↓ Skip to main content

“If It Feels Right, Do It”: Intuitive Decision Making in a Sample of High-Level Sport Coaches

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“If It Feels Right, Do It”: Intuitive Decision Making in a Sample of High-Level Sport Coaches
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dave Collins, Loel Collins, Howie J. Carson

Abstract

Comprehensive understanding and application of decision making is important for the professional practice and status of sports coaches. Accordingly, building on a strong work base exploring the use of professional judgment and decision making (PJDM) in sport, we report a preliminary investigation into uses of intuition by high-level coaches. Two contrasting groups of high-level coaches from adventure sports (n = 10) and rugby union (n = 8), were interviewed on their experiences of using intuitive and deliberative decision making styles, the source of these skills, and the interaction between the two. Participants reported similarly high levels of usage to other professions. Interaction between the two styles was apparent to varying degrees, while the role of experience was seen as an important precursor to greater intuitive practice and employment. Initially intuitive then deliberate decision making was a particular feature, offering participants an immediate check on the accuracy and validity of the decision. Integration of these data with the extant literature and implications for practice are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 25%
Student > Postgraduate 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Lecturer 11 7%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 31 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 86 52%
Psychology 17 10%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 1%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 32 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2024.
All research outputs
#446,238
of 25,547,904 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#924
of 34,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,191
of 315,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#18
of 426 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 426 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.