This study investigated differences in stigmatization by others, self-stigma, and attitudes (value and discomfort) toward online counseling (OC) and face-to-face counseling (F2F), and the relationships between these variables, in college student-athletes (n = 101) and non-athletes (n = 101). Results revealed no differences in levels of stigmatization by others and self-stigma between student-athletes and non-athletes. Furthermore, both groups reported higher value, and less discomfort, in F2F compared to OC, while non-athletes reported higher levels of value in F2F compared to student-athletes. A multiple group path analysis revealed no difference in the relationship of the stigma and attitudes variables between the two groups. Stigmatization by others was a significant positive predictor of self-stigma and value in OC. In addition, self-stigma was a significant negative predictor of value in F2F, and a significant positive predictor of discomfort in F2F. The current findings have implications for university counseling centers and athletic departments.
The difference in attitudes toward online video counseling and face-to-face counseling and the relationship between stigma and these attitudes were investigated among a sample of 588 college students. Attitudes toward face-to-face counseling are more favorable compared with those toward online video counseling. However, self-stigma does not influence attitudes toward online video counseling to the same extent as face-to-face counseling. Services delivered through online video counseling may be beneficial for those experiencing higher levels of stigma.
Thought-suppression research showed, when asked to suppress a given thought (e.g., a white bear), people ironically report thinking more of the suppressed thought. Testing motor performance given avoidance goals (e.g., avoid putting the ball short of the target in golf) represents an interest to transfer thought-suppression findings to motor tasks. However, instead of revealing an ironic process, motor studies showed mixed results, suggesting a coexistence of ironic and overcompensating processes. The present study investigates the coexistence of ironic and overcompensating processes induced by avoidance goals in motor tasks. Adopting a dual-process framework, an attention imbalance model (AIM) was proposed to conceptualize such a coexistence. Four golf-putting experiments were conducted to test the AIM by manipulating the degree of attentional imbalance. Results indicated the factor of attentional imbalance moderates the likelihood between ironic and overcompensating processes in golf putting, and such a moderating effect exists in both between- and within-individual variation of task performance but demands task-specific considerations. In addition, performance feedback confounded the putting performance by reducing the likelihood of overcompensating process. The implications of the AIM are discussed in an extended context of motor performance under avoidance goals and thought suppression.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.