Search

This thesis is written as a collection of three research papers detailing six studies, through which imagery perspectives, imagery ability, and personality, were investigated. Studies 1 and 2 explored the effects of internal visual imagery and external visual imagery on the performance of slalom-based motor tasks that require an effective use of line for a successful performance. Study 1 provided support for the beneficial effects of internal visual imagery over external visual imagery for the performance of slalom-based tasks; however Study 2 only provided some additional support. In Studies 3-5, an existing imagery ability questionnaire was adapted to bring it in line with contemporary views on imagery perspectives and kinaesthetic imagery. More specifically, in Study 3, the instructional set of this questionnaire was altered so as to be able to assess 3 factors: internal visual imagery, external visual imagery and kinaesthetic imagery ability. Following confirmatory factor analysis procedures and item deletion an acceptable model fit was provided, supporting the 3-factor structure of the questionnaire. Further analyses also supported the delineation of internal visual imagery and kinaesthetic imagery as separate modalities. Study 4 confirmed the factorial validity of this questionnaire with a different sample, and Study 5 provided initial support for the concurrent and construct validity of this questionnaire. Study 6 examined the effect of narcissism on the efficacy of imagery perspectives on golf putting performance. High narcissists using external visual imagery displayed performance improvements, whereas high narcissists using internal visual imagery did not. The performance of low narcissists remained relatively constant regardless of imagery perspective used. The results highlight narcissism as a moderator of imagery perspective effectiveness.

The development of excellence in team sports such as rugby union is not yet fully understood and to date, the understanding of factors predicting progression in rugby is unknown. This thesis builds on the existing research exploring the multidisciplinary factors which underpin the development of excellence in sport (Doherty et al., 2018; Gulbin et al., 2013; Güllich et al., 2019; Lovell et al., 2017; Tribolet et al., 2018). In it we take a multidisciplinary approach to exploring the psychosocial factors important to the development of excellence in some of the best rugby union players in the world, the multidisciplinary factors which influence progression through the RFU's development pathway and the influence of personal factors on the efficacy of constraints-led training. The thesis consists of a general introduction (Chapter 1), four empirical studies (Chapters 2, 3 and 4), and a general discussion (Chapter 5). More specifically, Chapter 2 (Study 1) presents an in-depth qualitative investigation of the psychosocial factors underpinning success and development in rugby union. We conducted in-depth retrospective interviews (lasting 32 hours in total and producing over 300,000 words of text) with former world's best International male rugby union players (N = 5) and their nominated coaches (N = 5). Interviews covered early critical developmental experiences, personality, relationships, and training behaviours. Abductive thematic analysis revealed commonalities, which are discussed under three main headings: 1) Formative Experiences, 2) Personality, and 3) Training Behaviours. The findings from Study 1 suggest early negative experiences, particularly disruptions to parental relationships, and the realisation of insecure attachment, coupled with a positive sport related event, may underpin the drive and development of the necessary personality traits and behaviours to achieve excellence in rugby. Chapter 3 presents two longitudinal studies (Studies 2 and 3) which examined the factors predicting progression in rugby. We employed a multidisciplinary approach and using pattern recognition analysis we aimed to identify the psychosocial, demographic, and practice and training factors which differentiated between players who progressed, and players who failed to progress, at two key stages along the pathway, from U18's to U20's (Study 2) and from age grade rugby to the premiership (Study 3). Findings in these studies indicated that a variety of psychosocial, demographic, and practice and training factors were able to differentiate between groups who were and were not progressing. In particular, results indicated that players who progress at both stages undertook fewer hours of constraints-led practice suggesting there may currently be too much challenge and not enough support within practice at present. Further, in Study 2, those players progressing appeared to demonstrate a number of highly desirable psychosocial characteristics (e.g., mastery orientation, commitment to training), yet those progressing in Study 3 had a psychosocial profile that was potentially more challenging for coaches and managers to work with. In addition, findings suggest that the RFU may be using current performance as an indicator of future potential, which could present a risk to coaches and the RFU in the loss of talented players early in the pathway. Chapter 4 presents a study (Study 4) which explored the influence of avoidant attachment styles (dismissive and fearful) and ASD traits (systemising and empathy) on the effects of CL practice on progression through the RFU Development pathway. We re-used some of the data collected in Studies 2 and 3 but subjected these data to a different and comprehensive set of analyses to explore the research question. Findings revealed that increases in the percentage of CL practice were associated with greater decreases in the likelihood of progression when dismissive avoidant attachment was high than when it was low. Conversely, increases in CL practice predicted a greater increase in the likelihood of progression when fearful avoidant attachment was high, as opposed to when it was low. No interaction was found between systemising and CL practice in relation to progression. Finally, analyses revealed that lower levels of CL practice were associated with an increase in the likelihood of progression when empathy was high. These findings provide initial support for the suggestion that not all individuals will benefit from CL practice to the same extent and provide support to the notion that individual differences may influence the effects of certain training protocols on performance. A summary of the empirical findings from these four studies are then discussed in Chapter 5, along with the theoretical and applied implications of this research. Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research are also discussed.

Across multiple domains of psychology, resilience is a well-researched construct. However, the research literature has been hampered by ambiguities and inadequate in its conceptualisation, assessment, and impact. With these issues in mind, we first offer a comprehensive model of resilience drawn from its contemporary conceptualisations. Second, we develop a self-report resilience measure from this model. Finally, we aimed to test this resilience model and assessment in challenging settings with young people who participate in overseas expeditions. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we could not fully utilise these expeditions. Therefore, we further examined and tested our resilience model to another challenging scenario, the pandemic itself. The thesis comprises six empirical studies organised into three chapters. Chapter 1 takes a critical examination of resilience research, highlighting several limitations we perceived. These included (i) ambiguous and incomplete resilience definitions and conceptualisations; (ii) associated problems with measurement (alongside problematic psychometric properties); and (iii) lack of theory-driven intervention tools and studies. Chapter 1 supports and extends resilience as a state-like, pro-active and reactive response containing the mechanisms of anticipation, minimising, managing, and mending. We also support and extend research where mechanisms can operate in several domains of life, including physical, social, cognitive, emotional, and a general domain. The chapter finishes by discussing applications for this model in expeditions research, interventions, and profiling. Chapter 2 contains two separate studies aimed at developing a resilience measure in line with our conceptualisation. Study 1 (n = 181) focused on establishing the measure (the Resilience Process Scale, RPS), with items based on the four mechanisms of anticipate, minimise, manage, and mend, with vignettes to separate each domain (general, physical, social, cognitive, & emotional). We used Bayesian Structural Equation Modelling (BSEM) to validate the model and refine the scale into a 13-item measure (using the same 13-items in each domain or vignette). Study 2 (n = 284) further validated the measure using BSEM and a more heterogeneous sample, providing further support for the factorial validity of the RPS. Chapter 3 contains two separate studies. Study 3 (n = 35) examined overseas expeditions as a challenging environment that could enhance resilience mechanisms and domains. Study 4 (n = 16) focused on an expedition training weekend to examine the benefits of training and to design and pilot test a theory-driven resilience intervention. The intervention introduced challenges to target the five domains of resilience via evidence-based strategies. The main findings across the studies indicated that expeditions and training weekends provide an environment that enhances resilience, cognitive appraisals, and well-being, in addition to positive correlations between resilience mechanisms with positive self-concept and well-being. However, probably due to the small sample size and an incident that developed over the weekend, there were no significant effects of the intervention. Chapter 4 contains two separate studies. Using data from studies 1-4, Study 5 (n = 555) examined resilience profiles across the four mechanisms using Latent Profile Analysis, revealing four emerging profiles. Study 6 provided confirmation of the replicability of these profiles in a new sample (n = 400). We examined the relationship between the profiles across different cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes in relation to the pandemic. We further explored the stability of resilience profiles over a four-month period. The main findings included confirming four profiles: 1. Low resilience - High anticipate. 2. Low resilience - Low anticipate. 3. Moderate resilience. 4. High resilience. Further, resilience is related to greater well-being, coping, and lower anxiety. The profiles were also somewhat replicable with stability across time. Chapter 5 concludes the thesis, providing a general summary and discussion of the findings, implications for theoretical and applied perspectives, and paths for future research.