Changing Low Frustration Tolerance:A Case Study of an Olympic Medallist

Abstract

This article aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the psychological intervention of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) and mental skills training in resolving an Olympian's (L) low frustration tolerance (LFT), particularly during major international competitions. In successfully changing his problem, his performance was also expected to improve.Multiple methods were utilized for the evaluation at different points in time. These included (1) self-evaluation and the coach's evaluation by the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS);(2) verbal feedback of L, L's coach, and L's partner; and (3) videotape analysis. The results were consistent and positive in attesting to the effectiveness of psychological intervention in changing L's LFT behaviors. Using REBT in this study, the sport-related irrational beliefs and behaviors of L were identified. This was crucial for changing the low frustration tolerance of L. The processes of disputing and restructuring L's irrational beliefs were gradual, with fluctuations at times during parts of the action/maintenance stage. Overall, however, the changes had been positive and had been carried out in the right direction. It was interesting to note that in comparison with the other irrational beliefs, his beliefs about technique training were corrected at a slightly slower pace. However, once the former was resolved, the change process was able to move faster. Further, the resolution of his main problem facilitated the enhancement of his performance at the 2004 Olympic Games. According to L and his coach, the double's achievement was partly attributed to the psychological intervention that was introduced about 10 months prior to the tournament. The coach believed that "psychological intervention was directly related to the success at the Olympic Games"; however, L remarked "psychological training has enabled me to gain full control of my emotions and play out to my potentials." In this study, psychological intervention was found to be an ongoing, multisituational process. Apart from regular consultation with L at the local training center, the first author's presence at the overseas training camps and competitions was a facilitating factor. His presence in these various situations provided an immediate on-the-spot opportunity for educating and changing L's problematic behaviors with the support of his coach and partner. The role of the coach was an interesting case in point. It is to note that although the coach could help L cope with his stress, if not handled well, the coach could become a source of stress for the athlete. Thus, during the implementation of the intervention, the coach's sensitivity, understanding, and support were essential in contributing to the ultimate success of the intervention. In fact, the coach played an important role in this case in that he actively participated in the discussions, disputed L's irrational beliefs, and guided L during the competition as well as provided the first author with time, opportunity, and resources to conduct his work.