Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24474879›Full record

ReviewJournal of sports science & medicine2009

Giving yourself a good beating: appraisal, attribution, rumination, and counterfactual thinking.

Mark A Uphill, Katie Dray

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark A UphillCanterbury Christ Church University , Department of Sport Science, Tourism, & Leisure, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent, UK.
Katie DrayCanterbury Christ Church University , Department of Sport Science, Tourism, & Leisure, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How individuals respond to adversity is one component of mental toughness and athletes may manage the adversity of a defeat in very different ways. In this article we focus on four types of cognition (appraisal, attribution, counterfactual thinking, and rumination) that athletes may exhibit in the immediate aftermath of a competitive defeat. In particular we define each of these terms and present a "caricature "of each of the respective literatures, focussing on the prevailing trends and substantive findings. These caricatures assist in the identification of several areas in which literature on athletes' retrospective cognition about defeat may be advanced. We use combat sports as a vehicle to illustrate our propositions. Key PointsPlease provide 3-5 bullet points of the paper.Little is known about how athletes psychologically manage adversity, a key component of mental toughness.There is a great deal of conceptual overlap between four types of retrospective cognition (appraisal, attribution, rumination and counterfactual thinking) athletes may exhibit after defeat.Rather than continue of examine these retrospective cognitions in isolation, there appears to be value in consideration of these constructs collectively to enhance theoretical parsimony.

Indexed as

adversitycopingmental toughnessRetrospective cognition

Identifiers

PMID24474879
PMCPMC3879640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.