J 1. 581.2%. 013%..“ Hagar-”u... . a. 2:: 5i:.. .r .1249: 47:3: .51 r... riftsiii 51.13;!1. r 5.1:. . “5.1.9. >\ x v; ‘ . 3.35:}. \‘X . I. z. in: 3 . av‘ 25)) .7. 3,. 0: V)... ‘11:. It... 1‘... v s n u a. s9: ..\. .8). s: to. 7"!” at“. ‘97.“ a. .13.». $31.99. Itaa~x 3.. ‘0‘ IO." . $5.51 >. \\.£. 1 .3. 151:".(3391 .A .. Esq). 1s. .. 1., u J...I.$tu. iii/T'°""I}7f t/I’I‘ixaitQ/‘tzifltiyimifis iii/131111! Ii ' THES‘S '7 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Perceived Parental Influences On Youth Tennis Players Within Harter's Competence Motivation Theory 4’ presented by Alexandra Rachel Wiesner has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in Physical Education & Exercise Science Major professor anew 0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 4» _._ fl ‘. --—. PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES retum on or before dete due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU le An Nflrmettve Action/Equal Opportunity Inetltulon mm: PERCEIVED PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON YOUTH TENNIS PLAYERS WITHIN HARTER’S COMPETENCE MOTIVATION THEORY BY Alexandra Rachel Wiesner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science 1995 ABSTRACT PERCEIVED PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON YOUTH TENNIS PLAYERS WITHIN HARTER’S COMPETENCE MOTIVATION THEORY BY Alexandra Rachel Wiesner The purpose of this study was to investigate perceived parental influences on youth tennis players and was grounded in Harter’s(l978) Competence Motivation Theory. This study was a partial replication of Brustad’s(1988) research in which positive and negative affect experienced by young athletes during a competitive sport season was investigated. Brustad’s hypotheses concerning enjoyment were explored along with hypotheses testing the constructs of the model within the tennis arena. Subjects for the study were 46 male and female elite junior tennis players between the ages of 11-14. Portions of five instruments were utilized to test the hypotheses. The instruments were subscales from Harter’s Social Support Scale(Harter, 1985); Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation Scale(Harter, 1980); Adolescent Self— Perception Profile(Harter, 1988); and Scanlan and Lewthwaite's Significant Adult Factors Scale(Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1984); and Enjoyment Scale(Scanlan & lewthwaite, 1986). Positive parental social support and parental pressure were significant predictors of a tennis player’s enjoyment level. To my husband, Douglas, for his amazing love and support. To my parents, James and Virginia, for their support and encouragement to attain my goals. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my mentor Dr. Martha Ewing for her dedication and guidance in assisting me with my master’s thesis. Without her inspiration and passion for sports psychology I never would have ventured into this wonderful field. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Vern Seefeldt and Dr. Sam Reuschlein for their valued insights. May their retirement be as rewarding to themselves as the great contributions they have made in the field of physical education. To my siblings, James, Jennifer, and Douglas: "Snip has a master’s degree, you guys are getting old!" Thanks to Shaine for his friendship and insights into how tense I am. To Sean for letting me use his computer and being a chicken-hawk. To Anthony for always having a party. To all the other sport psychology graduate students and especially Melissa and Susan for their help in making sure my results were reliable. To Lynn Martin for her expert editorial services and a listening ear. To Rick Ferman and Doug Lewis for without their help, my study never would have taken place. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page LIST OF TABLES ................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................... viii I. INTRODUCTION ................................... l Competence Motivation Model .................... 4 Hypotheses ..................................... 10 Operational Definitions ........................ 11 Assumptions .................................... 12 Limitations .................................... 12 Delimitations .................................. 13 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................... l4 Harter’s Competence Motivation Theory .......... 14 Sport Involvement .............................. 16 Parental Pressure .............................. 21 Harter’s Modified Scales ....................... 30 Conclusion ..................................... 33 III. METHOD ......................................... 36 Subjects ....................................... 36 Instruments .................................... 37 Procedure ...................................... 41 Treatment of the Data .......................... 42 CHAPTER Page IV. RESULTS ........................................ 46 Reliability of Measures ........................ 46 Gender and Age Differences ..................... 53 Hypotheses ..................................... 54 Summary of Findings ............................ 64 V. DISCUSSION ..................................... 66 Replication of Brustad’s Study ................. 72 Assessing Parental Influences .................. V 73 Implications for Future Research ............... 75 REFERENCES ..................................... 78 APPENDICES A. SOCIAL SUPPORT SCALE FOR CHILDREN ................ 85 B. INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION SCALE ..... 86 C. ADOLESCENT SELF-PERCEPTION PROFILE ............... 88 D. COMPILATION OF SUBSCALES ......................... 89 E. SIGNIFICANT ADULT FACTORS SCALE .................. 92 F. TENNIS ENJOYMENT SCALE ........................... 95 G. BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE ......................... 96 H. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL .......................... 97 I. PARENTAL LETTER AND CHILD CONSENT FORM ........... 98 J. ANOVA TABLES ..................................... 100 K. CODE BOOK ........................................ 104 L. RAW DATA ......................................... 111 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Factor Analysis of Significant Adult Factor Scale ............................... 48 2. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Modified Factor Analysis of Significant Adult Factor Scale ............................... 49 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Parental Support on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation ................... 55 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Perceived Competence on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation ................... 57 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Enjoyment on Harter's Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation ................... 59 6. Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with Higher and Lower Success on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation ................... 61 7. Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Parental Support on Harter’s Subscales of Perceived Competence .................... 62 8. Summary of Second Regression Analyses Including Parental Support Subscale ........ 64 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Harter's Model of Competence Motivation ................................ 5 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For most youth, participation in sports is a fun-filled experience that is important in shaping their motor development and cognitive growth (Hellstedt, 1988; Scanlan, 1978; Sherif, 1976). In addition, competition is valued highly in the United States, and sports provide an arena where children can learn how to compete and strive for excellence. These children learn valuable traits such as self-discipline, leadership, cooperation and sportsmanship. Historically, participation in youth sports programs has been higher for boys than for girls(Coakley, 1994). However, organized sport has become more and more popular for girls as a result of the passage of Title IX in 1972. This federal legislation, which created the potential for equality of opportunity for women in typically male domains, has had a strong impact on the youth sport environment(Pearl, 1992). Now, more than ever, females are becoming active participants in the expanding arena of organized sports. Millions of children, both male and female, are competing in all sports from soccer to gymnastics to football and hockey(Berryman, 1988). Parents play a vital role in the joy or sadness their children experience through playing sports(Martens, 1978; Scanlan & Passer, 1978). These studies(Martens, 1978; Scanlan & Passer, 1978) demonstrated that parents who gave 2 positive encouragement were responsible for their children having more enjoyable sporting experiences, while parents who gave negative encouragement caused their children to have less enjoyable sporting experiences. Why, then, is there so little research on the importance of teaching parents to understand the profound effect they have on the experiences of their child-athletes(Brustad, 1992)? With the increasing amounts of money and fame in sports today, children are pressured to participate at very high competitive levels in their sport at younger and younger ages. This pressure in some cases has been placed on child- athletes by their parents. The emphasis on recognition and financial reward is a notable change in the area of youth sports. Thus, important guidelines for parents are essential to protect our young athletes from suffering undue pressures(Johnson & McCutcheon, 1980; Passer, 1982). The effect of increased parental pressure can be seen with the devastating results on a teenage tennis pro. In a recent article in Sports Illustrated(Price, 1994), an athlete went from an olympic Gold medalist at age fifteen to a teenager arrested for possession of marijuana at age seventeen. The athlete was supporting her entire family through earnings on the tour and sponsor endorsements. The pressure to be number one and provide for her family seemed to take its toll on the young superstar. She told fellow party-goers that she just wanted to be like everybody else. 3 The need for research on child-parent interactions is paramount because of the increased number of youthful participants. The existing literature demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between the family's involvement and the child's sports involvement and enjoyment(Ommundsen & Vaglum, 1991; Hellstedt, 1990; Greendorfer & Lewko, 1978; Higginson, 1985). Is the pressure to excel that parents put on their children too emotionally taxing on the young athlete? Conflicts arise when parents exert too much pressure on their children and cause them to have negative sport experiences. This pressure may lower their children’s self-esteem and cause higher numbers of dropouts from sports(Hellstedt, 1988). The pressure to win was discussed in a recent article in USA TODAY(Shmerier, 1994). Seena Hamilton, founder of the Easter Bowl, one of the country’s top junior tennis tournaments, was interviewed about the enjoyment of the game and she stated "Somebody has to slow everything down, because these kids aren’t having fun anymore"(Cited in Shmerier, 1994). Research assessing the impact of parental pressure on the enjoyment of youth in sports has been sparse and has relied on retrospective reports from adults about their childhood sporting experiences. There has been very little knowledge gained concerning parental pressure from the perspective of the current child—athlete(Lewko & 4 Greendorfer, 1988). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the child’s perception of pressure in the tennis arena where the need to win is the top priority. Harter’s Model of Competence Motivation provides a grounded theory for this investigation. Competence Motivation Model One model which has addressed the relationship between parental involvement and child enjoyment is Harter’s Competence Motivation Model. The Competence Motivation Model was constructed for use in the academic domain, but it has been useful in the sporting domain as well(Brustad, 1988; Brustad & Weiss, 1987; Feltz & Brown, 1984; Horn, 1985; Klint, 1988; Weiss, Bredemeier & Brustad, 1987). Competence motivation is defined as a person’s perception of the ability to perform a task(Harter, 1978). This model stresses the role of children’s self-perceptions of competence and control in motivational processes, while taking into account relevant developmental considerations as they impact the children’s cognitive processes. The following diagram(see Figure 1) illustrates Harter’s Model of Competence Motivation(Harter, 1978). U'I COMPETENCE MOTIVATION INCREASES DECREASES INTRINSIC PLEASURE “3'5" Y I I rflGHPERCHVED INTERONhAiegl-FR‘CEEPIION Low “MEN” OF CORTROL .45... OPTIMAL CHALLENGE COMPETENCE a, . & EXTERNALPERCERHON SUCCESS FAILURE OF CONTROL I mmms'c MASTERY EXTRINSIC ‘ MOT’VAT‘ONAL ATTEMPTS MOTIVATIONAL ORENTAUON ORENTAUON i I I Figure 1. POSITIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE FROM SIGNIFICANT OTHERS NEGATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE FROM SIGNIFICANT OTHERS Harter's Model of Competence Motivation 6 Based on the model, children with high competence motivation would perceive themselves as competent and in control of outcomes, positively influenced by significant others, intrinsically motivated, and optimally challenged; all of which increases their intrinsic pleasure of the mastery attempt and leads to success. Children with low competence motivation would perceive themselves as having low competence and an external perception of control of outcomes, negatively influenced by significant others(pressure), and extrinsically motivated; all of which would increase their anxiety and cause failure. Harter(1978) has argued that significant others, particularly parents, through the feedback they provide for children’s mastery efforts in the academic, social, and physical domains, are the chief influences upon children’s self-related perceptions. There have been studies in the academic setting which have shown the influence parents have on a child’s self-perceptions. The Expectancy Socialization Theory(Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982) states that children may be influenced to adopt particular characteristics of self-perception through the expectational standards conveyed by socialization agents and, in this case, parents. Parsons et al.(1982) found that the parents' beliefs of their children’s mathematic achievements matched more closely to what the children perceived to be their competence in this area than did the children’s previous mathematic performance. Another study investigating this link between parental belief systems and children’s self-perceptions and achievement behaviors in academic settings was done by Phillips(l987). The subjects in this study were children who demonstrated high academic competence. The subjects were categorized into children with low perceived competence and those with high perceived competence. Children with low perceived competence felt that their parents held low perceptions of their academic ability and low expectations for their achievement. These children also said that they felt more pressure to achieve from their parents than did the children with higher perceived competence. In addition, fathers were found to hold more stringent achievement standards than did the mothers. Phillips(l987) stated that an important socialization role of parents is interpreting and providing competence feedback for the child. Through research in the academic setting, it is easy to see how important a parent’s influence is on children. Unfortunately, there has been limited research in the sporting domain on parental influence. Weitzer’s study(cited in Brustad, 1992) investigated children’s perceptions of parental influence in their sport involvement, children’s self-perceptions of sport competence, and their level of sport involvement. The findings indicated that greater parental influence was 8 associated with higher levels of involvement in sport for both boys and girls. This study also found greater parental influence was related to higher perceptions of personal competence for girls. Brustad(1988)explored both the positive and negative affect experienced by young athletes during a competitive sport season. This study was also based within Harter’s(1978) Competence Motivation Model. His subjects were male and female agency-sponsored basketball players between the ages of 9 through 13. Brustad’s measure of positive affect was season—long enjoyment levels; and, his measure for negative affect was high levels of competitive trait anxiety. These two dependent variables were tested against six predictor variables: perceived sport competence, self-esteem, motivational orientation, perceived parental pressure, performance-related worries, and negative evaluation by parents, coaches, and peers. Brustad(1988) analyzed his data for boys and girls separately. First, for enjoyment, the group of six predictor variables was significant for levels of enjoyment for boys, accounting for 25% of the variance. Motivational orientation and perceived parental pressure were found as being individually predictive of basketball enjoyment. Similar to the findings for boys, the group of six predictor variables was significant for levels of enjoyment for girls, accounting for 24% of the variance. In addition, similar to 9 the boys, motivational orientation and perceived parental pressure were found as being individually predictive of basketball enjoyment for girls. Second, looking at boys’ competitive trait anxiety, the six predictor variables were significant predictors of competitive trait anxiety, but only accounted for 14% of the variance. Self-esteem was the only factor that was found as being individually predictive of basketball competitive trait anxiety for boys. Similar findings for girls’ competitive trait anxiety were reported. The six predictor variables were significant for competitive trait anxiety, accounting for 12% of the variance. Self- esteem was also individually predictive of competitive trait anxiety for girls. Recommendations from Brustad’s(1988) research included the need for replication of his findings and the need to examine both young male and female athletes participating in the same youth sport setting. The current study replicates Brustad's hypotheses about enjoyment with youth tennis players’. In addition, this study looked at the effect of perceived parental pressure and other dimensions on the intrinsic orientation of tennis players. These additional hypotheses do not necessarily reflect the flow of relationships depicted in Harter's(1978) model. The dimensions of interest in this study are enjoyment and intrinsic orientation. Although the model does depict a certain flow, the relationship between constructs should be 10 correlational, not cause and effect. Therefore, if an individual is on the enjoyment side of Harter’s model, a high score on one construct should relate to a high score on all constructs. Harter's(1978) model had been used previously in studying youth in sports domains, but assessing the relationships of Harter’s constructs within the tennis domain with more elite youth performers was needed to further establish the validity of its use in the sports domain. This study will investigate elite tennis players between the ages of 11 and 14. An interesting finding would be if level of skill, individual nature of the sport, or age of the subjects plays a role in moderating the relationships proposed by Harter which is different from those reported in Brustad’s(1988) study. Hypotheses These hypotheses are in accordance with Harter’s model and were assessed in this study. 1. Children with higher social support will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower social support. 2. Children with higher perceived competence will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower perceived competence. 3. Children with higher enjoyment will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower ll enjoyment. 4. Children with more success(higher ranking) will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with less success(lower ranking). 5. Children with greater amounts of social support will have higher perceived competence than those children with less social support. Brustad’s hypotheses on enjoyment were also investigated: 1. Children with higher levels of enjoyment will perceive less parental pressure to participate compared to children with lower levels of enjoyment. 2. Children with higher levels of enjoyment will exhibit greater perceived sport competence compared to children with lower levels of enjoyment. 3. Children with higher levels of enjoyment will demonstrate a more intrinsic motivational orientation compared to children with lower levels of enjoyment. 4. Children with higher levels of enjoyment will demonstrate higher levels of self-esteem compared to children with lower levels of enjoyment. Operational Definitions The following operational definitions were used in this study. High perceived parental pressure was identified in those subjects who scored above the median on the subscale of parental pressure from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) scale of Significant Adult Factors. Low perceived parental 12 pressure was identified in those subjects who scored below the median on the subscale parental pressure from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s scale of Significant Adult Factors. High social support was determined to be present when subjects scored above the median on Harter’s(1985) Social Support Scale. Low social support was determined to be present when subjects scored below the median in Harter’s Social Support Scale.~ High perceived competence was defined for those subjects scoring above the median on Harter's(1988) Adolescent Self-Perception Profile. Low perceived competence was defined for those subjects scoring below the median in Harter’s Adolescent Self-Perception Profile. Assumptions Some assumptions about the subjects were recognized. It was assumed that the subjects were honest in their answers to the survey instruments. With two testing times provided to account for subjects who had forgotten their consent forms, it was assumed that the child—athletes who had taken the questionnaire in an earlier session did not discuss the instruments with future participants. Limitations A limitation of the study may be the definition of pressure. Parental pressure is a construct that has not been consistently tested in the sports arena. Although the parental pressure subscale devised by Scanlan and 13 Lewthwaite(1984) measures the extent to which parents pressure their child-athletes, this is still a new and relatively untested subscale. Continued testing with the parental pressure subscale is required to confirm reliability and validity in testing parental pressure. A pre—adolescent may not know if, or to what extent, they are truly feeling pressure and from what source. A second limitation would be that all the subjects participate in tennis at private clubs. These participants would all be in a higher socio-economic class and, thus they would not be a fair representation of the population. Delimitations A delimitation is that the subjects reside in the midwest and hence, results may not be generalized to other regions. In addition, the athletes are all above average in skill level and results pertain to only more elite athletes. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Harter’s Competence Motivation Theory The socialization construct(positive social influence from significant others) in Harter’s(1978) Competence Motivation Theory allows researchers to investigate child- parent dynamics. Please refer to Figure 1, Harter’s Competence Motivation model, on page 5. The theory itself states that individuals want to be competent and deal effectively with the environment(Harter, 1978). The part of the model most pertinent to this review is the success side of the model. This side of the model states that children with high competence motivation would perceive themselves as competent and in control of outcomes, positively influenced by significant others, intrinsically motivated, and optimally challenged; all of which increase their intrinsic pleasure of the mastery attempt and lead to success. Although out of the scope of this study, some literature reviewed will cover the failure side of the model. Those individuals with low competence motivation would perceive themselves as having low competence and an external perception of control of outcomes, negatively influenced by significant others, and extrinsically motivated, all of which would increase their anxiety and cause failure. Harter’s(1978) Competence Motivation Theory is an extension and refinement of White’s(1959) Model of 14 15 Effectance Motivation. White’s model was formed in order to explain an individual’s motivational behaviors such as exploration, curiosity, mastery, play, and urge to show competence in one’s environment. Harter investigated the developmental impact of these constructs within the school environment and extended the model in certain areas, including most importantly, the socialization construct. Harter(1978) found developmental differences in motivation when studying 4 year olds compared to 10 year olds in set tasks. Both were motivated to succeed, but displayed different behaviors at the outcome of a task. Due to developmental differences in motivation, the need for participants to be similar in age is necessary in research studies. Therefore, in this review, age will be an important aspect to be analyzed in each study. In addition to looking at the developmental aspects, Harter found three general skill areas that differentiated attempts at mastery, i.e., cognitive, social, and'physical. Studies investigating all three of these aspects will be reviewed. The following review of literature encompasses sport studies which are based within Harter’s model as well as others that are pertinent to the current study. These additional studies investigate the effect of parental attitudes and influence and how they relate to a child- athlete’s involvement and experience in the sports domain. 16 Sport Involvement To better understand why and how child-athletes become involved in sport, one needs to look at social agents. The following two articles, based within Harter's model but beyond the scope of this study, look at motivations of involvement by measuring the perceived physical, social, and cognitive competence subscales. Through the use of Harter’s Competence Motivation Model, the idea of why children participate in sports was tested(Klint & Weiss, 1987). The hypothesis stated that perceptions of competence are related to particular motives young athletes have for their participation in sports. The subjects were twenty boys and forty girls between the ages of 8 and 16 who participated in nonschool gymnastics. Perceptions of competence were measured through the physical, social and cognitive subscale of Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale. Motives for participation in sports were measured using a modified questionnaire developed by Gill and Gould(Gill, Gross, & Huddleston, 1983; Gould, Feltz, & Weiss, 1985). Through discriminant function analyses it was discovered that those subjects with high- perceived physical competence were motivated by skill development reasons and those with high-perceived social competence were motivated by affiliation aspects compared to low scoring perceived competence subjects. Within Harter’s Competence Motivation Model the area of 17 cognitive and affective processes are included. Brustad and Weiss(1987) investigated the relationship between cognitive appraisal processes and the affective characteristics of youth sport involvement. This study was an extension of Passer’s (1983) work which looked at competitive trait anxiety(CTA) in male soccer players. The extension included both male and female athletes and expanded into the different sports of baseball and softball. Brustad and Weiss(1987) hypothesized that children with high competitive trait anxiety would show lower levels of perceived physical competence(modified to baseball/softball specific), perceived personal control, and general self- esteem. In addition, these children would show greater concern for negative evaluation from parents, coaches and teammates, and more frequent performance-related worries. Findings indicated that males with increased competitive trait anxiety showed lower levels of self-esteem and higher frequency of worries compared to males with lower levels of competitive trait anxiety. There was no significant relationship with perceived physical competence and negative evaluation in relation to high competitive trait anxiety with male subjects. There was no significant relationship between any of the variables with the female subjects. This finding of non-significance for females may be due to differences in characteristics of softball compared to baseball or other factors rather than gender issues. 18 Participation in the same sport is crucial to producing more meaningful findings. Many sport researchers have investigated the influence of social agents on child—athletes and found the family to be the most significant influence. This is particularly true for those child—athletes around 13 years old. Snyder and Spreitzer(1973) found fathers to be the most significant role models for boys, and mothers for girls. Both parents are instrumental in getting their children involved in sport activities. Examined in their study(Snyder & Spreitzer, 1973) were the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions as well as incorporation of variables from previous studies including age, education, occupation and sex as correlates of sports participation. Family influence was used as a predictor of sports involvement. Analysis of the data found few correlations except for a significant association that sport participative behavior decreases with age. Furthermore, there was a positive linear relationship between parental encouragement and most indicators of sport involvement. Snyder and Spreitzer(1973) concluded that sport involvement begins in early childhood, is reinforced by parent encouragement, continues in middle age and diminishes in the latter stages of life. A point to note which may limit these findings is that the mean age of participants was 42 years and data taken from these questionnaires rv—N .-__.\_.~_. «b..-.—..-__4- A..— 19 recounted their memories of early childhood experiences. They were asked to remember how they were influenced as children, which may have been over 30 years ago. The next step in understanding parent-child relationships would be a longitudinal study which would follow current children and their feelings into adulthood. Higginson(1985) investigated the socializing agents of family, peer, coach/teacher and their influence on girls' sports involvement at different stages of life. Three stages were included in the study: 13 years and under, middle school age, and high school age. Through the use of a chi-square analysis of the items in the questionnaire, the variables of socializing constructs and other items dealing with active sport involvement were assessed. It was found that for girls in the under 13 age group, the parents were the most significant influence. These findings are in general agreement with a study done by Greendorfer and Lewko(1978) which stated that the family was the strongest influence on sport participation. As the girls age, however, parental influence decreases and peer influence increases; and by high school, the coach/teacher has the greatest influence(Higginson, 1985). This is an interesting finding for it is one of the few studies that examine age and how it affects the parent-child influence. A multiple regression might be useful to further analyze all aspects of the data, so that additional relationships could 20 be drawn(Higginson, 1985). Greendorfer and Lewko(1978) considered a number of variables which act as socializing agents for a child’s sports involvement. The social systems investigated were the family, peers and teachers. The subjects were 8-13 year old recreational sports participants, who filled out a fixed alternative questionnaire which assessed two concepts: active sport involvement and significant others’ influence. The higher the score on both constructs indicated higher levels of sport involvement and a higher influence of significant others. Using sports involvement as the dependent variable and significant others’ influence as the independent variable, the first regression analysis compared the three social systems(Greendorfer & Lewko, 1978). The researchers found peers to be the only significant influence. Because this did not support the current research at the time, more regressions were attempted. A regression comparing parental and sibling influence found parents playing a significant role in influencing their child’s involvement. A third regression was run which looked at only family members and found the father to be the most significant. Greendorfer and Lewko acknowledged that this finding runs contradictory to the findings of Snyder and Spreitzer(1973), who found the mother’s influence to be the most significant for females. Greendorfer and Lewko concluded that this finding may be 21 accounted for because of the sample having more males than females. As one can see, parents play an important role in getting their children involved in sport. Determining which parent is more significant seems to be in need of further investigation. In addition, once children are involved in sport, how do parents effect their enjoyment? Parental Pressure The study of parental encouragement and pressure on child-athletes has been very limited. This may be due to researchers just now realizing and trying to understand what exactly are parents’ roles and how are they measured in the sports arena. The classroom and the sports arena are both achievement domains, but one is private while the other is public. In a classroom children are watched only by his or her teacher and classmates. Parents may provide encouragement or criticisms to assist their child in solving problems but this feedback is provided only during a child’s homework session at home which is also a private arena. Compared to the classroom, sports are set in a public arena where the child is on display in front of peers, coaches, parents and observers who are unknown to the child. Parents, without the ability to help their child, go through a lot of emotional strain in sport while watching their child-athlete compete to succeed or fail. When the strain becomes too great or the parent perceives that the child is not trying hard enough, help is provided through loud 22 verbalizations to their child. This is performed during the competition or by discussions following competition in a one on one basis. Parents want their child to succeed in both school and sport arenas. However, due to the importance of sport in our society and the public’s view of one’s accomplishments, sport could be considered a greater concern for parents than school. Parents encouragement for their child to perform well in their competition may develop into becoming intensely involved, causing a child to feel pressure. The following articles investigate parental pressure along with other factors which effect a child’s enjoyment in sport. Brustad(1988)explored parental pressure along with five other factors and their effect on enjoyment within Harter’s Competence Motivation Model. The six predictor variables were perceived sport competence, self-esteem, motivational orientation, perceived parental pressure, performance- related worries and negative evaluation by parents, coaches, and peers. Brustad found these predictors to account for 25% of the variance of enjoyment for boys and 24% of the variance of enjoyment for girls. Motivational orientation and perceived parental pressure were found to be predictive of basketball enjoyment for both boys and girls, accounting for nearly all of the variance. These findings that participants high in intrinsic motivation increase their enjoyment level and that their parents pressuring them 23 decreases their enjoyment level confirm the Competence Motivation Theory. The theory states that individuals want to show competence in their environment. Therefore, participants are enjoying themselves when they feel they are showing their competence on their own initiative. Having parents motivate them externally does not allow them to take full credit for showing their competence. In addition, the finding that both genders have the same predictor variables explaining their enjoyment level is not surprising. With the increase of females participating in youth sports on a regular basis, the motivators for boys should be similar to those for girls in the same sport. Future findings of the effect of predictor variables on enjoyment in other agency sponsored sports should be similar for both boys and girls, although the predictor variables of enjoyment for each sport may be different due to each sport having its own unique characteristics. Due to parental pressure accounting for a significant portion of the variance for predicting enjoyment, social support subscales should be included in future research on enjoyment. This would allow researchers to confirm that positive support provides enjoyment for child-athletes in addition to negative support(pressure) decreasing enjoyment. In addition, Brustad(1988)used only the Challenge subscale of Harter’s Motivation Orientation Scale which may have limited his results. Additional testing of the most suitable 24 subscales to measure motivation orientation within the sports domain is necessary to support their use. Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1986) investigated significant adult influences, age and perceptions of wrestling ability on youth wrestlers’ enjoyment levels. The participants were seventy-six male wrestlers between the ages of 9 and 14. A stepwise multiple regression found those participants higher in perceived competence and younger in age enjoyed wrestling more than those who were older and in the low perceived competence group. Of the five adult factors measuring adult influence, three were found to be significant to a wrestler’s enjoyment at the p<.10 level. The three predictor variables were adult satisfaction with season’s performance, negative maternal interactions, and positive adult involvement. This finding that younger participants with higher perceived competence enjoyed themselves more than older participants lower in perceived competence confirms the study done by Higginson(1985) in which children under age 13 are more influenced by their parents rather than children over age 13. The finding of adult influences predicting enjoyment shows that kids under 13 may be more influenced by their parents’ encouragement or pressure compared to older participants. This finding seems to confirm the validity that both positive and negative adult influences effect a child-athlete’s enjoyment of sport. The Significant Adult Factor Scale seems to contain 25 items which correctly describe a parent’s influence on and involvement with a child-athlete. Use of this scale will be helpful in future sport studies. Another variable to consider when assessing adult influences is whether the child is a member of an individual or team sport. For example, wrestlers may feel that showing one’s wrestling competence is more important in enjoying their sport compared to basketball players who feel that being internally motivated is more important to enjoying their basketball experience. Ommundsen and Vaglum(1991) examined the influence of significant others and perceived competence of soccer ability on young boys in determining their competition anxiety and enjoyment. Based within Harter’s Competence Motivation Model, these researchers interviewed two hundred and twenty—three male soccer players between the ages of 12 and 16 years of age. Two stated hypotheses are pertinent to this review. First, perception of negative behavior from coaches and parents is associated with high soccer competition anxiety. Second, perception of positive behavior from coaches and parents is associated with enjoyment in soccer. Ommundsen and Vaglum(1991) discovered that parental behavior was one of the top predictors of their son’s enjoyment. The hypotheses were also supported when they found a relationship between negative behavior of 26 significant others with low soccer enjoyment and high self- esteem in soccer related to positive parental behavior(Ommundsen & Vaglum, 1991). Similar to findings by Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1986), Ommundsen and Vaglum(1991) found that soccer enjoyment is strongly linked to perceived soccer competence, as well as adult affective involvement.i These findings are curious when taking into account that the mean age of the participants was 14.5 years, the age at which Higginson(1985) stated that peers would begin to have a stronger influence on a child. In addition, due to the broad range of ages of 12-16, there should be developmental differences in accordance with Harter(1978). There may be a few reasons for this finding. First, the study was done in Oslo, Norway and the role of family may be different than in the United States. Second, this study was a qualitative study where the subjects were interviewed and Harter’s subscales were not used in data collection. Third, subjects were interviewed in their homes, which may account for more mention of parental influence. Interviewing subjects in a neutral setting might be more appropriate. Age is an important aspect when considering motivation of child athletes. Further research assessing children of various ages on Harter’s constructs from both United States and abroad needs to be continued to gain a global understanding of Harter’s model. Similar to the previous study on parental behavior, but 27 not within Harter’s model, Smoll, Schutz, Wood, and Cunningham(1977) investigated the nature and degree of the relationship between parents’ beliefs toward and involvement in physical activity with the attitudes and behaviors of their children. The researchers found that parent’s involvement with their children had a positive effect on their motor performance. A modified version of Kenyon’s scale(l968) was administered which measured attitude toward physical activity of the children. A questionnaire was given to the children to assess their degree of involvement and a questionnaire was mailed to the parents to measure their degree of involvement. Finally, the researchers assessed the motor performance of the child to determine their skill level. Questionnaires were mailed to 264 parents and a sample of 121 was taken from those parents who returned the questionnaire. Smoll et al.(1977) assumed that parents who did not respond to the questionnaire were less involved in their child’s sports than those who returned their questionnaires. It was hypothesized that children of non— respondent parents should score lower on skill level. This was found to be true, but only for younger aged boys. Interestingly, older boys of the non-respondents scored significantly higher on skill than children of parents who responded. No explanation for this finding was provided. The authors concluded that there was no true significant 28 correlation between parents influencing their children’s attitude and involvement in sports. Because this conclusion runs contradictory to previous research, Smoll et al.(1977) believed that the sample population of recreational players, rather than organized sport participants as in previous research, accounted for this discrepancy. This study provides an important insight in dealing with age differences and level of skill. Again, today’s research points to the stronger influence of peers rather than parents as the child matures into adolescence(Higginson, 1985). Socializing agents may have more to do with the non- significant finding than with skill level. Yet, future studies should compare recreational players and organized sport with age to better explain this finding. Parental attitude can also be displayed through their verbalizations to their child. Previous studies have found fun to be the number one motivator for a youth’s participation in sports(Orlick & Botterill, 1975). The following study was done to assess positive and negative verbalizations at youth baseball games because coaches felt parents were being too negative(Walley, Graham, & Forehand, 1982). Walley and associates hypothesized that a method was needed to provide an increase in positive verbalizations so young people can continue to have fun. Subjects were 5-8 year old male and female youth baseball players and their significant adult others. After assessing adult comments 29 over six games, researchers distributed leaflets with positive ideas about how adults should make positive verbalization to children involved in the games. A follow- up questionnaire was distributed to adults to confirm that they had read the leaflets. Contrary to coaches’ perceptions, this study found negative comments were not very common. The researchers concluded this may be due to the low levels of competition and hence adults may not possess high expectations. It was also found that the leaflets had no significant impact on increasing more positive verbalizations. This study needed to collect data on the feelings and perceptions of the youth sport participants. This would provide a better understanding of the similarity of the child’s perceptions and that of the coaches. If this is the case, more intervention strategies could be developed to ensure that youth sports is a positive developmental process. In the area of negative social support, Hellstedt(1990) assessed adolescent perceptions of parental pressure on skiers. One hundred and four, 13-year old male and female competitive ski racers were surveyed through use of a 36 item questionnaire. Athletes were assessed on their perceptions of parental pressure to compete, to continue participation, parental performance appraisal, and subjective affective reaction. Hellstedt(1990) found that youths who felt high amounts of parental pressure showed 30 negative athletic responses while youths who felt low amounts of parental pressure displayed positive reactions. This finding by Hellstedt(1990) again confirms similar conclusions drawn by Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1986) and Ommundsen and Vaglum(1991), in which high parental pressure lowers the enjoyment level for athletes and low parental pressure increases an athlete’s enjoyment. Hellstedt(1990) also found that athletes who felt medium or strong parental pressure felt obligated to continue and to not drop out of sport. This finding is very important because it seems parental pressure, forced participation and enjoyment are all related. Child-athletes who are feeling parental pressure to stay involved in a sport may not be enjoying themselves due to either the sport or their parents’ control over them. Parents play a significant role in their child- athlete’s enjoyment in sport once their child is already involved. The research in the area of parental pressure has been very limited. With the public atmosphere and increasing amounts of monetary awards in professional sports, continued investigation of parental influence(pressure) needs to be undertaken. Harter’s Modified Scales Two articles have been written testing the reliability of Harter’s subscales in the sports arena. The first investigated the reliability of Harter’s perceived 31 competence subscale modified to sport specific competence. The second investigated the reliability of Harter’s Motivation orientation scale modified to the sports domain. The two articles are discussed below. Feltz and Brown(1984) determined the reliability of Harter’s perceived competence subscale in the sport arena by modifying the subscale to a soccer specific subscale. The researchers believed that a modified perceived soccer competence subscale would have a higher internal reliability consistency coefficient than Harter’s general perceived physical competence subscale and self-esteem subscale. Two hundred male and female soccer players participated in the study and were between the ages of 8 and 13. The reliability of the modified subscale did indeed have a higher internal consistency of .75 compared to general perceived physical competence of .67 and self-esteem of .66. Although this study was done on soccer players, the findings of a higher internal reliability coefficient on sport specific subscales compared to Harter’s general perceived competence subscale should be found for all sport studies. Each sport has its own unique characteristics and it is absolutely necessary to modify the subscale to the specific sport for the subscale to be highly reliable in a sport setting. Further inquiry into creating sport specific subscales in the area of perceived competence would confirm the higher reliability of Harter’s modified sport specific 32 perceived competence subscale. Weiss, Bredemeier, and Shewchuk (1985) investigated the reliability of Harter’s Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Scale in the sports domain. The sample was made up of one hundred and fifty-five boys and girls from the ages of 8 through 12. The participants were administered the motivational orientation in the classroom scale modified to the sport setting. The investigators constructed a correlation matrix of the five subscales. The subscales of challenge, curiosity, and criteria clustered. The subscales of independent mastery and judgment clustered. In addition, judgment clustered with the criteria subscale. These clusters in the sport domain differed from those found by Harter(1980) in her study in the academic domain. Harter’s subscales clustered into two groups. The subscales of curiosity, challenge, and independent mastery clustered into one group, with judgment and criteria in another. "The first three subscales of curiosity, challenge, and independent mastery measure what the child wants to do, prefers to do and likes to do"(Harter, 1980,p.12). "The subscales of judgment and criteria measure what the child knows, and on what basis he/she makes decisions"(Harter, 1980,p.12). Although the clustering of the subscales were different, the reliability coefficients for the subscales in the sport domain were all found to be reliable with 33 Challenge at .81, Mastery at .64, Criteria at .75, Curiosity at .61, and Judgement at .64. The mastery subscale in the sporting domain seems to depart most from Harter’s academic findings because of its clustering. Independent mastery in sport relies on external influences for motivational orientation, such as a coach or parent(Weiss et al., 1985). External guidance for learning and fine tuning sport skills may be part of the child-athlete’s independent mastery. This would be in contrast to Harter’s description of a student’s independent mastery in which a student would not rely on external help from his or her teacher. Future research should test this subscale in other sport domains to see if the same clustering holds true. Harter’s subscales provide researchers the ability to measure constructs within her model. The ability to modify her subscales into reliable sport-specific subscales can still not be determined with certainty. As mentioned previously, the continued testing of each of the subscales within the sports domain is essential. In addition, Harter has not developed subscales to measure all of her constructs. The ability to utilize subscales from sport researchers may better represent Harter’s constructs within the sports domain. Conclusion This review gives insight into an understanding of how parents influence their children in the sports domain. The 34 existing literature seems to show there is a strong correlation between family behavior and the child’s sports involvement. To better understand the importance of parents’ influence on their children, we need to understand the socialization of parent-child interactions. As there is a social system of husband-wife, there is a parent-child social system(Brim, 1959). The parent-child social system is where the parent and child hold common expectations about appropriate behavior for both themselves and the other person. In this system, each member has a role to perform with specific behaviors. Harter’s(1978) Competence Motivation Theory helps us analyze the role of socialization in the area of perceived competence for parent and child in a workable model. Continued research investigating the workings of this model assessing not only the socialization construct but all of the constructs within the sport domain is needed to provide sport researchers with a sound theoretical model. Additional studies with different characteristics such as sport, population, gender, and age need to proceed. Within the socialization construct, additional research needs to follow-up the information gained through these studies to give us ideas on how, and for what reasons parents effect their children’s sports performance once they are in the competitive sports arena. More qualitative research should be utilized where researchers can gain abundant information from parents and 35 children through interviews and open-ended questionnaires about specific behaviors parents demonstrate which influence positively and negatively their child-athlete. Longitudinal studies need to be conducted to assess how these different socializing factors may affect children at different ages. As Brim(1959) stated earlier, parents’ and children’s social roles change over time, and different stages of life require different roles. Future research should also look at the socioeconomic class of participants and how this might impact parents’ influences on their children. Youth sports teach children many important attributes, but parents must become aware of the idea that winning is not everything, having fun is(Orlick & Botterill, 1975). CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects The subjects consisted of twenty—four, 11 through 14 year old male(m=12.46; SD 1.10) and twenty-two female, 11 through 14 year old(M=12.32; SD=1.12) tennis players from the midwest. Subjects were members of 6 tennis classes from 2 midwest facilities. All subjects received four hours of organized instruction per week, while top level players may have received an additional 2-4 hours a week. In addition, all subjects had been playing tennis for at least a year and 28 of the subjects had been playing 4 or more years(M=4.22; SD=1.11). The forty-six participants were divided into a high success group and a low success group mentioned in the hypotheses. Three classes consisting of twenty-three upper— level players formed the high group and three classes with twenty—three lower-level players formed the low group. Participants eligible for the top group were players who had participated in local tournaments and competed to earn a United States Tennis Association(USTA) sectional and Western ranking. Coaches confirmed skill level of those few players who had not attained a ranking in the top class. Those participants in the lower level group had no such ranking and had little or no tournament experience. The ages of 11 36 37 through 14 were chosen because the literature has found that children of the age of 13 and under are most influenced by their parents(Higginson, 1985). The sport of tennis was chosen because of the increased likelihood of all family members participating. Because this sport can be played throughout one’s lifetime, there may be more direct(i.e., coaching) and indirect involvement(i.e., encouragement) from one’s parents. Instruments Portions of five instruments were utilized. The parental support/regard subscale was used from Harter’s Social Support Scale (Harter, 1985). Three subscales from Harter’s (1980) Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale were modified to be tennis specific; namely, independent mastery vs. dependence on the coach, internal criteria for success/failure vs. external criteria and preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work assigned. A modified version(tennis specific)of the athletic competence subscale and self-worth subscale were also used from Harter’s(1988) Adolescent Self-Perception Profile. A modified version(tennis specific) of the parental pressure subscale from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(l984) scale on Significant Adult Factors and Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1986) Scale of Enjoyment were also used in this study. The adaptation of Harter’s(1980) subscales to sport- specific studies has had promising findings. Weiss, 38 Bredemeier, and Shewchuk(1985) investigated Harter’s Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Scale to determine its applicability in the sporting domain. Although they found there would need to be numerous modifications, the sport data resembled the core of Harter’s Model, with some sport subscales being very similar in patterns to the original questions. Reliability of the modified Intrinsic/Extrinsic subscales were challenge .81, mastery .64, criteria .75, curiosity .61, and judgment .64. Feltz and Brown(1984) found an increase in their internal consistency for an adapted soccer version of Harter’s subscale of perceived competence. The reliability coefficient for this adapted subscale was .75, compared to the general perceived competence subscale of .67. The following is a description of each of the subscales. The first subscale is the parental support/regard subscale of Harter’s Social Support Scale. This subscale deals with the extent to which parents understand their children, want to hear about their children’s problems, care about their feelings, treat them like people who really matter, like them the way they are and express interest in what their children do as important. Harter’s reliability coefficients for the parental support/regard subscale for elementary age school children ranged from .78 to .82 and for middle school children, the reliability coefficients ranged from .86 to .88. This 39 subscale was not modified to be tennis specific because the nature of the questions measured broad feelings of parental support which was sufficient for the purpose of this study. A copy of this subscale can be found in Appendix A. The second set of subscales were taken from Harter’s(l980) Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale. The subscales included independent mastery vs. dependence on the teacher, internal criteria for success/failure vs. external criteria, and preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work assigned. The subscales were used to identify the child’s motivational orientation of internalizing or externalizing outcomes(Harter, 1980). Both independent mastery vs. dependence on the teacher, and preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work assigned measure what a child wants to do, prefers to do and likes to do(Harter, 1980, p.12). The subscale of internal criteria for success/failure vs. external criteria measures what a child knows, and on what basis he/she makes decisionsIHarter, 1980, P.12). The subscales were adapted by changing the term teacher, to coach, and the word homework, to skill or strategy, to give it significance in the sporting domain. The reliability of these scales ranged from .68 to .82, .75 to .83 and .78 to .84, respectively(Harter, 1980). These three modified subscales can be found in Appendix B. The third set of subscales included athletic competence 40 and self—worth taken from the Self—Perception Profile for Adolescents(Harter, 1988). Athletic competence is a construct which assesses the perceived competence the child feels in the physical domain of sports(Harter, 1988). The athletic competence subscale was adapted by replacing the term sports with tennis. Self-worth is a global scale that} identifies the extent the child likes oneself as a person, is happy with the way one is leading one’s life, and is Igenerally happy with the way one is. The reliability coefficients for the two subscales were .86 to .92 and .80 to .89. These two subscales can be found in Appendix C. In addition, the questionnaire which was distributed to the subjects with the compiled set of Harter’s subscales can be found in Appendix D. The next scale which was used in this study was Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) Factors of Adult Influences Scale. The Factors of Adult Influences Scale was shown to possess construct validity based on factor analytic procedures and accounted for 100% of the variance in the study by Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1984). The Significant Adult Factors scale assessed the degree of influence child-athletes perceive their parents place on them. This scale was adapted to the tennis environment and used items relating to parents, excluding items pertaining to the coach. No reliability information on the Factors Scale was included in Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s study. This scale can be found in Appendix E. 41 The last scale, enjoyment, measured the child—athlete’s enjoyment of playing and competing in sport. The scale was modified to replace athlete with tennis player and characteristics of tennis. The reliability coefficient for the Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1988) Enjoyment Scale was .82. This scale can be found in Appendix F. A background questionnaire was also used in addition to the main questionnaires. This questionnaire collected such information as gender, age, and USTA ranking. This form can be found in Appendix G. Procedure After receiving written approval from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects(UCRIHS) at Michigan State University, this study proceeded. A copy of the approval form allowing this thesis research to be conducted can be found in Appendix H. The head tennis directors of two tennis clubs were contacted by phone. A meeting occurred where the significance and purpose of the study was outlined. Once consent was granted by the head tennis directors, a written letter and a parental informed consent form(see Appendix I) were distributed to the subjects at the end of their respective tennis classes. The purpose and need for the study were explained to the subjects and were also outlined in the letter sent home to their parents. The letter provided a time when the child would be administered the paper and pencil instruments. 42 Upon receiving consent to join in the study by both their parents and themselves, the youth participants were administered the paper and pencil instruments at the time specified on their consent form. All the data were collected before practice(not structured competition) to control for any influences from coaches, peers or parents which happen during practice. The participants filled out the questionnaires in either the seminar room or on the tennis court at the tennis facilities. The paper and pencil instruments were administered by the researcher who was on hand to answer any questions concerning the instruments. The subjects were briefed on confidentiality and informed consent. The instruments took approximately twenty minutes to complete. Those participants who missed the testing session were able to retake the questionnaire the following week at the same time of day. Treatment of the Data The procedures for data analyses commenced following the completion of the testing session of paper and pencil instruments. Initial analyses included assessing the internal reliability of the sport—specific subscales. Internal reliability of scales were assessed using Cronbach’s(1951) alpha. "Cronbach’s alpha is the same type of coefficient as the split-half coefficient, and while it may be lower, it may also be higher than the value obtained by actually splitting a particular test at random"(Cronbach, 43 1951, p. 308). An alpha of .60 was accepted as an adequate level of reliability as it has been used in previous studies(e.g., Brustad, 1988; Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981; Highlen & Bennett, 1983). Secondly, each subscale was tested for gender and age differences using a 2(gender) X 5(age) ANOVA. Scheffe’s post hoc procedures were used to assess age differences if the main effect was significant. Tukey tests were used to assess differences if there was a significant interaction. To test the proposed hypotheses, the participants were divided into high and low scorers on the following subscales: social support, perceived tennis competence, perceived parental pressure, self-esteem, and enjoyment. Groups were formed using a median split. In addition, participants were grouped as high or low(success) based on their current USTA ranking and tennis class level. To test the proposed hypotheses one-way manova’s and t— tests were performed. A one-way manova was conducted to test the first hypothesis that children with higher social support will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower social support. To determine the second hypothesis a one-way manova was performed which tested the concept that children with higher perceived competence will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower perceived competence. For the third hypothesis a one-way manova was executed to test that children with 44 higher tennis enjoyment will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with less enjoyment. A one-way manova was run to test the fourth hypothesis that children with more success will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with less success. The groups were split, based on those children with a higher ranking and class level forming the high success group while those children with a lower ranking and class level were in the low success group. A t-test was performed to see if those children with more social support would have higher perceived competence than those children with less social support. To replicate the testing of Brustad’s hypotheses, a stepwise multiple regression was performed to test the four predictor variables of motivation orientation, self-esteem, parental pressure, and perceived competence against enjoyment. Brustad’s analyses involved separate stepwise regressions for both boys and girls, although he found no differences. If gender differences were found then separate analyses would be performed. If age differences were found, age would be included in the multiple regression. This analysis is needed to ensure that for each subscale males and females respond similarly. Second, testing for age differences is required to make sure participants at different ages reply the same on each subscale. Third, this is needed to ensure that there is not an interaction between 45 different genders and age groups and their response to certain items on each subscale. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Reliability of Measures Due to Harter’st1980, 1985, 1988) and Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984, 1986) subscales being modified to fit this study’s population, a reliability test was run on all subscales. Cronbach’s(1951) alpha was used to test the reliabilities of these subscales with an acceptable minimum coefficient of .60, which has been used in previous sport studies(e.g., Brustad, 1988; Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981; Highlen & Bennett, 1983). Harter’s(l980, 1985, 1988) modified subscales were all found to be reliable. The reliability coefficients for the subscales from Harter’s Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale(Harter, 1980), preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work assigned was .77, independent mastery vs. dependence on the coach was .72, and internal criteria for success/failure vs. external criteria was .73. From Harter’s(1988) Adolescent Self—Perception Profile, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subscales of tennis competence and self-worth were .71 and .77, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the parental support/regard subscale of Harter's(1985) Social Support Scale was .67. Thus, all of Harter’s subscales reached the acceptable standard of reliability. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) Scale on Significant 46 47 Adult Factors was used to measure perceived parental pressure. Because this scale was created and tested on male wrestlers(Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1984) who differ greatly from this sample’s participants, male and female tennis players, and has been used very little in previous research, a more in-depth analysis of this scale was executed. A factor analysis was performed on the items pertaining to parents to determine the content validity of the groupings for this sample. An iterated principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotations(using squared multiple correlations as communality estimates) was conducted. Six factors with eigenvalues greater than one were retained. Those items loading above .40 formed the factors. The factors were labeled and formed into subscales which defined the items. Results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 1. Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1984) factor analysis can be seen in Table 2. No factor names were provided by Scanlan and Lewthwaite. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) scale was modified to contain only the parental items. For the complete factor analysis containing the eight other items which refer to coaches, please see Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) article. Table 1 48 Factor Analysis of Sigpificant Adult Factor Scale FACTOR LOADINGS ITEMS I II III. IV. V. VI Parental Pressure 1. I play tennis because I feel .86 —- -- -- -- -- that I have to play tennis to please my dad. 2. I play tennis because I feel 95 -- -— -- -- -- that I have to play tennis to please my mom. Parental Disappointment 3. My mom gets upset with me -- .86 -- -- -- —- when I don't play tennis well. 4. My dad is ashamed of me when —- .59 —- -- -- -- I don’t play tennis well. 5. My mom is ashamed of me when .48 .75 -- -- -- -— I don’t play tennis well. 6. My mom is always proud of me -- .54 -- 48 -- -- even when I don’t play tennis well. 7. My mom is usually pleased .47 .58 -- -- -- —- with my tennis. Parental Appreciation 8. My dad is usually pleased -- -- .69 -- -- -- with my tennis. 9. How pleased do you think your -- -— 97 -- -- -- dad is with the way you played tennis this summer? 10.How pleased do you think your -- —- .74 -- -- -- mom is with the way you played tennis this summer? Parental Participation 11.My dad is always proud of -- —- —- 54 -- -- me-even when I don’t play tennis well. 12.1 play tennis because my -- -- -- 64 -- -— parents and I have fun going to tournaments together. 13.I play tennis because my dad -- -- -- .73 -- -- or mom helps me with my tennis and I like this. Parental Disillusionment 14.My mom thinks I should be -- -- -- -- .68 -- able to play tennis better than I really can. 15.My dad thinks I should be —- -- -- -— .58 -- able to play tennis better than I really can. 16.Me being a good tennis -- —- -- -- .49 -- player is too important to my dad. 17.Me being a good tennis -- -- -- -- .76 -- player is too important to my mom. Parental Dissatisfaction 18.My dad gets upset with me -- -- -- -- -- .70 when I don’t play tennis well. l9.No matter how well I play —- -- -— -- -- .66 tennis my dad doesn't think it is good enough. 20.No matter how well I play -- -- -- -- -- .60 tennis my mom doesn't think it is good enough. Percent of variance accounted 23.7 10 8.9 7.1 6.4 4.9 for by factor More: Blanks denote factor loadings below .40. 49 Table 2 Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Modified Factor Analysis of Sigpificant Adult Items Items I II III IV V VI VII VIII 1. My dad is ashamed of me when .74 —- -- -- -- -- -- -- I don’t wrestle well. 2. My dad gets upset with me .70 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- when I don't wrestle well. 3. My mom is ashamed of me when I .77 -- -— ~— -- -- -~ -- don’t wrestle well. 4. Me being a good wrestler is too -- .72 —— -- -- -- -- -- important to my dad. 5. My dad thinks I should be able -- .52 -- -- -- -- -- -- to wrestle better than I really can. 8. Me being a good wrestler is too -- .58 -- —- -— ~~ -- -- important to my mom. 7. My mom thinks I should be able -- .45 -- -— -- -- -- ~- to wrestle better than I really can. 8. My dad is always proud of me-even -- -- .45 -— -- -- -- -- when I don’t wrestle well. 9. My dad is usually pleased with my -- -- .60 -- -- -- -- -- wrestling. 10. My mom is always proud of me-even -- -- .42 -- -- -- -- -- when I don’t wrestle well. 11. My mom is usually pleased with -- -- .56 -- -- -- -- -- my wrestling. 12. My dad tries to make me feel good -- -- .42 -- -- -- -- -- when I don’t wrestle well. 13. My mom tries to make me feel good -- —- .42 -- -- -- -- -- when I don’t wrestle well 14. I wrestle because my parents and I -- -- -- 67 -- -- -- -- have fun going to tournaments together. 15. I wrestle because my dad or mom helps -- -- -- .63 -- -- -- -- me with my wrestling and I like this. 16. My dad makes me uptight and nervous -- -- -- -- .43 -— -- -- about my wrestling. 17. No matter how well I wrestle, my -- -- -- -- .43 -- -- -- dad doesn’t think it is good enough. 18. No matter how well I wrestle, my mom -- -- -- -- .61 -- -- -- doesn’t think it is good enough. 19. I wrestle because I feel that I have -- -— -- -- -- 82 -- -- to wrestle to please my dad. 20. I wrestle because I feel that I have -- -- -- -- -- 72 -- -- to wrestle to please my mom. 21. How pleased do you think your dad is -- -- -- -- -- -- 53 -- with the way you wrestled this season? 22. How pleased do you think your mom is -- -- 46 -— -- -- 58 -- with the way you wrestled this season? 23. My mom makes me uptight and nervous ~~ -~ ~- -- -- ~~ -- .75 about my wrestling. 24. My mom gets upset with me when I 41 -- -- -- -- -- -- .45 don’t wrestle well. Percent of variance 31.3 18.7 11.3 9.4 8.3 7.8 1 6.1 accounted for by factor NOte: Blanks denote factor loadings below .40. 50 This study with elite tennis players found some minor factor differences when compared to Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s study with wrestlers. First, the items grouped into similar factors as set forth by Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1984), but this study found a six-factor solution compared to their eight-factor solution. The exact breakdown of the differences between this study’s factor analysis and Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s is as follows. Factor I(Parental Pressure) contained identical items with Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor VI. Although, two additional items loaded on Factor I, these items were included in Factor II due to their higher loading number. Factor II(Parental Disappointment) differed most from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s factor analysis. The items "My dad is ashamed of me when I don’t wrestle(play tennis) well", and "My mom is ashamed of me when I don’t wrestle(play tennis) well" were part of Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor I. The item "My mom gets upset with me when I don’t wrestle(play tennis) well" is from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor VIII, although it also loaded on their Factor I. The two items "My mom is always proud of me even when I don’t wrestle(play tennis) well", and "My mom is usually pleased with my wrestling(tennis)" are from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor III. Those items creating Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor III were items which did not create a factor in this study’s factor analysis. 51 Factor III(Parental Appreciation) is made up of the same items as Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor VII, except for one item. This item "My dad is usually pleased with my wrestling(tennis)", loaded on Factor VII but loaded higher on Factor III, where Scanlan and Lewthwaite placed the item. As mentioned in the analysis of Factor II, those items creating Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor III were items which did not create a factor in this study’s factor analysis. Factor IV(Parental Participation) was identical to Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor IV except for the addition of one item. This item "My dad is always proud of me-even when I don’t wrestle(play tennis) well" was part of Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor III, where again, no factor containing those items loaded for this study. Factor V(Parental Disillusionment) is made up of the identical items of Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor II. Factor VI(Parental Dissatisfaction) was identical to Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Factor V, except for the replacement of one item. The item "My dad gets upset with me when I don’t wrestle(play tennis) well" replaced "My dad makes me uptight and nervous about my wrestling(tennis)". This replaced item did not load on any of the factors found in this study’s factor analysis. Second, the order of the factors in accounting for variance of the Significant Adult Factors scale was different for this population of tennis players compared to 52 Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) population of youth wrestlers. For example, Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s factor VI, which accounted for only 7.8% of the variance, was this study’s factor I and accounted for 23.7% of the variance. This factor was made up of the same two items: "I play tennis because I feel that I have to play tennis to please my dad." and "I play tennis because I feel that I have to play tennis to please my mom." Scanlan and Lewthwaite found these items (modified to wrestlers) to have no correlation with enjoyment. This study found these items to have a low to moderate correlation of .33 to enjoyment. Due to these differences which seem to be accounted for because of different populations, the new factor groupings were used. A more in-depth discussion of Factor II(Parental Disappointment) is required due to the anomaly of the items. The reason for including these items in Factor II is because of the higher loading number, although there’s no mistaking that three out of the five items creating factor II loaded on two other factors. In addition, as mentioned previously Factor II(Parental Disappointment) differed most from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s factor analysis. But, the reliability of the items creating Parental Disappointment had a high coefficient of .84. Therefore, the items creating this factor may be reliable, but are they truly measuring parental disappointment? Further analyses are needed to answer this question. 53 The following reliability coefficients utilizing Cronbach alpha were found for the six subscales: parental pressure (.91), parental disappointment (.84), parental appreciation (.80), parental participation (.61), parental disillusionment (.70), and parental dissatisfaction (.59). The parental pressure subscale was used to measure the construct social support (perceived parental pressure). The subscale of parental dissatisfaction was included in the listing of reliabilities because this factor clustered with the other items and was very close to the .60 minimum acceptable coefficient. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1986) scale of enjoyment which has been used in previous studies, when modified to tennis specific enjoyment, had a .63 reliability coefficient. Gender and Age Differences A 2(gender) X 5(age) ANOVA was performed on each subscale to test for gender and age differences. This allowed the researcher to see if there are developmental or gender issues which may effect how a certain participant answered questions on a subscale. ANOVA tables can be found in Appendix J. This study found at the .05 significance level that neither gender nor age were an issue. Only two of thirteen subscales reached significance. The subscales of parental pressure and parental dissatisfaction were the only subscales to have a significant main effect for age; F(3,41)=3.99, p<.05 for parental pressure and F(3,39)=3.18, 54 p<.05 for parental dissatisfaction. Scheffe’s post hoc procedure was performed to assess the specific age group differences. The 13 year old age group was found to be significantly different from the 14 year old group but not the 11 and 12 year old age groups on both subscales. No significant gender differences and/or interactions on any of the other subscales were found. Therefore, separate analyses in respect to gender need not be performed. Because it was not clear why 13 year old tennis players would differ from 14 year olds on the two subscales, and only two of the thirteen subscales reached significance, age was not included in the multiple regression. Hypotheses A one-way manova was executed to test the first hypothesis that children with higher social support would have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower social support. The three subscales from Harter’s Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale(Harter, 1980) namely, preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work assigned, independent mastery vs. dependence on the coach, and internal criteria for success/failure vs. external criteria were used to assess intrinsic orientation. The subscale parental support/regard of Harter’s Social Support Scale(Harter, 1985)was used to measure parental social support. The parental support/regard subscale had a median split of 3.67 on a 5.00 55 scale. Those scoring above 3.67 were identified as having high social support while those scoring below 3.67 were identified as having low social support. There were no significant differences in the amount of intrinsic orientation among tennis youths with higher or lower social support, F(3,38)=.262, p>.05. Please see Table 3 for means and standard deviations for each subscale. Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Parental Support on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation ngh Parental Low Parental Support Support (N=20) (N=22) M SD M SD Challenge 3.41 .438 3.30 .473 Criteria 3.13 .501 3.13 .539 Mastery 2.33 .511 2.29 .580 Note: Extrinsic(l.00) to Intrinsic(5.00) midpoint(2.50) Although the hypothesis was not supported, Harter’s model(1978) was supported. In Harter’s(1978) model, the social support construct assesses positive support which increases intrinsic orientation when measuring competence motivation.‘ The participants in the low parental support group are still getting support, although it is slightly less than the high support group. Therefore, participants should be more intrinsically motivated. By looking at the means of the subscales, one can see that both high and low parental support participants are more intrinsically 56 motivated, scoring above the midpoint of 2.50. The scale is from 1.00 to 5.00 with 5.00 being the most intrinsic. First, the challenge subscale tells us that more participants have a greater preference for challenge(intrinsic) than easy work assigned(extrinsic). The mean of 3.41 for high and 3.30 for low parental support suggest a more intrinsic orientation. Second, the criteria subscale also supports a more intrinsic orientation with a score of 3.13 supporting a more internal criteria for success. But, thirdly, the mastery subscale deviates from supporting the intrinsic orientation with mean scores of 2.33 and 2.29, showing that participants are more dependent on the coach(extrinsic orientation). Yet, this subscale may be in question for its meaning when measuring intrinsic orientation in the sports arena; this notion will be addressed in detail in the discussion. A one-way manova was performed to test the second hypothesis that children with higher perceived competence would have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower perceived competence. Harter’s adapted athletic tennis competence subscale was used to assess perceived competence. The median of perceived competence was 3.00 on a 5.00 scale. Those scoring above 3.00 were identified as having high tennis competence while those scoring below 3.00 were identified as having low tennis competence. The three subscales of Harter’s Intrinsic 57 Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale(Harter, 1980) were again used to assess intrinsic orientation. There was a significant difference in those children with higher perceived tennis competence having a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with less competence, F(3,38)=9.87, p<.05. Please refer to Table 4 for means and standard deviations for each subscale. Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low perceived Competence on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation High Perceived Low Perceived Competence Competence (N=26) (N=l6) M SD M SD Challenge 3.47 .450 3.20 .408 Criteria 3.40 .420 2.70 .340 Mastery 2.35 .620 2.23 .403 Note: Extrinsic(1.00) to Intrinsic(5.00) midpoint(2.50) A discriminant function analysis was conducted to determine the significance of the three subscales of intrinsic orientation in relation to high and low perceived competence. The discriminant function was significant, x2(3)= 22.18, p<.001. Although all three subscales entered the function, the criteria subscale alone was the most discriminating variable. Those participants high in perceived competence scored higher on the criteria aspect of intrinsic orientation. Therefore, this hypothesis was supported and Harter’s model was justified. The means of 58 the subscales provided more information to the relationship of the variables in the hypothesis. First, the challenge subscale again has both high and low perceived competence participants leaning toward a more intrinsic than extrinsic orientation by having scores above the midpoint of 2.50. The mean scores of 3.47 and 3.20 are in the intrinsic range heading toward 5.00(intrinsic) rather than 1.00(extrinsic). The mastery subscale again is leaning more toward the extrinsic side of the scale with mean scores of 2.35 and 2.23 on a 5.00 point scale. A one-way manova was executed to test the third hypothesis that children with higher tennis enjoyment will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with lower enjoyment. The three subscales of Harter’s Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale(Harter, 1980) were again used to assess intrinsic orientation. The Enjoyment scale(Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1984) was used to assess tennis enjoyment. The median of the Enjoyment scale was 4.50 on a 5.00 point scale. Those participants scoring above 4.50 were in the higher enjoyment group while those participants scoring below 4.50 were in the lower enjoyment group. Children with higher tennis enjoyment were found to have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with less tennis enjoyment, F(3,37)=3.12, p<.05. Please refer to Table 5 for means and standard deviations. 59 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Enjoyment on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation High Tennis Low Tennis Enjoyment Enjoyment (N=31) (N=10) M SD M SD Challenge . 3.46 .457 3.03 .292 Criteria 3.22 .470 2.88 .609 Mastery 2.26 .574 2.42 .466 ’NOte: ExtrinSic(1.00) to IntrinSic(5.00) mideintI2.50) In analyzing the means of each subscale, a better understanding of the effect each has on tennis enjoyment can be seen. First, on the challenge subscale, both groups of high and low tennis enjoyment participants lean toward an intrinsic orientation being above the midpoint of 2.50 with means scores of 3.46 and 3.03. Second, the criteria subscale seems to show the high enjoyment group with more internal criteria for success with a mean score of 3.22, while the low enjoyment group is still intrinsic but close to becoming extrinsic with a mean score of 2.88. Third, the mastery subscale shows both groups of high and low tennis enjoyment participants leaning more toward dependence on the coach or extrinsic orientation with mean scores of 2.26 and 2.42. A follow-up discriminant function analysis was executed to determine the significance of the three subscales of 6O intrinsic orientation in relation to enjoyment. One significant function emerged, x2(3)= 8.61, p<.05. The two subscales of challenge and criteria emerged as the most discriminating variables. Tennis players high in tennis enjoyment were also high in intrinsic orientation. The mastery subscale entered the discriminant function but was a more significant predictor for those participants in the low enjoyment group. A one-way manova was run to test the fourth hypothesis that children with more success will have a higher intrinsic orientation compared to children with less success. The groups were split based on those children with a higher tennis ranking and enrolled in more advanced classes forming the high success group while those children with a lower ranking and enrolled in lower classes were in the low success group. The three subscales of Harter’s Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation Scale(Harter, 1980) were again used to assess intrinsic orientation. There was no difference in a tennis athlete’s success and his/her level of intrinsic orientation motivation, F(3,38)= 2.29, p>.05. Please refer to Table 6 for means and standard deviations. 61 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with Higher and Lower Success on Harter’s Subscales of Intrinsic Orientation High Tennis Low Tennis Ranking/class Ranking/class (N=21) (N=21) M SD M SD Challenge 3.41 .397 3.29 .508 Criteria 3.29 .497 2.96 .488 Mastery 2.23 .544 2.38 .543 Note: Extrinsic(1.00) to Intrinsic(5.00) midpoint(2.50) Although the hypothesis was not supported, the means of the intrinsic orientation subscales provided some insights. First, on the challenge subscale, both high and low success groups scored more toward an intrinsic orientation of preference for challenge by being above the midpoint of 2.50 with mean scores of 3.41 and 3.29. Second, on the criteria subscale, both high and low success groups scored more toward an intrinsic Orientation for internal criteria for success by scoring above the midpoint with mean scores of 3.29 and 2.96. The scores on the mastery subscale are more extrinsic or dependent on the coach. This is shown by the mean scores of 2.23 and 2.38 being below the midpoint of 2.50. A t-test was run to test the fifth hypothesis that those children with more social support would have higher perceived competence than those children with less social support. The parental support/regard subscale was used to 62 measure the amount of social support. The median score of social support was 3.67 on a 5.00 point scale. Those participants scoring above 3.67 were in the high parental social support group while those participants scoring below 3.67 were in the lower parental social support group. The adapted athletic competence subscale was used to assess tennis competence. There was no statistical support that children with more social support had higher perceived tennis competence, t(43)=1.29, p>.05. Please see Table 7 for means and standard deviations. Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations for Tennis Players with High and Low Parental Support on Harter’s Subscale of Perceived Competence High Parental Low Parental Social Support Social Support (N=21) (N=24) M SD M SD Perceived 3.01 .402 2.83 .538 Competence Note: Low Competence(1.00) to High Competence(5.00) midpoint(2.50) Although the hypothesis was not supported, the means of both high and low parental support relate to a higher competence with mean scores of 3.01 and 2.83 being above the midpoint of 2.50. To test Brustad’s(1988) hypotheses, a stepwise multiple regression was performed with tennis enjoyment as the criterion variable and the four subscales of intrinsic 63 orientation, perceived tennis competence, parental pressure, and self-worth as the predictor variables. Because no gender differences emerged on the subscales, there was no need to perform separate regressions for boys and girls. Brustad hypothesized that if a child was high in tennis enjoyment then that child would a) be high in intrinsic motivation, b) be high in perceived competence, c) be low in perceived parental pressure, and, d) be high in self—worth. This study found the only predictor variable which entered the equation was perceived parental pressure, F(1, 39) 7.18, p<.05. Parental pressure accounted for 16% of the variance in predicting a child’s tennis enjoyment. This finding is in partial support of Brustad’s(1988) research in which he found intrinsic orientation and parental pressure to individually predict a child’s basketball enjoyment. Intrinsic orientation accounted for 14% of the variance and parental pressure accounted for another 9% of the total explained variance in respect to a basketball player’s enjoyment. In his discussion, Brustad(1988) stated that those children with less parental pressure would therefore have positive parental support which would increase a basketball player’s enjoyment. Instead of assuming this to be true, a scale to measure parental support was executed with a second regression to test this inference in the tennis domain. The parental support/regard subscale of Harter’s Social Support scale was 64 included in the second stepwise multiple regression. This inclusion was also supported by analyzing the regression correlation matrix where parental pressure and parental support had a very low correlation of .256. The parental support subscale was a significant predictor variable accounting for 24% of the variance in a child’s tennis enjoyment. Parental pressure accounted for an additional 7% of the total explained variance predicting a child’s tennis enjoyment. Please see Table 8 below for results of the regression analysis. Table 8 Summary of Second Regression Analyses Including Parental Support Subscale F(1,39) R R2 T Parental Support 12.09 .49 .24 .005 Parental Pressure 8.72 .56 .31 .044 Summarv of findings In summary, Harter’s(1980, 1985, 1988) and Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984, 1986) modified scales were reliable in the tennis arena. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s Scale of Significant Adult Factors is a reliable scale for measuring adult influences, although the importance of those influences may be different for each sport. Harter’s theoretical model is testable in the tennis arena. The fact that participants high in intrinsic orientation were also high in perceived competence and enjoyment confirms part of 65 Harter’s model. In addition, those participants with parental support had a more intrinsic orientation and higher perceived competence. An interesting finding was the mastery subscale which deviates most from the challenge and criteria subscales measuring intrinsic orientation. In all instances, the means of the high and low groups fell below the 2.50 level, leaning toward a more extrinsic orientation or dependence on the coach. Replication of Brustad’s(1988) hypotheses determined that both positive and negative support from parents influence a tennis player’s enjoyment level. Intrinsic orientation, perceived tennis competence, and self-esteem were not found to predict a child’s tennis enjoyment. This is in partial support of Brustad’s(l988) research in which he found intrinsic orientation and parental pressure to both be individual predictors of a basketball player’s enjoyment level. Although the manova for the third hypothesis found that those participants high in intrinsic orientation are also high in tennis enjoyment, the stepwise multiple regression shows that intrinsic orientation does not predict a child’s level of tennis enjoyment. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Harter’s(1978) model of Competence Motivation was developed to determine a student’s participation motivation in a classroom setting. This model has also been used successfully when looking at an athlete’s motivation to excel on the sports field(Feltz & Brown, 1984; WeiSs et al., 1985). Although there have been a number of sport studies addressing the veracity of the model, sport researchers call for continued testing of the many constructs within the model, with different populations, in order to extend and verify the model in the sports arena(Brustad, 1992; Feltz & Brown, 1984). . With the growing number of youth sport participants and the importance of sport in today’s society, the understanding of the effect of significant others on children in sport is needed. The positive social influence, from the significant others construct within Harter’s(1978) Competence Motivation model, provides a starting point. One purpose of the present study was to test relationships within Harter’s model with youth tennis players. A second purpose was to replicate Brustad’sI1988) study in which he investigated parents and other influences within Harter’s model and how these influences effected a child’s sports enjoyment. 66 67 The results of this study have shown, in relation to the testing of Harter’s model, that children with high perceived tennis competence and high enjoyment levels also have a high intrinsic orientation. These findings validate the relationship of the constructs depicted in Harter’s model. Within the success side of her model, it is predicted that children with high intrinsic orientation will also have high perceived competence and high intrinsic pleasure(enjoyment) which leads to high competence motivation. Intrinsic orientation and its relationship to other variables as defined in Harter’s model, played a major role in this study due to its involvement in four of the five hypotheses. A noteworthy finding was that all participants including both high and low scorers on every hypothesis tended to score toward a more intrinsic orientation on the challenge and criteria subscales. This was demonstrated by participants being above the median of 2.50 on intrinsic orientation on each hypothesis. This finding may be a by- product of their elite ability status. First, these children would rather be challenged with a task than assigned an easy one. Second, these participants were more independent in their ability to evaluate their actions. Yet, on the mastery subscale, the participants were found to be more extrinsic or dependent on the coach for confirmation of their skills. This finding supports a study by Weiss et 68 al.(1985) which reported sport participants scoring toward a more extrinsic orientation on the mastery subscale. Weiss et al.(1985) believed this finding may be due to sport socialization which encourages dependence on the coach. Dependence on the coach in the sports arena may be due to the way participants are trained. Unlike the classroom where continually asking questions of the teacher is viewed negatively, continually asking questions for better instructions from the coach on developing skills is important in sport. The classroom is strictly a cognitive realm, whereas, the sports arena is both cognitive and physical. The instructions required in perfecting a complicated tennis stroke are repeated hundreds of times as is the physical patterning. In competition, opponents will often change strategies depending on their strengths. Learning how to respond to these changing strategies requires time and experience. Thus, the cognitive component requires considerable instruction from coaches and or confirmation from coaches and parents regarding one’s decisions and physical execution. How does this transfer to the child-athlete who has a high intrinsic orientation and a high level of perceived competence? Athletes with high levels of perceived competence may feel that they have a high knowledge of the' game with the ability to make appropriate decisions. Those with low perceived competence may rely on the coaches’ 69 and/or parents’ praise instead of their own judgments regarding their decisions and performance. Thus, coaches and/or parents need to assist the players with developing the ability to evaluate themselves. Therefore, dependence on the coach may be harmful for athletes who cannot analyze their own performance. Those athletes who are not as competent in their ability are becoming too reliant on outside or extrinsic sources. Coaches and parents may be hindering a player’s self— evaluation by assisting them in every aspect. Coaches and parents may need to give athletes more independence. Dependence on the coach is definitely an area which needs further research to determine in which aspect of physical execution or mental preparation children need assistance or just adult emotional support. Child-athletes, who have a high intrinsic orientation and high enjoyment level, like challenges in tennis and have the ability to praise themselves. This provides them with a high level of enjoyment. Those participants low in enjoyment still enjoy the tennis challenges but are unable to praise themselves. Therefore, the child-athlete who reports lower levels of enjoyment relies on external praise or accolades and can never truly enjoy the game of tennis. In addition, Harter’s(1978) model predicts that participants with parental social support will have a more intrinsic orientation and higher levels of perceived 70 competence. The two hypotheses testing this relationship stated that those participants with higher levels of parental social support would have a more intrinsic orientation and a higher level of perceived competence. Although the two hypotheses that tested these predictions were not supported, it should be noted that the participants who received either high or low social support reported a more intrinsic orientation and a higher perception of competence by scoring above the median on these subscales. There may be two reasons for this finding. First, social support, be it high or low, is still considered positive and on the success side of the model. Therefore, if participants are receiving even low amounts of parental support, they are more intrinsic and have a higher level of perceived competence. Second, the participants in this study were elite athletes and have been able to internalize their abilities. Therefore, these athletes would score higher on intrinsic orientation and have a higher perception of competence. These participants, with the support of their parents, are able to become independent in their goals. In addition, these participants believe they have an extensive knowledge of the game and the ability to make appropriate decisions about their game. A child’s success was found not to be related to his/her intrinsic orientation. However, this finding could be misleading. First, a stipulation in Harter’s success 71 construct states that a high success person needs to be optimally challenged. The subjects of this study were all above average tennis players. These subjects may all be optimally challenged and hence there would be no difference in the high and low groups which would account for the finding of no difference in intrinsic orientation. Second, the high and low success groups may be too similar in background, rankings and class level to see a comparable difference. Background is referring to all participants being members of tennis clubs with structured classes. The means of both high and low success tennis players reflected a more intrinsic orientation on the challenge and criteria subscales. The mastery subscale had both high and low success tennis players reporting a more extrinsic orientation. A more diverse division of strictly recreational players for the low success group with elite club players constituting the high success group may be a better division of players for future research. Lastly, the testing session was conducted during a practice session. Differences may appear if testing is conducted following a competition. High success participants have the experience of competition and enjoy mostly positive outcomes. This relationship is in contrast to the low success participants who have little or no experience with competition and experience mostly unfavorable outcomes. This competition component may provide a better understanding of how success 72 relates to an athlete’s intrinsic orientation. Replication of Brustad’s Study In relation to Brustad’s hypothesis, this study found that the only significant variable to predict a child’s tennis enjoyment was perceived parental pressure. While this finding is in accordance with the findings of Brustad(1988) who found parental pressure to predict a child-athlete’s enjoyment of basketball in a competitive community sport environment, this study does not support Brustad’s other predictor of intrinsic orientation on enjoyment. For elite tennis players the other predictor variables of intrinsic orientation, perceived competence, and.self—worth were not significantly related to a tennis athlete’s enjoyment. Due to previous assumptions from sport researchers about positive parental support, the stepwise multiple regression was run a second time. Performing the stepwise regression a second time with positive parental support demonstrated this variable to be even more predictive of a child’s tennis enjoyment than parental pressure. Most elite tennis players reported enjoying their experience with a median score on the enjoyment scale of 4.50 out of 5.00 points. This finding is noteworthy. For a child to really enjoy the tennis experience to the fullest, the positive support of parents is essential. The influences of positive parental support replicates 73 results found in Strean’s(1995) study where coaches were interviewed about the importance of parents in sport. Coaches reported that most parents are positive influences who assist in making youth sports a good experience for child-athletes. When people think of the social influences on a child in sport, they most readily think of the coach and teammates. Too readily people assume the only parents involved in their child’s sports experience are the "pushy ones". The few negative parents seem to take up the spotlight and overshadow these positive parents. A coach was quoted as saying "The 90% of them that you never talk about-that 90% are good solid supportive parents"(Strean, 1995). This study has shown that parents play an important role in influencing their child-athlete’s sport experience. Parents’ positive as well as negative support influences their child-athlete’s enjoyment. Therefore, sport researchers need to continue to look at all the social influences within the sports arena, including parents. Assessing Parental Influences Harter’s(1980, 1985, 1988) and Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984, 1986) modified questionnaires were shown to be reliable and useful in the sport’s domain. Harter’s subscales have been used many times in previous sport studies(Brustad, 1988; Feltz & Brown, 1984; Horn, 1985; Klint & Weiss, 1987; Weiss, Bredemeier & Shewchuk, 1985), 74 but Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s subscales have had limited use(Brustad, 1988; Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1986). The factor analysis on Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) Significant Adult Factor scale provided some interesting findings. First, the factor groupings for this study and Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) were similar. This reinforces that these factors or constructs make up parental influence. Second, the factors within the scale in this study ordered differently than in Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s study which influenced the variance explained by each factor. The population and characteristics of this study differ from Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s which may account for the difference in the ordering of the factors. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s population of wrestlers seems to be more influenced by their parents’ shame, while tennis players seem to more influenced by their parents’ pressure. There may be a few reasons for this finding. The structure of a wrestling match is a more loud and outspoken arena where an athlete can hear the shouts from his parents, peers and coaches. In addition, the sport requires a lot of physical contact where the athlete must use brute strength to pin his opponent. His failure to do so in front of his parents, peers and coaches may be viewed by him as a failure in his masculinity. This may cause feelings of shame because of the defeat of his masculinity. On the other hand, tennis is a non—contact sport where 75 the crowd is silent during point competition. More subtle parental pressure would seem to be perceived from the athlete because they want to please their parents. A closer look at the items within these scales may also give researchers a better understanding of this finding. Scanlan and Lewthwaite’s(1984) Significant Adult Factor scale is made up of items that truly quantify how children feel about the influences parents place on them in the sports domain. The role of parents’ involvement in their child’s sports performance is very strong. The Significant Adult Factor scale needs to be tested in different sporting domains to determine which adult influences are most important in that specific sport, and most importantly, how they affect the child. Implications for Future Research This investigation demonstrates the usefulness of Harter’s Competence Motivation model within the sports domain. Questionnaires from both Harter(1980, 1985, 1988) and Scanlan and Lewthwaite(1984, 1986) continue to gain support as the most useful when measuring the constructs within Harter’s model(Brustad, 1988; Ommundsen & Vaglum, 1991). Although these questionnaires are the most useful currently, sport researchers should develop questionnaires specifically suited for the sports domain in this area. The mastery subscale provides a good example of a valid and reliable instrument but when adapted to the sport’s domain 76 requires a different interpretation compared to its original meaning in the classroom. Is this strong dependence on the coach necessary for continued development or do coaches need to teach athletes to be more independent in the ability to evaluate themselves? Sport researchers need to take a more active role in developing sport-specific questionnaires to continue to provide the best measures for understanding what is happening in the sports arena. From the hypotheses, children who believe in their tennis ability and are enjoying the game of tennis attributed their success to self. Parents should continue to take an active role in their children’s sports experience but become more aware of their influence. Parents’ support in their children’s tennis experience needs to continue to be positive and not intense. There is a thin line when parents’ encouragement for the child turns into pressure. Children between the ages of 11 and 14 understand what motivates them and parents need to keep an open line of communication with their child-athletes. Parents need to realize that their negative influence does, in fact, decrease their child’s sense of enjoyment in tennis. To better understand this process, a qualitative analysis through structured in-depth interviews with both children and parents should be executed. Abundant information could be collected about specific behaviors which would allow researchers to better understand parent-child interactions. 77 This study demonstrates that parents do play a very significant role in influencing their child-athletes in the sporting domain. With this awareness of the importance of parental influence, sport researchers are gaining more knowledge of the many factors affecting child-athletes in the growing youth sports environment. Research devoted to continued understanding of this parent-child relationship in sport will allow child—athletes to enjoy their sporting experience to its fullest. REFERENCES Berryman, J.W. (1988). The rise of highly organized sports for preadolescent boys. In F.L. Smoll, R.A. Magill, & M.J. Ash (Eds.) Children in Sport (pp. 3-16). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Brim, O.G., Jr. (1959). The parent-child relation as a social system: I. Parent and child roles. Child Development, 28, 334-364. Brustad, R.J., & Weiss, M.R. (1987). Competence perceptions and sources of worry in high, medium, and low competitive trait anxious young athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 97-105. Brustad, R.J. (1988). Affective outcomes in competitive youth sport: The influence of intrapersonal and socialization factors. Journal of Sport & Exercise 0, 307-321. Psycholoqy, Brustad, R.J. (1992). Integrating socialization influences into the study of children’s motivation in sport. Journal of Sport Q Exercise Psychology, 14; 59-77. Coakley, J.J. (1994). Sport in society. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297—333. Feltz, D.L,. & Brown, E.W. (1984). Perceived competence in soccer skills among young soccer players. Journal of 78 79 Sport Psychology, 6, 385-394. Gill, D.L., Gross, J.B., & Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 1-14. Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981). Psychological characteristics of successful and nonsuccessful Big 10 3, 69-81. wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, Gould, D., Feltz, D., & Weiss, M. (1985). Motives for participating in competitive youth swimming. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 126—140. Greendorfer, S.L., & Lewko, J.H. (1978). Role of family members in sport socialization of children. Research Quarterly, 42, 146—152. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 2;, 34-64. Harter, S. (1980). A scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom. University of Denver; Denver, CO. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the social support scale for children. University of Denver; Denver, CO. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. University of Denver; Denver, CO. Hellstedt, J.C. (1988). Kids, parents, and sports: Some questions and answers. The Physician and 6, 59-66. Sportsmedicine, 80 Hellstedt, J.C. (1990). Early adolescent perceptions of parental pressure in the sport environment. Journal of Sport Behavior, 1;, 135-144. Higginson, D. (1985). The influence of socializing agents in the female sport participation process. Adolescence, _0, 73-82. Highlen, P.S. & Bennett, B.B. (1983). Elite divers and wrestlers: A comparison between open and closed-skill athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 123-137. Horn, T.S. (1985). Coaches’ feedback and changes in children’s perceptions of their physical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 11, 174-186. Johnson, J.H., & McCutcheon, S. (1980). Assessing life stress in older children and adolescents: Preliminary findings with the Life Events Checklist. In I.G. Sarason & C.D. Spielberger(Eds.), Stress and anxiety. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Kenyon, G.S. (1968). A conceptual model for characterizing physical activity. Research Quarterly, gs, 96-105. Klint, K.A., & Weiss, M.R. (1987). Perceived competence and motives for participating in youth sports: A test of Harter’s competence motivation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 55-65. Klint, K.A. (1988). Perceived competence and motives for participating in youth sports: A test of Harter’s Competence Motivation Theory. Journal of Sport 81 Psychology, 9, 55-65. Lewko, J.H. & Greendorfer, S.L. (1988). Family influences in sport socialization of children and adolescents. In F.L. Smoll, R.A. Magill, & M.J. Ash (Eds.), Children in gppgp (3rd ed.,pp. 287—300). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Martens, R. (1978). Joy and sadness in children’s sports. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics. Orlick, T., & Botterill, C. (1975). Every kid can win. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Ommundsen, Y. & Vaglum, P. (1991). Soccer competition anxiety and enjoyment in young boy players: The influence of perceived competence and significant others’ emotional involvement. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 35-49. Parsons, J.B., Adler, T.F., & Kaczala, C.M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 5;, 310-321. Passer, M.W. (1982). Children in sport: Participation motives and psychological stress. ngpp, 22, 231-244. Passer, M.W. (1983). Fear of failure, fear of evaluation, perceived competence, and self-esteem in competitive- trait-anxious children. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 172—188. Pearl, A.J. (1992). The athletic female. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. 82 Phillips, D. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highly competent children. 66126 Development, 66, 1308-1320. Price, S.L. (1994, May 30). Lost weekend. Sports Illustrated. 80, 14-18. Scanlan, T.K. (1978). Social evaluation: A key developmental element in the competition process. In R.A. Magill, M.J. Ash, & F. L. Smoll (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A contemporary anthology. Champaign, IL. : Human Kinetics Publishers. Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychology aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: I. Predictors of competitive stress. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 208-226. Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: Part 4. Predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 25-35. Scanlan, T.K., & Passer, M.W. (1978). Anxiety-inducing factors in competitive youth sports. In F.L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sports. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Sherif, C.W. (1976). The social context of competition. In D. Landers (Ed.), Social problems in athletics (pp. 18- 36). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Shmerier, C. (1994, August 17). JUNIOR TENNIS: FUTURE 83 CHAMPIONS OR FUTURE BURNOUTS. Fun gets lost in race for results. USA TODAY, p. 8. Smoll, F.L., Schutz, R.W., Wood, T.M., & Cunningham, J.K. (1977). Parent-child relationships regarding physical activity attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Motor BehaviorygySport, 22, 131-143. Snyder, E.E., & Spreitzer, E.A. (1973). Family influence and involvement in sports. Research Quarterly, 44, 249-255. Strean, W.B.(1995). Youth sport contexts: Coaches' perceptions and implications for intervention. Journal 7, 23—37. of Applied Sport Psychology, Walley, P.B., Graham, C.M., & Forehand, R. (1982). Assessment and treatment of adult observer verbalizations at youth league baseball games. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 254-266. Weiss, M.R., Bredemeier, B.J., & Brustad, R.J. (1987). Competitive trait anxiety in children’s sport: The relationship to perceived competence, perceived control, and motivational orientation. Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Vancouver, BC. Weiss, M.R., Bredemeier, B.J., & Shewchuk, R.M. (1985). An intrinsic/extrinsic motivation scale for the youth sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2: 75-91. 84 White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of 6, 297-323. competence. Psychology Review, APPENDICES APPENDIX A 00 Appendix A HARTER’S SOCIAL SUPPORT SCALE FOR CHILDREN D r U ’- - ’- Instructions: Read both sides of the statement and determine which kid you are most like. After you have determined which kid you are most like, decide if that statement is sort of true for you or really true for you. Then place an X in that box, as noted by the example. Remember you are marking only pp; box per question. Really Sort oI SAMPLE SENTENCE Sort oI ReelIy TN. Tme hue Tme ' mrMe wrMe IorMe IorMe Some kids like to do BUT Other kids like to do fun fun things with a let things with just a of other people few people. Some kids have parents BUT Other kids have parents who don't really who really do understand understand them them. Some kids have parents BUT Other kids have parents who don't seem to want who do want to listen to to hear about their their children’s problems ' children’s problems Some kids have parents BUT Other kids have parents who care about their who don’t seem to care feelings very much about their feelings. 'Some kids have parents BUT Other kids have parents who treat their child who don't usually treat like a person who their child like a really matters person who matters. Some kids have parents BUT Other kids have parents who like them the way who wish their children they are were different. Some kids have parents BUT Other kids have parents who don‘t act like what who do act like what their children do is their children do is important important. 85 APPENDIX B U! ‘I Appendix B HARTER'S INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION SCALE Three adapted subscales(tennis specific) Reafly Sortof True True for Me for Me when some kids don't BUT Other kids would rather underscand a skill right 3:? and ii :3 1: out away they want the coach by themselves. to tell them the correct way when some kids make a mistake BUT Other kids would rather they would rather 5;, re out ask the coach how_to ' the right way Dy to correct the mistake. themselves If some kids get stuck on_a BUT 0th r kids keep trying skill they ask the coach tor to :1 re out how to do help the skill on their own. Some kids like the coach to BUT Other kids like to make help them plan the next their own plans for what strategy to do next. Some kids like to try to BUT Other kids would rather figure out how to do a ask the coach how i: skill or strategy on their should he done. own Some 'ids like to practice BUT Other kids like to have their new skill or strategy the coach help them do 1 ' avia Some kids know when they’ve BUT Other kids need to check made mistakes without with the coach to know checking with the coach if they’ve made a mistake. Some kids know whether or BUT Other kids need to have nOt they‘re doing well in evaluations to know how tennis class without well they are doing in evaluations tennis class. Some kids need to get their BUT Other kids know for tennis report cards to tell themselves how they how they are dOLng in tennis are doing even before class they get their tennis report card. Some kids aren't really sure BUT Other kids pretty much if they've done well on a know how well they did new skill until they get even before they get feedback from their coach feedback. 86 without help their new skill or strategy. Son oI hue IorIAe Reauy ‘hue Iorhde 11. -4 OJ Really Son at 8 7 Tme' TN! let Me '0! MO Some kids aren't sure if their skill level in tennis is really good or not until the coach tells them Some kids know they didn't work their hardest on a drill once they finish Preference for chall . e vs. Preference Some kids like hard workouts because it's a challenge Some kids like difficult drills because they enjoy trying to figure them out Some kids would rather just learn what they have to in tennis lessons Some kids like to go on to new tennis strategies that's at a more difficult level Some kids like skills where it’s pretty easy to just learn the technique Some kids don't like difficult tennis skills because they have to work too hard BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT Other kids know if their skill level is good or not before the coach tells them. il the coach evaluates hem to know that they didn't do as well as they could have. Other kids have to wait Son at 'hue lorhfle Reauy hue forflde for easv work assigned Other kids prefer easy workouts that they are sure they can do. Other kids don't like to figure out difficult drills. Other kids would rather learn about as much as they can in and out of tennis lessons. Other kids would rather stick to the tennis strategies which are pretty easy to do. Other kids like those skills that make them think pretty hard and figure things out. Other kids like difficult tennis skills because they find it more interesting. El APPENDIX C Appendix C HARTER'S ADOLESCENT SELF-PERCEPTION PROFILE WW (Modified tennis competence) Really Sort ol Tm. True lorMe lerMe Some kids do very well at playing tennis Some kids think they could do well at just about any new tennis skill Some kids feel that they are better than others their age at tennis Some kids don’t do well at new drills Some kids do not feel that they are very athletic 5.11m Some kids are often disappointed with themselves Some kids don't like the way they are leading their life Some kids are happy with themselves most of the time Some kids like the kind of person they are Some kids are very happy being the way they are BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT 88 Other kids don't feel that they are very good when it comes to playing tennis. Other kids are afraid they might not do well at a new tennis skill. Other kids don't feel they can play as well. Other kids are good at new drills right away. Other kids feel that they are very athletic. Other kids are pretty pleased with themselves. Other kids do like the way they are leading their life. Other kids are often not happy with themselves. Other kids often wish they were someone else. Other kids wish they were difference Sort of 'hue lorhfle Rsafly 'nue lochfle APPENDIX D fl pa DDDDDDDDDDDDD InStru tions: Read bath sides of t you or really true for you. noted by the example. question. Really Son at ‘Wue Wu. for Me for Me DDDDDDDDDDDDD What I Am Like SAMPLE SENTENCE Some kids like to do fun things with a let of other people Some kids don't like difficult tennis skills because they have to work too hard . Some kids like the coach to help them plan the next strategy Some kids feel that they are better than others their age at tennis Some kids need to get their tennis report cards to tell how they are doing in tennis class Some kids like the kind of person they are Some kids have parents who treat their child like a person who really matters Some kids like to go on to new tennis strategies that's at a more difficult level Some kids like to practice their new skill or strategy without help Some kids think they could do well at just about any new tennis skill Some kids know when they've made mistakes without checking with the coach Some kids don't like the way they are leading their life Some kids have parents who don't really understand them ‘ ’ ‘ " _ he statement and determine which kid you are most like. Arter you have determined which kid you are most like. deCide if that statement is sort of true for BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT 89 Then place an X in that box, as Remember you are marking only on: box per Sort of Really hue 'fiue brMe lorMe Other kids like to do fun things with just a few people. Other kids like difficult tennis skills because they find it more interesting. Other kids like to make their own plans for what to do next. Other kids don't feel they can play as well. : I Other kids know for themselves how they are doing even before I 1 they get their tennis report card. [:::: [:::: [:::: Other kids often wish ; they were someone else. 3 Other kids have parents who don't usually treat their child like a I person who matters. Other kids would rather stick to the tennis strategies which are ’ pretty easy to do. I l l D Other kids like to have the coach help them do their new skill or strategy. Other kids are afraid they might not do well at a new. tennis skill. Other kids need to check with the coach to know [:::] if they've made a mistake. Other kids do like the way they are leading [:::] their life. Other kids have parents who really do underscand them. 2A 26 DDDDDDDDDDDUDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 90 Some kids would rather just learn what they have to 33 tennis lessons if some kids get stuck on a skill they ask the coach :or help Some kids do very well at playing tennis Some kids aren't really sure if they’ve done well on a new skill until hey get feedback from their coach Some kids are happy with themselves most of the time Some kids have parents who care about t‘ .: feelings Some kids like hard workouts because it's a challenge when some kids don't understand a skill right away they want the coach to tell them the correct way Some kids do not feel that they are very athletic Some kids aren't sure if their skill level in tennis is really good or not until ’ the coach tells them Some kids are often disappointed with themselves Some kids have parents who don't ac: like what their children do is important Some kids like skills where it's pretty easy to just learn the technique Some kids like to try to figure out how to do a skill or strategy on their own ‘ kids don't do at new drills Some well Some kids know whether or not they're doing well in tennis class without evaluations BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT ‘BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT Other kids would rather learn about as much as they can in and out of tennis lessons. Other kids keep trying to figure out now to do the skill on their own. Other kids don't feel that they are very good when it comes to playing tennis. Other kids pretty much know how well they did even before they get feedback. Other kids are often not happy with themselves. Other kids have parents who don't seem to care very much about their feelings. Other kids prefer easy workouts that they are sure they can do. Other kids would rather try and figure it out by themselves . Other kids feel that they ;;3 very athletic. Other kids know if their skill level is good or not before the coach tells them. Other kids are pretty pleased with themselves. Other kids have parents who do act like what their children do is important. Other kids like those skills that make them think pretty hard and figure things out. Other kids would rather ask the coach how it should be done. Other kids are good at new drills right away. Other kids need to have evaluations to know how well they are doing in tennis class. DDDDDDDDDDDDDUDD DDDDDDDDL—JDDDDJ ll:] 31. 32 Son!“ {atlas DDDDDD 91 Some kids are very happy being the way they are Some kids have parents who Like them the way they are Some kids like difficult drills because they enjoy trying to figure them out when some kids make a mistake they would rather figure out the right way by themselves Some kids know they didn't work their hardest on a drill once they finish Some kids have parents who don’t seem to want to hear about their c.'ldren's problems BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT Other kids wish they were different. Other kids have parents who wish their children were different. Other kids don‘t like to figure out difficult drills. Other kids would rather ask the coach how to to correct the mistake. Other kids have to wait til the coach evaluates them to new that they didn't do as well as they could have. Other kids have parents who do want to listen to their children's problems. DDDDDD§?§ DDDDDD??? APPENDIX E ll. 12. SIGNIFICANT ADULT FACTORS My dad is ashamed of me when I don’t play tennis well. My mom tries to make me feel good when I don’t play tennis well. My dad gets upset with me when I don’t play tennis well. My mom is ashamed of me when I don't play tennis well. My dad tries to make me feel good when I don’t play tennis well. My mom gets upset with me when I don’t play tennis well. Me being a good tennis player is too important to my dad. My mom is always proud of me-even when I don't play tennis well. My dad thinks I should be able to play tennis better than I really can. Me being a good tennis player is too important to my mom. My dad is usually pleased with my tennis. My mom thinks I should be able to play tennis better than I really can. 9 Usually Sometimes How I feel 1 2 Somewhat how I feel 2 Hardly ever Not how I feel 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. KO (A) How I Somewhat how Not how feel I feel I feel My dad makes me uptight and 1 2 3 nervous about my tennis. My mom is usually pleased I 2 3 with my tennis. No matter how well I play 1 2 3 tennis, my dad doesn’t think it is good enough. My mom makes me uptight and I 2 3 nervous about my tennis. My dad is always proud of l 2 3 me-even when I don't play tennis well. No matter how well I play 1 2 3 tennis, my mom doesn’t think it is good enough. DIRECTIONS: Please circle the letter which you feel best answers the statement. 19. 20. 21. I play tennis because I feel that I have to play tennis to please my dad. a) Very important reason for why I play tennis b} Important reason c) Neither d) Somewhat of a reason e) Not an important reason at all for why I play tennis I play tennis because my parents and I have fun going to tournaments together. a} Very important reason for why I play tennis b) Important reason c; Neither d) Somewhat of a reason e} Not an important reason at all for why I play tennis I play tennis because I feel that I have to play tennis to please my mom. a) Very important reason for why I play tennis b) Important reason c) Neither d) Somewhat of a reason a) Not an important reason at all for why I play tennis 22. 23. 24. 94 I play tennis because my dad or mom helps me with my tennis game and I like this. a) b) c) d) e l Very important reason for why I play tennis Important reason Neither Somewhat of a reason Not an important reason at all for why I play tennis How pleased do you think your mom is with the way you played tennis this summer? a) b) c) d) e) Very pleased pleased neither a little pleased not pleased at all How pleased do you think your dad is with the way you played tennis this summer? a) b) c) d) e) Very pleased pleased neither a little pleased not pleased at all APPENDIX F TENNIS ENJOYMENT SCALE VERY A MUCH LOT How much have you enjoyed * * playing tennis this past year? How much do you like to play * * tennis? 95 SOME NOT NOT AT WHAT MUCH ALL APPENDIX G NAME Background Questionnaire 1. Age 2. Gender MALE FEMALE 3. Current tennis age group 12under 14under 16under 4. If you have never participated in the WMTA Qualifier, _please skip to question 9. 5. Current district ranking 6. Last district ranking & age group rank age SIOUP 7. Have you ever qualified for Western’s? YES NO 8. If qualified, last western ranking & age group . rank age group 9. Current class enrolled in at XXXXXXX 10. Is tennis your main sport? YES NO 11. If tennis is not main sport, what is 12. How long have you been playing tennis? Less than 1yr l-2yrs 2-3yrs 3-4yrs More than 4yrs PLEASE CIRCLE APPROPRIATE PERSON 13. Who drives you the most to tennis class? Mom Dad Relative Friends parents Other 14. Who drives you the most to tournaments? Mom Dad Relative Friends parents Coach Other 15. Who encourages you the most to play tennis? Mom Dad Relative Coach Self Other 16. Who puts the most pressure on you to compete in tennis? Mom Dad Relative Coach Self Other 96 APPENDIX H OFFICE OF RESEARCH STUDIES Dummiyummmmnou fkunntunqua mmunaflkd: (UCRIHS) Mucmgan State UanEISIfy 225 Administration Bunomg East Lansmg. Michigan 48824-1046 517/355-2180 F‘UK,517/432-1171 MSU is an arm-man ve-acnor: wwwmmmwmmww MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY October 19, 1994 TO: Alexandra Hilbert 938 Wildwood East Lansing, MI 48823 RE: IREf: 94-476 TITLE: PERCEIVED PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON YOUTH TENNIS PLAYERS WITHIN HARTER'S COMPETENCE MOTIVATION THEORY REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: l-C,D APPROVAL DATE: 10/18/94 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project bevond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with the original approval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a maXimum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again or complete reView. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB # and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS] CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti v UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems (unexpected Side effects, complaints, etc.) involving uman subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us at (517)355—2180 or FAX (Sl7)3 6— 171. id E. Wright, CRIBS Chair DEW:pjm cc: Martha E. Ewing 97 APPENDIX I Dear Parent , My name is Alexandra (Hilbert) Wiesner and I am a former Michigan State tennis player. As part of my master’s work in Sport Psychology at Michigan State University, I am conducting a research study this fall. The research will investigate parental influences on youth tennis players. It will be conducted by inviting approximately 40-50 youth tennis players to fill out questionnaires with the possibility of participating in a follow-up interview. The questionnaires will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The interview which will be taped, will entail a 45-60 minute session where more indepth questions of your child’s tennis experiences may be obtained. All tapes will be erased following transcriptions. The questionnaires and interviews will be conducted in a classroom at XXXXXXX. Results of the questionnaires and anything discussed during the interview will be held in strictest confidence. The forms will be coded by number to insure anonymity. Interview transcripts will also be number coded and at no point will the subjects' names be known. Participants in the study will receive a summary of the research and the project. The attached page is a consent form which allows your son or daughter to participate in the study. Due to the age of your son or daughter written permission by both child and parent must be obtained for them to participate in the study. The administering of the questionnaires will be on Thursday, November 3 at 3:45 prior to class session. If this is not an appropriate time, please contact me and another time will be scheduled. Those asked to participate in the follow-up interview will be contacted by phone. At this time parents of these children will also be asked to participate in an interview session. Please have your child bring back the consent form to XXXXXXXX in the self-addressed envelope to their instructor regardless if your son or daughter is participating in the study. With the growing number today of youth sports participants, research in understanding the influences that effect young athletes is integral in making sure they are enjoying their sporting experience to the fullest. Therefore, the input participants in this study provide will allow youth sport researchers and coaches to better understand how to structure sport experiences. If you have any questions about the study, feel free to contact me at 351-0756 or your childs' instructor. Thank you for your assistance. This would be impossible without your help. Sincerely, Alexandra Wiesner 98 99 HUMAN SUBJECTS CONSENT FORM FOR YOUTH PARTICIPANTS I would like to ask for your assistance in a study that I am conducting to investigate parental influences on youth tennis players. The study will entail a 30 minute session where your child will be asked to answer questionnaires, with the possibility of a follow-up indepth interview. The interview portion will entail a 45-60 minute session where your child will be asked to answer questions involving their tennis experiences. The interviews will be audiotaped for ease of transcription. Tapes will be erased at completion of transcription and transcribed materials will be number coded. Your son/or daughters' answers to the questions will be kept confidential. The subjects in this study will not be identified by name. Only group data will be reported. Individual participants’ responses will not be shared with coaches or parents. You and your child’s signatures below indicate that you will allow your child to participate in this study and that you and your child have read and understood his/her rights as a participant. If your child decides to withdraw from this study, he/she is free to discontinue participation, at any time, without penalty from his/her coach or the experimenter. A copy of the results from this study will be sent to you at the completion of data analysis. Thank you for you cooperation. Parent's signature Date Participant's signature Date Experimenter’s signature Date THE TIME THE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE ADMINISTERED WILL BE 6:00 ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4TH. APPENDIX J Table A Title: Gender and age effects on Harter’s challenge subscale Effects §§ Gender .05 Age .35 Gender x Age 1.52 Error ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE .13 IE .63 1 .27 3 2.73 3 35 In .60 .06 Title: Gender and age effects on Harter’s dependence Table B subscale Effects §§ Gender .01 Age .65 Gender x Age 1.44 Error ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE E _DE .03 1 .70 3 1.55 3 37 lb .83 .56 .22 Title: Gender and age effects on Harter’s competence Table C subscale Effects §§ Gender .09 Age .39 Gender x Age .95 Error Table D ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE .13 m .36 1 .55 3 1.34 3 37 In .55 .65 .28 Title: Gender and age effects on Harter’s criteria subscale Effects §§ Gender .46 Age .60 Gender x Age .55 Error ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE E E 1.73 1 .75 3 .69 3 36 100 lb .20 .53 .57 101 Table E Title: Gender and age effects on Harter's self-worth subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E 23 2 Gender .04 .13 1 .72 Age .61 .67 3 .57 Gender x Age .69 .76 3 .53 Error 37 Table F Title: Gender and age effects on Harter's social support subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E DE 2 Gender .10 .56 1 .46 Age .42 .79 3 .51 Gender x Age 1.44 2.00 3 .13 Error 37 Table G Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s parental pressure subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects §§ E Q: 2 Gender .18 .44 1 .51 Age 4.63 3.82 3 .02 Gender x Age 3.14 1.05 3 .07 Error 37 Table H Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s parental disappointment subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E 23 2 Gender .00 .00 1 .93 Age 1.20 2.92 3 .05 Gender x Age .18 .44 3 .73 Error 35 102 Table I Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s parental appreciation subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E SE 2 Gender .02 .04 1 .85 Age 1.10 .77 3 .52 Gender x Age 1.72 1.20 3 .33 Error 35 Table J Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s parental participation subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS S SS 2 Gender .15 .20 1 .66 Age 1.04 .47 3 .71 Gender x Age 2.31 1.03 3 .39 Error 37 Table K Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s parental disillusionment subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E SE 2 Gender .31 1.22 1 .27 Age 1.61 2.13 3 .11 Gender x Age .21 .28 3 .84 Error 36 Table L Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s parental dissatisfaction subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E SE 2 Gender .06 1.12 1 .30 Age .28 1.87 3 .15 Gender x Age .10 .69 3 .57 Error 36 103 Table M Title: Gender and age effects on Scanlan & Lewthwaite’s enjoyment subscale ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE Effects SS E SE 2 Gender .10 .56 1 .46 Age 1.24 2.43 3 .08 Gender x Age .97 1.89 3 .15 Error 36 APPENDIX K VAR NAME COLUMN ID 1-2 BAGE 3-4 sex 5 CTAGE 6 CDRANK 7-8 LDRANK 9-10 LDTAGE 11 WQUAL 12 WRANK 13-14 LWTAGE 15 TCLASS 16 TMSPORT 17 MSPORT 18 HLPTEN 19 CODE BOOK VAR LABEL NAME BIOLOGICAL AGE SEX OF SUBJECT CURRENT TENNIS AGE GROUP CURRENT DISTRICT RANKING LAST DISTRICT RANK LAST TENNIS AGE GROUP WESTERN QUALIFIED WESTERN RANKING LAST WESTERN TENNIS AGE TENNIS CLASS TENNIS MAIN SPORT MAIN SPORT HOW LONG PLAY TENNIS 104 VALUE LABEL 99=NA 1=M, 2=F, 9=NA 1:12UNDER, 9=NA 2=14UNDER 3=16UNDER 99=NA 99=NA l-lZUNDER, 9=NA 2=14UNDER 3=16UNDER l=Y, 2=N, 9=NA 99=NA l=l2UNDER, 9=NA 2=14UNDER 3=16UNDER 1=EXII+, 9=NA 2=EXII 3=JTG 4=JCP 5=TTPII 6=TTPI l=Y, 2=N, 9=NA l=BKBALL 2=GOLF 3=SOCCER 4=GYMNASTICS 5=SKIING 9=NA l=