Você está na página 1de 9

ASPASP-JPASPEX SPECIAL EDITION (2016) 1(1), 30- 38

http://www.jpaspex.com e-ISSN 2289-5817

Research article

Filipino Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology


Maria Luisa Guinto Adviento!
Department of Sports Science, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines.

The formation of athletes’ basic attitudes, emotions, and


behaviors are also influenced by coaches (Amorose,
Abstract 2007; Barnett, Smoll & Smith, 1992; Smith, Smoll &
This study extends the continuing investigation on coach- Curtis, 1979). Studies have revealed that coaches also
es’ attitudes toward sport psychology (SP) through affect the other areas of an athlete’s functioning, apart
measures developed and revised by Zakrajsek and Zizzi from those that are directly related to sport skill devel-
(2008) from the original work of Martin, Kellmann, La- opment. Griffin and Harris (1996) for instance, revealed
vallee, and Page (2002). The developed Sport Psycholo- in their research that coaches had the tendency to make
gy Attitude-Revised Coaches (SPARC-2) has the follow- decisions about their athletes’ need for weight control on
ing subscales: (1) “confidence in Sport Psychology Con- the basis of appearance rather than objective indicators.
sultation” or the belief that SP consultation and mental Their study further demonstrated that coaches' verbal and
training is beneficial, (2) “stigma tolerance” or the ex- non-verbal messages regarding weight control were
pected negative consequences of seeking SP consultation, communicated to the athlete and after prolonged expo-
(3) “personal openness” or the willingness of the respond- sure to such messages, the likelihood of athletes adhering
ent to try SP consultation and mental training, and (4) to the messages increased. In addition, another study by
“cultural preference” or the identification with own na- Sundgot-Borgen, Berglund and Torstveit (2003) also
tionality, ethnicity, culture, or race. One-hundred forty- confirmed that coaches were the most influential figure
nine Filipino coaches from ten colleges and universities in advising athletes on using nutritional supplements in
were surveyed on their attitudes toward sport psychology sports.
consultation. Items from the SPARC-2 were modified and
examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Given that identification and development of sport talent
EFA with the modified SPARC-2 revealed a 3-factor so- is principally directed by coaches and that goals shared
lution that produced similar subscales of confidence in by the coach and athlete in the process are ideally con-
sport psychology consultation and stigma tolerance but gruent, it is expected that perceptions and behaviors of
failed to generate significant factor loadings for personal coaches in relation with the attainment of such goals are
openness. Instead, a new subscale on personal similarity acceptable to the athletes. Hence, if a coach demonstrates
preference emerged; with the three factors accounting for an interest in or support for the use of sport psychology
44% of the total variance. Cultural factors are explored in during practice or game settings, then these subjective
the discussion and considerations for further development dispositions toward sport psychology will have a higher
of the SPARC-2. likelihood of being adopted by the players.

Keywords: Coaches’ Attitudes, Sport Psychology, Filipino A review conducted on several sport psychology pro-
Coaches grams showed that coaches’ decisions influenced wheth-
er the services of a sport psychology consultant (SPC)
are approved or denied. (Martin et al., 2001; Partington
Introduction & Orlick, 1987; Voight & Callaghan, 2001). Thus, alt-
Coaches have tremendous influence over athletes. They hough athletes are the primary end-users of sport psy-
are among the most significant people in the lives of as- chology, the recommendation and endorsement of
piring athletes as they play an key instrumental role in the coaches are crucial in the engagement of sport psycholo-
identification and development of talent (Ericsson, 1996; gy consulting services. Given this situation, SPCs must
Hemery, 1986; Salmela & Moraes, 2003). Coaches also consider how the coach-athlete relationship may influ-
influenced by the quality of the athletes’ sport experience ence athletes’ goals, beliefs, values, and expectations in
through the environment they create in training and com- promoting the athletes’ use of SPC (Zakrajsek & Zizzi,
petition (Blom, Watson, & Spadaro, 2010; Smoll, Smith, 2007).
& Cumming, 2007). Because their evaluations on the abil-
ity and performance of an athlete are central to the devel- Attitudes toward Sport Psychology Consultation
opment of skills in sport, coaches likewise affect the lev- Research on attitudes toward SPC has largely centered to
els of performance anxiety among the athletes (Passer, the point of view of the athletes. While there is a great
1988; Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1986; Smoll, Smith, Bar- deal of qualitative data gathered over the years to exam-
nett, & Everett, 1993). ine the factors that influence athletes’ attitudes toward
SP consultation (e.g., Linder, Brewer, Van Raalte, &
DeLange, 1991; Maniar, Curry, Sommers-Flanagan, &

30
Maria Luisa Filipino Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology

Walsh, 2001; Ravizza, 1988, Van Raalte, Brewer, Brew- strument that measures attitudes of coaches toward sport
er, & Linder, 1992; Van Raalte, Brewer, Linder, & psychology. Taking from Zakrajsek and Zizzi (2008)’s
DeLange, 1990; Wrisberg, Simpson, Loberg, Withy- limitation in the use of the measurement among coaches
combe & Reed, 2009), the work of Martin, Kellmann, in only two sport domains of swimming and track and
Lavallee, and Page (1997; 2002) represent the first at- field, this study aims to re-examine the Sport Psychology
tempt to develop a valid instrument to assess athletes’ Attitude-Revised Coaches (SPARC-2) form as a valid
attitudes regarding SPC. Working on the literature on cross-cultural measure for measuring coaches’ attitudes
counseling psychology and perception research in sport, among Filipino coaching in a wider range of sport disci-
Martin’s team had developed a theoretically-driven as- plines. Thus, it is hypothesized that only the three-factor
sessment of athletes’ attitudes toward SPC. Through a structure of the original instrument would emerge from
rigorous process of exploratory and confirmatory factor the new set of data. Since cultural preference will not be
analyses involving more than 1500 athletes from the relevant to the Philippine setting as mostly the SPC are
United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, a four- from the local culture, this subscale will not be included
factor solution of athletes’ attitudes toward seeking SPC in the present study. However, several items will be add-
emerged, resulting in the Sport-Psychology Attitudes- ed to the SPARC-2 to explore a possible fourth factor of
Revised (SPA-R) questionnaire. This 25-item attitude personal similarity preference. Drawing from the litera-
scale contained the four factors of: (1) stigma tolerance ture on counseling psychology, expression of preferences
(expected negative consequences of seeking SP consulta- in the counseling or consulting context revealed that the
tion), (2) confidence in SPC (belief that SP consultation natural tendency for people to associate into groups on
and mental training is beneficial), (3) personal openness the basis of similarity in social situations (Atkinson et
(willingness of the respondent to try SP consultation and al., 1998). Within the context of SP consultation, another
mental training), and (4) cultural preference (identity perspective considered by Leong and colleagues (1995)
with own nationality, ethnicity, culture, or race). Internal proposed that preference for personal similarity with the
consistency (Chronbach’s α) and test-retest reliability SPC may be an overt manifestation of an athlete’s desire
estimates were found in the range of “adequate to good.” to match cultural values in order to guarantee a more
comfortable consulting relationship. This proposition al-
A research conducted by Zakrajsek & Zizzi (2007) on so promotes Strong’s (1968) theory of social influence
“Factors influencing track and swimming coaches’ inten- process integral to the understanding of the therapeutic
tions to use sport psychology services” marked the first process, i.e., the consideration of personal preference
initiative at developing an instrument to measure coach- leads to greater client willingness to return for counsel-
es’ attitudes toward sport psychology. Working on the ing, satisfaction with counseling, and depth of self-
assumption that the study of coaches’ attitudes toward disclosure (Atkinson & Lowe, 1995). However, unlike in
sport psychology could be developed from a similar the- the subscale of cultural preference in the SPARC-2, this
oretical framework as athletes’ attitudes, which was from new factor will not include ethnic and cultural prefer-
the modified original instrument from Martin and col- ences within the fourth hypothesized factor. Instead, per-
league’s (2002) Sport Psychology Attitudes-Revised ceived similarities between sport psychologist and client
(SPA-R) form that resulted in the Sport Psychology Atti- such as gender, sport background, and life experiences
tude-Revised Coaches (SPA-RC) form. After subjecting are included in the personal similarity preference factor.
it to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) procedures, they
found out that, unlike the four-factor solution that Methods
emerged from the original SPA-R, the SPA-RC revealed Participants
only a 3-factor solution (i.e., stigma tolerance, confi- Coaches from 10 colleges and universities in the Philip-
dence in sport psychology consultation, and personal pines were invited to participate in this study. The re-
openness). The four items belonging to the factor of cul- searcher initially sought the permission from the respec-
tural preference from the original SPA-R were removed tive athletic directors to conduct the study with the
from the final version of the SPA-RC due to failure in coaches. After the approval and endorsement, the partic-
meeting the set selection criteria. ipation of all coaches was encouraged. Coaches were
given the choice of responding to an online version or a
Eventually, a second version was developed (SPARC-2) paper and pencil questionnaire.
included additional items to the personal openness sub-
scale and modified items in the cultural preference sub- One hundred forty-nine coaches (N = 149) who respond-
scale that did not upload in the first version (Zakrajsek & ed to the online or paper and pencil versions of the ques-
Zizzi, 2008). This improved version produced 26 items tionnaire were recruited. Among includes 124 are males
uploading on four factors: stigma tolerance, cultural and 22 are females, while 3 participants did not report
preference, confidence in SPC, and personal openness. their gender. Participants had been coaching between one
Reliability analyses were conducted with the four sub- to 33 years, with an average of almost ten years of
scales of the SPARC-2 resulting in measures of internal coaching experience. Fourteen sport disciplines were
consistency (Cronbach α): .84 for stigma tolerance, .83 represented in the assignments of the coaches: arnis (the
for cultural preference, .79 for confidence in SP consult- national sport in the Philippines, a local form of martial
ing and .64 for personal openness. arts), athletics, badminton, baseball, basketball, chess,
fencing, football, handball, judo, lawn tennis, sepak
The present study extends the research of Zakrajsek and takraw (a sport native to Southeast Asia, played like kick
Zizzi (2008) on the continued development of the in-
31
JPASPEX (2014) 2(2), 15- 20
http://www.jpaspex.com e-ISSN 2289-5817

volleyball), softball, swimming, table tennis, taekwondo, administered questionnaire for assessing coaches’ atti-
touch football, and volleyball. tudes on four factors: (1) stigma tolerance (8 items), (2)
confidence in SP (8 items), (3) personal openness (7
Instrumentation items), and (4) personal similarity preference (7 items).
This modified version is referred in this study as
Attitude. The instrument used to assess coaches’ atti-
SPARC-2.Phil.
tudes in the present study was the modified Zakrajsek &
Zizzi’s (2008) second version of the Sport Psychology After the items on cultural preference were deleted from
Attitude-Revised Form for Coaches (SPARC-2) ques- the SPARC-2, several items were added while some
tionnaire. EFA with the SPARC-2 revealed a four-factors items were reworded in the SPARC-2.Phil in order to
solution (stigma tolerance, cultural preference, confi- suit the understanding of the coaches. The original word-
dence in sport psychology consultation, and personal ing of twelve (12) items were maintained, eight (8) items
openness) accounting for 52.5% of the total variance. were re-worded to make the questions more relevant for
The SPARC-2’s internal consistency (Chronbach’s α) assessing coaches’ attitudes, one new item each was add-
estimates were .84 (stigma tolerance), .83 (cultural pref- ed to factors stigma tolerance and personal openness. For
erence), .79 (confidence in SPC), and .64 (personal instance, “I would not want a sport psychology consult-
openness). ant working with my team because other coaches would
think less of me” were modified to “I would not want a
sport psychology consultant working with my team be-
Permission was granted by the primary authors of the cause other coaches would tease me about it.” These
SPA-R (Martin, Kellmann, Lavallee, & Page, 2002) and modifications resulted from consultations with coaches
the SPARC-2 to work on their original instruments and who reviewed the wordings of the original version of
modify them for the Filipino’s coaches for this present SPARC-2 and gave feedback on the ease or difficulty of
study. The modified version of the SPARC-2 was devel- understanding each of the items in the instrument. Table
oped for the present research, resulting in a 30-item self- 1 shows the items included in the SPARC-2.Phil.

Table 1. Items Included in SPARC-2.Phil


Item # Stigma Tolerance

3 I would not want a sport psychology consultant working with my team because other coaches would (think
less) tease me about it.

9 I would feel uneasy having a sport psychology consultant work with my team because some people would
disapprove bringing in an outsider to fix the problems of my team.

11 If I utilized a sport psychology consultant to help me coach better, I would not want other coaches to know
about it.

14 Having seen a sport psychologist is bad for an athlete’s reputation.

20 I would not want someone else to know about my athletes receiving help from a sport psychology consult-
ant.

23 If my team worked with a sport psychology consultant, I would not want other coaches to know about it.

26 I would think less of my athletes if they went to a sport psychology consultant.

28 I do not mind referring female athletes to a sport psychology consultant but male athletes should be able to
handle their problems like real men do.

Confidence in Sport Psychology Consultation

1 A sport psychology consultant can help athletes improve their mental toughness.

2 If an athlete on my team asked my advice about personal feelings of failure related to sport, I might recom-
mend that he/she see a sport psychology consultant.

7 I would like to have the assistance of a sport psychology consultant to help me better understand my team.
Maria Luisa Filipino Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology

13 An athlete with emotional problems during sport performance would feel most secure in receiving assis-
tance from a sport psychology consultant.

16 If I was worried or upset about my team’s performance, I would want to get help from a sport psychology
consultant.

19 I think a sport psychology consultant would help my team perform better under pressure.

22 A sport psychology consultant could help my team fine-tune their performance.

24 At times I have felt lost and would have welcomed professional advice for a personal problem.

Personal Openness

5 There are certain problems that should not be discussed outside one’s immediate family.

6 A good idea for avoiding personal worries and concerns is to keep one’s mind on the job.

10 There is something respectable in the attitude of athletes who are willing to cope with their conflicts and
fears without resorting to professional help.

15 There are experiences in my life that I would not discuss with anyone.

18 Emotional difficulties tend to work themselves out in time.

27 Athletes with a strong character get over mental conflicts by themselves.

30 Asking outside help for mental and emotional problems will make athletes dependent on others instead of
resolving it him/herself.

Personal Similarity Preference

4 If I worked with a sport psychology consultant, I would want him/her to have attitudes and values similar to
my own and what I espouse for my team.

8 If I worked with a sport psychology consultant, I would prefer him/her to be of the same gender as me.

12 I would prefer working with a sport psychology consultant who has a competitive athletic experience simi-
lar to my players.

17 If I worked with a sport psychology consultant, I would prefer him/her to be of the same gender as my play-
ers.

21 If I worked with a sport psychology consultant, I would prefer someone who had experience working with
other teams engaged in a sport similar to my team’s sport.

25 A sport psychology consultant would be effective with my players if he or she had been a competitive athlete
in any sport.

29 My athletes would relate best to a sport psychology consultant who shares life stories similar to theirs.
Note: Italicized words represent changes, modifications or additions to the original SPARC-2

After item modifications and additions, three senior tion. After deliberation, they all agreed on the placement
coaches and two senior psychologists were invited as of items in each of the four subscales.
“experts” to review the items in the SPARC-2.Phil. All
three coaches were also program heads of their sport Following the lead from Zakrajsek and Zizzi (2007;
disciplines and had been coaching for a minimum of five 2008), the 7-point scale was modified to a 6-point scale,
years. The two psychologists were doctorate holders who omitting the neutral option for the purpose of improving
had been in the practice for an average of eight years. the reliability of responses. They cited the research from
Experts were given operational definitions of the four Gilljam and Granberg (1993) who found that the “don’t
subscales and were instructed to categorise each item, know” category included responses by individuals who
presented in random order, under the appropriate sub- have attitudes regarding the item but avoided expressing
scale. After reviewing the questions and subscale defini- them. They also asserted that for those who did not have
tions, all experts convened to compare their categorisa- were well-formed opinion, the current 6-point scale in-
cludes a slightly disagree/agree category to allow for

33
JPASPEX (2014) 2(2), 15- 20
http://www.jpaspex.com e-ISSN 2289-5817

some expression of uncertainty. Scores for each sub-scale Exploratory factor analyses revealed a 3-factor solution
were obtained by averaging the responses within each accounting for 44% of the total response variance with a
sub-scale. Higher scores on the sub-scales indicate: (1) simple structure. The two factors of confidence in SP
stigma tolerance - a more negative attitude toward seeking consultation and stigma tolerance as modified from the
consultation, (2) confidence - a stronger belief that mental SPARC-2 were upheld. The factor of personal similarity
training is useful, (3) personal openness - an unwilling- preference, which was not found in the original instru-
ness to be involved in SP consultation and mental train- ment but introduced in the current study, was likewise
ing, and (4) similarity preference - a stronger preference upheld. However, the factor of personal openness, found
for SPC characteristics that match the respondent’s own in the original SPARC-2, was not upheld because the
values, gender, athletic knowledge and background. items representing it did not meet the selection criteria.

Procedures Of the 20 items retained from the original 30 items pro-


After approval and permission were obtained from the posed in the current study, seven were assigned to the
respective University Athletics directors of participating sub-scale confidence in SP consultation, eight items were
institutions for the researcher to seek the participation of assigned to the sub-scale stigma tolerance, and five were
their coaches in the study, an explanation of the study and assigned to the sub-scale personal similarity preference.
instructions in completing the questionnaire were given to While majority of the variables loading in the first three
the coaches. The online or paper and pencil versions of factors of the original SPARC-2 were upheld in the cur-
the questionnaire took approximately 10 to 20 minutes to rent study, one item from the original sub-scale of confi-
complete. dence in SP consultation, “An athlete with emotional
problems during sport performance would feel most se-
Results cure in receiving assistance from a SPC”, and another
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) showed the under- item from the original sub-scale stigma tolerance, “I
lying factors of coaches’ attitudes toward sport psycholo- would feel uneasy having a SPC work with my team
gy consultation. While the current study intended to con- because some people would disapprove”, did not show
firm the findings of the original study that explored the significant loadings in the current study. However, two
factors behind the SPARC-2 (Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2008), new items created in the current study significantly loaded
the cross-cultural application of the attitude scale among a in the stigma tolerance sub-scale: (1) “I do not mind refer-
sample of Filipino coaches across a variety of sport disci- ring female athletes to a sport psychology consultant but
plines, the non-inclusion of the factor “cultural prefer- male athletes should be able to handle their problems like
ence,” and the introduction of several variables for anoth- real men do” and (2) “Asking outside help for mental and
er potential factor introduced modifications on the origi- emotional problems will make athletes dependent on
nal instrument that made the EFA more appropriate than others instead of resolving it him/herself.”
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Table 2 represents the factor structure of the current mod-
ified version of the SPARC-2.Phil, including eigenvalues,
In order to have the results comparable to the original
percentage of variance for each factor, and factor reliabil-
study, principle axis factoring was performed with the 30
ity. Internal consistency (Chronbach α) for the SPARC-
items included in the SPARC-Phil to identify item clus-
2.Phil measured .912 for the sub-scale confidence in SP
ters corresponding to specific attitudes of coaches toward
consulting, .898 for the sub-scale stigma tolerance, and
sport psychology consultation. However, due to the lim-
.777 for the sub-scale personal similarity preference.
ited sample size, the direct oblimin method was used
These estimates showed a high internal consistency that
instead of the promax method of rotation often used with
supports the current modified version of the SPARC-2.
large data sets (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).
The criteria suggested by Bryant and Yarnold (1995) and
Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999) used Discussion
in the original study were similarly utilised in the present The results of the EFA revealed that there are three prima-
research to determine the number of factors to rotate: (a) ry dimensions underlying coaches’ attitudes toward sport
factors with eigenvalues of at least 1.0; (b) the scree test; psychology consultation as measured by the SPARC-
(c) the percentage of variance accounted for by each re- 2.Phil: (a) confidence in SP consultation or the belief that
tained factor; and (d) the number of interpretable factors. SP consultation is useful, (b) stigma tolerance or the per-
Item means, the degree of overlap among the scales, and ceived negative consequences of seeing SP consultation
internal consistency of each scale was also considered. and (c) personal similarity preference or the partiality for
Given the small sample size of 149 respondents and the a SP consultant perceived to have similarities with the
practical significance of meaningful factor loadings as coach and his or her athletes. The dimension of personal
discussed by Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998), openness was not upheld in the current study among Fili-
items with loadings above .50 were retained. This is more pino coaches. Table 2 shows how each of the original 30
stringent than the .40 loading utilised in the original items loaded in each of the three dimensions upheld by
study. the EFA.

34
Maria Luisa Filipino Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology

Table 2. Final Factor Solution of the SPARC-2-Phil sport psychology as a key component of coaches’ atti-
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 tudes toward SPC finds support in literature (Silva, 1984;
Subscale 1-Confidence Sullivan & Hodge, 1991).
in Sport Psychology
Consultation: However, it is also possible that the current instrument as
Item-22 .882 patterned after the SPARC-2 (Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2008)
Item-19 .858 did not sufficiently draw into the Filipino coaches’ expe-
Item-7 .821 rience of personal openness in comparison to their West-
Item-2 .788 ern counterparts whose responses became the basis of the
Item-1 .775 original sub-scale on personal openness. Further research
Item-16 .711 is suggested in this area to explore cultural nuances in
Item-24 .660 defining the construct and if personal openness truly im-
Subscale 2- Stigma pacts coaches’ attitudes toward SP consultation across
Tolerance: other culture.
Item-26 .767
Item-3 .752 A closer look at the loadings of items in the EFA as
Item-14 .751 summarised in Table 2 shows that two statements added
Item-28 .743 in the SPRC-2.Phil were loaded in stigma tolerance: “I do
Item-20 .737 not mind referring female athletes to a sport psychology
Item-23 .727 consultant but male athletes should be able to handle their
Item-11 .704 problems like real men do” and “Asking outside help for
Item-30 .575 mental and emotional problems will make athletes de-
Subscale 3- Similarity pendent on others instead of resolving it him/herself.”
Preference: The first statement reflects the greater stigma associated
Item-8 .753 with male athletes who consult a SP consultant than their
Item-17 .738 female counterparts.
Item-12 .685
Item-4 .653 Research on gender role socialisation in sport (Curry &
Item-25 .506 Strauss, 1994) reveals that competitive sports may influ-
Eigenvalues: 5.798 5.341 3.553 ence attitudes toward seeking assistance. Most male ath-
% of Variance 17.869 16.269 10.184 letes throughout their experience in competitive sport
Reliability .912 .898 .777 gradually develop the conviction that to be a man and an
athlete requires them to learn to accept and endure pain,
Contrary to what was hypothesised, personal openness physical risk, and injury almost with indifference (Nixon,
was the only factor not upheld in the EFA of the SPARC- 1996). This perceived “macho” image of the male athlete
2.Phil. This result is not consistent with previous litera- as tough and fearless, predispose them to regard self-
ture that suggests that the unwillingness to be involved in disclosure as an admission of weakness and as compro-
SP consultation and mental training may influence per- mising their masculine image. In contrast, most female
ceptions and attitudes toward seeking psychological help athletes gradually learn to accept pain, physical risk, and
(Martin, et al., 2002; Zakrajsek & Zizzi, 2007). Findings injury as part of competitive sport without necessarily
from the current study suggest that personal openness is considering this as a form of weakness that compromises
not as strong of a factor in the perceptions of Filipino their identity as a woman (Nixon, 1996). As such, males
coaches toward SP in relation to the strength of the other are more likely than females to stigmatize psychological
factors of confidence in the SPC, stigma tolerance and services (Martin, 2005; Martin et al., 1997). In the present
personal similarity preference. study, this stigma is highlighted by coaches who seem to
express openness to referring their female athletes to SPC
The unwillingness to discuss one’s problem with a pro- but not with their male athletes. In the context of gender
fessional or with someone else may not be a determinant socialization in the Philippines, this bias against males
among Filipino coaches in seeking sport psychology ser- seeking help is likewise affirmed in literature (Liwag, de
vices as much as their confidence that SP consultation la Cruz and Macapagal, 1999) as society finds it more
will truly benefit their athletes (confidence in the SPC), acceptable for girls to express their emotions while boys
the negative connotation of SP (stigma tolerance) and the are trained not to cry and “suffer in silence.”
degree of perceived similarity of the SP consultant (per-
sonal similarity preference). It appeared that the main The other statement that loaded on stigma tolerance,
consideration for coaches to seek sport psychology con- “Asking outside help for mental and emotional problems
sultation is the belief or assurance that sport psychology will make athletes dependent on others instead of resolv-
consultation will lead to better performance among their ing it him/herself” reflects a similar assertion that compet-
athletes. Furthermore, the degree of bias they have against itive athletes must be self-reliant in handling adversity
SPC diminishes that confidence while the preference for and the emotional and mental challenges that come with
SP consultants who possess similar attributes and back- it. Thus, coaches express apprehension about their ath-
ground as they and their athletes have increases their letes seeking help as it appears to be an admission of
perceived advantage of engaging in SPC who could be weakness and reliance on someone else. From another
effective in promoting better performance. Confidence in perspective, while coaches acknowledge their confidence

35
JPASPEX (2014) 2(2), 15- 20
http://www.jpaspex.com e-ISSN 2289-5817

in the benefit of sport psychology consultation on improv- explore in order to strengthen the relational component of
ing performance, they are not necessarily convinced that the sport psychology program.
the same services must be used to settle emotional and
mental problems that may not have a direct bearing on Part of this confidence build-up for SP includes address-
performance. ing negative connotations associated with the field and
emphasizing positive contribution of SPC. The life-long
This explanation is further affirmed by the failure of the benefit of SPC, the importance of confidentiality in con-
following statement to load on confidence in the SPC, sultation, and the capability-building of mental training to
“An athlete with emotional problems during sport per- equip the athlete with self-regulation skills should be
formance would feel most secure in receiving assistance emphasized. Furthermore, since coaching in the country is
from a sport psychology consultant.” This situation may still a male-dominated field, the findings of the present
indicate one of two possibilities: either the coaches do not study suggest that SP consultants tailor-fit their programs
see the relationship between emotional and mental prob- to emphasize training in “mental toughness” or “perfor-
lems with performance deficits or that coaches may agree mance enhancement strategies” rather than “psychologi-
to SP consultation for performance issues but not for cal skills training” or “sport counseling” that may affirm
emotional and mental problems that they think they can their apprehensions and biases associated with seeking
handle with their athletes. Both scenarios reinforce stigma help from psychologists and diminishing the male figure.
against SPC.
The present study further asserts the importance of the SP
A significant finding of the present study is the emer- consultant investing time on building a relationship of
gence of the third dimension of personal similarity prefer- trust with coaches. Given the results that highlight the
ence among the factors that loaded in the EFA. Previous dimension of perceived similarity preference as an im-
measures of coaches’ attitudes toward SPC did not in- portant factor in the attitudes of Filipino coaches toward
clude this in their conceptualization (Zakrajsek & Zizzi, SPC, the consultant must make an effort to understand the
2007, 2008). While cultural preference was identified as a coach and his goals for his team, the nature of the sport in
factor in earlier efforts to develop instruments that meas- which the consultation is requested, the gender differ-
ure coaches’ attitudes toward SPC; the inclusion of this ences intrinsic to the sport, and the values espoused by the
new factor in the SPARC-2.Phil reflects a dimension that coach for the team. The work of the SP consultant must
may be intrinsic to attitudes of Filipino coaches toward be perceived as complementary rather than undermining
SPC. the role and authority of the coach in relation to his or her
athletes.
In the context of Philippine culture, the “self” that seeks
help for oneself or for one’s player must be understood Directions for Future Research
within the concept of “relational self” that is at the core of Considering the limitations of the study, future research
how Filipinos define themselves. Unlike their Western directions must consider expanding the data base by in-
counterparts, Filipinos view themselves in relation to creasing the sample size to include a greater number of
others and others are viewed in relation to themselves. coaches across genders, sport disciplines and age groups
There is no rigid delineation between self and the other. of athletes coached. The bias of the current study for
The core construct of Filipino Psychology hinges on kap- males must be addressed by greater representation of
wa (Enriquez, 1978) that is loosely translated, but not female coaches. A wider range of sport disciplines must
fully captured in English as “fellow-being” or “the self in likewise be considered in the adequate sampling of
others.” Thus, the greater the perceived similarity be- coaches. The different age groups or developmental stag-
tween the coach and the SP consultant or the athlete and es of athletes may likewise be included in the sampling of
the SP consultant; the closer the consultant is identified coaches to cover youth and elite sports, amateur and pro-
with oneself. One sees the self in the other, thus, facilitat- fessional sports. It would be interesting to explore how
ing a relationship of trust inherent in any successful con- coaches of different sport domains, genders, and devel-
sultation. opmental stages view sport psychology consultation with-
in their perceived roles and goals. These sampling varia-
bles may also be explored as moderating variables in the
Implications for Practice study of attitudes toward sport psychology that lead to the
The findings suggest that practitioners prioritize building actual use of sport psychology consultation.
confidence in sport psychology consultation among
coaches as it impacts their belief in the effectiveness of References
sport psychology in facilitating effective performance 1. Amoros, A. J. (2007). Coaching effectiveness: Ex-
among their athletes. This may require inclusion of suc- ploring the relationship between coaching behavior and
cess stories that involve effective athletes’ or coaches’ use self-determined motivation. In M. Hagger & N. Chat-
of SP, an active marketing of SP services to address spe- zisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination Theory in Exercise
cific needs of coaches and athletes, and publication of and Sport (pp. 209-228). Champaign, IL: Human
materials that promote the value of SP. Making one’s Kinetics.
presence felt in the online environment and in other social
networking sites are options that the SP consultant could 2. Atkinson, D. R., & Lowe, S. M. (1995). The role of
ethnicity, cultural knowledge, and conventional tech-

36
Maria Luisa Filipino Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Sport Psychology

niques in counseling and psychotherapy. In J. G. Ponte- 15. Liwag, M. E. C. D., de la Cruz, A., & Macapagal,
rotto, J. M. Casas, L. A., Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander M. E. J. (1997). How we raise our daughters and sons:
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 387– Child-rearing and gender socialization in the Philippines.
414). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 31, 1-46.

3. Atkinson, D. R., Wampold, B. E., Lowe, S. M., 16. Maniar, S. D., Curry, L. A., Sommers-Flanagan, J.,
Matthews, L., & Ahn, H. (1998). Asian American prefer- & Walsh, J. A. (2001). Student-athlete preferences in
ences for counselor characteristics: Application of the seeking help when confronted with sport performance
Bradley-Terry-Luce model to paired comparison data. problems. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 205-223.
Counseling Psychologist, 26, 101-123.
17. Martin, S. B. (2005). High school and college ath-
4. Barnett, N.P. Smoll, F.L. & Smith, R.E. (1992). letes' attitudes toward sport psychology consulting. Jour-
Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationships on youth nal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(2), 127-139.
sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 111-127.
18. Martin, S. B., Wrisberg, C.A., Beitel, P.A., &
5. Blom, L. C., Watson, J. C., & Spadaro, N. (2010). Lounsbury, J. (1997). NCAA Division I athletes’ attitudes
The impact of a coaching intervention on the coach- toward seeking sport psychology consultation: The devel-
athlete dyad and athlete sport experience. Athletic Insight: opment of an objective measure. The Sport Psychologist,
The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 12(3). 11, 201-218.

6. Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal- 19. Martin, S. B., Akers, A., Jackson, A. W., Wrisberg,
components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory C. A., Nelson, L., Leslie, P. J., Larson, L. (2001). Male
factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), and female athletes’ and nonathletes’ expectations about
Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. sport psychology consulting. Journal of Applied Sport
99-136). Washington, DC: American Psychological As- Psychology, 13, 18-39.
sociation.
20. Martin, S. B., Kellmann, M., Lavallee, D., & Page,
7. Curry, T. J., & Strauss, R. H. (1994). A Little Pain S. J. (2002). Development and psychometric evaluation of
Never Hurt Anybody: A Photo-Essay on the Normaliza- the sport psychology attitudes- Revised form: A multiple
tion of Sport Injuries. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(2). group investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 272-290.
1-9.
21. Nixon, H. L. (1996). The relationship of friendship
8. Enriquez, V. G. (1978). Kapwa: A core concept in networks, sports experiences, and gender to expressed
Filipino social psychology. Philippine Social Sciences pain thresholds. Sociology of sport journal, 13, 78-86.
and Humanities Review, 17, 1-4.
22. Linder, D. E., Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., &
9. Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excel- DeLange, N. (1991). A negative halo for athletes who
lence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, consult sport psychologists: Replication and extension.
sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erk- Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 133-148.
baum.
23. Partington, J., & Orlick, T. (1987). The sport psy-
10. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., chology consultant: Olympic coaches’ views. The Sport
& Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory Psychologist, 1, 95-102.
factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4, 272-299. 24. Passer, M.W. (1988). Determinants and consequenc-
es of children’s competitive stress. In F.L. Smoll,
11. Gilljam, M., & Granberg, D. (1993). Should we take R.A. Magill, & M.J. Ash (Eds.), Children in sport, 3rd ed.
the don’t know for an answer? Public Opinion Quarterly, (pp. 203-227). Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics.
57, 348-357.
25. Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic per-
12. Griffin, J., & Harris, M.B. (1996). Coaches' atti- sonnel for season-long consulting. The Sport Psycholo-
tudes, knowledge, experiences, and recommendations gist, 2, 243-254.
regarding weight control. The Sport Psychologist, 10,
180-194. 26. Salmela, J. H., & Moraes, L. C. (2003). Develop-
ment of expertise: The role of coaching, families, and
13. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tathan, R. L. & Black, cultural contexts. In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.)
W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. (pp. 87- Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on
138). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc. sport expertise (pp. 275-293). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
14. Hemery, D. (1986). The pursuit of sporting excel-
lence: A study of sport’s highest achievers. London: Wi 27. Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social
low Books. psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport

37
JPASPEX (2014) 2(2), 15- 20
http://www.jpaspex.com e-ISSN 2289-5817

participants: IV. Predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports,
Sport Psychology, 8, 25-35. 13, 138-144.

28. Silva, J. A. (1984). The status of sport psychology: 35. Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B. W., J. L., Brewer, D.
A national survey of coaches. Journal of Physical Educa- D., & Linder, D. E. (1992). NCAA division II college
tion, Recreation, and Dance, 55(7), 46-49. football players’ perceptions of an athlete who consults a
sport psychologist. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychol-
29. Smith, R.E. Smoll, F.L. & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach ogy, 14, 273-282.
effectiveness training: A cognitive behavioral approach to
enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. 36. Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Linder, D. E., &
Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75. DeLange, N. (1990). Perceptions of sport-oriented profes-
sional: A multidimensional scaling analysis. The Sport
30. Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett, N.P., & Everett, Psychologist, 4, 228-234.
J.J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-esteem
through social support training for youth sport coaches. 37. Wrisberg, C. A., Simpson, D., Loberg, L. A., Withy-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 602-610. combe, J. L., & Reed, A. (2009). NCAA Division-I stu-
dent-athletes' receptivity to mental skills training by sport
31. Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Cumming, S. P. psychology consultants. Sport Psychologist, 23(4), 470.
(2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for
coaches on changes in young athletes’ achievement goal 38. Zakrajsek, R. A. & Zizzi, S. J. (2007). Factors influ-
orientations. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1(1), encing track and swimming coaches’ intentions to use
23-46. sport psychology services. Athletic Insight: The Online
Journal of Sport Psychlogy, 9 (2), 1-21.
32. Strong, S.R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal
influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 39. Zakrajsek, R. A. & Zizzi, S. J. (2008). Coaches’
215-224. attitudes toward sport psychology consultation: Devel-
opment of the Sport Psychology Attitudes Revised Coach-
33. Sullivan, J., & Hodge, K. P. (1991). A survey of es-2 Questionnaire (SPARC-2). Indiana State University.
coaches and athletes about sport psychology in New Zea-
land. The Sport Psychologist, 5(2), 140-151. ! Maria Luisa Guinto Adviento
Department of Sports Science,
34. Sundgot-Borgen, J., Berglund, B., & Torstveit, M.K. University of the Philippines,
(2003). Nutritional supplements in Norwegian elite ath- Diliman, Philippines.
letes—impact of international rankings and advisors. Email: maria_luisa.guinto-adviento@upd.edu.ph

38

Você também pode gostar