Duarte Araújo * and Keith Davids **
(*) Faculty of Human Kinetics Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
(**) School of Human Movement Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
In recent decades, concepts and ideas from James J. Gibson’s theory of direct perception in ecological psychology have been applied to the study of how perception and action regulate sport performance. This article examines the influence of different streams of thought in ecological psychology for studying cognition and action in the diverse behavioural contexts of sport and exercise. In discussing the origins of ecological psychology it can be concluded that psychologists such as Lewin, and to some extent Heider, provided the initial impetus for the development of key ideas. We argue that the papers in this special issue clarify that the different schools of thinking in ecological psychology have much to contribute to theoretical and practical developments in sport and exercise psychology. For example, Gibson emphasized and formalized how the individual is coupled with the environment; Brunswik raised the issue of the ontology of probability in human behaviour and the problem of representative design for experimental task constraints; Barker looked carefully into extra-individual behavioural contexts and Bronfenbrenner presented insights pertinent to the relations between behaviour contexts, andmacro influences on behaviour. In this overview, we highlight essential issues fromthemain schools of thought of relevance to the contexts of sport and exercise, and we consider some potential theoretical linkages with dynamical systems theory.
Keywords: Barker, Bronfenbrenner, Brunswik, Dynamical systems, Direct perception, Gibson, Mental representation
Kenneth R. Hammond * and Robert A.bateman **
(*) Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, USA
(**) Tennis Professional, Boulder, Colorado, USA
While the vast majority of publications in sport psychology look inward, in this paper we look outward to examine the relationship of the athlete to her environment. We describe the theoretical foundations and methodological implications of Egon Brunswik’s “probabilistic functionalism” and contrast that with the dominant theory and method of psychological research, namely the “rule of one variable”. We explain the importance of Brunswik’s concept of “representative design” if sport psychologists want to generalize their results from their studies to the competitive environment. We then use examples from the sport of tennis to show how probabilistic functionalism and representative design can be used in studying and training athletes.
Keywords: Ecological Psychology, Sport Psychology
Gerhard Kaminski
University of Tuebingen, Germany
The first part of this paper gives an overview of (Barkerian) psychological ecology, its origin, its classical research tradition, and its further developments up to the present. Roger G. Barker aspired to complement (mainly) experimental psychology by establishing a psychological ecology modeled on biological ecology. In a field station (1947-1972) his research group applied two essentially different approaches of “naturalistic” methodology aimed at describing and analysing people’s everyday behaviour in a small rural town. – How could this research perspective and tradition be relevant to sport psychology? The second part of the paper tries to answer these questions, primarily by attempting to locate Barkerian psychological ecology within the network of sport sciences. Reflecting on one of sport psychology’s major tasks (producing “if-then-knowledge” aimed at improving sport performance) reveals that psychological ecology’s relevance has a fundamentally different emphasis. The analysis of various examples demonstrates how this peculiar kind of relevance can be utilised.
Keywords: Behaviour setting, Ecological representativeness, Ecological validity, Psychological
Brett R. Fajen *, Michael A. Riley ** and Michael T. Turvey ***
(*) Department of Cognitive Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(**) Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati
(***) Center for the Ecological Study of Perception and Action, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut
The theory of affordances, a conceptual pillar of the ecological approach to perception and action, has the potential to become a guiding principle for research on perception and action in sport. Affordances are opportunities for action. They describe the environment in terms of behaviors that are possible at a given moment under a given set of conditions. Affordances capture the tight coupling between perception and action, and allow for the prospective and moment-to-moment control of activity that is characteristic of fluent, fast-paced behavior on the playing field. We begin with an overview of the ecological approach and the principle of direct perception, using past research on interceptive action to illustrate how this principle has been put to work to capture information-movement relations in perceptualmotor skill. We then review theory and research on body-scaled, action-scaled, and social affordances, highlighting outstanding questions that provide opportunities for new research on affordances in the context of sport.We conclude with consideration of affordances as providing a functional semantics for sports.
Keywords: Affordances, Ecological Psychology, Interceptive actions, Perceptionaction coupling
Ruy Jornada Krebs
Center of Physical Education Sports and Physical Therapy, University of the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil
Objective: The objective of this paper is to discuss the process of building the Bioecological Theory of Human Development, with emphasis on its four components: proximal processes, biopsychological characteristics of a developing person, the parameters of the ecological context, and the dimension of time. As a complementary objective this paper will propose a possible application of Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical structure to the field of sport. Development: The paper was divided into three parts. The first one was dedicated to analyzing the building process of the bioecological theory. The analysis included brief comments of some of Bronfenbrenner’s assumptions and definitions, as well as the components of his model: proximal processes, which are determined by the interactions between characteristics of the person, the context and the time; biopsychological characteristics of a developing person, which are identified as disposition, resources and demands; the parameters of the ecological context, characterized as microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem; the dimension of time, presented as microtime, mesotime and macrotime. The second part analyzed Bronfenbrenner’s effort to put theory into research designs. An original classification of research is commented: research on the discovery mode and research on the confirmatory mode. The third part discussed Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical structure applied in the field of sport. A theoretical model based on the Bioecological Theory of Human Development is discussed. The model proposes an analysis of the development of sport talents as a phenomenon of proximal processes and their interactions with personal attributes, ecological settings, and dimensions of time. Conclusion: After the publication ofMaking Human Beings Human, in 2005, the great legacy of Urie Bronfenbrenner, his Bioecological Theory of Human Development, was concluded. Back in the seventies it is possible to see his first attempt to build an interface between developmental research and public policy. The phenomenon discussed in this paper, development of sports talent, has variables representing all the four components of the bioecological model, and perhaps it is time to use Bronfenbrenner’s model to follow the process of developing future athletes.
Keywords: Bioecological model, Biopsychological attributes, Human ecology, Proximal processes, Sports talent
Bruce Abernethy */**
(*) Institute of Human Performance, University of Hong Kong, China
(**) School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Australia
The articles by Brett Fajen, Michael Riley and Michael Turvey, Kenneth Hammond and Robert Bateman, Ruy Jornada Krebs, and Gerhard Kaminski on different ecological approaches to sport cognition present a unique com- pilation of thought-provoking essays that should be of both interest and chal- lenge to all sport psychologists. Each article presents a position on the study of the psychology of sport (and other facets of skilled human movement) that is directly influenced by one of the giants of ecological approaches – James J. Gibson (in the case of Fajen et al.), Egon Brunswik (in the case of Hammond & Bateman), Urie Bronfenbrenner (in the case of Krebs), and Roger G. Barker (in the case of Kaminski). In this commentary I make some necessar- ily brief observations on the strengths and issues associated with these eco- logical approaches, treated first individually and then collectively. My per- spective in examining the papers is that of someone with a particular interest in skill learning and expert performance. My interest in ecological psychol- ogy is largely from the context of a researcher intrigued by the contribution that ecological psychology, in its various forms, might make to understanding movement expertise (e.g., Abernethy, Burgess-Limerick & Parks, 1994) and as an interested observer of the paradigmatic tussles between cognitive psy- chology and ecological psychology for dominance of motor control and learning research (Abernethy & Sparrow, 1992).
Keywords:
Peter J. Beek
Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The four ecological perspectives on sport psychology that are brought to the reader’s attention in the present issue share much in common. They all aspire to study and understand sports behavior in terms of the actual envi- ronment and the broader context in which it appears and evolves – this is what renders them “ecological”. In addition, each one of them is based on the intellectual legacy of a single creative scholar – Brunswik, Barker, Gib- son, and Bronfenbrenner – each dissatisfied with mainstream psychology and its emphasis on “inner” processes and reductionist methodologies. Finally, and important in view of the present issue’s theme, the four approaches were all developed in contexts other than that of sport psychol- ogy, implying that their relevance for sport psychology still remains to be demonstrated and can only be estimated from the penetrating character of their constituent concepts and corresponding methodologies. Inevitably, this requires a judgment call on the part of the reader, which in turn will depend on the reader’s personal background and research interests. It is therefore useful to state right away that I am interested in the control and learning of movement in the context of skilled actions, and that I have read and evalu- ated the four target articles from this background. At the same time, how- ever, I do believe that most of my criticisms have broader validity and bear- ing as well, but that is of course for others to decide. Here is what I have to say in response to the four target articles.
Keywords:
Jürgen R. Nitsch
Institute of Psychology, German Sport University Cologne
The objective of this paper is to comment on four ecological approaches to sport activity which are based on the conceptions of Urie Bronfenbrenner, Roger G. Barker, Egon Brunswik and James J. Gibson. Their consensual general message is that to sufficiently explain, predict and improve some behaviour it is necessary to study the objective properties of the environmental context in which this behaviour takes place. Concerning their peculiarities, it is shown that each of these approaches provides particular contributions to an extended theoretical understanding of sport activity. However, the most profit will be gained when focusing on their complementarities within an integrative frame of reference. In this sense, a promising perspective is provided by action theory. Action theory is designed as a systems approach to the person-environment interrelation, assuming that the human-specific core of this interrelation is the intentional organisation of behaviour within a meaningful situational context, i.e., action. It is shown that this perspective is capable to embody and interconnect central aspects of different ecological approaches according to their particular significance within the dynamics of situated action. The main focus, however, is on further differentiation of the organisation of action with regard to a comprehensive understanding of the psychological nature of the person-environment interrelation. The essentials of this conception are briefly outlined with special reference to the structure of action situations and the functional architecture of actions.
Keywords:
Neville Owen
Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Australia
Exercise psychology is a diverse and highly-active field. Within this field, ecological frameworks are providing strong conceptual guidance to a number of research domains. A particular strength of ecological frameworks, as the four papers in this Special Issue demonstrate, is their focus on how people and environmental attributes interact, in differing physical activity contexts. There is much to be gained from developing and applying ecological approaches to physical activity behaviours. Ecological approaches are par- ticularly needed if we are to comprehensively address the challenges of increasing the physical activity participation levels of whole populations (Biddle & Mutrie, 2008; Sallis & Owen, 1999). There is the potential to reduce a significant portion of the burden imposed by ‘diseases of inactivi- ty’— particularly type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1996), and breast and colon cancer (Lee, 2003). More than half of the adult populations of industrialised countries being insufficiently physically active for health benefits (Bauman, Armstrong, Davies, Owen, Brown, Bellew & Vita, 2003).
Keywords:
Kenneth R. Hammond * and Robert A. Bateman **
(*) Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, USA
(**) Tennis Professional, Boulder, Colorado, USA
In this brief reply to comments on our paper we first wish to express our gratitude for the thoughtful comments by Abernethy, Beek, and Nitsch regarding our work. We are also grateful to the editors for suggesting our participation in the production of this special issue of the journal. It will be apparent that this is our first publication in the literature of sport psychology, and that we have learned a great deal from it. Hammond, the academic, and Bateman, the tennis professional, have each deepened their respect for this discipline. Hammond now sees the considerable research competence within the field that of which he was previously unaware. More than that, however, he now sees the great promise sport psychology holds for breaking out of the boundaries traditional experimental psychology has created for itself over this past century. That promise may be realized because the nature of the dis- cipline requires it to move in the direction of ecological psychology and the representative design of experiments, as aptly demonstrated by the study that we will examine in more detail below, Williams, et al (2002). And Bate- man now sees the potential for an “outer” psychology that will be capable of producing the kind of knowledge that a tennis professional can use to improve his students’ skills. We both look forward to advances in the field that will make a difference.
Keywords:
Gerhard Kaminski
University of Tuebingen, Germany
Final: When I was granted responding to commentaries as well as to the colleagues’ target articles I imagined proceeding as follows: While studying all these contributions thoroughly I would, in particular, look out for spots in the texts where I felt to have been misunderstood or misinterpreted, so that I could, after all, aspire and achieve final clarification by some further explication. Not final: The more I really progressed in reading all these papers the more I had to realize how unrealistic my initial view had been. I got lots of important new information. Yet, in accord with the accrual of new informa- tion, also a growing bulk of questions emerged, a plethora of new problems needing further discussion. So, I rather came up with the idea that what seems to be needed now is something like a workshop where all the – even more than ever before - pending questions and problems could be discussed in adequate detail. Hence, what I am able to present here will not be more than kind of a personal interim balance which I would take as a base when going into further discussions. Avoiding misunderstandings and misinterpre- tations would, first of all, require attaining an adequate conception of the mutual interrelations between the different positions. This demands, in my view, differentiating these ecological approaches – beyond their fundamental commonalities — on at least three different levels, or locating them within three different frames of reference (“ecological realities”, “primordial articu- lations”, “strategies of conceptualization”).
Keywords:
Michael A. Riley *, Brett R. Fajen ** and Michael T. Turvey ***
(*) Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, USA
(**) Department of Cognitive Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
(***) Center for the Ecological Study of Perception and Action, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, USA
The guest editors and four commentators raised many interesting and important issues about the ecological approach to perception and action in sports. They offered some excellent suggestions for further developing and applying the ecological approach, but also raised some concerns and pointed out some of the challenges. Our goals in this reply are to respond to these concerns and challenges, and clarify the position that we expressed in our original article. We reply to the remarks of each commentator in turn, but point out similarities in their remarks wherever they exist.
Keywords:
Ruy Jornada Krebs
Univeristy of Sant Catarina, Brazil
The objective of this paper is to discuss proximal process as a key concept for the understanding of the bioecological paradigm, as well as to answer the comments regarding the use of the Bioecological Theory of Human Development as a theoretical framework for the field of sport psychology. In a similar vein with Gibson, who created the term affordance to explain environmental properties taken in reference with the person, Bronfenbrenner created the term proximal processes to describe the interaction between the person’s attributes, the characteristics of the environment, and the properties of time, as the primary engines of development. The order of the answer follows the sequence in which the comments were presented. In this reaction paper we try to clarify some weakness pointed in our major paper, related to the four components of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory: proximal processes, biopsychological characteristics of a developing person, the parameters of the ecological context, and the dimension of time.
Keywords: