ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
Using the Critical Incident Technique to explore situational emotional labor in sport psychology: methodological proposals.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interventions in sport settings involve intense emotional labor (i.e., effort to adjust emotional responses to professional expectations). This has mainly been explored using quantitative, person-centered approaches that identify general trends. Over the past decades, however, the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) has attracted increasing attention in psychological research as an effective innovative tool for examining emotional labor during crucial circumscribed situations. Following a presentation of the CITs origins and development across different sport fields (e.g., elite sport, physical education), the aim of this article is to put forward CIT-based methodological proposals for analyzing sport interveners' situational emotional labor. More precisely, we outline two primary data collection modes using questionnaires and interviews. Each approach offers distinct advantages according to the research objectives, context, and participant accessibility. The paper also includes guidelines for both qualitative and quantitative analysis of critical incidents by suggesting how data can be thematically coded and statistically analyzed. In terms of data representation, this article focuses on juxtaposing participant quotes within shared thematic categories and introduces "creative non-fiction" as an innovative narrative technique, presenting data as structured monologues that preserve the authenticity of the participants' own voices. Finally, the present article outlines future research directions, emphasizing the relevance of the CIT in observational and interventional studies aimed at better understanding and supporting emotional labor among sport interveners. In the case of observational studies, four main future research avenues can be explored by: (a) developing longitudinal observatories to enable long-term tracking of emotional labor; (b) adopting a collective approach to emotional labor by incorporating multiple actors' points of view during a same critical incident; (c) deepening understanding of the relationships between emotional experience and emotional regulation during critical incidents; and (d) validating a psychometric scale capable of assessing emotional labor during critical incidents across large samples. As for interventional studies, a training program designed to develop adaptive and flexible emotional regulation through CIT use is presented. This program would benefit from being implemented and evaluated, again using the CIT, to reveal its effects on participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.