Confidence, Concentration, and Competitive Performance of Elite Athletes: A Natural Experiment in Olympic Gymnastics.
Saved in:
| Title: | Confidence, Concentration, and Competitive Performance of Elite Athletes: A Natural Experiment in Olympic Gymnastics. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Grandjean, Burke D., Taylor, Patricia A., Weiner, Jay |
| Source: | Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. Sep 2002 24(3):320-327. |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 8 |
| Publication Date: | 2002 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Athletes, Competition, Olympic Games, Self Esteem, Womens Athletics |
| ISSN: | 0895-2779 |
| Abstract: | During the women's all-around gymnastics final at the 2000 Olympics, the vault was inadvertently set 5 cm too low for a random half of the gymnasts. The error was widely viewed as undermining their confidence and subsequent performance. However, data from pretest and posttest scores on the vault, bars, beam, and floor indicated that the vault error had little if any effect on later performance or final standings. (SM) |
| Entry Date: | 2003 |
| Accession Number: | EJ660149 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFWl7XpWDuts6mVu44ONwc5AAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB5akN87YmMNXYXQkwIBEICBmSl3otmx4QOrlAfZ0PgQZUUO9czKXYcy6bPkNpf6S29lY1H8rc0FlXCE1KmbOR7lTjRZPmq64Q9uIJ8V25uX3cqX922Bib1qkrd4RAnhdXUuI0YrW1w-02SV8p5B-UVckzE7Qv4TGzEa3aRBxuJLgL_X7Ml5m7qJi1LuF7rCKNVGh_dQRM3hmi5o_s8UofWcRM0XS1a10ixENQ== Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0007405146;seg01sep.02;2002Oct22.15:43;v1.9</anid> <jsection id="AN0007405146-1"> BRIEF REPORT</jsection> <title id="AN0007405146-2">Confidence, Concentration, and Competitive Performance of Elite Athletes: A Natural Experiment in Olympic Gymnastics </title> <p>During the women's all-around gymnastics final at the 2000 Olympics, the vault was inadvertently set 5 cm too low for a random half of the 36 gymnasts. The error was widely viewed as undermining their confidence and adversely affecting their subsequent performance. This paper examines whether the vault problem had such a carryover effect. Both pretest scores (from preliminary rounds) and posttest scores (from the final) are available on vault, bars, beam, and floor. Manipulation checks establish that the error had experimental impact on vault performance. However, from comparing means, from analysis of covariance, from multiple regression, and from statistically adjusting the official scores, it is clear that the vault error had little if any effect on later performances or on the final standings. Elite athletes in a closed-skill sport apparently learn to concentrate so well that most can recover from a mishap and refocus successfully for the next effort.</p> <p>Key Words: all-around, attention, closed-skill, distraction, momentum, self-doubt, vault</p> <p>Situational mental states can affect athletic performance (Perreault, Vallerand, Montgomery, &amp; Provencher, 1998), as can trainable mental skills (Nideffer, 1993). Yet psychological factors may be a result of successful performance as well as a cause (Cornelius, Silva, Conroy, &amp; Petersen, 1997). Experiments to pinpoint the causal order typically use somewhat artificial laboratory conditions (e.g., Perreault et al., 1998) and almost never involve elite athletes (Vernacchia, McGuire, Reardon, &amp; Templin, 2000).</p> <p>This paper examines an unintended “experiment” on world-class gymnasts at the 2000 Olympics. During the women's all-around final, the vault apparatus was initially set 5 centimeters too low, potentially undermining the athletes' selfconfidence. The 18 gymnasts who vaulted early in the competition became an unknowing experimental group. The remaining 18 vaulted after the error was corrected, becoming a randomized control group. Both groups have pretest scores (from preliminary rounds) and posttest scores (from the final) on each of the four apparatuses: vault, bars, beam, and floor. The present analysis tests whether the vault had a carryover effect on subsequent apparatuses attributable to lost confidence. It also addresses an international controversy about how the vault error may have affected the final standings (Associated Press, 2000b).</p> <hd id="AN0007405146-3">Confidence and Concentration in Gymnastics</hd> <p>Overcoming self-doubt is fundamental to the mental preparation of all elite athletes (Vernacchia et al., 2000). However, cognitive demands vary. Gymnastics is a “closed-skill” sport, in which the athlete competes alone against an internalized performance ideal (Nideffer, 1993). Open-skill contests such as tennis involve head-to-head opponents while team sports such as basketball are group efforts.</p> <p>Athletes in closed-skill sports report more concerns about anxiety management than do other athletes (Mahoney, Gabriel, &amp; Perkins, 1987). Snyder (1990) interviewed female college gymnasts who described some of the mental aspects of their sport: “Most people go through their routines in their minds to help handle their nerves and give themselves confidence…. Once you fall off, you can't keep your thoughts straight and concentrate on the rest of your routine…. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down and I have flashes of him. I know you can get hurt” (pp. 258–260).</p> <p>Such concerns became vividly real at the 2000 Olympics when the vault was set too low. Of the first 18 vaulters, 5 fell—among them Britain's Annika Reeder, who had to leave the arena in a wheelchair (Alexander, 2000). Another 8 stumbled less seriously but still scored lower on the vault than they had in the qualifying round.</p> <p>The apparatus was corrected for the remaining gymnasts. Though 5 of the first 18 accepted a later offer to re-vault, Reeder was too badly injured to continue. Leonid Arkayev, a Russian coach, protested that “the competition should have been stopped, and started from the beginning again. Because the equipment was not right, the result of the competition is questionable” (NBC, 2000b). The American coach, Bela Karolyi, agreed: “It handicapped 50 percent of the gymnasts here. It takes away all your confidence” (cited in Alexander, 2000). American competitor Elise Ray added that her “confidence was really down after vault, and it definitely carried over” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2000).</p> <hd id="AN0007405146-4">Method</hd> <p>The gymnasts were randomly assigned to four subgroups that rotated among the apparatuses, starting from any one (e.g., from vault to bars to beam to floor). The 18 gymnasts in the two “experimental” subgroups vaulted either first or second. The 18 in the two “control” subgroups started on beam or bars, and then vaulted third or fourth. Among those in the experimental group, half did the floor exercise before the vault; hence their scores on the floor are treated as part of the control condition.</p> <p>In international gymnastics, six highly trained judges rate, each performance on a 10-point scale. The highest and lowest ratings are deleted and the others are averaged, to reduce the impact of any one judge's bias or misperception (cf. Plessner, 1999).</p> <p>For the 5 gymnasts who accepted the option to re-vault, both their original vault scores and their re-vault scores were obtained. Most of the analysis uses the original scores, since these show the impact of the manipulation, but results will also he provided using the re-vaults. All scores are from the official website of the Olympics (olympics.com), excepting only the original vault scores for the gymnasts who re-vaulted. Those were obtained directly by the third author at the scene in Sydney. The pretest measures rest mainly on scores from the team qualifying, 4 days earlier. These scores are available for all 36 gymnasts. Half (10 from the experimental group and 8 controls) also recorded apparatus scores in the team final, 2 days before the all-around. For these 18, the pretest values average those two sets of scores, to enhance reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0007405146-5">Results</hd> <p>As shown in the first column of Table 1, in each experimental subgroup the mean vault score dropped nearly 0.3 point below the pretest mean. Combining the two subgroups, the drop is significant, p &lt; .05. One control subgroup declined minutely in mean vault, p &gt; .3, while the other improved slightly, p &gt; .05.</p> <p>In world-class competition, a score below 9.0 on any apparatus is unusual and a score below 8.0 is quite rare. None in the control group scored below 9.0 on the vault, but in the experimental group there were five such scores, including two below 7.7 (results not shown). Half of the control gymnasts scored higher in the final than in the pretest, as might be expected by chance; however, only 28% of those in the experimental subgroups improved, significantly less than chance (p &lt; .05 in a one-tailed binomial test). Other than Reeder, the three lowest scorers and two others all re-vaulted, each pulling her score above 9.1, for a 7% improvement on average (p &lt;. 10, one-tailed paired t-test).</p> <p>Taken together, these manipulation checks confirm that the shortened vault had substantial experimental impact (see also International Gymnast, 2000). Comments by athletes and coaches, quoted above, suggest that the manipulation mainly affected confidence. Despite this face validity, the design does not rule out other possible mechanisms. If the results were to show a carryover effect after the vault, explanations such as injury, fatigue, or perceived prospects for winning would still have to be considered.</p> <p>In fact, however, the remaining columns of Table 1 provide no consistent evidence for any carryover at all, whatever the mechanism. On the bars, only one experimental subgroup did even marginally worse in the finals than their pretest mean. Also, the controls declined on the bars by nearly as much. On the beam, both experimental subgroups declined significantly, by about 0.2 point, but so did one of the two control subgroups. On the floor exercise, the lone experimental subgroup declined very slightly, but by about the same amount as the average decline for the controls.</p> <p>Table 2 further demonstrates the lack of carryover, using analysis of covariance. For the vault, being in the experimental group lowered the posttest significantly, controlling for pretest. For no other apparatus is the effect of group membership either statistically significant or substantial in size. For bars the effect is not even in the predicted negative direction, and for beam and floor it is estimated at less than 0.1 point. Nor are there any substantial or significant interactions between group membership and the covariates.</p> <p>As detailed in footnotes to the tables, these analyses were repeated using the re-vault scores (and deleting Reeder). Doing so virtually eliminates any effect of experimental group on the final vault scores. Another such analysis (not shown) used multiple regression to predict the sum of the four final apparatus scores from subgroup membership, controlling for all the separate pretest apparatus scores.</p> <p>Once again, the effects of being in the experimental subgroups are small, inconsistent in sign (negative as expected for Subgroup 2, metric slope = −.086, but positive for Subgroup 1, slope = +.110), and statistically insignificant. The pretest scores account for over 70% of the variance in total score in the final, while subgroup membership adds only ½% to the explained variance. And again, there are no substantial or significant interactions.</p> <p>Thus, the results so far show no convincing evidence that the vault error influenced performance on subsequent apparatuses nor, after the re-vault, that it even lowered vault scores compared to the pretest (except for Reeder).</p> <p>Another search for a treatment effect involves considering whether the final standings were influenced. Comparing the official standings with the original standings as they stood before the re-vaults (results not shown), the first 13 places are identical and the Spearman rank-order correlation is p = +.93, p &lt; .001. Below 13th place, only one gymnast's rank changed more than 3 positions as a result of the re-vault (Ray, who improved from 35th to 14th place).</p> <p>Further, consider two alternative statistical adjustments to the scores, based on the earlier findings. In one adjustment, .161 was added to the official scores for Subgroup 1, representing the estimated adverse effect of the manipulation on scores in beam and floor (.068 + .093), based on the results in Table 2. Similarly, .068 was added to the scores for Subgroup 2, for beam only. The second adjustment relied on the regression results instead, adding .086 for Subgroup 2, their estimated disadvantage in total score, and nothing for Subgroup 1, since the regression showed no negative effect for them.</p> <p>Each of these two statistical adjustments produces a ranking that correlates above p = +.99, p &lt; .001, with the official standings (results not shown). The gymnasts who completed the all-around final seem to have placed about where they would have with no vault error.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0007405146-6">Discussion</hd> <p>If a treatment effect had been found, there would be room to doubt whether is worked through confidence, injury, fatigue, or another factor. Instead, the task is to propose why a manipulation with clear experimental impact did not have the predicted carryover. The explanation may lie in two characteristics of the research group: they are world-class athletes in a closed-drill sport. Closed-skill competitors learn to block out distractions such as self-doubt (Nideffer, 1993). Olympic-caliber athletes master such concentration skills far better than the average athlete (Vernacchia et al., 2000). Hence, their highly developed mental skills would allow these Olympic gymnasts to suffer a confidence-shaking mishap on one apparatus, yet still regain a narrow mental focus for the next apparatus. As Elise Ray put it, “I tried to focus as much as I could on what I had trained to do, on the technical corrections” (NBC, 2000a).</p> <p>Thus, concentration may be as important to a closed-skill athlete as confidence.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] That could explain why “psychological momentum” affects performance in an open-skill sport such as cycling (Perreault et al., 1998) but not in closed-skill activities such as shooting (Kerick, Iso-Ahola, &amp; Hatfield, 2000) or free-throws (Cornelius et al., 1997).</p> <p>Often, a “nonsignificant” result is dismissed as “not important” (cf. Grandjean &amp; Bernal, 1979). This paper hits therefore gone to some lengths to verify, using several analytic approaches, that the carryover effect of the experimental manipulation was virtually nil, contrary to the predicted association between confidence and performance. Although the design of this natural experiment was entirely fortuitous, its strengths far outweigh its shortcomings. It convincingly disconfirms the prediction.</p> <p>And this particular non-effect is an important finding, both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, it points to the key role played by concentration in the performance of elite athletes in closed-skill sports. In practical terms, it supports the judgment of Olympic officials that the opportunity to re-vault was a fair remedy for the calibration error. The mistake was grievous, but the officials' immediate response was an appropriate one in a high-pressure situation with the eyes of the world upon them.</p> <ref id="AN0007405146-7"> <title>Notes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>One gymnast, Russia's Ekaterina Lobazniouk, might arguably be elevated into medal contention as a result of the adjustments (4th vs. 5th). However, the adjustments are based on effects that cannot be distinguished from zero using the conventional criteria of statistical significance. To assume that they could precisely re-order athletes whose official scores differ by less than 1/10th of 1% hardly seems justified. Instead, the main conclusion from the statistical adjustments is the extreme similarity in overall rankings, as indicated by the high rank-order correlations. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>A remark by Romania's Andreea Raducan, the top scorer in the all-around final despite vaulting in the experimental group, is also informative: “I was able to control my emotions” (Chapman, 2000). But even Raducan was not immune to distraction. Shortly after the all-around competition, she tested positive for a banned substance in a decongestant, and her gold medal was rescinded. Three days later, still coping with the emotions and the media glare, she finished 7th out of 8 competitors in the individual apparatus final in the floor exercise, an event in which she was the defending world champion (Associated Press, 2000a). </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p> <bold> Note: </bold> The order of authorship is alphabetical. We thank Cynthia Armstrong, Andrew Bryson, Michael Nelson, and Nancy Prehn for their assistance. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2001 meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Session on Social Psychology.</p> <p>Manuscript submitted: July 1, 2001</p> <p>Revision accepted: January 15, 2002</p> <p> <bold> Table 1 Mean Performance Differences (finals score minus pretest score) by Apparatus and Rotation: Gymnasts in the Women's All-Around 2000 Olympics[a] </bold> </p> <ct id="AN0007405146-8"> Legend for Chart: A - Subgroup B - Vault[b] C - Bars D - Beam E - Floor A B C D E Rotation subgroup 1. Vault to bars to beam to floor N 9 9 9 9 Mean difference −.284 +.082 −.240 −.039 t-ratio 1.401 1.075 2.082[1] 0.334 2. Floor to vault to bars to beam[c] N 9 8 8 9 Mean difference −.269 −.188 −.203 +.026 t-ratio 1.161 1.071 1.756[1] 0.438 Experimental subgroups (1 &amp; 2) N 18 17 17 NA[d] Mean difference −.277 −.045 −.223 — t-ratio 1.851[1] 0.475 2.806[2] — 3. Beam to floor to vault to bars N 9 9 9 9 Mean difference +.134 −.056 −.246 +.006 t-ratio 1.402 0.587 2.177[x] 0.058 4. Bars to beam to floor to vault N 9 9 9 9 Mean difference −.008 −.123 −.001 −.088 t-ratio 0.566 0.134 0.004 0.680 Control subgroups (3 &amp; 4) N 18 18 18 18[e] Mean difference +.061 −.089 −.123 −.060 t-ratio 1.214 1.512 1.435 0.806</ct> <p>a Pretest scores taken from the same apparatus in the team competition earlier in the week (see text). One-tailed significance levels (from paired samples t-tests, comparing finals score to pretest score on each apparatus) reported as follows: 2 p &lt; .01; 1 p &lt; .05</p> <p>b The Vault column uses the original scores from the all-around final. Omitting Reeder's injury score and substituting the five re-vaults would yield mean differences of -.002 (t = 0.028) and +.019 (t = 0.284) for Subgroups 1 and 2 (n = 9 and 8, respectively), and +.008 (t = 0.189, N= 17) for the two combined.</p> <p>c Reeder withdrew after the vault due to injury and thus has missing data on bars and beam.</p> <p>d Subgroup 1 vaulted first, but Subgroup 2 did the floor exercise before vaulting; thus a mean for the floor combining Subgroups 1 and 2 is not computed.</p> <p>e Combining Subgroups 2, 3, and 4 would yield a mean difference for the floor of −.031 (t = 0.584, N = 27).</p> <p> <bold> Table 2 ANCOVA Effects of Experimental Group on Posttest Apparatus Scores, Controlling for Pretest Scores (additive models + interaction tests)[a] </bold> </p> <ct id="AN0007405146-9"> Legend for Chart: A - Dependent Variable: Finals Score on the Apparatus: Vault[b] B - Dependent Variable: Finals Score on the Apparatus: Bars C - Dependent Variable: Finals Score on the Apparatus: Beam D - Dependent Variable: Finals Score on the Apparatus: Floor A B C D Predictor Variables Metric effects (and t-ratios) from additive models Pretest score on the same apparatus 0.624 0.588 0.631 0.557 (2.164[1]) (1.843[1]) (2.176[1]) (3.031[2]) Experimental group[c] −.294 0.024 −.068 −.093 (1.841[1]) (0.215) (0.576) (0.826) Constant 3.552 3.850 3.356 4.157 (1.328) (1.263) (1.229) (2.391[1]) Model Summaries Bivariate r², posttest with pretest .083 .095 .120 .263 R²,additive model .169 .096 .129 .278 R², interaction model .181 .109 .160 .288 (t-ratio, Pretest x Group interaction) (0.702) (0.662) (1.064) (0.698) p-value, bivariate vs. interaction model .164 .787 .489 .566 (F-ratio, comparing those models) (1.916) (0.242) (0.732) (0.580) N 36 35 35 36</ct> <p>a One-tailed significance levels are reported as noted in Table 1. Squared values of r and R are unadjusted.</p> <p>b The Vault column uses as the dependent variable the original scores. Omitting Reeder's injury score and substituting the 5 re-vaults, the entries in this column, top to bottom, would be β&amp;sub1; = 0.535 (t = 5.954[xx]); β&amp;sub2;= 0.003 (t = 0.051); constant = 4.376 (t = 5.249[xx]); r² =.538; R²= .538; R²= .545 (t = 0.683); p = .793 (F= 0.234); N = 35.</p> <p>c Subgroup 2 did the floor exercise before vaulting. Thus when floor is the dependent variable, the experimental group variable contrasts Subgroup 1 (only, scored 1) with Subgroups 2, 3, and 4 (combined, scored 0). For the remaining three dependent variables, the contrast is between Subgroups 1 and 2 (scored 1) and Subgroups 3 and 4 (scored 0).</p> <ref id="AN0007405146-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext>Alexander, R. (2000, Sept. 22). All-around final marred by improper vault height. The Washington Post, p. D17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Associated Press. (2000a, Sept. 26). Raducan tests positive for stimulant, <ulink href="http://espn.go.com/">http://espn.go.com/</ulink> oly/summer00/news/2000/0925/776388.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Associated Press. (2000b, Sept. 28). Vault mixup could have cost gymnast medal, http:// espn.go.com/oly/summer00/news/2000/0924/773871.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Chapman, R. (2000, Sept. 22). Romania back on top of the world, <ulink href="http://www.olympics.com/">http://www.olympics.com/</ulink> eng/news/d08/BLOG-4PE38K.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Cornelius, A., Silva, J.M., Conroy, D.E., &amp; Petersen, G. (1997). The projected performance model: Relating cognitive and performance antecedents of psychological momentum. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 475–485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Grandjean, B.D., &amp; Bernal, H.H. (1979). Sex and centralization in a semi-profession. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 6, 84–102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>International Gymnast. (2000, Sept. 21). Notes. http:/<ulink href="http://www.intlgymnast.com/week2000/">www.intlgymnast.com/week2000/</ulink> sydney/notes8.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Kerick, S.E., Iso-Ahola, S.E., &amp; Hatfield, B.D. (2000). Psychological momentum in target shooting: Cortical, cognitive-affective, and behavioral responds. Journal of Sport &amp; Exercise Psychology, 22, 1–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Mahoney, M.J., Gabriel, T.J., &amp; Perkins, T.S. (1987). Psychological skills and exceptional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>NBC (2000a, Sept. 21). Ray: ‘It could have cost me a medal.’ http://sydney2000. NBCOlympics.com/news/gy/2000/09/21eliseray.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>NBC (200b, Sept. 24). Russian federation protests all-around. http://sydney2000. NBCOlympics.com/news/gy/2000/09/23vault.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Nideffer, R.N. (1993). Attention control training. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, &amp; L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 542–556). New York: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Perreault, S., Vallerand, R.J., Montgomery, D., &amp; Provencher, P. (1998). Coming from behind: On the effect of psychological momentum on sport performance. Journal of Sport &amp; Exercise Psychology, 20, 421–436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Plessner, H. (1999). Expectation biases in gymnastics judging. Journal of Sport &amp; Exercise Psychology, 21, 131–144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Snyder, E.E. (1990). Emotion and sport: A case study of collegiate women gymnasts. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7, 254–270.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (2000, Sept. 22). Romanians sweep all-around, but mismeasured vault causes outrage among gymnasts, coaches, p. D10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Vernacchia, R.A., McGuire, R.T., Reardon, J.P., &amp; Templin, D.P. (2000). Psychosocial characteristics of Olympic track and field athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 5–23.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Burke D. Grandjean, University of Wyoming. Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie WY 82071-3293. Dept of Statistics.; Patricia A. Taylor, University of Wyoming. Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie WY 82071-3293. and Jay Weiner, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 425 Portland Ave., Minneapolis MN 55488.</p> </aug> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ660149 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Confidence, Concentration, and Competitive Performance of Elite Athletes: A Natural Experiment in Olympic Gymnastics. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grandjean%2C+Burke+D%2E%22">Grandjean, Burke D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taylor%2C+Patricia+A%2E%22">Taylor, Patricia A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weiner%2C+Jay%22">Weiner, Jay</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Sport+%26+Exercise+Psychology%22"><i>Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology</i></searchLink>. Sep 2002 24(3):320-327. – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 8 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2002 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletes%22">Athletes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competition%22">Competition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Olympic+Games%22">Olympic Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Esteem%22">Self Esteem</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Womens+Athletics%22">Womens Athletics</searchLink> – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0895-2779 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: During the women's all-around gymnastics final at the 2000 Olympics, the vault was inadvertently set 5 cm too low for a random half of the gymnasts. The error was widely viewed as undermining their confidence and subsequent performance. However, data from pretest and posttest scores on the vault, bars, beam, and floor indicated that the vault error had little if any effect on later performance or final standings. (SM) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2003 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ660149 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ660149 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 8 StartPage: 320 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Athletes Type: general – SubjectFull: Competition Type: general – SubjectFull: Olympic Games Type: general – SubjectFull: Self Esteem Type: general – SubjectFull: Womens Athletics Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Confidence, Concentration, and Competitive Performance of Elite Athletes: A Natural Experiment in Olympic Gymnastics. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Grandjean, Burke D. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Taylor, Patricia A. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Weiner, Jay IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2002 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0895-2779 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 24 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
