When a sports performance is at its peak, it is akin to a musical performance in the sense that each player seems to perform their part effortlessly, creating a rhythmic flow of counterparts all moving as one. Rhythm and timing are vital elements in sports like basketball in which syncopated passing and shooting appear to facilitate accuracy. This study tests if shooting baskets “in rhythm,” as measured by the catch-to-release time, reliably enhances shooting accuracy. It then tests if an “in rhythm” timing is commonly detected and agreed upon by observers, and if observer timing ratings are related to shooting accuracy. Experiment 1 tests the shooting accuracy of two amateur basketball players after different delays between catching a pass and shooting the ball. Shots were taken from the three-point line (180 shots). All shots were recorded and analyzed for accuracy as a function of delay time, and the recordings were used to select stimuli varying in timing intervals for observers to view in Experiment 2. In Experiment 2, 24 observers each reviewed 17 video clips of the shots to test visual judgment of shooting-in-rhythm. The delay times ranged from 0.3 to 3.2 seconds, with a goal of having some of the shots taken too fast, some close to in rhythm, and some too slow. Observers rated if each shot occurs too fast, in rhythm slightly fast, in rhythm slightly slow, or too slow. In Experiment 1, shooters exhibited a significant cubic fit with better shooting performance in the middle of the timing distribution (1.2 sec optimal delay) between catching a pass and shooting. In Experiment, 2 observers reliably judged shots to be in rhythm centered at 1.1 ± 0.2 seconds, which matched the delay that leads to optimal performance for the shooters found in Experiment 1. The pattern of findings confirms and validates that there is a common “in rhythm” catch-to-shoot delay time of a little over 1 second that both optimizes shooter accuracy and is reliably recognized by observers.

Background: Impulsivity is a strong, consistent risk factor for heavier drinking and internalizing symptoms. However, it is unclear whether certain facets of impulsivity (e.g., lack of premeditation and negative urgency) are differentially related to drinking quantity versus internalizing and whether drinking quantity and internalizing serve as mechanisms through which impulsive traits confer risk for negative alcohol consequences. Method: Data are from a longitudinal study of contextual influences on alcohol response in emerging adults (N = 448, Mage = 22.27, 43.5% female). Longitudinal path models in Mplus tested whether UPPS-P impulsivity facets at T1 were prospectively associated with drinking quantity and internalizing symptoms (T2), and whether T2 drinking and internalizing symptoms mediated effects of T1 impulsivity on T3 negative alcohol consequences. Separate models were tested for positive and negative urgency and sex and age were included as model covariates. Results: Consistent with study hypotheses, T1 lack of premeditation indirectly predicted T3 negative alcohol consequences through heavier T2 drinking, whereas T1 negative urgency indirectly predicted T3 negative alcohol consequences through higher T2 stress and depressive symptoms. Contrary to hypotheses, lack of perseverance was not related to drinking quantity and alcohol use was not prospectively related to alcohol consequences. Conclusions: The current study found that distinct impulsive traits were associated with drinking quantity and internalizing symptoms, both of which conferred risk for negative alcohol consequences. Findings underscore the importance of targeting drinking behavior as well as internalizing symptomology based on the presence of specific impulsive personality traits. Such personality-centered interventions have shown promise in prior research.

Adolescence is an important period of scaffolding for educational attainment, which is among the strongest predictors of outcomes in multiple domains. Parents who encourage academic success and promote self-regulation may enhance their offspring’s educational attainment. However, parents with externalizing disorders present a complex constellation of risk factors, including low educational attainment and poor parenting, and are more likely to have children with high levels of disinhibition. Previous research has identified low parental education, poor parenting and adolescent impulsivity as threats to educational attainment, but has not examined risk factors for discrepancies in educational attainment among siblings of the same family. Furthermore, studies have not examined the between- and within-family mechanisms that may explain why adolescents with externalizing parents have low educational attainment. The current study addressed these gaps by testing between- and within-family predictors of educational attainment using data from a longitudinal, multigenerational study that oversampled families at risk for alcohol use disorder. The sample consisted of 555 biological siblings within 240 families. We tested whether parental externalizing predicted lower educational attainment through parents’ own lower education, parents’ differential treatment of offspring, and impulsivity. Results suggested that between families, parents with externalizing disorders had lower educational attainment and more impulsive offspring, but did not exhibit increased differential parenting. Within families, siblings with greater impulsivity had lower educational attainment, whereas receiving more preferential maternal treatment than one’s siblings predicted higher educational attainment. Low parental educational attainment mediated the relation between parental externalizing disorders and low offspring educational attainment.