Climbing and Psychology
As we are all aware, climbing is a physical and mental activity in which
a person attempts to go from the bottom to the top of something. This something
is usually rock, but could be plastic, concrete, brick or tree. It is physical
not only because you need strength (well, it helps) but also as you need
to have flexibility and co-ordination. It is mental as you are required
to identify options and plan moves. It is also common to have to deal with
uncertainty and fear as well. As far as climbing is an activity in which
people are involved, some aspects of psychology can be seen to have relevance.
Climbing is typically a free choice so aspects such as volition, problem
solving or decision making may be interesting. Climbing may be carried out
competitively, thus various things such as stress control and attentional
focus can be useful. Climbing is typically done with others so certain ideas
about group work and teams may be interesting. However, while aspects of
psychology can be applied to the human endeavour of climbing it is futile
to talk of a psychology of climbing. This cannot exist, much less be interesting,
any more than could a psychology of gardening, or of pencil sharpening.
Just as the physics of climbing relates specifically to the forces involved
in the physical system represented by climber, rock face and gear, so psychology
pertains specifically to the human aspects of the system.
To date psychology has tended to focus upon the motivation for climbing
and the nature of climbers. These may be interesting questions, but I think
that they are ultimately philosophical and pointless except in a pub argument
role. Climbers have typically been viewed as sensation seekers and risk
takers. Nice little check lists have been created to test whether climbers
do actually seek stimulation more than people who do not. Studies have concluded
that climbers do seek sensation, and more so than a "control",
or reference, group. Wow. In all likelihood the control group were made
up of nice sedentary TV watchers, or 'conventional' sports people such as
track athletes or table tennis players. Is it surprising that climbers rate
as more sensation seeking? At the end of the day, so bleeding what? Presumably
watching TV, running or table tennis involve stimuli of some sort anyway.
Playing computer games provides sensation and it is not quite the same as
pitting oneself against a vertical slab of rock. It could be more interesting
to ask how climbing compares with other activities, both of a similar vein
(e.g. extreme skiing, or mountain biking, or parachuting) or different.
This would be complicated by the reasons for involvement in any activities.
It would be limiting to only consider sensation seeking. Still, however
complex and rich the study the results may still only have passing interest
to climbers themselves. This kind of research is more likely to be of use
in a leisure management context.
Another possible weakness with much of this type of research is that it
has typically been carried out by well intentioned people who make one grand
assumption: That there is a "climber personality". If everyone
who climbed did so in the same way, for the same reasons, this would all
be lovely, and case closed. However, this does not appear to be the case.
The real world is found to be a complex place and unidimensional and simplistic
notions cannot explain the rich diversity of activity observable. Sports
climbing may well be filled with sensation seekers, but what about solo-hill
walking or traditional climbers? These subtle distinctions in the nature
of the activities hide subtle differences in the goals of those involved.
It is the values, interests and desires of those involved which shape what
they do. So instead of saying "why climb" generically, the question
may more profitably be put "why are you doing that" to different
types of climber. The answers to this question will reveal a lot more about
the people involved than categorisation into sensation seeker or not. Sensation
seeking implies a level of extroversion, indicating lively, active and highly
sociable people. What about those quiet climbers who keep themselves to
themselves, climb to face their own demons and make nothing of it?
The type, or personality, of climbers as a group is thus not of much relevance
(seeing as it is not likely to exist in generic terms). What may be of interest
is what types of people are likely to work together well. Just talking in
extremes as an example, a flamboyant 8a+ sports climber and a quiet trad
climber who is happy on anything up to HVS are not likely to make a great
team. It may not matter too much in technical climbing terms (up to a point,
probably around 5c) but you are on for a rough day if you and your buddy
have different agendas. As a recreational climber, development of the skills
required and the establishment of a sound base of knowledge (i.e. experience)
occur along the way. However, in a sporting context, and particularly in
the higher echelons, psychological principles can be utilised in attempting
to further hone performance. This is the predominant area in which psychology
can be directly beneficial rather than merely interesting. As to what these
issues are, the perusal of an basic sports psychology text will give an
overview, though use of a qualified trainer might be a more systematic way
to go about it.
To conclude this short overview of climbing and psychology, it may be suggested
that much of the work carried out so far may be thought of as being interesting.
However, to date it is limited by lack of real understanding of the issues.
Treating climbing as a generic activity serves both to deny the rich variation
in motives and approaches found, and to reduce the consequent validity of
any results derived. Psychology may be directly useful in the advancement
of performance, but this may not really be significant outside elite level
sporting situations.