This research investigates the role of beliefs about the ability to deal with specific social barriers and its relationships to mindfulness, football performance, and satisfaction with one's own and team performance. Study 1 aimed at eliciting these social barriers. Study 2 tested (i) whether self-efficacy referring to social barriers would predict performance over and above task-related self-efficacy and collective efficacy and (ii) the mediating role of self-efficacy to overcome social barriers in the relationship between mindfulness and performance. Participants were football (soccer) players aged 16-21 years (Study 1: N=30; Study 2: N=101, longitudinal sample: n=88). Study 1 resulted in eliciting 82 social barriers referring to team, peer leadership, and coaches. Study 2 showed that task-related self-efficacy and collective efficacy explained performance satisfaction at seven-month follow-up, whereas self-efficacy referring to social barriers explained shooting performance at seven-month follow-up. Indirect associations between mindfulness and performance were found with three types of self-efficacy referring to social barriers, operating as parallel mediators. Results provide evidence for the role of beliefs about the ability to cope with social barriers and show a complex interplay between different types of self-efficacy and collective efficacy in predicting team sport performance.

PurposeThe main purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of family environmental factors on student athletes featuring different levels of sports accomplishment: 1) a low level – no significant achievements (<i>N</i> = 46), 2) a medium level – significant achievements at a regional level (<i>N</i> = 86) and 3) a high level – significant achievements at national and/or international level (<i>N</i> = 33).MethodsThe participants were administered a demographic survey and the Athletes’ Family Environment Questionnaire (AFEQ).ResultsOne-way ANOVA found that the high achievers’ families differ from the medium- and low-level achievers in five (out of nine) of the studied family environment factors: children as an important value in family life, sport as an important value in family life, parents’ involvement in their child’s sports career, the overall genetic-environmental conditioning of their child’s talent and passion for sports, as well as parents living through their child’s involvement in sports.ConclusionsSuch factors as parents’ involvement in their child’s sports career and parents living through their child’s involvement in sports are especially interesting for researchers. On one hand, these factors can be beneficial (providing instrumental support, spectatorship), but on the other hand, they can have adverse effects such as a child quitting sports, experiencing burnout or have a higher risk of injury. From a practical perspective, the family environment may be the most accessible as well as the most important of the socio-environmental dimensions of young athletes.

The study was designed to examine how active and former athletes across a different sports level perceived coaching behavior. Eighty competitive athletes (44 males and 36 females; 21.89 ± 1.48 years of age; 8.35 ± 3.65 years of competitive experience) from the University School of Physical Education in Cracow, Poland, participated in the study. They represented both individual (n = 50) and team sports (n = 30). Seventeen participants were internationally renowned and 63 were recognized for competitive excellence at a national level. The participants responded to a demographic survey and the Coaches’ Behaviors Survey. The qualitative analysis procedures were employed to extract themes from open-ended questions. It was confirmed that coaches who perceived their athletes as more skilled, also treated them differently. Female athletes as compared with male athletes, more frequently pointed at the leniency in coach’s behavior towards highly skilled athletes, and perceived it as a factor inhibiting athletic development. Additionally, women often found individualization of the training process as a behavior reinforcing development. Less accomplished athletes more often pointed out to “a post-training session interest in the athlete” as directed only towards more accomplished counterparts; however, they indicated “leniency and favoring” less often than the athletes with international achievements. They also listed “excessive criticism” as a type of behavior hindering development, but they indicated coaches’ “authoritarianism and distance” less frequently than the more accomplished counterparts. The study added data to the discussion of the Pygmalion effect and the phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy both in general (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968; Harris and Rosenthal, 1985; Jussim, 1989) and sport psychology (Harris and Rosenthal, 1985; Horn et al., 1998; Solomon and Kosmitzki, 1996; Solomon et al., 1998; Solomon, 2001).

The article presents the results of a study focusing on the family situation, education and interpersonal relations of adults (26-35 years old) who in their adolescence (16-19 years old) displayed exceptional giftedness. One group of those surveyed were national academic award winners (90). The control group consisted of 90 people of no outstanding academic achievement. The research found many differences between these two groups, both in the family situation and in interpersonal relations. High achievers were raised in families of higher social and professional status, and almost 72.2% of them decided to continue their academic career after they had graduated from university. The national academic award winners showed higher scores in shyness and lower scores in sociability in interpersonal relations.

This article focuses on the problems of adults who in secondary school were high ability learners. The main point of interest of the research presented here is job satisfaction among gifted people and their temperament structure. The authors are interested whether there exist correlations between the investigated variables both in the entire group of gifted individuals as well as in the subgroup of those gifted in the humanities and in the control group. The research results show that between the group of gifted people and the control group there appear significant differences in vigorousness (VG) and activity (AC). The studied groups differ as to the kind and extent of the fulfilment of expectations concerning professional career. Gifted individuals, in comparison to the control group, are more satisfied with their jobs.