Does cognitive flexibility enhance decision-making in sports?

Background: Decision-making is a multifaceted process crucial in both individual and organizational settings, particularly in high-pressure environments like sports. Cognitive flexibility plays a vital role in enhancing athletes’ decision-making abilities. This study examines the relationship between cognitive flexibility and decision-making processes among athletes, focusing on the sub-dimensions of “Alternatives” and “Control”. Methods: A quantitative research design utilizing a relational survey model was employed. Data were collected from 743 male athletes across various sports disciplines in Türkiye. The Sports Effective Decision-Making Scale and the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory were used as measurement tools. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed their validity and reliability in the sports context. Regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictive relationships between cognitive flexibility sub-dimensions and decision-making effectiveness. Results: Regression analysis revealed significant findings. The “Alternatives” dimension positively predicted effective decision-making in sports, particularly in external decision-making scenarios (β = 0.207, t = 5.427, p < 0.001). In contrast, “Control” was a stronger determinant of intrinsic decision-making (β = 0.210, t = 5.607, p < 0.001). The R2 values indicated that cognitive flexibility factors explained 18.1% of the variance in effective decision-making and 10.9% in intrinsic decision-making, highlighting the need to explore additional contributing factors. Conclusions: These findings provide practical implications for coaches and sports psychologists. Coaches can enhance athletes’ decision-making abilities by fostering a sense of control and offering diverse alternatives in training and competition. Sports psychologists may develop interventions to strengthen cognitive flexibility and perceived control among athletes. The study emphasizes the necessity of a broader framework for understanding decision-making, suggesting that future research should explore the interplay of emotional, social and cultural factors in athletic decision-making.

Organisation; Cognitive flexibility; Decision-making; Sports

[1] Al Shra’ah AE. The impact of decision-making styles on organizational learning: an empirical study on the public manufacturing companies in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2015; 6: 55–62.

[2] Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Allahviranloo T, Pedrycz W, Shahriari M, Sharafi H, Razipour GhalehJough S. Foundations of decision. In Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Allahviranloo T, Pedrycz W, Shahriari M, Sharafi H, Razipour GhalehJough S (eds.) Fuzzy decision analysis: multi attribute decision making approach (pp. 1–56). 1st edn. Springer International Publishing: Cham. 2023.

[3] Carneiro J, Saraiva P, Conceição L, Santos R, Marreiros G, Novais P. Predicting satisfaction: perceived decision quality by decision-makers in web-based group decision support systems. Neurocomputing. 2019; 338: 399–417.

[4] Burton JW, Stein MK, Jensen TB. A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2020; 33: 220–239.

[5] Ford RC, Richardson WD. Ethical decision-making: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics. 1994; 13: 205–221.

[6] Sanchez ACJ, Calvo AL, Bunuel PS, Godoy SJ. Decision-making of Spanish female basketball team players while they are competing. Revista de Psicologia del Deporte. 2009; 18: 369–373.

[7] Buckley MR, Wheeler DS, Halbesleben MG. An investigation into the dimensions of unethical behavior. Journal of Education for Business. 1998; 73: 284–290.

[8] Palmiero M, Nori R, Piccardi L, D’Amico S. Divergent thinking: the role of decision-making styles. Creativity Research Journal. 2020; 32: 323–332.

[9] Bakken BT, Hansson M, Hærem T. Challenging the doctrine of “non-discerning” decision-making: investigating the interaction effects of cognitive styles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2024; 97: 209–232.

[10] Dania A, Kaltsonoudi K, Ktistakis I, Trampa K, Boti N, Pesce C. Chess training for improving executive functions and invasion game tactical behavior of college student athletes: a preliminary investigation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2023; 28: 380–396.

[11] Dawson C, Julku H, Pihlajamäki M, Kaakinen JK, Schooler JW, Simola J. Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2024; 9: 50.

[12] Salahshouri A, Fathi S, Jiba M, Mohamadian H, Kordzanganeh J. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Iranian version of the interpersonal communication skills scale among healthcare professionals. BMC Medical Education. 2023; 23: 885.

[13] Nikolaiev L, Herasina S, Hrechanovska O, Vlasenko O, Skliarenko S, Hrande K. The development of assertiveness of the individual as a subject of communication. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala. 2023; 15: 210–228.

[14] Jiang W, Shi K, Zhang L, Jiang W. Modelling of pricing, crashing, and coordination strategies of prefabricated construction supply chain with power structure. PLOS ONE. 2023; 18: e0289630.

[15] Effendi YR. Strategy for the principal’s transformational leadership approach in strengthening the character of Indonesian students. Pedagogika. 2023; 151: 5–33.

[16] Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks. 2021.

[17] Fraenkel J, Wallen N, Hyun H. How to design and evaluate research in education. 10th edn. McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY. 1993.

[18] Ceylan L, Boyraz D, Caldiran S, Ceylan T, Küçük H. Examination of nutrition knowledge levels of individuals who received sports training. International Journal of Life Science and Pharma Research. 2022; 12: L11–L17.

[19] Çetin ÇM, Kara M. The scale of effective decision-making in sport (SEDMS): validity and reliability study. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences. 2024; 29: 40–52.

[20] Sapmaz F, Doğan T. Assessment of cognitive flexibility: reliability and validity studies of Turkish version of the cognitive flexibility inventory. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences. 2013; 46: 143–162.

[21] Yarayan YE, Turhan MÖ, Demir GT. Adaptation of cognitive flexibility inventory for athletes: validity and reliability study. Gaziantep University Journal Of Sport Science. 2023; 8: 221–240. (In Turkish)

[22] Bowerman M, Murray LM, Beauvais A, Pinheiro B, Kothary R. A critical SMN threshold in mice dictates onset of an intermediate spinal muscular atrophy phenotype associated with a distinct neuromuscular junction pathology. Neuromuscular Disorders. 2012; 22: 263–276.

[23] Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon: Boston. 2001.

[24] Dennis JP, Vander Wal JS. The cognitive flexibility inventory: instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2010; 34: 241–253.

[25] Raab M. Simple heuristics in sports. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2012; 5: 104–120.

[26] Epstein RM, Gramling RE. What is shared in shared decision making? Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear. Medical Care Research and Review. 2013; 70: 94S–112S.

[27] Nie Y, Chua BL, Yeung AS, Ryan RM, Chan WY. The importance of autonomy support and the mediating role of work motivation for well-being: testing self-determination theory in a Chinese work organisation. International Journal of Psychology. 2015; 50: 245–255.

[28] Lam R, Cheung C, Chan B. The mediating roles of travel motives and social capital on the relationship between cultural intelligence and general life satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. 2024; 29: 1–17.

[29] Mõttus R, Wood D, Condon DM, Back MD, Baumert A, Costantini G, et al. Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the Big Few traits. European Journal of Personality. 2020; 34: 1175–1201.

[30] Morelli M, Casagrande M, Forte G. Decision making: a theoretical review. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2022; 56: 609–629.

[31] Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Social Science & Medicine. 2004; 58: 207–217.

[32] Papadakis VM, Lioukas S, Chambers D. Strategic decision‐making processes: the role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal. 1998; 19: 115–147.

[33] Verhoest K, Peters BG, Bouckaert G, Verschuere B. The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice. 2004; 24: 101–118.

[34] Brown VM, Wilson J, Hallquist MN, Szanto K, Dombrovski AY. Ventromedial prefrontal value signals and functional connectivity during decision-making in suicidal behavior and impulsivity. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020; 45: 1034–1041.

[35] Chen XJ, Ba L, Kwak Y. Neurocognitive underpinnings of cross-cultural differences in risky decision making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2020; 15: 671–680.

[36] Schaefer GO, Kahane G, Savulescu J. Autonomy and enhancement. Neuroethics. 2014; 7: 123–136.

[37] Mahdavi A. Explanatory stories of human perception and behavior in buildings. Building and Environment. 2020; 168: 106498.

[38] Ratcliff R, Voskuilen C, McKoon G. Internal and external sources of variability in perceptual decision-making. Psychological Review. 2018; 125: 33–46.

[39] Lim N. Cultural differences in emotion: differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West. Integrative Medicine Research. 2016; 5: 105–109.