Systematic review highlights the effects of positive psychology interventions on athletes' well-being and performance, suggesting potential benefits.
This systematic review synthesized controlled studies investigating the effects of positive psychology interventions (PPIs) in sports targeting well-being, performance, and positive traits. Three electronic databases (PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) were systematically searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published up to October 15, 2025, supplemented by manual searches. Controlled PPI studies assessing well-being or performance of healthy athletes or coaches were included. Studies were grouped by outcome domain and intervention strategy, and results were analyzed using vote counting by direction-of-effect. Risk of bias was assessed using standardized domain-based criteria informed by the Cochrane framework. The 24 included studies encompassed data from 2550 participants and examined mindfulness-based practices, positive mental skills training, hypnosis, and programs targeting mental health literacy, character strengths, and interpersonal climate, as well as multidimensional approaches. Across studies, favorable effects of the PPIs compared to control conditions were found on athlete well-being (11 of 15 studies), performance (8/11), and positive traits (17/19). However, confidence in these findings is limited because risk of bias was frequently high (16/24) or raised some concerns (8/24) primarily due to non-randomized allocation or unclear reporting of randomization/allocation procedures, alongside common limitations in blinding and reliance on self-report outcomes. Overall, PPIs appear promising for enhancing well-being, performance, and positive traits in sports, however, more methodologically rigorous and transparently reported trials are needed, including research examining the underlying mechanisms of these effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riedl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: