Dr Ollie Williamson

Specific goals are recommended and used widely in sport. However, athletes have reported using nonspecific goals in the process underlying the occurrence of flow, an optimal psychological state. Nevertheless, athletes’ overall use of nonspecific goals in sport has yet to be investigated. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study to understand athletes’ experiences and perspectives on nonspecific goals in sport. Seventeen athletes (M age = 28.06, SD = 9.77) participated in semi-structured interviews. Our content analysis found that athletes used various types of nonspecific goal across several sporting contexts. Performance/situation uncertainty, individual differences in stress appraisal, and to account for factors outside of the athletes control all influenced the setting of nonspecific goals. Athletes reported that all types of nonspecific goals could enhance objective performance, enjoyment, satisfaction, engagement, and optimise feelings of challenge, while reducing perceptions of pressure. Conversely, athletes believed that all nonspecific goals could elicit maladaptive motivational responses and lack structure, which could result in difficulty with tracking progress. Differences between certain types of nonspecific goals were also found. Specifically, open goals were reported in situations of novelty/exploration to gauge performance, whereas do-your-best goals were perceived as a constant, yet minimal expectation. Finally, some athletes suggested that do-your-best goals were overly vague, whereas do-your-best and as-well-as-possible goals could cause overexertion. This study extends knowledge regarding the importance of nonspecific goals in sport, while emphasising the necessity for researchers and applied practitioners to consider contextual factors, individual differences, and targeted outcomes of interest when using nonspecific goals.

This study examined the effects of goal types on performance and commitment in a cognitive task. Sixty-six participants (Mage = 30.42, SD = 12.25) completed six trials of the Letter Number Identification Task. Participants were given a different goal type for each trial: specific-easy, specific-challenging, specific-unrealistic, open, do-your-best, and a baseline condition (no goal). Open goals and specific-challenging goals both led to significantly greater performance than baseline instructions and do-your-best goals, whereas open goals also led to significantly greater performance than specific-easy and specific-unrealistic goals. Specific, unrealistic goals led to significantly higher performance errors, whereas open goals led to the lowest performance errors (i.e., greatest accuracy) of all goal types. Participants were significantly less committed to specific-unrealistic goals compared with all other goal types, and significantly more committed to do-your-best goals and specific-easy goals compared with baseline instructions. This study adds to accumulating evidence of the potential benefits of open goals and suggests that open goals may be as effective as specific-challenging goals in producing cognitive performance outcomes.

The SMART acronym (e.g., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) is a highly prominent strategy for setting physical activity goals. While it is intuitive, and its practical value has been recognised, the scientific underpinnings of the SMART acronym are less clear. Therefore, we aimed to narratively review and critically examine the scientific underpinnings of the SMART acronym and its application in physical activity promotion. Specifically, our review suggests that the SMART acronym: is not based on scientific theory; is not consistent with empirical evidence; does not consider what type of goal is set; is not applied consistently; is lacking detailed guidance; has redundancy in its criteria; is not being used as originally intended; and has a risk of potentially harmful effects. These issues are likely leading to sub-optimal outcomes, confusion, and inconsistency. Recommendations are provided to guide the field towards better practice and, ultimately, more effective goal setting interventions to help individuals become physically active.

Recently there have been calls in health psychology to re-examine the assumption that goals must be specific to be most effective, and to understand when and why nonspecific goals may produce comparable effects to specific goals. In particular, open goals have received increasing attention from both research and applied perspectives. However, there has not yet been a clear and robust definition of open goals, without which there is a risk of inaccurate or inconsistent research and implementation. Therefore, our primary aim was to develop a conceptual definition of open goals by examining necessary (i.e., essential) and sufficient (i.e., unique) attributes. The resulting definition identifies that open goals are nonspecific and phrased in an exploratory way, with measurable parameters, producing graded outcomes. A secondary aim was to critically review the initial evidence on open goals and highlight key priorities for future research. Five databases were searched, identifying 16 studies reporting empirical data on open goals, which were assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool. A critical appraisal is provided, and priorities for future research are highlighted. In turn, this definition and review may help guide research and practice in the use of open goals as a strategy to promote health behaviours.

Objectives The exertion of self-control has been associated with impaired performance on subsequent physical tasks also requiring self-control. However, the effect in well-trained individuals, and of nutritional intervention strategies to reduce the impact of self-control exertion are unknown. This study, therefore, explored the effect of self-control exertion on endurance performance, and pacing strategies, in well-trained individuals. A further aim was to examine the potential for a caffeine mouth rinse to attenuate any decrements in performance due to self-control exertion. Method Following familiarization, fifteen trained male cyclists completed four simulated 10 km cycling time-trials on a cycle ergometer. Prior to each time-trial, participants completed a congruent Stroop task, or an incongruent Stroop task, to manipulate self-control. They also received either a caffeine (containing 40 mg of dissolved caffeine) or placebo mouth-rinse prior to, and every 2 km during, the cycling time-trial. The participants' performance time, subjective measures (perceived pain, motivation, task importance, and RPE), heart rate, and blood lactate concentration were recorded throughout the time-trials. Data were analysed using three-way (self-control*caffeine*split time) repeated measures ANOVA. Results There was no effect of self-control or caffeine on overall 10 km performance time (all p > 0.05). However, following self-control exertion, split time was significantly slower at 3 km (p = 0.031) and 5 km (p = 0.034), and tended to be slower at 1 km (p = 0.088) and 7 km (p = 0.078). There was no effect of the caffeine mouth rinse, nor did this interact with self-control, to affect split times (all p > 0.05). Prior self-control exertion and a caffeine mouth rinse did not influence perceptions of pain, motivation, and task importance in well-trained individuals (all p > 0.05). Conclusions Findings suggest that prior self-control exertion affects self-regulatory pacing strategies during the first 7 km of a 10 km cycling time-trial, in well-trained individuals. However, caffeine mouth rinsing does not attenuate the effects of self-control exertion on subsequent endurance performance.

Sport psychology practitioners (SPPs) are often educated/encouraged to set specific goals when working with athletes. Nevertheless, researchers have indicated that athletes use nonspecific goals in applied settings and that nonspecific goals can enhance performance and various positive psychological outcomes. However, researchers have yet to explore SPPs’ experiences with, and perceptions of, using nonspecific goals when working with athletes. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 SPPs who had provided sport psychology support to athletes for an average of 13.42 years (SD = 11.30). Findings from our content analysis showed that the SPPs perceived open goals (e.g., “to see what you can do”) and range goals (e.g., “to run between 40-60 minutes”) to be more beneficial than do-your-best and as-well-as-possible goals. Despite differences in perceptions across various types of nonspecific goals, the SPPs reported that all nonspecific goals were used in several situations (e.g., situations of adversity) for multiple reasons (e.g., performance/situation uncertainty). The SPPs perceived that all nonspecific goals could reduce maladaptive psychological responses, increase positive psychological responses, facilitate personal growth, and enable greater flexibility/freedom. However, SPPs perceived that all nonspecific goals could lack clarity and imply a lack of confidence in athletes. Our findings capture key differences across various types of nonspecific goals while highlighting the situations/reasons that SPPs used nonspecific goals to facilitate positive athlete outcomes. Given the perceived benefits of nonspecific goals, we suggest that different types of nonspecific goals could be considered as additional/alternate goal-setting interventions in sport.

Loneliness is an established risk factor for mental and physical health problems. Individuals involved in sport face many unique stressors, some of which could exacerbate the risk of loneliness. To bring clarity to published evidence in this area, inform future research, and develop applied recommendations to prevent and reduce loneliness in the sport community, we sought to systematically review, synthesise, and appraise research on loneliness in sport. Following electronic database and manual searches to identify literature on loneliness in the sport community up to August 2024, we included and thematically synthesised data from 194 studies (N = 88,516). Social loneliness was the most common conceptualisation of loneliness within the literature. We identified socio-cultural, institutional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal risk factors associated with loneliness. There was less evidence for protective factors, but the available evidence was categorised into interpersonal and intrapersonal factors. Finally, there was substantial evidence concerning adverse consequences associated with loneliness in sport, including: impaired mental health and well-being; adverse social outcomes; negative cognitive, affective, and motivational outcomes; and maladaptive behavioural outcomes. Overall, this review advances knowledge by synthesising, for the first time, evidence on loneliness in sport and offers theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions that extend understanding of loneliness.

Goal setting is widely applied in sport. Whereas existing reviews have addressed the performance effects of goal setting, less is known about the concurrent psychological and psychophysiological effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that synthesised the effects of goal setting on task performance and various psychological and psychophysiological outcomes in sport. Searches returned 17,841 articles, with 27 meeting eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis of the performance effects and a narrative synthesis of the psychological and psychophysiological effects were undertaken. Process goals had the largest effect on performance (d = 1.36) compared to performance goals (d = 0.44) and outcome goals (d = 0.09). No significant difference in performance was found between specific (d = 0.37) and non-specific goals (d = 0.72). Process goals also had large effects on self-efficacy (d = 1.11), whereas studies guided by self-regulation theory (k = 5) produced the greatest performance enhancements (d = 1.53). It was rarely possible to draw conclusions regarding the effects of goal setting on psychological/psychophysiological outcomes due to a lack of cross study evidence. Nevertheless, these findings provide important insights to guide research and practice on the use of goal setting to enhance performance and psychological/psychophysiological outcomes in sport.