Individual Differences

Group 8

Cañega, Alleya Rose V.

Ilano, Ronalyn
Mendoza, Richelle
Panis, Jericho
Pendon, Erica P.
Individual Differences

What is Individual Differences?

Individual differences refer to enduring characteristics that distinguish one organism

from another and that are stable over time and across situations. Traditionally, these
characteristics have included cognitive, affective, behavioral, and/or genetic traits
ascribed to persons or animals. In humans, a large body of work has documented
associations between individual differences and morbidity and mortality.
Individual Differences Depend on Where You Are Looking
Similarity is the shadow of difference. A short man is different from a tall man, but two
men seem similar if contrasted with a woman. A man and a woman may be very
different, but by comparison with a chimpanzee, it is their similarities that strike the
eye. A chimpanzee, in turn, is like a human being when contrasted with a dog: the
face, the hands, the 32 teeth, and so on. And a dog is like a person to the extent that
both are unlike a fish. Difference is the shadow of similarity.

WHAT IS TRAIT
A specific characteristic of an individual

THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND TRAITS

The study of individual differences is grounded in the study of traits. Traits are
genetically inherited factors that underlie behavior; they are stable and enduring and
cannot be changed. Traits make people different and predispose them to being
relatively better or worse on the entire spectrum of human behaviors.

THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND TRAITS

● Cognitive Traits
● Mathematical ability
● Linguistic ability
● Abstract reasoning
● Artistic expression
● Musical ability

Physical Traits
● Height
● Body somatotype
● Muscle composition
● Kinesthesis
● Handedness
● Perceptual abilities
● Motor abilities
● Personality Traits
● Interpersonal skills
● Self-awareness
● Motivation
● Behavior control
● Aggression

Emotional Traits
● Feelings
● Interests
● Curiosity
● Empathy
 ● Maturity

THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND TRAITS

What Are Your Strongest Traits?

The relative strength of an individual's various traits is genetically determined. The
strength of any trait is also due to random genetic variation. Every person has traits
that are strong, average and weak relative to the general population.
Artistic expression
● painting, drawing, sculpture, interior decorating, etc.
Language skills
● writing, speaking, debating, verbal imitation, etc.
Logical reasoning
● seeing the "big picture," reflective, rational, curious about "why questions, enjoying
thinking things through, etc. Mathematical reasoning
● good at numbers, can do mathematical calculations such as adding and dividing in
your head, understand how mathematical formulas relate to real-world situations, can
remember numbers and equations, etc. Musical skills
● sing, play a musical instrument, remember the words to songs, sing to yourself when
doing other things, etc. Physical skills
● good body awareness, coordination, enjoy games and sports, proficient at learning
most new physical skills, etc.
Social skills
● enjoy socializing, get along with people from many walks of life, are often the leader in
groups, look forward to social events, etc.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND MOTOR SKILLS

Individuals differ significantly in their capacity to perform and to learn motor skills. Some
people seem good at almost every new motor skill they attempt; others experience difficulty
when first attempting new physical skills. Most people appear average at the majority of
skills. Still others are good at one or a few skills but frustratingly unskilled at others. The
Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007) defines individual differences
in terms of enduring psychological characteristics. Individual differences are the more-or-less
enduring psychological characteristics that distinguish one person from another and thus
help to define each person's individuality. Among the most important kinds of individual
differences are intelligence, personality traits, and values.
Motor Abilities
● Are defined as genetically determined traits that are stable and enduring
and that underlie or support the performance of motor skills. There are four
features of this definition that are important to note.
● First, motor abilities are genetically determined. Like hair color or sex or
height, motor abilities are determined at conception. They are not
developed or acquired after birth. A person is born with all of the motor
abilities (and all of each of their abilities) that they will ever possess.
 Everyone is also born with the same motor abilities—people do not have
different ones or a different number of abilities. People do, however, differ in
the relative strength of their inherited motor abilities. Just as with intellectual
traits, so also people possess motor abilities on a range from weak to
average to strong relative to the population as a whole (i.e., they are
normally distributed).
● Second, motor abilities are stable and enduring. They do not change over
the course of a person’s lifetime, and they cannot be improved with practice
(or lost from non-use). Motor abilities may vary as a result of developmental
factors, of course. An infant does not possess as fast a reaction time as an
adult, for example, and most adults will experience some reduction in
reaction time as they age beyond a certain point. But these changes
represent developmental processes rather than underlying alterations to
motor ability structures.
● Third, motor abilities underlie or support the performance of motor
skills. Motor abilities are considered the building blocks of motor skills. It is
important to distinguish here between abilities and skills. We learn skills
through practice, and they are directed toward the accomplishment of
specific environmental goals. Motor abilities are the “basic equipment” that
people are born with and from which they draw in order to learn and to
perform skills.
● Fourth, motor abilities are trans-situational. That is to say, a given motor
ability may be manifested in a wide variety of skill situations. Any given
motor ability may be an essential building block for a large number and
variety of different skills. Motor abilities are not specific to any particular
class or type of motor skill, but the same motor ability may cross many
classification lines in contributing to a large variety of actions. Conversely, a
motor ability may also play little or no role in the performance of other motor
skills.

Motor Abilities as a Limiting Factor for Skills

● In the process of building up motor skills by drawing on the resources of one’s
underlying motor abilities, not all motor abilities are important, or at least as
equally important, for all skills. Every skill is dependent upon a combination of
some collection of specific motor abilities. Think about the contributions to
various

● skilled performances of a motor ability like reaction time, for instance. The point
here is that motor abilities are the requirements for performing skills, as well as
the determinants for how well one can perform and learn particular skills, but not
all motor abilities are important, or as equally important, to all skills. In fact, most
motor skills probably depend on no more than a few motor abilities for their
performance, with three to five motor abilities most likely accounting for most of
the variance in skill observed between individual performers (Chaiken, Kyllonen,
and Tirre, 2000; Fleishman, 1972).
Depending on the particular cluster of motor abilities necessary for successful
performance in any given skill, people will be predisposed to certain limits on
their performance and ultimate learning of a skill based on the strength of their
relevant motor abilities. Motor abilities inform a ceiling or limit on both the
 performance and learning of motor skills, with people manifesting differing limits
based upon their individual pattern and relative strength of motor abilities.

As an example of the ceiling effect imposed by an individual’s specific motor

abilities profile, consider the limits in performance attainable in the skills of
Olympic weight lifting and distance running based upon traits related to strength
and endurance. At first, it may seem that strength and endurance are poor
choices to be classified as traits because both can be considerably improved by
practice. But consider that both traits are largely conditioned by the muscle
composition of an individual. Muscle fibers are comprised of both fast-twitch
(types II and III) and slow-twitch (type I) fiber types. Fast-twitch fibers are
specialized to act quickly and exert maximal contractile force in the absence of
oxygen; they are specialized for strength and explosive power (referred to as
anaerobic work). Slow-twitch muscle fibers, on the other hand, are specialized for
lesser force production but for sustained contraction over longer periods of time
and work in the presence of oxygen (referred to as aerobic work). The inverse is
also true; the individual with a significantly high composition of slow-twitch fibers
will have greater potential in endurance activities like distance running than either
the average person or the person with a high composition of fast-twitch muscle
fiber. In this case, the motor traits related to strength and endurance are
determined to a significant degree by inherited muscle composition patterns that
cannot be altered through environmental experiences. These traits in turn
establish limits on performance, and these limits are most greatly manifested as
the extremes of performance are approached.

Motor Abilities Establish Upper Limits on Skills

● Environmental factors do not play a significant role in the acquisition of motor skills,
but that genetic factors (i.e., motor abilities) establish the limits within which
environmental factors are free to operate. Although little empirical research has
addressed this contention directly, mounting evidence from twin studies has
offered strong support for the primary role played by genetics in establishing
upper limits on an individual’s potential in given motor skills.

The Evidence from Twin Studies

Twin studies are an especially good method for studying the relative effects of
genetic and environmental influences because both influences can be isolated
within various research designs (Segal, 1999). This advantage of twin studies
arises from the fact that twins may be one of two distinct types. Monozygotic, or
identical, twins develop from a single fertilized egg and therefore share all of their
genes (i.e., they are 100% genetically similar). Dizygotic, or fraternal, twins
develop from two fertilized eggs and share, on average, 50 percent of their
genes, or the same genetic similarity as found in non-twin siblings. An especially
powerful research approach to studying genetic and environmental influences is
a design that identifies both fraternal and identical twins reared apart. Twins
raised apart do not share a common environmental background influencing their
behaviors. This allows for the influence of genetic factors to be isolated because
identical twins share exactly the same genetics, which fraternal twins do not.
Studies of twins raised apart have revealed a number of interesting patterns
relative to physical activity levels and choices. Although specific motor ability
levels have received little research attention as yet, behavioral preferences have
 been well established. These studies most typically are conducted through
survey and case study methodologies. Generally, fraternal twins raised apart are
somewhat more likely to exhibit similarities in activity levels and choices relative
to motor skills than would be expected by chance. On the other hand, for
identical twins raised apart studies show highly similar patterns in their activity
choices, often including engaging in the same sports, playing the same positions,
and attaining the same levels of skill proficiency (Ridley, 2003; Segal, 1999).

The only factor explaining these marked patterns of similar activity choices and
attained proficiency levels in identical twins is genetic determinism. Because
behavior choices do, at least to some extent, reflect an individual’s behavioral
strengths more than weaknesses, an argument can be sustained that the
similarity in genetic traits related to motor skill potential appears a likely
candidate for explaining similarity patterns in motor skill selection among twins.
Genetic predisposition to engage in and succeed at specific motor skills depends
on an individual’s underlying pattern of motor abilities .In contrast to twin studies
identifying interest and participation patterns, relatively few studies have
investigated physical and motor traits among twin samples. A number of
suggestive studies have been completed in recent years, however (Dowling,
2004; Segal, 1999). These studies involve actually bringing twins into
laboratories and measuring various physical and motor traits. Although research
in this area remains scant, some interesting conclusions are beginning to emerge
(Segal, 1999, p. 213). A general finding is that twins show considerable
similarities in some areas, but little similarity in others. Specifically, twin studies
have reported that twin pairs are extremely similar in reaction time and in
measures of agility and coordination, suggesting genetic influences on these
measures. They are no more similar than would be expected of non-twins in the
various physical measures of strength and endurance, however. An interesting
note is that similarities are observed in those traits classified as perceptual-motor
abilities in Fleishman’s Taxonomy, while those traits classified as physical
proficiency abilities show little or no genetic link among twin pairs

HOW MANY MOTOR ABILITIES ARE THERE?

● Most theorists believe that about 40 to 50 motor abilities underlie all
human motor skill behavior, though not all have been identified and there
remains debate about the exact number (Boyle and Ackerman, 2004). In
fact, some theorists, with Franklin Henry being the most prominent, have
even proposed the existence of thousands of motor abilities! This latter
number seems unlikely for several theoretical reasons, however, and the
more conservative estimate of 40 to 50 seems much more likely and is
accepted by broad consensus today.

The most complete system for identifying and classifying motor abilities is one
developed in the mid-1960s by ergonomics engineer Edwin Fleishman.
Fleishman’s taxonomy of motor abilities is based on a tremendous amount of
research and resulted in the identification of 21 separate motor abilities. In his
classification system, Fleishman identified two broad categories of motor abilities
He labeled these categories perceptual-motor and physical proficiency abilities.
 ● The first, perceptual-motor abilities, is comprised of motor abilities for
which the central nervous system is the primary determinant of the
ability’s relative strength.
● The second, physical proficiency motor abilities, depends upon, in
addition to neurological factors, such underlying physiological factors as
muscle composition, the mechanical properties of muscle based on length
and origin and insertion locations, the efficiency of sensory receptors
associated with movement, and other physiological factors such as lung
volume and body somatotype.

The first category of perceptual-motor abilities include motor abilities such as

reaction time, manual dexterity, and multi limb coordination that are fully realized
through normal developmental processes. That is, one does not have to do
anything to maximize perceptual-motor abilities such as reaction time. In this
case, reaction time is realized to its full potential simply through normal
interaction with one’s environment (i.e., as part of the maturation process).
Physical proficiency abilities such as static strength, extent flexibility, and
stamina, on the other hand, require some degree of use and training to be fully
realized.

Fleishman’s Taxonomy of Motor Abilities

Perceptual-Motor Abilities
● Multi Limb Coordination - Ability to coordinate the movement of a
number of limbs simultaneously. A high level of this ability is probably
important when serving a tennis ball or playing the piano.

● Control Precision - Ability to make highly controlled movement

adjustments, particularly when large muscle groups are involved. An
example is operating a bulldozer or other type of earth-moving equipment
that requires careful positioning of the arms and feet.

● Response Orientation - Ability to make quick choices among numerous

alternative actions, often measured as choice reaction time. An example
is the task of a goalie in hockey, where the type of shot on goal is often
uncertain.

● Rate Control - Ability to produce continuous anticipatory movement

adjustments in response to changes in the speed of a continuously
moving target or object. Examples include the tasks of high-speed auto
racing and white-water canoeing.

● Manual Dexterity - Ability to manipulate relatively large objects with the

hands and arms. An example is package handling at the post office.

● Finger Dexterity - Ability to manipulate small objects. Examples include

threading a needle and eating spaghetti with a fork and spoon.

● Arm–Hand Steadiness - Ability to make precise arm and hand

positioning movements where strength and speed are not required. A
 waiter who carries trays of food and dispenses the contents without
incident has a high level of this ability.

● Wrist Finger Speed - Ability to rapidly move the wrist and fingers with
little or no accuracy demands. An example is playing the bongo drums or
keyboard entry tasks.

● Aiming - A highly restricted type of ability that requires the production of

accurate hand movements to targets under speeded conditions. An
example is the task of hitting a target with a rapid throw of a dart.
Physical Proficiency Abilities
● Explosive Strength - Ability to expend a maximum of energy in one
explosive act. Advantageous in activities requiring a person to project his
or her body or some object as high or far as possible. Also important for
mobilizing force against the ground. Examples of tasks requiring high
levels of explosive strength include the shot putt, javelin, long jump, high
jump, and 100 m dash in track and field.

● Static Strength - Ability to exert force against a relatively heavy weight or

some fairly immovable object. Tasks requiring high levels of static strength
include near maximum leg and arm presses in weightlifting, as well as
moving a piano.

● Dynamic Strength - Ability to repeatedly or continuously move or support

the weight of the body. Examples include climbing a rope and performing
on the still rings in gymnastics.

● Trunk Strength - Dynamic strength that is particular to the truck and

abdominal muscles. Tasks requiring high levels of trunk strength include
leg lifts and performing on the pommel horse in gymnastics.

● Extent Flexibility - Ability to extend or stretch the body as far as possible

in various directions. An example of a task requiring high levels of extent
flexibility is yoga.

● Dynamic Flexibility - Ability to make repeated, rapid movements

requiring muscle flexibility. Ballet dancers and gymnasts need high levels
of dynamic flexibility.

● Gross Body Equilibrium - Ability to maintain total body balance in the

absence of vision. Circus performers who attempt to walk across a
tightrope while blindfolded require high levels of this ability.

● Balance With Visual Cues - Ability to maintain total body balance when
visual cues are available. This ability is important for gymnasts who
perform on the balance beam.

● Speed Of Limb Movement - Ability to move the arms or legs quickly, but
without a reaction-time stimulus, to minimize movement time. Examples
 include throwing a fast pitch in baseball or cricket or rapidly moving the
legs when tap dancing or clogging.

● Gross Body Coordination - Ability to perform a number of complex

movements simultaneously. Individuals needing high levels of this ability
include ice hockey players who must skate and stick-handle at the same
time or circus performers who try to juggle duckpins while riding a
unicycle across a tightrope.

● Stamina - Ability to exert the entire body for a prolonged period of time; a
kind of cardiovascular endurance. Individuals requiring high levels of
stamina include distance runners and cyclists.

Since Fleishman’s original research in the 1960s, several additional motor

abilities have been either identified or proposed. Magill (2007), for example, has
pointed out that Fleishman’s original analysis, though extensive, did not include a
sufficient breadth of skills to reveal the important motor abilities of static balance,
dynamic balance, visual acuity, visual tracking, and eye–hand or eye–foot
coordination. Additionally, Scott Keele, a productive researcher in the area of
motor learning, and his colleagues have identified four motor abilities related to
the timing of movement skills. These include movement rate (the ability to make
a series of movements rapidly), motor timing (accuracy of timed movements),
perceptual timing (ability to accurately judge the timing of movements), and force
control (ability to make changes in force production during movements). An
important finding of Keele’s work is the discovery that each of the timing abilities
appears to correlate highly within individuals (i.e., a person manifests the same
general level of proficiency among all of the timing abilities). This suggests that
there may be a general timekeeping ability that underlies the performance of a
variety of timing skills.

Motor Abilities Identified by Keele and Colleagues

● Movement Rate - Similar to Fleishman’s speed of limb movement, this
ability applies more to situations in which a series of movements must be
made at a maximum speed. Examples include typing or keyboarding.

● Motor Timing - Ability to perform tasks in which accurately timed

movements are essential. Examples include most open sport skills as well
as driving an automobile in traffic, stepping on a moving escalator, and
playing drums in a band.

● Perceptual Timing - Ability to perform tasks in which accurate judgments

about the time course of perceptual events are required. Examples
include making judgments about the timing of a musical score by a ballet
dancer or a vocalist, timing a partner’s movements in pairs dancing or a
horse’s movements in equestrian competition, or estimating the speed of
a moving object such as a ball in tennis, cricket, or soccer.

● Force Control - Ability to perform tasks in which forces of varying

degrees are needed to achieve the desired outcome. Examples include
changing mood or emphasis when playing a musical instrument such as
 the piano or violin and performing sport tasks such as billiards, figure
skating, and floor exercise in gymnastics.

THE MYTH (?) OF THE “ALL-AROUND ATHLETE”

Most people know somebody who seems to excel at every motor skill he or she
attempts. Such people are often star athletes and typically excel in a variety of sports.
The temptation is to say that such people are naturally born to succeed at all sports—
that they are destined by birth to be “all-around athletes” (see Box 8.6 on p. 306). Saying
that someone is born an all-around athlete is really saying that he or she is born to
perform proficiently at any motor skill, whether a sports skill or any other kind of
movement skill. Parenthetically, the opposite conclusion would also hold, that some
people are born predisposed to poor performance in all sport and movement skills. If this
assumption is correct, then there must be some sort of trait for general motor proficiency,
and some people must be fortunate enough to be strongly endowed with it, whereas
others are as equally unendow. The idea of a genetic trait predisposing some people to
superior performance in any motor skill goes back to at least the 1880s, when scientists
first begin to identify links between neurological factors and motor performance. This
was the notion that a singular, global motor factor underlies all motor behavior. That is, a
single factor (some sort of inherited neurological mechanism) was believed responsible
for all of the separate motor abilities with which a person is endowed. If that single factor
typically referred to as a global motor ability is superior relative to the general population,
then all of the specific measures of separately identified motor abilities will also be
superior. On the other hand, if the global motor ability is inferior or weak, then all
individual motor abilities will likewise be inferior or weak. Extending this notion, most
people are believed to have an average global ability, making them average at all
individual motor abilities (as well as the skills built up from motor abilities). This idea that
motor abilities are generalized across the motor system is a compelling one, as it would
appear to explain why some people are proficient at so many motor skills (i.e., all around
athletes) and why a few others appear clumsy at most motor skills. It would also explain
why most people seem average at most skills, because any such global ability would
tend to be normally distributed in the population. The idea that a global motor ability
exists is a genetic endowment that a person is born with is analogous to the notion of a
single trait underlying all intellectual abilities. It is interesting that the concept of a
generalized motor ability was developed at about the same time as the concept of a
single intellectual ability (IQ) was developed. Because this notion is a rather old one, it
has been thoroughly tested, and a conclusion concerning it is firmly established in the
research literature to which we will turn next.
TWO COMPETING HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE ALL-AROUND ATHLETE
In explaining the phenomenon of the all-around athlete, perhaps someone like
Babe Didrikson Zaharias (Box 8.6) or simply the individual good at many sports and
physical activities, two hypotheses are tenable. The first is that people are good at many
different skills because some singular underlying factor (i.e., global motor ability) is
responsible for the strength of all individual motor abilities, and these people possess
this factor at a high level relative to the general population. Remember that motor skills
are subsets of various combinations of motor abilities. In this view, because the
underlying general factor is strong, all individual motor abilities will also be strong. It then
follows that any motor skill, regardless of the specific combination of motor abilities
drawn upon in its production, will result in superior performance. This notion is referred
to as the generalized motor abilities hypothesis, or the GMA hypothesis for short. The
alternative position to the GMA hypothesis is that no singular global motor ability exists
but that motor abilities are independent of one another. This notion, referred to as the
specificity of motor abilities hypothesis, or the SMA hypothesis, holds that motor abilities
are randomly spread throughout the motor system and have no positional relationship to
one another. That is, a person’s relative strength (as measured by his or her percentile
rank) on one motor ability has no influence or relationship to his or her strength on any
other motor ability; no global factor connects motor abilities. Box 8.7 summarizes the
distinctions between the GMA and SMA hypotheses. Research investigating the GMA
and SMA hypotheses involves an analysis of the correlation among motor abilities. To
grasp the research conclusions concerning these two hypotheses, we will first need to
turn to a consideration of the statistical concept of correlational analysis. More than
simply a mathematical tool, correlational analysis provides a strong intellectual basis for
understanding the relationships among variables and for drawing meaningful explanatory
conclusions about those relationships. In this case, correlational analysis provides both
the means for testing the two alternative hypotheses possible, and the bases for
constructing a deeper understanding of those factors influencing skilled motor
performance.
Understanding the Language of Correlational Analysis
Correlation refers to the degree of association between two things. For instance,
we would say that there is a high correlation between amount of time a student studies
and his or her grades in school. Generally, the more hours of study, the better will be
one’s grades. Would there be a correlation between hair color and grades, though? In
this case, the answer is obvious hair color and grades do not correlate (referred to as a
zero correlation). You could not predict by a person’s hair color anything about what kind
of grades he or she might earn. More technically, correlation is the degree to which two
things vary together. In the example of time devoted to studying and grades earned, we
would recognize that there is a high correlation between the two, but not a perfect one.
That is, there is certainly a tendency for students who study more to get the best grades
and for grades to vary (go up or down) proportionally to the amount of time spent in
study. But other things besides time preparing for an exam also influence grades like
intelligence, motivation, previous knowledge, emotional state, and quality of teaching, for
example. The best that we can say is that there is a tendency for study time and grades
to go together, but that that tendency is not perfectly predictable. Correlations are
specified in numerical terms ranging from 1.00 to 1.00. A perfect positive correlation of
1.00 means that two things vary together exactly. As the value of one change, so does
the value of the other, and it changes in the same direction and to the same degree. We
would say that there is a perfect positive correlation between the length of a person’s
foot and shoe size, for example. For every one-half inch a person’s foot length increase,
shoe size increases by one-half inch. An equal change in one thing (foot length) is
matched every time by an equal change in the other thing (shoe size). Similarly, a
perfect negative correlation (1.00) means that two things vary equally, but in opposite
directions. Consider the correlation between altitude and percent of atmospheric oxygen,
for example. Every equal increase in altitude is matched by an equal decrease in
oxygen. The higher up you go, the less oxygen there is, and the change in the amount of
oxygen remains proportional to the change in altitude. Most correlations are not perfect
ones, of course, as with the example of study time and grades. Consider another
example: Is there a correlation between body weight and strength? Most of us would
recognize that larger people tend to be stronger than lighter people, but that you cannot
always tell this with certainty. Some lighter people are stronger than those larger than
them. Still, if you picked a hundred people at random (let’s say all males to avoid the
complication of sex-related strength differences), there would be a strong tendency
though not a perfect one for the larger people to be the strongest. Hypothetically,
suppose you further grouped these 100 people into the 50 largest and the 50 smallest;
from which group do you suspect that most of the strongest people would be found?
Obviously, you would expect significantly more of the stronger people in the larger group
(though you still might find some in the smaller group who ranked among the strongest
as well as a few in the larger group who were among the weakest of the groups). In this
case, we would say that there was a high positive correlation (strength goes up as body
weight goes up), but not a perfect one. The strength of the correlation is measured as a
number somewhere between 0.00 (no correlation) and 1.00 (a perfect correlation). The
actual degree of correlation (its strength) is computed by a statistic called the Pearson
product moment, and is expressed by a correlation coefficient (labeled as the Greek
letter ρ, pronounced “rho”). Without going into these statistical calculations, we can state
that the strength of association (the correlation) between any two variables can be
determined through research and a correlation coefficient calculated. These values can
be expressed in words, as illustrated in Table 8.4. Remember that a correlation can be
either positive or negative, depending on the direction in which two things vary together.
Also, remember that a zero (0.00) correlation coefficient means that there is no
relationship between two variables.

The Correlation among Motor Abilities: Testing the GMA and SMA Hypotheses The
search to confirm the GMA hypothesis was extensive in the 1950s and 1960s. Typically,
researchers would test individuals on different types of motor ability tests or actual motor
skills and determine the correlation between the various pairs of abilities or skills. It soon
became apparent, however, that even similar skills typically exhibited low correlations
between groups of subjects performing both skills. In fact, the correlation coefficients
observed in the many research investigations completed typically ranged in the very low
numbers.
Eventually, the inability to confirm the GMA hypothesis resulted in accepting its
logical alternative. The SMA hypothesis. A classic example is a study conducted by
Drowatzky and Zuccato in 1967. Using a large sample of Air Force recruits, they examined
scores on six different balance tests, three static balance tests, and three dynamic balance
tests. The assumption was that the same subset of motor abilities would underlie all three
tests for static balance and that a closely similar subset of abilities would underlie
performance for the dynamic balance tests. The researchers expected to discover how
similar the two groupings of abilities were that were responsible for static and dynamic
balance.
As a result of these many research investigations into the correlation among skills
and motor abilities, the validity of the SMA hypothesis has become one of the most strongly
accepted concepts in the field of skill acquisition. This acceptance leads to several important
conclusions about making predictions relative to skill level in one skill by making
observations of another skill as well as predicting future success in a skill by observing early
performance when learning the skill.

PREDICTING MOTOR PROFICIENCY BETWEEN SKILLS

If motor abilities are randomly distributed throughout the motor system and
independent of one another as suggested by the SMA hypothesis, then this has important
implications when predicting success in one skill from observations made of another skill.
Most people, without knowing it, intuitively accept the GMA hypothesis, however. We saw in
Chapter 7 that early performance is not a reliable indicator of athletic potential. Remember
that we highlighted this by recounting the story of how Michael Jordan, considered by most
experts as the best basketball player of his day, was cut from his high school freshman
team. Michael Jordan comes to our assistance again in making the point that skill in one
motor activity, even if one is the best at that activity, is not a predictor of success in any other
motor activity. The story in this instance begins when Jordan retired from the Chicago Bulls
basketball team and signed to play professional baseball with the Chicago White Sox. The
White Sox assigned him to their minor league team in Port Charlotte, Florida, to learn the
game. There was a great deal said and written at the time about Jordan’s potential as a
baseball player. Most sports commentators, as well as most sports fans, believed that it was
just a manner of time until Jordan became a good professional baseball player. After all, he
possessed so many natural athletic gifts that he could certainly learn to transfer them to the
game of baseball. Basketball and baseball had much in common, they both required good
body coordination, quick movements, timing skills, team play, and general athletic ability.
Without knowing it, such prognosticators had accepted the GMA hypothesis as correct. It
seemed reasonable, to them, to predict that if someone was good at one skill, they would
also be good at another skill, particularly one seemingly having many things in common.
In fact, as we first saw in the Drowatzky and Zuccato study mentioned earlier in
this chapter, skills appear to be highly specific in relation to underlying motor abilities. Even
skills that appear very similar and could be expected to rely on many of the same traits (e.g.,
basketball and baseball, tennis and racquetball, gymnastics and springboard diving) draw on
substantially different clusters of motor abilities for their execution. This fact is illustrated in
Figure 8.3, which shows the motor abilities supporting two different skills, A and B. As can be
observed, skill A draws from a strong set of motor abilities. Skill B, however, even though it
has something in common with skill A and relies equally on motor ability D, nevertheless
draws from a substantially different set of motor abilities. In the case of the underlying motor
abilities needed for skill B, D is strong, N is moderately strong, but U and W are weak. The
result is that skill B will never be performed at the same high level as is possible with skill A.
Other factors may contribute to the performance and learning of both skills, but the
underlying building blocks of skill B limit the level of skill that can be attained.
A good example of weak transfer between similar skills is a study on the relation
of perceptual abilities to performance in basketball conducted by Beats and his associates
(Beats et al., 1971). These researchers obtained the field goal and free-throw shooting
averages for an entire season of one college basketball team. They then measured each
player on four visual abilities; these were static visual acuity, size consistency (the
perception of objects of different size), and depth perception. Correlational analysis revealed
that dynamic visual acuity was the only visual trait contributing significantly to field-goal
shooting performance and that static visual acuity was the only visual trait related to free-
throw accuracy. These results suggested that even within a single sensory modality (vision),
differing abilities are required for the performance of even similar skills (e.g., field-goal and
free-throw shooting). Research support for the SMA hypothesis strongly supports the
conclusion that predicting level of success in one motor skill by observing success achieved
in a second motor skill is unreliable.

THE MYTH OF THE “ALL-AROUND ATHLETE” RECONSIDERED

Motor educability

First proposed in the 1920s, argues that a single factor is responsible for all motor abilities
and that individuals can be determined to possess some general ability (ranging from weak
to strong) underlying their capacity to learn any motor skill.
Regression toward the mean

The intergenerational tendency for individuals, regardless of their parents’ trait

characteristics, to move toward the 50th percentile rank on specific motor abilities.

What about Motor Skill Similarities within Families?

Fallacy of observed correlation:

This fallacy refers to people’s psychological tendency to draw conclusions based upon
what they see rather than what they do not see. A more technical way of expressing this
idea is that epistemologically humans are disposed to infer facts based upon the
presentation of sensory data, and when relevant data are missing, it is disregarded in
decision making. As an illustration, consider Figure 8.4.

SOME OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO MOTOR SKILL ACHIEVEMENT

A summary of some of the other factors important in explaining the individual differences
observed among people in relation to motor skill learning and performance is presented in
Table 8.6.
EVERYONE IS GOOD AT SOMETHING!

It might be tempting to conclude that because some individuals are lucky at the genetic draw
of motor abilities, then some people are also unlucky and destined—not by nature but by
chance—to be poor at every motor skill.

People who appear good at everything are really only good at many things—at least the
things they attempt (and they are probably not interested in attempting skills in which they
would not prove successful).
REFERENCES

Ackerman, PL. (1992). “Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition:

Dynamics of ability determinants.” Journal of Applied Psychology,

Boyle, MO, and Ackerman, PL. (2004). “Individual differences in skill acquisition,” In AM
Williams and NJ Hodges (eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory, and practice.
London: Routledge

Buss, AR, and Poley, W. (1976). Individual differences: Traits and factors. New York:
Gardner Press.

Ericsson, KA, Krampe, RT, and Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). “The role of deliberate practice in
the acquisition of expert performance.” Psychological Review,

Fleishman, EA. (1972). “On the relationship between abilities, learning, and human
performance.” American Psychologist,

Keele, SW, and Hawkins, HI. (1982). “Explorations of individual differences relevant to high
level skill.” Journal of Motor Behavior,

Williamson, J. (2018). Teaching to Individual Differences in Science and Engineering

Librarianship.