The question
The question here is, can those without specific therapeutic expertise (and a substantial educational background in psychology) be effective in providing mindset skills training in sport in a safe manner? For the purpose of this article I am referring to mindset skills training in sport but realistically the same question could be asked of other settings also.
To start with, what do we mean by mindset?
The answer depends on who you ask, or perhaps what dictionary you look up. Mindset is commonly seen in terms of disposition, mood, a set of attitudes, a way of thinking, a set of opinions, a mental state, a mental inclination, a tendency to do things, or a habit. In cognitive psychology however mindset more specifically represents the cognitive processes activated in response to a given task (French, 2016). Examples of these processes include thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving.
So, issue number one – which of these is, or are, actually being trained during mindset skills training? Issue number two – even if we get over the question of which of the above is being trained there is also the issue of what category of mindset we are working with.
Mindset models
Carol Dweck’s Growth/Fixed mindsets model is particularly prominent in the literature and in practice, but there are others. For example, Chris Argyris (2004) claimed that in the business world or in any kind of organisation there are two dominant mindsets: the productive mindset and the defensive mindset.
Stephen Covey (1989) in his seminal book The 7 habits of Highly Effective People wrote of abundance mindset and scarcity mindset. Those with an interest in effective cross-cultural interaction speak of what is called global mindset. In 2017 Ashley Buchanan and Margaret Kern wrote of the Benefit Mindset which they claimed to be an extension of the Fixed/Growth Mindset and finally for now even though there may be even more, the concept of wellbeing mindset appears to have crept into the literature in recent times without any obvious provenance.
The concept of growth vs. fixed mindset has been in vogue for some time but particularly since 2006 when Carol Dweck’s book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success was published. It is now widely used in a broad range of settings from business to education to sport. You are possibly aware of the concept – your beliefs play a pivotal role in what you want and whether you achieve it. Individuals who believe their talents can be developed (through hard work, learning, training and doggedness) have a growth mindset and these people tend to achieve more than those with a more fixed mindset (those who believe their talents are innate gifts).
Whereas I have no doubt that the concept of a growth mindset has helped many people in many walks of life it does however have its issues and limitations.
Such as . . .
Firstly, and on a purely academic level it appears that the research conducted by Dweck has been difficult to replicate.
Secondly, those who agree with the belief that talent can be developed through hard work etc. may be prone to obsessing about effort when in fact the reality is that those people are just not capable of reaching the heights that they aspire to irrespective of how much effort they put in. Furthermore, continually practicing without results may erode confidence and self-esteem whereas persistence with, in some cases, ineffectual learning strategies is very likely to lead to frustration and despondence.
Thirdly, certain talents may indeed be hereditary as per the fixed mindset belief. In fact, it has been claimed that genetic factors contribute to a large extent to variation in aptitude and talent across different domains of intellectual, creative, and sports abilities (Vinkhuyzen, 2009). This realisation, if it occurs, may confuse or distract those who believe in a growth mindset and if it is correct that certain talents are indeed hereditary is it truly damaging to believe that they are?
Fourthly, the stigma around the concept of a fixed mindset is such that it is likely that most people would prefer to dissociate themselves from what could be perceived as narrow mindedness. Who really wants to be known as being mentally inflexible? Considering that the choice is either/or, people’s only other option is to identify with the more adaptable growth mindset ‘tribe’.
After all that
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with another issue. I am referring to the ethics of the provision of mindset skills training, sometimes known as psychological skills training or performance training or mental skills training, by means of apps or by people who are not therapeutically trained and qualified.
Think about it for a minute. When we refer to mindset training, we are talking about working at the levels of the human mind and the human brain. The former the organ of consciousness – a phenomenon that we do not understand, the latter – the command centre for the entire human nervous system, a structure that we do not fully understand. Allowing for the fact that there are many who consider the mind and the brain to be one the brain has frequently been described as the most powerful ‘thing’ in the universe whereas the mind has frequently been described as the most powerful ‘thing’ that humans possess. That is a lot of firepower, and a lot of scope for something to go right or wrong.
To cut to the chase the issue is the irresponsible dumbing down and commodification of mental health and whether or not this might be happening. Even if unintentionally.
There is a misunderstanding ‘out there’ that all third level psychology courses train students to be counsellors or psychotherapists or psychoanalysts. They do not. There is a related misunderstanding ‘out there’ that all graduates of all psychology courses are trained and qualified counsellors or trained and qualified psychotherapists or psychoanalysts because they have completed a psychology course up to or including Master’s degree level. They are not. Let’s examine further by firstly looking at the theoretical basis of mindset skills training.
The training
Typical mindset skills training – although not all – emphasises overt behaviours known as skills and as such as a psychoeducational model the training is behavioural in nature. It uses a deficit model of intervention with the intervention by means of a corrective strategy in the form of mindset skills training which rebalances the deficit.
Being behavioural the focus is on the behaviour itself – the skill – as opposed to the underlying reason(s) for its absence or deficit. In general behaviourist approaches to learning such as classical conditioning, operant conditioning and modelling typically emphasise the importance of learning from the environment to the exclusion of heredity or what is called nature as in the omnipresent nature/nurture debate (O’ Donoghue et al, 2003). The approach is demonstrated eloquently in the following quote from John Watson the founder of Behaviourism.
“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and the race of his ancestors” (Watson, 1924).
We now know that humans are far more complex.
The issues with regard to sport
Skills training rests on the fundamental assumption that a new, more effective behaviour, or skill, can be learned. However, can we really and meaningfully address a perceived deficit in behaviour by surface level instruction only and without firstly or also understanding why the issue exists? Would it not be instructive to understand why an athlete has failed to learn skills that tend to be learned by others or if they have learned them why they cannot implement them when required? And even if we achieve these what happens if those same situational demands of the sport exceed the athlete’s ability irrespective of how much mindset skills training they have embarked upon? Who manages the lack of success experienced, the associated frustration, the potential reduction in confidence due to their ‘failure’ to correctly learn mindset skills that other people appear to be able to learn, and the potential depressive states or indeed the depression?
Also, what about the contextual factors that influence mindset skills acquisition, retention, and display? I am referring here to the personal life of the athlete, everything outside of their sport, past and present, that impacts upon their performance. What happens if the real reason for an athlete’s lack of confidence or inability to focus effectively (two noted mindset skills) is an unhappy or abusive childhood, or a traumatic or difficult sporting experience from the distant or recent past, or a current mental health issue? Is an app or a mindset skill session with a coach going to address these contextual factors? Or could they in fact exacerbate matters?
And anxiety management, another mindset skill. If athlete anxiety is caused by specific past or current distress or an undiagnosed anxiety disorder, or something else, is it really ethical to be promoting generic anxiety reduction techniques such as self-talk or focusing on breath and being mindful because in reality if athletes are working on changing mindset they will inevitably encounter the parts of themselves that resisted or denied the mindset in the first place. In doing so they may also encounter associated aspects of their emotional selves that have lain dormant for some time. As such and if this happens is it right and proper that somebody that is not appropriately trained should be operating in this territory? Does it perhaps suggest an unintentional disregard for the complexity of mental health?
In any event when it comes to mindset can a one size fits all model really be all things to all men and all women? In circumstances where an athlete is frustrated by their deficiency in a particular mindset skill the question arises as to how do we know that the frustration exhibited by the athlete will be actually remedied by skill acquisition? As per the examples above, perhaps the deficit is a symptom of something deeper?
Another issue of importance is the matter of whether a didactic approach to mindset skill acquisition is really appropriate whether in one to one or in group settings? I’m referring to generic skills training programmes developed without consultation with the participant(s). It is claimed that psychological skills training usually has three phases: the education phase, the acquisition phase and the practice phase. Notably, and perhaps disconcertingly, there is little association or weight given to what happens after the practice phase, to the necessity for post practice supervision, reflection, analysis and support.
The bespoke experience
Mindset is individual. We each have our own unique reference point for experiencing the world – our genetics, upbringing, environment, and experiences are all different. As such I respectfully proffer that for effective mindset skills training to occur, we each require individualised interventions which take into account our unique mindset and unique set of circumstances. Rather than a one size fits all mindset skills training programme a better approach would surely be an initial assessment of skill deficits as a precursor to attempted remediation via a bespoke intervention inclusive of post-intervention support?
The format is significant here. With the best will in the world a generic programme on an app is not going to be able to tap into the individual mindset requirements of all of its individual users and provide meaningful bespoke remediation and associated 1:1 discursive therapeutic support in the event that this is required. There are some services that technology just cannot provide. Likewise with sports coaches or mindset skills practitioners who do not have the relevant mental health training. And even if they did truly tap into an individual mindset and begin to work with it what happens if they unearth or stumble upon something of therapeutic significance? Where is the duty of care? How is this managed?
Advising someone to see a psychotherapist or a clinical psychologist after a mental health issue has emerged due to mindset skills training going ‘wrong’ is not best practice. Care for the athlete surely needs to be provided in real time, by qualified mental health professionals who have the expertise to manage any issues that might emerge. I speak from experience as a psychotherapist (and sports coach, and sports coach tutor). I have done non-therapeutic 1:1 mindset skills work with athletes in the past during which mental health related issues have unexpectedly cropped up. Suddenly the sessions went from being non-therapeutic to being therapeutic. The issues were recognised, identified, and successfully managed in real time and in subsequent sessions on the basis of my training. While this might seem like the ideal, I respectfully suggest that it should surely be the norm.
To finish
Mindset skills training has most definitely helped many athletes to attain spectacular athletic achievements and numerous athletes have undergone mindset skills training delivered by people who are not therapeutically trained and have done so without incident. And good luck to all involved. The question however is, does this make it ethically acceptable to do it? Or in other words, is it safe?
In a world of susceptibility to mental health issues it behoves us all to be respectful of the vulnerability, the complexity, and the power of the human mind.
Cogbeh provides a range of Cognitive Behavioural Services including Mindset Skills Training in Sport.
References
Argyris, C. (2004) https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/surfacing-your-underground-organization
Buchanan, A . & Kern, M. L. (2017). The benefit mindset: The psychology of contribution and everyday leadership. International Journal of Wellbeing, 7(1), 1-11.
Covey, S. (1989) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Free Press.
Dweck, C. (2007) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books.
French, R. P., II. (2016). The fuzziness of mindsets: Divergent conceptualizations and characterizations of mindset theory and praxis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(4), 673–691. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2014-0797 https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJOA-09-2014-0797
O’Donohue, W., Ferguson, K. C., & Pasquale, M. (2003). Psychological skills training: Issues and controversies. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4(3), 331-341.
Vinkhuyzen AA, van der Sluis S, Posthuma D, Boomsma DI. (2009) The heritability of aptitude and exceptional talent across different domains in adolescents and young adults. Behav Genet. 2009;39(4):380-392. doi:10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5
Watson, J. (1924) Behaviourism. New York.
