Matthew Barlow

Great expectations: different high-risk activities satisfy different motives

Research on peoples motives for engaging in high-risk activities has typically been viewed through the single-focused lens of sensation seeking. We provide evidence that comprehensively challenges that view. First, we develop and confirm the structure of a 3-factor measure of motives: the Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation, and Agency Scale (SEAS; Study 1). We then use the SEAS to provide evidence of differential motives for 2 high-risk activities: skydiving and mountaineering. The motive for skydiving is strongly associated with sensation seeking; the motive for mountaineering is strongly associated with emotion regulation and agency but not with sensation seeking (Study 2). We also show that these conclusions cannot be drawn from existing measures of personality and sensation seeking (Study 3). Finally, individuals who are motivated by emotion regulation and agency needs also have greater expectations regarding their emotion regulation and agency. It is these greater expectations that most successfully discriminate mountaineers from skydivers and control participants (Study 4). It is concluded that researchers should no longer consider risk takers as a homogenous sensation-seeking group and that they should consider risk taking as a potential model of human endeavor. The SEAS can be used as a measure of motives for behavior whenever sensation seeking, agency, or emotion regulation is thought to be at the core of such motives, and the results are discussed in the context of encouraging personality researchers to consider the specific spontaneous behaviors that motivate different people.

Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of Super-Elite and Elite athletes from Olympic sports

Participants were 32 former GB athletes from Olympic sports, 16 Super-Elite athletes who had won multiple medals at major championships, and 16 matched Elite athletes who had not. In-depth interviews with the athletes, their coaches, and one of their parents explored all psychosocial aspects of their development and careers. Content analyses revealed that there were no differences between Super-Elite and Elite athletes with regard to family values, conscientiousness, or commitment to training. However, the two groups were found to be different with regard to: (1) the experience of a foundational negative life event coupled with a foundational positive sport-related event; (2) the experience of a career turning point that enhanced motivation and focus for their sport; (3) need for success; (4) obsessiveness and/or perfectionism with regard to training and performance; (5) ruthlessness and/or selfishness in the pursuit of their sporting goals; (6) dual focus on both mastery and outcome; (7) the use of counterphobic attitudes and/or total preparation to maintain higher levels of performance under pressure; and (8) the relative importance of sport over other aspects of life. The results are discussed within the context of psychodynamic theory, and recommendations are made for both applied implications and future research.

Who Takes Risks in High-Risk Sport?: The Role of Alexithymia

People who have difficulty identifying and describing their emotions are more likely to seek out the experience of emotions in the high-risk domain. This is because the high-risk domain provides the experience of more easily identifiable emotions (e.g., fear). However, the continued search for intense emotion may lead such individuals to take further risks within this domain, which, in turn, would lead to a greater likelihood of experiencing accidents. Across three studies, we provide the first evidence in support of this view. In Study 1 (n = 762), alexithymia was associated with greater risk taking and a greater propensity to experience accidents and close calls. In Study 2 (n = 332) and Study 3 (n = 356), additional bootstrapped mediation models confirmed these relationships. The predictive role of alexithymia remained significant when controlling for sensation seeking (Study 1) and anhedonia (Study 2 and Study 3). We discuss the practical implications of the present model as they pertain to minimizing accidents and close calls in the high-risk domain.

Great British medalists: Response to the commentaries

Hardy et al. (2017) reported the findings of a large-scale, multisource, qualitative study that examined the commonalities of, and discriminators between, a group of super-elite (SE) and a group of elite (E) athletes who were matched on gender, sport, discipline, and era. Fifteen research teams who are actively engaged in research in the domain then provided critical commentaries on the target paper. In our response to these commentaries, we briefly remind the reader of the primary findings of the original paper and then deal with the commentaries under the subheadings: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Elite Performance; Mediating and Moderating Variables; Methodological Issues; Omissions; and Alternative Approaches. Finally, we discuss the very small number of disagreements that we have with any of the commentaries.

Great British medallists: Response to the commentaries

Hardy et al. (2017) reported the findings of a large-scale, multisource, qualitative study that examined the commonalities of, and discriminators between, a group of super-elite (SE) and a group of elite (E) athletes who were matched on gender, sport, discipline, and era. Fifteen research teams who are actively engaged in research in the domain then provided critical commentaries on the target paper. In our response to these commentaries, we briefly remind the reader of the primary findings of the original paper and then deal with the commentaries under the subheadings: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Elite Performance; Mediating and Moderating Variables; Methodological Issues; Omissions; and Alternative Approaches. Finally, we discuss the very small number of disagreements that we have with any of the commentaries.

Chapter 18 - Great British medalists: Response to the commentaries

Hardy et al. (2017) reported the findings of a large-scale, multisource, qualitative study that examined the commonalities of, and discriminators between, a group of super-elite (SE) and a group of elite (E) athletes who were matched on gender, sport, discipline, and era. Fifteen research teams who are actively engaged in research in the domain then provided critical commentaries on the target paper. In our response to these commentaries, we briefly remind the reader of the primary findings of the original paper and then deal with the commentaries under the subheadings: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Elite Performance; Mediating and Moderating Variables; Methodological Issues; Omissions; and Alternative Approaches. Finally, we discuss the very small number of disagreements that we have with any of the commentaries.