controlled for in the data analysis. Interestingly, these findings show that explanatory
style is quite separate from athletic ability. Thus pessimistic ES profiles were as prevalent
among high-level as among low-level performers. One implication of this finding is that a
successful performance by itself will not engender confidence in an athlete. In other
words, a sports performer has to learn to attribute successful events constructively in
order to benefit optimally from them.
In another series of studies, Rettew and Reivich (1995) explored the correlates of
explanatory style in a sample of professional athletes drawn from team sports such as
basketball and baseball. Briefly, these authors found that basketball teams with relatively
optimistic ES scores tended to perform significantly better than did those with a more
pessimistic outlook. However, ES did not predict overall win percentage. Likewise,
baseball teams with an optimistic ES profile tended to win more games than did their
more pessimistic colleagues. Taken together, these studies show that explanatory style
can predict certain aspects of team performance in sport—even when athletic ability
levels are taken into consideration. A practical implication of these findings concerns
attributional retraining. Specifically, Rettew and Reivich (1995) suggest that the most
helpful ES in terms of future athletic success is one “that motivates the individual to
continue doing whatever he or she does when things are going well but galvanises the
player when things are not going well” (pp. 185).
So far, our discussion of attributional styles has been largely theoretical. But for a
practical insight into this topic, try the exercise in Box 2.5.
Box 2.5 What is your typical explanatory style?When something unpleasant or negative happens to you (e.g., failing an examination),
ask yourself the following questions. First, what do you think was the main cause of the
event? More precisely, are you responsible for it or is it due to some external
circumstances? This question relates to the internal-external attributional dimension,
Second, do you think that the cause will persist in the future? This question concerns the
permanence of the attribution. Finally, there is the pervasiveness issue. How much will
this event affect other areas of your life? By the way, if you cannot see the difference
between “permanence” and “pervasiveness”, then try thinking of the former as relating to
time and the latter to space.
Overall, if you attributed the event to yourself (Q.1) and to things which will not
change in the future (Q.2) and if you believe that it affects all of your life (Q.3), then you
probably have a pessimistic explanatory style. If so, then you
have a tendency to explain misfortune by saying “if s my fault” (personalisation), “it will
never change” (permanence) and “its going to ruin my whole life” (pervasiveness).
Optimists, on the other hand, tend to interpret setbacks as being caused by temporary
circumstances which may change in the future.
Before we conclude this section of the chapter, I would like to explore the coaching
implications of research on explanatory styles.
Sport and exercise psychology: A critical introduction 50