Gabriele Simonti1,2†
Cindra Kamphoff1†
Michelle McAlarnen1†
Panagiotis Kratimenos2†
Alessandro Quartiroli3,4*†- 1College of Allied Health and Nursing, Sports, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, United States
- 2Children’s National Hospital, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States
- 3Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, United States
- 4School of Psychology, Sport, and Health Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Introduction: Sport psychology (SP) examines the mental factors that influence athletic performance and well-being. Although the field has experienced substantial global growth over the past decade, much of the existing literature remains rooted in AngloSaxon cultural contexts, raising questions about its applicability in other cultural contexts.
Methods: This study explored context-specific perceptions of SP by examining the attitudes of two key sport stakeholders—Italian athletes (n = 298; 50.17%) and coaches (n = 296; 49.83%). Participants (male = 324; 54.45%; female = 270; 45.55%) represented both individual and team sports, across elite and non-elite competitive levels. An online survey assessed participants’ perceptions and attitudes toward SP services and professionals. Using Brislin’s back-translation method, we adapted the SPA-R and SPARC-2 into Italian.
Results: Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the internal structure of the instruments in the Italian sample. We then examined differences in attitudes by stakeholder role, gender, age, and competitive level. Overall, both athletes and coaches reported low levels of stigma and high confidence in SP and its services. However, significant differences were observed across demographic groups
Discussion: This study provides a culturally grounded snapshot of the current sport psychology landscape in Italy, highlighting context-specific attitudes and offering valuable insights for enhancing the cultural relevance of SP services and advancing global understanding of the field.
Introduction
Sport psychology (SP) is primarily concerned with addressing the psychological challenges that arise in the context of sport participation (Jarvis, 2006). SP practitioners primarily work with athletes and coaches, the central recipients of SP services, while also supporting teams and sport organizations across both professional and recreational settings, with interventions tailored to specific performance needs (Fortin-Guichard et al., 2018).
Yet, the effectiveness and widespread uptake of SP services often hinge on the attitudes of those they are intended to support (Martin et al., 2012) Early research highlighted a general reluctance among athletes to engage with SP, marked by skepticism and a hesitancy to seek psychological support (Ravizza, 1988). Those who did access such services frequently encountered stigma, experiencing a “negative halo effect” that adversely affected their social standing within the sport environment (Linder et al., 1989).
More recent evidence, however, points to a positive shift in these perceptions. Both athletes and coaches have demonstrated growing acceptance and increased use of SP services (Fortin-Guichard et al., 2018). This evolving attitude is mirrored in the growing institutionalization of SP within sport organizations and competitive contexts (Martin et al., 2002; Martin et al., 2004). By the early 2000s, collegiate athletes were increasingly viewing SP in a more favorable light, largely free from the negative connotations previously associated with seeking psychological support (Gentner et al., 2004; Van Raalte et al., 2016). Similar patterns have been observed among American high school coaches (Zakrajsek et al., 2011) and youth sport coaches in the United Kingdom (Barker and Winter, 2014). Despite this encouraging trend, resistance persists in certain segments of the sports community, and attitudinal discrepancies continue to influence how SP services are integrated and utilized across various settings.
Attitudes toward SP are shaped by a range of demographic and contextual factors, including gender, age, and competitive level. Each dimension contributes uniquely to how SP is perceived and engaged with by athletes and coaches. Among these, gender has emerged as one of the most consistently examined influences (Fortin-Guichard et al., 2018). For example, studies conducted in both the UK and the US have found that female athletes are more likely to seek psychological support and hold positive views of SP. Similarly, female coaches in the US tend to report more supportive attitudes toward SP (Brooks and Bull, 1999; Martin, 2005; Zakrajsek and Zizzi, 2007; Wrisberg et al., 2010). However, not all findings are consistent: for instance, research on US high school coaches found no significant gender-based differences in SP attitudes (Nelson, 2008), highlighting the potential role of cultural and contextual variables.
Age is another key factor. In Western countries such as the US and the UK, younger athletes, particularly those at non-elite levels, are more likely to associate help-seeking with stigma or fear of negative judgment for engaging with SP services (Martin, 2005; Bell et al., 2022). Encouragingly, exposure to SP interventions—such as mental skills training—can positively shift these attitudes, especially among younger athletes (Sharp et al., 2013). In contrast, older and elite-level athletes tend to express more supportive and open attitudes toward SP (Gentner et al., 2004; Wrisberg et al., 2009).
Competitive level also plays a role in shaping perceptions. While coaches generally express positive attitudes toward SP regardless of competitive context, younger coaches (under 30) tend to report more negative views compared to their older peers (Zakrajsek et al., 2011; Michel, 2013). Taken together, these findings emphasize the complex interplay of gender, age, and competitive experience in shaping SP attitudes, and they suggest a need for further research that accounts for these intersecting variables across a wider range of sporting populations.
Beyond individual and contextual dimensions, broader cultural and national frameworks also exert a significant influence on how SP is perceived and adopted. While sport is increasingly understood as a transnational phenomenon—with globalization facilitating the exchange of cultural practices and shaping regional identities (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007)—the current body of SP research remains largely concentrated in Anglo-Saxon countries (Fortin-Guichard et al., 2018). This geographic concentration limits our understanding of the global diversity in SP attitudes and practices.
Cross-cultural comparisons reveal meaningful differences. Athletes in countries such as Great Britain and New Zealand generally hold more positive views of SP, while those from Eastern cultures tend to exhibit greater skepticism (Sullivan and Hodge, 1991; Byrne and Cusack, 2015; Ong and Harwood, 2018). Coaches in Western nations also demonstrate openness to SP, but those in countries such as the Philippines appear more hesitant (Barker and Winter, 2014; Guinto-Adviento, 2016). Comparative studies among athletes in the US, UK, Spain, and Germany show that those in the UK and Spain are more likely to trust SP consultants and report less stigma around using psychological services (Martin et al., 2004; Checa et al., 2023). These findings reinforce the powerful influence of cultural and national settings and the need for greater geographic diversity in SP research.
As emphasized by Schinke and Stambulova (2017) cultural context significantly shapes the practice of sport psychology, influencing everything from intervention strategies to conceptual frameworks. Yet, existing research tends to generalize across regions, lacking the cultural specificity needed to understand how SP is understood and utilized in different contexts.
Despite Italy’s prominent role in global sport—as evidenced by its significant presence in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games (CONI - Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano, 2024) and the increasing adoption of SP services—there is a notable gap in empirical research examining how Italian athletes and coaches perceive SP. This study seeks to address that gap by investigating attitudes toward SP in the Italian context. By assessing general perceptions as well as potential demographic variations, this research contributes to a more comprehensive and culturally grounded understanding of SP practices. In doing so, it aims to broaden the global discourse on sport psychology and inform more inclusive, culturally sensitive approaches to practice and implementation.
Materials and methods
Participants
A total of 744 participants took part in a cross-sectional study by responding to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics (Provo, UT). Of these, 587 were fully completed, usable surveys. The final sample for this study (n = 587) comprised 294 athletes and 293 coaches. Participants (male = 322; 54.86%; female = 265; 45.14%) represented both individual (n = 241; 41.06%) and team sports (n = 346; 58.94%), across National/International as elite (n = 291; 49.6%) and Provincial/Regional as non-elite (n = 296; 50.4%) competitive levels. Athletes’ age ranged from 18 to 70 (M = 25.36, SD = 8.26), while coaches’ age ranged from 18 to 75 (M = 41.73, SD = 12.36). The sports most represented by the sample were: volleyball (16.7%), soccer (16%), gymnastics (11.3%), water polo (10.6%) and swimming (10.1%). Athletes and coaches were classified as elite (Provincial, Regional) and non-elite (National, International) based on Swann et al. (2015) classification. Of the participants, 35% of the athletes and 55% of the coaches had been previously exposed to SP. Additional participants’ demographics are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.
Research design
Prior to beginning the study, we received the ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board. Following the approval, we recruited participants by emailing administrations of different Italian sport governmental bodies (e.g., CONI, UISP), posting on multiple sport-specific social media groups (e.g., “Volley – Gruppo tecnico per gli Allentori di Pallavolo” – 13,000 subscribers), and by engaging in a snowball sampling method. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be athletes or coaches aged 18 or older, residing in Italy. If not Italian citizens, participants were asked how long they resided in Italy for. Participants who had resided in Italy for fewer than 5 years were excluded. They were required to be actively competing at the regional, national, or higher level and fluent in Italian. Upon providing informed consent, participants were invited to complete the survey.
Instrumentation
To ensure an accurate Italian translation of the instruments, we first applied Brislin’s back-translation method (Brislin, 1970, 1986). Two independent bilingual translators employed Brislin’s back-translation method to ensure the conceptual and linguistic equivalence of the instruments translated from English to Italian. The first translator conducted the forward translation, while the second performed the back-translation. Discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions were discussed and resolved to produce a culturally and semantically accurate Italian version. The finalized translated version was used to conduct a brief pilot study with 10 random participants. Feedback from participants was used to identify and resolve unclear wording and workflow of the test. Following this process, participants completed a survey that included eight demographic questions and either the SPA-R (Martin et al., 2002) for athletes or the SPARC-2 (Zakrajsek et al., 2011) for coaches. The survey included 33 items for athletes and 34 for coaches. Both instruments are established assessments aimed at providing insight into attitudes toward sport psychology and have been utilized across different cultural contexts (Martin et al., 2004; Zakrajsek et al., 2011; Guinto-Adviento, 2016).
Demographical questionnaire
The initial demographic questionnaire was comprised of 8 questions. The first 4 demographic questions included, respectively, gender, age, nationality, and level of competitiveness. Gender was defined as either male, female, non-binary, and an option for those subjects who preferred to specify or who do not want to disclose. Age was treated as a continuous variable to account for the skewed distribution—characterized by a higher proportion of younger individuals and fewer older ones—ensuring that the analysis accurately captured the underlying structure of the data. A scale ranging from 18 years old up to 75+ years old was used. We limited the age scale to 75+ as a broad range due to low frequency in older age brackets. If a different nationality than Italian was reported, a question on the time residing in Italy would pop-up. The level of competitiveness followed the classification provided by Swann et al. (2015) The final 3 questions asked to indicate the sport, if participant has had previous exposures to SP, and whether participants is an athlete or coach.
Sport psychology attitude—revised
The sport psychology attitude—revised (SPA-R) (Martin et al., 2002) is a 25-item self-report questionnaire assessing four factors: Stigma Tolerance (ST, 7 items), Confidence in Sport Psychology (SPC, 8 items), Personal Openness (PO, 6 items), and Cultural Preference (CP, 4 items). These factors measure: (1) ST: athletes’ perception of how others associate psychological challenges with them; (2) SPC: belief in the efficacy of sport psychology and mental skills training; (3) PO: willingness to share personal concerns; and (4) CP: identification with and preference for an SP of similar cultural background. In the context of the study, the cultural homogeneity of the Italian sample may have limited variability in responses in the CP subscale. Responses are recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with subscale scores averaged. Higher ST scores indicate a negative perception. Original reliability tests yielded Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.84 (ST), 0.82 (SPC), 0.61 (PO), and 0.66 (CP). The last two scales are considered tolerable even though their Cronbach’s coefficient is in the 0.60 range due to the number of items for each scale (Martin et al., 2002).
Sport psychology attitude—revised coaches
The sport psychology attitude—revised coaches (SPARC-2) is a 26-item self-report questionnaire based on the SPA-R and the Sports Psychology Attitudes—Revised Coaches (SPARC; Zakrajsek and Zizzi, 2007). It follows the SPA-R’s four-factor model, assessing (a) Stigma Tolerance (7 items), (b) Confidence in SP Consultation (8 items), (c) Personal Openness (5 items), and (d) Cultural Preference (6 items) using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Scoring mirrors the SPA-R, with subscale scores averaged, and higher Stigma Tolerance scores indicating a negative perception. Cronbach’s alphas demonstrated good to excellent reliability: 0.90 (Stigma Tolerance), 0.87 (Confidence in SP Consultation), 0.82 (Cultural Preference), and 0.79 (Personal Openness) (Zakrajsek and Zizzi, 2007). While the SPARC-2 has not been validated in other languages, it has been applied across various sports (Zakrajsek et al., 2011; Michel, 2013; Guinto-Adviento, 2016), competition levels (Nelson, 2008; Michel, 2013), genders (Zakrajsek and Zizzi, 2007; Zakrajsek et al., 2011), and cultural backgrounds (Guinto-Adviento, 2016). Translation of the instruments and questionnaire in Supplemental material.
Analysis of data
We conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the hypothesized four-factor structure of the Italian versions of the SPA-R and SPARC-2 instruments. To select the optimal model, we compared the null model (H₀) with the full model (H₁), which included all relevant predictors. The full model demonstrated a better fit, as indicated by lower values of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) (Burnham and Anderson, 2004; Kuha, 2004; Chakrabarti and Ghosh, 2011).
We then assessed model fit using multiple goodness-of-fit indices informed by distinct theoretical frameworks (Bentler, 1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Schreiber et al., 2006; Schumacker and Lomax, 2016; Dalila et al., 2020; Kline, 2023). Specifically, we evaluated the chi-square (χ2) test, the χ2/df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). Following established guidelines, we considered CFI and TLI values ≥ 0.90, a χ2/df ratio between 2 and 5, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values < 0.08 as indicators of acceptable fit (Kline, 2023). Given the χ2 test’s sensitivity to large sample sizes, we emphasized RMSEA and SRMR values, with < 0.08 considered acceptable and < 0.05 indicating excellent fit (RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08 = acceptable; < 0.05 excellent).
To assess construct reliability and validity, we calculated composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). CR evaluated internal consistency, while AVE assessed convergent validity by quantifying the proportion of variance explained by each latent construct relative to measurement error (Dalila et al., 2020; Mohd Dzin and Lay, 2021; dos Santos and Cirillo, 2023; Cheung et al., 2024). We considered factor loadings > 0.40, AVE > 0.50, and CR > 0.70 as acceptable benchmarks (Cheung et al., 2024). We performed CFA using the lavaan package in R (version 4.4.2), and we computed CR and AVE values in StataIC 13.
Due to sample size limitations, we did not perform multivariate analyses across demographic variables. Instead, we applied targeted statistical methods based on questionnaire responses. We used unpaired two-tailed t-tests (p < 0.05) to assess gender differences, given binary male/female data in both the athlete and coach subgroups. We applied one-way ANOVA to examine differences across competitive levels, which included four categories. To evaluate age-related trends, we used one-way ANOVA following linear model fit as age was treated as a continuous variable. We first conducted demographical inferential analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics 29 and we validated for accuracy and conducted all inferential analysis using R (version 4.4.2).
Results
SPA-R
CFA of the SPA-R based on the original 4-factor model showed adequate fit, with CFI and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) close to the 0.90 threshold. Additionally, RMSEA was below the 0.80 threshold value, whereas SRMR was above the threshold value of 0.80. The χ2/df ratio was 2.74 and fell within the values of indication of good fit.
We assessed CR and AVE for each factor: ST (CR = 0.891; AVE = 0.542); SPC (CR = 0.891; AVE = 0.533), PO (CR = 0.627; AVE = 0.262), and CP (CR = 0.823; AVE = 0.541). The PO factor appears to be more problematic in convergent validity and showed a CR (reliability assessment) value slightly lower than the indicated 0.70 limit, which reflects the low Cronbach’s alpha of the subscale (Martin et al., 2002). However, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981), convergent validity can still be considered adequate if composite reliability exceeds 0.6, even if AVE is below 0.5. Overall, while the SPA-R showed good-to-acceptable levels of goodness-of-fit in the Italian athlete sample based on the criteria assessed, the PO subscale appeared to follow similar reliability challenges as the original instrument.
SPARC-2
The CFA conducted on the SPARC-2 a priori 4-factor model showed good fit of the model to the data. The parameters remained at the acceptable level of goodness of fit, with CFI reaching the 0.90 mark and TLI slightly below 0.90. RMSEA and SRMR scored below 0.80 (<0.80). χ2/df was 2.56 and indicated good fit of the model. We assessed CR and AVE for each factor: ST (CR = 0.919; AVE = 0.624), SPC (CR = 0.89; AVE = 0.505), PO (CR = 0.793; AVE = 0.438), and CP (CR = 0.950; AVE = 0.761) (Supplementary Figures S1, S2). Both CR and AVE across the four factors in SPARC-2 instrument had scores above the acceptable levels, with the PO scale scoring just below the 0.50 limit (Cheung et al., 2024). In the Italian coach sample, the PO scores were above the recommended acceptable guidelines, indicating the overall goodness-of-fit of the model for this sample. Table 2 offers the statistical results of the goodness of fit tests used in both instruments.
Table 2. Goodness of fit statistics for the instruments.
Overall attitude
We examined the overall mean scores of each SPA-R and SPARC-2 subscale to gain a general understanding of participants’ attitudes toward sport psychology before exploring specific demographic-driven patterns. Athletes scored low on ST and on CP (MST = 2.11; MCP = 2.63), high on SPC (MSPC = 5.59) and moderately high on PO (MPO = 3.77). Overall, it appeared that Italian athletes display low stigma, favorable attitudes toward SP services, and confidence in the effectiveness of SP (Table 3). Coaches, similarly, showed low ST and CP scores (MST = 1.66; MCP = 2.68), but had high confidence in SP (MSPC = 5.22). However, they scored relatively low on PO (MPO = 2.94), suggesting reluctance to discuss personal issues openly (Table 3).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for each subscale of the SPA-R and SPARC-2.
Gender differences
Our analysis revealed significant differences between male and female athletes in the PO and CP subscales (Figure 1A). Females appear more open to discuss personal issues compared to their male counterparts (p = 0.008), yet less open to SP consultants of different backgrounds (p = 0.0417). Similarly, female coaches (Figure 1B) also prefer SP consultants of similar backgrounds (p < 0.001).
Figure 1. Italian female athletes and coaches show preference for SP practitioners of same cultural background. (A,B) Graphs displaying the unstandardized factor weights (x-axis) results for each subscale of the SPA-R (A) and of the SPARC-2 (B) by gender (y-axis). Results of the unpaired t-tests are shown as boxplots. * indicates p < 0.5, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.005. M = male, F = female. Further statistical analysis detail in Supplemental material. CP, Cultural Preference; PO, Personal Openness; SPC, Sport Psychology Confidence; ST, Stigma Tolerance.
Age differences
We identified significant age-related differences among Italian coaches, but not athletes (Figures 2A,B). For instance, ANOVA following linear model fit indicated that younger age in coaches is associated with more stigma compared to their older counterparts (p = 0.003). Additionally, we found that older coaches are less open to discussing personal issues compared to coaches in other age groups (p = 0.004). As age increases, association with confidence in sport psychology effectiveness also increases (p = 0.004), but we found no differences in cultural preference based on age.
Figure 2. Age is a determining factor in Italian coaches’ attitude to SP. (A,B) Graphs displaying the unstandardized factor weights (x-axis) results for each subscale of the SPA-R (A) and of the SPARC-2 (B) by age (y-axis). Results of the linear regression analysis are shown as scatterplots. ** indicates p < 0.05, *** p < 0.005. Further statistical analysis detail in Supplemental material. CP, Cultural Preference; PO, Personal Openness; SPC, Sport Psychology Confidence; ST, Stigma Tolerance.
Competitive level differences
A similar trend was seen across levels of competitiveness. Among athletes (Figure 3A), we found that confidence in the effectiveness of SP services increases as the competitive level increases (p = 0.031). For coaches (Figure 3B), a significant effect of the competitive level was seen for ST, SPC, and PO (p < 0.001). Results suggest that coaches at the provincial level possess more stigma and less confidence in the effectiveness of SP compared to their counterparts at higher competitive levels. Moreover, provincial level coaches were found to be less open to discuss personal issues compared to regional, national, and international level coaches.
Figure 3. Italian non-elite coaches and athletes have less confidence in SP. (A,B) Graphs displaying the unstandardized factor weights (x-axis) results for each subscale of the SPA-R (A) and of the SPARC-2 (B) by level of competitiveness (y-axis). Results of the one-way ANOVA with Tuckey’s multiple comparisons are shown as boxplots. * indicates p < 0.5, *** p < 0.005. Further statistical analysis detail in Supplemental material. CP, Cultural Preference; PO, Personal Openness; SPC, Sport Psychology Confidence; ST, Stigma Tolerance.
Discussion
Given the dominance of Anglo-Saxon perspectives in the SP literature, the applicability of such frameworks in other cultures remain uncertain. This study investigated how cultural factors may shape attitudes toward SP services by examining Italian athletes’ and coaches’ attitudes across gender, age, and competitive level.
CFA of the Italian version of the SPAR and SPARC supported an adequate model fit for both instruments, though the SPA-R’s Personal Openness scale showed low reliability, possibly due to response variability (Amirrudin et al., 2020). Because translation differences minimally impact psychometric properties (Detregiachi and Altran, 2023), the low reliability score of the PO subscale of the SPA-R—which fully reflects the scoring of the original subscale—might have been impacted by sample size or by variations in participant perspectives. Nonetheless, the identified low internal reliability in the PO subscale potentially limits the validity of demographic comparisons and interpretation of related findings.
Despite the PO subscale’s limitation, Italian athletes’ attitudes align with international trends, offering a foundation for cross-cultural comparisons. For example, Italian athletes reported low stigma and moderately high confidence in SP, mirroring findings from New Zealand and Spain, though with slightly lower confidence in service effectiveness (Anderson et al., 2004; Checa et al., 2023). This discrepancy may be attributed to limited access to SP services in Italy, as reflected by the fact that only 35% of athletes in the current sample had previous exposure to SP. While elite athletes may benefit from access to multidisciplinary support teams (Reid et al., 2004), there is limited evidence on the accessibility of SP services for athletes at all levels, and non-elite athletes and coaches often navigate these challenges independently (Moesch et al., 2018).
A possible limiting role in accessibility could be brought by organizational deficiencies in Italy. In Anglo-Saxon contexts, research has shown that structural issues within sports organizations hinder the delivery of SP interventions (McDougall et al., 2015). Yet, recent efforts in the UK have aimed to embed psychologically informed practices within organizational frameworks, enhancing both performance and culture (Wagstaff and Quartiroli, 2023). Drawing from the UK experience, it becomes evident that a structured and culturally informed organizational approach is essential for the effective integration of SP. Without clear frameworks or culturally sensitive practices embedded within sports organizations, the adoption and effectiveness of SP in Italy may remain limited, particularly outside elite-level contexts. Additionally, the comparatively lower confidence in SP among Italian non-elite coaches, when contrasted with their elite-level counterparts, may reflect systemic limitations in accessibility as seen in other countries (Gould et al., 1991; Gentner et al., 2004; Barker and Winter, 2014). Addressing these challenges through clearer institutional frameworks and increased organizational support is essential for fostering equitable and widespread access to SP services across all levels of Italian sport.
While Italian athletes expressed less confidence in SP effectiveness, they were more open to consulting SP practitioners from diverse cultural backgrounds than their British, American, and German counterparts (Martin et al., 2004). Over the past two decades, Italy’s foreign-born population has increased by more than 6% (ISTAT - Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, 2023), a demographic shift reflected in the sports domain, where second-generation immigrants are more actively engaged than first-generation athletes (van Tubergen and Molteni, 2024). This growing presence of foreign-born individuals—both in society and in sports—may contribute to greater openness among Italian athletes toward culturally diverse practitioners. As second-generation immigrants bring varied perspectives and lived experiences, they may foster inclusive team dynamics and promote cross-cultural exchange, with sport serving as a platform for cultural integration (Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2013). Such multicultural exposure within training environments likely enhances athletes’ receptiveness to consulting professionals from different cultural backgrounds. This trend underscores the value of cultivating culturally diverse and inclusive support systems within sport.
However, gender-based differences emerged: Italian female athletes and coaches showed a stronger preference for consultants who shared similar cultural backgrounds. This contrasts with existing research suggesting that women in sport generally express more favorable attitudes toward SP than men (Brooks and Bull, 1999; Martin, 2005; Zakrajsek and Zizzi, 2007; Wrisberg et al., 2009, 2010). One possible explanation is a relative lack of exposure to multiculturalism within women’s sports contexts. A study by Naoi et al. (2011) suggest that cultural homogeneity may reinforce preferences for practitioners with shared identities. Moreover, research highlights the scarcity of policies and initiatives aimed at promoting cultural diversity and multicultural awareness in women’s sports (Cortis, 2009). As a result, women’s sports in Italy may be missing out on the benefits of increasing demographic diversity. The underrepresentation of women in decision-making roles—such as their minimal presence in football leadership, which barely exceeds 15% (Trequattrini et al., 2022)—may further limit the implementation of inclusive policies. These findings suggest that without intentional efforts to promote multicultural awareness, the effectiveness and reach of SP services may remain constrained, particularly for female athletes and coaches.
In contrast with the more favorable views of athletes, younger Italian coaches reported greater stigma and lower confidence in SP, consistent with findings among American coaches under 30 (Zakrajsek et al., 2011; Michel, 2013). Similarly, older Italian coaches exhibited less openness to discussing personal issues—an attitude not mirrored in Anglo-Saxon populations (Sullivan and Hodge, 1991; Byrne and Cusack, 2015). While previous literature suggests that exposure to SP can positively influence perceptions (Bell et al., 2022), the fact that over half of respondents in the current study had prior exposure, yet retained negative attitudes, indicates that cultural factors may override experiential familiarity. The Italian coaches’ attitude to SP mirrors trends observed in Eastern cultural contexts, where openness is not a strong predictor of SP receptivity due to underlying concerns about family honor and emotional restraint (Guinto-Adviento, 2016; Ong and Harwood, 2018). Similarly, Italy’s culture of honor—rooted in traditions that discourage emotional expressiveness (Vitiello, 2023)—may serve as a barrier to SP acceptance. These findings highlight the importance cultural context in shaping SP engagement (Yasuda, 2022) and identification of the root causes of this reluctance is critical, as coaches play a key role in shaping athletes’ intentions (Wekesser et al., 2021). Framed within the Theory of Planned Behavior (Bosnjak et al., 2020), these results suggest that coaches may serve as key agents in influencing subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, both of which are critical determinants of athletes’ intentions to seek SP support.
Tailoring interventions to align with cultural values and norms, particularly among coaches, may enhance acceptance and reduce stigma (Bissett et al., 2020). At the same time, younger coaches—who may hold doubts despite being more receptive—may benefit from educational content integrated into certification programs (Li et al., 2024). Such programs should emphasize the concrete benefits of SP for performance, resilience, and well-being, thereby fostering a culture of openness and trust.
Overall, these findings underscore the importance of understanding the cultural context in which SP operates. Moving beyond the predominantly Anglo-Saxon perspective, culturally informed research is essential to develop interventions that resonate with the values, norms, and expectations of diverse populations. Tailoring SP practices to specific cultural settings can enhance their relevance, effectiveness, and acceptance across multiple stakeholders. Embracing this cultural lens is essential for advancing more equitable and globally relevant SP services.
Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the restricted age range of participants (most participants falling within an 18 to 26 years old range) limits the generalizability of our findings across different life stages and may obscure potential age-related differences in perceptions of SP. Future studies should aim to include a more diverse age spectrum. Second, the cross-sectional design paired with non-probabilistic sampling, such as online recruitment and snowball sampling, may have introduced self-selection bias, likely overrepresenting individuals with a preexisting interest in SP, and prevented the establishment of causal relationships or changes over time. Longitudinal research or mixed-methods approaches are necessary to track how attitudes toward SP evolve over time, particularly in response to targeted interventions or broader cultural shifts.
Additionally, employing more rigorous sampling strategies, such as stratified random sampling, would enhance the representativeness of future samples. Of note, while our sample size supported multiple univariate analyses, future studies employing multivariate approaches (e.g., MANOVA) could offer greater control over covariates and potential mediators.
Third, issues with the reliability of the Personal Openness subscale of the SPA-R suggest possible challenges in translation or cultural interpretation. Specifically, the SPA-R PO subscale showed low internal reliability, limiting the validity and interpretability of related findings, despite acceptable reliability across other subscales. This underscores the need for further cultural validation and potential adaptation of SP instruments in non-Anglophone contexts.
Finally, the study’s exclusive use of quantitative methodology constrained its ability to detect culturally nuanced perspective and culturally embedded aspects of SP perceptions. Incorporating qualitative methodologies in future research, such as interviews or focus groups, may facilitate a more comprehensive and contextually grounded understanding of SP attitudes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study offers a culturally grounded perspective on SP by examining the perceptions of Italian athletes and coaches—a context often underrepresented in the existing literature. By addressing the prevalence of Anglo-Saxon models in SP discourse, our findings broaden the understanding of how SP is perceived across different cultures. The observed openness among Italian stakeholders underscores a promising trajectory for the integration of SP in diverse settings. These insights not only inform future SP practice in Italy but also emphasize the importance of culturally nuanced research to enhance global dialog and collaboration among sport psychology professionals.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN (United States) Institutional Review Board IRBNet ID:1949271-3. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
GS: Funding acquisition, Software, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Investigation, Formal analysis, Project administration, Methodology, Validation, Conceptualization, Visualization, Data curation. CK: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Writing – original draft. MM: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. PK: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Validation, Conceptualization. AQ: Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Supervision, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Raynor Cerebellum Project (PK).
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank the athletes and coaches who took the time to respond to our survey. We are also grateful to the institutions, organizations, and groups that supported this research by sharing the survey link and encouraging participation.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1630005/full#supplementary-material
Supplementary Figure S1 | Standardized results of SPA-R showing factor loading on Italian athlete sample. Ɛ = measurement error. Covariance between Ɛ1 and Ɛ3 indicates modification index. ST, Stigma Tolerance; SPC, Confidence in Sport Psychology; PO, Personal Openness; CP, Cultural Preference.
Supplementary Figure S2 | Standardized results of SPARC2 showing factor loading on Italian coach sample. Ɛ = measurement error. ST, Stigma Tolerance; SPC, Confidence in Sport Psychology; PO, Personal Openness; CP, Cultural Preference.
Supplementary Table S1 | Raw data files.
Supplementary File 1 | Original questionnaire.
Supplementary File 2 | SPSS outputs.
Supplementary File 3 | SPSS outputs.
Supplementary Data Sheet 1 | Full R-analysis statistical output.
References
Amirrudin, M., Nasution, K., and Supahar, S. (2020). Effect of variability on Cronbach alpha reliability in research practice. Jurnal Matematika, Statistika dan Komputasi 17, 223–230. doi: 10.20956/jmsk.v17i2.11655
Anderson, A. G., Hodge, K. P., Lavallee, D., and Martin, S. B. (2004). New Zealand athletes’ attitudes towards seeking sport psychology consultation. N. Z. J. Psychol. 33, 129–136. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1747.5201
Barker, S., and Winter, S. (2014). The practice of sport psychology: a youth coaches’ perspective. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 9, 379–392. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.9.2.379
Bell, A. F., Knight, C. J., Lovett, V. E., and Shearer, C. (2022). Understanding elite youth athletes’ knowledge and perceptions of sport psychology. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 34, 155–177. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2020.1719556
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bissett, J. E., Kroshus, E., and Hebard, S. (2020). Determining the role of sport coaches in promoting athlete mental health: a narrative review and Delphi approach. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 6:e000676. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000676
Bosnjak, M., Ajzen, I., and Schmidt, P. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: selected recent advances and applications. Eur. J. Psychol. 16, 352–356. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1, 185–216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301
Brislin, R. W. (1986). “The wording and translation of research instruments” in Field methods in cross cultural research. eds. W. L. Lonner and J. W. Berry (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications), 137–164.
Brooks, J. E., and Bull, S. J. (1999). Perceptions of the sport psychologist by female university athletes. J. Sports Sci. 17, 205–212. doi: 10.1080/026404199366109
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2004). Model selection and multimodel inference. New York: Springer.
Byrne, A., and Cusack, T. (2015). Rugby union players’ perspectives of physiotherapists’ use of sport psychology in injury rehabilitation. Physiotherapy 101, e192–e193. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.353
Chakrabarti, A., and Ghosh, J. K. (2011). “AIC, BIC and recent advances in model selection” in Philosophy of statistics: Volume 7 in handbook of the philosophy of science (Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland Publishing Company), 583–605.
Checa, I., Bohórquez, M. R., Arnau, V. M., and Tomás, J. M. (2023). Factor structure and measurement invariance across gender, age and sport psychology experience of the SPA-R in Spanish athletes. Curr. Psychol. 42, 639–647. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01447-7
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., and Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 41, 745–783. doi: 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
CONI - Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (2024). Italia team sets a record with 403 athletes qualified for Paris 2024: The largest Azzurro delegation in history. Italian National Olympic Committee News.
Cortis, N. (2009). Social inclusion and sport: culturally diverse women’s perspectives. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 44, 91–106. doi: 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00132.x
Dalila, D., Latif, H., Jaafar, N., Aziz, I., and Afthanorhan, A. (2020). The mediating effect of personal values on the relationships between attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intention to use. Manage. Sci. Lett. 10, 153–162. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.007
Detregiachi, C. R. P., and Altran, B. R. A. (2023). Considerations on the cross-cultural adaptation process and validation of measurement questionnaire. São Paulo, BR: Seven Editora.
dos Santos, P. M., and Cirillo, M. Â. (2023). Construction of the average variance extracted index for construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 52, 1639–1650. doi: 10.1080/03610918.2021.1888122
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18:39. doi: 10.2307/3151312
Fortin-Guichard, D., Boudreault, V., Gagnon, S., and Trottier, C. (2018). Experience, effectiveness, and perceptions toward sport psychology consultants: a critical review of peer-reviewed articles. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 30, 3–22. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2017.1318416
Gentner, N. B., Fisher, L. A., and Wrisberg, C. A. (2004). Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of sport psychology services offered by graduate students at one NCAA division I university. Psychol. Rep. 94, 213–216. doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.1.213-216
Giulianotti, R., and Robertson, R. (2007). Sport and globalization: transnational dimensions. Global Netw. 7, 107–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00159.x
Gould, D., Tammen, V., Murphy, S., and May, J. (1991). An evaluation of U.S. Olympic sport psychology consultant effectiveness. Sport Psychol. 5, 111–127. doi: 10.1123/tsp.5.2.111
Guinto-Adviento, M. L. Filipino coaches’ attitudes toward sport psychology. ASPASP-JPPASPEX Special Edition, (2016) 1, 30–38. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297007542_Filipino_coaches’_attitudes_toward_sport_psychology (Accessed May 15, 2025).
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Morela, E., Elbe, A. M., Kouli, O., and Sanchez, X. (2013). The integrative role of sport in multicultural societies. Eur. Psychol. 18, 191–202. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000155
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
ISTAT - Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2023). Annual Report 2023. Available online at: https://www.istat.it/en/publication/annual-report-2023-the-state-of-the-nation/ (Accessed May 15, 2025).
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 5th Edn. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.
Kuha, J. (2004). AIC and BIC: comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 188–229. doi: 10.1177/0049124103262065
Li, L., Olson, H. O., Tereschenko, I., Wang, A., and McCleery, J. (2024). Impact of coach education on coaching effectiveness in youth sport: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 20, 340–356. doi: 10.1177/17479541241283442
Linder, D. E., Pillow, D. R., and Raymond, R. R. (1989). Shrinking jocks: derogation of athletes who consult a sport psychologist. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 11, 270–280. doi: 10.1123/jsep.11.3.270
Martin, S. B. (2005). High school and college athletes’ attitudes toward sport psychology consulting. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 17, 127–139. doi: 10.1080/10413200590932434
Martin, S. B., Kellmann, M., Lavallee, D., and Page, S. J. (2002). Development and psychometric evaluation of the sport psychology attitudes - revised form: a multiple group investigation. Sport Psychol. 16, 272–290. doi: 10.1123/tsp.16.3.272
Martin, S. B., Lavallee, D., Kellmann, M., and Page, S. J. (2004). Attitudes toward sport psychology consulting of adult athletes from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2, 146–160. doi: 10.1080/1612197x.2004.9671738
Martin, S. B., Zakrajsek, R. A., and Wrisberg, C. A. (2012). “Attitude towards sports psychology and seeking assistance: key words and a proposed model” in Psychology of attitudes. eds. C. D. Logan and M. I. Hodges (Hauppauge, NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers), 1–33.
McDougall, M., Nesti, M., and Richardson, D. (2015). The challenges of sport psychology delivery in elite and professional sport: reflections from experienced sport psychologists. Sport Psychol. 29, 265–277. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2014-0081
Michel, J. D. (2013). An exploratory investigation of baseball coaches’ attitudes and experiences with sport psychology. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. Available online at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd
Moesch, K., Kenttä, G., Kleinert, J., Quignon-Fleuret, C., Cecil, S., and Bertollo, M. (2018). FEPSAC position statement: mental health disorders in elite athletes and models of service provision. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 38, 61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.05.013
Mohd Dzin, N. H., and Lay, Y. F. (2021). Validity and reliability of adapted self-efficacy scales in malaysian context using pls-sem approach. Educ Sci (Basel) 11:676. doi: 10.3390/educsci11110676
Naoi, A., Watson, J., Deaner, H., and Sato, M. (2011). Multicultural issues in sport psychology and consultation. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 9, 110–125. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2011.567101
Nelson, D. J. (2008). The attitudes of coaches toward sport psychology consultation. Minneapolis, MN: Capella University. Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/39d4b03a021ae87dd49b9cd519611bf0/1?cbl=18750&pq-origsite=gscholar (Accessed May 14, 2025).
Ong, N. C. H., and Harwood, C. (2018). Attitudes toward sport psychology consulting in athletes: understanding the role of culture and personality. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 7, 46–59. doi: 10.1037/spy0000103
Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic personnel for season-long consulting. Sport Psychol. 2, 243–254. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2.3.243
Reid, C., Stewart, E., and Thorne, G. (2004). Multidisciplinary sport science teams in elite sport: comprehensive servicing or conflict and confusion? Sport Psychol. 18, 204–217. doi: 10.1123/tsp.18.2.204
Schinke, R. J., and Stambulova, N. (2017). Context-driven sport and exercise psychology practice: widening our lens beyond the athlete. J. Sport Psychol. Action 8, 71–75. doi: 10.1080/21520704.2017.1299470
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., and Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J. Educ. Res. 99, 323–338. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2016). Beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. 4t Edn. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Sharp, L. A., Woodcock, C., Holland, M. J. G., Cumming, J., and Duda, J. L. (2013). A qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of a mental skills training program for youth athletes. Sport Psychol. 27, 219–232. doi: 10.1123/tsp.27.3.219
Sullivan, J., and Hodge, K. P. (1991). A survey of coaches and athletes about sport psychology in New Zealand. Sport Psychol. 5, 140–151. doi: 10.1123/tsp.5.2.140
Swann, C., Moran, A., and Piggott, D. (2015). Defining elite athletes: issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004
Trequattrini, R., Cuozzo, B., Petrecca, F., and Manzari, A. (2022). “Corporate governance and gender issues: the case of professional football companies in Italy” in Organizational resilience and female entrepreneurship during crises: Emerging evidence and future agenda. eds. P. Poaoloni and R. Lombardi (Cham, CH: Springer Nature), 123–135.
Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Brewer, D. D., and Linder, D. E. (2016). NCAA division II college football players’ perceptions of an athlete who consults a sport psychologist. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 14, 273–282. doi: 10.1123/jsep.14.3.273
van Tubergen, F., and Molteni, F. (2024). Does parental origin-country culture affect the gender gap in sport participation? A study of immigrant youth in Italy. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 50, 4002–4020. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2024.2333875
Vitiello, C. (2023). Culture of Honor and intentions to seek mental health support: The mediating role of self-construal, reputation and mental health stigma in Italy. Lisbon: ISCTE - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa. Available online at: https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/29754/1/master_chiara_vitiello.pdf (Accessed May 14, 2025).
Wagstaff, C. R. D., and Quartiroli, A. (2023). A systems-led approach to developing psychologically informed environments. J. Sport Psychol. Action 14, 227–242. doi: 10.1080/21520704.2023.2215715
Wekesser, M. M., Harris, B. S., Langdon, J., and Wilson, C. H. (2021). Coaches’ impact on youth athletes’ intentions to continue sport participation: the mediational influence of the coach–athlete relationship. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 16, 490–499. doi: 10.1177/1747954121991817
Wrisberg, C. A., Loberg, L. A., Simpson, D., Withycombe, J. L., and Reed, A. (2010). An exploratory investigation of NCAA division-I coaches’ support of sport psychology consultants and willingness to seek mental training services. Sport Psychol. 24, 489–503. doi: 10.1123/tsp.24.4.489
Wrisberg, C. A., Simpson, D., Loberg, L. A., Withycombe, J. L., and Reed, A. (2009). NCAA division-I student-athletes’ receptivity to mental skills training by sport psychology consultants. Sport Psychol. 23, 470–486. doi: 10.1123/tsp.23.4.470
Yasuda, Y. (2022). The potential of cultural psychology in sports settings. Int. J. Sport Health Sci. 20, 19–25. doi: 10.5432/ijshs.202123
Zakrajsek, R., Martin, S., and Zizzi, S. (2011). American high school football coaches’ attitudes toward sport psychology consultation and intentions to use sport psychology services. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 6, 461–478. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.6.3.461
Zakrajsek, R. A., and Zizzi, S. J. Factors influencing track and swimming coaches’ intentions to use sport psychology services. Athletic Insights: The Online J. Sports Psychol. 9, 1–21. (2007). Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239794391_Factors_Influencing_Track_and_Swimming_Coaches’_Intentions_to_Use_Sport_Psychology_Services (Accessed May 14, 2025).
Keywords: athletes, coaches, sports psychology, attitudes toward sport psychology, cultural context
Citation: Simonti G, Kamphoff C, McAlarnen M, Kratimenos P and Quartiroli A (2025) Cultural attitudes toward sport psychology: insights from Italian athletes and coaches. Front. Psychol. 16:1630005. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1630005
Edited by:
Mabliny Thuany, University of Porto, PortugalReviewed by:
Pedro Forte, Higher Institute of Educational Sciences of the Douro, PortugalEna Monserrat Romero Pérez, University of Sonora, Mexico
Mário Borges, London South Bank University, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2025 Simonti, Kamphoff, McAlarnen, Kratimenos and Quartiroli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alessandro Quartiroli, YXF1YXJ0aXJvbGlAdXdsYXguZWR1
†ORCID: Gabriele Simonti, https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5264-2618
Cindra Kamphoff, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5978-731X
Michelle McAlarnen, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-7840
Panagiotis Kratimenos, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7368-0436
Alessandro Quartiroli, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6488-4210