How the PlayFit program addresses the constraint | Tenets of theoretical models incorporated | |
---|---|---|
Intrapersonal constraints | ||
Perceptions of physical incompetence/Emphasis on high performance | • No ‘normative’ skill and experience level expectations to participate • Players are encouraged to positively reframe their own mistakes and tolerate those of others • Few skill and fitness barriers to entry (e.g., easier to use equipment, basic, easy to understand rules that allow for autonomy/creativity) | • Trying hard, positive team dynamics (fun-integration theory; FIT) • Task-orientation (achievement-goal theory; AGT) • Competence, autonomy, relatedness (self-determination theory; SDT) |
Negative perceptions of coach/leader | • As actively participating teammates, leaders model the program ethos by positively reframing and tolerating mistakes • Leaders monitor the team dynamics to discourage antisocial behaviors (e.g., bragging, bullying, teasing, formation of cliques) • Leaders prevent participants from being excluded (e.g., by passing to players not receiving attention or ‘touches’) • Leaders value and praise prosocial behaviors (e.g., players who encourage one another, pass to teammates who do not frequently receive one, allowing another player to have a 're-do') and trying hard • Leaders develop supportive connections/relationships with participants (e.g., get to know on first name basis, interests beyond the program) | • Trying hard, positive coaching, positive team dynamics (FIT) • Task-orientation (AGT) • Competence, relatedness (SDT) |
Negative perceptions toward teammates | • Participants agree to abide by program rules prior to participation, whereby failure to do so may result in dismissal • Players are encouraged to perform altruistic behaviors (e.g., providing praise and positive feedback, involving less skilled peers) • Players are encouraged to tolerate the mistakes of others • Players are discouraged from bragging, bullying, teasing, and the formation of cliques | • Trying hard, positive team dynamics (FIT) • Task-orientation (AGT) • Relatedness (SDT) |
Interpersonal constraints | ||
Pressures from family, coaches, peers Other social priorities | • Parents/guardians are not encouraged to attend—if they must do so, they agree to observe sessions from afar • Program is coed and loosely age-restricted (e.g., 'all middle school children') so participants may socialize with similar peers • No obligation to adhere to program (i.e., will not ‘let team down’ if individuals decide to not attend) • Participants provided with more ownership of their experience and can 'come and go' as they please during sessions | • Autonomy, relatedness (SDT) |
Structural constraints | ||
Overemphasis on competitive success | • No scorekeeping, standings, or statistics | • Trying hard, positive team dynamics, mental bonusesa (FIT) • Task-orientation (AGT) • Competence, relatedness (SDT) |
Time commitments | • No mandatory practices/games, attend and play as much or as little as desired • No obligation to adhere to the program (i.e., will not 'let team down' if they decide not to attend) | • Autonomy (SDT) |
Not being given adequate playing time | • No ‘try-outs’ or ‘cutting’ from program – all who attend up may participate as much or as little as desired • Teams are randomly chosen daily | • Positive team dynamics, positive coaching (FIT) • Autonomy, relatedness (SDT) |
Injuries, psychological, and physiological burnout | • Activities are non-contact • Participants encouraged to self-regulate effort to reduce chances of overuse injuries and feelings of displeasure from overexertion (i.e., slow down/take breaks/switch-out whenever desired) • Multisport and games change weekly • Non-competitive, low stress ethos to reduce likelihood of psychological burnout | • Positive team dynamics (FIT) • Supporting the often-intermittent patterning of youth physical activity • Allows for self-regulation of physical effort |