This article was downloaded by: [University of Bristol]

On: 01 March 2015, At: 00:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

High Ability Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Training and psychosocial patterns

during the early development of
Portuguese national team athletes
a b a
André Barreiros , Jean Côté & António Manuel Fonseca
a 2
CIFI D, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
b
School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queens’ University,
Kingston, Canada.
Published online: 16 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: André Barreiros, Jean Côté & António Manuel Fonseca (2013) Training and
psychosocial patterns during the early development of Portuguese national team athletes, High
Ability Studies, 24:1, 49-61, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2013.780965

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2013.780965

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 High Ability Studies, 2013
Vol. 24, No. 1, 49–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2013.780965

Training and psychosocial patterns during the early development

of Portuguese national team athletes
André Barreirosa*, Jean Côtéb and António Manuel Fonsecaa
a
CIFI2D, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; bSchool of Kinesiology and
Health Studies, Queens’ University, Kingston, Canada

This study explored the early development of expert athletes compared to a

group of athletes that did not achieve an expert level of performance despite
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

being involved in youth events with their national squads. In particular, the
activities, training patterns, and psychosocial influences that characterized their
paths in competitive sports were examined. Male and female participants
(N = 42) from different sports were interviewed. Overall, athletes showed several
commonalities. However, experts were selected to national squads later and also
started thinking about investing in becoming elite athletes later. Non-experts
revealed more parental pressure and less individual training with coaches.
Keywords: talent development; expertise; training; psychosocial influences

Millions of children around the world participate in athletic training. After their first
years of involvement, many of them become committed to achieving high levels of
performance and invest considerable amounts of their time in practice and competi-
tion. Regardless of the age at which athletes begin practicing, it is widely accepted
that expert performances only emerge after a long process of development through
a dynamic interplay between the individual, the task, and the environment (Côté,
Lidor, & Hackfort, 2009; Henriksen, Stambulova, & Roessler, 2010; Phillips,
Davids, Renshaw, & Portus, 2010).
One valuable framework to conceptualize these issues is the Developmental
Model of Sport Participation (DMSP, Côté, Baker, & Abernethy, 2007), which
conceives athletes’ development within different trajectories (i.e. early sampling or
early specializing) and outcomes (e.g. attaining an elite level, or dropping out). In
regard of the trajectories, the authors advocate that it is important to consider the
type of sport and the age of peak performance. In sports that peak earlier (e.g. gym-
nastics), early specialization (i.e. introduction and investment in one single sport
through highly structured practice) may be necessary to attain elite performances.
However, supported by evidences of late peak performance sports, these authors also
claim that for most sports, this pathway is not a prerequisite, and an elite level is
possible through three stages: sampling (ages 6 – 12); specializing (ages 13 – 15);
and investing (age 16+). By laying out these stages and their characteristics, the

*Corresponding author. Email: abarreiros@fade.up.pt

Ó 2013 European Council for High Ability

 50 A. Barreiros et al.

DMSP highlights not only the appropriate training patterns but also the psychosocial
influences that affect athletes’ development (Côté et al., 2009).
With regard to training patterns, the DMSP suggests that more positive
outcomes occur when children are introduced into sports through less-structured
environments that promote play activities and experiences in several sports. In fact,
although early specialized environments may provide positive experiences and
outcomes (Strachan, Côté, & Deakin, 2009), they also increase the occurrence of
dropouts (Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2008a; Wall & Côté, 2007), exhaustion
(Strachan et al., 2009), and injuries (Law, Côté, & Ericsson, 2007). In addition,
during development, rather than some types of specialized training (e.g. condition-
ing), other activities were found to be more important in differentiating experts from
non-experts, namely, competition, organized training, and individual coaching
(Baker, Côté, & Abernethy, 2003).
Besides training patterns, psychosocial influences are also important building
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

blocks of talent development. In most cultures, parents are considered a crucial

influence, since they are responsible for initiating their children into sports (Lauer,
Gould, Roman, & Pierce, 2010). During the development from childhood to
adulthood, parents’ role changes from a leadership to a supporter role (Côté, 1999).
However, parental influence must be seen as multidimensional and complex
(Hellstedt, 1995; Salmela & Moraes, 2003), and negative influences should be
addressed. For instance, research studying parents’ behaviors found that often they
are over-involved in competitive settings, functioning as sources of pressure and
anxiety (Lauer et al., 2010), and encouraging their children toward early specializa-
tion (Malina, 2010). Siblings are also important elements. Often, competition and
rivalries emerge as a characteristic of siblings’ relationships, but siblings may also
influence each other positively and cooperate to reach common goals (Fra-
ser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2008b).
Outside the family, coaches and peers are a crucial influence in nurturing talent
in sport, particularly, through adolescence. Coaches are responsible for designing
practices, encouraging their athletes to train on a long-term basis, and giving
instruction (Salmela & Moraes, 2003). For example, time devoted for individual
instructions with athletes usually differentiates not only those who prolong their
engagement in sport from those who drop out (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008a), but
also experts from non-experts (Baker et al., 2003). Furthermore, coaches also play a
determinant role in regard of the opportunities given, which ultimately contributes
to favoring or inhibiting athletes’ development. For instance, it is known that coa-
ches often privilege early matured athletes or those born at the beginning of the
year of birth (for a review about the relative age effect, see Musch & Grondin,
2001). Finally, peers are of particular interest in regard to motivational processes.
They are usually sources of enjoyment, encouragement, and support, contributing to
higher levels of commitment (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002; Patrick et al.,
1999).
Although the aforementioned influences have been supported in the literature as
contributing to a better understanding of how experts become experts, researchers
have given less attention to extremely successful young athletes who do not achieve
the same level of success later on. One important exception is Carlson’s study
(1988) of two groups of Swedish tennis athletes, elite and non-elite as adults who
had similar success between ages 12 and 14 (i.e. ranked among the top 10 of their
age group). Interviews evidenced that elite athletes had a more diversified athletic
 High Ability Studies 51

development, while non-elite athletes experienced early specialization, success, and

exposure to higher amounts of practice. Another important conclusion was that the
non-elite players experienced higher demands for success from their parents and
coaches. This conclusion is in line with Csiksentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen
(1993), who studied talented teenagers and highlighted that those who did not excel
often experienced anxiety and a lack of balance between their skill and what others
demanded from them.
The purpose of this study was to compare training and psychosocial patterns of
the development of two groups of athletes that had similar success during youth,
but completely different outcomes in terms of expert performance in adulthood.

Method
Participants
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

As described in Table 1, this study included 21 Portuguese expert athletes

(hereafter, ‘experts’) ranging from 24 to 39 years old and 21 athletes (24–36 years
old) who had an international status during adolescence, but not as senior athletes
(hereafter, ‘non-experts’). To meet the group criteria, experts had a significant career
at the international senior-level (from 3 to 18 years of involvement, M = 9.3,
SD = 4.0) with participation in the Olympic Games, World, and/or European
championships, whereas non-experts participated only in high-level international
youth events, such as the European or World junior championships. Experts and
non-experts from six sports were included, namely soccer, volleyball, handball,
swimming, judo, and rowing. Participants from team ball sports were male; females
were not selected because they never reached the main events of the selected
competitions. In the other sports, males and females were balanced.

Procedure
A quantitative retrospective interview was employed to trace the participants’
development. Initially, each participant was contacted by e-mail or by phone,
informed of the research goals, and asked about their intention to participate in the
study. Interviews lasting between 50 and 90 min were then set according to their
indications and were conducted by the first investigator.

Table 1. Demographic information of experts and non-experts.

Experts Non-experts
Age (at the time M = 30.2, SD = 4.9 M = 29.1, SD = 3.8
of study)
Gender N = 15 males, N = 6 females N = 15 males, N = 6 females
Sport N = 2 soccer, N = 3 volleyball, N = 4 N = 2 soccer, N = 4 volleyball, N = 3
handball, N = 4 rowing, N = 4 handball, N = 4 rowing, N = 4
swimming, N = 4 judo swimming, N = 4 judo
International Olympic Games, world and World and/or European junior
experience European championships championships
 52 A. Barreiros et al.

Retrospective interview protocol

Variables were collected with a Portuguese and sport-specific adaptation of the inter-
view protocols developed by Côté, Ericsson, and Law (2005) and Fraser-Thomas
et al. (2008a). These protocols use closed-ended questions to collect quantitative data
with regard to participants’ patterns of activity, training, and competition involvement,
and the psychosocial influences during the development. The interview was organized
around five areas: (a) demographic information, (b) early activities, (c) developmental
milestones, (d) sport-specific activities, and (e) psychosocial influences. The informa-
tion was then organized into two categories: (a) developmental activities and training
patterns and (b) psychosocial influences.

Developmental activities and training patterns

Activities and training patterns that marked developmental milestones included
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

athletes’ age when: (a) began supervised training, (b) began competition, (c) began
non-specific training, (d) first appeared in the national squad, (e) started thinking
they could become elite athletes, (f) decided to invest in being elite athletes, and (g)
began to be recognized among the best at a regional or national level. Variables
studied from a developmental perspective were: (a) number of extracurricular
activities, (b) number of structured sports, (c) number of unstructured sports, (d)
sport-specific play time, (e) sport-specific practice time, (f) non-specific practice
time, and (g) self-initiated practice time.

Psychosocial influences
Psychosocial influences included: (a) age at which the athletes first developed a
close relationship with a coach, (b) parents who were athletes in their youth, (c)
parent-athletes’ type and level of involvement in sport (i.e. what were the practiced
sports and what was the highest level of competition), (d) athletes’ relative age to
training group (young/average/older), and (e) context of best friend (sport/other).
The psychosocial influences studied throughout development were: (a) parent
support, (b) parent pressure, (c) sibling influence, (d) coach support, (e) one-on-one
coaching time, and (f) peer influence. In regard of these last variables parent and
coach influences were rated in percentage and participants were asked to think of
0% as an absence of support and 100% as the maximum support possible and then
rate perceived support for each stage of development. Sibling and peer influences
were rated similarly, but rather using a 5-point Likert scale. The participants were
asked to think of 1 as no influence and 5 as a strong influence.
All variables were collected from age six to the last year of athletic involve-
ment. Since some non-experts ended their sports participation after age 18, the data
were only analyzed from the beginning of practice until age 18 to assure a complete
data-set. Because of athletes’ different trajectories and sport-specific age groups,
variables were computed according to the DMSP stages, namely sampling (6–12),
specializing (13–15), and investment (16–18).

Reliability and validation

One important issue to address when using retrospective reports is participants’ mem-
ory limitations. As Côté et al. (2005, p. 9) suggests, when participants are asked to
recall “activities and events that took place months, years or even decades ago, the
 High Ability Studies 53

accuracy of the reported information cannot be taken for granted.” However, these
authors specifically developed their interview guide in order to reduce these limita-
tions. For example, this particular interview focuses on athletes’ significant routines
and information about longitudinal patterns, rather than specific details that occurred
during practice. This guide also provides important cues to the participants that facili-
tate recollection. Previous studies have used this methodology with satisfactory reli-
ability (e.g. Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008a; Law et al., 2007). Moreover, in this study,
around 15% of the sample (three participants from each group) re-answered questions
about the variables of interest. Between reports, high Pearson product-moment corre-
lations were found for the type of extra-curricular and training activities practiced
(M = .93), milestone variables (M = .92), training hours (M = .98), and psychosocial
variables (M = .83).

Data analysis
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

As the nature and type of distribution was distinct among the variables in the study,
non-parametric and parametric tests were employed. Mann–Whitney U-tests were used
to compare groups on four training variables (age of start in supervised training, age of
start in competitive sports, age of start in non-specific training, age of first appearance
in the national squad) and five psychosocial variables (age at which athletes developed
a close relationship with a coach, parents that were athletes during youth, parent-ath-
letes’ type of sport and level of competition, and context of best friend). T-tests with
Cohen’s d effect size were used to compare groups on five training variables (age at
which athletes first thought they could be elite athletes, age at which athletes decided
to invest in becoming elite athletes, age at which athletes were recognized among the
best at a regional/national level, and age relative to training group) and one psychoso-
cial variable (parent-athletes’ level of competition). Due to signs of non-normality, vari-
ables studied within a developmental perspective were tested using non-parametric
procedures. Mann–Whitney U-tests compared the groups at each stage (6–12, 13–15,
16–18) and Friedman tests with pairwise comparisons, and r effect size tested
differences across the stages of the development of each group. These procedures
tested eight developmental activities and training patterns variables (number of
extra-curricular activities, structured sports, unstructured sports, and competitions,
sport-specific play time, sport-specific practice time, non-specific practice time, and
self-initiated practice time) and six psychosocial variables (parent support, parent pres-
sure, sibling influence, coach support, one-on-one coaching time, and peer influence).

Results
Developmental activities and training patterns
Milestones
Table 2 shows that both groups started training and competing, began non-specific
training, and began performing among the best at a regional and national level
around the same age. Nevertheless, non-experts started their involvement in national
squads significantly earlier (U = 128, p = .016). They also started sooner to think
they could achieve an elite level (t = 2.18, p = .037, d = .77) and to invest in
achieving it (t = 2.17, p = .038, d = .79).
 54 A. Barreiros et al.

Table 2. Training pattern milestones of experts and non-experts in the sport of

specialization.

Experts Non-experts
First supervised training 9.5 (2.9) 9.1 (3.1)
First organized competition 10.4 (.5) 10.4 (.4)
First non-specific training 14.1 (.5) 13.4 (.3)
Recognized top 5 regional level 14.1 (.4) 13.4 (.4)
Recognized top 5 national level 15.8 (.5) 14.3 (.4)
First international level involvementa 15.9 (.4) 14.8 (.2)
When had idea to become elite athletea 16.0 (2.9) 14.1 (1.8)
When made decision to become elite athletea 16.9 (2.9) 14.7 (2.1)
Notes: Mean and SD in years of age.
a
Significant differences (p < .05).
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

Variables analyzed from a developmental perspective

Variables studied from a developmental perspective are presented in Table 3.
Significant differences found between groups and stages are reported.

Extra-curricular activities and other sports. No significant differences were found

between groups, but Friedman tests evidenced significant differences across the
stages of experts’ and non-experts’ extra-curricular activities, structured and unstruc-
tured sports. Pairwise comparisons showed that from sampling to specializing,
experts significantly took part in fewer activities and structured sports, while
non-experts only decreased their number of practiced activities. Experts also
significantly diminished their number of activities from specializing to investment.

Sport-specific play, practice, and competition. Similar patterns were found between
groups. Yet, non-experts engaged in more non-specific practice (e.g. weight train-
ing) during the specializing years (U = 302, p = .039). Friedman tests revealed signif-
icant differences throughout the stages of experts and non-experts in the number of
competitions and in the time of specific, non-specific, and self-initiated practice.
Pairwise comparisons evidenced that from sampling to specializing, experts and
non-experts participated in significantly more competitions and in more specific
practice. Non-experts also increased significantly the non-specific practice time.
From specializing to investment, this tendency continued in the number of hours of
specific practice for the experts and in the non-specific practice of both groups. No
statistical differences were found for the play.

Psychosocial influences
Milestones
Table 4 shows that both groups also experienced similar patterns of influence from
parents and peers. However, the non-experts reported a significantly earlier close
relationship with a coach (U = 122, p = .034).
 Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

Table 3. Descriptive (mean and SD), friedman (χ2) and pairwise statistics of experts and non experts’ training patterns.

Experts Non-experts
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total Across Between Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total Across Between
(6–12) (13–15) (16–18) (6–18) stages stages (6–12) (13–15) (16–18) (6–18) stages stages
c d
Extra-curricular 4.5 2.9 1.2 3.0 34.64, p = .008, 3.5 2.0 1.3 2.1 24.69, p = .013,
activitiesa p < .001 r = .56 p < .001 r = .48
d
(2.4) (2.2) (1.5) (2.0) p = .013, (2.0) (1.7) (1.5) (1.3)
r = .48
c
Structured 1.8 .7 .1 .9 30.75, p = .006, 1.2 .3 .1 .5 20.42,
sportsa (1.3) (1.0) (4) (.8) p < .001 r = .54 (1.3) (.6) (.4) (.5) p < .001
Unstructured 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.7 19.00, 1.5 1.3 .9 1.2 13.09,
sportsa (1.6) (1.7) (1.4) (1.5) p < .001 (.9) (1.4) (1.4) (1.1) p < .001
c c
Competitiona 15.9 30.4 37.6 28.0 27.11, p = .014, 10.7 26.8 31.6 23.1 32.44, p = .000,
p < .001 r = .53 p < .001 r = .59
d d
(13.1) (16.9) (20.1) (16.0) p = .013, (9.1) (18.8) (19.0) (14.7) p = .013,
r = .48 r = .48
Sport-specific 60.9 51.1 42.9 59.0 2.28 95.4 60.5 25.0 61.7 .78
playb (111.2) (112.2) (92.8) (108.9) (190.7) (129.7) (42.8) (101.7)
c c
Sport-specific 91.3 292.0 472.1 290.3 32.42, p = .006, 83.7 353.5 451.2 287.0 34.90, p = .001,
practiceb p < .001 r = .58 p < .001 r = .60
d
(63.7) (159.8) (153.1) (118.7) p = .003, (68.1) (197.7) (160.8) (117.4)
r = .61
d c
Non-specific 6.1 45.5 163.8 77.1 27.12, p = .018, 8.0 62.9 122.6 62.5 36.55, p = .006,
practiceb p < .001 r = .59 p < .001 r = .60
d
(11.8) (60.4) (85.6) (41.0) (12.1) (39.7) (70.9) (30.6) p = .013,
r = .52
Self-initiated 2.9 16.5 47.9 22.6 16.23, 2.7 23.9 32.8 20.7 12.78,
practiceb (8.3) (24.1) (51.0) (21.5) p < .001 (7.9) (54.2) (65.9) (42.4) p < .001
High Ability Studies

Notes: aNumber per year.

b
Hours per year.
c,d
Significant pairwise comparison between stage 1 and stage 2 and stage 2 and stage 3 respectively.
55
 56 A. Barreiros et al.

Table 4. Psychosocial milestones of experts and non-experts.

Experts Non-experts
Fathers involvement in competitive sport (yes/no)a 12/9 12/9
Mothers involvement in competitive sport (yes/no)a 2/19 1/20
Parents type of sport (same/other)a 4/10 7/6
Parents level of competition (regional/national or international)a 2/12 5/8
Training with older peers (yes/no)a 20/1 20/1
Context of best friends (sport/other)a 16/6 18/4
Close relationship with a coachb,c 13.5 (.8) 11.8 (.6)
Notes: aNumber of individuals.
b
Mean and SD in years of age.
c
Significant differences (p < .05).
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

Variables analyzed from a developmental perspective

Table 5 shows the psychosocial variables studied from a developmental perspective.
Significant differences are described below:
Parents and siblings. While the two groups did not differ in any stage with regard
to parent support and sibling influence, differences were found in terms of parent
pressure. Non-experts reported significantly more pressure during specializing
(U = 288, p = .023) and investment (U = 289.5, p = .029). As shown by the Friedman
tests, non-experts perceived significantly more parental pressure throughout the
stages.
Coaches. The results showed that the two groups did not differ in their perceptions
of coach support which was constant throughout the stages. On the other hand,
Friedman tests found an increase of one-on-one coaching time of both groups, but
the pairwise comparisons showed that only experts had a significant increase of this
coach instruction from specializing to investment.
Peers. Both groups reported similar influence from their peers. Friedman tests
showed that peer influences on non-experts increased significantly throughout the
stages.

Discussion
By taking a developmental perspective, we aimed to compare the early development
of expert athletes in different sports with other athletes who, despite attaining inter-
national status during their youth, did not participate in national team events as
adults. In particular, we examined the developmental activities, training patterns,
and psychosocial influences that characterized their paths in competitive sports.

Developmental activities and training patterns

With regard to the extra-curricular and training activities studied, the main finding
was that both groups did not differ significantly. In fact, experts and non-experts
had similar practice and competition opportunities. Moreover, between ages 6 and
12, athletes experienced identical amounts of structured and unstructured sports,
which when combined revealed that these athletes engaged in three to four other
 Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

Table 5. Descriptive (mean and SD), friedman (χ2) and pairwise statistics of experts and non-experts’ psychosocial influences.

Experts Non-experts
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total Across Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total Across Between
(6–12) (13–15) (16–18) (6–18) stages Between stages (6–12) (13–15) (16–18) (6–18) stages stages
Parent 78.8 84.0 88.7 82.5 .82 85.8 89.0 91.9 88.8 24.69,
supporta (36.4) (30.9) (24.7) (31.1) (19.5) (17.9) (15.8) (17.1) p < .001
Parent 1.5 1.6 3.1 2.4 .55 9.5 15.7 19.4 14.8 20.42,
pressurea (6.1) (5.1) (8.1) (5.7) (21.3) (29.4) (31.2) (26.8) p < .001
Sibling 2.5 2.5 3.1 2.7 4.16 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.3 13.09,
influenceb (1.8) (1.6) (1.6) (1.5) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.5) p < .001
Coach 82.4 81.7 76.0 81.9 1.83 72.1 80.9 83.2 78.7 32.44,
supporta (14.5) (13.8) (22.8) (13.6) (25.4) (20.7) (16.5) (16.8) p < .001
d
One-on-one .2 17.7 62.1 28.1 23.33, p = .033, r = .55 2.3 17.3 36.1 17.2 .78
coachingc (.7) (34.5) (78.1) (36.7) p < .001 (6.6) (23.6) (44.3) (20.2)
Sport peer 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.28 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.3 34.90,
influenceb (1.4) (1.2) (1.4) (.9) (1.3) (.8) (.8) (.9) p < .001
Notes: aPercentage.b5-point Likert scale.cHours per year.dSignificant pairwise comparison between stage 2 and stage 3.
High Ability Studies
57
 58 A. Barreiros et al.

sport activities, a finding that is congruent with recent studies with other European
athletes (e.g. Ford & Williams, 2012). Importantly, this evidence reinforces the idea
that early diversification does not hinder expert performances in adult sports (Côté
et al., 2009), which is in line with studies from other contexts from Europe
(Carlson, 1988; Henriksen et al., 2010), North-America (Baker, Côté, & Deakin,
2006; Bloom, 1985) or Australia (Abernethy, Baker, & Côté, 2005; Gulbin,
Oldenziel, Weissensteiner, & Gagné, 2010), and extends findings regarding Portu-
guese expert athletes (Leite, Baker, & Sampaio, 2009).
Nevertheless, non-experts revealed a significantly earlier investment in becoming
elite athletes (around age 14). In other studies (e.g. Abernethy et al., 2005; Côté,
1999), this higher involvement with sport was found during the investment years
(around age 16). This was also the trend among the experts, a fact that seems to be
related with their later selection to the national teams. In opposition, the earlier
commitment to elite sport of the non-experts may also explain why they have
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

reported more hours of different types of training activities during the specializing
years, especially of non-specific practice such as weight lifting. On the other hand,
during the investment years, experts reported more hours of practice in all training
activities. Additionally, during this stage, experts reported almost twice the hours of
sport-specific play (such as backyard soccer, beach volleyball, games without the
purpose of enhancing performance) than non-experts, which from a motivational
perspective may have balanced the demands of high-level training and competition
in which the athletes were participating (Côté et al., 2007).

Psychosocial influences
With respect to psychosocial influences, both groups had several aspects in
common. For instance, family structure and contact with the sport context during
parents’ youth were very similar. In general, at least one parent had been involved
with sport, and some had competed at a national or international level. While it has
been suggested (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008b) that parents who have been athletes
may influence their children to pursue a similar career, in the present study both
groups revealed low amounts of pressure and high levels of support. This reinforces
the idea that these parental behaviors are determinant features of talent develop-
ment, as has been found in other studies of world-class athletes (e.g. Bloom, 1985;
Gould et al., 2002). Despite this finding, non-experts perceived significantly more
parental pressure during their later stages of development, which may have been an
important setback to their progress, as found in the other studies (Carlson, 1988;
Csiksentmihalyi et al., 1993).
While the groups did not differ in their perceptions of parent support and sibling
influence, non-experts engaged significantly earlier in a close relationship with a
coach, which is congruent with their earlier decision to pursue a sport career.
Despite this, non-experts had less one-on-one coaching, particularly, during the
investment stage, whereas experts accumulated twice the amount of instruction
time. Interestingly, this tendency was also found among athletes who prolonged
their engagement in competitive sports when compared with others who decided to
drop out (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008a; Wall & Côté, 2007). Also, in a study
focused on the training activities of athletes with similar years of experience, Baker
et al. (2003) found that individualized coaching differentiated those who achieved
an expert level and those who did not. In sum, although this individualized instruc-
 High Ability Studies 59

tion is a fundamental piece of athletes’ development, our results, as well as other

recent findings, suggest that interaction between coach and athletes that solely
focuses on skill acquisition should be limited during the early development. For
example, Masters and Maxwell (2004), suggest that highly structured, adult-driven
approaches to skill learning may result in an over-dependence on explicit forms of
learning and limits the extent to which skill performance can remain robust during
development. Additionally, Henriksen et al. (2010) recently highlighted how
athletes, during their early stages, may benefit more by interacting with more
experienced athletes. In fact, in our study, both experts and non-experts perceived
their peers as important influences on their development, which seems to be
congruent with the fact that their closest friendships were developed within the
athletic context.
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

Conclusion
To summarize, both groups had similar patterns of development. Nonetheless, our
results support the sampling trajectory toward elite performance in the Portuguese
context, and also suggest that an early decision to pursue an athletic career may not
be determinant in achieving expertise. Consistent with other studies that compared
the trajectories and outcomes of successful and less successful athletes (e.g. Güllich
& Emrich, 2006) these findings seem to support that a decelerated development in
terms of training and success may well be more favorable to achieve success on a
long-term basis. For example, previous research showed that one characteristic of
the early development of world-class athletes is that they keep their sports involve-
ment in perspective (Gould et al., 2002), while an earlier focus on success often
leads to burnout and dropping out (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008a; Gould, Tuffey,
Udry, & Loehr, 1996).
In a related outcome, our study also supports the negative influence of parental
pressure, as reported by some athletes who did not achieve expertise. Therefore,
despite the success that young national team athletes may experience, it is important
that parents do not pressure them toward a sport career. Also, from a psychosocial
perspective, this study highlights the importance of individual instruction; coaches
should be aware of the impact of these practice activities to athletes’ development.
Despite these assumptions, some limitations must be addressed. First, and proba-
bly the most important, is the small sample size. While it is difficult to interview a
great number of athletes with these characteristics, a larger sample could have been
important to gather more information about the development of these athletes. More-
over, remembering that the present sample included athletes from six different sports,
we have to acknowledge that a more homogenous sample could have found more
differences among those who made it and those who did not. Additionally, consider-
ing that the present study was focused on athletes’ development until age 18, further
studies among this kind of athletes should investigate in detail, their transition from
a junior to a senior level, which is the most crucial period of athletes’ career
(Stambulova, Alfermann, Statler, & Côté, 2009). While participants were extremely
successful in their youth, we can assume that those who achieved an expert level
had a more positive transition, but further investigation should be conducted. Quali-
tative research with these athletes may be one of the main routes to understanding
their different achievements and overcoming the limitations highlighted.
 60 A. Barreiros et al.

References
Abernethy, B., Baker, J., & Côté, J. (2005). Transfer of pattern recall skills may contribute
to the development of sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 705–718.
doi:10.1002/acp.1102
Baker, J., Côté, J., & Abernethy, J. (2003). Learning from the experts: Practice activities of
expert decision makers in sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 7, 342–347.
Baker, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2006). Patterns of early involvement in expert and nonex-
pert masters triathletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 401–406.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books.
Carlson, R. (1988). The socialization of elite tennis players in Sweden: An analysis of the
players’ backgrounds and development. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 241–256.
Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in talent development. The Sport Psychologist,
13, 395–417.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sport
expertise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

(pp. 184–202). New York, NY: Wiley.

Côté, J., Ericsson, K. A., & Law, M. (2005). Tracing the development of athletes using retrospec-
tive interview methods: A proposed interview and validation procedure for reported informa-
tion. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 1–19. doi:10.1080/10413200590907531
Côté, J., Lidor, R., & Hackfort, D. (2009). ISSP position stand: To sample or to specialize?
Seven postulates about youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite
performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 7–17.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2009.9671889
Csiksentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers – the roots of
success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, P., & Williams, M. (2012). The developmental activities engaged in by elite youth soc-
cer players who progressed to professional status compared to those who did not. Psy-
chology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 349–352. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.004
Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2008a). Examining adolescent sport dropout and
prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psy-
chology, 20, 318–333. doi:10.1080/10413200802163549
Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2008b). Understanding dropout and prolonged
engagement in adolescent competitive sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9,
645–662. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.08.003
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their
development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204.
doi:10.1080/10413200290103482
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis
players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341–366.
Gulbin, J., Oldenziel, K. E., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Gagné, F. (2010). A look through the
rear view mirror: Developmental experiences and insights of high performance athletes.
Talent Development & Excellence, 2, 149–164.
Güllich, A., & Emrich, E. (2006). Evaluation of the support of young athletes in the elite
sports system. European Journal of Sport and Society, 3, 85–108.
Hellstedt, J. (1995). Invisible players: A family systems model. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.),
Sport psychology interventions (pp. 117–146). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., & Roessler, K. (2010). Holistic approach to athletic talent
development environments: A successful sailing milieu. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 11, 212–222. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.005
Lauer, L., Gould, D., Roman, N., & Pierce, M. (2010). Parental behaviors that affect junior
tennis player development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 487–496. doi:10.1016/
j.psychsport.2010.06.008
Law, M., Côté, J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2007). Characteristics of expert development in
rhythmic gymnastics: A retrospective study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 5, 82–103. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671814
Leite, N., Baker, J., & Sampaio, J. (2009). Paths to expertise in Portuguese national team
athletes. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 560–566.
 High Ability Studies 61

Malina, R. M. (2010). Early sport specialization: Roots, effectiveness, risks. Current Sports
Medicine Reports, 9, 364–371. doi:10.1249/JSR.0b013e3181fe3166
Masters, R. S. W., & Maxwell, J. P. (2004). Implicit motor learning, reinvestment and
movement disruption: What you don’t know won’t hurt you? In A. M. Williams &
N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp.
207–228). London: Routledge.
Musch, J., & Grondin, S. (2001). Unequal competition as an impediment to personal devel-
opment: A review of the relative age effect in sport. Developmental Review, 21, 147–
167. doi:10.1006/drev.2000.0516
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Alfeld-Liro, C., Fredricks, J. A., Hruda, L. Z., & Eccles, J. S.
(1999). Adolescents’ commitment to developing talent: The role of peers in continuing
motivation for sports and the arts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 741–763.
doi:10.1023/A:1021643718575
Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). Expert performance in sport and
the dynamics of talent development. Sports Medicine, 40, 271–283. doi:10.2165/
11319430-000000000-00000
Salmela, J. H., & Moraes, L. C. (2003). Development of expertise: The role of coaching,
Downloaded by [University of Bristol] at 00:09 01 March 2015

families, and cultural contexts. In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert perfor-
mance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 275–293). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Stambulova, N., Alfermann, D., Statler, T., & Côté, J. (2009). Career development and tran-
sitions of athletes: The ISSP position stand. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 7, 395–412. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2009.9671916
Strachan, L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2009). “Specializers” versus “samplers” in youth sport:
Comparing experiences and outcomes. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 77–92.
Wall, M., & Côté, J. (2007). Developmental activities that lead to drop out and investment
in sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12, 77–87. doi:10.1080/
17408980601060358