1 of 23

NAVIGATING THE PITCH

Dr. Timothy Hinchman, Dr. Carrie Taylor, Dr. Sandra Shawver, Dr. Eric Lange- MSU-Texas

The Influence of Temperaments and Constraints on Performance

2 of 23

Introduction

In the second year of this study, we continued to explore how planned limits affect physical performance, influenced by temperament and personality traits.
Constraints establish boundaries or limits, delineating certain actions for the learner while guiding them towards successful task completion.
This year’s focal point shifted on how to effectively empower players to make better strategic decisions based on their temperaments.
Temperament traits are represented by a) the ability of the individual to process information -quickly or slowly; b) the ability of the individual to withstand stress or different types of effort; c) the balance of the individual; d) manifesting the affective (thoughts, feelings, beliefs) processes under different conditions (Romillia et al, 2020 pg. 70).

Input constraints are determined by the coach and influence how an individual approaches and solves a problem

In this study - Attackers were required to have two touches on the ball and pass in the following sequence: outside player to inside player back to an outside player to restart the sequence.

Output constraints involve identifying the acceptable results, such as which foot to use or where to place the ball, in order to successfully complete the task (Stokes, 2013).

In this study-Involved a prescribed distance between players in a 10v7 requiring players to pass at a specific angle and velocity.

Temperament is a person's basic, heritable trait (Abrams, 2012).

"temperament is primarily what an infant acquires from his or her parents (including genes), and the rest is attributable to the mother's surroundings during pregnancy" (Abrams, 2012, p. 58).

Temperament and personality share significant components, they are generally agreed to be physiologically linked (Deal, Halverson, Havill, & Martin, 2005).

Temperament qualities are distinct and typically consistent over the lifespan (Strelau, 1987; Thomas & Chess, 1977), while personality traits are learnt via experiences. Allport (1961) says temperament is largely inherited.

3 of 23

Temperaments

Temperament is defined by Littauer (1992) as “personality that define your emotions, work performance, and relationships" (p. 1)

classified as sanguine, choleric, melancholy, or phlegmatic.

Personality is inherited, and much of it is shaped and influences by our unique environments (Ekstrand ,1995)
Knowing a player’s temperament can help the coach in communication between the coach and the player (Romillia, Teodorescu, and Tonita (2020)
Temperament’s traits are represented by a) the ability of the individual to process information -quickly or slowly; b) the ability of the individual to withstand stress or different types of effort; c) the balance of the individual; d) manifesting the affective (thoughts, feelings, beliefs) processes under different conditions (Romillia et al, 2020 pg. 70)

4 of 23

Choleric

STRENGTH

Type A” or “the doer”
Dominate
Strong-Willed
Goal Oriented
Decisive
Independent
Exudes Confidence
Takes Charge

Impetuous
Manipulative
Quick tempered
Inflexible
Domineering
Unapologetic

Galen’s 4-Factor Temperament Traits- date back to 460 BC

Dominate and extroverted

WEAKNESS

Wired That Way Personality Profile Littauer & Littauer�Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, & Melancholy

5 of 23

Sanguine

“Type B” –”the talker”
Strong
Even Tempered
Boisterous
Good Listener
Enthusiastic
High Energy
Inspiring
Sincere

Loud Mouth
Head Strong
Quick Tempered
Easily Distracted
Center of Attention
Fragile Confidence

Strong, Balanced, and Mobile- Extroverted

STRENGTH

WEAKNESS

6 of 23

Phlegmatic

Inoffensive
Easy Going
Patient
Adaptable
Reliable
Mediator
Good Listener

Irresponsibility
Selfish
Too Compliant
Lacks Self Motivation
Resistant to Change
Discouraging
Judgemental

Tranquil and pleasant-introverted

STRENGTH

WEAKNESS

7 of 23

Melancholy

Analytical
Conscientious
Sensitive
Gracious
Schedule Oriented
Perfectionist
Big Picture View
Behind the Scenes

Self Image Critical
Self Centered
Hard to Please
Selective Hearing
Grudge Holder
Standoffish
Insecure
Highly Critical

Analytical-deep thinkers-introverted

STRENGTH

WEAKNESS

8 of 23

Research Questions

Will there be a statistical difference between the means of the rubric scores of the input-constraint, output-constraint, and the control in terms of performance of NCAA Division II soccer players?
Will there be a statistical difference between the means of the rubric scores of the input-constraint and the control in terms of performance?
Will there be a statistical difference between the means of the rubric scores of the output-constraint and the control group in terms of performance?
To what extent are constraints related to constraint effectiveness in NCAA Division II soccer players and is this relation moderated by their temperament.

9 of 23

Measures

GPAI and LPP

This study used a modified Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI; Oslin et al., 1998) to test soccer abilities (Harvey, 2003). The updated rubric measures each of the five criteria: Teamwork & Supporting Behavior, Position or Direction, Trapping, Dribbling, and Passing. After evaluating each criterion, participants received a total score by aggregating the five subcomponents.

Personality Plus (LPP; Littauer 2007) measures temperament. The exam has 40 questions divided into four columns. Individuals circle the adjective that best characterizes them. After the test, answers are transferred to a sheet and recorded. The column with the most replies determines if a person’s is: Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, or Phlegmatic temperament.

The four LPP personality categories were combined to create two categories of Introverts (Melancholy & Phlegmatic) and Extroverts (Sanguine & Choleric) for final assessment (Littauer, 1992).

10 of 23

11 of 23

Wired That Way

The Comprehensive Personality Plan (Marita Littauer & Florence Littauer)

12 of 23

Procedure

The LPP test was administered only once at the beginning of the study (week 1) prior to the first GPAI.
GPAI data was collected over three practices one-day each week for three weeks.
The first data collection round involved the coach observing each attending player conduct warm-up and structured drills like a Rondo similar to keep away with no constraints (control) for approximately 35 minutes.
The second data collection round (week 2) occurred five days later and the attackers were required to have two touches on the ball and pass in the following sequence: outside player to inside player back to an outside player to restart the sequence.
Finally, the third data collection round (week 3) occurred six days from the control and involved a prescribed distance between players in a 10v7 requiring players to pass at a specific angle and velocity.

13 of 23

RQ1

Will there be a statistical difference between the means of the rubric scores of the input-constraint, output-constraint, and the control in terms of performance of NCAA Division II soccer players?
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted whether there was a statistically significant difference in physical performance over the course of constraint intervention for each dimension and total GPAI. The constraint intervention elicited statistically significant changes in teamwork over time, F(1, 17) = 1160.190, p < .001, partial η² = .986; passing over time, F(1, 17) = 1084.413, p < .001, partial η² = .985; position/direction over time, F(1, 17) = 968.471, p < .001, partial η² = .983; trapping over time F(1, 17) = 1085.982, p < .001, partial η² = .985; dribbling over time F(1, 17) = 1085.982, p < .001, partial η² = .980; and total GPAI F(1, 17) = 1458.636, p < .001, partial η² = .988.

14 of 23

RQ2 and RQ3

Will there be a statistical difference between the means of the rubric scores of the input-constraint, output constraint, and the control in terms of performance?
The results indicated a statistical difference in the Total GPAI and all sub-dimensions were significant at the .05 level.

Time 1-Time2	Mean�Difference	Std. Error	Sig.
GPAI Total Input Constraint- Control	-25.22	4.011	<.001*
GPAI Total Output Constraint-Control	-34.389	3.994	<.001*
GPAI Input Constraint-Output Constraint	-9.167	3.572	0.06

*Significant at p<.05

Tukey Post Hoc Comparison of Total GPAI Rubric Scores

15 of 23

Results

18 soccer players' LPP data were used to evaluate temperament. Six soccer players were Introverts (Melancholy = 4, 22.2% & Phlegmatic = 2, 11.1%) and twelve were Extroverts (Sanguine = 6, 33.3% & Choleric = 6, 33.3%).
A two-way mixed ANOVA was utilized to assess if temperament affects GPAI change (RQ 4). There was no statistically significant two-way interaction between temperament and constraint effect, F(1.961, 43.149) = .807, p = .451.

Position:	n	%
Goalkeeper	1	5.6
Defense	5	27.8
Midfield	8	44.4
Forward	4	22.2
Temperament Strength
Sanguine	6	33.3
Choleric	6	33.3
Melancholy	4	22.2
Phlegmatic	2	11.1
Temperament Type
Extrovert	12	66.7
Introvert	6	33.3

16 of 23

Discussion

This study explored how predetermined constraints impact physical performance, considering individual temperament and personality traits.
The significance lies in guiding coaches to optimize practice for better performance while minimizing costs.
Our findings revealed statistically significant differences in both input and output constraints compared to the control across Total GPAI and its subdimensions.
This aligns with prior research suggesting constraints enhance physical performance (Hinchman & Taylor, 2023; Torrents-Martin et al., 2014).
As with Year 1, there was no significant difference in Total GPAI performance when adjusting for individual temperament, consistent with the first-year data of our long-term study (Hinchman et al., 2023).
Despite this, literature suggests considering temperament for improved physical performance (Abduyeva, 2021).

17 of 23

Discussion

Cognitive and affective factors impact how individuals approach a given problem (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Roskes, 2015).

Individuals are influenced by both their personality and the nature of perception of the problem.
The interplay between personality and environment shapes strategies and behaviors for problem-solving.

The problem varies for each individual, influenced by their unique perception and focus on different facets.
Individuals' varied perceptions lead to shifts in their resolution strategies (Mischel & Shoda, 1995).
Coaches will need to have better insight into how individuals process the “problem” to effectively communicate the desired results.

18 of 23

Directed Telescope

When coaching a game, the coach needs to trust that their game plan is being implemented by the players on the pitch.
This requires that there are effective communication between players and coaches.
The “directed telescope” is a military concept describing the methods a commander utilizes to gather information and provide tactical orders (Van Crevald, 1979).

19 of 23

Discussion

A new conceptual model will need to be utilized to better understand the effectiveness of coaching.
The CECA Model (Bryant, 2003) may provide insight into how to effectively train players to best manipulate the problem space.

The CECA Loop focuses the players attention on comparing the game situation with their training, driving the player to generate new stratagems to respond to game stressors and pressures (Bryant, 2003).

The CECA Loop in coaching follows this path: 1. The Coach implements a game plan by identifying the ideal attacking and defending scenarios. 2.The game begins and the players (and assistant coaches) gather information by exploring how the other team responds to the initial gameplay, providing information back to the head coach. 3. The head coach compares the ideal with the actual to determine what changes will need to be made to ensure an optimal result. 4. The head coach (through the directed telescope) adapts the gameplay to effectively deal with the gameplan and players efforts.

20 of 23

Discussion

A new conceptual model will need to be utilized to better understand the effectiveness of coaching.
The CECA Model (Bryant, 2003) may provide insight into how to effectively train players to best manipulate the problem space.

21 of 23

Discussion

GPAI and LPP

The key to answering these future reseacrh questions relies on utilizing the LPP to determine how information is both communicated and received by the players. Their temperaments may provide insight into how gameplan information is both received and implemented by the players (essentially- how effective is the directed telescope). The next study should shift from purposeful practice towards in-game assessment of players. Use the GPAI, the coach can assess their “actual” gameplan implementation towards the ideal. This real time data can be compared with a player’s temperament to determine if a communication breakdown has occurred and how it can be alleviated in the future. This simple adjustment may be the key to increasing effective communication between the field players and their coaches, which will allow coaches to make more informed adjustments to maximize performance.

22 of 23

Soft Skill Discovery

The better defined or emphasized constraints the more effective they became. Purposeful and precise use of constraint prepared the athletes for the demand of the game.

Noticed a significant change in the execution of game play from year one to year two. Year two the athletes only lost two games.

23 of 23

SOFT SKILL -PERSONALITY

Now that coach was more aware of each players personality (extrovert or introvert) the more he understood how to best communicate to them individually.
Coaches previous style did not invest significant time to a build strong relationships with each player. They were there to do a job. Based on what his needs were as a player he treated his players with the same purpose.
Started to take time to know them on a more personal level, ask them into his office when they passed by to visit and discuss how schools and they personally were doing.
Realized if he put 150 gallons in their gas tank then when he needed to correct them, then he would take back 50 gallons, still leaving 100 invested gallons.

Athletes realized the extraction was not personal; it was performance based.
The most significant outcome of understanding temperament allowed him to connect with his athletes at a different level.
It was not that he didn’t have a quality relationship. As he stated he has had to connect more athletes with counseling over the last four years than in his entire career. The level of the coaches effort to connect with & understand the athletes “where they are” is one key to the recent success of the teams performance.