method” and mental preparation (Yates, 1943). She
published two books (1932, 1957) describing her intervention work with boxers.
Due to her success, she was asked to develop a psychology course at San Jose State
for athletes and aviators in 1942. Coaches attended her classes, and she received
letters from aviators flying in World War II who testified to the benefits of her class
Dorothy Yates.
11Vealey(128) 136
1/15/06, 11:55:44 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
137
and work with them (Yates, 1957). Like Griffith, Yates also engaged in controlled
experimental investigations of the effectiveness of her mental training interventions,
with positive results (Yates, 1943). Also like Griffith, Yatesʼ pioneering efforts in
sport psychology were not followed up in any systematic way.
Birth of Personality and Social Psychology. In the 1930s, personality psychol-
ogy and social psychology emerged as separate from the traditional experimental
psychology discipline. Gordon Allportʼs (1937) book defined the new psychology
of personality as the study of the dynamic organization within individuals of those
psychophysical systems that determine their adjustments to their environment.
Equally important was Henry Murrayʼs (1938) book that emphasized the emotional
and motivational aspects of humans, thus setting this new area apart from experimental psychologyʼs emphasis on perceptive and cognitive functions of the human
mind. Social psychology had remained dormant since Triplettʼs original research,
and the next watershed event didnʼt occur until Floyd Allportʼs published Social
Psychology in 1924. Social psychology focuses on understanding the underlying
processes associated with the impact that the social situation has on individual
behavior. Because sport and exercise psychology focuses on meaningful social
behavior, this area of inquiry in psychology served as a primary foundation and
impetus for the knowledge base in sport and exercise psychology (e.g., Brawley
& Martin, 1995; Carron, 1980; Martens, 1975b).
Sherif (1936) is credited as the first to demonstrate that ongoing social processes
(e.g., the development of social norms) could be assessed and studied scientifically
beyond previous work that only assessed outcomes of the social process (e.g., effects
of pacemaking and competition on performance). This was an important paradigmatic milestone in social psychology, along with the famous series of experiments
that showed that research investigators influence a personʼs behavior merely by
studying that behavior (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). This phenomenon was
named the Hawthorne effect, after the plant where the experiments took place. The
understanding (or lack of) that the research process itself alters the natural pattern
of behavior is one of most perplexing paradigmatic issues for how individuals
should be studied in their natural sport and exercise contexts.
Incubation—Mentors and Foundations:
1940-1964
The fourth historical era related to the development of sport and exercise
psychology (1940-1964) is the incubation period that preceded the emergence
of the field as a distinct subdiscipline of kinesiology. Research was published on
such topics as personality traits in athletes (Henry, 1941; Husman, 1955; Johnson & Hutton, 1955; Johnson, Hutton, & Johnson, 1954), friendship and social
status in physical education (Skubic, 1949), emotions and stress related to youth
sport competition (Skubic, 1955, 1956), college athletic performance (Harmon
& Johnson, 1952; Johnson, 1949), competition (Hennis & Ulrich, 1958; Ulrich,
1957; Ulrich & Burke, 1957), motor performance (Howell, 1953; Ryan, 1962), and
exercise (Michael, 1957). Howell (1953) was specifically interested in the relationship between self-report and physiological correlates of emotion, a precursor
to contemporary psychophysiological research in sport and exercise psychology.
11Vealey(128) 137
1/15/06, 11:55:46 AM
138
Vealey
Exercise was linked to anxiety reduction (Cattell, 1960; Cureton, 1963), and the
effects of imagery (Ammons, 1951) and hypnosis (Johnson, 1961) on motor performance were examined, representing precursors of future research in sport and
exercise psychology.
Called the era of empiricism (Landers, 1995), research during this period was
typically atheoretical, unsystematic, and laboratory-based. This was analogous to
key developments in psychology during this era, including the rise of behaviorism (Skinner, 1953) and the positivistic scientific principles of operationalization
(Hilgard, 1948) and construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). The taxonomic,
factor-analytic approach to the study of personality was developed (Cattell, 1946;
Eysenck, 1947), which emphasized the trait approach favored by kinesiology-based
researchers in this era. Also, drives and motives formed the paradigmatic “box” in
which human motivation was studied (Hull, 1943; McClelland, Atkinson, Clarke, &
Lowell, 1953; Spence, 1956) and was instrumental in shaping the study of motivation and anxiety in physical activity in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Martens, 1971;
Roberts, 1972, 1974; Ryan & Lakie, 1965). Secord and Jourard (1953) developed
the term “body cathexis,” although research on body image and affect focused on
body-image disturbances in clinical populations, and it was not until the 1960s
that research focused attention on perceptual distortions of body image in normal
populations (Rejeski & Thompson, 1993).
Along with these early foundations for subsequent research in sport and exercise psychology, several individuals served as key mentors for students who went
on to become leaders in the emerging field of sport and exercise psychology. These
mentors, primarily scholars in motor learning and behavior, included Franklin Henry
at the University of California-Berkeley, Warren Johnson and Burris Husman at
the University of Maryland, Arthur Slater-Hammell at Indiana University, John
Lawther at Pennsylvania State University, and Bryant Cratty at UCLA. Lawther
wrote Psychology of Coaching in 1951, which applied research findings from
psychology to coaching because no formal sport psychology knowledge base was
available at this time. In 1960, Johnson edited Science and Medicine of Exercise
and Sports, a highly acclaimed text that presented current research, including the
emerging work in sport and exercise psychology. Bryant Cratty (1964) wrote Motor
Behavior and Motor Learning that expanded upon typical motor learning texts to
include topics like social influences on performance, anxiety, and relaxation related
to motor performance. Henryʼs (1964) landmark publication called for the establishment of physical education as an academic discipline, which sparked greater
specialization in the development of the subdisciplines of kinesiology, including
sport and exercise psychology. Henryʼs emphasis on the scientific development of
an organized body of knowledge also increased adherence to the current paradigm
of positivism and experimental methods so as to enhance the scientific credibility
of the emerging field.
The Diaspora—Sport Psychology Professes Itself:
1965-1979
The period from 1965 to 1979 is the historical era in which the academic subdiscipline of sport and exercise psychology became distinct with the development
of a systematic research base that was separate from, but related to, motor learning
11Vealey(128) 138
1/15/06, 11:55:48 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
139
and behavior. International, North American, European, and Canadian sport psychology research societies were established, the Journal of Sport Psychology began
publication, and several textbooks were written (see Table 4). This era seems to be
the Diaspora of sport and exercise psychology, in which pioneering young scholars
matriculated to various universities to establish systematic research programs and
graduate programs from which to turn out more young professionals to grow the
field. Noteworthy first generation scholars include Rainer Martens, Dan Landers,
and Glyn Roberts at the University of Illinois; William Morgan at the University
of Wisconsin; Dean Ryan at the University of California-Davis; Dorothy Harris
at Pennsylvania State University; and Bert Carron at the University of Western
Ontario.
The relationship between personality and athletic success was of central
interest during the early part of this era, with many empirical studies borrowing
Table 4 Timeline of Events Influencing Sport and Exercise
Psychology: 1965-1979
1965
1966
1967
1967
1969
1969
1969
1970
1970
1972
1972
1973
1974
1975
1977
1977
1978
1979
1979
11Vealey(128) 139
First World Congress of Sport Psychology
Bruce Ogilvie and Thomas Tutko write Problem Athletes and How to Handle
Them
First North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity
conference
Ulric Neisser publishes Cognitive Psychology
First Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology
conference
First European sport psychology federation established (FEPSAC)
William Morgan writes “Physical Fitness and Emotional Health: A Review”
International Journal of Sport Psychology begins publication
Frederick Baekeland identifies exercise dependence in exercise deprivation
study
Dorothy Harris publishes Women in Sport: A National Research Conference
Bernard Weiner publishes Theories of Motivation: From Mechanism to
Cognition
Walter Mischel publishes “Toward a Cognitive Social Learning
Reconceptualization of Personality”
Richard Alderman writes Psychological Behavior in Sport
Rainer Martens writes Social Psychology and Physical Activity
George Engel presents biopsychosocial model of disease
Albert Bandura publishes his original article on self-efficacy in Psychological
Review
Carole Oglesby writes Women in Sport: From Myth to Reality
Journal of Sport Psychology begins publication
Martens publishes “About Smocks and Jocks” in the Journal of Sport
Psychology
1/15/06, 11:55:49 AM
140
Vealey
various personality inventories from general psychology to search for significant
findings. The first tension between sport psychology and clinical psychology
occurred during this period when Martens (1975a) publicly challenged the claims
of clinical psychologists Tutko, Lyon, and Ogilvie (1969) that they had developed
a trait personality inventory that could predict success (and problems) in athletes.
Martens was cleared in a six million dollar libel lawsuit that resulted from the
argument, and it was subsequently concluded that global personality traits are not
predictive of success in sport (Fisher, Ryan, & Martens, 1976).
A significant paradigmatic trend that shaped the box for the study of sport and
exercise psychology was the major move toward social psychological research
during this time period. In the former “Incubation Era,” the emerging interest in
social factors related to physical activity behavior was apparent. However, the first
generation scholars of this era applied social psychological theories to issues in sport
and physical activity to develop and sustain systematic, theoretical research traditions that have continued to this day. This included Robertsʼ (1972, 1974; Roberts
& Pascuzzi, 1979) work in achievement motivation, Martensʼ (1977) development
of a model and inventory in competitive anxiety, Martensʼ and Landersʼ (1969a,
1969b, 1972) work in social facilitation, Ryanʼs (1962; Ryan & Lakie, 1965) work
in motivational influences on performance, Carronʼs (1978; Carron & Ball, 1977;
Carron & Bennett, 1977) work in cohesion and coach-athlete relationships, and
the work of Ron Smith and Frank Smoll in coaching behavior (Smith, Smoll, &
Curtis, 1978, 1979; Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977). Landersʼ (1995) historical review
of sport psychology credits Martensʼ milestone textbook, Social Psychology and
Physical Activity (1975b) and his earlier article in Quest in 1970 titled “A Social
Psychology of Physical Activity” as providing the paradigmatic impetus for the
field to take a “social analysis” approach to use theory to guide empirical questions
about social influences on behavior in sport and physical activity.
What happened at the University of Illinois in the 1960s provides an interesting historical anecdote. Three of the “giants” in the field in terms of research
contributions and the preparation of students—Landers, Martens, and Roberts—all
matriculated to Illinois at a time when no program existed in sport psychology.
Martens arrived eager to study sport psychology from what he read in a brochure,
but upon arriving and racing up to the advertised third-floor “laboratory” in sport
psychology was sorely disappointed to find a “bunch of old junk in boxes” (Martens,
personal communication, September 3, 2005). Landers entered Illinois to study
philosophy and Roberts planned to study history, but along with Martens, they
met James Davis, a social psychologist in the psychology department at Illinois.
It was his influence and mentoring that led these three key first generation scholars to develop their significant research lines in the social psychology of physical
activity (Roberts, personal communication, September 12, 2005). This is a prime
historical example of how curious and committed individuals pursue the questions
they want to ask even if there is no ready-made paradigmatic “box” available to
provide a model for research. Landers, Martens, and Roberts were key leaders for
the development of the research base, and they carved a new social psychology of
physical activity along with the other key first generation scholars of the time. Davis
credits them for their important roles in establishing the field of sport psychology
and humbly downplayed his role as mentor by saying, “Those three guys would
have made a difference if they had started from a desert island” (Davis, personal
communication, September 16, 2005)!
11Vealey(128) 140
1/15/06, 11:55:51 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
141
Several other noteworthy paradigmatic influenced occurred during the 19651979 era. First, Dorothy Harris (1972) and Carole Oglesby (1978) began a focused
study of women in sport from a feminist perspective. Equal opportunity was mandated by Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, which served as the impetus
for major social change in opportunities for and views about participation in sport by
girls and women. Second, the cognitive revolution occurred in psychology, focusing
inquiry on human thoughts and judgment about what a person can do, as opposed
to the previous personality inquiry that focused on what a person has in terms of
static traits or dispositions. The paradigmatic shift to research based on the social
cognitive paradigm that occurred in the 1980s in sport psychology (e.g., attribution
theory, self-efficacy theory) was the result of key theoretical advances during this
time (Bandura, 1977; Mischel, 1973; Neisser, 1967; Weiner, 1972). Third, Martens
(1979) published his paradigmatic critique of sport psychology “About Smocks
and Jocks” in the first volume of the Journal of Sport Psychology, which spurred a
move to field research in the 1980s. Finally, Morgan pioneered the development of
the specific knowledge base in exercise psychology by expanding research on the
psychology of physical activity beyond athletes to exercise, fitness, and well-being
(Morgan, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1979a, 1979b). Morganʼs sustained
research over this period served as the foundation for the emergence of a systematic
knowledge base focused on exercise psychology in the 1980s.
Infant (Exercise) and Adolescent (Sport)
Psychologies: 1980-1992
The Diaspora of the field continued between 1980 and 1992 as sustained
research lines and graduate programs proliferated along with the second generation
of sport and exercise psychology researchers. This rapid growth period in the field
can be characterized as the infancy of exercise psychology and the exciting yet
stormy adolescence of sport psychology (see Table 5 for timeline of key events).
Five paradigmatic trends seem to characterize this time period.
Based
on the foundations established by William Morgan, a distinct knowledge base was
established in exercise psychology in this era. The slower emergence of exercise
psychology, compared to the study of sport, is attributed to the prevailing biomedical
model in which lack of well-being was viewed as a physiological, not psychological,
issue (Rejeski & Thompson, 1993). However, the alarming increases in inactivity
and obesity in American society spurred inquiry and funding into the important
link between exercise and well-being. Systematic research was undertaken that
provided evidence that exercise decreased stress, anxiety, and depression (Crews &
Landers, 1987; North, McCullagh, & Tran, 1990; Petruzello et al., 1991), improved
mood and positive emotion (Berger & Owen, 1983, 1988; Folkins & Sime, 1981),
and enhanced self-efficacy, self-concept, and self-esteem (Gruber, 1986; McAuley,
1991; Sonstroem & Morgan, 1989). Psychological problems related to exercise were
also targeted as areas of study including staleness/overtraining/burnout (Morgan
et al., 1987), body image disorders (Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989), and exercise
dependence (Hailey & Bailey, 1982). Finally, research examining adherence to
exercise and interventions to change physical activity behavior emerged during
this era (Dishman, 1982, 1986, 1988; Dzewaltowski, 1989; Rejeski, 1992), and
Establishment of a Distinct Knowledge Base in Exercise Psychology.
11Vealey(128) 141
1/15/06, 11:55:53 AM
142
Vealey
Table 5 Timeline of Events Influencing Sport and Exercise
Psychology: 1980-1992
1979
1981
1981
1983
1983
1983
1983
1984
1985
1985
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1989
1989
1991
1992
Raymond Harrison and Deb Feltz write “The Professionalization of Sport
Psychology”
Twenty published articles followed regarding professionalization:
1980-1992
C.H. Folkins and Wes Sime (1981) publish review on exercise and mental
health
Steve Danish and Bruce Hale propose human development framework for
interventions
USOC establishes guidelines/registry for provision of sport psychology
services
Dan Landers publishes “Whatever Happened to Theory Testing in Sport
Psychology?”
Brad Hatfield and Landers write “Psychophysiology – A New Direction for
Sport Psychology”
Maureen Weiss and Brenda Bredemeier publish “Developmental Sport
Psychology”
William Straub and Jean Williams publish Cognitive Sport Psychology
USOC hires Shane Murphy as first full-time sport psychologist
Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology is established
Division 47 (Exercise & Sport Psychology) of APA is established
The Sport Psychologist begins publication
Rainer Martens writes “Science, Knowledge, and Sport Psychology”
Journal of Sport Psychology becomes Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
Rod Dishman publishes Exercise Adherence: Its Impact on Public Health
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology begins publication
Michael Greenspan and Feltz publish review of psychological interventions
with athletes
AAASP offers “certified consultant” designation in sport and exercise
psychology
Joe Willis and Linda Campbell publish the textbook Exercise Psychology
the first exercise psychology textbook was published (Willis & Campbell, 1992).
In 1988, the Journal of Sport Psychology became the Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, emphasizing that exercise had become a distinct context for psychological inquiry.
What Do Humans Think in Sport and Exercise Situations? The second paradigmatic trend in this era was a general shift in research to a cognitive perspective
and a move to the field as the context for the study of sport. Cognitive and social
cognitive theoretical perspectives became the rage as key theories from psychology
(e.g., Bandura, 1977; Deci, 1975; Harter, 1978; Meichenbaum, 1977; Nicholls,
1984) spawned research lines, including self-efficacy, motivational orientations,
stress and anxiety, competence motivation, group dynamics, moral development,
11Vealey(128) 142
1/15/06, 11:55:54 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
143
leadership, and self-regulation. These areas of research were overviewed in textbooks from this era (Gill, 1986; Horn, 1992; Straub & Williams, 1984; Williams,
1986) and have continued as important areas of inquiry in contemporary sport and
exercise psychology.
In 1983, Dan Landers lamented the over-emphasis on descriptive field studies
and the lack of theory testing in sport psychology. Many at the time viewed Landersʼ remarks as in disagreement with Martensʼ plea for more sport-relevant work in
his 1979 “smocks and jocks” article. However, Landers was actually in agreement
with Martensʼ call for more contextually relevant theory, research, and methods.
Like Martens (1979), Landers (1983) challenged sport and exercise psychology
researchers to move outside the “box” of trying to prove their pet theories. He
chided the field for premature commitments to theories in which “crusading for a
specific approach to research . . . is counterproductive” (p. 148). One alternative
suggested by Landers was the use of strong inference (Platt, 1964) in research, in
which the focus of the field becomes “finding out” by devising alternative hypotheses to explain phenomena in sport and exercise, as opposed to focusing only on
the testing of a single theory from psychology.
As an example of Landersʼ (1983) point, Rejeski and Brawley (1983) criticized
the uncritical acceptance of Weinerʼs (1972) attribution theory by sport researchers.
They argued that “the elements and dimensions of Weinerʼs original work are far
too inflexible to accommodate the diversity and uniqueness of sport achievement”
and that “exclusive attention to this model could limit the questions one might ask
about the attributions of participants in all aspects of sport-related social interaction”
(p. 78). They identified the important contributions of researchers who extended
the attribution model in relevant descriptive ways for sport (Roberts & Pascuzzi,
1979) as well as incorporating additional theoretical work (Maehr & Nicholls,
1980) to account for subjective success so inherent in the sport environment where
objective outcomes fail to fully account for the richness of human responses to
competitive achievement (Spink & Roberts, 1980). Another fruitful example of
strong inference in sport and exercise psychology research is the contemporary
debate over the adoption of motivational theories from psychology and whether
such theories are salient to understanding motivation and achievement behavior
in sport and exercise contexts (Duda, 1997; Hardy, 1997; Harwood, Hardy, &
Swain, 2000).
The third paradigmatic trend
of this historical era was the professionalization of sport psychology. Beginning
with the Harrison and Feltz (1979) article on the professionalization of the field,
20 studies were published in sport psychology journals between 1980 and 1992
debating professional issues. These issues centered around two questions: Who
can offer what kind of psychological services to consumers? Are there adequate
scientific evidence to justify psychological interventions in sport?
As seen in Table 5, several events of this era are indicative of this professionalization, including the establishment of guidelines and a registry by the United
States Olympic Committee for the provision of sport psychology services, the
hiring of a full-time sport psychologist by the USOC, the establishment of the
Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP) and a
division of Exercise and Sport Psychology within the American Psychological
The Professionalization of Sport Psychology.
11Vealey(128) 143
1/15/06, 11:55:56 AM
144
Vealey
Association (APA Division 47), the establishment of two new applied journals in
the field, and the development of a certified consultant designation in sport and
exercise psychology by AAASP. The development of AAASP was a particularly
important milestone for the field, because it moved the primary forum for the dissemination of research and professional practice ideas from the research society
format of NASPSPA to a professional organization devoted not only to the support
and development of research, but also to the enhancement of practice in sport and
exercise psychology (Silva, 1989).
Overall, the 1980s are remembered as the decade in which mental training
interventions with athletes were implemented in a systematic way by sport psychology professionals. As a doctoral student involved in the initial mental training
interventions during the early 1980s with Rainer Martens, I well remember the
criticism that we received for engaging in this “non-scientific” endeavor. This, of
course, is an example of the tensions and dissonance that move a field forward, in
this case moving from an academic discipline with a focus on knowledge development without requirement of practical application (Henry, 1964) to a profession
that has a knowledge base, a professionalized system of service delivery, and
a clientele that needs and demands the fieldʼs services (Corbin, 1991). Psychological interventions in sport and exercise have become an important part of not
only professional practice, but also the knowledge base that has supported the
effectiveness of interventions in enhancing performance (Greenspan & Feltz,
1989; Vealey, 1994) and physical activity behavior (Dishman & Buckworth,
1996).
A key paradigmatic contribution related to the professionalization of sport
and exercise psychology was Danish and Haleʼs (1981) article proposing a human
development framework to clarify the educational nature of psychological interventions in sport as separate from clinical psychology interventions. This was
an important distinction made early in the historical period where the concept of
psychological interventions in sport and exercise were being developed. Although
discussions have continued and tensions are evident between sport and exercise
psychology professionals trained in kinesiology-based versus clinical psychology-based programs, this early clarification by Danish and Hale set an important
precedent for the focus on education, teaching skills, and personal growth and
development, as opposed to a clinical model of correcting problems within a
remedial model.
Another key paradigmatic article of this era focused on issues surrounding the
schism between science and practice in sport psychology. Rainer Martens (1987)
argued that the science-practice dualism in sport and exercise psychology was the
fault of the paradigmatic “box” that the field had adopted, which was based on the
objectivity of science. Martensʼ position was that objectivity is a fallacy in sport
and exercise psychology research and advocated for a more heuristic paradigm
of experiential knowledge to understand the complexity and richness of human
thought, emotion, and behavior. Martensʼ main point was that the divergence
and tensions between academic (research) sport psychology and practicing sport
psychology was the result of the fieldʼs unjustified belief in orthodox science, or
the “box,” as the only source of true knowledge. Thus, history came full circle in
that Martens in 1987 questioned why the field rejected the subjective world of the
person in the 1800s when psychology separated from philosophy.
11Vealey(128) 144
1/15/06, 11:55:58 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
145
Emergence of Developmental Theoretical Perspectives.
A fourth paradigmatic
trend beginning in the 1980s was a focused area of inquiry on physical activity
participation by children. The influence of physical activity in the lives of children
and youth has remained a topic of interest across the historical development of sport
and exercise psychology. However, it was the early 1980s when the systematic study
of youth sport was begun. Gould (1982) proposed several paradigmatic guidelines
for youth sport research, with the most compelling being the development of theory
related to the specific complexity of physical activity contexts and asking sociallyrelevant questions that could guide youth sport practices and policies. Weiss and
Bredemeier (1983) were the first to advocate a developmental theoretical perspective
for understanding childrenʼs thoughts, emotions, and behavior related to physical
activity. From these two pioneering articles, early descriptive work on children and
youth in sport has developed into a developmental sport and exercise psychology
that examines mental processes and behaviors across the lifespan (Weiss, 2004).
Emergence of Psychophysiological Research in Sport and Exercise
Psychology. A final paradigmatic trend in the 1980-1992 historical era was
the emergence of psychophysiological research in sport and exercise psychology.
Brad Hatfield and Dan Landers (1983, 1987) were early leaders in advocating this
approach, in which psychological processes and emotional states are inferred from
examining physiological measures. This was an important new direction not only
for research, but also application in sport and exercise psychology. For example,
electroencephalogram, evoked response potentials, and heart rate were used to
examine attention and its relationship to performance (Boutcher & Zinsser, 1990;
Crews & Landers, 1992; Hatfield, Landers, & Ray, 1984; Landers, Boutcher, &
Wang, 1986).
Diversifying, Taking Stock, Building Docks:
1993-2005
The current era in sport and exercise psychology seems focused on (a) diversifying in terms of methods, paradigms, and epistemology; (b) taking stock by
evaluating the effectiveness of research and interventions; and (c) building docks,
or a solid disciplinary knowledge base.
The emerging diversity apparent in the sport and exercise psychology is an encouraging sign that sport and exercise psychology is pursuing knowledge
and practice using different types of “boxes,” or paradigmatic models. New “boxes”
for sport and exercise psychology research and practice has been strongly advocated in terms of hermeneutic or interpretive approaches (Brustad, 2002), feminist
epistemology and methodology (Bredemeier, 2001; Gill, 2001; Krane, 1994, 2001),
a pragmatic research philosophy (Giacobbi, Poczwardowski, & Hager 2005), and
an ecological meta-theoretical approach (Dzewaltowski, 1997). Brustad (2002)
follows Martensʼ (1987) suggestions for studying sport and exercise psychology
based on the premise that human behavior is related to individual perceptions of
the meaning inherent in social contexts and that individual behavior can only be
understood in relation to the broader social network within which individuals are
studied. Giacobbi et al. (2005) and Dzewaltowski (1997) offer attractive alternative
ideas that avoid taking sides in the dualistic objective-subjective, research-practice
Diversifying.
11Vealey(128) 145
1/15/06, 11:55:59 AM
146
Vealey
paradigmatic wars. For example Dzewaltowski does not reject the notion of objective reality, but focuses on the person-in-context. Giacobbi and colleaguesʼ (2005)
pragmatic approach suggests that a continuum exists between objective and subjective viewpoints, with the choice of which is adopted depending on the nature of the
research question being asked and the particular point in the research process. What
is compelling about these new ideas is that they propose multiple “boxes,” or ways
in and out of various “boxes” to ask different questions at different times.
Likewise, Whaley (2001) refreshingly talks about how the feminist perspective
may be applied using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The refreshing part is that she isnʼt advocating for one rigid “box” but for many types of
“boxes” that provide alternative approaches for sport and exercise psychologists.
Gill (2000) identifies a key problem with blind acceptance of the orthodox “box”
when discussing the research finding that female athletes have more “masculine”
personality characteristics than female nonathletes. Gill explains, well, of course
they do, if the inventory used assumes that competitive, assertive, leadership
behaviors are masculine and not feminine! The “box” that describes the study of
gender needs to be very open and permeable, with continuous inquiry into how
gender is constructed and transformed. Carolyn Sherif (1979) criticized traditional
social psychology that treats gender as an independent variable in research designs
and suggests that gender is perhaps one of most intriguing and perplexing social
phenomenon that should be studied for itself (or as a dependent variable using
traditional experimental design terms).
The traditional nomothetic research design of statistically examining group
means has been challenged as to whether it is effective in describing and understanding the mental processes and behaviors of human being in sport and exercise situations (Vealey, 2002). For example, the finding in nomothetic studies that moderate
intensity exercise leads to positive emotional change has not been supported when
looking at data at the individual level (Van Landuyt, Ekkekakis, Hall, & Petruzello,
2000). Intervention research in sport and exercise psychology has increased in
using single-subject designs to enhance the ability to personalize interventions
based on the unique characteristics of individuals and to avoid the group masking
effect inherent in a general finding based on group means.
All of these suggestions for increasing the diversity of our work are compelling.
However, it requires individuals to leave their comfort zones and develop research
agendas that are less familiar and require extra preparation and training. A recent
review of qualitative research published in three major sport and exercise psychology journals found that 20% of the studies published in these journals during the
1990s used qualitative methods, most relying on interview methods and several
of which presented frequency counts of words as numbers (Culver, Gilbert, &
Trudel, 2003). The authors concluded that sport and exercise psychology at this
time is analogous to the 1950-1970 modernist or post-positivistic paradigm of the
qualitative research movement in North America, in which attempts are obvious
“to make qualitative research as rigorous as its quantitative counterpart” (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2000, p. 14). Thus, although the field appears to be diversifying in
important new ways to enhance the paradigmatic “box” of sport and exercise
psychology, this diversification has been slow to develop and will require the zeal
of young researchers, who, like those before them, were dissatisfied to the point
of leading important paradigmatic change.
11Vealey(128) 146
1/15/06, 11:56:01 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
147
Taking Stock and Building Docks. Along with diversifying knowledge development and practice, the current era is a time when the field has taken stock of what
we know and how effective we are by checking our knowledge base. For example,
reviews and meta-analyses have shown that interventions are effective in increasing
physical activity (Dishman & Buckworth, 1996), exercise decreases state anxiety
(Landers & Petruzello, 1994) and depression (Craft & Landers, 1998), and that
exercise enhances sleep (Youngstedt, OʼConnor, & Dishman, 1997), self-esteem and
body image (Sonstroem, 1998), and cognitive performance (Sibley & Etnier, 2003).
Evaluation studies of the effectiveness of psychological interventions in sport and
exercise significantly increased in number and sophistication (Crews, Lochbaum,
& Karoly, 2001), and research on professional practice trends has increased, such
as examining the use of sport psychology services (Voight & Callaghan, 2001),
assessment practices of sport psychology consultants (OʼConnor, 2004), and career
trends (Williams & Scherzer, 2003). Comprehensive reviews examining the validity of assessment instruments used in sport and exercise psychology have been
conducted (e.g., Duda, 1998).
One of my favorite Americans, Benjamin Franklin, said “If you want your
ship to come in, you must first build a dock.” It is clear that sport and exercise
psychology is building its dock, or the knowledge base needed for our ship to come
in terms of academic credibility and social impact. As previously discussed, we
need to become more diverse in identifying different ways, or “boxes,” to develop
knowledge that is relevant and useful to avoid the dualistic research-practice divide
in the field. However, textbooks in sport and exercise psychology have proliferated
and become dense with the rapid accumulation of knowledge being developed
(Buckworth & Dishman, 2002; Carron, Hausenblas, & Estabrooks, 2003; Gill,
2000; Horn, 2002; Weinberg & Gould, 2003; Williams, 2006). So dense, in fact,
that the Weinberg and Gould (2003) textbook weighs approximately five pounds
as compared to Martensʼ (1975) original Social Psychology and Physical Activity
text that weighed a mere five ounces! Psychology of Sport and Exercise and the
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology began publication in 2000
and 2003, respectively, bringing the number of internationally recognized journals
specifically devoted to sport and exercise psychology to six.
Conclusions and Ideas
for Consideration
What have we learned from our historical review? What were we trying to
discover? What were the key paradigmatic changes in the “box” that moved sport
and exercise psychology to where it is today?
Evolution of the “Box”
The paradigmatic traditions established and followed throughout the history
of sport and exercise psychology got us where we are today, with a solid dock
or knowledge base from which to continue research and practice. Although we
can be critical of the “box” used at various points in history, it is hypocritical to
criticize previous research traditions as ineffective. All of our research traditions
11Vealey(128) 147
1/15/06, 11:56:03 AM
148
Vealey
were effective in showing us the way, similar to working through a maze where
at times backtracking and rethinking is required. The “box” moved us forward in
significant and often interesting ways, as we debated and struggled with developing the unfortunately juxtaposed goals of scientific credibility along with practical
relevance. The “box” evolved from the “subjectivity” of philosophy, to the “hard
science” of experimental psychology, to motor behavior, and finally to social psychology so that more contextually relevant knowledge about sport and exercise
could be pursued. Theoretically, the “box” moved from perception and sensation,
to traits, to dispositions, to cognitions, to socially constructed cognitions within
unique social contexts. And finally, the “box” moved from positivism to what
seems to now be a post-positivistic, modernist era with some movement toward
constructivism.
What were the main factors that influenced the evolution of the “box?” To me,
it was the interaction of key historical forces with zealous individuals who jumpstarted the field into new eras. So, have “smocks and jocks” escaped the “box” as
asked at the beginning of the article? My answer is that weʼve begun to create doors
for the “box,” or openings so that our questions and methods are more inclusive
and more diverse. We only need to escape the “box” momentarily, to move outside
conventional methods, taken for granted epistemology, and current knowledge and
practice to question what weʼre doing, why weʼre doing it, and whether there are
better ways to do it. By understanding the historical, social, and political forces that
influence the “box” and the research that we do, then weʼre better able to move in
and out of the “box” as we pursue the development and practical use of significant
knowledge in sport and exercise psychology.
Building Doors
So whatʼs next? Where do the signs point for the future of sport and exercise
psychology? Milton Berle suggested, “If opportunity doesnʼt knock, build a door.”
I advocate that we now focus on building doors, to make sure the “boxes” weʼre
using to drive our field are permeable or open enough to move in and out of as we
pursue relevant, important knowledge for modern society. Some have argued that
opportunity hasnʼt knocked for sport and exercise psychology because of the lack
of practical knowledge that is useful to individuals (e.g., Martens, 1987). Psychological theory is seen as arid and unrelated to the real world. Research is viewed
as incomprehensible, pointless, and boring, while practice is viewed as pseudoscientific and ineffective. Building new doors for sport and exercise psychology
means asking real-world questions with an eye on the person in context, aiming
for practical theory (Gill, 2000), not theoretical practice.
Martens had the foresight in 1979 to suggest
that sport psychology should integrate with sport sociology to study individuals
within their unique contexts, to learn how the social and political factors in these
contexts affect mental processes and behavior. Sport psychology textbooks published in 1975 (Martens) and 2002 (Horn) included chapters on socialization, yet
sport and exercise psychologists have for the most part ignored the study of the
person within context. Thus, important new doors for sport and exercise psychology are represented by the following contemporary questions toward which the
field should now turn: How can we induce social-structural change in sport and
From Lab to Field to Context.
11Vealey(128) 148
1/15/06, 11:56:04 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
149
exercise to enhance the psychological and physical well-being of participants?
How do social-cultural factors influence mental processes and behavior related to
sport and exercise psychology?
Ryba and Wright (2005) have called for a cultural praxis version of sport and
exercise psychology, in which interventions are designed as tools for individual
empowerment and social justice. Coakley (1992) has criticized sport psychologists
for engaging in what he calls “psychodoping,” or the use of psychological techniques
and strategies that “dope” athletes into coping with and blindly accepting the socialstructural conditions that negatively affect them. Coakley (1992) offers evidence
for the overriding influence of the oppressive and controlling sport structure as a
key causal factor in burnout in adolescent athletes. Important perspectives could be
gained on motivation, stress and anxiety, injuries, aggression, and moral development by moving our lens of inquiry to study the context of sport and exercise as
it affects the lives of participants. Interventions using the cultural praxis approach
would help athletes understand their identities within problematic subcultures that
spawn negative self-perceptions and unhealthy behaviors.
A terrific example of this approach is the work of Joe Ehrman as a high school
football coach in inner city Baltimore (Marx, 2004). Ehrman, a former NFL lineman,
opposes the destructive high school subculture that teaches boys that successful
masculinity requires athletic prowess, sexual conquest, and economic success. He
sees how men go on to lead unsatisfying lives from this gender socialization, and
his work with high school football players is based on teaching them the importance of relationships and humanistic values. Cultural praxis interventions such as
this may enhance the credibility of sport psychology, which is often viewed today
as a frivolous diversion to indulge the elite (Ryba & Wright, 2005). That is, sport
psychology interventions can do more than help elite athletes perform better—they
can work inside deeply encultured systems of sport to help participants understand
this enculturation, how it affects them, and ultimately move toward needed social
change (Harris, 1987; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Another popular example is
the success of Curves, a chain of fitness promotion centers in cities across America
that specifically cater to nonathletic women with no fitness training experience and
little time in their lives to devote to physical activity. Curves targeted a specific
subculture and made it safe, inviting, and accessible for women to include physical
activity in their lives.
Related to this, sport and exercise
psychology professionals need to reclaim the terms sport and exercise. Beyond
studying mere participation, we must clarify the exact nature of the participative
level we are studying. Sport is seen as a professionalized activity practiced by a
small percentage of elite athletes, with the masses engaged in spectatorship
and hero worship. Exercise is viewed as tedious drudgery, as I learned when
my six-year old daughter lamented her bad luck of having to do “exercises”
in her physical education class one day at school. She loves physical activity
and movement of any kind, but at age six she has already gotten the cultural
message that exercise is not fun and something that she “has” to do in physical education.
Sport is any activity, typically involving bodily exertion, which provides
enjoyment or recreation. Exercise is bodily exertion usually engaged in for the
sake of health and well-being. Weʼve allowed these terms to be corrupted, to have
Reclaiming the Terms Sport and Exercise.
11Vealey(128) 149
1/15/06, 11:56:06 AM
150
Vealey
problematic meanings. In 1960, Jay Nash warned of the development of a spectator
ethos in America, and Shane Murphy (1999) has recently talked about how this
ethos is partially responsible for the physical inactivity and obesity in the American
population. Nash and Murphy emphasize the need to promote a participation
ethos through physical activity leisure pursuits and sport. Sport in this sense
of the term is any activity for individuals at any age and at any level of ability
that enhances their fitness, quality of life, and well-being. It is up to sport and
exercise psychology professionals to reclaim these terms or invent new ones that
reinvent physical activity beyond elite spectator sport and grueling exercise.
Also, our research must go beyond “mere participation” in the study of the
effects of sport or exercise on individuals. For example, the literature generally
supports the notion that sport does not build character, but instead teaches antisocial
and aggressive behaviors. However, the important question now is this: What types
of sport experiences influence positive and negative psychological outcomes for
participants? Planned sport and physical education intervention programs for moral
development in children has shown significant enhancement of social responsibility,
moral attitudes and behaviors, and group cooperation (Ennis et al., 1999; Gibbons,
Ebbeck, & Weiss, 1995; Hastie & Buchanan, 2000; Hellison, 2003; Siedentop,
Hastie, & van der Mars, 2004).
Taking a Problem Approach to Scholarship.
I began this article by advocating that we periodically revisit the important question of “what are we trying to
discover” to ensure that we are not so insular within our paradigmatic “boxes”
that we fail to ask the important questions. What are the questions that made you
wonder about the complex nature of psychosocial phenomena and drove you to
the field of sport and exercise psychology? I remember mine very well (Vealey,
1999), and I think all researchers should revisit their autobiographical journey as a
scholar. Following the urging of historical leaders in sport and exercise psychology
and kinesiology (Landers, 1983; Martens, 1979, 1987; Newell, 1990), a problem
approach to scholarship is needed, where the emphasis is on the problem or question related to the unique contexts of exercise or sport, not the theory of the cognate
discipline (typically psychology). Although I agree that focused lines of research
over time enable individuals to make sustained contributions to a research area, we
should all be aware that research lines have the potential to keep us inside particular
paradigmatic or theoretical “boxes.”
To conduct problem-focused research in fresh and creative ways, it is important to beware of experts and the small cage habit. Experts develop large mental
constructions of facts, which often makes it more difficult for them to entertain new
ideas or recognize new problems (Loehle, 1990). This makes experts susceptible
to the small cage habit (Biondi, 1980). Zoo animals, when moved to larger cages,
often continue to pace around an area the size and shape of their older and smaller
cages. Loehle explains that the Aristotles and Freuds of the world create sets of
bars within which people in their field pace rigidly and fail to notice important
phenomena occurring outside the cage. The danger in becoming an expert oneself is
in building a particular cage or “box” in which you dogmatically reside, and expect
others to reside as well. The biggest obstacle to the development of important new
knowledge is not ignorance, but rather the current knowledge that already exists
(Loehle,1990). However, if knowledge is understood in relation to the “box” in
which it is produced, it ceases to be an obstacle.
11Vealey(128) 150
1/15/06, 11:56:08 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
151
The small cage habit also perpetuates scholarship as the “art of the soluble”
(Medawar, 1967) or what I call the study of the “known unknown.” Martens (1979)
warned that the need to practice “science” in familiar ways leads to the manufacturing of “problems” that can be easily pursued using familiar methods and theories.
Of course, the reward structure within academic communities that lauds quantity
and gives lip service to quality and significance is part of the problem. However,
the increased diversification of research in the last decade hopefully indicates that
the scholarly leaders and gatekeepers in sport and exercise psychology are moving
the field toward a problem-focused, “multi-box” research agenda with many doors
opening up toward socially relevant issues that need our attention in an increasingly
unhealthy, inactive, professionalized world.
What are you trying to discover? If youʼre not sure, I invite you to reflect
upon the contributions of the pioneers and leaders that dedicated their professional
careers to discovery, and in doing so developed the academic subdiscipline and
professional field of sport and exercise psychology. I know that I am appreciative
of and inspired by these individuals who paved the way for me to engage in the
fascinating study of the psychosocial processes that influence human behavior in
sport and exercise.
References
Alderman, R.B. (1974). Psychological behavior in sport. New York: Saunders.
Allport, F.H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Ammons, R.B. (1951). Effects of prepractice on rotary pursuit performance. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 41, 187-191.
Anderson, W.G. (1899). Studies in the effects of physical training. American Physical
Education Review, 4, 265-278.
Baekeland, F. (1970). Exercise deprivation: Sleep and psychological reactions. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 22, 365-369.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Berger, B.G., & Owen, D.R. (1983). Mood alteration with swimming: Swimmers really do
“feel better.” Psychosomatic Medicine, 45, 425-432.
Berger, B.G., & Owen, D.R. (1988). Stress reduction and mood enhancement in four exercise
modes: Swimming, body conditioning, hatha yoga, and fencing. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 59, 148-159.
Biondi, A.M. (1980). About the small cage habit. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, 75-76.
Boutcher, S.H., & Zinsser, N. (1990). Cardiac deceleration of elite and beginning golfers
during putting. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 37-47.
Brawley, L.R., & Martin, K.A. (1995). The interface between social and sport psychology.
The Sport Psychologist, 9, 469-497.
Bredemeier, B.L. (2001). Feminist praxis in sport psychology research. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 412-418.
Brustad, R. (2002). A critical analysis of knowledge construction in sport psychology. In
T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 21-37). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Buckworth, J., & Dishman, R.K. (2002). Exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Carron, A.V. (1978). Role behavior and coach-athlete interaction. International Review of
Sport Sociology, 13, 51-65.
11Vealey(128) 151
1/15/06, 11:56:09 AM
152
Vealey
Carron, A.V. (1980). Social psychology of sport. Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.
Carron, A.V., & Ball, J.R. (1977). Cause-effect characteristics of cohesiveness and participation motivation in intercollegiate hockey. International Review of Sport Sociology,
12, 49-60.
Carron, A.V., & Bennett, B.B. (1977). Compatibility in the coach-athlete dyad. Research
Quarterly, 48, 671-679.
Carron, A.V., Hausenblas, H.A., & Estabrooks, P.A. (2003). The psychology of physical
activity. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Cattell, J.M. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373-381.
Cattell, R.B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. New York:
World.
Cattell, R.B. (1960). Some psychological correlates of physical fitness and physique. In
S.C. Staley, T.K. Cureton, L.J. Huelster, & A.J. Barry (Eds.), Exercise and fitness (pp.
138-151). Chicago: Athletic Institute.
Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social problem?
Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285.
Corbin, C.B. (1991). Further reactions to Newell: Becoming a field is more than saying we
are one. Quest, 43, 224-229.
Craft, L.L., & Landers, D.M. (1998). The effects of exercise on clinical depression and
depression resulting from mental illness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 20, 339-357.
Cratty, B.J. (1964). Motor behavior and motor learning. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Crews, D.J., & Landers, D.M. (1987). A meta-analytic review of aerobic fitness and reactivity
to psychosocial stressors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19, 114-120.
Crews, D.J., & Landers, D.M. (1992). Electroencephalographic measures of attentional patterns
prior to the golf putt. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25, 116-126.
Crews, D.J., Lochbaum, M.R., & Karoly, P. (2001). Self-regulation: Concepts, methods,
and strategies in sport and exercise. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle
(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 566-581). New York: Wiley.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Culver, D.M., Gilbert, W.D., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in sport
psychology journals: 1990-1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 1-15.
Cummins, R.A. (1914). A study of the effect of basketball practice on motor reaction attention and suggestibility. Psychological Review, 21, 356-369.
Cureton, T.K. (1963). Improvement of psychological states by means of exercise-fitness programs. Journal of the Association of Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, 17, 14-17.
Danish, S.J., & Hale, B.D. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sport psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 90-99.
Davis, S.F., Huss, M.T., & Becker, A.H. (1995). Norman Triplett and the dawning of sport
psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 366-375.
Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dishman, R.K. (1982). Compliance/adherence in health related exercise. Health Psychology, 1, 237-267.
Dishman, R.K. (1986). Exercise compliance: A new view for public health. The Physician
and Sports Medicine, 14, 127-145.
Dishman, R.K. (1988). Exercise adherence: Its impact on public health. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Dishman, R.K., & Buckworth, J. (1996). Increasing physical activity: A quantitative synthesis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28, 706-719.
11Vealey(128) 152
1/15/06, 11:56:11 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
153
Duda, J.L. (1997). Perpetuating myths: A response to Hardyʼs 1996 Coleman Griffith Address.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 307-313.
Duda, J.L. (Ed.) (1998). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Dzewaltowski, D.A. (1989). Toward a model of exercise motivation. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 11, 251-269.
Dzewaltowski, D.A. (1997). The ecology of physical activity and sport: Merging science
and practice. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 254-276.
Engle, G.L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129-136.
Ennis, C.D., Solmon, M.A., Satina, B., Loftus, S.J., Mensch, J., & McCauley, M.T. (1999).
Creating a sense of family in urban schools using the “Sport for Peace” curriculum.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 273-285.
Eysenck, H.J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge.
Feltz, D.L, & Kontos, A.P. (2002). The nature of sport psychology. In T.S. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Fisher, A.C., Ryan, E.D., & Martens, R. (1976). Current status and future directions of personality research related to motor behavior and sport: Three panelistsʼ views. In A.C.
Fisher (Ed.), Psychology of sport (pp. 400-431). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Fitz, G.W. (1895). A local reaction. Psychological Review, 2, 37-42.
Folkins, C.H., & Sime, W.E. (1981). Physical fitness training and mental health. American
Psychologist, 36, 373-389.
Franz, S.I., & Hamilton, G.V. (1905). The effects of exercise upon the retardation in conditions of depression. American Journal of Insanity, 62, 239-256.
Giacobbi, P.R., Poczwardowski, A., & Hager, P. (2005). A pragmatic research philosophy
for applied sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 18-31.
Gibbons, S.L., Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M.R. (1995). Fair Play for Kids: Effects on the moral
development of children in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 66, 247-255.
Gill, D.L. (1986). Psychological dynamics of sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gill, D.L. (1995). Womenʼs place in the history of sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 418-433.
Gill, D.L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Gill, D.L. (2001). Feminist sport psychology: A guide for our journey. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 363-372.
Gould, D. (1982). Sport psychology in the 1980s: Status, direction and challenge in youth
sports research. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 203-218.
Gould, D., & Pick, S. (1995). Sport psychology: The Griffith era, 1920-1940. The Sport
Psychologist, 9, 391-405.
Green, C.D. (2003). Psychology strikes out: Coleman R. Griffith and the Chicago Cubs.
History of Psychology, 6, 267-283.
Greenspan, M.J., & Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219-236.
Griffith, C.R. (1925). Psychology and its relation to athletic competition. American Physical
Education Review, 30, 193-199.
Griffth, C.R. (1926). Psychology of coaching. New York: Scribnerʼs.
Griffith, C.R. (1928). Psychology and athletics. New York: Scribnerʼs.
Gruber, J.J. (1986). Physical activity and self-esteem development in children: A metaanalysis. In G.A. Stull & H.M. Eckert (Eds.), Effects of physical activity on children:
A special tribute to Mabel Lee (pp. 30-48). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hailey, B.J., & Bailey, L.A. (1982). Negative addiction in runners: A qualitative approach.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 5, 150-154.
11Vealey(128) 153
1/15/06, 11:56:14 AM
154
Vealey
Hall, G.S. (1908). Physical education in colleges: Report of the National Education Association. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hardy, L. (1997). The Coleman Roberts Griffith Address: Three myths about applied consultancy work. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 277-294.
Harmon, J.M., & Johnson, W.R. (1952). The emotional reactions of college athletes. Research
Quarterly, 23, 391-397.
Harris, D.V. (Ed.) (1972). Women in sport: A national research conference. State College,
PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Harris, J.C. (1987). Social contexts, scholarly inquiry, and physical education. Quest, 39,
282-294.
Harrison, R.P., & Feltz, D.L. (1979). The professionalization of sport psychology: Legal
considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 182-190.
Hart, E.A., Leary, M.R., & Rejeski, W.J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 94-104.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Human Development, 21, 34-64.
Harwood, C., Hardy, L., & Swain, A. (2000). Achievement goals in sport: A critique of
conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22,
235-255.
Hastie, P.A., & Buchanan A.M. (2000). Teaching responsibility through sport education:
Prospects of a coalition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 25-35.
Hatfield, B.D., & Landers, D.M. (1983). Psychophysiology—A new direction for sport
psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 243-259.
Hatfield, B.D., & Landers, D.M. (1987). Psychophysiology in exercise and sport research:
An overview. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 15, 351-387.
Hatfield, B.D., Landers, D.M., & Ray, W.J. (1984). Cognitive processes during self-paced
motor performance: An electroencephalographic profile of skilled marksmen Journal
of Sport Psychology, 6, 42-59.
Hellison, D.R. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hennis, G.M., & Ulrich, C. (1958). Study of psychic stress in freshman college women.
Research Quarterly, 29, 172-179.
Henry, F.M. (1941). Personality differences in athletes, physical education, and aviation
students. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 745.
Henry, F.M.. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health, Physical Education & Recreation, 35, 32-33.
Hilgard, E.R. (1948). Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Horn, T.S. (Ed.) (1992). Advances in sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horn, T.S. (Ed.) (2002). Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Howard, G.E. (1912). Social psychology of the spectator. American Journal of Sociology,
8, 33-50.
Howell, M.L. (1953). Influence of emotional tension on speed of reaction and movement.
Research Quarterly, 24, 22-32.
Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Husman, B.F. (1955). Aggression in boxers and wrestlers as measured by projective techniques. Research Quarterly, 26, 421-425.
Jackson, C.O. (1933). An experimental study of the effect of fear on muscular coordination.
Research Quarterly, 4, 71-80.
Jacobson, E. (1932). Electrophysiology of mental activities. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 677-694.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Johnson, W.R. (1949). A study of emotion revealed in two types of athletic sports contests.
Research Quarterly, 20, 72-79.
11Vealey(128) 154
1/15/06, 11:56:17 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
155
Johnson, W.R. (Ed.) (1960). Science and medicine of exercise and sports. New York:
Harper.
Johnson, W.R. (1961). Hypnosis and muscular performance. Journal of Sports Medicine
and Physical Fitness, 1, 71-79.
Johnson, W.R., & Hutton, D.H. (1955). Effects of a combative sport upon personality dynamics as measured by a projective test. Research Quarterly, 26, 49-53.
Johnson, W.R., Hutton, D.H., & Johnson, G.B. (1954). Personality traits of some champion
athletes as measured by two projective tests: The Rorschach and H-T-P. Research
Quarterly, 25, 484-485.
Kellor, F.A. (1898). A psychological basis for physical culture. Education, 19, 100-104.
Kornspan, A.S., & MacCracken, M.J. (2001). Psychology applied to sport in the 1940s: The
work of Dorothy Hazeltine Yates. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 342-345.
Krane, V. (1994). A feminist perspective on contemporary sport psychology research. The
Sport Psychologist, 8, 411-426.
Krane, V. (2001). One lesbian feminist epistemology: Integrating feminist standpoint, queer
theory, and feminist cultural studies. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 401-411.
Kroll, W., & Lewis, G. (1970). Americaʼs first sport psychologist. Quest, 13, 1-4.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Landers, D.M. (1983). Whatever happened to theory testing in sport psychology? Journal
of Sport Psychology, 5, 135-151.
Landers, D.M. (1995). Sport psychology: The formative years, 1950-1980. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 406-417.
Landers, D.M., Bauer, R.S., & Feltz, D.L. (1978). Social facilitation during the initial stage
of motor learning: A re-examination of Martensʼ audience study. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 10, 325-337.
Landers, D.M., Boutcher, S.J., & Wang, M.Q. (1986). A psychobiological study of archery
performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 236-244.
Landers, D.M., & McCullagh, P.D. (1976). Social facilitation of motor performance. In J.
Keough & R.S. Hutton (Eds.), Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (Vol. 4, pp. 125162). Santa Barbara, CA: Journal Publishing Affiliates.
Landers, D.M., & Petruzello, S.J. (1994). The effectiveness of exercise and physical
activity in reducing anxiety and reactivity to psychosocial stressors. In H.A. Qinney,
L. Gauvin, & A.E.T. Wall (Eds.), Toward active living (pp. 77-82). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Lawther, J.D. (1951). Psychology of coaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Loehle, C. (1990). A guide to increased creativity in research - inspiration or perspiration?
Bioscience, 40, 123-129.
Maehr, M.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look.
In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 221-267). New
York: Academic Press.
Martens, R. (1969). Effect of an audience on learning and performance of a complex motor
skill. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 252-260.
Martens, R. (1970). A social psychology of physical activity. Quest, 14, 8-17.
Martens, R. (1971). Anxiety and motor behavior: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3,
151-179.
Martens, R. (1975a, March). Psychological testing of athletes. Basketball Bulletin, 8283.
Martens, R. (1975b). Social psychology and physical activity. New York: Harper & Row.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R. (1979). About smocks and jocks. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 94-99.
Martens, R. (1987). Science, philosophy, and sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist,
1, 29-55.
11Vealey(128) 155
1/15/06, 11:56:19 AM
156
Vealey
Martens, R., & Landers, D.M. (1969a). Coaction effects on a muscular endurance task.
Research Quarterly, 40, 733-737.
Martens, R., & Landers, D.M. (1969b). Effect of anxiety, competition, and failure on performance of a complex motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1, 1-10.
Martens, R., & Landers, D.M. (1972). Evaluation potential as a determinant of coaction
effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 347-359.
Marx, J. (2004, August 29). He turns boys into men. Parade, 4-6.
McAuley, E. (1991). Efficacy, attributional, and affective responses to exercise participation.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 382-393.
McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clarke, R.A., & Lowell, E.J. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCloy, C. (1930). Character building through physical education. Research Quarterly,
1, 41-61.
Medawar, P.B. (1967). The art of the soluble. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification. New York: Plenum.
Michael, E.D. (1957). Stress adaptation through exercise. Research Quarterly, 28, 50-54.
Miles, W.R. (1928). Studies in physical exertion: I. A multiple chronograph for measuring
groups of men. American Physical Education Review, 33, 379-387.
Miles, W.R. (1931). Studies in physical exertion: II. Individual and group reaction time in
football charging. Research Quarterly, 2, 5-13.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality.
Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
Morgan, W.P. (1968). Selected physiological and psychomotor correlates of depression in
psychiatric patients. Research Quarterly, 39, 1037-1043.
Morgan, W.P. (1969). Physical fitness and emotional health: A review. American Correctional
Therapy Journal, 23, 124-127.
Morgan, W.P. (1970. Physical working capacity in depressed and non-depressed psychiatric
females: A preliminary study. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 24, 14-16.
Morgan, W.P. (1972). Hypnosis and muscular performance. In W.P. Morgan (Ed.), Ergogenic
aids and muscular performance (pp. 193-233). New York: Academic Press.
Morgan, W.P. (1973). Psychological factors influencing perceived exertion. Medicine and
Science in Sports, 5, 97-103.
Morgan, W.P. (1976). Psychological consequences of vigorous physical activity and sport.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 301, 15-30.
Morgan, W.P. (1979a). Anxiety reduction following acute physical activity. Psychiatric
Annals, 9, 36-45.
Morgan, W.P. (1979b). Negative addiction in runners. Physician and Sportsmedicine, 7, 57-70.
Morgan, W.P., Brown, D.R., Raglin, J.S., OʼConnor, P.J., & Ellickson, K.A. (1987). Psychological monitoring of overtraining and staleness. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
21, 107-114.
Murphy, H.H. (1916). Distribution of practice periods in learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 7, 150-162.
Murphy, S. (1999). The cheers and the tears: A healthy alternative to the dark side of youth
sports today. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nash, J.B. (1960). Education for leisure: A must. Journal of Health, Physical Education
and Recreation, 62, 17-18.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Newell, K.M. (1990). Physical activity, knowledge types, and degree programs. Quest, 42,
243-268.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. I, pp.
39-73). New York: Academic Press.
11Vealey(128) 156
1/15/06, 11:56:22 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
157
Noble, S.G. (1922). The acquisition of skill in the throwing of basketball goals. School and
Society, 16, 640-644.
North,T.C., McCullagh, P., & Vu Tran, W. (1990). Effects of exercise on depression. Exercise
and Sport Science Reviews, 19, 379-415.
OʼConnor, E.A. (2004). Which questionnaire? Assessment practices of sport psychology
consultants. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 464-468.
Ogilvie, B.C., & Tutko, T.A. (1966). Problem athletes and how to handle them. London:
Palham.
Oglesby, C.A. (1978). Women in sport: From myth to reality. Philadelphia: Lea &
Febiger.
Oglesby, C.A. (2001). To unearth the legacy. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 373-385.
OʼNeal, F.W. (1936). A behavior frequency rating scale for the measurement of character
personality in high school physical education classes for boys. Research Quarterly,
7, 67-76.
Patrick, G.T.W. (1903). The psychology of football. American Journal of Psychology, 14,
104-117.
Petruzello, S.J., Landers, D.M., Hatfield, B.D., Kubitz, K.A., & Salazar, W. (1991). A metaanalysis on the anxiety reducing effects of acute and chronic exercise: Outcomes and
mechanisms. Sports Medicine, 11, 143-180.
Platt, J.R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347-352.
Ragsdale, C.E. (1930). The psychology of motor learning. Ann Arbor: Edward Brothers.
Rejeski, W.J. (1992). Motivation for exercise behavior: A critique of theoretical directions.
In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129-158). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Rejeski, W.J., & Brawley, L.R. (1983). Attribution theory in sport: Current status and new
perspectives. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 77-79.
Rejeski, W.J., & Thompson, A. (1993). Historical and conceptual roots of exercise psychology. In P. Seraganian (Ed.), Exercise psychology: The influence of physical exercise on
psychological processes (pp. 3-38). New York: Wiley.
Richardson, B.E. (1936). A behavior frequency rating scale for measurement of character
and personality in physical education. Research Quarterly, 7, 57-66.
Roberts, G.C. (1972). Effect of achievement motivation and social environment on performance of a motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 4, 37-46.
Roberts, G.C. (1974). Effect of achievement motivation and social environment on risk
taking. Research Quarterly, 45, 42-55.
Roberts, G.C., & Pascuzzi, D. (1979). Causal attributions in sport: Some theoretical implications. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 203-211.
Robinson, D.N. (1972). Psychology: A study of its origins and principles. Encino, CA:
Dickensen.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the worker: An account of
a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works,
Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, E.D. (1962). Effects of stress on motor performance and learning. Research Quarterly, 32, 111-119.
Ryan, E.D., & Lakie, W.L. (1965). Competitive and noncompetitive performance in relation
to achievement motivation and manifest anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1, 344-345.
Ryba, T.V., & Wright, H.K. (2005). From mental game to cultural praxis: A cultural
studies modelʼs implications for the future of sport psychology. Quest, 57, 192212.
Sarason, S.B. (1981). Psychology misdirected. New York: Free Press.
Schilder, P. (1935). The image and appearance of the human body. New York: International
Universities Press.
11Vealey(128) 157
1/15/06, 11:56:24 AM
158
Vealey
Scripture, E.W. (1899). Cross-education. Popular Science Monthly, 56, 589-596.
Secord, P.F., & Jourard, S.M. (1953). The appraisal of body cathexis: Body cathexis and the
self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 343-347.
Sherif, C.W. (1979). Bias in psychology. In J.A. Sherman & E.T. Beck (Eds.), The prism
of sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 93-133). Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row.
Shields, D.L.L., & Bredemeier, B.J.L. (1995). Character development and physical activity.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sibley, B.A., & Etnier, J.L. (2003). The relationships between physical activity and cognition
in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P.A., & van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete guide to sport education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Silva, J.M. (1989). The evolution of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport
Psychology and the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1, 1-3.
Singer, R.N. (1965). Effect of spectators on athletes and non-athletes performing a gross
motor task. Research Quarterly, 36, 473-482.
Singer, R.N. (1970). Effect of an audience on performance of a motor task. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 2, 88-95.
Singer, R.N. (1972). Social facilitation. In W.P. Morgan (Ed.), Ergogenic aids and muscular
performance (pp. 264-289). New York: Academic Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skubic, E. (1949). A study in acquaintanceship and social status in physical education classes.
Research Quarterly, 20, 80-87.
Skubic, E. (1955). Emotional responses of boys to Little League and Middle League competitive baseball. Research Quarterly, 26, 342-352.
Skubic, E. (1956). Studies of Little League and Middle League baseball. Research Quarterly, 27, 97-110.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball.
In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp.
173-201). Washington: Hemisphere.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitivebehavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of
athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401-407.
Sonstroem, R.J. (1998). Physical self-concept: Assessment and external validity. Exercise
and Sport Sciences Reviews, 26, 133-164.
Sonstroem, R.J., & Morgan, W.P. (1989). Exercise and self-esteem: Rationale and model.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 329-337.
Spence, K.W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Spink, K.S., & Roberts, G.C. (1980). Ambiguity of outcome and causal attribution. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 2, 237-244.
Straub, W.F., & Williams, J.M. (Eds.) (1984). Cognitive sport psychology. Lansing, NY:
Sport Science Associates.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-553.
Tutko, T.A., Lyon, L.P., & Ogilvie, B.C. (1969). Athletic motivation inventory. San Jose,
CA: Institute for the Study of Athletic Motivation.
Ulrich, C. (1957) Measurement of stress evidence by college women in situations involving
competition. Research Quarterly, 28, 160-172.
Ulrich, C., & Burke, R.K. (1957). Effects of motivational stress upon physical performance.
Research Quarterly, 28, 403-412.
11Vealey(128) 158
1/15/06, 11:56:27 AM
Smocks and Jocks Outside the Box
159
Van Landuyt, L.M., Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E.E., & Petruzello, S.J. (2000). Throwing the
mountains into the lakes: On the perils of nomothetic conceptions of the exercise-affect
relationship. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 208-234.
Vaux, C.L. (1926). A discussion of physical exercise and recreation. Occupational Therapy
and Rehabilitation, 5, 329-333.
Vealey, R.S. (1994). Current status and prominent issues in sport psychology interventions.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 495-502.
Vealey, R.S. (1999). The achieving personality: From anxiety to confidence in sport. In
G.G. Brannigan (Ed.), The sport scientists: Research adventures (pp. 34-56). New
York: Longman.
Vealey, R.S. (2002). Personality and sport behavior. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 39-82). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2001). The use of sport psychology services at NCAA Division
I universities from 1998-1999. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 91-102.
Washburn, M.F. (1916). Movement and mental imagery. Boston: Houghton.
Websterʼs new world dictionary (2nd college ed.). (1980). New York: Collins.
Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport & exercise psychology (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago:
Markham.
Weiss, M.R. (Ed.) (2004). Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Weiss, M.R., & Bredemeier, B.J. (1983). Developmental sport psychology: A theoretical
perspective for studying children in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 216-230.
Whaley, D.E. (2001). Feminist methods and methodologies in sport and exercise psychology:
Issues of identity and difference. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 419-430.
Williams, J.M. (Ed.) (1986). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Williams, J.M. (Ed.) (2006). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, J.M., & Scherzer, C.B. (2003). Tracking the training and careers of graduates
of advanced degree programs in sport psychology, 1994 to 1999. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 15, 335-353.
Willis, J.D., & Campbell, L.F. (1992). Exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wundt, W. (1874). Principles of physiological psychology. Leipzig: Engelmann.
Yates, D.H. (1932). Psychological racketeers. Boston: Badger.
Yates, D.H. (1943). A practical method of using set. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27,
512-519.
Yates, D.H. (1957). Psychology you can use. New York: Crowell.
Youngstedt, S.D., OʼConnor, P.J., & Dishman, R.K. (1997). The effects of acute exercise
on sleep: A quantitative synthesis. Sleep, 20, 203-214.
Author Note
Thanks to Maureen Weiss for her helpful feedback on the presentation of this paper, to
Glyn Roberts, Rainer Martens, James Davis, and Alan Kornspan for their assistance in recounting historical events, and to Penny McCullagh, David Conroy, Keith Chapin, Alan Kornspan,
Mary Jo MacCracken, and Julie Martens for providing photographs used in the presentation of
this article.
11Vealey(128) 159
1/15/06, 11:56:29 AM