The Parallel Crises
Before we design better environments, we need to understand what we're designing against. Two crises — attention and identity — share a common cause and a common antidote.
The athletes and coaches walking into your practice this week are operating in an environment that is actively degrading two capacities you depend on to do your job: their ability to sustain attention, and their ability to form a stable, values-grounded identity.
This isn't a generational complaint or a "kids these days" observation. It's a documented, measurable crisis — caused not by personal weakness or lack of discipline, but by technology systems designed by some of the most sophisticated behavioral scientists in the world, working with billions of dollars in resources, with the explicit goal of capturing and monetizing human attention.
Understanding this isn't optional context for your work. It's the competitive environment your coaching is operating inside.
Crisis One: Attention
Dr. Gloria Mark, Chancellor's Professor of Informatics at UC Irvine, has conducted longitudinal research on attention spans in real-world settings over two decades. What she found is not subtle.
A 70% decline in measurable sustained attention over twenty years. And critically: Mark's research also found that it takes approximately 25 minutes to refocus after an interruption. The average person now checks their phone 96 times per day. The math is not in favor of deep practice.
For coaches, this means the baseline attentional capacity of the athletes walking into your facility is fundamentally different than it was ten years ago — not because they're less disciplined, but because their attention system has been systematically trained toward fragmentation.
This is part of why MBAT — attention training specifically — is at the center of this certification program, not on the periphery. We're not teaching mindfulness as a wellness practice. We're training an attention capacity that's being actively eroded by the environment athletes live in. The coach who understands this frames MBAT differently to their clients — and gets dramatically better compliance.
Crisis Two: Identity
The same technologies eroding attention are simultaneously fragmenting identity — particularly for adolescent and young adult athletes. Research across systematic reviews comprising nearly 20,000 adolescents reveals a consistent pattern:
Social media platforms optimize for performance of self rather than discovery of self. Athletes who spend significant time on these platforms are not exploring who they are — they're managing how they appear. The curated self replaces the authentic self. Identity becomes contingent on external metrics: follower counts, likes, recruitment attention, viral moments.
The result is what researchers call self-concept clarity fragmentation: athletes with genuinely unclear answers to the question "who am I?" — because the technology they use has never asked them to answer it authentically, only to perform an answer that performs well.
"Your values are revealed by how you spend your resources — not what you say is important."
The Common Cause: Captology
In 1998, Dr. B.J. Fogg founded the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab and coined the term captology: the study of computers as persuasive technologies. His Behavior Model — Motivation × Ability × Trigger = Behavior — became the blueprint for every major social media platform. Students from Fogg's lab went on to build Instagram and design Facebook's growth systems.
Nir Eyal operationalized this as the Hook Model: Trigger → Action → Variable Reward → Investment. The variable reward — the unpredictable dopamine response from likes, notifications, new content — exploits the same neurological pathway as slot machines. This is not an accident or a side effect. It's the intended mechanism.
When you introduce this content to coaches and athletes, maintain this frame explicitly: individuals struggling with attention or identity instability are not weak or undisciplined. They are normal humans responding to systems designed by PhD-level behavioral scientists with billions of dollars in resources, with the explicit goal of creating compulsive engagement. The person who finds themselves "hooked" is responding exactly as the system intended.
This frame matters clinically and practically. Athletes who feel shame about their attention problems will not engage with solutions. Athletes who understand they're contending with a genuine adversarial system are more likely to take training seriously.
Values as the Antidote — For Both Crises
Here's the connection that makes this directly relevant to your work as a coach. The response to both crises is not prohibition, restriction, or more willpower. It is values clarification — which is why the work you did in Week 1 is not simply a preliminary exercise but a direct intervention into the most significant environmental pressures your athletes face.
Clear values direct attention. When you know what matters, you know where to focus — and fragmented content has less purchase on your attention because it's competing with something real. Clear values stabilize identity. When your sense of self comes from lived values rather than external validation metrics, the performance of self becomes less compelling than the practice of self.
This is what Motivational Architecture builds. Athletes who know themselves, know what matters, and move toward their values regardless of what the environment throws at them.
Application Reflection
Think about your current athletes or clients before answering these.
Self-Determination Theory
The three basic psychological needs aren't athlete traits. They're environmental conditions. The coach either creates them or fails to — and the research on what happens either way is unambiguous.
Edward Deci and Richard Ryan developed Self-Determination Theory beginning in the 1970s. Across four decades and thousands of studies, SDT has become one of the most empirically robust frameworks in motivational psychology. The core finding is deceptively simple: when three basic psychological needs are satisfied, humans become intrinsically motivated. When those needs are frustrated, motivation becomes extrinsic at best and amotivated at worst.
The practical translation for coaches is significant. You cannot install intrinsic motivation in an athlete. You cannot lecture them into it, threaten them toward it, or reward them enough to sustain it. What you can do is design the environment. And when the environment is right, motivation emerges — not as a personality trait the athlete either has or lacks, but as a natural response to conditions being met.
"The coach tends the garden. The athlete grows."
The Motivation Continuum
SDT describes motivation not as a binary (motivated / not motivated) but as a continuum from amotivation through external regulation to fully internalized intrinsic motivation. Understanding where your athletes sit on this continuum — and what environmental factors keep them there — is the diagnostic starting point for all of your motivational architecture work.
"I don't know why I bother"
"I train or I get cut"
"I'd feel guilty if I didn't"
"This matters to my goals"
"I train because I love it"
External and introjected motivation can produce performance — but it's fragile, prone to burnout, and dependent on the motivating condition being present. The goal isn't to manufacture intrinsic motivation, but to design environments where the conditions for it are consistently met. The athlete does the rest.
The Three Basic Psychological Needs
- Offer choices within structure ("trap bar or RDL today?")
- Use autonomy-supportive language ("you might consider..." not "you have to...")
- Explain the rationale behind decisions — don't just prescribe
- Ask for input on exercise selection and training priorities
- Acknowledge difficulty rather than dismissing it
- Connect today's work to larger developmental arcs
- Reframe struggle: "hard means we're working the right thing"
- Provide specific process feedback, not just outcome feedback
- Make progress visible — athletes often can't see their own development
- Challenge appropriately — just beyond current capacity, not overwhelmingly beyond
The Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Research Finding
One of the most counterintuitive findings in all of motivational psychology — and one that has been replicated across hundreds of studies — is the undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan's 1999 meta-analysis of 128 experiments showed that tangible, expected, contingent rewards reliably decrease intrinsic motivation for tasks people already find interesting. The mechanism: when you introduce an external reward for an internally motivated behavior, the athlete's implicit explanation for why they do it shifts from "because I love it" to "because I'm paid/rewarded for it." Remove the reward, and motivation collapses.
This doesn't mean you can never use external incentives. It means you need to understand their cost, apply them selectively, and never rely on them as the primary motivational strategy — because they will erode the intrinsic motivation you're trying to build.
SDT Environment Audit
Rate your current coaching environment honestly on each item. This is a diagnostic — there are no right answers, only accurate ones. The pattern across the three needs tells you where your architecture work is most needed.
SDT Design Commitment
Based on your audit, identify your lowest-scoring need and commit to one concrete change this week.
Motivational Architecture
SDT tells us what athletes need from their environment. ACT tells us what athletes need from themselves. This lesson shows how they integrate — and where you work when you're coaching both dimensions simultaneously.
Ken Ravizza's guiding principle runs through everything in this program: "We work with people who perform, not performers who happen to be people." Motivational Architecture is the operationalization of that principle — the systematic design of environments and relationships that treat the person first and the performer second.
It integrates five converging frameworks, each making a specific contribution:
The ontological foundation. Person first, role second, performance third. Unconditional positive regard as a prerequisite for growth. Systems thinking: a team is greater than the sum of its parts.
The environmental conditions. Autonomy, competence, relatedness — not athlete traits but architectural conditions the coach either creates or fails to create.
The internal equipment. Values clarity + psychological flexibility. What athletes need from themselves to move toward what matters despite discomfort, doubt, or difficulty.
The conversational methodology. OARS as the relational technology for building the kind of connection where values work can happen and change talk can emerge.
1. Values are acquired and lived — athletes have clarified what matters and their behavior increasingly aligns with those values.
2. The environment supports SDT needs — the training environment satisfies autonomy (choice, voice), competence (explanation, feedback, appropriate challenge), and relatedness (genuine connection and care).
When both conditions are met, athletes train and compete hard volitionally — not because they're forced, bribed, or manipulated, but because the work is meaningful to them and the environment supports their growth.
The Performer-First Error
Traditional coaching commits what we can call the performer-first error: treating athletes primarily as performers whose value depends on their output. This error creates fragile motivation contingent on results — athletes who are fine when they're winning and psychologically at risk when they're not.
The person-first alternative doesn't mean lowering standards or treating every performance equally. It means that the relationship precedes the performance demand — that coaches build the kind of connection where honest feedback can land without threatening the athlete's sense of worth. High standards and person-first coaching aren't in tension. The evidence is clear: person-first coaching produces better performance outcomes, not despite the human focus but because of it.
Lead with performance feedback before checking in on the person. Value athletes primarily when they produce results. Build relationships conditionally around performance level. Never acknowledge the athlete outside the athletic context.
"How are you doing?" before "How did you perform?" Build relationship capital before making performance demands. Maintain consistent regard regardless of results. Know the athlete's life outside the sport context.
The Outcome: Self-Determined Athletes
When Motivational Architecture is functioning well, athletes demonstrate a recognizable profile. This is what you're building toward — and it's useful to have a clear picture of the endpoint.
They train hard because they want to — not because they're forced or incentivized.
Behavior reflects stated values. The gap between "who I want to be" and "what I'm doing" is visible and closing.
Pursue values despite difficult thoughts, feelings, or competitive circumstances.
Sense of self isn't contingent on outcomes or external validation — it's values-grounded.
Recover from setbacks because direction (values) remains clear regardless of results.
Maintain motivation through challenges because the work itself is meaningful.
Integration Mapping
Think of an athlete you're currently working with (or recently worked with) who is not yet self-determined — who is training extrinsically, performing identity, or showing attentional fragmentation.
Change Talk & Rolling with Resistance
The mechanism of MI isn't the technique — it's what happens when athletes hear themselves articulate their own reasons for change. Your job is to create the conditions for that articulation.
Week 1 introduced the Spirit of MI and the OARS framework. This lesson goes deeper into the mechanism — the specific linguistic phenomenon MI is designed to elicit — and teaches you how to navigate what happens when clients don't want to change, not yet.
The mechanism is change talk: statements where clients express their own motivations, reasons, abilities, and needs for change. The research is clear on why this matters: when people verbalize reasons for change, they become more committed to that change. The act of articulation is itself an intervention. The coach's job is to evoke change talk, not to provide the reasons.
Recognizing Change Talk
Change talk comes in five categories. Learning to recognize and selectively amplify each type is a core MI skill — because you can only reinforce what you can identify.
"I want to..." · "I wish I could..." · "I'd love to be..."
The athlete is expressing what they want, even if they don't believe they can have it yet.
"I can..." · "I could..." · "I'm able to..." · "I've done it before..."
The athlete is expressing self-efficacy — belief in their capacity to change.
"Because..." · "The benefit would be..." · "If I did this, then..."
The athlete is articulating their own rationale — the most powerful form of persuasion.
"I have to..." · "I need to..." · "I must..." · "It's important that I..."
The athlete is expressing urgency — often connected to values and identity.
"I will..." · "I'm going to..." · "I intend to..." · "I'm committed to..."
The strongest form of change talk — the athlete is making an explicit behavioral commitment.
Desire, Ability, Reasons, and Need are preparatory change talk — building toward action. Commitment is mobilizing change talk — action is imminent. Listen for the shift from preparatory to mobilizing as a signal the athlete is ready to commit.
Recognizing Change Talk: Practice Scenarios
For each athlete statement below, identify the type of change talk present — and then select the coach response that best evokes and reinforces it.
Rolling with Resistance
The righting reflex is the coach's impulse to fix, convince, or argue when clients resist. It's the single most common MI failure mode — and the most understandable one, because coaches care and caring coaches want to solve problems.
The MI alternative is rolling with resistance: instead of pushing against ambivalence, you move with it. Instead of arguing for change, you reflect the resistance until the change talk embedded inside it becomes visible. You don't win the argument — you dissolve it.
| Resistance Pattern | Righting Reflex | MI Response (Roll With It) |
|---|---|---|
| "I've tried this before and it doesn't work."Sustain talk / past failure | "This approach is different. Here's the research..." | "Something brought you back anyway. What keeps pulling you toward wanting this to work?" |
| "I don't need mental training — I just need to execute."Resistance / identity threat | "Mental performance is proven to affect execution. Let me show you the data." | "So execution — reliable, pressure-proof execution — is what you're after. That's exactly the target. Tell me what gets in the way of that for you." |
| "My coach doesn't believe in this stuff."Ambivalence / external conflict | "Your coach may not understand the research on this." | "So there's a tension between what feels important to you and the environment you're in. What's it like navigating that?" |
| "I don't have time to add one more thing."Practical resistance | "This only takes 15 minutes a day." | "Something has to give. What's taking the most time that you feel least good about?" |
Your Live MI Practice: Pre-Assignment
Before this week ends, you'll conduct a live OARS conversation with your practice client (identified in Week 1). This reflection is your preparation.
Reflections Masterclass & MBAT Week 2
The difference between a good MI practitioner and a great one is usually the quality of their reflections. This lesson develops that skill — then logs your second week of MBAT practice: the Body Scan.
Of the four OARS skills, reflections are the highest leverage and the hardest to develop. Open questions and affirmations are relatively learnable; summaries are a matter of practice. But reflections — particularly complex ones — require a kind of listening that most coaches have never been trained to do.
The distinction between simple and complex reflection is the difference between a competent MI practitioner and an exceptional one.
Simple vs. Complex Reflections
Repeat or rephrase what the client said — the content, close to their words. Demonstrates listening. Keeps the conversation moving. Useful but not transformative.
Athlete: "I can't focus during games."
Simple: "You're having trouble staying focused when it matters."
Go beyond the content to reflect the meaning, feeling, or implication beneath it. A guess about what the client means. Demonstrates depth of listening. Often catalytic.
Athlete: "I can't focus during games."
Complex: "It sounds like you know what you're capable of — and games are where it's not showing up the way you want it to."
Types of Complex Reflections
Complex reflections come in several distinct forms. Developing fluency with each gives you a range of tools for different moments in a session:
Reflects both sides of an ambivalence: "On one hand... and on the other..." Particularly useful when the client is caught between competing pulls. Forces the ambivalence into the open where it can be worked with.
"On one hand you want to train harder and get to the next level — and on the other hand you're exhausted and wondering if more work is actually the answer."
Reflects the statement back at slightly higher intensity than the client expressed it — inviting them to moderate and clarify, which often brings more nuance to the surface. Use carefully; it can feel confrontational if misapplied.
Client: "This stuff never works for me."
Amplified: "So nothing has ever made any difference at all." — The client typically corrects toward greater nuance.
Reflects the values embedded in what the client said — making the implicit explicit. Especially powerful for connecting present behavior to long-term direction.
"It sounds like being someone your team can count on matters a lot to you — more than your individual stats."
Extends what the client said in a direction you think they might be heading — a hypothesis about what they'd say next. When accurate, it communicates deep listening. When wrong, the client corrects, which is also useful.
"And I wonder if part of what's frustrating is that you know there's more in there — you've seen it — and you can't always access it on demand."
The Complete OARS Conversation
The following is a full worked conversation annotated for OARS technique. Study it before your live practice session this week — not to mimic it but to understand the structure of how OARS elements combine in real time.
Reflection Writing Practice
Write your own complex reflection for each athlete statement. Try to use a different reflection type for each one.
Practice: Write Complex Reflections
For each statement, write one complex reflection. Aim for 1–2 sentences. Label the type you're using.
MBAT Week 2: Body Scan
Week 2 shifts from the single external anchor of the breath to a systematic internal scan: juggling attention deliberately through the body, region by region. Where Week 1 trained one fixed object, the body scan trains Narrow Internal attention — the ability to direct and redirect focus precisely through your own system, whatever that system is doing.
The practice: Move through the body from feet to forehead — lower legs, upper legs, hips, lower back, torso, upper back, shoulders, neck, jaw, forehead. At each region, pause and notice what's there. Then apply a single label: pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. That's all. Don't try to change what you find. Don't try to relax the tension or soften the discomfort. Simply notice it, name it, and move on to the next region.
This is the core discipline: label and accept without trying to change. The tension in your shoulders is unpleasant — noted, accepted, move on. The warmth in your chest is pleasant — noted, accepted, move on. Nothing requires your intervention. Nothing needs to be fixed before you can continue.
This is how the body scan teaches performance psychology. You are practicing the capacity to notice what is happening inside you — and keep moving anyway. That same skill, extended to the emotional and psychological content of competition, is what allows an athlete to feel fear, frustration, or self-doubt and continue performing with full attention on the right thing. The body is the training ground. Competition is the application.
Track Your Week 2 Practice
0 of 14 cumulative sessions
Week 2 Assignments
Week 2 Live Session Debrief
After you conduct your OARS conversation with your practice client, complete this reflection. The discipline of debriefing your own sessions is the same muscle you'll ask your clients to build.