Athletic Applications of Solution-Focused Therapy
Austin P. Haedicke
Brief and Narrative Therapy
Dr. Kathy Skott-Myhre
Spring 2013
p.187). Solution-focused therapy was originally developed in the counseling and therapeutic
fields for it’s potentially vast range of utilization, particularly within coaching methodologies.
(Grant, 2001, p.98). The methodologies of solution-focused therapy can be applied outside the
classroom or counseling session as well. This essay will demonstrate how such tactics can be
applied to sport psychology. A particular emphasis will also be placed on how the athlete can
apply this information to their training program and ultimately improve their performance. The
essay will also include sample directive procedures. With that in mind, the purpose of this essay
is to provide information from solution-focused therapy for coaches and athletes to apply
towards improving athletic performance.
Introduction to SolutionFocused Therapy
“[Milton] Erikson viewed clients as having within them or within their social systems theresources to make the changes they needed to make” (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.16).
This is a founding principle for a solution-focused orientation. That is, resources and solutions
are available though they may be difficult to individually extract or evoke. De Zanet (2005)
states that “solution-focused brief therapy is defined by its emphasis on constructing solutions
rather than resolving problems.” If one were to think of a white piece of paper with several
black spots drawn on it to represent problems; SFBT (solution-focused brief therapy) would
desire to focus on growing the white area rather than erasing the black spots. The basic idea is
that “Once you know what works, do more of it. Part of a solution is probably already
happening” (De Zanet, 2005). SFBT places its emphasis on steering away from a
problem-eradication modality and working to strengthen what is already positive or find
something that is “working” rather than something that is “not a problem.”
O’Hanlon and Weiner-Davis (2003) state that there are three things that solution-oriented
therapy is trying to do (p.126). It is trying to change the doing of the situation that is perceived
as problematic; change the viewing of the situation that is perceived as problematic; and evoke
resources and strengths to bring to the situation that is perceived as problematic (O’Hanlon &
Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.126).
In terms of assessment, solution-focused therapy takes a non-pathological approach.
“Problems are seen, not as indications of pathology or dysfunctionality, but stemming from a
limited behavioral repertoire” (Grant, 2011, p.100). Grant (2011) also states that “the past is seen
as a potential reservoir of resources, but the past is not used as a means of exploring causality”(p.100). O’Hanlon and Weiner-Davis state that the goal of the therapist is to access the client’s
abilities and put them to use (2003, p.34). O’Hanlon and Weiner Davis also go on to state that
the therapist, or client themselves, needs to assess what is different about the times when they are
already successful (2003, p.83). The resulting effect is that the problem at hand begins to appear
more “manageable” and “less impervious” to creative problem-solving (O’Hanlon &
Weiner-Davis, 2003. p.58).
O’Hanlon and Weiner-Davis also suggest that there are seven classes of intervention or
methods of change that they try to induce. Four of the seven are methods of change which
include: frequency or rate of the performance of the complaint, timing of the performance of the
complaint, location of the performance of the complaint, and sequence of elements / events in the
complaint pattern (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.129-131). The seven methodologies also
include three other components which are: add (at least) one new element to the complaint
pattern, break the complaint pattern into smaller pieces, and link the complaint performance to
the performance of some burdensome activity (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.129-131).
These methods are foundational to attempts at adaptation. Such methods bear a future-based
orientation. “The emphasis is more on the future (what the client wants to have happen) than the
present or the past” (Grant, 2011, p.100). Furthermore, the focus is on constructing solutions and
disengaging from problems (Grant, 2011, p.100).
There is also a specific role for the coach / therapist. For example, “problems are not
something people have or don’t have. How one judges the events in one’s life determines
whether one has a major problem, an interesting challenge, a small bump on the rocky road of
life, or no problem at all” (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.173). The client, athlete, or coach
must also consider that “[people] are often eager to discuss their accomplishments and knowexactly what they need to do without guidance” (O'Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.137&147).
What, then, is the role of the therapist or coach?
Grant (2011) states that “the coach helps the client articulate their preferred outcome(s)
and then works with them to help them identify action steps that may help them attain their goals.
Action steps are seen as being a series of mini-experiments rather than being predetermined
prescriptions for change” (2011, p.100-101). Grant also describes the coach/therapist’s role as
being one of utilization and activation of existing client resources which the client may have
been unaware of (2011, p.101).
There are also some issues or problems which the therapist may encounter on their own
behalf. “Sometimes the problem is that the therapist never has a clear picture of the client’s
goal” (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.165). The coach/therapist must also take careful note
of when a client is agreeing or disagreeing and also when they appear confused, annoyed, or
delighted (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.171).
In review, solution-focused therapy is a process from goal orientation to problem
disengagement and finally towards resource activation (Grant, 2011, p.102). Grant (2011) states
that goal orientation is “an orientation toward solution construction through the articulating and
use of approach goals and active self regulation” (2011, p.102). The second phase of the process
is problem disengagement. In this phase people must explicitly disengage themselves from their
problems in order to focus efforts on the solution-based mindset of this brand of therapy (Grant,
2011, p.102). The process then moves towards resource activation which is a focus on
acknowledging, identifying, and activating the vast array of personal and contextual strengths
within and at the client’s disposal (Grant, 2011, p.102).
SolutionFocused Approaches to Sport Psychology
“The problem-focused perspective is the dominant perspective in psychology and alsoamong clients and psychologists” (De Zanet, 2005). Previous methods of applied sport
psychology has utilized cognitive behavioral methods that emphasize a development of internal
states such as thoughts, emotions, and bodily sensation (De Zanet, 2005). De Zanet (2005) states
that attempting to suppress unwanted thoughts or emotions can actually be counter-productive.
Such a procedure can have a paradoxical effect. For example, trying not to think about
something increases the probability to think about the unwanted thing (De Zanet, 2005).
De Zanet (2005) suggests that athletes under perform because they don’t know how to
solve or cope with the “sport challenges” they are confronted with. However, De Zanet also
suggests that solution-focused consultants should consider athletes as having the resources to
cope efficiently with these challenges (2005). Furthermore, the goal of the coach, therapist, or
self-guided athlete is to identify and solve these challenges by recognizing and mobilizing
available resources (De Zanet, 2005). The emphasis on clients setting their own goals can be
consistently seen throughout both the works of De Zanet and O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis. De
Zanet does mention something that is not explicitly stated in the O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis
piece. He states that “Performance results from quality in preparation” (2005). De Zanet’s
presentation was specifically designed with sport psychology and athletic performance in mind.
However, the concept of performance can be retroactively applied to the concept of
solution-focused therapy. This is a precautionary procedure to ensure that quality solutions and
resources being pooled and utilized rather than an abundance of re-polished temporal aesthetics.
Quality, then, is the the mode of concentration in De Zanet’s specific application ofsolution-focused therapy towards sport psychology and athletic performance.
De Zanet lists four primary reasons why SFBT (Solution-Focused Brief Therapy) is
useful in sport (2005). First, SFBT uses what athletes are already able to do. Here De Zanet
takes the solution-focused approach of emphasizing that one can learn just as much from
successes as they can from failures (e.g.: doing more of what is already working). Secondly,
SFBT allows for the bypass of “resistance.” In solution-focused therapy resistance
(theoretically) does not exist. By working on explicitly what the client / athlete wants leads to a
theoretical impossibility of what is commonly defined in psychodynamic terms as “resistance.”
Third, SFBT indirectly breaks the “very pervasive myth of mental weakness and/or mental
control” (De Zanet, 2005). De Zanet criticizes the old adage that if one is not succeeding then
they just need to try harder, be more focused, or are lacking will power (2005). It is implied that
improvement of “will power” and/or “mental control” may be beneficial, however, devoting
intervention efforts to such “issues” is not the focus of this particular modality. As stated
previously, the focus is on amplifying strengths and resources currently available rather than
remedying existing problems. Fourth, SFBT provides an opportunity for coach and therapists to
learn from athletes (De Zanet, 2005). By implementing such procedures therapists and coaches
can learn what athletes emphasize as their goal(s), where the athlete’s strengths and weaknesses
are, and how they react to a problem-preventative versus strength-amplifying interventions.
General Procedures
One idea proposed in solution-focused therapy is that of a miracle question (De Zanet,2005). The question asks the client/athlete to imagine a perfect day, a day when their problems
ceased to exist and all their goals were achieved; and then describe in vivid detail theproceedings of that day. There are several cues which can be implicated from such a description.
First, what is being done currently that hinders from such a “miracle” day from being achieved.
Secondly, what can be done that is not being done now to make that “miracle” become an
attainable reality.
De Zanet (2005) also suggests that the therapist or coach should support soft and flexible
beliefs. In other words, sometimes beliefs about what one “should” be able to do is the source of
the problem. As a result, the therapist should use a new solution to re-frame the situation and
refrain from previously failed methods (De Zanet, 2005; O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.92).
De Zanet (2005) offers several sample questions to initially analyze the athletes performance
situation.
1. I am always stressed before and during competition. (Agree / Disagree)
2. In the last month how often were you too stressed to perform well?
3. What are you still able to do when you are stressed?
4. How do your stress problems stop?
5. What are you doing that improves your situation?
The first question provides insight into the relatedness of stress to the athlete’s
performance. The second question involves inquiry into the frequency of stress issues related to
athletic (or other) performance. The third question begins the therapeutic solution orientation by
inquiring what the person is still able to do in spite of their (supposedly heightened) stress levels.
This is a cornerstone of solution-focused therapy in terms of strengthening what the client is
already doing well as opposed to weakening, fixing, or eradicating what the client is not doing
well. The fourth question is also very solution minded in that even the most stressed people have
times when they are not stressed. In athletic terms, presumably someone who is frequently notsatisfied with their performance still has occasional instances of satisfactory performance. The
fifth question is a derivative of the “miracle question” (O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 2003, p.24)
to help the client detach from their problems and start taking steps to A) make that problem more
manageable, and B) reinforce the idea that there are steps that can be taken to improve one’s
current situation.
Grant (2011) presents a solution-focused inventory that may be used by a coach,
therapist, or the athlete themselves to obtain an initial assessment of their performance and goal
attainment procedures (p.103). The inventory assessment items are scored on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The first section of the inventory revolves around goal
orientation and asks 1) I imagine my goals and then work towards them, 2) I keep track of my
progress towards my goals, 3) I’m very good at developing effective action plans, and 4) I
always achieve my goals. These four questions are items that can be used to increase
performance or at least ensure that a maximal effort can be put forth in hopes of attaining
satisfaction with one’s performance; though they may not directly yield an explicit increase in
performance.
The second part of Grant’s inventory involves the solution-focused premise of problem
disengagement (2005, p.103). This section is assessed with reversed scoring and presents the
statements; 1) I tend to get stuck in thinking about problems, 2) I tend to focus on the negative,
and 3) I’m not very good at noticing when things are going well. In contrast to the first section
of the inventory, these are things that should be minimized, or disengaged from in an attempt to
focus efforts (again) on increasing positives rather than decreasing negatives.
The third and final part of the inventory is concerned with resource activation. It is
scored in the same fashion as the first segment and presents the following statements; 1) There is always a solution to every problem, 2) here are always enough resources to solve a problem if
you know where to look, 3) Most people are more resilient than they realize, and 4) Setbacks are
a real opportunity to turn failure into success (Grant, 2011, p.103). This section is where a
therapist or coach would be involved. The first statement is a matter of resource recognition, the
second, of resource availability. The third question has to do with recognition and activation of
resilience. The fourth question is a perceptual inquiry into how and if failures and successes are
being used as resources for assessment in and of themselves.
Specific Procedures
De Zanet (2005) discusses specific procedures in terms of logistics. Logistics, then, are aconstant cycling of action and preparation (De Zanet, 2005). In De Zanet’s view action is a state
of goal automaticity, that is, skills learned during preparation are used to configure an optimal
load/balance between challenge, skills, and goals (2005). De Zanet also describes preparation as
a state of goal improvement in which the most important skills associated with performance are
identified and trained (2005). Preparation has within it a recurring cycle of overload and
recovery in which high demands are induced to stimulate adaptation on a scale of macro and
micro goal improvement/progression (De Zanet, 2005).
De Zanet also suggests a “Plan, Do, Check, Act” methodology for this athletic application
of solution-focused therapy (2005). The first step in this procedure is to “analyze and anticipate
past performance, task demands, and critical situations (De Zanet, 2005). This planning portion
involves a careful assessment of past performances. Things taken into consideration are A) the
demands of a given task where performance is the concern, and B) critical situations within that
task where key performance is needed. The second part of this step is induced in order to narrowthe specific goals of performance enhancement. The second part of the procedure is to decide
one’s expectation on macro and micro levels (De Zanet, 2005). For example it is important to
establish realistic (given the resources available) and attainable goals (given the contextual
elements of the first portion of the procedure). To clarify this step, on may establish a long-term
goal to attain by the end of their sporting season; a “macro” goal. “Micro” goals would involve
more routine procedures such as inducing certain steps in one’s daily and weekly training
regimen in order to “chunk down” and progress towards the “macro” goal. This part of the
procedure is closely tied to the third which De Zanet describes as a designing of training cycles
and session and learning situation (2005). This is where the planning gets “put to paper” so to
speak. The planning is put into a procedural plan of action.
De Zanet also stresses the importance of warming up and cooling down. He describes the
term of “flow” as “a state of optimal experience involving total absorption in a task at hand, and
creation of a state of mind where optimal performance is capable of occurring (De Zanet, 2005).
The warm up phase is designed to progressively prepare the body for the conditions to follow
(De Zanet, 2005); where the cool down phase is a controlled deceleration for the body. Part of
the warm up phase might include a mechanism to induce a state of (auto)hypnosis. De Zanet
(2005) states that “(auto)hypnosis is used as a tool to progressively reach its own ideal
psychological state [and to] focus attention on goals and strategies.”
ACT (accept, choose, take action) is another acronym that can be used within this system.
“Acceptance is a major individual determinant of mental health and behavioral effectiveness”
(De Zanet, 2005). In the specific context of athletics, this means an acceptance of one’s
circumstances, resources, and capabilities at the time of procedure induction. De Zanet (2005)
states that acceptance is a two-part process that involves both “willingness to experiencethoughts, feelings and physiological sensations, especially those which are negatively evaluated,
without changing, avoiding, or otherwise controlling them” and “a more effective use of one’s
energy to act in a way that is congruent with his/her values and goals.”
ACT may also be presented as a different acronym describing a specific “brand” of
therapy (Acceptance Commitment Therapy) that is closely related to this subject. De Zanet
states that “Acceptance Commitment Therapy promotes acceptance by training people to be
aware of their thoughts and feelings but to base their actions on their values and goals (2005).
However, De Zanet offers an alternative which he calls a “mindfulness-acceptance-commitment”
(MAC) approach. “MAC promotes acceptance of internal experiences while at the same time
focusing the individual on the appropriate external contingencies and behavioral responses
required to effectively navigate situations in order to achieve both immediate and distant goals”
(De Zanet, 2005). In both these contexts the athlete takes previous experiences into
consideration for preparation of an action plan but focuses their present behavior obtaining future
solutions.
Yet another methodology that has been researched is visuo-motor behavioral rehearsal
(VMBR). “VMBR techniques include relaxation training, visualization or mental imagery, and
performance of the skill in a simulated stressful environment (Lohr & Scogin, 1998). Essentially
VMBR is a practice of relaxation and using mental imagery to rehearse techniques used in the
performance of one’s sport. The effectiveness of this practice may be enhanced by applying
VMBR techniques under similar psychological and stress conditions to those experienced during
participation in the sport. An article published in the Journal of Sport Behavior by Lohr and
Scogin describes a research study comparing the sport performance results of a VMBR test
group and a control group. Lohr and Scogin found that the VMBR group had significantly lowercompetition anxiety compared to the control group at the end of the (18 day) training period
(1998). The results of the study also showed that the VMBR group performed significantly
better in their chosen aspect of performance than the delayed-training control group (Lohr &
Scogin, 1998). Lastly, an analysis was provided by means of Sport Competition Anxiety Test
(SCAT), coach’s rating of the athlete’s mental performance, coach’s rating of athlete’s actual
performance, the athletes’ self-rating of mental performance, the athletes’ self-rating of actual
performance, and a Visualization Questionnaire. The results found that the VMBR test group
increased their total performance by a mean of 5.79% (SD of 4.77) while the delayed training
group’s overall performance decreased by a mean of 4.93% (SD of 7.69).
Conclusion
Throughout this essay key components of Solution-Focused Therapy have been describedas a process of taking what is useful from past (positive and negative) performances and
exaggerating those components or increasing the occurrence of preferred performances by
emphasizing and eliciting the client/athlete’s strengths. This essay has also described the
preparatory phases of a performance-based sport application of solution-focused therapy and
procedures that may be useful in practically applying analysis of past performances and
client/athlete current strengths and working/performing conditions. Lastly, specific sample
procedures were listed to induce an action/doing response to the solution-focused planning and
preparatory phases.
A solution-focused approach to athletic training and performance improvement is clearly
applicable. The suggestion from this essay is that emotional and physical energy should be
consumed by a focus on strategizing and replicating effective procedures rather than deconstructing and removing ineffective or poor-performing procedures. The concepts of
Solution-Focused Therapy and Acceptance Commitment Therapy in conjunction with
mindfulness and visuo-motor repetition can be used to great effect in both athletic training and
and competition contexts.
However, there is a slight caveat to the study on VMBR. On a standard bell-shaped curve
34.13% of people will fall one standard deviation below the mean and 34.13% above. With the
data provided by Lohr and Scogin’s study, it is possible that any individual in the “delayed
training” group could surpass the VMBR group if the delayed-training participant fell within +1
standard deviation of the mean and a VMBR participant scored within -1 standard deviation of
the mean. Although, individual results were not compared and the collective group results stand
as stated by the study.
Furthermore, the purpose of this essay has been to provide examples of primarily how to
elicit a client or athlete’s problem solving skills and utilize those skills and resources towards
enacting an improved-performance solution. “The challenge is to understand how it is possible
to help an individual become an expert athlete (De Zanet, 2005).
References
De Zanet, F. (2005). How to handle performance enhancement requests? asolution-focused perspective [PDF slides]. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from
http://www.optimumcoaching.be/dossiers/download/2005_-_enyssp.pdf
Grant, A. M. (2011, December). The solution-focused inventory: a tripartite taxonomy for
teaching, measuring and conceptualising solution-focused approaches to coaching. The
Coaching Psychologist, 7(2), 98-106. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from
http://www.coachfederation.org/includes/docs/157-The-Solution-Focused-Inventory---Tripart
ite-Taxonomy-for-Solution-Focused-Coaching.pdf
Lohr, B. A., & Scogin, F. (1998, June 1). Effects of self-administered visuo-motor
behavioral rehearsal on sport performance of collegiate athletes. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 21(2). Retrieved February 27, 2013, from
http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/Effects-self-administered-visuo-motor/2082
5964.html
O'Hanlon, B., & Weiner-Davis, M. (2003). In search of solutions. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton & Company.
No comments:
Post a Comment