Browse

The conflicting predictions of ironic process theory and the implicit overcompensation hypothesis have been presented as a framework to explain the characteristics of errors that occur when a certain behavior is prohibited. The former predicts that instructions prohibiting a particular behavior will increase the likelihood of an outcome that should be avoided (ironic error), whereas the latter predicts that the likelihood of an outcome opposite of that to be avoided (overcompensation error) will increase. We examined how these errors, which negatively affect performance, are influenced by pressure and perceived weakness. Participants performed a tennis-stroke task, aiming to hit a ball toward a target zone while avoiding a discouraged zone. The results indicate that pressure decreases the ironic errors but increases the overcompensation errors that occur when a particular behavior is discouraged, while an increase in perceived weakness induces random errors.

In articles on the methodology of studies investigating affective and enjoyment responses to high-intensity interval training, we noted that, occasionally, exercise conditions described as involving “high” intensity exhibited heart rates that were only as high as, or even lower than, heart rates recorded during comparator conditions described as being of “moderate” intensity. Drs. Vollaard, Metcalfe, Kinghorn, Jung, and Little suggest instead that exercise intensity in high-intensity interval-training studies can be defined in terms of percentages of peak workload. Although we maintain that defining exercise intensity in terms of percentages of maximal heart rate is a suboptimal way to quantify the degree of homeostatic perturbations in response to exercise, we are unconvinced that definitions of intensity relying solely on workload are appropriate for studies investigating affective and enjoyment responses to exercise. The reason is that affect is theorized to have evolved to relay information about homeostatic perturbations to consciousness.

In the current study, the structural and external validity of data derived from two shorter versions of the Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport (MATS) were examined using multilevel analyses. Evidence of model–data fit was shown for both a 5-factor model comprising 19 items (with subscales assessing teamwork preparation, execution, evaluation, adjustments, and management of team maintenance) and a single-factor model comprising five items (providing a global estimate of teamwork). In general, data from both versions were positively and significantly correlated with (and distinct from) athletes’ perceptions of team cohesion, collective efficacy, performance satisfaction, enjoyment in their sport, and commitment to their team and their coaches’ transformational leadership. The measures appear well suited to detect between-teams differences, as evidenced by intraclass correlation coefficients and acceptable reliability estimates of team-level scores. In summary, the 19-item Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport-Short and five-item Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport-Global provide conceptually and psychometrically sound questionnaires to briefly measure teamwork in sport.