Risk Perception Influences Athletic Pacing Strategy.

PURPOSE: To examine risk-taking and risk-perception associations with perceived exertion, pacing and performance in athletes. METHODS: Two experiments were conducted in which risk-perception was assessed using the domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale in 20 novice cyclists (Experiment 1) and 32 experienced ultra-marathon runners (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants predicted their pace and then performed a 5 km maximum effort cycling time-trial on a calibrated KingCycle mounted bicycle. Split-times and perceived exertion were recorded every kilometer. In experiment 2, each participant predicted their split times before running a 100 km ultra-marathon. Split-times and perceived exertion were recorded at 7 check-points. In both experiments, higher and lower risk-perception groups were created using median split of DOSPERT scores. RESULTS: In experiment 1, pace during the first km was faster among lower compared to higher risk-perceivers, t(18)=2.0 P=0.03, and faster among higher compared lower risk-takers, t(18)=2.2 P=0.02. Actual pace was slower than predicted pace during the first km in both the higher risk perceivers, t(9)=-4.2 P=0.001, and lower risk-perceivers, t(9)=-1.8 P=0.049. In experiment 2, pace during the first 36 km was faster among lower compared to higher risk-perceivers, t(16)=2.0 P=0.03. Irrespective of risk-perception group, actual pace was slower than predicted pace during the first 18 km, t(16)=8.9 P<0.001, and from 18 to 36 km, t(16)=4.0 P<0.001. In both experiments there was no difference in performance between higher and lower risk-perception groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial pace is associated with an individual's perception of risk, with low perceptions of risk being associated with a faster starting pace. Large differences between predicted and actual pace suggests the performance template lacks accuracy, perhaps indicating greater reliance on momentary pacing decisions rather than pre-planned strategy.

Blurred Lines: Performance Enhancement, Common Mental Disorders and Referral in the U.K. Athletic Population

Through the awareness-raising efforts of several high-profile current and former athletes, the issue of common mental disorders (CMD) in this population is gaining increasing attention from researchers and practitioners alike. Yet the prevalence is unclear and most likely, under-reported. Whilst the characteristics of the sporting environment may generate CMD within the athletic population, it also may exacerbate pre-existing conditions, and hence it is not surprising that sport psychology and sport science practitioners are anecdotally reporting increased incidences of athletes seeking support for CMDs. In a population where there are many barriers to reporting and seeking help for CMD, due in part to the culture of the high performance sporting environment, anecdotal reports suggest that those athletes asking for help are approaching personnel who they are most comfortable talking to. In some cases, this may be a sport scientist, the sport psychologist or sport psychology consultant. Among personnel in the sporting domain, there is a perception that the sport psychologist or sport psychology consultant is best placed to assist athletes seeking assistance for CMD. However, sport psychology as a profession is split by two competing philosophical perspectives; one of which suggests that sport psychologists should work exclusively with athletes on performance enhancement, and the other views the athlete more holistically and accepts that their welfare may directly impact on their performance. To add further complication, the development of the profession of sport psychology varies widely between countries, meaning that practice in this field is not always clearly defined. This article examines case studies that illustrate the blurred lines in applied sport psychology practice, highlighting challenges with the process of referral in the U.K. athletic population. The article concludes with suggestions for ensuring the field of applied sport psychology is continually evolving and reconfiguring to ensure that it continues to meet the demands of its clients.

'Producing the Scene': the Evolution of the Director in British Theatre 1900-50

The role of the director as the individual who harnesses and controls resources to shape the theatrical product to a personal artistic vision, begins to emerge in British theatre in the early years of the twentieth century. What distinguishes the role from that of the actor-manager who had led the profession since the seventeenth century, is that it separates off from the leading actor in performance. The power and authority of the director (or producer as he or she tended to be known initially) is exercised in the pre-performance stage. In the first half of the century there were still old-style actor-managers—Donald Wolfit is a prime example—and many of the new directors had begun their careers as actors and some continued to act their in their own productions. But the perception of the function of the director began to change radically. In part this was linked to the early attempts to create a new model of producing company or ‘repertory’ theatre which required a different set of administrative as well as artistic skills to tackle the challenge of a short-run system of multiple play production. This became especially important in the developing network of regional repertory theatres which were established as autonomous, locally-specific institutions predicated on policies opposed to the dominant commercial ethos. The best-known of the early directors, most notably H.Granville Barker, confined their radical experiments to short-lived metropolitan experiments, or, as in the case of Terence Gray and J.B.Fagan, operated within the influential Oxbridge nexus. Others such as H.K.Ayliff, Herbert Prentice, William Armstrong and William Bridges-Adams remain comparatively obscure because of their long-term ‘provincial’ connections or, as in the case of Nugent Monck and Edy Craig because their creativity was largely channelled through amateur actors. This chapter will explore the evolving role of the director as both a necessary functionary and an artistic innovator within the changing structures of British theatre.