Psychological Aspects of Physical Education and Sport

J E Kane

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317231110
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Cognitive Psychology & Cognition
• Index: Psychology

Psychology has an important part to play in the teaching and practice of physical education and sport, and this volume, originally published in 1972, provided a systematic and authoritative introduction to the major areas in this field at the time.

The contributors, leading experts in the UK and US, cover five major areas of psychology: perception, learning, personality, motivation and emotion, focusing attention on important current research of the time, and opening up these areas for the serious student. They review controversial issues of central importance in physical education and sport, pointing to practical implications for learning, teaching and coaching.

A great opportunity to read an early take on what has become a central part of physical education and sport today.

1

Integrated development

A H Ismail

Ancient civilizations stressed the development of human qualities through the cultivation of the body and mind. Socrates stated that ‘even in the process of thinking, in which the use of the body seems to be reduced to a minimum, it is a matter of common knowledge that grave mistakes can often be traced to bad health’ (Van Dalen, 1953). Plato spoke of healthy bodies for healthy minds. During the seventeenth century Descartes, although he treated the individual as having two parts, namely, body and mind, yet he recognized the interaction between them. Rousseau considered the relationship between body and mind and stressed that they should be treated accordingly. He believed that in the education process if we want to cultivate the mind we must cultivate the parts which the mind governs, namely, physique.

In the nineteenth century, Wundt atomized the mind by reducing it to the elementary parts of sensations, feelings and images (Hall and Lindsay, 1957). Since then there have been continuous attempts to investigate the relationship between body and mind. Sherrington (1940) shared and elaborated on treating human organism as a unified entity by stating: ‘The muscle is the cradle of recognizable mind.’ On the relationship between body and mind he went on to say, ‘recognizable mind seems to have arisen in connection with the motor act. Where motor integration progressed and where motor behavior progressively evolved, mind progressively evolved.’

Accordingly, body and mind are never independent; such subdivision is entirely arbitrary and unfounded. Although much remains to be learned about the brain and central nervous system, neurologists in general agree that the idea of two lives, somatic and psychic, has outlived its usefulness. Thus, the psychosomatic concept of medicine recognizes this fact of biological integration and acknowledges its significance.

Theories in perspectives

A survey of some related theories is of prime importance. One is the organismic age theory by Olson (1959) which proposes that the performance of a child is associated with certain factors closely related to his total motor, emotional, social and intellectual development. He advocates that the average of a number of developmental ages such as height age, mental age, carpal age and reading age can be used to estimate the child’s organismic age. It has been postulated that any available developmental measure may be used in computing the organismic age, the best components of which, according to Olson, are not yet known. Olson finds the organismic age concept useful in predicting intellectual performance, particularly during the growing years. However, Olson points out the limitations of such predictions by stating:

While we can secure some firm generalizations about the growth of children on the average, we find that individuals may not fit these generalizations. Size, shape, strength, appearance and the timing of growth help to determine the situations in which children find themselves. They have pervasive effects that do not show up in correlation coefficients since the pattern for an individual has meanings which are different than meanings running through a group of individuals.

Along this line the Gestalt psychology has seen the necessity of considering the individual as a ‘whole’ within the framework of his environment. Hall and Lindsey (1957) express the feeling of the Gestaltists when they say: ‘The organism always behaves as a unified whole and not as a series of differential parts. Mind and body are not separate entities, nor does the mind consist of independent faculties or elements, and the body of independent organs and processes. The organism is a single unity. What happens in a part affects the whole.’ Hence educators, as well as psychologists, should recognize that development is the result of a complex interaction between hereditary, maturational and environmental domains. Educators who attempt to separate these elements are overlooking a fundamental principle of developmental psychology.

Woodworth and Sheehan (1964) acknowledge the inseparable nature of those domains when they say: ‘Untangling the influences of nature and nurture is a delicate operation that is never completely successful, and on the question of their relative contributions to perceptual development, research findings can be offered in support of either position.’

Another theory is that proposed by Delacato (1959, 1963). This emphasizes the need for ‘neurological organization’ which, in normal children, is the result of uninterrupted ontogenetic development. Therefore, they advocate that neural patterns omitted during the neurological development of the child be introduced in order to compensate for these missing links.

A third theory, the perceptual-motor concept of Kephart (1960, 1966) stresses the complete perceptual-motor development which explains learning difficulties as a result of a ‘breakdown’ in the perceptual-motor development of the child.

Recently, Denny (1966) proposed a theory labeled as elicitation theory which involves stimulus (S) and response (R) in terms of the relationship between them, called response tendency (S-R). By and large, the approach adopted in developing the theory borrows heavily from Hull, Guthrie, Tolman and Skinner and hopefully represents an integration of the neobehavioristic schools.

It is a fact recognized by neurologists that in order for the organism to perceive a complex motor task correctly, all structures in the central nervous system must be fully developed and physiologically ‘ready’ to integrate stimulus and response patterns. Hence, all theories are built on the basic assumption that perceptual-motor training which takes advantage of the relationship between sensory processes and motor responses acts through the cortex and lower brain centers to improve perceptual and motor functions.

Motor performance provides stimulation of the central nervous system to such an extent that the underdeveloped, dead or dying cells will either be rehabilitated or their function assumed by other or newly generated cells. Joseph Altman (1968) is among those who support the possibility of neurons undergoing mitosis when he states: ‘new neurons might nevertheless arise from undifferentiated precursors, embryonic cells that might differentiate, becoming neurons after multiplication.’ Doman (1966) let the child rebreathe much of the air he exhaled because he claimed that ‘this method of increasing carbon dioxide content at the cortical level is a well known chemo-physiological aid to the cortex’s making better use of the oxygen which is supplied.’

Steinhaus (1964) calls our attention to the fact that the most important sense organ in the body is muscle tissue, since some 40 per cent of the axons in the motor nerve to a muscle are actually sensory fibres which carry impulses to the brain. Thus, over half of our body weight, namely, muscles, serve as ‘neural information’ because information from the outside world is transmitted from the muscles to the central nervous system in different forms such as memory, concept formation, thinking and reasoning.

In the complexity of the relationship between body and mind, the domain of personality is often included. Sheldon (1942) has contended that there is a parallel between his somato-types and personality ‘types’ or there are two closely related temperaments, namely, body and personality. Cratty (1964) points out that personality theories include physical activity as a part contributing to one’s personality. In addition, each theory also includes some aspect of intellect as an integral part of personality.

In summary, all propositions rest on the basic assumption that the human organism is more than the total sum of its parts. Breckenridge and Vincent (1955) provide an acceptable explanation of the ‘integrated development’ concept when they say:

The individual consists of many parts which act in an integrated fashion. His intellect is related to his physical well-being; his physical health is sharply affected by his emotions; his emotions are influenced by school success or failure, by his physical health and by his intellectual adequacy. His growth—physical, intellectual and social—is product of his family history, his personal history, his current satisfactions and strains. His daily schedule affects all phases of his growth and, in turn, the pattern and speed of his growth affect his reaction to his daily schedule. What he accomplishes in school, in play or in any other part of his living is deeply and continuously affected by his physical health, by his intellectual adequacy, by his interest in his work or play, and by his emotional freedom to attend to school demands.

One important goal of science is the development of theory. The examination of any theory is an essential part in the growth of the scientific aspect of any area or field. No theory can stand indefinitely on conjecture alone; eventually it must be supported or refuted by scientific evidence. Thus, it is the intent of this chapter to examine the ‘integrated development’ proposition (Ismail and Gruber, 1967) for validity or falsity utilizing scientific evidence obtained through survey of related literature.

It is a recognized fact that different developmental processes, whether physical, mental or emotional are dependent on heredity and innate properties which are affected and conditioned by environmental factors. In treating the topic ‘integrated development’, I shall attempt to avoid discussing the effect of social or environmental conditions, rich or poor, on the motor, intellectual and personality domains. Such discussion was based on two obvious reasons which are, firstly, that very little pertinent research is available where the effects of environmental conditions on physical, mental and emotional development are studied using human subjects; and secondly, that most of the respectable research (Altman, 1966, 1968; Hebb, 1949) along this line was conducted on animals, and the inference space or generalization from animals to human beings must be treated with utmost care. Hence the interrelationships among the various domains of development presented in this chapter are dealt with under the assumption that the environmental conditions were held constant or at best desirable.

Motor and/or physical attributes usually employed

Before presenting the literature dealing with the concept under consideration, it is important to discuss the status of motor and/or physical attributes which are usually employed. The reason for such an action is that the motor and/or physical domains are often misunderstood by those who used them most frequently in their research activities.

Items geared to measure motor and/or physical fitness are frequently used. On the other hand, measurements of gross and fine perceptual-motor performance are also employed. Regardless of the usefulness of these measures, conflicting results have been achieved when correlating such measures with intellectual variables. Thus, there is an apparent need to analyze and define motor measures precisely before relating them to intellectual tasks. Furthermore, adequate description should be given pertaining to the administration of these items, including the testing situation. In addition, full description of subjects involved should yield important information in terms of both interpreting the results and making proper generalizations. More information concerning the problem associated with the assessment of motor performance measures is discussed by J. F. Keogh (1964). Examples of studies devoted to either defining or clarifying motor attributes are nothing but a humble effort in the right direction. In 1927 Farmer found that the term ‘motor’ was too wide and suggested that a narrower view be taken and tests should be divided according to particular types of motor performance they seem to test. Along this line Seashore (1942) investigated the relationship between fine and gross motor abilities, and no overall positive relationship was found between them.

In order to define the term ‘motor aptitude’ Ismail and Cowell (1961) conducted a study to identify the factors which could explain twenty-five selected items that authorities claim to measure such motor aptitude. Utilizing factor analytic procedures, five independent factors were extracted and named. These factors are speed, growth and maturity, kinesthetic memory of the arms, body balance on objects, and body balance on the floor.

Bass (1939) made an analysis of balance items for the purpose of determining the different factors affecting balance. She extracted nine factors of which five were given names. These factors are general eye-motor, general kinesthetic response, general ambulatory sensitivity, function of the two vertical semicircular canals and tension-giving reinforcement. Also studying balance, Travis (1945) reported the following findings: (1) the dynamic component of equilibration is quite unrelated to static component; (2) no relation is found between balancing skill on the stabilometer and ability to maintain manually orientation of the rotation chair; (3) low correlations were found between perceptual and motor components of body orientation on the rotation chair; (4) weight is more important than height in dynamic stabilometer performance; (5) weight and height have no importance on sway scores, rotation scores, steadiness and manual pursuit; and (6) visual cues are of help in both dynamic and static equilibrium.

Using the multiple-group method of factoring, Cumbee, Meyer and Peterson (1957) investigated motor co-ordination items. They extracted nine factors and four were given names. These factors are balancing objects, speed of change of direction of arms and hands, total body quick change of direction, and body balance. As a result, it was concluded that a different definition of motor co-ordination for different age levels should be considered.

Cratty (1964) recently suggested a two-level model to explain perceptual-motor functioning. He distinguishes between constructs which are specific to the task and those of a more general nature such as ability to analyze an activity. He has further proposed the inversion of ‘Vernon’s Pyramid’ assuming that factors at three levels influence final performance and learning output (1966a). ‘General behavioral supports’ which influence several kinds of human behavior, including intellectual as well as perceptual-motor abilities, are located at the base level of the pyramid. At the second level are various perceptual-motor factors spawned by factor analytic studies. At the apex of the pyramid, specific factors are situated. Thus, the conflict between specificity and generality of perceptual-motor behavior could be explained by such constructs. The work of Frank (1941) supports the concept of generality as related to the influence of level of aspiration on performance. Further, Ryan (1963) explains that the feelings of an individual about his performance potential and strivings may influence his performance and learning in a diversity of tasks. Other investigators who support the existence and importance of generality of behavior are Elizabeth Duffy (1962), Magoun (1958), Fleishman and Hempel (1954) and Cratty (1962a, b). Evidence that skilled output is also governed by factors specific to the tasks and the situation is abundant. Examples of studies supporting specificity are being conducted by Strong (1963), Henry (1960) and Namikas (1960).

In conclusion, additional research is needed to clarify the generality and specificity concepts in perceptual-motor skills, level of aspiration and other factors which might influence motor performance. For the time being, the researcher should describe the variables of interest in detail and provide evidence as to the logical relevance of each variable.

Related literature on integrated development

A great deal of literature has been accumulated on the relationship between motor, intellectual and emotional development. The literature reviewed in this chapter is selected with a view toward...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1 Integrated development
• 2 Perception and movement behavior
• 3 Learning motor skills
• 4 Personality, body concept and performance
• 5 Aesthetics and the psychology of qualitative movement
• 6 The contribution of play and sports to emotional health
• 7 Physical activity and the psychological development of the handicapped
• 8 Motivation and psychometric approach in coaching
• Index