Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

41 vienna wiiners and losers


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Losers and Winners How to deal with it? Marcin Salamon University School Of Physical Education in Poznań
  • 2. LOOKING FOR A SUBSTITUES Not a loser but …? Winner… do we need a substitute for it…? What does loser’s and winner’s attitude do with health?
  • 3. structure Theoretical Input Winners’ And Losers Attributions for Success And Failures part 1 part 2
  • 4. A WINNER makes commitments. A LOSER makes promises. (Harris, 1973)
  • 5. part 1 Win in any way you can… Sports build character… Participation in competitive activities as a necessary preparation for life…
  • 6. It (competition) divides us into winners and losers, successes and failures, stars and scrubs (…) (Simon, 1991) We must stop our unintentional but nevertheless detrimental division of students into winners and losers (…) (Fait and Billing, 1978)
  • 7. When a WINNER makes mistake, he says ”I was wrong!” When a LOSER makes mistake, he says ”It wasn’t my fault!” (Harris, 1973)
  • 8. Striving together in the pursuit of excellence (Drew, 1998) Even defeated gain from the game (Weiss, 1969) People can still be developing in their pursuit of excellence even if they do not win a particular competition
  • 9. (Arnold, 1989) Reason for playing fun fitness theraphy sociability „ the pursuit of excellence” „ demonstrate their superiority over others”
  • 10. A WINNER takes a big problem and separates it into smaller parts so that can be more easily solved. A LOSER takes a lot of little problems and rols them together until they are unsolvable. (Harris, 1973)
  • 11. Why so many participants are unable to enjoy the valuable aspects of competition? Fear of losing In the PE setting, the teacher may have to be innovative in creating acivities in which everyone at some point will win (…) (Drew, 1998)
  • 12. respect conclusion of part 1 opportunity to compete ability to play chance of winning for everyone striving together in the pursuit of excellence
  • 13. (Weiner, Frieze, Kulka, Reed, Rest & Rosenbaum, 1971; Weiner, Russel & Lerman, 1978) part 2 Casual attributions:
    • ability
    • effort
    • task difficulty
    • luck
  • 14. Stable/Unstable temporary permanent (ability & effort) (luck & task difficulty) (luck & effort) (ability & task difficulty) within the person outside the person Internal/External Two dimensions
  • 15. A WINNER is sensitive to the atmosphere around him. A LOSER is sensitive only to his own feelings. (Harris, 1973)
  • 16. Examination of 4 issues: a) boys’ perception of the causes of success and failure in sport (ability, effort, luck and task difficulty) b) differences between the explanations of success and the explanations of failure c) self-serving biases in persons’ explanations of the outcomes they have experienced in a sport setting d) Differences between persons’ explanations of outcomes they have experienced and their explanations of outcomes experienced by others
  • 17. A WINNER hopes for a miracle after everything else has failed. A LOSER hopes for a miracle before anything has been tried. (Harris, 1973)
  • 18.
    • 77 boys attending an overnight camp in Ontario
    • their ages ranged from 7 to 16 years
    • (M=11,5 years)
    • answers collected once before, and once after participation in the „Olympics”
    • 5-point scale in which 1 was „important” and 5 was „not important”
    Subjects: Procedures:
  • 19. Mean of Ratings of Attributions for Success and Failure* Attributions for Success (M) Attributions for Failure (M) Trying hard 1.23/1.29 Not trying hard 1.84/1.84 Good officiating 1.61/1.63 Bad officiating 2.07/2.42 Being good athlets 1.61/1.66 Not being interested in competing 2.08/1.98 Being interested in competing 1.67/1.58 Not being intrested in winning 2.22/2.07 Being in a good mood 1.8/2.06 Beeing in a bad mood 2.30/2.55 Having good leaders 1.84/1.91 Having bad leaders 2.32/2.52 Being interested in winning 1.97/2.04 Beeing poor athletes 2.52/2.27 Having good equipment 2.44/2.76 Having poor equipment 2.77/3.25 Having lots of experience 2.55/2.67 Having no experience 3.30/3.28 Being smart 2.95/2.89 Because the events are hard 3.43/3.27 Because the events are easy 3.68/3.79 Not being smart 3.58/3.29 Having lots of luck 3.66/3.81 Having bad luck 4.00/3.79 * The number to the left of the slash is the iteam’s mean rating from the postevents evaluations, and the number to the right of the slash is the item’s mean rating based on the preevents evaluations. Sixty-nine subjects provided postevents evaluations; seventy subjects provided preevents evaluations.
  • 20. Rating of Items by Importance Success Items Failure Items Most Important Items Trying hard Not trying hard Being good athlets Having no interest in competing Good officiating Bad officiating Being interested in competing Not being interested in winning Least Important Items Being smart Because the events are hard Because the events are easy Not being smart Having lots of luck Having bad luck
  • 21. Most important- Effort, ability, interest in competing and winning, the quality of officiating, the team’s leaders and mood; Less important- Task difficulty and being smart Most important- Not trying hard, having no interest in winning and competing; Less important- Task difficulty, bad luck, not being smart conclusion of part 2 Reasons for winning Reasons for losing
  • 22. A WINNER in the end gives more than he takes. A LOSER dies clinging (holding) to the illusion that ” winning” means taking more than you give. (Harris, 1973)
  • 23. LOOKING FOR A SUBSTITUES Not a loser but …? Winner… do we need a substitute for it…? What does loser’s and winner’s attitude do with health? YOUR SUGGESTIONS
  • 24. Thank you for your
  • 25. References
    • Weiss, P. (1969) Sport: A philiosophic inquiry. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    • Weiner, B., Frieze, I. , Kulka, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. Perceiving the causes of success and failure . Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
    • Harris, S.J. (1973) Winners and losers. Argus Communications.
    • Fait, H.F. and Billing, J.F. (1978) Reassessment of the value of competition. In R. Martens (Ed.), Joy and sadness in children’s sports (pp. 98-103). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
    • Weiner, B., Russel, D., &Lerman, D. (1978) The cognitive-emotion process in achievement related context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 1211-1220.
    • Bukowski, W. M., Moore D. (1980) Winers’ and Losers’ Attributions for Success and Failures in a Series of Athletic Events. Journal of Sport Psychology. 2 , 195-210.
    • Arnold, P.J. (1989) Competitive sport, winning and education. Journal of Moral Education, 18 , 15-25.
    • Simon, R.L. (1991) Fair Play: Sports, values and society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    • Drew, S.B. (1998) Competing conceptions of Competition: Implications for Physical Education. European Physical Education review Volume 4, No. 1 , 5-20.
    • A. deCantanzano (1999) Motivation and Emotion. Evolutionary, Physiological, Developmental, and Social Perspectives . Zysk I S-ka Wydawnictwo.
    • Gordon , T. (1995) P.E.T., Parent Effectiveness Training. The Tested New Way To Raise Responsible Children. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX.
    • Maszorek, A. (2000) Przyczyny sukcesów i niepowodzeń szkolnych dziecka. Lider 6 , 3-4.
    • Vopel, K. W. (2002). Umiejętność współpracy w grupach . Zabawy i improwizacje – część I oraz II . Kielce: Wydawnictwo Jedność.