Positive psychology for archers: Kim 2020 study

Twenty Korean archers of a high standard, from university and company-sponsored teams, took part in a study of a strengths-based positive psychology programme: 10 followed the programme for eight weeks and 10 archers from company teams served as controls. Before and after, everyone completed three questionnaires: knowledge of their own strengths, use of their strengths, and optimism.

The English abstract says that only the programme group improved. The Korean text says something different: strength knowledge and strength use rose in both groups, with no difference between programme and control in how they changed (interaction p = 0.43 and p = 0.52). Optimism rose slightly in the programme group (from 3.68 to 4.05) and barely at all in the controls (from 3.53 to 3.61), with no significant difference either over time (p = 0.052) or between groups (interaction p = 0.20). In their conclusions the authors state it plainly: no significant difference compared with the controls. In interviews, the archers in the programme said they thought more positively, coped better with difficult moments in training and competition, and had more self-confidence and self-esteem.

Participants were recruited through the Korean archery federation; the programme group was made up of those who agreed to follow it and the control group of archers from company teams, without random allocation. None had taken part in a positive psychology intervention before. The programme consisted of eight weekly sessions of 40 to 60 minutes: noting three good things about the day, training and competition; recognising their physical, technical and psychological strengths as archers, including by recalling and imagining their best competition; writing down which strengths had helped them through difficulties; building strategies to use them in training, in competition and in everyday life; sharing them with family; and finally an action plan. Each session ended with a task to complete.

The questionnaires were the strengths knowledge scale (8 items), the strengths use scale (14 items) and the revised Life Orientation Test for optimism, all completed anonymously. The programme ran during a period with no competitions, and the controls answered after a similar interval of 6 to 8 weeks. The data were analysed with a two-by-two repeated-measures analysis of variance; the semi-structured interviews, prepared with five sport psychology PhDs, with content analysis.

The central finding is negative, and the English abstract presents it as positive: anyone reading only the abstract reaches the opposite conclusion to the text. The sample is small, 10 archers per group, so the study could only detect large effects. The groups were not formed at random, and those who agree to a psychological programme may differ from those who do not.

The authors give two explanations for the lack of difference. The first is that archers at this level start from high values, with little room to improve. The second is the timing of the final measurement, taken shortly before the Korean National Sports Festival: the controls were also preparing mentally for competition, which may have raised everyone's scores. The interviews cover only the programme group and record the impressions of those who took part, with no comparison. The study records no competition scores or other objective data, and does not check whether the perceived effects last after the programme ends.

The study does not show that a strengths programme changes the psychology or the shooting of high-level archers: compared with the controls nothing measurable changed, and competition scores were not recorded. What it does show is that an eight-session course focused on what the archer does well, rather than on faults to correct, was well received: those interviewed spoke of it positively, and some described a habit of thinking about their strengths during scored training rounds and difficult moments in competition.

This is an indication of how athletes received and experienced the programme, not of whether it works. The fact that both groups improved ahead of a major competition is also a reminder of how much psychological questionnaires depend on when they are filled in.