Archive for the 'Stress' Category

Many coaches tend to view themselves as the primary individuals responsible for the mental well-being of their athletes, rather than relying on sports psychologists. This is due to a variety of reasons related to culture, training, perceptions of the coach’s role, and the dynamics of sports itself. Here are some of the key explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Traditional Role of the Coach as a Holistic Guide
   • Holistic Vision: Historically, the coach has been seen as the central figure responsible for all aspects of an athlete’s performance, both physical and mental. Many coaches have internalized this comprehensive responsibility, viewing the mental well-being of athletes as part of their overall management and control, alongside physical and tactical preparation.
   • Personal and Trusting Relationship: Coaches often build a close, trusting relationship with athletes. Athletes turn to their coaches not only for technical advice but also for emotional and psychological support. This can lead coaches to feel primarily responsible for their athletes’ mental well-being since they know them on a personal level and believe they can provide 360-degree support.
2. Lack of Specific Training in Sports Psychology
   • Limited Training: Many coaches do not have extensive training in sports psychology. However, they may have received basic courses or information on general principles of motivation, leadership, and stress management, elements that make them feel prepared to handle psychological aspects as well.
   • Lack of Recognition for Psychology’s Importance: In many coaching training programs, the emphasis is placed on sports techniques and tactics, with less focus on psychology. This leads some coaches to underestimate the importance of expert intervention in psychology, as they believe what they know is sufficient.
3. Fear of Losing Control
   • Desire to Maintain Full Control: Some coaches may fear losing some control over the team if they bring in a psychologist. Managing athletes’ mental states is seen as an integral part of their overall leadership approach, and delegating this responsibility might feel like a reduction of their role.
   • Collaboration Difficulties: Not all coaches are ready to work as a team with other experts (such as a sports psychologist), as this requires close collaboration and a division of responsibilities that can conflict with their vision of the job. Some coaches prefer to manage everything directly to avoid potential misunderstandings or external interference.
4. Stigma and Distrust Toward Psychology
   • Cultural Stigma Toward Psychology: In many sports environments, especially more traditional ones, psychology is still viewed with suspicion. The common mindset is that “mental toughness” is something developed naturally through experience and determination, not through professional support. The idea that athletes might need psychological help could be seen as a sign of weakness, so some coaches avoid introducing psychologists to shield their athletes from this negative perception.
   • Reducing “Mental Performance” to Motivation: Many coaches view the psychological aspect simply as a matter of motivation, determination, and focus, which they believe they can manage through motivational speeches or boosting athletes’ self-esteem, rather than as a complex area requiring professional support.
5. Personal Experience and Established Approaches
   • Coaches’ Direct Experience: Many coaches are former athletes, and during their careers, they may not have had access to professional psychological support. Consequently, they base their approach to managing athletes’ mental states on their personal experiences and the strategies that worked for them, rather than on scientifically validated psychological practices.
   • Past Success: If a coach has achieved good results by also managing athletes’ mental aspects themselves, they may not see the need to change their approach. If their experience confirms that they can motivate and support athletes, they will be less inclined to seek external help.
6. Pressure for Immediate Results
   • Focus on Short-Term Results: Coaches are often under immense pressure to deliver immediate results, especially in high-level competitions. In this context, they may perceive involving a psychologist as a process that takes time to bear fruit, while they are forced to seek quick and visible solutions to improve athlete performance.
   • Psychology Seen as Non-Essential: In a context where rapid results are crucial, psychology can be viewed as an “extra” rather than an essential factor for short-term success. Coaches might then focus on more tangible aspects like tactics and physical condition.
7. Conflict Between Authoritarian and Psychological Approaches
   • Traditional Leadership Models: Many coaches adopt an authoritarian approach to team management, where they strictly control every aspect of an athlete’s performance. Psychology, with its focus on listening, understanding emotions, and involving the athlete in decision-making processes, can conflict with this leadership model. Coaches with a more directive style may see the introduction of a psychologist as a threat to their authority.
8. Perceived Differences Between Physical and Mental Preparation
   • Greater Visibility of Physical Preparation: Physical preparation is visible, measurable, and closely linked to performance outcomes. Mental preparation, on the other hand, is more difficult to quantify and often manifests less evidently. This makes it easier for coaches to delegate physical preparation to an expert while feeling competent to handle mental aspects personally.
   • Confusion Over Role Boundaries: It is not always clear where the coach’s responsibility ends and the psychologist’s begins. While physical aspects have defined boundaries, such as strength, endurance, and technique, sports psychology covers areas that often overlap with leadership and motivation, aspects many coaches believe to be an integral part of their role.

Conclusion In summary, many coaches see themselves as primarily responsible for athletes’ mental well-being due to a combination of tradition, limited training, desire for control, cultural biases, and the perception of psychology as a less tangible and immediately effective area compared to physical preparation. However, with the growing recognition of psychology’s role in sports, it is likely that greater collaboration between coaches and sports psychologists will develop over time.

Question: Why do many young students writing their thesis on adolescents discuss them with ideas from the ’90s, without acknowledging the changes brought about by social media and smartphones, even though there are no more than 10 years between them?

Many young students writing theses on adolescents seem still anchored to the ideas and theories of the 1990s, despite the profound changes in youth reality due to the rise of social media and smartphones.

There are several reasons that may explain this phenomenon, even though the generational gap is no more than 10 years:

Influence of classical academic literature: Theories and foundational studies from the 1990s, such as those by authors like Erikson, Piaget, or Bauman, are still heavily cited in academic research. These works have had a significant influence on defining adolescent dynamics, and universities often place great importance on well-established literature. This can lead students to reference “historical” concepts, overlooking the current context dominated by social media and technology.

Academic training: Students may be trained by professors who themselves have been influenced by outdated approaches and may not integrate more recent studies or concepts related to digitalization into their teaching. This leads students to reproduce a more traditional view of adolescence, neglecting the role of modern tools like smartphones.

Speed of technological change: The evolution of social media and smartphones has occurred so rapidly that it may be difficult for some students to fully grasp the impact of these technologies on adolescents, despite their generational proximity. While the “smartphone generation” has very specific characteristics (such as increased social isolation, cyberbullying, attention difficulties), those approaching their thesis may not yet be accustomed to considering these factors as central to their academic work.

Underestimation of the impact of social media: Even though many students use social media and smartphones daily, they may not fully realize the deep effect these have on the psychological and social development of adolescents. Critical awareness of these issues often develops through in-depth analysis, which may be lacking if the research is more based on pre-existing beliefs than on updated reflection.

Difficulty accessing recent studies: Not all students have access to the latest research or the most up-to-date databases. The most innovative studies on social media, smartphone use, and their effects on adolescents may be less available or less emphasized in certain study programs, making it more likely that outdated approaches are adopted.

Reassuring familiarity with the past: Clinging to views of adolescents from the ’90s may be comforting, as they offer accepted and consolidated theories that appear “safe” compared to more complex and challenging phenomena, such as the impact of modern technology.

In summary, despite the generational closeness, many students tend to rely on 1990s paradigms for a variety of reasons related to academic training, difficulty adapting to rapid technological changes, and the weight of classical literature, which still dominates many areas of research.