Elite female tennis players less prone to choking under pressure than elite male players

[Tim]

While biological differences between the sexes might give men a physical
advantage in many sports, it’s possible that they come at a mental cost.
Men typically show a greater spike in the stress hormone cortisol when
under pressure than women, and, given that high cortisol levels can
interfere with mental processing, it’s feasible this could mean men’s
performance is more adversely affected in high-stakes contexts than women’s.

A new analysis of elite tennis performance in the Journal of Economic
Psychology is consistent with this account. Based on the outcome of
thousands of games played across the four tennis Grand Slams in 2010,
the researchers led by Danny Cohen-Zada at Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, found that men were adversely affected by high pressure by about
twice as much as women. Extrapolating to the world of work, Cohen-Zada
and his colleagues said this casts doubt on the argument that the gender
pay gap is due to women’s inability to compete under pressure, though
they acknowledged there are caveats to this conclusion.


https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/07/31/elite-female-tennis-players-less-prone-to-choking-under-pressure-than-elite-male-players/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BpsResearchDigest+%28BPS+Research+Digest%29


Full research http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.joep.2017.04.005

--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 6:22:19 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> While biological differences between the sexes might give men a physical
> advantage in many sports, it’s possible that they come at a mental cost.
> Men typically show a greater spike in the stress hormone cortisol when
> under pressure than women, and, given that high cortisol levels can
> interfere with mental processing, it’s feasible this could mean men’s
> performance is more adversely affected in high-stakes contexts than women’s.
>
> A new analysis of elite tennis performance in the Journal of Economic
> Psychology is consistent with this account. Based on the outcome of
> thousands of games played across the four tennis Grand Slams in 2010,
> the researchers led by Danny Cohen-Zada at Ben-Gurion University of the
> Negev, found that men were adversely affected by high pressure by about
> twice as much as women. Extrapolating to the world of work, Cohen-Zada
> and his colleagues said this casts doubt on the argument that the gender
> pay gap is due to women’s inability to compete under pressure, though
> they acknowledged there are caveats to this conclusion.
>
>
> https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/07/31/elite-female-tennis-players-less-prone-to-choking-under-pressure-than-elite-male-players/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BpsResearchDigest+%28BPS+Research+Digest%29
>

Interesting then to consider how female commentators from Navralitova to Evert to Carillo to Austin to Davenport have thematically commented (over the years) on their perceptions that (to many women for their liking) have have displayed emotional issues effecting their performances in majors, when the finals come. Perhaps, it's a form of honesty their male counterparts don't express about men in finals? Or is there more going on there? Before Cilic, I was trying to think of examples of men, in the finals of majors, emotionally breaking down mid match... interesting to ponder... of course there are 'levels' of emotional and psychological distress/anxiety leading to 'affected performance issues' during big finals/matches at the majors, for example...

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 6:22:19 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:

At first glance seems a bit like pseudo-science... not sure about the scientific veracity of these findings...

P

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 22:43:04 -0700, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> At first glance seems a bit like pseudo-science... not sure about the
> scientific veracity of these findings...

I wouldn't call it pseudoscience. It's an attempt to model "high
pressure scenarios" based on the rules of the game rather than the
players' actual mental condition. Does it accurately represent reality?
Probably not but that doesn't make it pseudoscience. At least it
qualifies the results...

7543 is pseudoscience. See also WTC controlled demolition theory.

[MBDunc]

I remember one older article which claimed that Evert had the best ever and statistically very significant "breakpoint saved" -ratio of all players (including males).

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 3/08/2017 4:00 PM, jdeluise wrote:



> 7543 is pseudoscience.


That's like saying e=mc2 is pseudo science. If it works it works - you
just have to bow down.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Tim]

Comparing 7543 to e=mc2 . What further proof do we need that you suffer
from delusions grandeur?

[Whisper]

On 4/08/2017 2:19 AM, Tim wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 15:04, Whisper wrote:
>> On 3/08/2017 4:00 PM, jdeluise wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 7543 is pseudoscience.
>>
>>
>> That's like saying e=mc2 is pseudo science. If it works it works - you
>> just have to bow down.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>
> Comparing 7543 to e=mc2 . What further proof do we need that you suffer
> from delusions grandeur?
>

If you stop & think logically you'll soon realize the slams are not
equal in value/prestige.

If you do that then 7543 is in play. Imo it's the most accurate formula
for goat I've seen.

[The Iceberg]

It's not pseudo science, it's just outright feminist nonsense and fake news. As Patrick says, name someone other than Cilic, perhaps McEnroe, back in FO final 1984 when world history was on his shoulders! Compare that to the countless #1 women that couldn't win a slam cos they choked. The women are even allowed a coach on court in the WTA in case they get too upset playing on their own!

[Patrick Kehoe]

If you reread what you wrote, well, that should tell you this is pseudoscientific theory (insofar that) more than imperically based observation derrived factuality (scientific)... it needs to take leaps of conditionalizing conceptualism to come to its postulates (scientistic)... that opens it up to interpretive issues that are often effected by other factors (bias, etc.)...

P

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:49:35 -0700, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> If you reread what you wrote, well, that should tell you this is
> pseudoscientific theory (insofar that) more than imperically based
> observation derrived factuality (scientific)... it needs to take leaps
> of conditionalizing conceptualism to come to its postulates
> (scientistic)... that opens it up to interpretive issues that are often
> effected by other factors (bias, etc.)..

I think YOU need to reread what you wrote. Please don't lecture me on
these matters if you can't construct sentences without grotesque spelling
and grammar errors.

Are you arguing that the theory isn't falsifiable for instance (non-
falsifiability is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscientific theories)?

[RaspingDrive]

For GOAT contenders equal weights suffice --- they usually have multiple 'prestige' slams. Wow, you are back after just three hours and some! Like Trump you don't sleep huh?

[TT]

jdeluise kirjoitti 3.8.2017 klo 9:00:

> I wouldn't call it pseudoscience. It's an attempt to model "high
> pressure scenarios" based on the rules of the game rather than the
> players' actual mental condition. Does it accurately represent reality?
> Probably not but that doesn't make it pseudoscience. At least it
> qualifies the results...

No offence to anyone, but doing a quick glance at the topic, someone
quoted...

> the researchers led by Danny Cohen-Zada at Ben-Gurion University of the
> Negev, found that men were adversely affected by high pressure by about
> twice as much as women. Extrapolating to the world of work, Cohen-Zada
> and his colleagues said

Sure sounds like a bunch of horse shit to me... no links and even the
names sound ridiculous. Perhaps a study to redistribute some US dollars
to other Israeli sources than the army?

having said that, I do think there are probably some competitive
differences between sexes.

[Whisper]

I can't sleep more than 6 hours in a stretch. An ideal day is when I
also have 1 hr nap midday.



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[The Iceberg]

yeah agree totally + yep there obviously is - men are far more aggressive due to testosterone - chess as is a good indicator as no reason for a woman not to get to world ranked #1 player, but has never happened(best woman was #6 far as I know). They put this down to men being more competitive.