Browse

The purpose of this brief commentary is to correct some misinformation that appears in many sport psychology writings. As the title of this paper indicates, the author discusses two historical giants in social psychology, Norman Triplett and Kurt Lewin, who are often cited in sport psychology publications. The problem with the typical commentary on these two social scientists and the events they are linked to is that the discussions of them are typically inaccurate, as Strube, Stroebe, and Bedeian indicate and the author next elaborates on.

The extent to which humans consider themselves part of a group versus a collection of individuals is termed groupness. Despite a rich history in other domains, research examining the construct in physical activity settings is only beginning to emerge. Indeed, seminal research from other domains and recent efforts in physical activity highlight the importance of groupness perceptions for a range of outcomes. This paper provides an overview of the current groupness conceptualization in physical activity, presents research conducted in exercise and sport contexts, and, most important, provides a roadmap highlighting future research avenues. Proposed lines of enquiry relevant to physical activity include the development of a context-specific conceptualization, advances in methodologies to facilitate measurement and analysis, and the importance of contextualizing groupness research within physical activity settings.

In taking a senior perspective, the author first steps back and offers an historical view and then offers her senior advice for moving forward. When the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity (NASPSPA) was in its infancy (early 1970s), the psychology subarea was known as social psychology and physical activity, and our research largely followed social psychology theories and research methods. In subsequent developing years, our research split into sport psychology and exercise psychology, with more focused research lines that moved away from social psychology and physical activity. While the more focused research builds our evidence base, that research has little impact on the wide range of participants and professionals. To have greater impact, we can reclaim the “social,” and we can take a more inclusive view of physical activity. We must recognize and highlight the powerful and complex role of “social” context and relationships and directly engage with professionals and participants in those real-world settings. We need more scholars who partner with other (nonacademic) professionals, teach those future professionals, and engage with their community and the public to enhance our real-world impact.

The authors conducted a systematic review of children’s and adolescent’s physical activity by schoolyard location. PubMed and Web of Science were searched and articles were selected that included 3- to 17-year-olds and specifically examined and reported physical activity by schoolyard location. The primary outcomes of interest were the percentage of total time or observation intervals spent in each location and percentage of time or observation intervals in each location being sedentary or participating in moderate to vigorous physical activity. Included studies (N = 24) focused on preschoolers (n = 6), children (n = 11), adolescents (n = 2), or children and adolescents (n = 5) and primarily used direct observation (n = 17). Fields, fixed equipment, and blacktop were all important locations for physical activity participation, but there were differences by age group and sex. More research is needed that uses consistent methodology and accounts for other factors such as time of year, provided equipment, and differences in schoolyard designs.

The overarching purpose of the current article was to examine the status of sport psychology as a profession in 4 ways. First, the author characterizes the profession of sport psychology as an illusion because there is so little demand for sport psychology services and because there are so few full-time practicing sport psychologists. Second, paradoxically, it appears that many people assume that applied sport psychology is a healthy and viable profession, so the author comments on why this is the case. Sidestepping the lack of jobs does a disservice to graduate students who believe they can easily become practicing sport psychologists. Third, it is clear that few athletes or teams want to pay for sport psychology services, so some reasons why this is the case are presented. Fourth, the author speculates about the future of the sport psychology profession, followed by some recommendations that would rectify his claim that the field’s relative silence on this issue does a disservice to students.

Previous reviews have highlighted the importance of self-efficacy beliefs in maintaining adequate levels of childhood physical activity (PA), but variable findings with different age groups and measures of PA indicate the need to quantify the extant literature. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to estimate the relationship between adolescents’ barrier self-efficacy (BSE) and PA behavior using a random-effects model and to examine age and type of PA measurement as potential relationship moderators. A systematic online database review yielded 38 articles up to June 2018. A small to moderate correlation between BSE beliefs and PA was noted, although the variability was considerable. Age and measurement timing were not significant moderators, but the type of measurement was a significant relationship moderator. This meta-analysis emphasizes the importance of BSE as a psychosocial correlate to PA behavior in young people. There is a need for further BSE–PA research with attention to measurement technique and developmental differences.

3 WINS Fitness is a student-delivered free exercise program for the community delivered in public parks. We believe this program, which operates without external funding and has been sustained for 6 years, is one significant solution to reducing the level of physical inactivity in the United States. The operative 3 WINS in our program are participant health, community health, and student professional development. The primary focus has been underserved communities, and our current eight programs in Los Angeles, serve over 300 participants regularly. Three challenges to the program are student empowerment, faculty understanding and involvement, and establishing the relationship between university and parks, which represent a vital partnership. However, the accomplishment of undergraduate students having such a dynamic impact on public health underscores the need for encouraging this sustainable and innovative strategy to increase the physical activity levels of communities across America.

Successful campus-community partnerships provide universities enhanced visibility in the community, and offer university students opportunities to engage in real-world educational experiences through service learning and internships. In addition, the participating community agency/program benefits from an infusion of ambitious students that can help the agency/program further its mission, and increase its visibility and reach. Within the areas of health promotion and wellness, campus-community partnerships have become an essential component in the delivery of prevention services and the development of public health infrastructure. The purpose of this paper is to share the experiences of two universities in their development of campus-community partnerships in the areas of health and wellness.