LIBRARY Mich;b 4:. State ‘wLanit/ersity . .Q-v—vp ru—v -m-—- This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECTS OF COACHING BEHAVIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL ON COLLEGE STUDENTS’ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS presented by Ye Hoon Lee has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MS. degree in Kinesiologx DW/ MOM Major Professor's Signature 9/lo /0? Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5I08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd THE EFFECTS OF COACHING BEHAVIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL ON COLLEGE STUDENTS’ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS BY Ye Hoon Lee A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Kinesiology 2009 ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF COACHING BEHAVIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL ON COLLEGE STUDENTS’ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS By Ye Hoon Lee The main purpose of this study was to identify and investigate the factors (e. g., coaching behavior) which predict the levels of social responsibility in former high school athletes. Retrospective accounts from undergraduate students at two Midwestern Universities were used to assess how they perceived their coaching behavior in high school and how those behaviors influenced their sense of social responsibility. The 40- item perceived version of the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and the 21-item Social and Personal Responsibility (SPRS; Conrad & Hedin, 1981b) were administered. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients, and hierarchical regression analyses. In this investigation, it was hypothesized that former high school athletes’ social responsibility would be positively predicted by the perceived leadership behaviors of training and instruction, democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback; and negatively predicted by autocratic behavior. The results of this study suggested that coaches’ training and instruction behaviors positively predicted former high school athletes’ social responsibility while autocratic behavior negatively predicted it. Athletes who perceived their former high school coaches as providing more training and instruction and exhibiting less autocratic behaviors had higher levels of social responsibility. Dedicated to my loving family iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT » I realize that this thesis would not have been completed without the support and many individuals. While everyone who has contributed to the success of this work may not be named, please know that you are remembered. My sincere appreciation and gratitude is dedicated to my committee chair, Dr. Daniel Gould for his continuous support, positive influence, and inspiration throughout my studies. Along with Dr. Gould, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for the positive contribution of time, effort, guidance, and suggestions of other members of the committee — Dr. Martha Ewing and Dr. Larry Lauer. I also am indebted to many other individuals who contributed to the completion of this thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Sang Hyup Jeong who encouraged me when I was most fi'ustrated. I also would like to thank Dr. Yooyeun Hwang at Hope College for her help with data collection. Special thanks should be given to the individuals who made this project possible; the students at Michigan State University. Their cooperation and willingness to participate made this project possible. I also want to acknowledge the financial support I received from the Korean Foundation for the Next Generation Sports Talent (NEST). The receipt of that fellowship has further committed me to my goals in this field. I owe a great deal of love, gratitude, and appreciation to my parents, Keun 800 Lee & Eui Ran Hwang, my brother, Jae Hoon Lee, my sister, Esther Lee, and my precious dog, Yamoo. If it had not been for their unconditional love, sacrifice, and emotional support, this thesis would not have been possible. iv Finally, I am deeply grateful to the grace of God with all my heart. I now trust that you are my savior and promise that I will follow you for the rest of my life. “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me (1 Corinthians 15:10).” TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... The Relationship between Coaching Behavior and Athletes’ Performance, Satisfaction, and Life Skill Development ..................... Social Responsibility Development for Young People ........................ Measuring Social Responsibility ............................................. Purpose of the Study ................................................................ Need for the Study ................................................................... Rational for the Study ................................................................ Operational Definition of Terms .................................................. CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. Overview .............................................................................. Social Learning Theory ............................................................ Socialization of Pro-Social Behaviors ....................................... Observational Learning of Sportsmanlike and Unsportsmanlike Behaviors ......................................................................... Leadership Models in Sport ....................................................... Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership .................. Leadership Scale for Sports ................................................... Research on the Multidimensional Model of Leadership ............... Antecedents of Leadership .............................................. Individual Differences ............................................... Situational Variables ................................................ Consequences of Leadership ............................................ Small and Smith’s Coaching Relationship Model of Leadership..... Horn’s Model of Coaching Effectiveness .................................. Summary of Leadership Models in Sport ................................. The Development of Social Responsibility through Sport Participation.. Measuring Social Responsibility ............................................. Factors Influencing Social Responsibility ................................. Hellison’s Responsibility Model ............................................. Summary of Social Responsibility .......................................... Gould and Carson’s Heuristic Model for Understanding the Process of Coaching Life Skills through Sport ............................................... vi viii l l 4 7 8 9 10 12 14 l6 l6 l6 l7 l8 19 20 20 22 23 23 23 24 25 27 29 31 31 33 34 37 39 40 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................. 44 METHOD .................................................................................... 44 Participants ............................................................................. 44 Instruments ............................................................................ 46 Leadership Scale for Sports .................................................. 46 Social and Personal Responsibility Scale .................................. 48 Demographic Variables ....................................................... 52 Procedure .............................................................................. 52 Data Analysis .......................................................................... 53 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................. 55 RESULTS .................................................................................... 55 Preliminary Analyses ................................................................ 55 Correlation among the Variables .................................................. 56 Hypothesis Tests ...................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................. 61 DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 61 Implications for Coaches ............................................................ 66 Limitations .............................................................................. 67 Future Research Directions ......................................................... 68 Summary ................................................................................ 69 APPENDICES .............................................................................. 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................... 83 vii LIST of TABLES 2.1 Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports ........................................... 23 3.1 Participants Age ........................................................................... 45 3.2 Additional Demographic Variable Frequencies .................................... 46 3.3 Reliability Coefficients for Leadership Scale for Sports .......................... 48 3.4 Coding for Social and Personal Responsibility Scale .............................. 49 3.5 Subscales of Social and Personal Responsibility Scale ............................ 50 4.1 Summary Statistics for Coaches’ Leadership Behaviors and Social and Personal Responsibility .................................................................. 56 4.2 Zero-order Correlations Among Predictor Variables ............................. 57 4.3 A Hierarchical Stepwise Regression Predicting Former High School Athletes’ Social and Personal Responsibility from Leadership Behavior after Controlling Demographic Variables ........................................... 60 4.4 A Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Former High School Athletes’ Social and Personal Responsibility from Leadership Behavior after Controlling Demographic Variables ........................................... 61 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Youth sports are important parts of Western society with increasing numbers of youths participating in various sport activities (Berryman, 2002). According to Smoll and Smith (2002), in the United States alone, approximately 41 million children and youth take part in nonschool sports, and approximately six to seven million 14 to 18-year-olds participate in interscholastic athletics. This is more than a 6 million increase since 1997 (National Council of Youth Sports, 2001). Moreover, Larson and Verrna (1999) have reported that children and youth in the United States spent more time than those in other countries participating in structured sports. Larson (2001) reported that youth spent an average of 30-60 minutes per day in sports emphasizing that by mere scope participation in these activities have an important impact on the lives of youth. From antiquity, sport has been regarded as a vehicle for adolescents’ psychosocial development. According to Plato, (1920) “the moral value of exercises and sports far outweigh the physical value” (p.46). The capacity of sport to build more than a participant’s physical strength or skill has been acknowledged by many researchers and educators. Kleiber and his colleagues (Kleiber & Kirshnit, 1991; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981) found that sport is a structured forum which encourages learning responsibility, persistence, risk-taking, courage, conformity, and self-control. Eccles, Barber, Stone, and Hunt (2003) also argued that structured, organized activities are a valuable use of adolescents’ time because those activities include opportunities to (a) acquire and practice specific social, physical, and intellectual skills that may be useful in a wide variety of settings including school; (b) contribute to the well-being of one’s community and to develop a sense of agency as a member of one’s community; (c) belong to a socially recognized and valued group; ((1) establish supportive social networks of peers and adults that can help in both the present and the future; and (e) face and deal with challenges. As a consequence of the widespread appeal of sport and its benefit to children and youth, there has been a growing interest in exploring sport’s contribution to positive youth development over the past two decades. This trend highlighting sport as a vehicle for personal development has been exemplified in government, sport community, and psychology. For example, the federal government has highlighted physical activity, which includes sport and recreation, as a focus area in its Healthy People 2010 report (Healthy People 2010, 2001). In addition, the mission statement of Pop Warner Little Scholars, a national U.S. youth sport organization that provides football and cheer programs for boys and girls, is to “teach fundamental values, skills, and knowledge that children will use throughout their lives” (Pop Warner Little Scholars, inc., n.d.). Finally, the field of general psychology has been concerned about developing youth through sport activities (e.g., Larson, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Consistent with this trend, much of the empirical evidence has supported the relationship between participation in sport and positive development among youth. For example, researchers have reported positive connections between participation in sport and various psychological indices such as increased feelings of self-worth and self- esteem, and better psychological adjustment (Bailey, 2006; Broh, 2002; Frederick & Eccles, 2006a; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett, 1993). Furthermore, participation in sport, compared to participation in other extracurricular activities, has predicted the deveIOpment of initiative (Larson, 2000; Larson, Hansen, & Monetal, 2006). According to Larson (2000), the definition of initiative is “the ability to be motivated from within to direct attention and effort toward a challenging goal” (p. 170), and it has been recognized as essential to positive youth development. Youths’ participation in sport has also been found to be related to the development of emotional regulation skill and personal responsibility, as well as better psychological resilience (Bartko & Eccles, 2003; Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003). Nevertheless, other research studies have shown the negative impacts of sport participation on the development of children and youth. For example, Eccles and Barber (1999) and Eccles et a1. (2003) have linked youth sport participation to increased alcohol consumption. Shields and Bredemeier (2001) reported that sport participants showed reduced moral development when compared to non-participants. Hanson et a1. (2003) concluded that youth who participated in sport demonstrated the lowest level of pro- social norms. Finally, according to Burton and Marshall (2005), the positive relationship between sport participation and youths’ engagement in aggressive behavior has been empirically established. Together, the evidence is mixed regarding the relationship between developmental benefits and children and youths’ participation in sport. That is, the patterns were not as simple as one might expect, as some youth have been found to benefit, while others have not. This suggests that mere participation in sports might not facilitate or hinder healthy development in youths, but the context of participation might produce these unequivocal results (Danish & Hale, 1981). In fact, outside of the physical activity benefits, just playing, competing, or kicking a ball do not appear to be related to adolescents’ positive values and skills. However, because so many adolescents participate in sports regardless of its benefits, it seems to be both necessary and responsible to create opportunities for pro-social development in an arena that occupies so much of children’s time and thought (Brunelle, Danish, & F omeris, 2007). Therefore, understanding what factors might help instill positive values and skills through sport for youth is critical. In terms of the interaction between contexts and children, one may raise a question of how coaches can promote developmental processes and positive skills development. This is consistent with Rehberg’s (1969) suggestion that one of the five possible mediators for the positive effects of sports participation was “superior career guidance and encouragement.” The Relationship between Coaching Behavior and Athletes’ Performance, Satisfaction, and Life Skill Development Most sport programs for children and youth are led by adult coaches. These coaches are often considered as significant agents in shaping the environment that children and youth experience, and have a role in the outcomes that youth derive from participation by allowing them to be self-directed and voluntary. More specifically, a coach’s behavior influences athletes’ performance and satisfaction (Gordon, 1986; Robinson & Carron, 1982; Schiliesman, 1987; Summers, 1983; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). One coaching behavior of particular importance is the coaches’ style of leadership. A well-recognized approach to studying sport leadership is Chelladurai and Carron’s (1978) Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML). This model examines the possible impact of leadership behavior on athletic performance and personal satisfaction within a sport-specific framework. The major premise is that the performance and satisfaction of the athlete are a function of the congruence of three leadership aspects — required, preferred, and actual behaviors (Westre & Weiss, 1991). Based upon the utilization of the multidimensional leadership model (Chelladurai & Carron, 1978), Chelladruai and Saleh (1980) developed the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), to assess the effectiveness of coaching behavior. The scale consists of five dimensions of leader behavior in sport settings: (1) instructional behavior (training and instruction or task- oriented instruction), (2) decision-making styles (autocratic and democratic behavior), and (3) motivational tendencies (social support and positive feedback). Research testing this model (Gordon, 1986; Robinson & Carron, 1982; Schiliesman, 1987; Summers, 1983; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986) has generally supported its contentions showing that these varying aspects of leader behavior influence athlete performance and satisfaction. However, there is a growing agreement that not only coaches occupy a position of centrality in the athletes’ performance and satisfaction, but their influence can extend into other areas of children’s lives as well (Smith, Smoll, and Christensen, 1996). For example, Smith, Smoll, and Hunt (1979) developed the Coaching Behavioral Assessment System (CBAS) to assess the fiequency with which individual coaches exhibit 12 behavioral dimensions. It was developed to allow the investigators to observe coaching behaviors during both practices and games. The research using this measurement reported that certain coaching behaviors such as high frequencies of supportive and instructive behaviors and low frequencies of punitive actions were positively associated with young athlete’s psychosocial development (Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 197 9). Furthermore, other researchers have investigated the impact of a certain coaching behavior on youths’ life skill development. For example, Gould, Collins, Lauer, and Chung (2006, 2007) interviewed high school football coaches who had been recognized for helping their players learn life skills. Gould and his colleagues (2006, 2007) then identified the four sets of factors that the coaches mentioned. First, even though they were motivated to win, the coaches held philosophies which emphasized the importance of instilling life skills in their athletes. Second, they formed strong relationships with their athletes. Third, they adopted a variety of advanced strategies for teaching life skills. Finally, the coaches paid attention to environmental factors, parents, and peers as agents which affect life skill development and made efforts to systematically consider these factors in the life skill development process. Interestingly, the fact that these coaches had won more than 70% of their games is noteworthy as it contradicts the claim that winning and life skills development cannot coexist. In summary, research has provided conclusive evidence that some aspects of coaching are positively related to better performance, satisfaction, and psychosocial as well as life skill development (Gould et al., 2006, 2007; Gordon, 1986; Robinson & Carron, 1982; Schiliesman, 1987; Smith et al., 1995; Smith et al., 1978; Summers, 1983; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). To date, however, not enough research has explored the relationship between certain coaching behaviors and youths’ life skill development. This research is essential to confirm the claim that it is not mere participation that automatically promotes healthy youth development and life skills, but the quality of adult leadership. Also, it should be noted that this study focused particular attention on young athletes’ levels of social responsibility. Social responsibility is one of the relevant life skill variables that have not been examined in previous life skills sport participation studies. Social Responsibility Development for Young People Starrett (1996) defined social responsibility; as “a social attitude and a pattern of behavior that implies good citizenship within one’s community or society (p. 535)”. He argued that the responsible person demonstrates a ready willingness to accept the consequences of his own behavior and exhibits dependability, trustworthiness, and a sense of obligation to the group. Thus, responsible person used to be on time, to fulfill obligations, to accept the consequences of actions, to take on demanding tasks, to know how to cooperate with peers, and the like (Conrad & Hedin, 1981b). Much research has explored the factors which influence an individual’s sense of social responsibility such as personality differences (Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004), genetic makeup (Harris, Rushton, Hampson, & Jackson, 1996; Rushton, 2005), community involvement (Kellstedt & Green, 2003; Higgins, Powers, & Kohlberg, 1989; Kennemer, 2002; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1999), parenting style (Bettelheim, 1985; Dominguez & Carton, 1997; Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999; Hoffman, 1981), and a task-oriented goal perspective (Duda, 1989; Roberts, Hall, Jackson, Kimiecik, & Tonymon, 1991). However, little research regarding the impact of coaching styles and actions to young people’s levels of social responsibility in the sport setting has been conducted. Measuring social responsibility To measure the student attitude toward being socially and personally responsible, Conrad and Hedin (1981b) developed the Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS) to measure the student attitude toward being socially and personally responsible. Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS; Conrad & Hedin, 1981b) consists of the 21-item. The three dimensions of attitudes, competence, and efficacy, are included in the SPRS as a concept of total responsibility. The subscales of the SPRS assess the extent to which the students have responsible attitudes, feel competent to act responsibly, feel a sense of efficacy to take responsibility, and perceive their ability to perform responsible acts. Attitudes toward being responsible were firrther subdivided into social welfare and duty. The social welfare subscale focuses on the extent to which one feels concerned about problems and issues in the wider society (Items 2, 7, ll, & 15). The duty subscale focused on the extent to which one feels bound to personally meet social obligations (Items 1, 10, 17, & 20). Competence to take responsibility made up the third subscale. While one may have a positive attitude toward others, a person may still not be able to act in a responsible manner if he or she does not have the competence or skill to do so. Items in the SPRS in which this was illustrated included: “Some teenagers would rather not present ideas in a group discussion, but other teenagers feel comfortable in presenting ideas in a group discussion,” or “Some teenagers are good at helping people, but other teenagers don’t see helping people as one of their strong points” (Items 9, 13, & 16). The fourth attitudinal dimension focused on one’s efficacy regarding responsibility. One must be willing or be able to believe that taking responsible action will have an impact on the social or physical environment. The sense of efficacy, one of the building blocks of a democracy, was assessed by several items in the SPRS (Items 3, 14, 18, & 21). Lastly, the instrument assessed the extent to which students perceived they act in responsible ways (Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, & 19). The purpose of this stuay The main purpose of this study was to identify and investigate the factors (e. g., coaching behavior) which predict the levels of social responsibility in former high school athletes. Specifically, the first and second year college students with athletic experience in high school participated in the surveys which assess their current sense of social responsibility and their reflection of the coaching behavior they had experienced in high school. This study focused on the five dimensions of leader behavior from Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) Leadership Scales for Sports: Training and Instructional, Democratic, Positive Feedback, Supportive, and Autocratic, and three dimensions of Conrad and Hedin’s (1981b) Social and Personal Responsibility Scale, based on the premise that social responsibility in youth may be strongly affected by their significant adults’ behaviors. Thus, the hypothesis proposed in this study is as follow: 1. Former high school athletes’ social responsibility would be positively predicted by the perceived leadership behaviors of training and instruction, democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback; and negatively predicted by autocratic behavior. Need for the Study Development of social responsibility in youth has been a matter of great concern to parents, teachers, and students themselves. In fact, social responsibility had been considered the most desired social outcome of education and development by adult and adolescent subjects (Krumboltz, Ford, Nichols, & Wentzel, 1987; Mutimer & Rosemier, 1967) Pro-social behavior is a significant area of social responsibility. People who have a higher sense of social responsibility tend to act more prosocially than people with a lower sense of social responsibility (Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004; Carlo, Eisenberg, Troyer, Switzer, & Speer, 1991; Oliner & Oliner, 1988). In addition, social responsibility is also related to a person’s maturity. According to Kohler (1982), one characteristic of maturity is “one’s ability to accept and follow through on responsibilities for one’s self, one’s family, one’s work, and one’s community” (p. 5). Kluever and Green (1998) found increasing evidence that independence and responsibility were indicators of maturity. Therefore, in order to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood, adolescents need chances to be responsible, caring, participating members of society. 10 Lastly, other research has shown the beneficial outcomes of students’ adoption of social responsibility on various aspects of school performance (Lambert & Nicoll, 1977; Mischel, 1961; Paker & Asher, 1987; Wentzel, Weingerger, Ford, & F eldman 1990). Moreover, it has been suggested that a causal relationship might exist between learning and behaving responsibly in the classroom. If students behave responsibly, the classroom climate will be conducive to learning and cognitive development. Behaving irresponsibly, however, can lead to classroom disorder or poor interpersonal relationships, and place children at risk for academic failure (W entzel, 1991). Similar evidence in support of the importance of social responsibility is also TH. found in sport contexts. For example, Gould, Chung, Smith, and White (2006) found that the high school coaches indicated the failure to take personal responsibility for one’s self and one’s actions as one of the areas youth most needed to develop. While there is growing concern of a lack of young students’ responsible behavior, there has been little research examining the relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and young people’s social responsibility attitude in sport settings. From this perspective, sport psychology researchers ask, “How do sport activities facilitate social responsibility development?” This question is significant because youth need ample opportunity to develop ethical attitudes under the guidance of teachers and other adults such as coaches (Williams, 1993). That is, if young people’s attitude toward social responsibility is associated with their coaches’ certain behaviors, then it is important to explore coaching behavior. Thus, there is a critical need for empirical and theoretical work on identifying and finding the ways in which perceived coaches’ behaviors influence young students’ levels of social responsibility. Furthermore, it is hoped that the 11 results of this line of research can be used to help educate coaches on the appropriate coaching behaviors for helping youth become whole persons, characterized by citizenship, and a commitment to and participation in a political community. Rationale for the Study Ford, Wentzel, Wood, Stevens, and Siesfeld (1989) reported that the most important determinants of social responsibility were motivational and contextual processes. Various examples supporting this finding such as community involvement, parenting style, and task goal orientation in education and sport domain will be introduced below. First of all, in a study by Higgins and his colleagues (1984) examining the relationship between the school environment and children’s moral choices, they found that students in democratically run schools were more likely to make pro-social choices, an indication of attitude toward social responsibility, than students from traditionally run schools. In addition, there are a number of relevant studies regarding the provision of social responsibility in youth through parenting style. It has been well established that parenting style and home environment instill a worldview that includes how people perceive their environment, others, and their ability to affect or influence their environment and other people (Berman, 1990). According to Hoffman (1981) and Bettelheim (1985), empathy as well as social responsibility can be developed when parents encouraged their children to consider the feelings of others and allow them to make a choice of behavior based on empathy. Also, parenting style such as authoritative 12 parenting, a style that attempts to direct the behaviors of their children in rational and respectful ways and provides open communication, has proven to produce more social adjustment (Dominguez & Carton, 1997; Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999) in children. Furthermore, Nicholls, Patashnick, and Nolen (1985) examined the relationship between goal perspectives (task- and ego- goal orientation) and the world views about the purpose of education. They found that a task-oriented perspective was strongly associated with the view that education is an end in itself and that education meant being socially committed, having a commitment to learning, and understanding and mastering materials. Later, Duda (1989) and Roberts and his colleagues (1991) extended the Nicholls et al.’s finding in sports. Duda’s study revealed that a task-oriented goal perspective was positively associated with the view that sport would facilitate honesty and respect, enhance one’s self-esteem, teach people to try their best, cooperate, and be a good citizen. In the study by Roberts et al. (1991), the effect of possessing either a task- or an ego-oriented goal perspective on the perception of the purpose of sport was investigated using 338 young adults. The results indicated that task-oriented athletes endorsed pro- social characteristics of enhancing social responsibility. Within the sport arena, there also has been a rising interest in developing a more structured pro-social education to teach responsibility. Hellison (1978, 1985, 1995) developed a physical activity-based responsibility model or, more formally, the taking personal and social responsibility (TPSR) framework. He emphasized democratic practices such as sharing power and negotiating with athletes, and treating youth with respect. More recently, Brunelle and his colleagues (2007) examined the effects of sport- 13 based life skill programs such as Going for the Goal (GOAL; Danish, 20023; 2002b) and Sports United to Promote Education and Recreation (SUPER; Danish, 2002c; Danish, Taylor, & F azio, 2003) on pro-social values in children; they found that sport promotes character and values when combined with life skill programming. Indeed, these efforts clearly indicated that under the right conditions, life skills such as moral reasoning and pro-social behavior can be taught through sport. Hence, as sport psychology researchers, we need to help coaches identify behaviors that encourage young athletes to become whole people by applying strategies for social development (Hellison, Martinek, & Cutforth, 1996). Together, when regarding that coaches are critical elements in shaping the motivational and contextual processes during practice and competition in the sport settings, it may be reasonable to posit that coaches who are engaged in task-focused, democratic and supportive manners while avoiding controlling style can influence young athletes’ levels of social responsibility. Operational Definition of Terms For the purpose of clarification, the following terms were defined: Leadership. “The behavioral process of influencing individuals and groups toward goals” (Barrow, 1977, p. 232). Training and Instruction. Coaching behavior aimed at improving the athletes’ performance by emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training; instructing them in the skills, techniques and tactics of the sport; clarifying the relationship among 14 the members; and by structuring and coordinating the members’ activities (Chelladurai, 1989) Democratic Behavior. Coaching behavior which allows greater participation by the athletes in decisions pertaining to group goals, practice methods, and game tactics and strategies (Chelladurai, 1989). Autocratic Behavior. Coaching behavior which involves independent decision making and stresses personal authority (Chelladurai, 1989). Social Support. Coaching behavior characterized by a concern for the welfare of individual athletes, positive group atmosphere, and warm interpersonal relations with members (Chelladurai, 1989). Positive Feedback. Coaching behavior which reinforces an athlete by recognizing and rewarding good performance (Chelladurai, 1989). Life skill. “Those internal personal assets, characteristics, and skills such as goal setting, emotional control, self-esteem, and hard work ethic that can be facilitated or developed in sport and are transferred for use in non-sport settings” (Gould & Carson, 2008,p.7) Social Responsibility. “A social attitude and a pattern of behavior that implies good citizenship within one’s community or society” (Starrett, 1996, p. 535). In this study, social responsibility is deemed a part of life skill. 15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter has been divided into four sections: (a) social learning theory; (b) leadership models in sports; (c) social responsibility; and (d) a heuristic model for understanding the process of coaching. In each section, the research literature and conceptual approaches used will be discussed for the purpose of informing the present study. Overview According to the National Council of Youth Sports (2001), approximately 52 million youth'participate in sport and other youth development recreational activities. Larson and his colleagues (Larson, 2001; Larson & Verma, 1999) have found that children and youth fiom the United States spend 30-60 minutes per day on structured sports. Much of the empirical evidence has examined the developmental benefits associated with such participation. Some evidence suggests that participation in sport leads to healthier development, because participation has been linked to enhanced self- esteem; better psychological adjustment (Bailey, 2006; Broh, 2002; Frederick & Eccles, 2006a; F redericks & Eccles, 2006b); the development of initiative (Larson, 2000; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006); increased psychological resilience (Bartko & Eccles, 2003); and better emotional regulation (Hansen et al., 2003). However, there are also drawbacks 16 to participation in sport. In particular, participation has been linked to increased alcohol consumption (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Eccles et al., 2003); impaired moral development (Bredemeier & Shields, 1986); reduced learning of prosocial norms (Hansen et al., 2003); and aggressive behavior (Burton & Marshall, 2005). From the research, then, there is mixed evidence about the developmental benefits of children’s and youths’ participation in sport. However, the role of the coach is hypothesized to be decisive in influencing positive youth and life skills development (Smith & Smoll, 1996; Gould et al., 2007). One area of special relevance is young athletes’ social responsibility. Under the right conditions, life skills such as social responsibility can be taught through sport. This evidence is based on studies that were on It social learning theory. A review of social learning theory is therefore inevitable. Social Learning Theory The question of how coaching behaviors impact young athlete’s social responsibility can be answered by using the tenets of social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Social learning theory argues that young people learn their attitudinal and behavioral repertoires from significant others through modeling their behaviors and social comparison. Weiss and Smith (2002) contended that social responsibility consists of behaviors that children learn within the family, school, and in other interpersonal contexts. Children internalize the accepted behaviors of their society or culture (e. g., responsibility, honesty, altruism, respect, and cooperation) via models and through differential 17 reinforcement by significant others who confer and withdraw affection, approval, and tangible and vicarious rewards. Eisenberg (1995) and Eisenberg and F abes (1998) also used a social cognitive model to provide an integrated approach to moral development. They focused on the factors that affect development of pro-social behavior in children. Those key factors included the influence of parents, teachers, and peers, moral reasoning and social perspective-taking ability, personality correlates, affective factors such as empathy and sympathy, and situational factors. Eisenberg and her colleagues argued that the development and expression of pro-social behavior were all affected by the interaction of individual differences and environmental influences. Social learning methods such as role modeling, explicit teaching of values through character education programs, and approval and disapproval of specific behaviors have been prevalent in both the mainstream (Damon, 1988) and sport psychology (Smith, 1988) literature. Therefore, two social learning approaches (socialization of pro-social behaviors and observational learning of Sportsmanlike) will be discussed to understand how those areas develop young people’s morality. Socialization of Pro-social Behaviors According to Weiss and Smith (2002), pro-social behaviors are indicative of altruism, honesty, cooperation, peer encouragement, empathy, responsibility, and equity. Previous research reported that sport activities influence pro-social behaviors through reinforcement and modeling. For instance, Giebink and McKenzie (1985) reported that their intervention program, designed to promote young students’ social interaction skills, 18 enhanced their sportsmanship. Moreover, Gibbons, Ebbeck, and Weiss (1995) found that children who received a fair play training program showed significantly higher levels of moral functioning than their untrained counterparts. It is particularly interesting that these programs adopted the strategies of showing good sportsmanship and a contingent reward system. Thus, these results indicate that pro-social behaviors, an indicative on social responsibility, can be learned under the right condition and instruction which provide relevant feedback and appropriate behaviors from coaches. Observational Learning of Sportsmanlike and Unsportsmanlike Behaviors There has been a historically popular belief that role models are likely to influence children’s learning of what is acceptable and unacceptable in sport (Smith, 1988; Wiggins, 1996). For instance, Smith (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1988) conducted a series of studies designed to investigate the social Ieaming of aggression and violence in amateur ice hockey. Smith (1974) found that young players whose favorite professional players are more violent tended to receive more assaultive penalties for fighting, slashing, and hooking than did those who selected less violent models. It was concluded that role models’ behaviors can influence young athletes’ learning and expression of aggressive behaviors. Moreover, Mugno and Feltz’s (1985) study of the difference in aggression between football players and nonplayers, revealed that young players who watched and read more about football reported Ieaming about 10 illegal aggressive actions compared with about 8.5 actions for nonplayers. In light of the powerful role of modeling in moral development, it has been argued that moral behaviors can be learned through modeling. For example, Damon 19 (1988) argued that children can learn and develop moral awareness and moral responsibility to demonstrate socially relevant actions through appropriate moral behavior as exhibited by their significant others (Weiss & Smith, 2002). Summary of Social Learning Theory Previous studies based on social Ieaming theory have concluded that significant others’ approval, modeling, and feedback on young athletes’ judgments of right and wrong in sport play a critical role in shaping their moral development. In other words, when young people watch adults who are trying to support, provide positive feedback and a chance to help others, and communicate the meaning of those experiences, the experience may facilitate young people’s acquisition of socially responsible attitudes and behaviors (Scales, Blyth, Berkas, & Kielsmeier, 2000). Therefore, it makes logical sense that coaches serve as significant agents with the potential to help young athletes acquire a sense of social responsibility through their presence and behaviors. Leadership Models in Sport Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership One of the oldest and most widely used leadership models in sport is the Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML; Chelladurai, 1980). The MML was one of the first models to consider that the behaviors of leaders were not only a function of 20 their characteristics, but are also a function of situational opportunities and constraints. More specifically, Chelladurai (1980) proposed that leader behaviors result from their characteristics, members’ characteristics, and situational characteristics. Furthermore, Chelladurai (1980) argued that there are three states of leader behavior: preferred, actual, and required. In addition, group performance and member satisfaction are considered to be a function of the congruence among these three states of leader behavior. Required leader behavior is considered a function of what a situation demands, and also by members’ characteristics. For example, required leader behaviors are influenced by situational characteristics such as the goals and the formal organizational structure of the team, social norms, and cultural values. Moreover, when members are too t young to make appropriate judgments about situational requirements, leaders make decisions on their behalf. Preferred leader behavior was viewed as a function of both the characteristics of group members and the situational characteristics. In other words, personality factors such as need for achievement, need for affiliation, and competence in the task affect a member’s preferences for coaching and guidance, social support, and feedback. Moreover, an organizational expectation which forces a leader to behave in a certain way will also affect a member’s preference for coaching. Furthermore, actual leader behavior is “influenced by (a) the demands and constraints imposed by the situation, (b) the preferences of the members under the leader’s charge, and (c) the leader’s own personal characteristics” (Chelladurai, 2001, p.318). A leader’s characteristics are his or her personal ability, knowledge, experience, and personality. 21 Together, these three states of leader behaviors were purported to predict both the performance of the group, and the satisfaction of the members. More specifically, the more congruent the leader’s actual behavior is with what the situation requires and with what the members prefer, the more satisfied the members should be and the better performance is predicted for the group (Chelladurai, 2001). The Leadership Scale for Sports Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) developed the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) to measure leadership behaviors of coaches. In the first stage of the development, they took out five factors from the responses of physical education students to an original pool of 99 items drawn and modified from existing scales. In the second stage, physical education students and university athletes completed the reduced pool of 50 items. Factor analyses of these responses produced a five-dimensional description of leader behavior. The five dimensions of leader behavior are training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback. These are depicted in Table 2- 1 (Chelladurai, 1989). The final scale consists of 40 items and has been modified by various authors who used the scale to measure (a) athletes’ preferences for specific leader behaviors, (b) athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ leader behaviors, and (c) coaches’ perceptions of their own behavior (Chelladurai, 1984; Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Chelladurai et al., 1988; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). 22 Table 2-1 Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports (Chelladurai, 1989) Dimension Description Training and Coaching behavior aimed at improving the athletes’ performance by Instruction Democratic behavior Autocratic behavior Social support Positive feedback emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training; instructing them in the skills, techniques and tactics of the sport; clarifying the relationship among the members; and by structuring and coordinating the members’ activities Coaching behavior which allows greater participation by the athletes in decisions pertaining to group goals, practice methods, and game tactics and strategies Coaching behavior which involves independent decision making and stresses personal authority Coaching behavior characterized by a concern for the welfare of individual athletes, positive group atmosphere, and warm interpersonal relations with members Coaching behavior which reinforces an athlete by recognizing and rewarding good performance Research on the Multidimensional Model of Leadership In the next section, the following two categories will be discussed: (a) factors affecting the perceived and/or preferred leader behavior; and (b) the consequences of leadership. Antecedents of Leadership Individual diflerences. Erle’s study (1981) of the impact of sex, experience, and motivation on the leadership preference among university and intramural players, found 23 that males preferred training and instruction more than females did. While athletes who were high on affiliation motivation and extrinsic motivation preferred more social support, those high on task motivation preferred more training and instruction. At the level of sports, players with more experience preferred positive feedback. Chelladurai and Carron (1981b) assessed the effect of participants’ cognitive structure and impulsivity on the leadership preference. They found that those who were higher on cognitive structure predicted significant preference for training and instruction, and wanted less autocratic behavior from the coach than those with a lower cognitive structure. More impulsive athletes preferred coaches’ social support behaviors more than the less impulsive athletes did. Horne and Carron (1985) examined the different perspectives held by coaches and athletes on coaching behavior, and found that coaches rated themselves higher on training and instruction, democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback than their athletes did. However, coaches’ perceptions of their own autocratic behavior matched the perceptions of the players. In summary, studies focusing on the antecedents of leader behavior have shown that a variety of individual differences factors predict preferred and actual leader behaviors. These include such factors as athlete gender, affiliation, and extrinsic motivation. Situational variables. Situational variables also have been found to influence leadership behaviors. For example, Erie (1981) reported that the effects of the differences in organizational goals of intercollegiate and intramural teams in hockey significantly predicted preferences for leader behavior. For example, intercollegiate players preferred 24 more training and instruction, greater social support, less positive feedback, and less democratic behavior from their coaches than intramural athletes did. Chelladruai and Carron (1981b) examined the relationship between task dependence and athletes’ preference of coaching behavior. They found that athletes’ cognitive structures were positively correlated with athletes’ preferences for training and instruction and democratic behavior, and negatively with preference for autocratic behavior. For example, those athletes higher on cognitive structure preferred more training and instruction, democratic, and less autocratic behavior from the coach than those athletes lower on cognitive structure. Terry’s study (1984) examined the effects of culture on the preference of the LS3 to athletes from Canada, the U.S.A., and Great Britain. After finding that no differences in preferred leadership correlated to nationality, he noted similar cultural backgrounds and sporting ideologies among the three independent variables as an explanation for the lack of significant effects. These results as well as results of additional studies demonstrated that a variety of situational variables influenced preferred and actual leadership behaviors in sports. These variables included organizational goal, task dependence, task variability, and culture. Consequences of Leadership A variety of researchers have studied how leader behaviors are related to important consequences such as participation, satisfaction, performance in athletes and teams. According to Robinson and Carron (1982), the dropouts among high school football players perceived their coaches to be more autocratic than either the starters 25 (highly skilled players who were regular members of the team) or the survivors (less skilled players who played 10% or less of the season). Thus, coaching style was related to further participation. Schliesman (1987) found that perceived democratic behavior and social support were positively connected to general satisfaction with leadership among university track and field athletes. The result also showed that general satisfaction with leadership was associated with discrepancy scores in social support and democratic behavior. Weiss and Friedrichs (1986) examined the relationship of university basketball players’ perceptions of their coaches’ behavior on the LSS dimensions with team performance and other aspects of member satisfaction. They found that perceived leadership was a predictor of win/loss records and team satisfaction. While positive feedback was the most predictive of team satisfaction, interestingly, perceived social support was most strongly, but negatively, related to athlete satisfaction and win/loss percentage (i.e., higher levels of social support were connected to lower win/loss percentages). In Gordon’s (1986) study of university soccer players from more successful teams and less successful teams, athletes from more successful teams perceived that they had received more training, autocratic, social support, and positive feedback behaviors in their coaches than the players from less successful teams. Also, players’ satisfaction with team performance was positively connected to coaches’ self-reports of training, democratic, autocratic, and social support behaviors. Summers (1983) examined the relationship of the items from the three scales — training and instruction, social support, and positive feedback — on 128 lacrosse players’ 26 satisfaction. The results, as expected, indicated that all three dimensions of leader behavior were positively connected to athlete satisfaction. In summary, these results show that leader behaviors have important effects on a wide variety of athlete and team behaviors. Critical consequences of leadership identified in the literature included athlete satisfaction, individual and team performance. Smoll and Smith’s Coaching Relationship Model of Leadership After Chelladurai (1980), Smoll and Smith (1989) proposed another leadership model within sport. According to this model, a leader’s behavior was assumed to be a fimction of the coach’s characteristics (i.e., individual difference variables), situational characteristics, and the coach’s perceptions of the athlete’s attitudes. Unlike Chelladurai’s (1980) model, the characteristics of the athlete were not predicted to have a direct influence on a coach’s behavior. In this model, athletes’ characteristics were assumed to influence both the athletes’ perceptions and their reactions. These two variables, in turn, influenced coaches’ behaviors and coaches’ perceptions of their athletes (Smoll & Smith, 1989). Therefore, while this model similarly acknowledges the three characteristics outlined by Chelladurai (1980), Smoll and Smith (1989) have defined the relationship between these characteristics and the leader’s behaviors differently. Only Smoll and Smith (1989) have identified a feedback loop, whereby athletes’ reactions and perceptions of situations influence what their coaches think about the athletes, which, in turn, affects the coach’s future behaviors. 27 Smith, Smoll, and Hunt (1977) developed an observational instrument, the Coaching Behavioral Assessment System (CBAS), to assess the frequency with which individual coaches exhibit 12 behavioral dimensions. Using CBAS, Smith, Smoll, and Curtis (1978) attempted to examine the relationship between coaches’ behaviors and young athletes’ psychosocial development. The result revealed that athletes who played for coaches who exhibited high frequencies of supportive (reinforcement for player successes and encouragement in response to player errors) and instructional (general technical instruction and mistake-contingent technical instruction) behaviors had more positive postseason attitudes toward their coach, the sport, and their teammates than did players whose coaches exhibited lower frequencies of these supportive and instructional behaviors. Moreover, the athletes with higher levels of postseason self-esteem were positively associated with the coaches with high frequencies of supportive behaviors. In conclusion, there has been consistent evidence that the types of behaviors or feedbacks coaches exhibit in practice and game contexts significantly affect the psychosocial growth and development of their players. This significant link between coaches’ behavior and players’ psychosocial responses has been demonstrated in both correlational and causal studies (Horn, 2002). Therefore, research supported this model that leader behaviors are able to play a critical role in developing a sense of social responsibility like psychosocial growth in young athletes. 28 Hom’s Model of Coaching Effectiveness Building upon the conceptualizations offered by Chelladurai (1980) and Smoll and Smith (1989), Horn (2002) proposed the Model of Coaching Effectiveness. Like both of the previous models, Horn (2002) suggested that coaches’ behaviors result from more than just the characteristics of the coach. More specifically, Horn (2002) suggested that coaches’ behaviors were largely a firnction of their sociocultural context, the organizational climate, athletes’ characteristics, performance and behavior, and obviously, the characteristics of the coach. However, Horn (2002) suggested that these antecedents influenced coaching behaviors only through their impact on coaches’ beliefs, values, expectations, and goals. Therefore, aspects of the context, in addition to the personal variables associated with both the athlete and the coach only indirectly influenced behaviors through their relationship with a coach’s belief and value system. Within this model, the coach’s behavior in practices and games affects athletes’ performance and behavior indirectly as well as directly. The athletes’ performances and behaviors are indirectly affected by the interaction between the following factors: ‘athletes’ personal characteristics’, ‘athletes’ perceptions, interpretation, and evaluation of their coaches’ behavior’, ‘ athletes’ self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes’ and ‘athletes’ level and type of motivation’ For example, although a coach’s behavior is extremely autocratic for some reason, the athletes may exhibit different behaviors, such as following or resisting their coach according to their interpretation of the coach’s behaviors (Horn, 2002). These consequences, then in turn, are purported to impact the firture behaviors of the coach. Given this feedback mechanism this model is quite similar to Smoll and Smith’s (1989) 29 model. Together, this model has gained much leverage within the research on the antecedents and the consequences of leadership behaviors. Its generality with regard to coaching behaviors, as well as its wide applicability across sporting contexts makes it appealing. Summary of Leadership Models in Sport To summarize, many leadership models exist within the domain of sport; the three most commonly referenced have been reviewed here (Chelladurai, 1980; Horn, 2002; Smoll & Smith, 1989). Specifically, Chelladurai’s (1980) and Smoll and Smith’s (1989) models were discussed in order to provide a theoretical support for the hypotheses. Additional models were introduced to show the positive relationship between leader behaviors and overall healthy outcome youth would get. The similarities of these models derive from the fact that they all claim that the characteristics of the athletes, the context, and the coach all influence coaches’ behaviors. Also, the studies examining the various coaching styles have proven that leadership style is a major factor in young athletes’ psychosocial development, as well as their performance and satisfaction. Training and instructional behavior, democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback, in particular, produced more healthy development, satisfaction, and achievement in youth. Specifically, Smoll and Smith (1989) reported that certain coaching behaviors such as high fiequencies of support and instruction resulted in the psychosocial grth and development of their young players. However, there has not been much previous research which examines the relationship between leader behavior and social responsibility 30 development in the sport settings. Therefore, the current study focused on finding the factors which have a positive impact on social responsibility development among former high school athletes. The Development of Social Responsibility through Sport Participation Starrett (1996) defined social responsibility as “a social attitude and a pattern of behavior that implies good citizenship within one’s community or society (p. 535)”. Wentzel (1991) contended that the development of social responsibility has become a great concern to parents, teachers, and students because following social rules and conforming to social role expectations are critical for positive forms of social adaptation, both within the peer group (Hartup, 1982) and within the family system (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). From a societal perspective, a lack of social responsibility skills can have numerous effects on the individual and others. For instance, antisocial children, as adults, with a lack of social responsibility, tend to demonstrate alcoholism, unemployment, divorce, and dependence on public assistance (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987). In addition, Bierhoff and Rohmann (2004) reported that those who have a higher sense of social responsibility tend to act more prosocially than people with a lower sense of social responsibility. For example, Carlo, Eisenberg, Troyer, Switzer, and Speer (1991) found that pro-social behavior in adults was significantly predicted by their sense of social responsibility. For instance, the adults with a higher sense of social responsibility tended to demonstrate pro-social behaviors in the situation when they could easily leave the 31 situation without helping and when the need for help was high. In addition, using the field study (Oliner & Oliner, 1988), during the Nazi terror, people who rescued Jews had higher scores on the social responsibility scale than people from a control group who did not intervene on behalf of Nazi victims. For students, the development of social responsibility indicates maturity; Kohler (1982) argued that “maturity is measured by one’s ability to accept and follow through on responsibilities for one’s self, one’s family, one’s work, and one’s community” (p. 5). Kluever and Green (1998) also contended that maturity is evaluated by increasing evidence of independence and responsibility. To make the transition to adulthood, young people urgently need opportunities to be responsible, caring, participating members of society (Kohler, 1982). Of particular importance to educators is the fact that social responsibility is also associated with school performance (Wentzel, 1991). For instance, the development of social responsibility in the form of citizenship skills, conformity to social rules and norms, and moral character is often considered to be a primary function of schooling (e. g., Dreeben, 1968; Jackson, 1968). With a growing sense of the importance of social responsibility in young students, American schools have focused on the promotion of socially responsible behavior as the primary educational objective. Educational institutions definitely have set their goal as socializing children into adult society by helping them learn work- and responsibility- oriented values such as dependability, punctuality, and obedience in connection with the learning process (Dreeben, 1968; Jackson, 1968). More importantly, in almost every public school since 1848, character development and social responsibility are explicit 32 objectives (Wentzel, 1991). In addition, empirical work has reported that development of social responsibility is a meaningful educational objective. Krumboltz et a1. (1987) revealed that several hundred parents, teachers, and students described social responsibility in terms of consideration and respect for others, interpersonal competence and moral development as desired and critical outcomes for students to achieve by age 18 (W entzel, 1991). Measuring Social Responsibility To measure the student attitude toward being socially and personally responsible, Conrad and Hedin (1981b) developed the Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS) to measure the student attitude toward being socially and personally responsible. The Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS; Conrad & Hedin, 1981b; see Appendix C) consists of 21-items. The three dimensions of attitudes, competence, and efficacy are included in the SPRS as a concept of total responsibility. The subscales of the SPRS assess the extent to which the students have responsible attitudes, feel competent to act responsibly, feel a sense of efficacy to take responsibility, and perceive their ability to perform responsible acts. Attitudes toward being responsible were further subdivided into social welfare and duty. The social welfare subscale focuses on the extent to which one feels concerned about problems and issues in the wider society (Items 2, 7, 11, & 15). The duty subscale focused on the extent to which one feels bound to personally meet social obligations (Items 1, 10, 17, & 20). 33 Competence to take responsibility made up the third subscale. While one may have a positive attitude toward others, a person may still not be able to act in a responsible manner if he or she does not have the competence or skill to do so. Items in the SPRS in which this was illustrated included: “Some teenagers would rather not present ideas in a group discussion, but other teenagers feel comfortable in presenting ideas in a group discussion,” or “Some teenagers are good at helping people, but other teenagers don’t see helping people as one of their strong points” (Items 9, 13, & 16). The fourth attitudinal dimension focused on one’s efficacy regarding responsibility. One must be willing or be able to believe that taking responsible action will have an impact on the social or physical environment. The sense of efficacy, one of the building blocks of a democracy, was assessed by several items in the SPRS (Items 3, 14, 18, & 21). Lastly, the instrument assessed the extent to which students perceived they act in responsible ways (Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, & 19). Factors Influencing Social Responsibility According to Ridenour (2008), much research has explored the factors which influence an individual’s sense of social responsibility: personality differences, generic makeup, religious and community involvement, parenting style, and goal perspective. These will be briefly discussed below. First, the role of personality in social responsibility is largely accepted. The research reported a negative correlation between Antisocial Personality Disorder and psychopath, and social responsibility (Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 34 2003). Bierhoff and Rohmann’s study (2004) of the social relationship and altruistic personality from the empathy-altruism hypothesis reported that situation-specific emotions and patterns of helping behavior were derived from individuals’ personality differences. Barrio, Aluja, and Garcia (2004) found a positive correlation between empathy and personality traits such as happiness. On the nature side, the role of genetics on social responsibility has been investigated. Rushton (2005) examined the differences in social responsibility between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, and found that concordance rates among monozygotic twins was almost twice that of dizygotic twins (.23 vs. .42, respectively). On the nurture side, Kennemer (2002) summarized that community and social organizations have an effect on social responsibility development. Specifically, Youniss, McLellan, and Yates (1999) reported that school and religious communities have the critical role in developing social competence among adolescents and youth. For example, Higgins and his colleagues (1984) examined the relationship between the school environment and children’s moral choices. They found that students in democratically run schools were somewhat more likely to make pro-social choices than students fiom traditionally run schools. Moreover, 80% of students from the democratic schools evaluated their peers as holding socially responsible beliefs and 60% said those peers would act on those beliefs. Only 40% of students in non-democratic schools felt that the other students in their school held pro-social values and only 30% said those peers would behave consistently with their values. Furthermore, Berman (1990) argued that, in education, the environment is more important than what social responsibility content is taught. An individual in a position of authority (e. g., a parent, a coach) should treat 35 students with empathy, empowerment, and fairness, and perhaps the students will internalize these values. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant studies regarding the provision of social responsibility in youth through parenting style. According to Hoffinan (1981) and Bettelheim (1985), empathy as well as social responsibility can be developed when parents encourage their children to consider the feelings of others and allow them to make a choice of behavior based on empathy. In addition, parenting style such as authoritative parenting, a style that attempts to direct the behaviors of their children in rational and respectful ways and provides open communication, has proven to produce more social adjustment (Dominguez & Carton, 1997; Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999) in children. In the sport domain, Nicholls, Patashnick, and Nolen (1985) examined the relationship between goal perspectives (task- and ego- goal orientation) and the world views about the purpose of education. They found that a task-oriented perspective was strongly associated with the view that education is an end in itself and that education meant being socially committed, having a commitment to Ieaming, and understanding and mastering materials. Later, Duda (1989) and Roberts and his colleagues (1991) extended the Nicholls et al.’s finding in sport. Duda’s study revealed that a task-oriented goal perspective was positively associated with the view that sport would facilitate honesty and respect, enhance one’s self-esteem, teach people to try their best, cooperate, and be a good citizen. Roberts et al. (1991) also found that task-oriented athletes viewed the sport as a means for adopting pro-social characteristics of enhancing social responsibility. 36 Over the past 20 years, several researchers (e. g., Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Schewchuk, 1986; Romance, Weiss, & Bockoven, 1986; Solomon, 1997) have explored the potential for physical education curricula to enhance moral development (e. g., social responsibility) among children and adolescents (Solomon, 2004). Of particular relevance to the present study is Hellison’s responsibility model (1978, 1985, and 1995) which provided program participants with a framework for physical activity instruction and participation that taught them to take more responsibility for their own well-being and to be sensitive and responsive to the well-being of others. Hellison ’s Responsibility Model (1978, 1985, & I 995) Hellison and his colleagues (1996) classified physical activity programs for youth into in-school physical education and extended day activities such as interscholastic sport and instructional and recreational programs and camps offered by schools, social agencies, and park districts. They argued that the primary objective of physical activity- based programs must be to educate a youth to become a whole person. Explicit values must be built into their holistic model and these programs must be empowerment- oriented so that young people learn to make wise choices, set goals, and take charge of their lives. The only physical activity-based approach which employs holistic, value- based, empowerment-oriented goals and strategies is Hellison’s responsibility model or formally known as the taking personal and social responsibility (TPSR) framework (Hellison, 1978, 1985, 1995). Hellison (1978, 1985, 1995) developed a physical activity-based responsibility model based on his work with inner-city at-risk youth for over 20 years. His model of self 37 and social responsibility has been adopted by physical educators throughout the country. The purpose of this model is “to provide program participants with a framework for I physical activity instruction and participation that teaches them to take more responsibility of their own well-being and for being sensitive and responsive to the well- being of others” (p. 324). Five levels of responsibility identify what participants are to take responsibility for and hint at the way they are to do so: (a) respecting the rights and feelings of others; (b) being self-motivated; (0) being self-directed; (d) caring about others and working together for the group’s welfare; and (e) putting these responsibilities into practice outside the gym. Two of these responsibilities, self-motivation and self-direction, address the participants’ responsibility for their own well-being; respect for the rights and feelings of others. Caring about others and the group’s welfare refers to the students’ social and moral responsibility for others. The fifth goal focuses on transfer of responsibility from the program to other aspects of the students’ lives, such as the rest of school, the playground, “the street,” and home (Hellison et a1, 1996). The first two goals (or levels), respect and self-motivated or effort, are the beginning stage of responsibility development; both establish a positive learning environment. Respect includes controlling any abusive actions; solving conflicts peacefully; and including everyone in activities. These are minimal requirements for protection of the rights of sport participants. The next two, self-direction and caring, extend the learning environment by encouraging independent work, helping, and leadership, thereby freeing individuals to work with youth who need more help and, at the same time, contributing to a more positive experience for all students. The fifth stage, 38 transfer outside the gym, is the most high-ranked stage; it involves exploring the previous four responsibilities in school, at home, and with friends to evaluate the students’ improvement compared to their previous works (Hellison, 2003). Based on this model, Hellison et al. (1996) emphasized the instructor’s strategy of behaving in a democratic way by sharing power with athletes and negotiating with them, and instructors’ mental attitude as treating youth with respect and caring. Summary of Social Responsibility The development of social responsibility among youth has become a critical issue due to its connection to pro-social behavior, individual’s maturity, and academic performance. As a consequence, there has been much emphasis on social responsibility as a significant objective in American public schools. Research examining the factors which influence social responsibility development revealed that personality, genetics, community engagement, parenting style, and goal orientation influenced social responsibility. Specifically, for the purpose of this study, the studies on situational or environmental factors as the determinants of social responsibility development were explored. The results revealed that democratic school environment and treating children with empathy, empowerment, and fairness are significant factors for social responsibility development in youth. Furthermore, the research examining the role of parenting style reported that parents’ authoritative style was perceived as a significant component for social responsibility development in children. In the sport context, Duda (1989) and Roberts et al. (1991) both found the positive relationship between a task-oriented 39 perspective and social responsibility development. Also, Hellison (1978, 1985, 1995) developed a physical activity-based responsibility model which consisted of five levels of responsibility in order “to provide program participants with a framework for physical activity instruction and participation that teaches them to take more responsibility of their own well-being and for being sensitive and responsive to the well-being of others” (p. 324). This model stressed the instructor’s strategy of behaving in a democratic way by sharing power with athletes and negotiating with them, and instructors’ mental attitude as treating youth with respect and caring. Together, research in education and sport settings both point to the significant others’ behaviors as important antecedents of social responsibility development in youth. Gould and Carson’s Heuristic Model for Understanding the Process of Coaching Life Skills through Sport Gould and Carson (2008) reviewed the literature on positive youth development through extracurricular activities (e. g., Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Eccles et al., 2003; Hansen et al., 2003; Larson, 2000) as well as the life skills research in sport psychology (e. g., Brunelle et al., 2007; Gould et al., 2007), and positive youth development through sport (e. g., F raser-Thomas, Cote, & Deakin, 2005; Petitpas, Van Raalte, Cornelius, & Presbrey, 2004) in order to develop a heuristic model explaining how coaches should teach life skills through sport. They did this, not only to summarize the research in the area but to spur interest in theoretical explanations for life skills through sport relationship. Therefore, this model provides a strong theoretical 4o background for research, a mean of organizing existing findings, and guidance for programs promoting life skills through sport (Gould & Carson, 2008). Based on previous research, Gould and Carson (2008) argued that there are two pre-existing assets which influence life skills development in young athletes including internal and external assets. Internal assets are youths’ pre-existing life skills, physical abilities, and personality; their external assets are parents, siblings, previous coaches, and peers, and environmental factors (Benson, 1997). These assets indicate that young people enter any activities with characteristics that will certainly influence future life skills development. Gould and Carson (2008) also identified the sport experience itself as a key influence on the teaching and coaching of life skills. Research has revealed that coaches might be critical in influencing young athletes’ development (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999). In addition, one of the important factors related to one’s ability to promote life skills development is a coach’s attitude and development. Moreover, Gould and Carson (2008) focused on the teaching strategies that a coach uses to develop life skills and these were identified as direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies include having clear and consistent rules and engaging in team building efforts. Indirect strategies cover the demands of the sport, program success, and positive social norms. The authors (2008) then proposed possible explanations for how a young athlete’s life skill development occurs and how these attributes may influence his or her behavior. They argued that there are two general sets of explanations for life skills development: social environment and the utility of life skills strategies. The social environment influences contain identity changes and formation, membership in a positive peer group 41 (Eccles et al., 2003). Certo, Cauley, and Chafin (2003) argued that sport participation gives youth a needed sense of belonging. In addition, life skill strategies include specific and practical life skills such as stress management, goal setting, and Ieaming to communicate. However, the authors pointed out that these two explanations may work individually or in combination to cultivate life skills among youth. The reason for developing life skills is the fact that these competencies and dispositions will have positive outcomes in the young person who develops them. It is also possible that developing a life skill (e. g., learning to work with diverse people) may be worthwhile in and of itself. These outcomes may be physical (e. g., enhanced fitness and performance), intellectual (e.g., higher school achievement), and psychosocial and emotional (e. g., teamwork, communicating skills, and leadership). However, research has revealed that sport participation can contribute to negative outcomes such as alcohol consumption, burnout, and lower levels of moral functioning (Gould & Carson, 2008). For the final component of the model, the authors concentrate on the transferability of life skills developed through the sport participation to non-sport settings. This perspective is critical because the transferability of life skills is neither simple nor automatic (Martinek, Schilling, & Johnson, 2001). Gass (1985) has cited factors such as the similarity of situations and previous transfer experience as the antecedents of the transferability of life skills. Finally, a feedback loop is included in this model because the life skills developed through sports may influence the internal assets of young athletes (Gould & Carson, 2008). In conclusion, this heuristic model suggests that current coach’s characteristics and his or her direct teaching strategies such as reinforcement, quality of instruction, 42 opportunities to make decisions for athletes, and fairness directly or indirectly play a critical role in developing positive life skills outcomes like responsibility and moral development. It provides a glimpse of how life skills such as social responsibility might be best taught. Central to the focus of this study is the importance they placed on the coaches’ efforts to intentionally teach life skills. This study tried to provide an empirical test of the life skill of social responsibility and perceived coaching leadership link. 43 CHAPTER 3 METHOD This study was designed to examine the relationship between perceived coaching behavior and social responsibility in former high school athletes. To accomplish this task, a paper-pencil survey method using retrospective analysis was employed. While retrospective studies using university students have several benefits, such as allowing respondents to reflect thoroughly on his or her experiences and increasing sample availability because parental permission is not requested for human subject approvals, it has some drawbacks. In particular, memory decay and recall bias might come in to play. Nevertheless it is possible for us to get some information about the extent and nature of the phenomenon through retrospective studies (Houston & Hwang, 1996). In fact, retrospective analyses have been widely used in the psychology and education settings exploring topics such as sexual harassment (Houston & Hwang, 1996), drug abuse (Thombs, 2000), and peer pressure (Brown, 1982). Participants The targeted sample for this study was university students who had at least one year of high school varsity athletic experience in two Midwestern universities. Collecting data from two universities including one large public university and one small private college allowed this study to draw participants from a variety of high schools spread across several states. To minimize memory decay, only the data from freshmen and sophomores were used for the data analysis. Thus, the respondents ranged in age fiom 18 44 to 20, and all had graduated from high school within the past 2 years. A total of 323 male and female students agreed to participate in this study. Of the 323 prospective participants, 119 questionnaires were disqualified from the study because the participants did not respond to all the items (N = 19), were older than 20 years (N = 78), and had no athletic experience in high school (N = 22). Former athletes participated in this study included 79 males (38.7%) and 125 females (61.3%) and had played an average of 3.47 years of sport experience in high school. Additional information also indicated that more than 77% of the students were Caucasian. Table 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the information about the participants’ ages, gender, and ethnicity. Table 3-1. Participants ’ Age (N = 204) Ages Frequency Percent 18 39 19.1 19 88 43.1 20 77 37.7 Total 204 100 45 Table 3-2. Additional Demographic Variable Frequencies for Athletes (N = 204) Variable Frequency Percent Gender Male 79 38.7 Female 125 61.3 Types of Ethnicity African American 18 8.8 Asian 18 8.8 Caucasian 158 77.5 Hispanic 6 2.9 Other 4 2.0 Total 204 100 Instruments Three instruments were used in the present study: The perceived version of the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980), the Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS; Conrad & Hedin, 1981b), and a demographic questionnaire. Leadership Scale for Sports. (LSS). The LSS (see Appendix A) contains 40 items that ask athletes to indicate the frequency with which their coach engages in specific types of coaching behavior. Item responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “never to always,” and mean scores for each scale are produced by summing the item responses and dividing by the number of items in that category. The LSS assesses five dimensions of leader behavior: (a) training and instruction, the task-oriented behaviors of the coach designed to improve and refine the performance level of athletes; (b) democratic behavior, which is the extent to which a coach encourages athlete/team participation in decisions; (c) autocratic behavior, which is the extent to which a coach 46 stays distant from the athletes/team and stresses his or her authority when dealing with the team; ((1) social support, which refers to the degree to which a coach is involved in attempting to satisfy interpersonal needs of athletes; and, (e) positive feedback, which is performance-based rewarding behavior on the part of the coach toward the athlete. There are three versions of the LSS. The preferred coaching behavior version assesses an athlete’s preferences for coaching behavior; the perceived coaching behavior version assesses an athlete’s perceptions of his/her coach’s behavior; the actual coaching behavior version assesses coaches’ perceptions of their own behavior. The perceived LSS version was administered to all players to measure their perceptions of the leadership behavior of their coaches. The perceived version of LSS prefaces each of the 40 items with the phrase “My coach. ...” The reported internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the five subscales ranged from .45 (autocratic behavior) to .83 (training and instruction) (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) reported that the test-retest reliability estimates with 53 physical education students ranged from .71 (social support) to .82 (democratic behavior), with a mean of .76. These values are considered adequate during the initial stages of social science instrument development (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). However, the internal consistency for autocratic behavior is relatively low, which suggests that the result from this dimension should be used with caution (Chelladurai, 1990). However, for the particular objective of this study, retrospective reports from the undergraduate samples with high school athletic experience were obtained. If there is more than one coach they had interacted with in high school, the students were encouraged to think about the coach with whom they had been most involved. 47 Table 3-3 Reliability Coefficients for Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS - Athletes ’ Perceptions) Factor Alpha. No. of Items Training and Instruction .92 13 Democratic Behavior .91 9 Autocratic Behavior .70 8 Social Support .81 8 Positive Feedback .80 5 A SPSS reliability procedure was used to establish internal consistency using coefficient alpha. The present study revealed that the coefficient alphas for each subscale and overall LSS were acceptable: .92 for training and instruction behavior, .91 for democratic behavior, .70 for autocratic behavior, .88 for social support, .88 for positive feedback, and .92 for overall LSS. The result of the analysis can be seen in Table 3-3. As shown in the table, all coefficients were judged to be acceptable based on Nunnally and Bemstein’s (1994) criterion of alpha being greater than .70. Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS). Social and Personal Responsibility Scale (SPRS; Conrad & Hedin, 1981b; See Appendix B) consists of 21- items. The items were coded on a scale of 1 through 4, with 4 designated as the highest and l as the lowest score for each item. Because the subscale was formulated with random reversal of items to eliminate bias, 3 number of item responses were inverted in the coding process (Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, & 21). Coding for all items, therefore, is indicated in Table 3-4. 48 Table 3-4 Coding for Social and Personal Responsibility Scale Question Number Question Number Left to Right Order Coding (1,2,3,4) Right to Left Order Coding (4,3,2,1) 4, 9,11,12,14,15,19, 20 l, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,10,13,16,17,18, 21 The three dimensions of attitudes, competence, and efficacy are included in the SPRS as a concept of total responsibility. The subscales of the SPRS assess the extent to which the students have responsible attitudes, feel competent to act responsibly, feel a sense of efficacy to take responsibility, and perceive their ability to perform responsible acts (see Table 3-5). Attitudes toward being responsible were further subdivided into social welfare and duty. The social welfare subscale focuses on the extent to which one feels concerned about problems and issues in the wider society (Items 2, 7, ll, & 15). The duty subscale focused on the extent to which one feels bound to personally meet social obligations (Items 1, 10, 17, & 20). Competence to take responsibility made up the third subscale. While one may have a positive attitude toward others, a person may still not be able to act in a responsible manner if he or she does not have the competence or skill to do so. Items in the SPRS in which this was illustrated included: “Some teenagers would rather not present ideas in a group discussion, but other teenagers feel comfortable in presenting ideas in a group discussion,” or “Some teenagers are good at helping people, but other teenagers don’t see helping people as one of their strong points” (Items 9, 13, & 16). 49 The fourth attitudinal dimension focused on one’s efficacy regarding responsibility. One must be willing or be able to believe that taking responsible action will have an impact on the social or physical environment. The sense of efficacy, one of the building blocks of a democracy, was assessed by several items in the SPRS (Items 3, 14, 18, & 21). Lastly, the instrument assessed the extent to which students perceived they act in responsible ways (Items 4, 5, 6, 8, & 12). The checklist and scoring guide are presented in Appendix C. Table 3-5 Subscales of Social and Personal Responsibility Scale Subscale Variables Responsibilig Subscale Item Numbers Social Welfare (SW) 2, 7, ll, 15 Duty 1, 10,17, 20 Competence 9, 13, 16 Efficacy 3, 14, 18, 19, 21 Perceived Responsibility (PR) 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 SPRS Question Format In order to avoid social desirable responses, a major problem in measuring responsibility, Harter developed a “structured alternative format” in which the subject is presented with a unique type of question. 50 Harter ’s structured alternative format Really Sort of Really Sort of true true true true Some kids Other kids often BUT remember forget things what they easily learn The student is first asked to decide which person is most like him or her and then asked whether this is only sort of true or really true. Harter (1978) stated: “The effectiveness of this question format lies in the implication that half of the kids in the world (or in one’s reference group) view themselves in one way, whereas the other half view themselves in the opposite manner. That is, this type of question legitimizes either choice.” Support for this format is manifested by the fact that the children’s verbal elaborations on the reasons for their choices indicate they are giving accurate self- perceptions rather than socially desirable responses (Harter, 1978). For these reasons, this type of question format seemed ideally suited for the SPRS. Rather than use the terms “really true” or “sort of true” as Harter did, Conrad and Hedin (1981b) used “almost always true for me” and “sometimes true for me”. The SPRS was originally validated on a sample of over 4,000 high school students, and indicate sufficient internal reliability (Cochran’s Q reliability level of .83) and strong concurrent validity with teacher supervisor ratings of student’s social responsibility. Cronbach’s alpha in the study was .76. The present study also revealed that the coefficient alpha for total SPRS was acceptable. Alpha for these 21 items was .79. However, the internal consistencies for the 51 five subscales were relatively low indicating that it is unacceptable for using it (SW, (1 = .36; Duty, (1 = .64; Competence, a = .34; Efficacy, a = .22; PR, or = .56). This may be because each of the subscales have a small number of items (SW: 4 items, Duty: 4 items; Competence: 3 items; Efficacy: 5 items; PR: 5 items). Therefore, these subscales were eliminated for further analysis as a dependent variable and the total score for the SPRS which reports the participants’ general sense of social responsibility was only used for analysis. Also, because the SPRS questionnaire subsumed these five dimensions, the total SPRS score was used throughout this investigation. Demographic questionnaire. Demographic information (see Appendix D) included participant’s age, race/ethnicity, gender, grade, number of years in the specific sport, sport activities they participated, experience in voluntary services, and size of former high school. Demographic characteristics such as size of high school and voluntary experience in high school were controlled because these variables were referred to as significant predictors of the criterion variable in past research and expectations. Procedure Undergraduate students at two Midwestern universities were sampled fi'om kinesiology physical activity, mathematic, and educational psychology classes offered to the general student population. Students were told that participation would be voluntary and that their responses would be confidential. In addition, students were encouraged to respond to the measures as honestly as possible. All the students who either had athletic experience in high school or did not have it responded to the questionnaires. For this 52 particular study, only data from students with athletic experience were included in the analyses. The teachers provided a classroom to administer the questionnaires, and then left the classroom immediately. The author explained the purpose of the study, emphasized confidentiality, and encouraged the students to answer the items as honestly as possible. Consent was obtained for all subjects who participated by a consent form, as seen in Appendix D. Anonymity was insured because the participants did not leave any identifying information. After the survey, the answer sheets were collected by the researchers and kept in a secure location to assure the confidentiality. These data were collected among the 12 classrooms across a period of approximately 3 weeks. The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State 5. University prior to the administration of any of the instruments. Data analysis Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15 software. Data analysis was preceded by first examining scales’ reliabilities, correlations among variables, and means and standard deviations for all questionnaires used in this study. The assumption of normality was examined by calculating and inspecting the skewness and kurtosis values for all of the study variables. The level of significance for all statistical tests was set at .05. This level of significance was selected based on its extensive use in the literature. The hierarchical stepwise regression analysis and multiple regression analysis were conducted for the purpose of testing the hypothesized relationship using the five coaching behaviors of training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, 53 social support, and positive feedback as predictor variables, and social personality as the criterion variable. In this hierarchical regression analysis, demographic characteristics such as size of high school and voluntary experience in high school were controlled because these variables were referred to as significant predictors of the criterion variable in past research and expectations. Therefore, the direct link between the predictor and criterion variables might be examined. 54 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results are divided into two main sections. The first section describes the procedures undertaken to examine the data for the assumption of normality testing. The second section presents the predicted relationship. Preliminary Analyses The purpose of the preliminary analyses was to evaluate the accuracy of data entry and to examine the assumption of normality. The data collected from all participants were coded and entered on the SPSS spreadsheet. Descriptive statistics of all the variables in this study were calculated. The assumption of normality was examined by inspecting the kurtosis and skewness values for the variables (see Table 4-1). The skewness values for the LSS subscales ranged from -.92 to .33, and kurtosis values ranged from -.57 to 1.15. As shown in Table 4, the kurtosis and skewness values for all of the variables were different from zero, indicating that none of the distributions was perfectly normal. However, the assumption of normality could be made if the values of skewness range fiom -l to +1, and the values of kurtosis range from -1 to +2 (Huck, 2004). Thus, the reasonable assumptions of normality were established. Table 4 shows the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for all variables in the study. 55 The coaches’ positive feedback and training and instruction subscales of LSS had the highest means indicating that the former high school athletes perceived that their coaches gave positive feedback and training and instruction behaviors much more compared to other leadership behaviors. For the social responsibility variable, Table 4-1 shows that the mean was 3.09 which indicates that the participants possess a high sense of social and personal responsibility (4 = highest, 3 = high, 2 = low, and 1 = lowest). S2222; Statistics for Coaches ' Leadership Behaviors and Social and Personal Responsibility Variable Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Training and Instruction 4.01 .69 -.67 .03 Democratic Behavior 3.25 .90 -.25 -.57 Autocratic Behavior 2.49 .72 .33 -.20 Social Support 3.18 .92 -.36 -.38 Positive Feedback 4.07 .76 -.92 1.15 Social and Personal Responsibility 3.09 .38 -.37 -.23 Correlations among the Variables Prior to the hypothesis test, correlation analyses were performed to examine the relationships among predictor variables (see Table 4-2). Due to the complexity of the specific behaviors required for effective coaching, a certain degree of inter-relation is expected. While several moderate correlations (r’s: 40% to 60%) were found among the coaching behaviors, the amount of shared variance for the majority of variables was less than 50%, demonstrating a reasonable degree of discrimination among the predictor variables. However, for the social support and positive feedback variables, the amount of shared variance was 57%. When examining this pair of variables it is clear that there was 56 a significant degree of overlap across the behaviors that may account for the shared variance. However, although this correlation is strong and expected, there is still > 40% unaccounted variance between these variables suggesting an acceptable degree of discrimination between the measures. Furthermore, whereas social support behavior is related to the outside of the athletic context, positive feedback behavior depends on the athlete’s performance (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). Therefore, each has been included in this study as independent predictors Table 4-2. Zero-order Correlations Among Predictor Variables TIB DB AB SS TIB — DB .46** — AB -.17* -.23** — SS .47** .39** -.12 — PF .48** .32“ -.24 .57** Note. TIB = Training and Instruction Behavior; DB = Democratic Behavior; SS = Social Support; PF = Positive Feedback; AB = Autocratic Behavior Hypothesis Tests The hypothesis stated that the five dimensions of perceived leader behaviors would have significant relationships with former high school athletes’ social responsibility. In particular, a coach’s training and instructional, democratic, positive feedback, and social support behaviors would positively predict former high school athletes’ social responsibility while autocratic behavior would negatively predict it. 57 To test this hypothesis, the hierarchical stepwise regression analysis was conducted in order to find which dimensions of perceived leadership behavior positively predicted the former athletes’ social responsibility. Thus, the perceived leadership behaviors of training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback were included as predictor variables in this regression analysis with social responsibility being the criterion measure while blocking the size of high school and experience in voluntary activities in high school. The results of stepwise regression analysis in Table 4-3 revealed that training and instruction behavior accounted for 6 % of the variance in former athletes’ social responsibility. The standardized regression coefficient of training and instruction was significant ([3 =20, p < .003). Autocratic behavior added 2 % to the accounted variance of former athletes’ social responsibility and was significant (0 = - .157, p < .02). The two-variable prediction model was statistically significant, F (4,202) = 5.328, p < .000, and accounted for 8 % of the variance in former athletes’ social responsibility. Table 4-3. A Hierarchical Stepwise Regression Predicting F ormer High School Athletes ’ Social and Personal Responsibility from Leadership Behavior after Controlling Demographic Variables Variable B T R Adjusted R2 A112 Overall F P Training and Instruction .20 2.98" .27 .06 .06 5.328 .01" Autocratic Behavior -.16 -2.29* .31 .08 .02 .02* .31 .08 .08 ** p < .01 * p < .05 In a second regression analysis, all five variables of perceived leadership behavior were entered together while blocking the size of high school and experience in voluntary 58 activities in high school in the regression model in order to conduct a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. This was done in order to examine the overall effects of coaching behavior on former athletes’ social responsibility. The result of this analysis (see Table 4-4) was similar to those found in the stepwise regression model. The result of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis in Table 9 revealed that the five variables of coaches’ behaviors resulted in a significant regression equation predicting former athletes’ social responsibility, F (7,202) = 3.942, p < .001, and accounted for 9% of the variance in former athletes’ social responsibility. Examination of the standardized regression coefficients (B’s) revealed that only training and instruction behavior and autocratic behavior were significant predictors of athletes’ social responsibility (0 = .22 and -. 16 respectively, p < .02). The other three predictors (i.e., democratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback) failed to predict social responsibility. Table 4-4. A Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting F ormer High School Athletes ’ Social and Personal Responsibility from Leadership Behavior after Controlling Demographic Variables Variable B T R2 Adjusted R2 ARZ Overall F P Training and Instruction .22 2.59" .01** Democratic Behavior -.15 -l .89 .06 Autocratic Behavior -.16 -2.28* .02* Social Support -.02 -0.26 .80 Positive Feedback .13 1.55 .12 . 12 .09 .09 3.94 .000 ** p < .01 * p < .05 59 In summary, these hypotheses tests revealed that there was a significant relationship between three dimensions of perceived coaching behaviors (i.e., training and instruction behavior, positive feedback, and autocratic behavior) and former high school athletes’ social responsibility, although the percentage of variance accounted for was relatively small. Specifically, the regression analyses suggest that coaches who were perceived by their players to engage in more training and instruction, while avoiding autocratic behavior, had athletes who described higher levels of social responsibility when blocking the size of high school and experience in voluntary activities in high school in the regression model in order to conduct a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The training and instruction variable explained 6% of former athletes’ social responsibility variance and autocratic behavior added 2 % to the accounted variance of former athletes’ social responsibility. Moreover, additional regression analyses found that overall coaching behavior explained 9% of the former athletes’ social responsibility variance. 60 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The main purpose of this study was to identify and investigate the factors (e. g., coaching behaviors) that predict the levels of social responsibility in former high school athletes. The hypothesis stated that former high school athletes’ social responsibility would be positively predicted by the perceived leadership behaviors of training and instruction, democratic behavior, social sUpport, and positive feedback; and negatively predicted by autocratic behavior. The findings showed partial support for this hypothesis with training and instruction and autocratic behavior predicted former high school athletes’ social responsibility. This result is important because it suggests a link exists between leader behaviors and the levels of social responsibility among those they lead, something that has not been empirically explored. An examination of the relative predictability of the five perceived coaching behaviors (i.e., training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback) to the attitudes toward social responsibility in former high school athletes was conducted. Specifically, hierarchical stepwise and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify and investigate the factors that predicted social responsibility in former high school athletes. The regression analyses demonstrated the contribution of two dimensions of coaches’ leadership behaviors (i.e., training and instruction behavior and autocratic behavior) to the variance explained in social responsibility. Thus, the regression analyses partially supported this hypothesis. 61 After controlling for demographic variables such as size of high school and experience in voluntary activities in high school, the training and instruction coaching behavior was found to be the most important contributor to the development of social responsibility in former high school athletes. It accounted for 6% of the variance in the athletes’ level of social responsibility. Training and instruction coaching behavior aims to improve the athletes’ performance by emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training, instructing them in the skills, techniques, and tactics of the sport, and structuring and coordinating their activities (Chelladurai, 1989). The college students in this study who appreciated this behavior as modeled by their former coaches may have been motivated to develop their own socially responsible attitudes. Perceived autocratic coaching behavior was also identified as a negative and significant predictor of the athletes’ exhibited levels of social responsibility. This result indicated that autocratic behavior accounted for only 2% of the variance in social responsibility. Although the contribution of the perceived autocratic behavior to explain the variance in athletes’ social responsibility was small, this variable was of practical importance according to the criteria established by Tate (1998) that a standardized coefficient of .01 or greater may be of practical importance. According to Chelladurai (1989), autocratic coaching behavior involves independent decision making by the leader and stresses the leader’s personal authority. Because this behavior was negatively connected to social responsibility in former athletes, it could be said that avoiding behaviors likely to be perceived as autocratic may increase the athletes’ social responsibility. Therefore, this result suggests that having a coach who controls all potentials of the athletes, makes decisions without asking for the athletes’ opinions, and 62 monitors the athletes’ performance to detect mistakes could possibly result in a lower sense of social responsibility among athletes. The rationale behind this may be that the behavior keeps them dependent on the authority and discourages them from making independent decisions (e.g., from maturing). In the sports literature, very little research could be found regarding the relationship between perceived coaching behavior and athletes’ attitudes about social responsibility. In fact, and to the best knowledge of the researcher, no studies have examined the link between coaching behavior and social responsibility among athletes; therefore, one should be cautious when interpreting these results. Although no research that empirically addressed this relationship was conducted, some of the findings can be explained indirectly. It is interesting that the training and instruction behavior was identified as the leader behavior that contributed most to the relationship with the athletes’ levels of social responsibility. This finding may be explained by using the tenets of the achievement goal (Duda, 1989; Nicholls, 1989) and social Ieaming theory (Bandura, 1990). Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) used the term “task-oriented behavior,” which represents an individual’s actions aimed at achieving mastery, learning or perfecting a skill, interchangeably with the “training and instruction” behavior. According to Duda (1989), individuals with a task-oriented goal perspective tended to think of sports as a vehicle for fostering honesty and respect and teaching people to try their best, cooperate, and be a good citizen. However, social Ieaming theory argues that young people learn their attitudinal and behavioral repertoires from observing significant others who model these attitudes and behaviors. This implies that coaches’ training and instruction behaviors (i.e., 63 a task-oriented goal perspective) influence their athletes to learn or internalize the task- oriented concept via the coaches modeling it and interacting with their athletes. Roberts and his colleagues (1991) found that task-oriented athletes endorsed the prosocial characteristics of enhancing social responsibility, so quite possibly, the athletes could have developed their sense of social responsibility through interacting with those task- oriented coaches. Therefore, coaches who emphasize a task-oriented perspective may be able to positively influence their athletes to become more socially responsible individuals. It is also interesting that this study found no evidence to support the hypothesis that democratic and social support leader behaviors were not associated with social responsibility. In fact, the data analysis revealed no significant relationship among the variables. The results of this study are somewhat at odds with the findings from Baumrind’s (1971) research on authoritative parents, Higgins et al.’s (1984) research on democratically-run schools, and Hellison’s argument (1978, 1985, 1995). Those studies reported that significant others’ democratic behaviors and a democratic atmosphere similarly increased social responsibility among youth, but the present study revealed that the coaches’ democratic and social support behavior were not related to the former athletes’ levels of social responsibility. It may well be that the measurement environment in the present study affected this mixed result. That is, although the results from the teaching and parental domains found that teachers’ or parents’ democratic behaviors were positively associated with social responsibility, those findings may not be applicable to the specific context of varsity scholastic sports. The fact that varsity athletic contexts involve much more 64 competitive situations, compared to class or home environments, may explain the different results. This is only speculation, but it deserves research attention. Finally, the regression analyses in this study revealed that a positive link exists between overall perceived coaching behavior and athletes’ social responsibility. This connection expands Chelladurai’s (1980, 1999) theoretical model, which only specifies the outcomes of athlete satisfaction and performance. This study showed that coaching behaviors are associated with athletes’ sense of social responsibility, which has been deemed an important characteristic for youths to possess by many educators. Understanding how coaching behaviors influence the life skills development of athletes will enable coaches and coach educators to perform and conduct themselves in a manner that maximizes the athletes’ sporting experience (Price & Weiss, 2000). Furthermore, this research also supports and extends Smith, Smoll, and Hunt’s (1977) Coaching Effective Training (CET) guidelines, which emphasized increasing the four specific target behaviors: reinforcement, mistake-contingent encouragement, corrective instruction, and technical instruction, and decreasing punishment, punitive instruction, and regimenting behaviors aimed as keeping control (Smoll & Smith, 1987). The line of research following CET guidelines reported that athletes with trained coaches (e. g., giving more reinforcement, responding to mistakes with more technical instruction and with fewer punitive responses) exhibited a positive relationship with psychosocial development such as increasing self-esteem and positive attitudes toward coaches and peers (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978). However, the present study suggests training and instruction, positive feedback were positively associated with athletes’ social responsibility while autocratic behavior was negatively linked to it. Therefore, this result indicated that those specific 65 behaviors (i.e., training and instruction, positive feedback, and autocratic behavior) not only influence athletes’ psychosocial development, but also their life skill development such as social responsibility. Overall, the findings from this study appear to support a relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and athletes’ demonstrated levels of social responsibility although the percentage of variance accounted for was relatively small. The regression results revealed that the coaches’ training and instruction positively and autocratic behaviors negatively play an important role in influencing the levels of social responsibility among young athletes. Implications for Coaches Given the lack of research on the relationship between leader behavior and the levels of social responsibility among youth, the results of this investigation can provide some initial guidelines. For example, they suggest that the coach may play an important, role in influencing athletes’ levels of social responsibility. Specifically, this study’s findings suggest that coaches should exhibit more training and instruction and positive feedback behaviors and less controlling (autocratic) behavior to increase the level of social responsibility among their young athletes. A greater understanding of the mechanisms that influence social responsibility in athletes could facilitate the development of more effective coaching methods. By recognizing the effects of the coaches’ specific behaviors on their athletes’ social responsibility, strategies and interventions can be created that may decrease negative outcomes, such as a low level of 66 pro-social behavior, immaturity, and unsatisfactory academic achievement, while increasing positive outcomes such as honesty, respect, and cooperation. Furthermore, the present study indicated that coaching education and training should involve emphasizing such coaching behaviors as giving positive feedback and providing higher quality instruction. Like the Coaching Effectiveness Training (CET; Smoll & Smith, 1993) designed to help coaches relate more effectively to young athletes, any intervention programs aimed at improving young athletes’ social responsibility should focus on increasing the coaches’ training quality and fi'equency of positive reinforcement, while decreasing such undesirable behaviors as punishment and autocratic instruction. Limitations The following limitations were considered in this study: 1. This study relied on a self-reported measurement instruments such as LSS and SPRS. Self-reported information might have some limitations, such as social desirability. The data are based on the perceptions of the respondents thus; potential and intentionally false information is beyond the researcher’s control. 2. This study was restricted to former high school athletes in one public and one private university in the Midwestern area. 3. The findings of the study could be generalized only to athletes in the high schools in the Midwestern area, excluding athletes in clubs and other sports organizations. 4. The timing of the survey may have affected the responses of the participants. This study was a retrospective analysis so the participants had to complete the survey 67 after their high school experiences ended. This might have a possibility of memory decay and recall bias. 5. Time between playing high school sports and college other factors might influence the participants’ social responsibility. Future Research Directions Future researchers should look at the relationship between different coaching styles or attitudes and the development of athletes’ social responsibility. In this study, the results suggested that several dimensions of coaching behaviors were related to their athletes’ development of social responsibility. Hence, a relationship may exist between different coaching styles, like the “autonomy-supportive” interpersonal style and CBAS in previous coaching research, and social responsibility. In addition, due to using retrospective analysis, the participants might have somewhat distorted memories or selective memories about their former coaches, since many of them are not competing now. Thus, future researchers need to investigate high school athletes, as well as college athletes, who are currently playing. Qualitative studies also need to be conducted to gain a more in-depth understanding of the role of coaches on social responsibility development. Moreover, future studies should examine the mediating factors that may play a role in moderating the relationship between coaching behavior and the levels of social responsibility among youths. Finally, the lack of valid measurement instrumentation to assess social responsibility in athletes may be a major reason for the lack of research in this area. The 68 subscales of SPRS did not show adequate reliability in this study. Thus, an appropriate scale that assesses individuals’ sense of social responsibility should be implemented to discern the relationship between leader behavior and the development of social responsibility in those they led. Summary The coach-athlete relationship is a critical element in determining the effects of sport participation on youth (Seefeldt & Gould, 1980; Smoll & Smith, 1989). For example, various athletes reported that this relationship was central to the ultimate quality and perceived success of their competitive sport careers (Vealey, Armstrong, Comar, & Greenleaf, 1998). Recently, there has been growing interest in exploring the contribution of both sports and coaches to life skills development. This potential importance of coaches in the life skills development of their athletes motivated this investigator to use Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) multidimensional model of leadership to investigate the relationship between coaching behavior and social responsibility among youth. The results from this study revealed a possible relationship between coaching behavior and social responsibility. This study provided further support for the multidimensional model of leadership as well as greater implications for the coaching educational method. In conclusion, there is still much to be learned about social responsibility development among young athletes. Hopefully, the current study opens the door for future research that will explore additional factors that may be related to the development of social responsibility among adolescent athletes in sports. 69 APPENDICES 70 APPENDIX A Leadership Scale for Sports Using the following scale, please circle a number from 1 to 5 to indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements regarding one COACH with whom you most INVOLVED in HIGH SCHOOL. 1 2 3 4 5 Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always 25% of the 50% of the 75% of the time time time My coach... Never Always 1. Saw to it that every athlete is working to his/her capacity. 2 3 4 5 2. Explained to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport. 2 3 4 5 3. Paid special attention to correcting athlete’s mistakes. 2 3 4 5 4. Made sure that his/her part in the team is understood by all the 2 3 4 5 athletes 5. Instructed every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. 2 3 4 5 6. Figured ahead on what should be done. 2 3 4 5 7. Explained to every athlete what he/she should and what he/ she 2 3 4 5 should not do. 8. Expected every athlete to carry out his assignment to the last . 2 3 4 5 detail. 9. Pointed out each athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. 2 3 4 5 10. Gave specific instructions to each athlete as to what he/she . . . 2 3 4 5 should do in every Situation. 71 11. Saw to it that the efforts are coordinated. 12. Explained how each athlete’s contribution fits into the total picture. l3. Specified in detail what is expected of each athlete. 14. Asked for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. 15. Got group approval on important matters before going ahead. 16. Let his/her athletes share in decision making. l7. Encouraged athletes to make suggestions for ways of conducting practices. 18. Let the group set its own goals. 19. Let the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. 20. Asked for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. 21. Let athletes work at their own speed. 22. Let the athletes decide on the plays to be used in a game. 23. Worked relatively independent of the athletes. 24. Did not explain his/her action. 25. Refused to compromise a point. 72 26. Kept to himself / herself. 27. Spoke in a manner not to be questioned. 28. Helped the athletes with their personal problems. 29. Helped members of the group settle their conflicts. 30. Looked out for the personal welfare of the athletes. 31. Did personal favors for the athletes. 32. Expressed affection he/she feels for his/her athletes. 33. Encouraged the athlete to confide in him/her. 34. Encouraged close and informal relations with athletes. 35. Invited athletes to his/her home. 36. Complimented an athlete for his performance in front of others. 37. Told an athlete when he/she does a particularly good job. 38. Saw that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. 39. Expressed appreciation when an athlete perfornrs well. 40. Gave credit when credit is due. 73 APPENDIX B Social and Personal Responsibility Scale INSTRUCTIONS 1. Look at the sample question below, but don’t answer it until you have very carefully read the instructions below. ALMOST SOME- SOME- ALMOST ALWAYS TIMES TIMES ALWAYS TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FOR ME FOR ME FOR ME FOR ME Some teenagers Other teenagers worry about school BUT don’t seem to worry grades about school grades 2. To answer these questions, there are two steps. a. Ei_rst, decide whether Y_OU_ are more like the teenagers on the left side who worry about school grades QR the teenagers on the right side who don’t seem to worry about school grades. Don’t mark anything down yet, but first decide which type of teenager is most like you and go to that side. b. Second now that you have decided which side is most like you, decide whether that is almost always true for you or sometimes true for vou. If it’s only sometimes true, then put an X in the box under sometimes true, if it’s almost always true for you, then put an X in the box under almost always true. 3. Now continue to do the numbers below. For each number, you only check one box. ALMOST SOME- SOME- ALMOST ALWAYS TIMES TIMES ALWAYS TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FOR ME FOR ME FOR ME FOR ME Some teenagers Other teenagers don’t feel bad when they BUT let it bother them that let people down much who depend on them Some teenagers Other teenagers think think it’s the that everyone should . . . BUT . responsrbrlrty of just take care of the community to themselves take care of people who can’t take care of themselves 74 Some teenagers are Other teenagers don’t interested in doing BUT really care to get something about involved in school school problems problems Some teenagers let Other teenagers help others do most of BUT in a group all they can the work in a group Some teenagers Other teenagers find seem to find time BUT taking care of their to work on other own problems more people’s problems than chow to do Some teenagers are Other teenagers don’t interested in what BUT care that much about other students in what other students class have to say say Some teenagers are Other teenagers are interested in doing BUT not that interested something about working on problems problems in the in the community community Some teenagers Other teenagers carefully prepare BUT usually don’t prepare for community and that much school assignments Some teenagers Other teenagers feel would rather not BUT comfortable in present ideas in a presenting ideas in a group discussion group discussion Some teenagers let Other teenagers don’t others know when call ahead when they they can’t keep an can’t make it appointment Some teenagers Other teenagers think think people should BUT people should help only help people people in general they know like whether they know close fi’iends and them personally or not relatives For some Other teenagers teenagers, it seems BUT somehow manage to too difficult to keep keep commitments commitments Some teenagers’ Other teenagers have ideas are almost BUT a hard time getting the always listened to group to pay attention in a m to their suggestions Some teenagers Other teenagers think don’t think they BUT they can pretty much have much say control what will about what happen to their lives happens to them 75 Some teenagers Other teenagers think don’t think it BUT you should help others makes much sense even if you don’t get to help others paid for it unless you get paid for it Some teenagers are Other teenagers don’t good at helping BUT see helping others as people one of their strong points Some teenagers Other teenagers don’t feel obligated to BUT feel that bound by carry tasks group decisions assigned to them by the grogp Some teenagers For others, there think when good BUT seems to be no things happen it’s reasons — it’s just luck because of when things go well somethin the did Some teenagers Other teenagers prefer prefer to have BUT to make up their own someone clearly lists of things to do lay out their assigments Some teenagers Other teenagers would aren’t that worried BUT feel really bad about it about finishing jobs they promised they would do Some teenagers Other teenagers don’t think they are able BUT think they can do to help solve anything about them problems in the because a few community powerful people decide everything 76 APPENDIX C Checklist and Scoring Guide for the Social and Personal Responsibility Questionnaire 1. ATTITUDES ON SOCIAL WELFARE (Items 2, 7, 11, & 15) Some teenagers think Other teenagers think it’s the responsibility of BUT that everyone should 4 the community to take just take care of care of people who themselves can’t take care of themselves Some teenagers are Other teenagers are not interested in doing BUT that interested working 4 something about on problems in the problems in the community community Some teenagers think Other teenagers think people should only help BUT people should help 1 people they know like people in general close fi'iends and whether they know relatives them personally or not Some teenagers don’t Other teenagers think think it makes much BUT you should help others 1 sense to help others even if you don’t get ess you get paid for paid for it it 2. ATTITUDES ON DUTY (Items 1, 10, 17, 20) Some teenagers feel Other teenagers don’t 4 bad when they let BUT let it bother them that people down who much de end on them Some teenagers aren’t Other teenagers would 4 that worried about BUT feel really bad about it finishing jobs they promised they would do Some teenagers feel Other teenagers don’t 4 obligated to carry tasks BUT feel that bound by assigned to them by the group decisions $022 Some teenagers aren’t Other teenagers would 1 that worried about BUT feel really bad about it finishing jobs they promised they would do 77 3. COMPETENCE (Items 9, 13, & 16) Some teenagers would Other teenagers feel rather not present ideas BUT comfortable in in a group discussion presenting ideas in a group discussion Some teenagers’ ideas Other teenagers have a are almost always BUT hard time getting the listened to in a group group to pay attention to their suggestions Some teenagers are BUT Other teenagers don’t good at helping people Some people are interested in doing 4. EFFICACY (Items 3, 14, 18, 19, & 21) see helping others as one of their strong points Other people don’t really care to get involved in school something about school BUT problems problems Some teenagers don’t Other teenagers think think they have much they can pretty much say about what happens BUT control what will to them happen to their lives Some teenagers think For others, there seems when good things to be no reasons - it’s happen it’s because of BUT just luck when things something they did go well Some teenagers prefer Other teenagers prefer to have someone clearly . . to make up their own lay out their BUT . . . lists of things to do asggnments Other teenagers don’t Some teenagers think think they can do they are able to help anything about them solve problems in the BUT because a few powerful community people decide everything 78 Some teenagers let 5. PERFORMANCE (Items, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12) BUT Other teenagers help in others do most of the a group all they can work in a group Some teenagers seem to Other teenagers find find time to work on BUT taking care of their own other people’s problems problems more than enough_to do Some people are Other people don’t care interested in what other BUT that much about what students in class have to other students say say Some teenagers Other teenagers usually carefully prepare for BUT don’t prepare that much community and school assignments For some teenagers, it UT Other teenagers seems too difficult to keep commitments 79 somehow manage to keep commitments APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Current age in years: 2. Gender (circle one): Male or Female 3. Ethnic Background __ African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native American __ Other 4. Current College Class __ Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate 5. Sport Activity History __ Baseball _ Soccer _ Basketball _ Football _ Volleyball _ Tennis _ Track / Cross Country _ Golf _ Swimming / Diving __ Gymnastics __ Softball __ Bowling _ Ice Hockey _ Lacrosse _ Wrestling _ Skiing 6. Number of years in playing sports in high school _ Less than 1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years or more 80 7. Did you participate in the above sport activities at your senior year? __ YES _ NO 8. In the high school year, how often have you participated in voluntary services (ex: soup kitchen, highway beautification, and boy scout leader, etc. . .)? __ Not at all __ Once or twice a year _ Between 3 and 11 times a year __ Between one and three times a month _ Weekly More than once a week 9. Size of your previous high school __ Small (fewer than 100 students enrolled) __ Medium (1000 to 1300 students enrolled) __ Large (more than 1300 students enrolled) 81 APPENDIX E Consent to Participate in Research Coaching Behavior and Social Attitudes and Beliefs You are being asked to participate in a research study of the relationship between coaching behaviors and social attitudes and beliefs in undergraduate students. The purpose of this study is to identify and investigate the factors which contribute to the development of social responsibility in former high school athletes. You will be asked to complete a set of paper-pencil surveys that will require approximately 20 minutes to anser. Please read the instructions before completing the first questionnaire. Your honest response to all items is extremely importantl will be glad to answer any questions about the procedures of this study. If you would like to know the results of the study, hand me a separate piece of paper with your name and mailing address; you will then be notified when results are completed. You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may provide honest feedback about the relationship between coaching behaviors and their life skill development, specifically social responsibility. Such feedack will help to improve and possibly expand right services for young athletes - thus enhancing their satisfaction from sport acitivities. On the other hand, this study may contribute to develop knowledge of sport science, especially sport psychology domain. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study, the risk, however, potentially involves the loss of their time for participation. After the survey, the answer sheet will be collected by the researchers and all the data from this study will be stored on computer which is locked in with a password. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may leave now if you do not wish to participate, you may refuse to answer individual questions within the study, or you may discontinue all participation in this study at any time without your evaluation in this class being affected. Concerns about any aspect of this study may be referred to Ye Hoon Lee, B.S., primary investigator and a master’s student in kinesiology, at 517-420-4166, Dr. Daniel Gould, professor, Michigan State University Kinesiology Department, research advisor, at 517-432-0175. Your initial below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. Initial Date Thank you for your time and cooperation 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY 83 Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76(8), 397-401. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barko, W. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2003). Adolescent participation in structured and unstructured activities: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 32, 233-241. Barrio, D. V., Aluja, A., & Garcia, L. F. (2004). Relationship between empathy and the big five personality traits in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Socieg for Personality Research. Retrieved May 7, 2005 from http://www. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3 852/ is_20040 1/ai_n9403 922/pg_1 Barrow, J. (1977). The variables of leadership. A review and conceptual framework. A__cademv of Mgagement Review. 2, 231-251. Baumrind (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1-103. Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J ., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor structure of Psychopathy Personality Inventory: Validity and implication for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment. 15(3), 340-350. Benson, P. L. (1997). All kiclaare our kis: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. ' Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the ‘village’ rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science. 2(3), 138-159. Berkowitz, L., & Lutterman, K. G. (1968). The traditional socially responsible personality. The Public Opinion Quarterlv. 32, 169-185. Berman, S. (1990). The real ropes course: The development of social consciousness. ES Journal, 1, 1-18. Berryman, J. W. (2002). The rise of bovs’ sports in the United States. 1900 to 1970. In F. L. Smoll and R. E. Smith (Eds), children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (2nd ed., pp. 5-17). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Bettelheim, B. (1985). Punishment versus discipline. The Atlantic Monthly. 51-59. Bierhoff, H. W. (2002). Prosocial behavior. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis Press. 84 ‘.“-.' ~._ ‘ . Bierhoff, H. W., & Rohmann, E. (2004). Altruistic personality in the context of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. European J ournal of Personality, 18(4), 351-365. Bredemeir, B. J ., & shields, D. L. (1986) Moral growth among athletes and non-athletes: A comparative analysis. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 147(1), 7-18. Bredemeier, b. J ., Weiss, M. R., Shields, D. L., & Schewchuk, R. M. (1986). Promoting moral growth in a summer sport camp: The implementation of theoretically grounded instructional strategies. Journal of Mora+1Education. 15, 212-220. ' Broh, B. A. (2002). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who benefits and why. Sociology of Educagm, 75, 69-95. Brown, B. B. (1982). The extent and effects of peer pressure among high school students: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 121-133. Brown, B. F. (1977). Education for responsible citizen_ship. The report of The National Task Force on Citizenahip Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Brunelle, J ., Danish, S. J ., & F orneris, T. (2007). The impact of a sport-based life skill program on adolescent prosocial values. Applied Developmentjal Science. 11(1), 43-55. Burton, J. M., & Marshall, L. A. (2005). Protective factors for youth considered at risk of criminal behavior: Does participation in extracurricular activities help. Criminal Behavior and MentalHezfl, 15, 46-64. Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., Speer, A. L. (1991). The altruistic personality: In what contexts is it apparent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 450-458. Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 308-313. Certo, J. L., Cauley, K. M., & Chafm, C. (2003). Students’ perspectives on their high school experience. Adolescence. 38(152), 705-724. Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 5, 226-231. Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 27-41. Chelladurai, P. (1989). Manual for the Leadership Scale for Sports. Unpublished manuscript. University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 85 Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology. Special Issue: The group in Sport aid Physical Activity, 21(4), 328-354. Chelladurai, P. (2001). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V. (1978). Leadership. Ottawa: Sociology of sport monograph series, Canadian association for health, Physical education and recreation. Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V. (1981b). Task characteristics and individual differences, and their relationship to preferred leaflership in sports. Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sports-1982 (p.87). College Park, Maryland: North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology. 5, 371-380. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 3, 85-92. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2(1), 34-45. Chelladurai, P., Irnamura, H., Yamaguchi, P., Oinuma, Y., & Miyauchi, T. (1988). Sport leadership in a cross-national setting: The case of Japanese and Canadian university athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 374-389. Conrad, D., & Hedin (1981b). Instruments and scoring guide of the experiential educational project. St. Paul, Minnesota: Center for Youth Development and Research, University of Minnesota. Damon, W. (1988). The moral child. New York: Free Press. Danish, S. J. (2002a). Going for the goal: Leader manual (4th ed. 1. Richmond, VA: Life Skills Associates. Danish, s. J. (2002b). Going for the goal: Student activity bout (4th eon. Richmond, VA: Life Skills Associates. Danish, S. J. (2002c). SUPER (Sports United to Promote Education and Recreation) program: Leader manual (3rd ed. 1. Richmond: Life Skills Center, Virginia Commonwealth University. 86 Danish, S. J ., & Hale, B. D. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sport psychology. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 90-99. Danish, S. J ., Taylor, T., & F azio, R. (2003). Enhancing adolescent development through sport and leisure. In G. R. Adams, & M. Berzonsky (Eds), Blackwell handbook on adolescence (pp. 92-108). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dominguez, M. M., & Carton, J. S. (1997). The relationship between self-actualization and parenting style. Journal of Social Behmognd Personalig, 12, 1093. Dreeben, R. (1968). On Wifit is learned in school. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Duda, J. (1988). The relationship between goal perspectives and persistence and intensity among recreational sport participants. Leisure Sci, 10. 95-106. Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(1), 10-43. Eccles, J. 8., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Exracurricular activities and adolescent development. The Journal of Social Issues. 59(4), 865-889. Eisenber, N. (1995). Proscgal development: A multifaceted model. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 401-429). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed), Handbook of child psychology, 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 701-778). New York: Wiley. Erle, F. J. (1981). Leadership in competitive and recreational sport. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Western Ontario. London, Canada. Ford, M. E., Wentzel, K. R., Wood, D., Stevens, E., & Siesfeld, G. A. (1989). Processes associated with integrative social competence: Emotional and contextual influences on adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Adolescent Researph, 4(4), 405-425. F raser-Thomas, J. L., Cote, J ., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, » 10(1), 19-40. Fredericks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006a). Extracurricular involvement and adolescent adjustment: Impact of duration, number of activities, and breadth of participation. Applied Developmental Science, 10(3), 132-146. 87 Fredericks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006b). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 698-713. Gass, M. A. (1985). Programming for transfer of Ieaming in adventure education. Experiential Education, 8(3), 18-24. Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educatiopal research: Competencies for analysis and application_s (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice—Hall Inc. Gibbons, S. L., Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M. R. (1995). Fair play for kids: Effects on the moral development of children in physical education. Research Merly for Exercise and Sport. 66(3), 247-255. Giebink, M. P. & McKenzie, T. C. (1985). Teaching sportsmanship in physical education and recreation: An analysis of intervention and generalization effects. J ournal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 167-177. Gordon, A. M. D. (1986). Behafloral correlates of coaching effectiveness. Unplished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Canada. Gough, H. G., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P. E. (1952). A personality scale for social responsibility. Journal of Abnormafl_ and Social Psychology, 47, 73-80. Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: current status and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1(1), 5 8-7 8. Gould, D., Chung, Y., Smith, P., & White, J. (2006). Future directions in coaching life skills: Understanding high school coaches’ views and needs. Athletic Insights: The online Journal of Sport PSVChology, 18, Issue 3. (www. athleticinsight.com/Voll 8Iss3/CoachingLifeSkill.htrn) Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2006). Coaching life skills: A working model. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 2(1), 10-18. Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2007). Coaching life skills through football: A study of award winning high school coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 16-37. Gunnoer, M. L., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence. 19, 199-226. 88 Hanson, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(1), 25-55. Harris, J. A., Rushton, J. P., Hampson, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). Salivary testosterone and self-report aggressive and pro-social personality characteristics in men and women. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 321-331. Harter, S. (1978). Perceived Competence Sgle for Children. Scoring manual. Denver, Colorado: University of Denver. Hartup, W. W. (1982). Review of research manual in child development. PschRITIQUES. 27(7), 579-580. Hellison, D. R. (1978). Beyond balls am bats: Alienated (yd other) youth in the gym. Washington, DC: AAHPER. Hellison, D. R. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Chamaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hellison, D. R. (1995). Teachingpersonal and social respon_sibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hellison, D. R. (2003). Igching personal_and sociLhespongbiliw through pthical activity (2“ Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hellison, D. R., Martinek, T. J ., & Cutforth, N. J. (1996). Beyond violence prevention in inner-city physical activity programs. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peach Psychology, 2(4), 321-337. Higgins, A., Power, C., & Kohlberg, L. (1984). The relationship of moral atmosphere to judgments of responsibility. In W. Kurtines, & J. Gewirtz (Eds), Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development (pp. 74-106). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hoffman, M. (1981). The development of empamy. In J. Rushton & R. Sorrentino (Eds), Altruism and Helping Behavior: social Personality and Developmental Perspectives (pp. 41-63. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hopkins, S. (2000). Effects of short-term service ministry trips on the development of social responsibility in college students. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engipeering, 61, (5B). University Microfilms International No. AA19975700). Horn T. S. (2002). Coaching effects in the sport domfl. In T. S. Horn (Ed), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 89 Horne, T., & Caron, A. V. (1985). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationships. Journal of Sport Psmology. 7, 137-149. Houston, 8., & Hwang, N. (1996). Correlates of the objective and subjective experiences of sexual harassment in high school. Sex Roles. 34(3-4). 189-204. Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Kellstedt, L. A., & Green, J. C. (2003). The politics of the Willow Creek Association of Pastors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 547-561. Kennemer, K. (2002). F_actors predicting social responsibility in college students. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Kleiber, D. A., & Roberts, G. C. (1981). The effects of sport experience in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3(2), 114-122. Kleiber, D. A., & Kirshnit, C. E. (1991). Sport involvement and identity formation. In L. Diamant (Ed), Mind-body maturity: psychological approaches to sports, exercise, and fitness (pp. 193-211). New York: Hemisphere. Kleiber, D. A., & Roberts, G. C. (1981). The effects of sport experience in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 114-122. Kluever, R., & Green, K. E. (1998). The responsibility scale: A research note on dissertation completion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 520-531. Kohler, M. C. (1982). Developing responsible youth through youth participation. Child and Youth Services. 4(3-4), 5-12. Krumboltz, J ., ford, M., Nichols, C., & Wentzel, K. (1987). The goals of education. In R C. Calfee (Ed), The study of Stanford and the schools: Views from the inside: Part II. Stanford, CA: School of Education. Lambert, N. M., & Nicoll, R. C. (1977). Conceptual model for nonintellectual behavior and its relationship to early reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 481-490. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170-183. 90 Larson, R. W. (2001). How US. children an adolescents spend time: What it does (and doesn’t) tell us about their development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10(5), 160-164. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701-736. Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 849-863. - run. I.— Martinek, T., Schilling, T., & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and social responsibility of underserved youth to the classroom. The Ugan Review, 33(1), 29-45. 3; McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual ': introduction (4th ed). New York: Longrnan Publishing Group. ' Mischel, W. (1961). Delay of gratification, need for achievement, and acquiescence in another culture. Journal of Abnormflnd Social Psychology, 62, 543-552. Mugno, D. A. & F eltz, D. L. (1985). The social learning of aggression in youth football in the United States. Canadian JournJal of Applied Sport Sciences. 10, 26-35. Mutimer, D. D., & Rosemier, R. A. (1967). Behavior problems of children as viewed by teachers and the children themselves. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 538-547. National Commision on the Reform of Secondary Education (1973). The reform of secondary education: A raport to the public and the profession. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. National Council of Youth Sports (2001). Report on trends and participation in organized youth sport. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from http://www.ncys.org/pdf/marketResearch.pdf Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholls, J. G., Patashinick, M., & Nolen, S. (1985). Adolescents theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). An tal_aptive-reactive theory of leadership: The role of macro variables in leadership research. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds), Leadership frontiers (pp. 27-44). Kent, OH: Kent State University. 91 Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). A review of psychological climate in physical activity settings with specific reference to motivation. Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 643-665. Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers for Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free Press. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? PsychologicziBulletin, 102, 357-389. Petitpas, A. J ., Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A. E., & Presbrey, J. (2004). A life skills development program for high school student athletes. The Journal of Primam Prevention 24(3), 325-334. Plato (1920). Protagoras. In A. Cubberly (ed), Readings in the histog of education (pp. 4_6). New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Pop Warner Little Scholar. (n.d.). Pop Warner mission. Retrived September 10, 2007 from http://www.popwarner.com/aboutus/mission.asp?lable=mission. Ridenour, J. (2008). The role of spirituality and the impact on social responsibility. Dissertation Abstracts International 68(11-B), 7692. Rehberg, R. A. (1969). Behavioral and attitudinal consequences of high school interscholastic sports: A speculative consideration. Adolescence. 4(13), 69-88. Roberts, G. C., Hall, H. K., Jackson, S., Kimiecik, J. C., & Tonymon, P. (1991). Implicit theories of @ievement and the sport experience: goal perspectives a_p_d achievement strategies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois. Robinson, T. T., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Personal and situational factors associated with dropping out versus maintaining participation in competitive sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 364-378. Romance, T. J ., Weiss, M. R., & Bockoven, J. (1986). A program to promote moral development through delementary school physical education. Journal of Etching in Physical Education, 5, 126-136. Rushton, J. P. (2005). Study showa ‘social responsibilig’ and ‘social glue’ i_s in the genes. Charles Darwin Institute. http://www. eurekalert.org/pub_release/2005- 01/cdriss010505.php. Retrieved February 21, 2005. Scales, P. C., Blyth, D. A., Berkas, T. H., & Kielsmeier, J. C. (2000). The effects of service-Ieaming on middle school students; social responsibility and academic success. Journal of Early Adolescence. 20(3), 332-358. 92 Schliesman, E. S. (1987). Relationship between the congruence of preferred and actual leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior 10(3), 157-166. Seligman, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist. 55(1), 5-14. Shields, D. L. L., & Bredemeier, B. J. L. (2001). Moral development and behafivior in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M Janelle (Eds), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed, pp. 585-6031). NY: John Wiley & Sons. Solomon, G. B. (1997). Fair play in the gymnasium: Improving social skills among elementary school students. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation. and Dance, 68(5), 22-25. Solomon, G. B. (2004). A lifespan view of moral development in physical activity. In M. R. Weiss (Ed), Developmental Sport and Exercise Psychology: A Lifespan Perspective (pp. 453-474). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, M. D. (1974). Significant others’ influence on the assaultive behavior of young hockey players. Intemflnal Review of Sport Sociology, 3-4, 45-56. Smith, M. D. (1975). The legitimation of violence: Hockey players’ perceptions of their reference groups’ sanctions for assault. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 12, 72-80. Smith, M. D. (1978). Social learning of violence in minor hockey. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp. 91-106). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Smith, M. D. (1979). Towards an explanation of hockey violence: A reference other approach. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 4, 105-124. Smith, M. D. (1988). Intergpersonal sources of violence in Mew The influence of parents, coaches, and teammates. In F. L. Smoll, R. A. Magill, & M. J. Ash (Eds), Children in sport (pp. 301-313). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, M. D., Smoll, F. L. (1996). Psychosocial interventiona in youth sport. In J. L. Van Raalte & B. W. Brewer, Exploring sport and exercise psychology (pp. 287-315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Xxix, 487 pp. Smith, M. D., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of children’s sport performance anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of Applied Developmental Psycholagy, 16, 125-142. 93 Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Christen, D. S. (1996). Behavioral assessment and interventions in youth sports. Behavior Modification, 20(1), 3-44. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F, L, & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive- behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Joumrl of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. B. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research @flerly, 48, 401-407. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Jourpal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2002) The rise of boys’ sports in the United States. 1900 to 1970. In F. L. Smoll and R. E. Smith (Eds), children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (2nd ed., pp. 211-233). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 602-610. Starrett, R. H. (1996). Assesment of global social responsibility, Psychological Raports, 78, 535-554. Summers, R. J. (1983). A study of leaflership in a sport setting. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Waterloo, Canada. Tate, R. (1998). An introduction to modeling outcomes in the behavioral and social sciences (2"d ed.L Minnesota: Burgess International Group. Terry, P. C. (1984). The coaching preferences of elite athletes competing at Universiade ’83. The Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9(4), 201- 208. Thombs, D. L. (2000). A retrospective study of DARE: Substantive effects not detected in undergruates. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 46(1), 27-40. Weiss, M. R., & Friedrichs, W. D. (1986). The influence of leader behaviors, coach attributes, and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction of collegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 332-346. Weiss, M. R., & Smith, A. L. (2002). Moral development in sport and physical activity: theog, research, and intervention. In T. S. Horn (Ed), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 243-280). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 94 Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 1-24. Wentzel, K. R., Weinberger, D. A., Ford, M. E., & Feldman, S. S. (1990). Academic achievement in preadolescence: The role of motivational, affective, and self- regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 179- 193. Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school football team. The Sport Psychologist, 5(1), 41-54. Wiggins, D. K. (1996). A histog of highly competitive sport for American children. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 15-30). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Williams, R. M. (1993). The effects of recmired community service on the mocess of developing responsibility in suburban youth. Dissertation Abstracts Intemational,54 (7-A), 2473. Youniss, J ., McLellan, J. A. & Yates, M. (1999). Religion, community service, and identity in American youth. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 243-253. Vealey, R. 3., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. (1998). Influence of perceived coaching behaviors on burnout and competitive anxiety in female college athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 10, 297-318. 95 293 03062 9418 3 lllllllllllllllllllll