THE MODERATING ROLE OF TASK AND EGO ORIENTATION ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIME PRESSURE AND DECISION-MAKING IN SOCCER.
Master Thesis, Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business June 20, 2012
ABSTRACT
This study focuses on the effect that time pressure has on decision-making in a soccer environment. In addition, I examined the moderating role of motivational orientation (ego- vs. task-orientation). It was hypothesized that a negative relationship exists between time pressure and correct decision-making. It was also hypothesized that the ego-oriented motivation of a player moderates the relationship between time pressure and decision-making, in a way that the negative effect of time pressure on decision-making is intensified when ego-orientation is high. The last hypothesis was that the task-orientation of a player moderates the relation between time pressure and decision-making, in a way that the negative relationship between time pressure and decision-making becomes a positive relationship when task-orientation is high. Therefore the moderating role of motivational orientation is split between the task-orientation moderating effect and the ego-orientation moderating effect. To test these hypotheses a scenario study with 80 soccer players was conducted. The results of the analysis support one of the hypotheses concerning time pressure on decision-making. Soccer players who have to make decisions under time pressure scored lower on the decision-making task than the participants without time pressure. Participants who experienced time-pressure had less correct answers than the participants who did not experience time pressure. Task-orientation is a marginally significant moderator of this relationship. There was no evidence found of the moderating effect of ego-orientation on the relationship between time pressure and correct decision-making.
Keywords: time pressure, decision-making, soccer, task-orientation profile, ego-orientation profile
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
One of the goals of any company is to make the best decisions. Furthermore, decisions have to be made at any level of a company. The board of directors have to make major strategic decisions about investments and direction of future growth, managers have to make tactical decisions about how their department may contribute most effectively to the overall business objectives and regular employees are expected to make decisions about the conduct of their tasks, responses to customers and improvements to business practice. All these decisions are important to optimize output and minimize the required amount of strain or effort. Making correct decisions is crucial to the performance of firms in today’s dynamic and competitive markets to survive (Wu, McMullen, Neubert & Yi, 2008); This is perhaps not a very difficult task when there is an unlimited amount of time to assess the decision problem (Young et al., 2012; Maule, Hockey & Bdzola, 2000), but in many situations there is time pressure and individuals have to make decisions under that pressure (Young et al., 2012). Often problems arise because decisions are made too quickly or they are delayed for too long. Delay may lead to loss of opportunities or reduce the payouts of the most accurate decisions (Payne, Bettman & Luce, 1996). For its own survival, it is important that peoples in a company makes the correct decisions in the correct amount of time.
Hallowell (2005) argues that in the current business climate, organizations are beginning to experience lower effectiveness of cognitive judgement of their employees due to the stress of intense workload pressure in turbulent conditions. In these situations intuitive decision-making is effective (Dayan & Di Benedetto, 2010). But, the gut/brain dichotomy is largely false. “Few decision makers ignore good information when they can get it. And most accept that there will be times they can’t get it and so will have to rely on instinct. Fortunately, the intellect informs both intuition and analysis, and research shows that people’s instincts are often quite good. Guts may even be trainable.” (Buchanan & O’Connel, 2006, p. 41).
rapid changes in technology, demands and competitors and often associated with stress due to the need to make choices under pressure. As Eisenhardt (1993, p.121) notes “The decision-making dilemma in these environments comes from the fact that it is easy to make mistakes by deciding too soon infective to delay choices or to imitate others”
Despite an increasing number of studies focusing on time pressure and decision-making, the evidence about the effect of time pressure on decision-making is still mixed. In particular, researchers often suggest that time pressure has been shown to reduce the quality of decision-making (Payne, Bettman & Johnson, 1993; Maule & Edland, 1997) and induce less accurate judgements (Kaplan, Wnahula & Zanna, 1993). However, some researchers have also identified a number of contradictory findings including some that indicate that under time-pressure there is an increase in the quality of decision-making (Svenson & Benson, 1993).
Complexity influences decision making. It results in a broader range of issues with uncertain and unstable potential outcomes as the work environment includes numerous exogenous factors that affect individual performance and decision-making, but controlling all of these factors is generally not feasible (Savage & Torgler, 2011). For that reason most research is based on controlled experiments in which subjects are presented with various information sets and asked to make decisions (Ahituv, Igbaria, & Sella, 1998).
This study comprises a work environment that is close to an experimental setting, namely a sport environment. Sports have proven to be an ideal context within which to perform research on organizational phenomena (Wolfe, et al., 2005). For example, the following organizational factors have been studied within sport: loyalty (Adler & Adler, 1988), motivation and performance (Mizruchi, 1991) and the effect of managerial succession on organizational performance (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1986). Several researchers emphasize that sports come close to an experimental environment (Goff & Tollison, 1990; Savage & Torgler, 2011). Goff and Tollison (1990, p.6) explain that: “sports events take place in a controlled environment, and generate outcomes that come very close to holding other things equal”. Therefore, I step outside the traditional workplace in an effort to increase the controllability of these factors and examine the sports environment as an experimental space (Savage & Torgler, 2011).
able to analyse the feasibility of many alternative actions in the shortest amount of time possible and decide as quickly as possible which of the alternatives is the right one that will lead to a chance to score a goal (Memmert, Bakker & Bertsch, 2010). For a soccer player it is also crucial to make the right decision for the overall performance, just like it is for a manager in a organization. For all of these reasons, soccer can be a good metaphor for the complexity of decision-making.
Chen (1997, p.1) defined decision-making as “the process of finding the best option from all of the feasible alternatives”. For a soccer player this means that the players need to make quick and correct decisions based upon current environmental information. Not making quick decisions usually means losing the opportunity to make a good play or even losing possession of the ball, whereas not making accurate decisions usually means losing the opportunity to initiate the optimal play for that situation. Therefore, soccer brings together time pressure and decision-making.
Thus, building on previous empirical and theoretical research, I want to examine the possibility that players’ motivational dimensions (task- and ego-orientation) moderate the relationship of time pressure and decision-making in the context of sports. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to clarify the relationship between time pressure and decision-making and the moderating role of task- and ego-orientation profile on that relationship.
The relationship between time pressure and decision-making makes a theoretical contribution, but it also has a practical significance. First, this research examines a direction to increase individual decision-making performance so that companies will better understand of people make more correct decisions or incorrect decisions under time pressure. With this information a company could find better ways to deal with time and time pressure to get the best decision-making actions, which is crucial for organizational competitiveness and survival. Second, this research is important because of the moderating effect of orientation profiles. If an organization knows how a person reacts to time pressure in combination with their orientation profile (Task- or ego-oriented), then the company can deal with that in the best way so that the individual decision-making contributes to the company’s competiveness and survival. The results of this research indicate that the orientation profile can influence the relationship between time pressure and decision-making. This knowledge may enhance the ability of managers to optimize efforts to increase the decision-making by employees, which can have a positive influence on organizational performance.
In the next section is a review of the past research on time pressure, decision-making and orientation profile. This is followed by an explanation of the research model and the hypotheses. Then I will describe the method selection, procedures used, research population, respondents and scales used. Last, the results and corresponding implications for future research and practice are discussed.
THEORY SECTION
(1974) has shown a clear tendency for individuals working under pressure conditions to incorrectly weight options. The inability to scan alternatives and the incorrect weighting of the payouts of different options creates problems with choices under pressure, which lead to inefficient or poor results (Keinan, 1987). As pressure levels increase, individuals are less able to make rational choices (Meichenbaum, 2007). In these situations, people fall back on other non-rational methods of decision-making (Savage & Torgler, 2011). Thus, individuals under pressure have been shown to make poor or bad decisions. Therefore, decision-making under time pressure in organizational settings remains to be a challenging activity, with which an organization has to deal daily (Meichenbaum, 2007).
But what is decision-making and what is the process used to come to correct decisions? Many researchers have investigated the term decision-making (Spanjol & Tam, 2010; Buchanan & O’Connel, 2006). Although providing a comprehensive overview of the many definitions of decision-making is beyond the scope of this article, some understanding of the key principles of and perspective on decision-making is necessary (Steffens, 2010).
The study of decision-making, consequently, is a palimpsest of intellectual disciplines: mathematics, sociology, psychology, economics, and political science, to name a few (Buchanan & O’Connel, 2006). The principal of decision-making is that people make cognitive judgements (Akgun, Dayan, di Benedetto, 2008). Many researchers have emphasized the distinction between two types of cognitive processes used in decision-making: those executed quickly with little conscious deliberation and those that are slower and more reflective (Frederick, 2005). The first is a decision-making process where the decision-maker’s response occurs quickly and spontaneously and does not require or consume much attention. The second process is more a mental exercise whereby motivation and concentration are important (Frederick, 2005). In this research both focuses are presented, because when there is less time pressure the second process is more present, however when there is greater time pressure people have to make decisions using the first cognitive process (Frederick, 2005).
shift as a function of increased time pressure (Svenson, Edland & Slovic, 1990). Sometimes a person will use a compensatory strategy that processes all relevant information and trade off the good and bad aspects of each alternative. At other times the same person can use a noncompensatory decision strategy, which avoids trade-offs among values and typically reduces information processing demands by ignoring potentially relevant problem information (Payne, Bettman & Johnson, 1988; Svenson, 1979). The strategy shifts when there is time pressure from a compensatory strategy (alternative-based) to a more breadth-first, noncompensatory decision strategy pattern (Payne et al., 1996).
Literature suggests that there is a need for balance between convergent and divergent processes to provide the best solution or decision (Dayan & Di Benedetto, 2011; Schön, 1983). Convergent thinking refers to the ability to provide the ideal solution to a given problem, while divergent thinking is defined at the behavioural level as the unusualness, innovativeness, statistical rarity, or uniqueness of solutions for a related task (Guilford, 1950). In this research the focus is on divergent thinking, because soccer requires players who are able to analyse the feasibility of many alternative actions in the shortest amount of time and decide as quickly as possible which of the alternatives is the right one, that will lead to a chance to score (Memmert, Bakker & Bertsch, 2010).
Decision-making in Soccer
development of the ability to make the best decisions (Abernethy, Baker, & Côté, 2005). From this perspective it is important for a team player, especially in games, such as soccer, hockey or basketball, where the generation of tactical response patterns and original solutions is crucial (Memmert, et al., 2010).
Ideas as an Important Cognitive Process
In the section above, divergent thinking is defined at the behavioural level as the unusualness, innovativeness, statistical rarity, or uniqueness of solutions for a related task as a form of a solution in decision-making (Guilford, 1950). If people make decisions using the divergent approach, they also use the compensatory strategy that processes all relevant information and compares the good and bad aspects of each alternative (Payne, Bettman & Luce, 1996). In this definition of decision-making there is a short-line to come to creativity. A lot of researchers have shown that there is a way to solve problems using creative decision-making (Schön, 1983; Amabile, 1988). This shows that correct decision-making is also important in a creative process and it is generally assumed that the facilitation of idea generation is crucial for innovation in a company (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). The underlying assumption is that it is important to generate as many creative ideas as possible, because that will increase the probability that at least one of these ideas is very good (Rietzschel, Nijstad & Stroebe, 2010). Osborn (1957) argues that quantity leads to quality. However, the generation of ideas is only part of the innovation process and the availability of creative ideas is a necessary, but insufficient condition for innovation (Nijstad & Drue, 2002). For effective implementation of creative ideas, the best ideas have to be recognized and selected from the pool of ideas generated (Rietzschel et al., 2010); thus, decision-making is also a part of the creative process of idea selection.
to the available alternatives. This could be achieved by having participants make a more careful pre-selection. This strategy will be used in this research.
Idea selection entails varying, rare and flexible decision-making in complex situations (Memmert & Roth, 2007). Although the ability to think creatively can be an important component of expert decision-making, researchers do not consider them synonymous. In a general scientific context, Sternberg and Lubart (1999) define creativity as “the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful)” (p. 3). The distinction between expert decision-making and creativity may lie in the theoretical distinction between “divergent thinking and convergent thinking” (Guilford, 1967). Conversely, expert decision-making is the general ability to find the best tactical solution in each specific situation.
Time Pressure and Decision-making
Time pressure can be defined as perceived time pressure or the imposition of a deadline (Kelly & Karau, 1993). Some scientists suggest that time pressure improves the performance of employees (Svenson & Benson, 1993), while others argue that time pressure makes high levels of performance almost impossible (Amabile et al., 2002).
Time pressure could impact decision-making, as it is difficult to make satisfactory decisions when the clock is ticking, particularly when stress comes into the picture (Rahman & de Feis, 2009). Kocher and Sutter (2006, p.375) note that “any decisions in economics and finance have to be made under severe time pressure”. Many researchers have reported the negative effect of time pressure on decision-making effectiveness (Svenson & Maule, 1993). Ahituv, Igbaria & Sella (1998) argue that time pressure results in reduced information searching and processing, a decrease in the number of alternatives considered, failure to consider important data, and bad judgments. Even more, it seems that when the decision-making process is influenced by time pressure, people largely shut down their cognitive thinking. They do not explore as many options as they should, and they do not pay sufficient attention to the negative aspects of options (Melymuka, 2002).
insufficient to meet the demands of the situation, and it results in a significant drop in performance, thereby choking (Oudejans, Kuijpers, Kooijman, & Bakker, 2011).
In sum, time pressure decreases attention, and thus it is difficult to make satisfactory decisions under time-pressure (Chong et al., 2011). As a result, time pressure has a negative effect on the quality of thinking.
H1: Time pressure is negatively related to decision-making quality.
Ego- vs. task-orientation
Menkes (2011) recognizes that pressure can turn intelligent people into incapable creatures. He argues that some people become more precise under pressure, setting priorities, understanding component parts and analysing data. Because every person reacts differently to time pressure, it is interesting to look at how different people make decisions under time pressure with different achievement goals. Jagacinski, Madden and Reider (2001) have found that there is a significant relation between achievement goals and performance.
Achievement goal theory suggests that people approach tasks with qualitatively different types of performance goals, depending on how they evaluate their competence or ability (Van Yperen, 2006). Two different types of targets have been identified, namely, task involvement and ego-involvement (Nicholas, 1989). Task- and ego-involvement are related to the degree to which individuals adopt an undifferentiated or differentiated concept of personal ability (Raska, 2004).
Individuals categorized as task-oriented hold the belief that effort is a critical determinant of success and participate in an activity for its own sake, as an end in itself; they tend to try hard and to be more persistent when faced with obstacles and difficulties (Cumming & Hall, 2004). In contrast, ego-oriented individuals perceive themselves as competent based on the achievement of goals that emphasize favourable social comparison, such as outperforming opponents, demonstrating superior ability with little effort, and receiving positive external evaluations (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls, 1989).
task-oriented link success to working hard and doing their best, while ego-oriented athletes link success to the possession of superior ability (Duda, Fox, Biddle & Armstrong, 1992). Task-orientated people would endorse more internal and personally controllable factors, while ego-oriented athletes would endorse external criteria of success (Lochbaum & Robert, 1993).
For this research it means that people in time pressure conditions have to focus on their task and have to control their emotions during the task and this is easily achieved by task-oriented people. Ego-oriented people are not expected to endorse effort and persistence in practise; these people endorse work avoidance (Duda et al., 1992) and prefer situations where normative standards apply.
Chi and Duda (1995) and Roberts et al. (1996) found that all possible combinations of task- and ego-orientation exist. But Elliot and McGregor (2001) have shown that the great majority of people have a dominant performance goal and they have identified different profiles of individuals with different dominant achievement goals. To date, we do not know whether individuals have a preference for one particular achievement goal. In this research the focus is on both achievement goals (task- and ego-orientation) separately. Therefore, this study investigates whether there is a moderating effect of task-orientation on the relationship between time pressure and decision-making, and if there is also a moderating effect of ego-orientation on the relationship between time pressure and decision-making. Since also many possible combinations exist, there are two scales for the two variables.
The majority of the research in this area has focused on the behavioural effects of differences in target perspectives. Theoretically, it is proposed that the emphasis on control or task in relation to goals is related to enhanced athletic performance and persistence. A focus on ego-involving goals, on the other hand, is linked to a lack of persistence and impaired performance (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
more “fragile” when ego-orientation is involved. It is assumed that an ego-orientation, particularly when coupled with perceptions of low ability, is more likely to elicit less than optimal performance or cause a person to drop out of a sport (Raska, 2004; Duda & Nicholls, 1989). Thus,
H2a: The task-orientation of a player moderates the relation between time pressure and decision-making, in a way that the negative relationship between time pressure and creativity
becomes a positive relationship when task-orientation is high.
H2b: The ego- orientation of a player moderates the relation between time pressure and decision-making, in a way that the negative effect of time pressure on creativity is intensified
when ego-orientation is high.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model derived from the previous hypotheses.
Figure 1: conceptual model
METHODS Participants and procedure
Participants of this online-research were 90 soccer players. Eight respondents were dismissed, because they did not play soccer or they did not completely filled out the questionnaire and therefore essential information was missing. All 82 considered participants play in the soccer competition in the Netherlands. These players were all amateur players and the competition level they played in is as follows: 1% have played in the highest competition in the Netherlands, 2% in the first division, 17% played in the head-league, 12% first league, 18% second league, 22% third league, and 25% lower than the third league. The sample consisted of 32% females and
68% males. For practical reasons an online survey method had been chosen. The survey was conducted at the end of the soccer season and the last games were important for many teams. For that reason soccer teams did not have time for an experiment on the soccer field. In order to reach most soccer players an online survey has been conducted.
Initial request for participation in the online questionnaire was done by approaching the participants personally or via email. In the introduction of the survey it was explained that participation was voluntary and that anonymity and confidentiality would be ensured by a coding procedure. After the introduction, the participants filled out part one of the questionnaire, concerning questions about task- and ego-orientation in soccer. After finishing that task and before the start of the decision-making task, the participants were randomly assignment to one of the two decision-making groups, the decision-making task group with time pressure and the decision-making task group without time pressure. The participants of the `no time pressure´ condition, were allowed to complete the task at whatever pace they wished, whereas the participants in group two, the `time pressure´ condition, were restricted to 5 seconds per slide to make the best decision. In total it took about 15 minutes to fill out the questionnaire. The procedure comprised the distribution of an online questionnaire to be filled out by all participants. The data collection took place during April 26th, 2012 till May 20th, 2012.
Measurement
Dependent variable. Decision-making is measured by showing attacking game situations to the participants. Each situation is marked out as half a soccer field and exists of 5 – 10 players and a goalkeeper. The situations are photographed and the participants see them in the online questionnaire. In each image, the shaded, attacking player with the ball is the one who must make the decision. In every image the team is moving to the goal and a dotted line in the image indicates a pass, a solid line is a run and a wavy solid line is a dribble. Participants had to make a decision for the player in possession of the ball and they had four choices (1, 2, 3 or 4) (see appendix A for the situations). This means that the participants had to search the image for relevant information, perceive what options were open to them, and decide which is the optimal choice in that particular situation. These situations are based on the tactical soccer situations of Trapp, (1989). There is nothing known about the validity and reliability of this method, but
similar way. In water polo no reliability measures were reported. For basketball, decision-making was assessed based on 23 items consisting of offensive basketball situations. All items had three options with one correct response. Kioumourtzoglou et al. (1998) reported the internal homogeneity reliability to be α = .95 estimated by the coefficient alpha. Also McMorris and Graydon (1996) used a similar measurement. The intraclass correlations for accuracy was 0.94.
The choices the participants made are compared with the choices given by the expert panel. The expert panel is a separate panel of three experienced soccer coaches, participated by providing independent judgement of selected attacking game situations. Beforehand, they have ranked the possible outcomes. The best outcome gets 1 point, the second, 2 points, the third 3 points and the least option get 4 points. Situations that got an ambiguous answer of the panel, were removed.
Independent variable. Time pressure was manipulated. Before the start of the decision-making task, the participants in the group of `no time pressure´ condition, were allowed to complete task at whatever pace they wished, whereas the participants in the group of the `time pressure’ condition, were required to have 5 seconds per soccer situation to make the best decision. Similar manipulations of time pressure have been successfully used in the past by Dyi-Yih & Yuan-Liang (2010) & Dhar & Nowlis (1999). Pre-testing the questionnaire has led to the 5 seconds per situation. Seven soccer players have pretested the questionnaire, and four of them had time pressure of ten seconds each situation. These participants did not experience ten seconds as time pressure, therefore there has been chosen for five seconds, after pre-testing this again with three soccer players. The five seconds was experienced as time pressure, but the participants said it was enough time to make a correct choice.
oriented. A highly ego-involved athlete would tend to agree with an item such as, ‘I feel most successful in sport when I am the best’. Or ‘I feel most successful in sport when others mess up and I don’t’. In contrast, a highly task-orientated athlete would agree with items as ‘I feel most successful in sport when I worked real hard’ or ‘I feel most successful in sport when I learn something that is fun to do’. The elements of the TEOSQ are shown in Table 1. A copy of the ‘Task- and Ego-Orientation in Sport Questionnaire’ can be found in appendix B.
Many studies have consistently supported the construct validity and reliability of the TEOSQ (Duda, 2001). In recent research that used the original or translated version of TEOSQ, reliability coefficients from α = 0.74 to α = 0.81 and from α = 0.86 to α = 0.89 were reported for the task- and ego-orientation subscales, respectively (Kim, Williams, & Gill, 2000; Newton & Duda, 1999). The instrument was translated into Dutch using the backwards translation methodology. The questionnaire was translated by the author into Dutch, after which another bilingual speaker translated it back into English. The final form of the Dutch version of the TEOSQ was tested in a pilot study with 7 students all playing competitive soccer.
Control variables. As control variables, gender, years of playing competitive soccer, the place in the ranking of the competition and concentration were included. The socio-demographic
TABLE 1
ELEMENTS OF TEOSQ I feel most successful in soccer when:
Task involved Ego involved
I learn a new skill and it makes me want to practice more.
I'm the only one who can do the play or skill.
I learn something that is fun to do. I do better than my friends. I learn a new skill by trying hard. Others can't do as well as me.
I work really hard. Others mess up and I don't.
Something I learn makes me want to go and practice more.
score the most points/goals/hits, etc.
variable gender was treated as a control variable in order to isolate any potential influences on the association of interest and decision-making. Years of playing competitive soccer, is included because longer tenure is expected to lead to better decision-making. Place standing in the ranking of the competition and the competition level were also included as control variables, because players who play higher could perform better on the decision-making task. And the last control variable is concentration, as if a participant was not concentrated during the task he or she could make more bad decisions than someone who was concentrated.
Data Analysis
SPSS is used to analyse the available dataset. Correlation analyses will be carried out to examine the associations between the two independent variables, control variables and the dependent variable, decision-making.
In order to examine whether time pressure and correct decision-making are related, a regression analysis was conducted. Furthermore, a regression analysis was conducted to examine the effect of task- versus ego-orientation on the relationship between time pressure and decision-making. All tests were administered at a confidence interval of 95% (α=0.05).
Subsequently, the independent variables and the moderator were standardized. The interaction terms were computed by multiplying the standardized independent variable with the standardized moderator. Finally, in order to test the hypotheses, linear regression analyses were used: in the first step, gender, years of playing competitive soccer, the place standing in the rank of the competition and concentration were entered as control variables; the main effects of time pressure, task-orientation and ego-orientation were entered in the second step; at last, the interaction between time pressure, task-oriented profile and ego-orientation profile was entered in the third step.
RESULTS
concentrated while doing the experiment and that effects the reliability of the data. In total there were 80 valid participants. The Cronbach’s alpha for the 6-item ego-orientation profile scale was α = .70, and the Cronbach’s alpha for the 7-item task-orientation profile scale was α = .89 So those scales are reliable.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and the Pearson correlations of the variables. Tenure and gender were negatively related (r = -30, p <.01). This means that men played significant more seasons of competitive football than women did. Gender also correlated with task-orientation. (r = .25, p <.05). This means that women were more task-orientated than men. On the other hand ego-orientation was also correlated with gender (r = -.24, p <.05). This means that men were significant more ego-orientated. And last, concentration was correlated with correct decision making (r = 0.25, p <.05) This meant that people who were concentrated during the decision-making task scored better than people who were not concentrated during the task.
TABLE 2
Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and correlations matrix for the study variables Mean Sd. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Concentration 3.86 0.86 - 2. Gender 1.31 0.47 .21 - 3. Tenure 2.5 .76 -.03 -.30** - 4. Level of competition 6.31 2.02 .01 .18 -.28* - 5. Ego-orientation 2.70 0.69 .1 -.24* .17 .08 - 6. Task-orientation 3.41 0.53 -.03 .25* .03 .07 .06 - 7. Correct decisions 6.89 2.61 .25* -.11 .16 -.03 .15 .06 - N=80, ** p < .01, * p < .05 Hypothesis testing
coefficients, except for concentration that has a very high coefficient and is also significant (b = .78, p <.05). Considering that most control variables, except of concentration, are not significant and that the coefficients in this step do not contribute much to the variance of the model (∆R² = .02, n.s.), it is possible to assume that it has no relevant effect on the dependent variable. However, concentration has an effect on decision-making, but it does not have much effect on the variance of the model.
Step 2 of the regression of task-orientation profiles, ego-orientation profiles and time pressure explains a significant 15% of the variance (∆R² =.15, p <.05). Also time pressure (b = -1.20, p <.01), shows a significant effect in relation to decision-making. This relation is negative, which means that when there is time pressure, fewer correct answers are given (M = 5.74, SD = 2.42) than when there is no time pressure (M = 7.98, SD = 2.32). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. A task-orientated profile in turn, suggests a negative effect on the dependent variable good decision-making, but due to its non-significance unstandardized coefficient (b = -.16, n.s) Therefore, an effect of task-orientation profile on decision-making is not found. The regression of ego-orientation profiles in turn, suggests a positive effect on the dependent variable correct decision-making, but due to its non-significance unstandardized coefficient (b = .29, n.s). So, an effect of ego-orientation profile on decision-making is not found.
TABLE 3
Regression Analysis with interaction effect of task- and orientation profile Overview of unstandardized b coefficient on
correct decision-making Steps Variables 1 2 3 1 Concentration .79* .27 .43 Gender .01 -.15 -.18 Tenure .38 .20 .19 Level of competition -.19 .34 .32
Place in the competition -.21 -.30 -.20
2 Time pressure -1.20** -1.15**
Task-orientation profile -.16 -.38
Ego-orientation profile .29 .24
3 Time pressure x task-orientation profile
.62 Time pressure x
ego-orientation profile
.37 Time pressure x
ego-orientation profile x task-orientation profile
-.09
R .31 .50* .55*
∆R² .02 .15* .16*
N=80, ** p < .01, * p < .05
between concentration and correct decision-making. And c’ is the mediating effect of concentration on the relation between time pressure and correct decision making (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Conceptual model with the moderating effect of concentration. TABLE 4
REGRESION TEST MEDIATION
b-value SE c -1.12** .27 a -.28* .10 b .38 .30 c’ -1.13 .09 R .45** ∆R² .18** N=80, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Criterion one is met, because a significant relationship between time pressure and correct decisions was found (b = -1.12, p <.01). Time pressure also has a significant association with concentration, so condition two is also achieved. The third condition was about the relationship between concentration and correct decision and even though they were correlated (table 2) they did not have a significant relation. This is remarkable and shows that correlation does not imply causation. This study comprised a sample of 80 footballers, this small sample size could have had an influence on the effect that there is no causal association between concentration and correct decision-making. There is also no significant mediation effect of concentration on the relation between time pressure and correct decisions (b = -1.13, n.s).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine how time pressure relates to decision-making. The next goal was to examine the moderating effect of an orientation profile in the effectiveness of
Time pressure Concentration Correct
decisions
c
b a
decision-making. To that end, two substantive findings are offered. First, soccer players who experienced no time pressure, were better in decision making task than soccer players who did not experience time pressure. (H1) This outcome is in line with past research (Meichenbaum, 2007; Spanjol & Tam, 2010; Buchaman & O’Connel, 2006). Second, a task-orientated profile was added as performing a moderating function of the relationship between time pressure and decision-making. It was hypothesized that higher task-orientation of a player moderates the relation between time pressure and decision-making, as that the negative effect between time pressure and correct decision-making becomes a positive relationship when task-orientation is high. The result shows that soccer players who are task-oriented give more correct answers under time pressure than the players that were not task-oriented. However, this outcome was not significant, but almost significant (α = .07). So partial evidence was found to support the hypothesis that task-orientation has a moderating effect on the relationship between time pressure and correct decision-making. No effect is found of the moderation effect of ego-orientation on the relationship between time pressure and correct decision-making.
Another interesting effect was that concentration was correlated with correct decision-making. So if football players are concentrating, they make better decisions than when they are not. I have also searched for a mediating effect of concentration on the relationship between time pressure and correct decision-making. However, no mediating effect was found. There was found an effect of time pressure on concentration, this means that when people experience time pressure, their concentration decreases.
Practical Implications
to increase the concentration level of the employees to increase the employees to make-correct decisions.
Limitations
Although the current study has some strengths it also has some limitations. The first limitation is the relatively small sample that was used. The experimental and control group consisted of 39 and 41 soccer players respectively. The main problem with the small sample size is that it is difficult to find significant relationships in the data. It might be because of the small sample size that it is difficult to measure the moderating effect of task- or ego-orientation profile on the assumption of time-pressure and decision-making.
The second limitation is that concentration was correlated with correct decisions. This means that when people are concentrated they gave more correct answers than people who were not. So that concentration was correlated with correct decision-making had consequence on the outcomes of this research, next time this has to be avoided. Chong et al. (2011) already found that time pressure decreases attention, and that it is difficult to make satisfactory decisions under time-pressure, although these findings are not supported in this study.
The third limitation is the way it was ensured that people experienced time pressure. First the questionnaire was pretested and the respondents said that 10 seconds was too long, than I choose to do 5 seconds and pretested again, none of the respondents said it was correct, felt time pressure. The next time it is better to do it in a way that first I will pre-test it without time pressure on respondents and then reduce the average time with 10% to come to a tenure that people feel pressure. I think it is a more valid way to measure time pressure. Because in this research there might be an error of people who did not get enough time to make their decision under time pressure. Another problem with decision making in soccer is that players typically have to make their selection from a very large number of alternatives in general, people who have to choose from many alternatives tend to make use of simplifying strategies in order to reduce the cognitive complexity of the decision.
there were not much respondents who scored low on task-orientation. The composition of the sample might have biased the results, because of the skewness. Therefore, for future research, in order to enhance generalizability, a better randomization is recommended.
Further Research
REFERENCE
Abernethy, B. Baker, J. & Côté, J. (2005). Transfer of pattern recall skills as a contributor to the development of sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 19(6): 705-723.
Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly. 33(3): 401-417.
Ahituv, N. Igbaria, M. & Sella, A. (1998). The Effects of Time Pressure and Completeness of Information on Decision Making. Journal of Management Information Systems. 15(2): 153-172.
Akgun, A. E. Dayan, M. & Di Benedetto, A. (2008). New product development team intelligence: antecedents and consequences. Information & Management. 45(4): 221–226. Ali, A. (2011). Measuring soccer skill performance: a review. Scandinavian journal of medicine
& science in sport. 21(2): 170–183.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. 10: 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. Goldfarb, P. & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal. 3(1): 6–21.
Amabile, T. M. Mueller, J.S. Simpson, W.B. Hadley, C.N. Kramer, S.J. & Fleming L. (2002). Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study. Working paper no. 1-27. Harvard: Harvard Business School.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(6): 1173-1182.
Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological Science. 4(4): 215–220.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173-1182.
Buckanan, L. & O’Connel, A. (2006). A Brief History of Decision Making. Harvard: Harvard Business Review.
Ego-Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 66(2): 91-98.
Chong, D. S. F. Van Eerde, W. Chai, K. H. & Rutte, C. G. (2011). A double edged sword: the effects of challenge and hindrance time pressure on new product development teams. Transactions on engineering management. 18(1): 71-86.
Cumming, J. & Hall, C. (2004). The Relationship Between Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy for Exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34(4): 747-636.
Dayan, M. & Di Benedetto, A. C. (2010). Team intuition as a continuum construct and new product creativity: The role of environmental turbulence, team experience, and stress. Research policy. 40(2): 276-286.
DeCaro, M. S. Thomas, R. D. Albert, N.B. & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking Under Pressure: Multiple Routes to Skill Failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 140(3): 390-406. Dhar, R. & Nowlis, S. M. (1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral
Journal of Consumer Research. 25(4): 369-384.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53(3): 497-509.
Duda, J. L. & Chi, L. (1989). The effect of task and ego-involving conditions on perceived competenceand causal attributions in basketball; Communication of the association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology. Seattle: University of Washington.
Duda, J. L. Fox, K. R. Biddle, S. J. H. & Armstrong, N. (1992). Children's achievement goals and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 62(3): 309-319.
Duda, J. L. & Nicholls, J. G. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript.
Duda, J. L. & Nicholls, J. G. (1992) Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3): 290-299.
Duda, J.L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: pushing boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Dyi-Yih, L. M. & Yuan-Liang, S. (2010). The effect of time pressure on expert system based training for emergency management. Behaviour & Information Technology. 17(4): 195-202. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1993). High reliability organizations meet high velocity environments:
Common dilemmas in nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers, and microcomputer firms. In Roberts, K.H. (ed.) New Challenges to Understanding Organizations: 117-135. New York: Macmillan.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40(1): 84-110.
Elliot, A. J. & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80(3): 501–519.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19 (4): 25–42.
Gersick, C. J. C. (1994). Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal. 37(1): 9-45.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist. 5(9): 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.
Goff, B. L. & Tollison, R. D. (1990). Sportometrics. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press.
Hall, H. K. & Earles, M. (1995). Motivational determinants of interest and perceptions of success in school physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology.17(2): s57.
Hallowell, E.M. (2005). Overloaded circuits. Why smart people underperform. Harvard Business Review. 83: 1-9.
Hastie, R. & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Jagacinski, C. M. Madden, L. J. & Reider, M. H. (2001). The Impact of Situational and Dispositional Achievement goals on Performance. Human performance 14(4): 321-337. Kaplan, M. F. Wanshula, L. T. & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Time pressure and information
integration in social judgement. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule, Time pressure and stress in human judgement and decision making (pp. 255- 267). New York: Plenum.
Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of alter natives under controllable and uncontrollable threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52(3): 639–644 Kelly, J. R. & Karau, S. J. (1993). Entrainment of creativity in small groups. Small Group
Research. 24(2): 179-198.
Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision-making. Annual review of psychology. 55:623–55.
Kim, B. J. Williams, L. & Gill, D. (2003). A cross-cultural study of achievement orientation and intrinsic motivation in young USA and Korean athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 34(2): 168-184.
Kimiecik, J. Hom, T. S. & Shudn, C. S. (1996). Relationships among children's beliefs, perceptions of their parents' beliefs and their moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 67(3): 324-336.
Kioumourtzoglou, E. Kourtessis, T. Michalopoulou, M. & Derri, V. (1998). Differences in several perceptual abilities between experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and water-polo. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 86(3): 899-912.
Kocher, M. G. & Sutter, M. (2006). Time is money - Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making. Journal of economic behaviour & organization. 61(3): 375-392.
Lochbaum, M. & Roberts, G. C. (1993). Goal orientations and perceptions of the sport experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 15(2): 160-171.
Maule, A. J. & Edland, A. C. (1997). The efects of time pressure on judgement and decision making. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier & O. Svenson, Decision making: cognitive models and explanation (pp. 189- 204). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Maule, A. J. Hockey, R. J. & Bdzola, L. (2000). Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica. 104(3): 283-301.
McMorris, T. & Graydon, J. (1996). Effect of exercise on the decision-making performance of experienced and inexperienced soccer players. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. 67(1): 109–114.
Meichenbaum, D. (2007). Stress inoculation training: a preventative and treatment approach, in Principles and Practices of management Guilford Press: New York
Memmert, D. Baker, J. & Bertsch, C. (2010). Play and practice in the development of sport specific creativity in team ball sports. High Ability Studies. 21(1): 3-18.
Memmert, D. & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specific and specific concepts on tactical creativity in team ball sports. Journal of Sports Sciences. 25(12): 1423-1432.
Menkes, J. (2011). Maintaining clarity of thought: Leading better under pressure. Leader to Leader 62: 22-26.
Mizruchi, M. S. (1991). Urgency, motivation, and group performance: The effect of prior success on current success among professional basketball teams. Social Psychology Quarterly. 54(2): 181-189.
Newton, M. & Duda, J. L. (1999). The interaction of motivational climate, dispositional goal orientations and perceivedability in prediction indices of motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 30(1): 63-82.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nijstad, B. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 51(3): 400–406.
Osborn, A.F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.
Oudejans, R. R. D. Kuijpers, W. Kooijman, C. C. & Bakker, F. C. (2011). Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal. 24(1): 59-73.
Parks, C. D. & Cowlin, R. (1995). Group discussion as affected by number of alternatives and by a time limit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 62(3): 267-275.
Payne, W. J. Bettman, J.R. & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 14(3): 534-552.
Payne, J. W. Bettman, J. R. & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Davis-Blake, A. (1986). Administrative succession and organizational performance: How administrator experience mediates the succession effect. Academy of Management Journal. 29(1): 72-83.
Rahman, N. & de Feis, G. L. (2009). Strategic decision-making: models and methods in the face of complexity and time pressure. Journal of General Management 35(2): 43-60.
Raska, O. T. (2004). Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire: Testing Factor Structure and Invariance Among Adolescent Hispanic Athletes North American Journal of Psychology 6(3): 457-476.
Rietzschel, E. F. Bernard A. Nijstad, B. A. & Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology. 101(1): 47-68.
Roberts, G. C. Treasure, D. C. & Kavussanu, M. (1996). Orthogonality of achievement goals and its relationship to beliefs about success and satisfaction in sport. The Sport Psychologist. 10(4): 398-408.
Savage, S. A. & Torgler, B. (2011). Nerves of steel? Stress, work performance and elite athletes, Applied Economics. 44(19): 2423-2435.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp.290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spanjol, J. & Tam, L. (2010). To Change or Not to Change: How Regulatory Focus Affects
Change in Dyadic Decision-Making. Creativity and Innovation Management. 19(4): 346-363.
Steffens, T. (2010). The influence of physical exercise on employees’ skills in creative thinking. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Groningen: Groningen.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Creativity, 3-16. London: Cambridge University Press. Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance. 23(1): 86–112.
Svenson, O. Edland, A. & Slovic, P. (1990). Choices between incompletely described alternatives under time stress. Acta Psychologica. 75: 153–169.
Svenson, O. & Maule A. J. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgement and decision making. New York: Plenum.
Trapp, T. K. (1989). Tactical soccer situations test for players and coaches. Soccer Journal. 33- 34.
Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2 × 2 framework: Identifying distinct profiles of individuals with different dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 32(11): 1432-1445.
Voight, M. Callaghan, J. & Ryska, T. A. (2000). Relationship between goal orientation, self-confidence and multidimensional trait anxiety among Mexican-American female youth athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior. 23(3): 271-289.
Wallsten, T. S. (1993). Time pressure and payoff effects on multidimensional probabilistic inference. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decisionmaking (pp. 167–179). New York: Plenum.
White, S. A. (1998). Adolescent goal profiles, perceptions of the parent-initiated motivational climate, and competitive anxiety. The Sport Psychologist. 12(1): 16-28.
White, S. A. & Zellner, S. R. (1996). The relationship between goal orientation, beliefs about the causes of sport success, and trait anxiety among high school, intercollegiate, and recreational sport participants. The Sport Psychologist. 10(1): 58-72.
Williams A. M. (2002). Perceptual skill in soccer: implications for talent identification and development . Journal Sports Science 18(9): 737–750.
Wolfe, R.A. Weick, K.E. Usher, J.M. Terborg, J.R. Poppo, L. Murrell, A.J. Dukerich, J.M. Central, D.C. Dickson, K.E. & Jourdan, J. S. (2005). Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology Journal of Management Inquiry. 14(2): 182-210.
Wright, P. L. (1974). The harassed decision maker: time pressures, distractions and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. 59: 555-561.
APPENDIX A
DECISION-MAKING TASK Intro time pressure group
Beste deelnemers,
De volgende taak verwijst naar situaties die je regelmatig ervaart tijdens het voetballen. Ik vraag van je om de meest geschikte actie te kiezen voor een aanvallende speler in bezit van de bal.
Stel je voor dat je de bal hebt, en je hebt vier keuzes waaruit je kan kiezen voor een vervolg actie. (1, 2, 3 of 4). Kies de beste van deze vier acties uit. In elke tekening beweegt het team zich naar de goal. Je ziet in de tekening verschillende lijnen, een stippellijn in de afbeelding geeft een pass aan, een ononderbrokenlijn staat voor een loopactie en een golvende lijn staat voor een dribbel. De aanvallers worden getekend als driehoek en de verdedigers als cirkels.
Eerst wordt er een voorbeeld vraag gepresenteerd, daarna komen er nog 15 situaties, maak een keuze voor elk van de situaties. Let wel, je krijgt de situatie maar 5 seconde te zien, daarna verdwijnt de situatie en moet je een keuze maken.
Succes,
Intro no time pressure group Beste deelnemers,
De volgende taak verwijst naar situaties die je regelmatig ervaart tijdens het voetballen. Ik vraag je om de meest geschikte actie te kiezen voor een aanvallende speler in bezit van de bal.
Stel je voor dat je de bal hebt, en je hebt vier keuzes waaruit je kan kiezen voor een vervolg actie. (1, 2, 3 of 4). Kies de beste van deze vier acties uit.
In elke tekening beweegt het team zich naar de goal. Je ziet in de tekening verschillende lijnen, een stippellijn in de afbeelding geeft een pass aan, een ononderbrokenlijn staat voor een loopactie en een golvende lijn staat voor een dribbel. De aanvallers worden getekend als driehoek en de verdedigers als cirkels.
Eerst wordt er een voorbeeld vraag gepresenteerd, daarna komen er nog 15 situaties, maak een keuze voor elk van de situaties.
Bedankt en succes,
VOORBEELD VRAAG
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 1
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 2
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 3
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 4
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 5
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 6
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 7
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 8
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 9
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 10
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 11
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 12
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 13
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 14
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
SITUATIE 15
Pass Verdediger
Loopactie
Dribbel Aanvaller
Geef de beste keuze aan, door een kruis te zetten onder het nummer:
APPENDIX B
TASK AND EGO ORIENTATION IN DE SPORT QUESTIONNAIRE. Orientation profile questionnaire:
I feel most successful in soccer when:
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 I'm the only one who can do the play or
skill.
1 2 3 4 5
2 I learn a new skill and it makes me want to practice more.
1 2 3 4 5
3 I can do better than my friends 1 2 3 4 5
4 The others can't do as well as me. 1 2 3 4 5
5 I learn something that is fun to do. 1 2 3 4 5
6 Others mess up and I don't. 1 2 3 4 5
7 I learn a new skill by trying hard. 1 2 3 4 5
8 I work really hard. 1 2 3 4 5
9 I score the most points/goals/hits, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 10 Something I learn makes me want to go
and practice more
1 2 3 4 5
11 I'm the best. 1 2 3 4 5
12 A skill I learn really feels right. 1 2 3 4 5
