USC great Ronnie Lott once said, "if you can believe it, the mind can achieve it." This blog is about the psychology of such athletes both on and off the field. Unlike nearly every other blog on sports psychology, you will not be "suggested" to buy a product, and more often than not, the posts will not help you improve your performance. It is a blog for those interested in how an athlete thinks, and what separates the elite players from the rest.
The psychological concept of "contagion" is based on the idea that an object somehow absorbs the qualities of its previous owner. This is why the majority of people would not want to wear a sweater worn by Adolf Hitler. They know logically that evil doesn't stick to a sweater, but something about wearing it makes them feel uncomfortable. It's not that people believe logically or consciously that contagion exists, but on some unconscious level, it effects the way that we feel about and use items that we know have been used by someone else.
Would you wear this sweater if you knew that Hitler had? (source)
For example, a recent study shows that contagion can lead to confidence, and ultimately superior performance in sport. The study was conducted by Undergraduate Charles Lee of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville (UVA), and was intended to quantitatively measure the effect of contagion in golf. The study was conducted by assembling a group of 41 avid golfers, all of whom knew of putting expert Ben Curtis. The golfers were then broken into two groups; one group was given a "really nice" putter, and the other group was given a "putter owned by Ben Curtis" (the trick being that they were both given the same putter, which had never been used before by anyone.) Each subject was then told to make an identical series of putts. Low and behold, for every ten putts, the group that was putting with the "Ben Curtis putter" sank 1.5 more golf balls. The study was featured this month in PLoS ONE, an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science.
The most likely explanation for these results is the psychological phenomenon known as the "placebo effect" whereby results occur simply because someone thinks that they will. In other words, since the subject believed that they would putt better with Ben Curtis' putter, they did. However, that's not to dismiss that the reason that they believed that they'd putt better with it is because of contagion - that for some reason, the fact that Curtis had used it made it better than what it was. Both groups knew what kind of putter Ben Curtis had used, the only difference was that one group performed better because they thought that they were using his actual individual putter.
So if I were to break down the reasoning for these results, which the study never concluded, I would say this is the sequence: unconscious contagion --> placebo effect --> confidence --> improved performance. Positive contagion is something rarely seen in the world, the Hitler sweater is an example of negative contagion, and this clear example of it is a breakthrough in quantitatively measuring its effects.
Perhaps some day in the future, every amateur athlete will use equipment actually used by other athletes.Hopefully nobody is ever convinced that by buying Tiger Wood's old clothing they'll be able to... you know.
To the average viewer, the verbs to "choke" and to "panic" may go hand in hand. In reality, they are two entirely different phenomena. To prove my point, I will embed two videos; the first is of someone choking, the second is of someone panicking. In both instances, their psychological weakness led to defeat. I will then discuss the psychological instances that define and differentiate these two experiences. Enjoy,
"Choke"
Jean Van De Velde's epic collapse at the 18th hole of the 1999 British Open Championship. Needing only a double-bogey to win on a par-4 hole, Van De Velde managed to hit into the water, the sand, and the rough on route to a triple-bogey to force a playoff - that he went on to lose.
"Panic"
With 20 seconds left in the 1993 NCAA Championship game, Chris Webber grabs a rebound off of a missed free throw and proceeds to travel (which somehow didn't get called, I suppose the ref panicked as well), dribble downcourt, and call a timeout that his team didn't have. The resulting technical foul led to two more points for the opposing North Carolina Tar Heels, and ultimately a 77-71 loss for Webber's Michigan Wolverines.
A player chokes when they recognize the significance of the moment and begin to think explicitly about the actions that they perform during sport. The human brain has two types of memory: explicit memory, used for consciously remembering experiences and information, and implicit memory, which unconsciously aids in tasks through the use of previous experiences. For instance, when a golfer is learning his swing, they will explicitly think about certain aspects of their swing (keeping their knees bent, rotating the hips, etc...) until they believe that they have the implicit "feel" of the swing. The basal ganglia, where implicit learning partially resides, is concerned with force and timing, and when that system kicks in you begin to develop touch and accuracy, for example, the ability to hit a drop shot in golf. With practice, this system gets stronger and eventually, the golfer isn't consciously thinking about the aspects of their swing, but rather just implicitly swinging the way that feels best for the shot needed.
However, once that golfer recognizes that they are one hole away from their first major championship, their explicit memory starts to kick in due to the fear of their implicit memory failing them. This is what happened to Van De Velde at the 1999 British Open. Knowing that he had the tournament sealed with a double-bogey, Van De Velde proceeded to hit every shot as if he was a beginner. He explicitly thought through the motions of his golf swing and couldn't hit the ball the way he wanted to. Had he simply trusted his intuitive swing the way he had all 71 previous holes of the tournament, which had him up three strokes with one hole to play, he would have won the tournament. Unfortunately for him, Jean recognized the gravity of the situation and no longer trusted his gut, he wanted to make sure that he accomplished his goal by consciously thinking through every aspect of his stroke
Panic, on the other hand, is an entirely different process. When a person panics, they experience what psychologists call "perceptual narrowing" - they focus on one thing, and one thing only. For example, Chris Webber gets the ball with 20 seconds left and his team down two points. He knows that he has to score and that he has little time to do so. Instead of passing right away or dribbling, he panics and thinks "get me out of here." He takes a few steps, finally realizes that he has to dribble, and calls a timeout, one that the entire country, himself included, knew that they didn't have. In his moment of panic, Webber's one thought was to escape the situation, he forgot entirely about the obvious fact that he didn't have any timeouts left.
In effect, panic is much the opposite of choking. Choking involves over-thinking, whereas panic involves under-thinking. Choking is loss of instinct, wheres panic is reversion to instinct. The only way to avoid these mishaps is through rigorous practice. Practice in instances of intense pressure helps your mind trust your implicit memory to prevent choking, and will provide experiences for your mind to draw from when experiencing perceptual narrowing, or panic. So fear not, its simply a matter of mind over body mentality.
Ahh... Tiger Woods, what an interesting case study you are. In the world of sports, there may be no athlete more scrutinized (actually, Lebron is #1 on that list) than Tiger Woods. The face of golf, the classiest sport in North America, who was caught having cheated on his gorgeous wife (with whom he had two children) with over a dozen women. None of whom were even close to as attractive as his wife, Elin Nordegren.
Was there something going on subconsciously with Tiger Woods, daring him to escape his perfect public image, or was it simply a successful man succumbing to the temptation of numerous women expressing interest? South Park asks, "why would a man who is famous and has lots of money, use that to try to get with many women?" - watch here (it's hilarious and right on point.)
Kenneth Hartline, who wrote a post on his blog entitled Tiger's Intrapsychic Conflict, hypothesizes that on some level, whether unconscious or consciously, Tiger wanted to get caught. Tiger wanted to shed his public image of perfection because that's not who he is. The media often ignores the fact that Tiger's father, his mentor, cheated on his wife numerous times. Of course Tiger knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he also knew that his inspiration, his father, had done this act numerous times before.
Renowned sports psychologist, Dr. Gio Valiant, states "I’m certain that as bad as Tiger feels, on some deep level, he is relieved." Hartline, himself a professional sports psychologists, concurs on this sentiment, and feels that Tiger has had his whole life constructed around him. That from the age of 2, when he was featured on the Mike Douglas Show for his golf talents (below), he has been pressured into being this iconic golf star. His game followed suit, and by age 20 he had millions of fans watching his every move. He had endorsers who had invested millions into his public image. He was the man with the mental toughness to dominate golf who could tell the media exactly what they wanted to hear. In Elin Nordgren, his future wife, he found the beautiful blonde supermodel who would raise his children. For his endorsers and his public persona, everything was going right for Tiger.
However, nobody ever knew what Tiger wanted. And yet, that is where the question lies. Why did Tiger get married in the first place? Did he really love Elin and was committed to her? Or did he feel that he needed to add a wife and kids to his public resume? If only Tiger had never gotten married, he would simply be compared to a lower-class Derek Jeter in the sex department. (For those who don't know, check the link for the reference.) No public black eye for Jeter and his exploits.
To be honest, I'm not even sure where I stand on this. If Tiger wanted to be single, then why did he get married? I think that it had something to do with him continuing his crusade to be the most reputable athlete in the world, while forgetting what he really wanted. It's hard to feel bad for Tiger for what he did, but I don't envy the amount of pressure that he has to deal with.
Will his game every be what it once was? Believe it or not, I'm not convinced that this is a psychic issue. Tiger has not been the same since his knee injury. Besides, his best performance since the "sex addict" fallout was his first one back... when psychological pressure was at it's highest. Tiger has since worked with three different swing coaches and even has a new caddy, a testament to the change in his game. I may be in the minority thinking that Tiger's performance issues are not mental, but there is a huge physical aspect to the sport. When you can't pivot on your knee a certain way, it's hard to swing the way you once did.
I recently watched "Bigger, Stronger, Faster," a movie about steroid use in sports and the American obsession with victory. It chronicles the story of Christopher Bell and his two brothers, who both use steroids, and why the country is so concerned about a drug which causes only 3 deaths annually. Why is it that performance-enhancement is so hated in sports, and yet American Air Force pilots are required to take amphetamines when behind the wheel? Why does the news embellish the negative effects of steroid use while research shows that it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco? Finally, why does U.S. culture dictate the importance of body image in males?
As a sports enthusiast who maintains a performance-enhancement-free vision of sports, this movie did bring to light a series of convincing counter-arguments to my view of sports enhancement. Firstly, the drug Aderall is often prescribed to students with ADD to help them do well in school. The students without ADD don't have this advantage. Is that so different than someone who has a naturally small build and takes steroids to do well in football? I'm not convinced that it is. Bear with me for a second, I acknowledge that ADD is a serious medical condition and I've seen the adverse effects that it has on students first-hand. It is way harder for them to focus on writing a paper than it is for me. Nevertheless, I've also seen first-hand the negative effects of poor athletic genetics on football players, and trust me, it is way harder for them to put on weight and be successful in football.
Sports, like life, are unfair to begin with. Dwight Howard is stronger than I can ever dream to be, and he never even lifted weights before he got into the NBA as a 19 yr. old 245-pound specimen. I, along with 99.9% of the population, will never be able to grow to 6'11 and jump 40 inches high, so obviously I will never be as good at basketball as him. That's life. I only mention this to bring to light that steroid use is equally as unfair as the genetic lottery.
The movie also brings to light an interesting topic which is about the psychology of the U.S. public in general. The public is obsessed with the size of the male body. A good case study is that of the G.I. Joe dolls who in 1960 were small men in uniforms and are now jacked up bulldozers wearing cut-off military tanks. The insurgence of jacked up movie stars in the mainstream media is the most likely cause, the success of the Rambo, Rocky, and every Arnold Schwarzenegger series' led to the desire to look like the conquering commandos. Maybe it was the Cold War and the U.S. dog-eat-dog culture. Whatever it is, it's getting a little out of control. The supplement industry for males is growing at an incalculable rate, with little to no FDA intervention. Anyone can create a "supplement" and sell it on the market, only if the FDA chooses to investigate and deem it unsafe will it be removed. No pre-market tests required. To cap it all off, there are no ethics in the industry, as demonstrated by the before and after pictures taken below of the director. They were both taken the exact same day, and yet they claim to show the positive effects of the supplement that they endorse.
He got shredded in 6 weeks, even though these pictures were taken on the same day. These pictures may or may not have been tampered with. (source)
In closing, I would like to recommend this movie to any sports fan as it brings to light a series of interesting points about athletics, psychology, and the American public.
