fessiod Ra&ce

The Sport Psychologist, 1987, 1, 208-223

Research and Interventions in Sport Psychology:

Issues IEncountered
in Working With an Amateur Boxer

Steven R. Heyman
University of Wyoming
Sport psychology has had an internal debate about whether to conduct research
in the field or in the laboratory. At the same time, concerns have been raised
about interventions (particularly for performance enhancement) being per-
formed without any reasonable evaluation of their outcome. This paper reviews
the issues in consultation with an athlete and a coach, the development and
modification of interventions, and the attempt to develop a single-case experi-
mental design to assess the utility of the intervention. Although some situa-
tions caused the design to be less complete than would be desirable, the data
obtained from behavioral observations and subjective ratings showed good
reliability and validity and provided useful information. It is suggested that
better designs can be developed but that events in the actual sport situation
may require adjustments in the intervention and evaluation processes.

The sport psychology literature has wrestled with the issue of whether to
conduct research in the field (Martens, 1979; Siedentop, 1980) or in the labora-
tory (Thomas, 1980). The consensus likely would be that research should be con-
ducted in both settings, with verification of findings from one setting applied to
the other.
Danish and Hale (1981) and Dishman (1982, 1983) have cautioned that
often interventions geared toward performance enhancement with athletes lack
a scientific basis, while researchers pursue experiments without clear applica-
tions. In the broader field of psychology, a split has occurred between research-
ers and applied psychologists and, as Danish and Hale suggest, this could occur
as well in sport psychology. Certainly many of the books published by leading
sport psychologists have been increasingly oriented toward applications of ap-
proaches from psychology, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapies, without
a great deal of verification of their effectiveness with sport behaviors.
As sport psychology grows and develops, there will be a demand for ser-

About the Author: Steven R. Heyman is Director of Clinical Training, Depart-

ment of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071.
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 209

vices. It is up to the providers of services to ensure that they have the appropriate
knowledge and training for the interventions they espouse, but it is also the
providers' responsibility to evaluate those interventions. The field of psychotherapy
was stunned by Eysenck's (1952, 1965) allegations that, when checked, the out-
come of the patients exposed to psychotherapy was no better than that of patients
who did not receive psychotherapy. Although research over the last 30 years has
clarified the effectiveness of psychotherapy (e.g., Smith & Glass, 1977), the ab-
sence of a consistent body of evaluative research at the time of Eysenck's
pronouncement opened up psychotherapy to questioning, and justifiably so. Simple
case studies or testimonials will not hold up as evidence in the court of scientific
inquiry, and can even be found wanting in the court of informed public inquiry.
It is up to sport psychologists to prevent this from happening to the field by in-
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

tegrating evaluative research with their interventions.

Researchers will have to be familiar with the issues in quasiexperimental
research (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) as well as nonreactive methodology (Webb,
Campbell, Schwartz, Sechrest, & Grove, 1981). At the same time, those provid-
ing interventions will have to take responsibility for evaluations. The comment
that athletes or coaches don't want research does not suffice; if they are eager
for services, then they likely will be willing to participate in research. Such
research can be structured so as to provide not only evaluative indices of the ef-
fectiveness of the interventions but also information that can be useful in con-
tinuing interventions with athletes.
These statements advocating evaluation must be balanced with the recog-
nition that structuring interventions with actual sport behaviors in the field will
be difficult. Interventions will have to be meaningful to the participants. The sport
participant, the sport behavior, the interventions, and the evaluationswill be subject
to the vicissitudes of the sport environment. The degree to which such field in-
terventions and evaluations can approximate reasonable research designs, and to
which they can provide meaningful information to the sport participant and the
researcher-practitioner, will dictate the progress of applied sport psychology.
This paper provides two perspectives: It deals with the adaptation of a
research design to a field setting with an athlete, an amateur boxer, and it also
deals with the consultation issues involved. It is meant to suggest at least tenta-
tive steps sport psychologists can take toward integrating research and consulta-
tion, as well as to illustrate problematic issues in both arenas.
Certainly the effectiveness of interventions has been researched. In a series
of studies, Seabourne and his colleagues have examined different instructional
approaches with beginning karate students (e.g., Seabourne, Weinberg, Jackson,
& Suinn, 1985). Similarly, Kirschenbaurn and his colleagues have examined differ-
ent strategies with recreational bowlers (e.g., Kirschenbaum, Ordman, Tomar-
ken, & Holtbauer, 1982). Single-case design as a method of evaluation has been
advocated within sport psychology (Komaki, 1982; Zaichowsky, 1980). Some
examples of the application of this approach can be found in the literature (Alli-
son & Ayllon, 1980; Silva, 1982; Wysocki, Hall, Iwata, & Riordan, 1979). How-
ever, it can be argued that adapting field research to athletes in competition may
be more difficult. This paper will describe the processes and problems in consul-
tation with the coach and the athlete and in the adaptation of a quasiexperimental
design.
 Background to the Consultation and Research Design
The subject was an 18-year-old amateur boxer with a record of 31 wins and 7
losses. He was described as a good boxer and a good puncher who had been fight-
ing competitively for 2 years. Of concern was his poorer performance in more
important matches. Although not consistently poor in these fights, he had lost
some important matches which prevented him from competing at regional and
national bouts. He and his coach identified a pattern in which he became increas-
ingly defensive, threw fewer punches, and spent most of his time blocking his
opponent's punches. The subject-we will call him "A"-was never knocked
out or seriously injured.
The coach approached me, as "A" had discussed having been in a hypno-
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

sis research project I conducted. The coach assumed the athlete had a psycholog-
ically based performance problem and he hoped it could be addressed quickly
and easily through hypnosis. This presented the first issue: a consultation about
someone who had not yet been involved in the consultation process. The issue
was resolved with the coach's understanding that nothing could or would be done
without "A's" expressed desire for involvement. As it turned out, "A" was
very willing to have help in developing an intervention to end his performance
problems. The second issue, the client's request for a particular type of treat-
ment, was addressed through a discussion of the need to assess the problem ac-
curately and to develop the best approach possible.
Both the coach and "A" wanted an immediate intervention because an
important competition was 2 weeks away. At this point I had little information
about the problem. In the traditional situation, even though we do not observe
the client's behavior outside of the office, we collect a great deal of information
about our clients over a number of sessions. I wanted t;know more about "A."
both as an individual and as an amateur boxer with a problem, before deciding
to proceed with any interventions. I also wanted to develop a method to evaluate
any interventions. This would help not only in evaluating the outcome but also
in yielding information for making the interventions more effective.
I explained to both "A" and the coach that it would not be possible for
me to intervene before the upcoming fight. Rather, at that fight I could collect
the information I would need to develop and evaluate any interventions. Neither
"A" nor the coach wanted to wait. I indicated I could not proceed without these
preconditions. A premature intervention without evaluation could be fruitless,
and in a sense might be unethical. "A" and the coach indicated they would look
for someone who could help them more immediately. We ended the session cor-
dially.
In a few days they called back. Although they had found someone who
promised immediate results, neither "A" nor his coach felt comfortable with
this individual. They then agreed that over the next few weeks I should become
more familiar with "A," his boxing problem and the interrelationships, and to
develop both an intervention and an evaluation design.

Development of the Research Design

O'Brien (1980) presented a paper in which he described his work with a profes-
sional boxer. Through videotapes of the boxer's televised bouts, the number of
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 211

punches the fighter threw each round were counted, as were other factors related
to the boxer's problems. A number of interventions were tried simultaneously,
and the outcome of treatment (in the only posttreatment fight the individual had)
was uncertain. Apparently the boxer's last fight, neither additional treatment nor
evaluation occurred.
Although boxing is an open as opposed to a closed sport, and filming or
videotaping would not be possible with the subject of this paper, O'Brien's de-
sign suggested observers could count punches, assuming acceptable interrater relia-
bility could be achieved. In addition, it might be possible to have ratings of
performance made both prior to and then following treatment.
Major Consultation Issues
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

The coach and most teammates had assumed "A's" problems resulted from the
competitive stress related to more important fights. During initial meetings "A"
speculated about this but more often stated he was unsure of the factors involved
and just found himself "covering up." During a lengthy interview, in which a
great deal about "A's" personal values and attitudes were discussed as well as
what boxing meant to him, "A" indicated in embarrassment that he knew the
source of his problems in boxing. He described an emotionally overpowering,
unpleasant reaction to crowd noise: as crowd noise increased, "A's" anxiety
increased.
He was embarrassed for two reasons. First, he felt this reaction was bizarre,
perhaps crazy, hence his reason for keeping it a secret; he saw his reaction as
unmanly. Second, he was embarrassed at having lied about it. Fortunately,
although phobic in nature, neither the problem nor "A's" overall psychological
pattern indicated any serious pathology. It was possible for him to view the prob-
lem more realistically and to develop the ability to discuss it with his coach, team-
mates, and parents.

Developing the Interventions and Evaluations

0bservations
Three upcoming events would be available for observation. Approximately 2
weeks following the initial consultations, a regional boxing competition was to
be held that would provide the opportunity for baseline observations. Then, 2
months after the regional competition, a tri-team match was to take place. "A"
would have two opponents, and it would be possible to collect data during this
competition as well as to attempt an intervention in one fight and not the other,
to determine if any changes could be noted. Approximately 3 months following
the tri-team match the state competition was to be held, and it was here the data
would be collected with the interventions being used in all fights to determine
their effectiveness.

Planned Design
The design suggested by these events was a modified A-B-A-B design (Herson
& Barlow, 1976). In the design, baseline data would be collected during the phase
labeled Al, the regional boxing match. In the second phase (tri-team marathon),
 B1, the intervention would be implemented in the first fight. It would be with-
drawn in the second fight of the tri-team match of the phase designated A2 to
determine if performance would deteriorate without intervention, which would
enhance the ability of the intervention to explain the behavior change, as opposed
to competing explanations or threats to internal validity (Campbell & Stanley,
1963). If performance again improved when the intervention was reimplemented
in the state competition of the last phase, B2, it would add support to the effec-
tiveness of the intervention.
It is recognized that the baseline observation, as well as observations at
other data collection points, might not be as lengthy as would be desired under
optimal research conditions. This may be a trade-off of data collection with actu-
al competitive sport behavior. Careful scrutiny of the results will be required in
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention as well as the utility of the design.

Intervention and Consultation: A Crossroad

Procedures
Two observers were selected to count the number of punches thrown by the sub-
ject and his opponent in each round of the regional competition, Al. Every punch
was to be counted, regardless of the force involved or whether or not it landed.
The coach was to rate "A's" offense and defense after each round, and "A"
was to rate his anxiety level and perceptions of his offenses and defenses after
each round. In collaboration with the coach, short Likert offensive, defensive,
and anxiety rating scales were developed that could be quickly responded to ver-
bally. These scales are shown in Table 1.
As this was a new procedure, five fights in which "A" was not competing
were selected by lot at the regional tournament to determine if satisfactory inter-

Table 1
Rating Scales Used by Athlete and Coach

Offense and defense ratings Anxiety ratings

(used by coach and athlete) (used by athlete only)

extremely good 10 unbearable (can't move)

9
fairly good 8 highly inhibiting
7
minimally sufficient 6 moderately inhibiting
5
insufficient 4 moderately noticeable
3
fairly poor 2 minimally noticeable
1
nonexistent 0 none
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 213

rater reliability could be achieved for the punch counting. Of 15possible rounds,
12 were N l y boxed (one fight ended with a knockout in the first round). The
counters were positioned diagonally opposite each other; both counted the same
fighter but alternated fighters after each round (e.g., round 1-blue corner fight-
er, round 2-red comer, round 3-blue comer).
In order to understand how "A's" punching patterns in relation to his
opponents might contrast with those of other boxers, we selected five fights again
by lot in which the counters assessed the number of punches thrown for one op-
ponent each. The counters alternated fighters after each round. In "A's" fights
it was possible to have only two counters. Therefore one assessed the number
of punches thrown by "A" and the other the number of punches thrown by his
opponent. The counters alternated targets after each round.
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

Intervention Procedures
Following the collection of baseline data, the first procedure to be used involved
hypnosis, which will be discussed more fully later. Exaggerated claims have been
made for the use of hypnosis with athletes, and many have been reviewed else-
where (Heyman, 1984). Certainly Morgan's research (Morgan & Brown, 1983)
and Dishman's review (1980) add to this caution.
"A" had been in hypnosis research projects, and with a score of 10 on the
Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962) he was
a good candidate for such an approach. Many simply wouldn't be responsive
enough to hypnosis to make its use worthwhile. Following several sessions in
which hypnosis was achieved with sufficient depth to proceed, a suggestion, de-
veloped by "A," of a mute button was used. "A" could push this button and
silence the crowd noise. Three hypnotic sessions lasting an average of 30 minutes
each were employed to develop and maintain the image. Approximately 6 hours
of training involving shadow boxing and sparring were utilized with this image
until "A" reported he felt it worked perfectly each time for 10 consecutive rounds
of sparring.
For purposes of brevity, only a basic overview of the use of hypnosis
described above is presented. As this was not a standardized experimental design
across subjects but an individualized approach for a particular individual, it could
not be replicated with another individual. (One purpose of this paper is to indi-
cate possibilities for the evaluation of such individualized approaches. I will be
happy to provide additional details on request.)
At the same time, in discussing hypnosis it is important to note that virtual-
ly all responsible professional organizations concerned with the use of hypnosis
(e.g., the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, the Division of Psy-
chological Hypnosis [Division 301 of the American Psychological Association)
require professional backgrounds for training in the use of hypnosis, both for
research and applications. There exists a possibility of paradoxical reactions in
subjects, that is, unexpected, adverse reactions to hypnosis (e.g., MacHovec,
1986), as well as unethical uses of hypnosis (e.g., Kline, 1972). This report is
not meant to slight these and other serious considerations in the use of hypnosis,
or to suggest its use to untrained individuals.
Finally, it should be noted that as the tri-team competition approached, "A"
became increasingly uncomfortable with first using and then discontinuing the
 intervention. He wanted to use it during both fights. After much discussion, "A"
agreed to use it in the second fight but not the first. This would help us both
understand how effective in fact the intervention would be.

Evaluation of Initial Intervention (Al)

Based on punches counted in 12 rounds of five fights (one fight ended with a
first round knockout), an interrater reliability of r = .95, p d .O1 emerged. In
five other fights the punches of opponents were counted to determine if an inter-
relationship existed, and to see how this relationship might contrast with "A's"
patterns. In five fights for which the punches of opponents were counted, the
resulting correlation between opposing fighters' punches was .71, p d .01. In
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

amateur boxing, where points are awarded for the number of cleanly landed
punches, the aggressiveness of one fighter in terms of the number of punches
thrown seems likely to force the other fighter to escalate his own aggressiveness.
The baseline data collected on "A" and his opponents for the regional
tournament showed that during the elimination fights, when the crowd was mini-
mal and the noise level was relatively low, "A" won both contexts, with punch-
ing patterns similar to those in the previously described fights (see Figure 1).
In the quarterfinal fight the auditorium was approximately half full and relatively
noisy. "A" expected to lose the fight as his punching was inhibited. His oppo-
nent became quite confident and, during the third round, he consistently dropped
his guard. "A" was able to stun him with one punch, and a follow-up punch
dazed him sufficiently for the fight to be stopped (see Figure 2). Such a fortui-
tous situation did not occur for "A" in the semifinal fight. The crowd nearly
filled the auditorium, and the noise was often a roar. "A's" punches declined
dramatically and he lost by a wide and unanimous decision (see Figure 2).
In the tri-team competition "A" lost a unanimous decision in the first bout
(see Figure 3). The auditorium was small but crowded, and the noise echoed loud-
ly. "A's" pattern was similar to that of the noisy fights in the regional competi-
tion. When the hypnotic suggestion intervention was activated on the second day
for the second fight, "A's" performance was notably better during the first two
rounds. After the second round, however, "A" reported to his coach, "the but-
ton stopped working" (see Figure 3). His performance declined in the third round.

The Final Intervention Issue

Although we were pleased with the effectiveness of the hypnotic intervention in
the first two rounds, we were concerned that it seemingly had stopped working.
It may have been that additional practice was needed or that under the stress of
the situation the suggestion lost its effectiveness. Added to this, however, in con-
versations with "A" it became apparent he was attributing the success to a magi-
cal quality about hypnosis, and not at all to the fact that ultimately he was
controlling his responses. For these reasons I decided to shift paradigms. A system-
atic desensitization program was established that would give "A" a sense of be-
ing more actively involved with and controlling his progress. A hierarchy of 11
steps was constructed, and it took 3 hourly sessions a week for 6 weeks until
he reported less than 5 subjective units of disturbance to what had been the most
threatening image (Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966).
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 215
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

Round
opponent subject
first elimination - subject won
unanimous decision

second elimination ---- sub.ect won

---re- spli/ decision

Figure 1 - Baseline-regional competition quiet fights.

Final Evaluations
For the state competitions following the systematic desensitization, the first two
of "A's" elimination fights were relatively quiet as there were few attendees
in a large auditorium. He won both by decision. Punches thrown were consistent
with his previous patterns in quiet fights. The quarter and semifinal fights had
considerably larger crowds, and more noise, comparable to the noise at previ-
ously described noisy fights. Although the subject won one and lost one fight
by decision, his punching pattern now closely matched that of his opponent, and
unlike preintervention noisy fights, his punched increased across rounds.
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

I
0I I I

I 2 3
Round
opponent subject
quarterfinal - subject won in 3rd
by knockout
semifinal ---- -,- subject lost
unanimous decision

Figure 2 - Baseline--regional competition noisy fights.

Figure 4 shows the average number of punches per round1 for pre- and
posttreatment noisy and quiet fights, while Table 2 contains descriptive statistics
on the mean number of punches thrown in pre- and posttreatment quiet and noisy
rounds. While a modest improvement is made for quiet fights, a far more dra-
matic improvement is noted in noisy fights.
It was also possible to analyze these patterns statistically. Pretreatment
observations revealed that the subject threw significantly more punches in quiet
(M = 61.O) as opposed to noisy (M = 53.87) fights, t (12) = 2.34, p < .05.
No significant difference was found for the posttreatment comparison of quiet
versus noisy fights, t (13) = 1.43, p < .15. Following the treatment interven-
tion, the subject was also found to throw significantly more punches both in quiet
fights (M pretreatment = 61.0; M posttreatment = 72.3), t (10) = 2.92, p <
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 217
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

I 2 3
Round
1st bout
no intervent~on
2 nd bout
opponent

-
after intervention '-'-
-
subject

-,-
subject lost
unanimous decision
sub'ect won
splil decision

Figure 3 - Initial attempted intervention: tri-team competition.

.001, and in noisy fights (Mpretreatment = 53.87; M posttreatment = 67.33,

t(15) = 4.79, p < .001.
Comparisons of the coach's offense and defense ratings, and the subject's
self-ratings of offense, defense, and anxiety were also performed. For quiet fights,
only the coach's pretreatment defense rating (M = 7.33, SD = .51) and post-
treatment defense rating (M = 8.16, SD = .75) were significantly different, t
(10) = 2.24, p < .05.
For noisy fights, however, all five variables changed significantly post-
treatment. The results of these comparisonsZare summarized in Table 3. Table
4 reports the intercorrelations of the variables studied. Clearly significant rela-
tionships exist between the objective count of punches and the subject's and the
coach's ratings.
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

1 2 3
Round

Figure 4 - Subject's average number of punches. ---= pretreatment quiet fights;

-6 = posttreatment quiet fights;
treatment noisy fights.
- = pretreatment noisy fights; -cc = post-

Table 2
Mean Number of Pre- and Posttreatment Punches Thrown
in Quiet and Noisy Rounds

Quiet rounds Noisy rounds

M SD M SD

Pretreatment 61.O 7.12 53.87 4.25

Posttreatment 72.3 6.31 67.33 6.83
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 219

Table 3
Comparisons of Pre- and Posttreatment Noisy Fight Ratings

Pretreatment Posttreatment Significance

n1 M SD n M SD tZ P

Coach's3
offense 8 4.37 1.18 9 7.88 1.26 5.87 <.001
Coach's
defense 8 5.25 .88 9 8.44 .72 8.17 <.001
Subject's
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

offense 8 3.00 1.85 9 6.33 1.41 4.20 <.001

Subject's
defense 8 3.62 1.40 9 6.66 1.50 4.29 <.001
Subject's
anxiety 8 7.12 1.55 9 2.77 2.22 4.61 <.001

ln refers to number of rounds; 2alldf = 15; 3offenseand defense ratings range from 0 =
nonexistentto 10 = extremely good; anxiety ratings range from 0 = none to 10 = unbearable
(can't move).

Table 4
lntercorrelations of Assessed Variables

Op punch C off C def "A's" off "A's" def "A's" anx

"A's" punch .16 .7gb .83b .74b .73b - .62b

Op punch - .25 - .07 - .33 - .23 .35a
C off .91 .94b .8gb - .80b
C def .85b .8gb - .77b
"A'S" off .92b - .83b
"A's" def - .84b

"p < .05; bp < .01

Note. "A's" punch = number of punches thrown by "A"; Op punch = number of punches
thrown by opponents; C off = coach's offense ratings; C def = coach's defense ratings;
"A'S" off = "A's" offense self-ratings; "A's" def = "A's" defense self-ratings; "A's" anx
= "A's" anxiety self-ratings.
 It should be noted that although the correlation reported previously for the
numbers of punches thrown by opposing contestants in bouts was quite strong,
r = .71, p < .01, the relationship for "A" and his opponents overall was only
r = .16, p = n.s. To see more subtle relationships embedded in these correla-
tions, we examined the pre- and posttreatment patterns. For eight pretreatment
noisy rounds the relationship was r = - .79, p < .01, while for nine posttreat-
ment rounds r = .75, p < .01.
The boxer did rate his offense significantly lower than did the coach, t
(28) = 8.50, p < .01, as well as his defense, t (28) = 8.97, p < .01. The subject
consistently rated himself lower in both offense (his ratings were lower than the
coach's for 24 or 29 rounds, with 5 rounds equal) and defense (of 29 rounds
he was lower 27 times, with 2 rounds equal). Matched sign tests were quite sig-
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

nificant for offense, z = 4.69, p < .0 1, and for defense, z = 5.00, p < .01.

Discussion
This paper presents a number of issues concerning the development and evalua-
tion of interventions relating to performance enhancement. The consultation
process provided several problematic issues. Initially a coach approached, want-
ing an athlete's behavior changed without first having consulted with the athlete.
The coach also attempted to specify an intervention. These were easy to deal with
in this case. In separate interviews with the athlete it was obvious he was eager
for help. Explanations of the need for an accurate assessment of the situation and
of the possibilities involved in the utilization of interventions resolved the second
problem.
Only after a lengthy interview did the athlete disclose the true nature of the
problem. This is not uncommon in counseling situations. Perhaps more often,
in sport psychology, the real problem may not be known by coach or athlete and
it may take considerable time to discover the situation. Prepackaged strategies
such as relaxation and visual imagery may not address the real issues.
Neither the coach nor the athlete were aversed to the use of an evaluation
strategy; in fact, the ability of this approach to provide meaningful information
was valued by them both. However, the collection of baseline data conflicted
with the speed at which they wanted to proceed. It presented a critical situation.
Initially our positions could not be reconciled, and if they had found another in-
dividual with whom they felt comfortable and who could have met their needs,
I likely would not have seen them again. I clearly wanted to work on this intrigu-
ing problem, but not without the opportunity to evaluate the intervention.
The last of the issues relating to conflicts between the intervention and
the evaluation was the most difficult to resolve. A research design was planned
to approximate an A-B-A-B design. The issue of treatment withdrawal in such
designs has been and remains controversial (Hersen & Barlow, 1976). It became
clear that the athlete in this case, had he used and found the intervention effec-
tive, would have been reluctant to discontinue its use. It would have been im-
possible to convince him to do otherwise. His agreement not to use the intervention
in the first of his two tri-team matches was fortuitous. "A" was motivated in
part by his curiosity to see the comparative effectiveness of the intervention. He
also sensed the importance of the research design to me, and as we had devel-
oped a good rapport he agreed partly for personal reasons.
 Working With an Amateur Boxer 221

Given the emphasis on the attempted approximation of a research design,

its information and utility must be examined. It demonstrates that even in as un-
predictable a sport as boxing, without sophisticated equipment, behavioral mea-
sures and ratings could be developed and utilized with good reliability and validity.
Due to the issues discussed, the design could not as closely approach the
initially planned design as was hoped. For a laboratory study this would not be
acceptable. In a field study involving actual competitive situations, however, more
leeway may be needed. Certainly, Martens (1979), Siedentop (1980), and Tho-
mas (1980) have debated the issues involved. In this approach to assessing the
effectiveness of an interventionwith a competitive athlete in actual competitions,
there are baseline measures (from the regional and first tri-team bouts), mea-
sures of an initial intervention (the second tri-team bout), and a final evaluation
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

(the state competition). It seems clear from the figures, the ratings, and the inter-
relationships that improvements in "A's" performance most likely came about
as a result of the interventions, not alternative factors (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).
The intervention could not have been a packaged design. It had to be specifically
developed and adjusted for this athlete as necessary.
Perhaps the most critical information was provided by the collection of
data at the tri-team bouts. The differences in "A's" punching patterns between
fights, in the face of fairly constant noise and similarly qualified opponents, pointed
to the effectiveness of the interventions. The change in the third round of the
second fight pointed to the need for additional interventions. The attributions "A"
had developed for hypnosis motivated a second type of intervention. It may be
asked if in fact a systematic desensitization program would have been more ef-
fective than the hypnosis, or if the combination of the two interventionswas nec-
essary for the final result. Given its imperfections, this design cannot answer these
questions.
If an intervention had been attempted without data collection, the pattern
of relationships for the athlete's behavior, his opponents' behaviors, and the sub-
jective ratings would never have been known. Less systematic evaluations would
not have provided as clear a picture of the patterns. This project suggests that
similar designs can be implemented not only for boxers but for other sports as well.
This particular intervention had associated issues not discussed here. For
example, helping to improve a boxer's performance could expose him to greater
risk or help him to hurt someone else. These ethical issues have been discussed
elsewhere (Heyman, 1985).
Although not directly related to the major focus of this paper, some suggested
relationships within the sport of boxing emerge as well. It would appear that with
equally matched opponents, as one individual escalates his attack by throwing
more punches, the opponent will likely respond in a similar way. It also appears
that offensive and defensive skills may be related to each other.
This paper should conclude by returning to its initial theme. Sport psy-
chology must find ways to bridge a perceived gap between research and applica-
tions. Developing successful interventions will depend on the assessment of the
problem situation and the needs of the athlete. Evaluations of such interventions
may have to be given a higher priority by those developing the interventions,
and yet reflect realistic considerations of sport situations. The ability of sport
psychology to develop a solid base for itself as a useful adjunct to the sport situa-
tion may well depend on how viably these issues can be addressed.
 Certainly initial attempts such as the one presented in this paper will only
point toward possibilities. Over time, it is to be hoped the intervenor/evaluator
will develop better and more comprehensive approaches.

References
Allison, M.G., & Ayllon, T. (1980). Behavioral coaching in the development of skills
in football, gymnastics, and tennis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13,
297-314.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Danish, S.J., & Hale, B.D. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sport
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 90-99.

Dishman, R.K. (1980, February). Overview of ergogenic properties of hypnosis. Journal
of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, pp. 52-54.
Dishman, R.K. (1982). Contemporary sport psychology. Exercise and Sport Science Re-
views, 10, 120-159.
Dishman, R.K. (1983). Identity crisis in North American sport psychology. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 5, 123-134.
Eysenck, H.J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 16, 3 19-324.
Eysenck, H.J. (1965). The effects of psychotherapy. Journal of Psychology, 1, 97-118.
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D.H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for
studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon.
Heyman, S.R. (1984). Cognitive interventions: Theories, applications, cautions. In W.F.
Straub & J.M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology @p. 289-304). Lans-
ing, NY: Sport Science Associates.
Heyman, S.R. (1985). Problematic issues in sport consultation: Examples encountered with
amateur boxers. Consulting Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 18-22.
Kirschenbaum, D.S., Ordman, A.M., Tomarken, A.J., & Holtbauer, R. (1982). Effects
of differential self-monitoring and level of mastery on sports performance: Brain
power bowling. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6 , 335-342.
Kline, M.V. (1972). The production of antisocial behavior through hypnosis: New clinical
data. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 20, 80-94.
Komaki, J.L. (1982, May). Single case experimental designs: Evaluations without tra-
ditional control groups. Paper presented at NASPSPA meeting, University of
Maryland.
MacHovec, F. (1986, August). Hypnosis complications: Six cases. Paper presented at
the 94th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington,
DC.
Martens, R. (1979). About smocks and jocks. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 94-99.
Morgan, W.P., & Brown, D.R. (1983). Hypnosis. In M.H. Williams (Ed.), Ergogenic
aids in sport (pp. 223-252). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
O'Brien, R.M. (1980). Preventing a boxer's $rst round freeze. Paper presented to the
American Psychological Association, Montreal.
Seabourne, T.G., Weinberg, R.S., Jackson, A., & Suinn, R.M. (1985). Effect of indi-
vidualized, nonindividualized, and package intervention strategies on karate per-
formance. J o u m l of Sport Psychology, 7, 40-50.
 Working With an Amateur Boxer . 223

Shor, R.E., & Orne, E.C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists' Press.
Siedentop, D. (1980). Two cheers for Rainer. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 2-4.
Silva, J.M. (1982). Performance enhancement through cognitive intervention. Behavior
Modification, 6 , 443-463.
Smith, M.L., & Glass, G.V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
American Psychologist, 32, 752-760.
Thomas, J.R. (1980). Half a cheer for Rainer and Daryl. Journal of Sport Psychology,
2, 266-267.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J.B. (1981). Non-
reactive measures in the social sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A.A. (1966). Behavior therapy techniques. New York: Pergamon.
Downloaded by R B Draughon Library on 09/17/16, Volume 1, Article Number 3

Wysocki, T., Hall, G., Iwata, B., & Riordan, M. (1979). Behavioral management of
exercise: Contracting for aerobic points. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,
55-64.
Zaichowsky, L.D. (1980). Single case experimental designs and sport psychology research.
In C.H. Nadeau, W.R. Halliwell, K.M. Newell, & G.C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychol-
ogy of motor behavior and sport-1979 (pp. 171-179). Champaign, IL:Human Ki-
netics.

Notes
Portions of this paper were presented at the 1983 meeting of the North American
Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, East Lansing, Michigan, May,
1983.

'Separate figures are available for each competition. For the purpose of brevity,
only some of the figures are presented. The others can be obtained by writing the author.
=It should be noted that the same pattern of significant relationships emerges if
the data from the regional competition are not included. Further, if the data are treated
nonparametrically, with median splits for numbers of punches and ratings related to pre-
and posttreatment performance, tested by Fisher's Exact Test, the same pattern of sig-
nificance emerges, with significant associations between better performance, better rat-
ings, and lower anxiety posttreatment.

Manuscript submitted: November 17, 1986

Revision received: June 23, 1987