, . , ‘ , s
..An§...t)?fiut_ x 5 . thnuwfi

‘ '4‘: r.“) v. d fi’

5... |

:5?

t3! It
. w

de13 y
.1

awn},
L. Jan. ,
. .Awii

.

in... .
A...”

 

«.
«WALK
“.33

‘3“ “no... ‘ 3‘

1-9 . A . x
.uflvnwdfinwpfifiu
- Q ‘ V
finfimfizi. I
. . 1..

h... .
Stu!

 

.52.}. fiv‘hdfl
4|. . .
1.0365125...
, 1.. a.
r.
I: .Danf O
a w x! 35.3w... p. .. I!!! 5
It, .. ... I): w . -
sigh.” .25 1 hvfi.rth.f.Ph
. ? £8“. . .
‘ {r

x: z .2
2.0.9355 Cl}.
.. . ‘
in:
.1: . a:
5121.31;
It: 11.; .

.33294’.
.1019).

:2: L! . .
39....)QO
v ’ .1. 57:

amgggfimm: QRZMA 3m.

6.1.1!

 

:4

_ ‘ . .. .124:

\tul. \u.

m‘q'fi

,r (1 32s

lIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the l

dissertation entitled

Contributions of Gender, Ethnic Status, 1
Athletic Participation, and Athletic Identity i
to College Adjustment

 

presented by

Mickey C. Melendez

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in CounselinLPsychology

Mofefiot / d/‘

 

 

 

Date 12/11/2001

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

amaonzoua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65—p.15

£22.; 04

'a

CONTRIBUTIONS OF GENDER, ETHNIC STATUS, ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION,
AND ATHLETIC IDENTITY TO COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT

By

Mickey Charles Melendez

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2001

ABSTRACT

CONTRIBUTIONS OF GENDER, ETHNIC STATUS, ATHLETIC PATICIPATION,
AND ATHLETIC IDENTITY TO COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT

By

Mickey Charles Melendez

Research exploring the experiences of college student athletes has typically
revealed low levels of academic achievement and success. This is especially true of
minority college athletes, who demonstrate lower graduation rates than their majority
counterparts. However, sport-related predictors of minority college adjustment have
generally been overlooked in the literature. The current study explored the roles of ethnic
status, athletic participation, and athletic identity as predictors of college adjustment in
student athletes.

Two hundred and seven college student athletes and non-athletes were recruited to
participate. All participants completed questionnaires assessing background
demographics, athletic identity, and college adjustment. Several hypotheses concerning
interrelationships among athletic participation, athletic identity, ethnic status, and college
adjustment were examined.

Findings revealed that gender and athlete status contributed significantly to college
adjustment. Gender also significantly interacted with ethnic status to predict adjustment.
In addition, a hypothesis concerning athletic identity as a moderator of ethnic status in
student athletes was supported, although in a direction opposite to prediction.
Implications for student athlete support services, as well as recommendations for future

research are discussed.

Copyright by
Mickey Charles Melendez
2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ vi
CHAPTER I: Introduction ................................................................ 1
Purpose ....................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER II: Review of the Literature ................................................. 6
Minority Student Adaptation to College ................................................. 7
Athletic Participation ....................................................................... 20
Athletic Identity Development ............................................................ 31
Definitions ................................................................................... 39
Hypotheses .................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER III: Method
Participant and Procedures ................................................................. 44
Measures ...................................................................................... 50
Research Design ............................................................................. 53
Data Analysis ................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER IV: Results
Correlational findings ....................................................................... 57
The impact of ethnic status, gender, and athletic participation on college
adjustment: Total sample ................................................................... 59
The impact of ethnic status, gender, and athletic identity: Athlete
sample ......................................................................................... 62
Post hoc analyses ............................................................................ 67
CHAPTER V: Discussion .................................................................. 71
Overview of findings ........................................................................ 72
Implications for student athlete support services ........................................ 88
Future research .............................................................................. 94
Limitations .................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES .............................................................................. 100
REFERENCES ............................................................................. 107

-iv-

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Ethnic Group Distributions Within the Minority Sample ................ 47
Table 2. Sport Distributions Within the Athlete Sample ........................... 48
Table 3. SAT, HS GPA, and Age: Between Group Comparisons ................ 49
Table 4. Total Sample Descriptive Data .............................................. 50
Table 5. Intercorrelations of Key Demographic Variables and Measures ........ 58
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of the Four SACQ Subscales

Across Gender, Ethnic Status, and Athlete Status ........................ 61
Table 7. Summary of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for

Variables Predicting Academic Adjustment to College .................. 63
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the AIMS Across

Gender, Ethnic Status, and Athlete Status ................................. 64

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. Interaction effects of athletic identity and ethnic status on
academic adjustment ...................................................... 66

-vi-

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Student adjustment in higher education has been a major focus of inquiry among
scholars and administrators for many years. As student retention rates at institutions of
higher learning continue to decrease, researchers are more closely examining the college
adjustment process, thus further expanding the knowledge base. Currently, research
indicates that more than 40% of college entrants leave higher education without earning a
degree, and, of those students 75% drop out within the first two years of college. A
typical entering class can expect that 56% of its students will not reach graduation, while
attrition rates of up to 27% can be expected for the freshman year alone (ACT, 1999).
While these numbers are sobering, the picture is considerably more bleak for ethnic
minority students who pursue a college degree.

Non-Asian minority students as a group do not graduate from predominantly
White colleges and universities at rates comparable to those of their majority counterparts.
Furthermore, Afiican American, Latino, and Native American students seem to be
particularly at risk for dropping out before achieving their degrees (Astin, 1982). Recent
data indicate that only 40% of Afi'ican American and 47% Hispanic / Latino students who
entered college 6 years earlier have completed their degrees. This figure dropped to 25%
over 4 years for Native American students (Padilla, Trevino, Gonzalez, & Trevino, 1997).
According to Zea, Jarama, and Bianchi (1995), retention rates for Latinos who have
entered college Imve been estimated to be as low as 20%, while African American students
are only halfas likely as White students to obtain their Bachelor’s degrees, and 1.5 times

more likely to dropout.

Clearly, too many minority students are leaving their colleges and universities
before completing their degrees (Padilla et al., 1997), and because these figures paint a
dark picture, there is a need for more research on specific factors and influences affecting
their college adjustment process and subsequent retention rates. Indeed, many universities
now employ specific programs aimed at reversing the trend (Levin & Levin, 1993).
Student athletes have also been identified as a high-risk group for attrition on college
campuses (Russell & Petrie, 1993 ), and when considering the unique plight of minority
student athletes attending predominantly White colleges, the issues affecting adjustment
and retention are further compounded. Although student athletes account for a relatively
small percentage of the general student population attending major universities, ethnic
minorities comprise a significant percentage of the student athlete population in Division I
colleges (Division 1 comprises approximately 300 schools and universities that offer a full
allotment of scholarships). Of this percentage, Afiican Americans comprise the largest
subgroup (Siegel, 1996).

Approximately 6% of the fill] time undergraduate students at major universities are
of African American heritage (Anderson, 1996), while 49% of the football players and
64% of the basketball players in Division I were Afi'ican American men during the 1992-
1993 academic year (Siegel, 1996). In addition, 37% of women’s basketball players were
Afi'ican American (Lapchick, 1996). It has been estimated that nearly one quarter of all of
the scholarship athletes in all Division I schools are Afiican American (Anderson, 1996).

Unfortunately, graduation and retention rates for student athletes are equally
problematic. Generally, graduation rates for student athletes vary from institution to

institution, ranging from a low of 13% to a high of 87% (Sellars & Darnas, 1996).

Moreover, recent NCAA data revealed that White male college athletes graduated at rates
20% higher than their Black male counterparts (Siegel, 1996). Most studies of college
athletes have found negative relationships between athletic participation and academic
performance, and generally reported lower GPAs, higher attrition rates, and lower
graduation rates than other students (Adler & Adler, 1985).

Despite these findings, there has been little research examining the overall college
adjustment of minority student athletes, and specifically the role that athletic participation
may play in promoting adjustment outcomes. Athletic participation as a moderator of
adjustment in minority college students has generally been overlooked, due in part to the
abundance of literature addressing the negative, exploitive, and problematic aspects of
collegiate sports.

However, a few studies have alluded to a facilitative relationship between sport
participation and graduation rates in majority and minority student athletes (Ervin,
Saunders, Gillis, & Hogrebe, 1985; Siegel, 1996). Aside fi'om the well documented
hindrances to academic achievement and graduation (Lapchick, 1996), collegiate sport
participation may promote certain developmental, social, emotional, and attitudinal
experiences that ease the transition into college for minority student athletes. This in turn
may reduce attrition rates and increase graduation rates for many minority student
athletes. These potentially positive influences of athletic participation may allow for the
development of key social support networks, institutional pride, and a sense of belonging
and attachment that many minority student non-athletes seem to lack when they attend

predominantly White colleges and universities (Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993).

Further research is needed that examines more closely the relationship between
athletic participation and college adjustment in minority athletes so that clinicians,
academics, and administrators can better serve the needs of their student athlete
populations. In addition, as collegiate sport continues to experience economic and
popular growth, greater opportunities will be generated for minorities to attend college on
athletic scholarship.

Because counseling psychology has traditiomlly been concerned with adjustment
and development of college students, it is the responsibility of counseling psychologists, as
well as other faculty and support staff, to lend their expertise to this group of students as
they negotiate the obstacles that await them on campus. Through the creation of more
effective and comprehensive support programs, universities can better address the needs
of future generations of student athletes.
mime.

The purpose of this study is to examine more closely the psychosocial impact of
the student athlete role and of athletic participation on college adjustment of student
athletes. More specifically, this study will explore how athletic participation, athletic
identity (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993), and ethnic status may interact to impact
college adjustment in student athletes.

The rationale for this study concerns specific psychosocial and developmental
influences associated with collegiate sports participation, and the role of the student
athlete. For example, athletic participation in college often provides opportunities for
social interaction and support (Sellars & Darnas, 1996), for generating feelings of

belonging and acceptance among one’s peer group (Adler & Adler, 1991), for developing

feelings of pride and attachment to one’s school (Melendez, 1991 ), and for developing
interpersonal skills and leadership abilities (Ryan, 1989). Unfortunately, these are not
experiences commonly reported by minority college students in general. Rather, the
literature reveals that ethnic minority students entering predominantly White colleges and
universities typically report feelings of isolation, alienation, dissatisfaction, and
incompetence (Graham, Baker, & Wapner, 1985; Melendez, 1991; Smedley et al., 1993;
Stamps, 1987).

Overidentification with the role of athlete can hinder development and college
adjustment as well. High levels of athletic identity may negatively influence student athlete
adjustment by constraining normal socialization and social development in college.
Athletic identity entails the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social concomitants of
identifying with the athlete role. Individuals who cormnit to such roles without engaging
in adequate exploratory behavior are said to be identity foreclosed (Murphy, Petitpas, &
Brewer, 1996), and thus risk a variety of psychological, emotionaL and developmental
consequences.

In sum, athletic participation can be both the doorway and the obstacle to
opportunity and achievement for many collegiate athletes. The purpose of this study is to
examine more closely what factors contribute to the adjustment of student athletes as they

negotiate their college experiences.

CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Although the literature addressing college student experiences is vast, this study
will focus primarily on the unique experiences of the minority student athletes. Four main
areas of literature will be reviewed. First the literature addressing the adaptation to
college of minority students will be presented. Research focusing on the definition and
assessment of academic achievement and college adjustment will be included, as well as
the literature addressing cognitive and noncognitive predictor and outcome variables.

Second, the literature focusing on psychosocial influences on college adjustment
will be presented. Specific attention will be given to psychological, social, and cultural
influences on the college adjustment of minority students. Specific psychosocial
constructs and models of college adjustment will also be highlighted.

Third, the literature addressing the experiences of college athletes will be
presented. This section will review the literature on collegiate athletic participation,
college student athlete retention and graduation rates, and other relevant sport-specific
literature. Part of this review will focus on ethnic and athletic between-group comparisons
of college adjustment and graduation rates in an effort lay the foundation for the current
proposed inquiry.

Fourth, the literature addressing athletic identity development will be reviewed.

In this section the construct of athletic identity will be defined and its utility as a predictor
of college adjustment will be addressed. Finally, the relevant literature employing the

construct of athletic identity will be reviewed.

Minom' Student Adaptation to College

 

Mimic Achievemen; Historically, college adjustment has been associated with
academic success and achievement. This was especially the case before the late 1960’s
when affirmative action legislation was introduced, triggering a ten year increase in ethnic
minority representation at colleges and universities across the country (Smedley et al.,
1993). Research of the day often focused on college GPA, retention, and graduation rates
as the sole outcome measures of college adjustment for incoming freshman. In addition,
early college adjustment research often employed cognitive or academic predictor
variables, such as high school GPA, SAT scores, ACT scores, and scores on tests of
abilities (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston, 1992; Zea et al.,
1995) with varying degrees of success, especially for ethnic minority populations (Petrie &
Russell, 1995; Sedlacek, 1989).

For example, high school GPA was shown to be a significant predictor of college
grades for Black and White students, but these results have been inconsistent in the
literature (Young & Sowa, 1992). SAT and ACT scores have also correlated fairly well
with freshman grades of White students, but these standardized tests were more
moderately correlated with the fi'eshnmn grades of minority students. This result is not
surprising given that these tests were normed on samples of traditional White students
(Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston, 1992).

Several studies have supported the view that traditional predictors of academic
success are not the best predictors of performance among minority (Black) college

students (Stamps, 1987). Moreover, these studies have lent support to the use of

nonintellectual, noncognitive factors as better predictors of academic success and
retention for minority student populations (Sedlacek, 1987; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1988).

Noncogprt' ive factors. According to Ting (1997), research studies employing
cognitive factors exclusively to predict academic achievement in college typically had low
to moderate validity, accounting for an average of 22% to 35% of the variance. This led
researchers to consider other noncognitive, environmental, and psychosocial variables as
potential influences on the adjustment process of college students. This was particularly
true for ethnic minority students who are often forced to cope with a litany of
sociocultural, developmental, historical, and psychological forces unique to their
experiences as minorities (Lunneborg & Lunneborg, 1986).

Researchers shifted attention to these noncognitive factors as more valid predictors
of academic achievement, especially for nontraditional populations (Sedlacek & Adams-
Gaston, 1992). One result of this paradigm shift was the development of the
Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ) (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1987), a 23-item, 8 subscale
instrument designed to collect information regarding psychological, social, and cultural
variables influencing college students’ academic success. Sedlacek and his colleagues
identified eight key noncognitive variables along which data needed to be collected. The
variables were (1) self-confidence; (2) realistic self-appraisal; (3) demonstrated community
service; (4) nontraditional knowledge acquired in a field; (5) successful leadership
experiences; (6) preference for long term over short term goals; (7) ability to understand
and cope with racism; and (8) availability of a strong support person.

Sedlacek and his colleagues (Sedlacek, 1989; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1987) used the

NCQ to explore the role of noncognitive factors in college adjustment. They reported

promising findings when using these noncognitive, psychosocial variables to predict
college performance for difi‘erent student groups, and particularly for ethnic minorities
(Ting 1997). Sedlacek reported ranges of 40% to 60% of the variance when using
noncognitive variables to predict grades and retention rates for student groups such as
Afiican Americans, student athletes, international students, and for cross race comparisons
(Boyer & Sedlacek, 1988; Ting, 1997). Tracey and Sedlacek later used regression to
determine that noncognitive variables alone (without SAT scores) were more strongly
correlated with Black student retention and graduation tlmn SAT scores alone (Sedlacek,
1989). Reliability, validity, and normative data for the NCQ were also generated (Tracey
& Sedlacek, 1989).

The NCQ studies also had their limitations. None of the studies reviewed focused
on college adjustment as the outcome variable, choosing instead to focus on traditional
indexes of academic achievement and success. The validity of the NCQ as a predictor of
the psychosocial aspects of college adjustment is not yet known. In addition, the influence
of possible a priori differences (e. g., SES, parental education, family income, etc.) among
the participants was not clearly addressed in the studies reviewed. Most of the studies
reviewed focused on efficacy comparisons between the NCQ and cognitive predictors
without any mention of statistical control for such differences. Despite these concerns, the
research contributions of Sedlacek and his colleagues to the prediction of academic
achievement in minority college students cannot be overlooked.

Other researchers have also considered the dynamics of college success, and the
ways in which the concept was being assessed. Outcome measures assessing levels of

adjustment, adaptation, and success of college student populations have varied over the

past 25 years depending primarily on the needs of the assessor. As stated earlier, much of
the past research seemed to focus on academic issues alone, without much consideration
for the developmental, social, and emotional aspects of college adjustment (Zitzow, 1984).
However, in the early 1980’s, a downward shift in minority retention and graduation rates
lead to a change in focus from specific academic achievement criteria (e.g., GPAs, SAT
scores, etc.) to overall college adjustment, paving the way for the broader assessment of
minority student adaptation to college (Smedley et al., 1993).

College Adjustment_. Zea et a1. (1995) observed that successful adaptation to
college was typically defined as “remaining in college, enjoying psychological well being,
and performing well academically” (p. 511). Although academic issues are of central
importance to newly matriculating students, the ability to adjust to college life and
maintain enrollment is affected by a number of non-academic issues, such as finances,
loneliness, health, interpersonal struggles, autonomy, and change (Kaczmarek, Matlock, &
Franco, 1990). College adjustment may also difier across racial and ethnic lines. For
example, in Afi'ican American student populations, perceived social support was an
important predictor of college retention, while for White students it was less important
(Mallinckrodt, 1988).

Zea et al. (1995) reported differences in college adaptation criteria, utilizing the
Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ)(Baker & Siryk, 1984) as the
outcome measure, across different racial / ethnic groups while also controlling for family
income and parental education. They reported that social support and active coping were

significant predictors of adaptation to college. These results partially supported their first

-10-

hypothesis that satisfaction with social support, intemality (locus of control), and active
coping would be linked to successful adaptation to college.

The variable of intemality did not contribute to the prediction model as a main
effect, as was hypothesized. However, a significant interaction between ethnicity and
locus of control was found. This finding partially confirmed the authors’ expectation that
ethnicity would moderate relationships among satisfaction with social support, locus of
control, and active coping. Further analysis of the interaction between locus of control
and adaptation to college between the different ethnic groups revealed significant results.
For the Asian American students, greater adaptation to college was linked with
extemality, whereas for the Latino, Afiican American, and White student groups, greater
adaptation was linked to intemality. These findings suggested that ethnicity did indeed
moderate the relationship between locus of control (intemality vs. extemality) and
adaptation to college.

Race difiemnces in the prediction of retention and graduation rates were also
reported in the literature (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1988, 1989). In two studies, African
American graduation rates were better predicted by noncognitive variables such as
positive self-concept, realistic self-appraisal, academic familiarity, and planfirlness than the
graduation rates of their White counterparts. Although these studies employed retention
and graduation rates as their outcome measures instead of college adjustment, the
apparent differences in outcome across racial / ethnic populations cannot be overlooked in
their findings. Clearly, additional research on college adjustment in diverse student

populations is needed to better account for these difierences.

-11-

The Student Adaptation to College Qgestionnaire. As theoretical interest in
college adjustment grew, assessment research focusing on the social, emotional, and
developmental aspects of college adjustment, in conjunction with academic success,
increased. Results of these efforts lead to the development of instruments like the M
Adaptation to €011ng Questimaire (SACQ) (Baker & Siryk, 1984; Baker & Siryk,
1989)

The SACQ (formerly the Student Adjustment to College Questionnaire) is based
on the view that adjustment implies multiple variables (Kaczmarek et al., 1990), and thus
generates five difl‘erent adjustment scores. The firll-scale score depicts the overall level of
adaptation to college. In addition, four subscales assess four specific areas of college
adjustment. An academic subscale refers to aspects of the educational demands of
college, a social adjustment subscale pertains to the interpersonal-societal demands of
college, a personal-emotional subscale pertains to psychological distress and somatic
complaints, and an institutional attachment subscale pertains to the student’s feelings of
attachment to their current college (Kaczmarek et al., 1990).

To date, the SACQ has been used in a number of studies with a variety of
populations, although relatively few studies have employed large numbers of minorities or
student athletes in their samples. As described earlier, Zea et a1. (1995) employed the
SACQ as their outcome measure in examining the roles of ethnicity, psychosocial
competence, and social support in the adaptation to college of an ethnically diverse group
of students.

Kaczmarek et a1. (1990) utilized the SACQ with an ethnically diverse group of

students as they distinguished between three groups of students representing three

-12-

educational tracks: a general comparison group, a peer counseling group, and an
academically margiml remedial group. Results indicated that adaptation to college was
lowest on all SACQ subscales, as well as the overall adaptation scale, for the academically
marginal group. No significant effects were found for ethnicity or gender. In addition, the
study provided additional normative data, suggesting the instrument is appropriate for use
with diverse populations.

Young and Koplow (1997) reported significant differences between White and
minority respondents across two SACQ subscales in their study exploring the validity of
the SACQ, Noncognitive Questionnaire-Revised (NCQR)(Tracey & Sedlacek, 1984), and
cumulative college GPA as predictors academic achievement of with White, Afi'ican
American, and Latino college seniors. A sample of 790 college seniors (233 Afiican
American, 193 Latino, and 364 White) was recruited from a large Mid-Atlantic state
university and administered the SACQ and NCQR.

Findings revealed that minority students reported significantly greater difficulty in
meeting the educational demands of college than did White students. In addition, White
students reported significantly higher mean scores on the academic and personal-emotional
subscales of the SACQ than did their minority counterparts. The SACQ was more
effective than the NCQR in predicting cumulative GPA, and also demonstrated some
construct and predictive validity for older (i.e., upperclassmen) students. The authors
concluded that “the prediction of minority students cumulative GPAs can be significantly
improved by the addition of a self-reported measure of academic adjustment” (p. 54).

Adan and Felner (1995) used the SACQ to assess the potential affects of student

race, prior interracial experience, and predominant racial characteristics of the college

-13-

setting (predominantly Black vs. predominantly White university) on adaptive outcomes
(SACQ scores). The purpose of their study was to more closely examine whether prior
interracial experience interacted with setting or whether these variables were
independently related to college adjustment in general. To accomplish this comparison,
samples of Afiican American students fi‘om predominantly Black and White universities,
and White students from predominantly White universities were gathered. The predictor
variables were race, prior interracial experience, family background, and college setting.
Multivariate and univariate analyses were used to assess the influence of each predictor on
the outcome variables of college adjustment, anxiety, depression, self-concept, and GPA.

The results revealed that, for Afi'ican American students attending predominantly
Black colleges, less prior exposure to Whites and greater connection to the Afiican
American community were related to higher levels of college adjustment. Conversely, for
Afiican American students attending predominantly White universities, increased levels of
prior interracial experience were related to increased levels of college adjustment.

These results suggested that race-based experiential factors such as prior
interracial experience, growing up in culturally mixed communities, or participating on
integrated sports teams, have direct influences on college adjustment for minority (Afiican
American) students. The authors went on to say that their findings indicated Afi'ican
American students at predominantly White universities would have more adaptive
difliculties than their White counterparts. In addition, these findings supported the
importance of person-environment fit for freshman entering college. Furthermore they
suggested that specific psychosocial variables may play a key role in the college

adjustment of those students who do successfully rmnage the transition.

-14-

In an earlier study, Graham et al. (1985) used the SACQ to explore the role of
prior interracial experience in the college adjustment of Black students on predominantly
White college campuses. Prior interracial experience was conceptualized by the authors as
the ethnic composition of each student’s neighborhood, high school, and high school
fiiends, and was categorized as mainly Black, integrated, or mainly White. The results
revealed a positive relationship between the amount of prior interracial experience and the
effectiveness of adjustment for the 42 Black fi'eshmen included in the study. Findings also
revealed that their groups differentially increased college adjustment over the course of the
academic year.

Only three studies, all unpublished, were located that employed the SACQ with
student athletes. Davis (1988) used the SACQ to assess the efficacy of a first semester
ten-week seminar aimed at coping-skill development for student athletes. In this study,
the SACQ was administered at three intervals (pretest, posttest, and follow-up
assessments) during the course of the seminar and thereafter. Significant changes were
found in college adjustment scores fiom pretest to posttest, and fi'om posttest to follow-up
that were attributed to the intervention. The decrease in SACQ adjustment scores (full
scale and subscales) fi'om the posttest to the follow-up assessment was particularly large,
averaging almost 23% across the four subscales. No evidence was provided that could
account for such a large drop in college adjustment scores.

Elsewhere, Ratta (1994) found tlmt members of intercollegiate athletic teams
reported better adjustment to college than non-team members in all areas tapped by the

SACQ, while McCartney (1992) found no differences between in-state and out-of-state

-15-

student athletes on any SACQ variables (R W. Baker, personal correspondence, June 12,
1998).

Although most of these studies did not employ student athletes or large numbers of
ethnic minority students, their findings do lend support for the use of the SACQ as an
appropriate outcome measure of college student adaptation and adjustment. These studies
also highlighted the need for further research on college adjustment with traditionally
“high risk” student populations, such as minority students and student athletes.

In sum, both cognitive and noncognitive variables have been employed to predict
college student adjustment. Although findings have been inconsistent, noncognitive,
psychosocial variables have demonstrated their efficacy in the prediction of college
adjustment for special populations, such as ethnic minority students, and student athletes
(Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston, 1992), whereas the predictive validity of the more traditional
cognitive variables within these populations has been weaker.

Pychosocial Variables Efl‘ecting College Adjustment. As interest in college
adjustment grew, more research focused on the psychosocial factors influencing the
adjustment of minority students. In their review of this literature, Graham et al. (1985)
reported that researchers seemed primarily interested in the social aspects of adjustment to
predominantly White college campuses. Other researchers seemed concerned with
academic adjustment and achievement, and a few seemed to focus on personal-emotional
problems. Additional research foci included college satisfaction, university climate, and
drop-out behavior as indexes of college adjustment.

Brooks and DuBois (1995) examined specific individual and environmental

predictors of college adjustment within a sample of fifty-six first-year students.

-l6-

Predictors included background demographics (age, gender, family income), individual
(personality characteristics, problem solving, and ACT scores) and environmental (life
events and social support) variables. Outcome variables included the student’s anticipated
GPA, psychological symptoms, and the full and subscale scores of the SACQ.

Findings indicated that although individual and environmental predictors were both
important, environmental variables generally did not account for as much of the variance
in adjustment outcomes as the individual predictors did. Individual variables such as ACT
scores, problem solving, emotional stability, and intelligence were all significant as
predictors of college adjustment. In addition, certain environmental variables, such as
social support and daily hassles, were significantly related to college adjustment and
syrnptomology respectively.

Although the growing literature on the psychosocial aspects of minority college
adjustment is encouraging, more research on psychosocial factors potentially influencing
minority college adjustment is needed in order to better understand the perspectives and
experiences of this special student population. Indeed, continued expansion of this
literature is necessary in order to implement effective interventions for supporting and
nurturing these students.

Models of Minority College Adjustment. Based on such thinking, several authors
have proposed models for explaining the interactions between environmental, sociaL and
psychological factors in college student adjustment. Two such models, Smedley et al.
(1993) and Solberg, Valdez, and Villarreal (1994), are specific to the college adjustment

processes of minority students at predominantly White universities.

-17-

Smedley et al. (1993) proposed a multi-dimensional stress-coping model drawing
upon different socio-cultural factors theorized as integral to the college adjustment of
minority students attending predomimntly White universities. The purpose of the study
was to ascertain whether the hypothesized minority status stresses conferred an additional
risk for poor college adjustment in minority students. In addition, the Minority Status
Scale (MSS), developed for this study by the authors, was introduced.

One hundred and sixty-one minority students (Chicano, Afi'ican American, Latino,
and Filipino) filled out questionnaires assessing their background demographics, stress
levels, levels of psychological distress, well-being, and academic achievement (GPA).
Findings revealed significant between ethnic-group difi‘erences for the amount of minority
status stress reported. Post-hoc analysis revealed that Afiican American students reported
significantly higher mean stress levels than the other ethnic groups. In addition, minority
status stresses, operationalized as scores on the M88, had a significant effect on general
well-being, psychological distress, and GPA.

The findings lent support to the contention that minority status stresses would
confer an additional burden of stress for minority students. The authors went on to state
that “the effects of minority status stresses on well-being may be mediated by factors that
help to maintain minority students’ self-esteem and sense of positive health” (p. 448).
These conclusions provide some support for the current study’s examination of the
moderating role of athletic participation and athletic identity on minority college
adjustment.

Solberg et al. (1994) explored a theorized link between social support, stress,

cultural pride, and college adjustment in Latino students. A diathesis-stress model of

-13-

Latino college adjustment was also proposed. Diathesis-stress models posit that mental
health functions as an interaction between the levels of situational stress experienced, and
individual or particular background characteristics. These background characteristics are
expected to minimize or “buffer” a person from the negative effects of stress (p. 231). In
their study, cultural pride and social support were the background characteristics believed
to moderate the efiects of stress on the college adjustment of Latino fi'eshman and
sophomores.

Although significant relationships between the predictor and outcome were
observed, no significant moderators of the relationship between stress and adjustment
were found. With all variables in the model, cultural pride, social support, stress, and the
interaction of social support and stress accounted for 59% of the variance in college
adjustment. In addition, social support proved to be directly related to college adjustment,
with higher perceived availability of social support being related to higher adjustment
scores. However, cultural pride was not directly related to college adjustment and the
interaction of social support and stress was not significant. The authors therefore
concluded that the diathesis-stress model of college adjustment was not supported.

Conceptually, the Solberg et al. (1994) study strengthened the rationale for the
current study by lending support for further research in the areas social support and
minority college adjustment. Although the results of their study revealed the importance
of social support as an influential factor in the college adjustment of Latino students, the
current study examined the importance of athletic participation, 3 specific form of social

involvement and support, as an influential factor in the adjustment of minority students.

-19-

S_um_mary. The college adjustment literature has only begun to explore the
adjustment experiences of minority college students and student athletes. Although early
research on cognitive and academic variables helped identify some important influences on
college adjustment, these studies often yielded inconsistent findings and did not examine
other 50th emotional, and environmental forces that may be at work. This seemed
especially true for minority students who often experience college as alienating and
isolating when compared to their White counterparts. Subsequent research on
noncognitive factors seemed to account for a greater percentage of the variance in college
adjustment of minority students, resulting in the conceptualization of college adjustment as
a multidimensional construct, not strictly an academic one. The development of
assessment instruments along with specific models of minority college adjustment have set
the stage for more in depth research into the college adjustment of specific minority
populations, as well as specific populations within minority groups, such as student
athletes.

Athletic Participation

Acgdemic Adjustment and Achievement. Studies exploring the college adjustment
experiences of student athletes are relatively few in number. Those that do focus on
student athletes typically consider academic success rather than overall college adjustment
as outcome variables (Ervin et al., 1985; Kiger & Lorentzen, 1988; Lang, Dunham, &
Alpert, 1988; Petrie & Russell, 1995). Results generally reveal that minority student
athletes tend to have lower grades, higher attrition rates, and lower graduation rates than

majority student athletes (Adler & Adler, 1985; Siegel, 1996).

-20-

Several studies have addressed other factors involved in college adjustment and
achievement. Kiger and Lorentzen (1988) found student athletes to be different fiom non-
athletes on a variety of academic variables. Student athletes reported lower mean GPAs,
lower ACT scores, and lower high school GPAs. In addition, student athletes were more
likely to be placed on academic probation. The authors attributed some of these
difl'erences to academic unpreparedness and role conflict. For instance, they noted that,
“If an athlete does not do well in the classroom, it is not unreasonable that he or she might
turn to athletic participation as a way to gain status and maintain self-esteem and a
positive self concept. This seems particularly true for male athletes, minority student
athletes, and participants in revenue producing sports” (p. 292). Recommendations were
made for special academic programs geared towards minority student athletes to help
compensate for their poor academic performance in their study.

Ervin et al. (1985) found that, although the Black student athletes in their sample
maintained higher high school GPAs than their White counterparts, Black SAT scores,
number of high school courses completed, and college freshman GPAs were lower. The
authors later discussed the possibility that placement of Black athletes into academically
less challenging courses at the primary and secondary school levels set the stage for the
academic struggles encountered in college. The ethics of such academic exploitation of
Black athletes by competitive academic institutions was called into question by the
authors.

Predictors of academic success for student athletes were another area of focus in
the college adjustment literature. Sedlacek and Adams-Gaston (1992) examined the

eflicacy of noncognitive variables as predictors of academic success in student athletes.

-21-

Their results indicated that noncognitive variables, as measured by scores on the
Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ) correlated with first semester grades for student
athletes, while SAT scores did not. The authors also found that student athletes
resembled other “nontraditional” student groups (e.g., Blacks, women, or other groups
susceptible to discrimimtion) in their response patterns and may therefore benefit from
programming geared towards improving their understanding of the effects of
discrimination.

Young and Sowa (1992) used the NCQ to predict the academic success of Black
student athletes at a predominantly White university. Cognitive (SAT scores, high school
class rank, and high school grades) and noncognitive (NCQ full and subscale scores)
variables were utilized as predictors. College GPA and credits earned, by semester and
cumulatively by year, were utilized as outcome variables.

Results indicated that use of cognitive or academic variables alone to predict
academic success for Black student athletes was questionable since very little of the
variance in academic success was accounted for by these variables. High school grades
were the only cognitive variable to significantly predict academic success. Self-concept,
long-term goals, knowledge acquired, and understanding racism were significant
noncognitive predictors. The authors recommended using cognitive and noncognitive
variables together to better predict academic success for this population.

Petrie and Stoever (1997) examined the efficacy of academic and nonacademic
predictors of academic performance in female athletes. In contrast to the previous studies,
their results indicated that SAT scores were consistently related to fall and spring GPAs

for the freshmen and upper class female student athletes. Furthermore, social support was

-22-

a significant predictor of academic performance for freshmen female athletes only.
Unfortunately, no between ethnic-group comparisons were made (their sample was 85%
White) making it diflicult to assess how much of the variance in GPA was accounted for
by the minority student athletes’ SAT scores. The authors recommended that future
studies include gender, race, year in school, and sport affiliation, as potential moderators
of academic performance. This study also provides support for the inclusion of gender as
a variable in the current study.

In addition to academic adjustment and performance issues, the literature has also
generally revealed that minority student athletes have difficulty negotiating developmental
and athletic demands in the university setting (Parham, 1993). Researchers frequently
point to the lack of institutional support (Parham, 1996), the exploitive nature of athletic
programs (Edwards, 1983), and the social unpreparedness of many minority student
athletes as some of the underlying causes of these trends (Adler & Adler, 1985). Minority
students and student athletes have been referred to in the literature as “high risk”
populations in need of specialized interventions designed to improve academic adjustment
(Russell & Petrie, 1993).

Although the academic achievement literature encompasses a range of theoretical
and empirical studies, several inconsistencies exist. First, while there is evidence that
student athletes graduate at rates lower than their non-athletic peers (Adler & Adler,
1985; Kiger & Lorentzen, 1988), this effect was not consistent across all studies, nor
when examining the within-ethnic group data. As stated earlier, Siegel (1996) reported
tlmt Afiican American male student athletes graduated from college at rates 6% higher

than their non-athletic Afiican American male peers from predominantly White Division I

-23-

institutions. Although both rates of graduation (Black athletes and non-athletes) were
20% lower than their White peers, the differences in Black athlete versus non-athlete
graduation rates suggest that sport participation rmy have played a role in the college
adjustment of minority (Afiican American) students. This finding was particularly
intriguing because it was the only study among all of the studies reviewed to explore
within-ethnic group differences in graduation rates.

Other graduation rate research revealed intriguing findings as well. The National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has participated in on going graduation rate
research since the implementation of higher initial-eligibility standards in 1992. Its most
recent graduation-rate summary (NCAA, 1999) was based on student athletes who
enrolled as freshman, received athletic scholarships, and who graduated within six years of
initial enrollment. The 1999 summary revealed that student athletes entering in 1992 were
graduating at rates slightly higher than student non-athletes of the same racial and gender
groups.

Several NCAA findings lend support to current study. For example, Black male
student athletes graduated at a significantly higher rate than their counterparts in the
overall student body, with a graduation rate of 40% compared to 31% for the general
Black student body. In addition, Black female athletes revealed the largest difference in
graduation rates between athlete and non-athlete groups, graduating at a rate 12% higher
than the general Black fennle population (53% versus 41%, respectively). Finally, White
female athletes entering college in 1992 graduated at rate a rate 10% higher than the

White female student body. (71% versus 61%, respectively). However, the news is not

-24-

entirely positive. Black male and female basketball players revealed decreased graduation
rates when compared their peers attending college fi'om 1985 to 1991.

Earlier research demonstrated a positive relationship between athletic participation
and academic adjustment. In their review of the literature, Kiger and Lorentzen (1988)
stated that, “the tenor of these studies indicated a qualified positive relationship between
athletic participation and academic orientation (adjustment) in high school student
athletes” (p. 288). The authors later stated that the magnitude of this relationship varied
according to a number of other variables associated with academic performance, such as
social class, gender, race, and degree of involvement with athletics.

Ryan (1989) examined the affective outcomes of intercollegiate athletic
participation and concluded that athletic participation was positively associated with
overall satisfaction with the college experience, motivation to earn a degree, and the
development of interpersonal and leadership skills. He went on to state that, while the
negative stereotypes concerning the exploitive nature of intercollegiate athletics may have
their basis in fact, intercollegiate sport participation is a generally positive experience for
students.

In sum, although much of the literature indicates that student athletes generally do
not fair as well academically as their non-athletic counterparts, there are some studies that
suggest otherwise. Minority athletes seem to be graduating college at rates higher than
their non-athletic peers, suggesting that athletic participation may have some positive
effects on student athletes and their adjustment to college. Minority students, whose
experiences on college campuses are often marked by isolation, may find these effects

offset somewhat by collegiate athletic participation.

-25-

Minority Student Athletes on Cm. Athletics is an integral part of the college
experience at campuses across the country. As spectators or participants, rmny students
derive a sense of pride and loyalty to their universities through involvement with the local
sport culture. Furthermore, athletic participation at the collegiate level is often the
pinnacle of the sports career for many student athletes.

Admittedly, participation in collegiate sport can also place student athletes at
greater academic risk. According to Morrissey (1995), student athletes are at higher risk
for experiencing psychological distress and developmental crises than the general student
population. This may be due to the fact that athletes are often isolated from the rest of
campus, and are not given the same opportunities for autonomy as non-athletes. Since
social acceptance and autonomy are typically key developmental goals for adolescents,
this does not bode well for the college adjustment of student athletes.

The issue becomes more problematic for minority student athletes. These athletes’
(particularly Afiican Americans) experiences on college campuses are truly unique fi'om
any other college population (Parham, 1996). Hill (1993) speaks of “minority athletes as a
special population within a special population, the differentiating element being the racial /
ethnic minority factor.” He goes on to state that “the effects of being a minority athlete in
America must be considered when using [therapeutic] approaches. . . .because one size
does not fit all” (p. 438).

Although minority athletes are often treated as valued and respected
representatives of a university community, this recognition is often fleeting. When
triumphant on the field, they are often the focus of admiration and even idolatry.

Unfortunately, minority students athletes are often the victims of prejudice from White

-26-

students, faculty, and non-athletic minority students as well (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991;
Engstrom, Sedlacek, & McEwen, 1997; Melendez, 1991). They are often viewed as
academically less capable, as beneficiaries of athletic scholarships, and as students whose
sole reasons for being in college is to play their sport. This often leaves minority student
athletes feeling isolated, misunderstood, and unsupported (Melendez, 1991; Parharn,
1993; Young & Sowa, 1992). Student athletes also tend to underutilize professional
mental health services in college, such as psychotherapy and vocational counseling,
although they experience much more psychological distress than non-athletes (Pinkerton,
Hinz, & Barrow, 1989).

In addition, stereotypes regarding the academic abilities of student athletes in
general, and minority student athletes specifically, can be particularly problematic (Burke,
1993). Engstrom et al. (1997) assessed 126 faculty members at a major research
university regarding their beliefs about student athletes. Their results revealed that faculty
members held prejudicial and stereotypical beliefs about revenue and non-revenue student
athletes. Of particular interest were reports of disdain and anger toward athletes because
of the perceived “special privileges” afforded to them, and negative faculty beliefs about
student athletes’ academic abilities.

In an earlier study, Engstrom and Sedlacek (1991) found that fi'eshman students
perceived student athletes negatively, particularly in the area of academic competence.
The authors later recommended that student athlete culture be considered as susceptible to
prejudice and discrimination as any other typically stereotyped groups on college
campuses. Similar sentiments have been expressed elsewhere in the literature (Parham,

1996).

-27-

Poor relationships among non-athletic peers can also negatively effect college
performance of student athletes. Lewis (1993) explored factors influencing academic
performance by surveying social and demographic predictors among 220 Division I
student athletes. Key findings revealed that lower satisfaction with interactions involving
other students had a negative effect on academic performance in student athletes. This
relationship continued to exist after controlling for the background variables of gender,
race, and high school rank. SAT scores were also significantly related to academic
performance with student athletes. Given these results, the author concluded that
administrators and professors should endeavor to improve the social environment of
student athletes while attending college.

However, participation in college sports also offers certain benefits for ethnic
minorities that many minority student non-athletes never reap. The recognition and
celebrity of being a college athlete often helps many students to feel connected and valued
by their institutions. In addition, the opportunity to be part of a team, with unified goals,
aspirations, and expectations, often creates an atmosphere of inclusion and support for
those involved (Adler & Adler, 1991).

Sellars and Darnas (1996) described the college lives of minority (Afiican
American) student athletes as being “somewhat rewarding” (p. 70). They stated that
(Afi'ican American) student athletes were provided with a number of opportunities for
personal grth due to their status as athletes. These opportunities included the
development of social skills, opportunities for travel, and a chance to become more

assertive. Moreover, Afi'ican American student athletes, in general, reported having

-23-

adequate levels of social support, and did not report a great deal of alienation or racial
tension.

In sum, although college athletes acquire a certain level of prestige and status on
campus by playing a sport, they are also frequent victims of negative stereotypes and
prejudice. Still, for many student athletes, and especially for minority student athletes,
sports teams provide greatly needed opportunities for growth, development, and social
support that their non-athletic peers may not receive.

meact of Athletic Participation. Taken together, these studies form part of the
rationale for the current study. Although the literature generally reveals a negative
relationship between athletic participation and academic achievement for student athletes,
a case can be made in support of the psychosocial, emotional, and developmental benefits
of athletic participation, particularly for minority student athletes. Collegiate sports teams
may function as social compensatory mechanisms, thus helping minority student athletes
to achieve higher levels of social acceptance, self-esteem, and eventually college
adjustment and retention not as easily attained by their non-athletic minority brethren.
Further research into the effects of athletic participation on the college adjustment of
minority student athletes is needed to better understand these dynamics.

Little research into the positive social and developmental influences of athletic
participation on minority college students has been conducted, thus reinforcing the
perception of collegiate athletics as destructive, exploitive, and problematic for many of
the minority student athletes involved. Research findings detailing the benefits of athletic

participation for college students are often overlooked.

-29-

In a study comparing college athletic participants and non-participants on reported
levels self-esteem, Taylor (1995) determined that athletic participation was one of several
factors that lead to increased levels of self-esteem for college students. Although athletic
participation did not prove to be a significant predictor of self-esteem on its own, several
between group comparisons (athletic participants versus nonparticipants) narrowly missed
reaching statistical significance. Taylor stated that “these finding suggest athletic
participation had a positive effect on self-esteem (and) may be one of many college
activities that contribute to a cumulative positive effect on a student’s psychosocial
development” (p.449).

Other research on athletic participation has revealed such benefits as increases in
social involvement in college, development of interpersonal and leadership skills, increased
satisfaction with college, increased motivation to achieve a degree, and the mastery of
transferable skills (Danish, Petitpas, & Hale, 1993; Taylor, 1995). In addition, Afiican
American student athletes reported that their athletic status provided somewhat of an
advantage in their personal development, and that they were more satisfied than
dissatisfied with their lives (Sellars & Damas, 1996)

Collectively, these studies suggest that athletic participation may contribute to
individual social and emotional development. Parharn (1993) described the psychosocial
benefits of athletic participation as follows: “Involvement in athletics seems to satisfy
several basic human needs, including those having to do with success, approval, validation
from others, recognition, and feeling a part of someone or something” (p. 417). For
minority student athletes, this may be particularly important because of their experiences

with racism and prejudice in society, and higher education (Spigner, 1993). Athletic teams

-30-

can help provide a culture within the university community that can be accepting and
understanding of their unique perspectives. Furthermore, in an environment in which a
healthy cultural paranoia towards the majority culture is often a learned defense for people
of color (Grier & Cobbs, 1968; Thompson, Neville, Weathers, Poston, & Atkinson,
1990), subcultures in which trust, belonging, and acceptance are fostered can promote
healthy development and adjustment.
Athletic Identity Development

The athlete role. How strongly individuals invest or identify themselves with the
athlete role has been a recent focus of study within the sport psychology literature.
However, concepts such as athletic identity have not been adequately researched as key
variables in the college adjustment process. Athletic identity is defined as the degree to
which an individual identifies with the athlete role. Athletic identity is presumed to be a
function of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social factors. According to Brewer et al.
(1993), in its narrowest sense, athletic identity refers to a cognitive structure or self-
schema, guiding and organizing self-related information processing. In its broadest sense,
athletic identity refers to a social role or occupational self-image. Due to its social
aspects, the extent to which one identifies as an athlete may be strongly influenced by
family members, fiiends, coaches, teachers, and the media (Simons, Van Rheenan, &
Covington, 1999). This influence may be reciprocal, as strongly athletically identified
individuals may also influence their social networks.

Much of the literature on the academic achievement and college adjustment of
student athletes fails to fully consider the developmental, psychological, and social aspects

of athletic participation. Athletic participation has been theorized to influence

.3].

psychosocial development in general (Cornelius, 1995; Morrisey, 1995; Taylor, 1995), and
may similarly influence college adjustment. The role of the student athlete and the athletic
subculture is typically overlooked as key a developmental force on the college campus.

According to Brustad and Ritter-Taylor (1997), athletic subcultures exist when
team members share common beliefs that distinguish members from the mainstream
culture. Memberships in athletic subcultures often serve to reinforce collective values,
beliefs, meanings, attitudes, rituals, language, and behavioral expectations for group
members. These common perspectives have practical value because they serve to connect
members of a subculture to each other and distinguish them fi'om outsiders in society, or in
other reahns of sport (Nixon, 1992). However, this connection can be a double-edged
sword for athletes who often look to the athletic subculture as the exclusive model for
acceptable behavior.

For example, Adler and Adler (1991) reported that many college basketball players
in their sample were ridiculed by teammates for studying and achieving good grades due
to an anti-intellectual stance within that particular athletic subculture. This resulted in a
role conflict between the academic and athletic roles for these players. The conflict was
later resolved when players began to overidentify with the athletic role, to the exclusion of
other academic and social roles. Unfortunately, such overidentification with the athlete
role may serve to hinder college adjustment, and especially academic adjustment, for this
population.

To date, there has been little research examining the role of athletic participation in
college student development. Astin (1993) discussed the importance of sport involvement

in his study on the influential factors of the college experience. He reported that more

-32-

hours per week of exercise and involvement in intramural sports were related to better
physical and emotional health, development of leadership skills, grth of interpersonal
skills, and fewer reports of feeling overwhelmed. Ryan (1989) reported similar findings.

Other studies, however, did not support a positive link between sport participation
and college student development. Sowa and Gressard (1983) found varsity athletes to be
significantly lower than their non-athletic peers on the accomplishment of specific
developmental tasks, such as making educational plans, career plans, and the establishment
of mature relationships with peers.

One important distinction between the Astin (1993) and Sowa and Gressard
(1983) studies centered on the samples employed. Astin’s inclusion criteria focused on
simple participation versus nonparticipation in sports, regardless of level (intramural, club,
etc.), whereas Sowa and Gressard specifically focused on varsity athletes versus non-
athletes (Cornelius, 1995). This distinction seemed to be one of degree or level of athletic
participation since varsity athletes typically dedicate more time and energy to their sports
than do other athletes on college campuses. This suggests a differential relationship
between the degree of athletic participation and college student development may exist.
The level of physical and emotional investment in college sport may serve as a moderator
for college adjustment.

Brewer et al. (1993) examined the construct of athletic identity within the
fiamework of multidimensional self-concept theory. The authors stated that “the
importance given to a specific self-concept domain determines the extent to which
perceived competence in that domain influences self-esteem, affect, and motivation.

Incompetence in a domain of low-perceived importance is unlikely to have an impact on

-33-

self-esteem, whereas incompetence in a domain of high—perceived importance can
profoundly affect feelings of self-worth” (p. 238). Individuals who are athletically
identified seem to place sport in the domain of high-perceived importance.

Assessment offiathletic identity. The Athletic Identity Measurement Scale
(AIMS)(Brewer et al., 1993) was designed to assess both the strength and exclusivity of
identification with the athlete role. Supportive validity, reliability, and factor structure
data was generated for the AIMS in three separate studies, utilizing three separate college
student and student athlete samples. In addition, factor analysis revealed athletic identity
to be a unidirnensional construct. The authors concluded that the 10-item AIMS was a
stable and reliable instrument that also exhibited some convergent and discriminant
validity.

Cornelius (1995) placed the athlete role within the framework of multidimensional
self-concept theory, stating that psychological identity as an athlete has been
conceptualized as one domain of a multidimensional self-concept. He firrther asserted that
“having ‘athlete’ as a central and salient dimension of the self-concept influences social
relationships, the activities one seeks, and the way one’s experiences are processed.” He
concluded that, “it is reasonable to postulate that psychological identification with the
athlete role may be related to psychosocial developmental considerations” (p. 561).

Cornelius presented a model of college student developmental task
accomplishment utilizing athletic identity (AIMS) and specific socialization factors (faculty
and peer interactions) as predictors. Outcome variables consisted of three developmental
task scales of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (Winston, Miller,

& Prince, 1987) and their respective subscales. The three developmental task scales

-34-

assessed (1) the establishment of a clarifying purpose (PUR), (2) the development of
mature interpersonal relationships (MIR), and (3) academic autonomy (AA) of the
participants. The sample was comprised of 228 undergraduate students who were
involved with recreational athletics. Varsity athletes were excluded from the sample.

Results indicated that the AIMS significantly, although modestly, correlated with
the life management (LM) subtask of the PUR developmental task scale. This was the
only significant relationship reported in the model. The life management subtask was
associated with successfirl management of time, relationships, and obligations without
extensive support fiom others. In his discussion, Cornelius suggested that individuals
reporting strong athletic identities must develop stronger life management and
organizational skills in order to participate in their sports and related activities. This
crossover of skills may equip student athletes to better plan and manage their lives as
college students, in turn easing their adjustment to college. Although causation cannot be
established from the data, these results point to the importance of sport involvement on
college student development. However, in his conclusions, the author emphasized that
athletic participation by itself was not associated with enhanced progress on
developmental tasks, “but psychological identification with the role of athlete seemed to
be the important factor” (p. 572).

Murphy et al. (1996) utilized the AIMS in a study to examine interrelationships
between the variables of athletic identity, identity foreclosure, and career maturity in a
sample of 224 student athletes at a Division I university. Identity foreclosure refers to

making role corrrrnitments without engaging in exploratory behavior, while career maturity

-35-

refers to the exploratory and decision-making processes involved with career identity
development.

Findings revealed that, as hypothesized, athletic identity and identity foreclosure
were significantly and negatively related to career maturity. Three separate exploratory
MANOVAs revealed significant multivariate effects for gender, playing status (varsity vs.
nonvarsity), and sport status (revenue producing vs. nonrevenue producing) on identity
foreclosure, athletic identity, and career maturity. Univariate analyses showed that women
reported significantly higher career maturity scores than men. In addition, varsity athletes
reported significantly higher identity foreclosure and athletic identity scores than non-
varsity athletes. Non-varsity athletes, however, reported significantly higher career
maturity scores than varsity athletes. Finally, athletes in revenue producing sports
reported significantly higher identity foreclosure scores, and significantly lower career
maturity scores than athletes in non-revenue producing sports.

The authors concluded that, “the physical and psychological demands of
intercollegiate athletics, coupled with the restrictiveness of the athletic system, may isolate
athletes fi'om mainstream college activities, restrict their opportunities for exploratory
behavior, and promote identity foreclosure” (p. 240). This may be especially true for
minority athletes who historically perceive sport as one of the few avenues to upward
mobility (Sellars & Kuperminc, 1997).

In a similar study, Brown and Glastetter-Fender (1999) explored relations between
career decision-making self-efficacy, career locus of control, identity foreclosure, and
athletic identity among 189 college student athletes. The AIMS was employed along with

measures of locus of control, career decision-making self-efficacy, and identity foreclosure

-36-

status. Multivariate results revealed no significant gender efiects for any of the career and
self-identity variables. Correlational analyses revealed that hours of sport participation,
identity foreclosure, and career locus of control were inversely related to career decision-
making self-eflicacy. However, no significant correlation between athletic identity and
career decision—making self-efficacy was observed. Equally surprising, no significant
relationship between athletic identity and identity foreclosure was observed. The authors
went on to suggest that low self-efficacy for career decision-making was associated with
extensive hours in sport participation, failure to explore alternative roles, and the belief
that career outcomes were unaffected by decision-making tasks.

Brewer (1999) reviewed five years of athletic identity literature to determine what
factors influenced, and were influenced, by athletic identity. Several important trends in
the research were revealed that lend support to the current study. Gender differences in
AIMS scores were reported in many studies, although these differences seemed to
decrease at the higher (elite) levels of athletic activity. Age differences were also
reported. Athletic identity seemed to decline with maturity and exposure to life
experiences. Finally, race differences were reported, with Afi'ican American student
athletes reporting lower athletic identity scores than their Caucasian counterparts. The
author went on to state that athletic identity might be less salient than other identities for
Afiican American student athletes. In turn, sport might serve a more firnctional purpose
(e.g., as a vehicle for receiving a college education) for Afi'ican American athletes than for
Caucasians. In other studies, cross-cultural comparisons revealed inconsistent findings.

Although these studies suggested that athletic identity may play a role in

psychosocial development and adjustment of student athletes, they have their limitations.

-37-

Few of the studies reviewed in this section conducted any racial / ethnic group
comparisons regarding athletic identity. Moreover, none of the studies reported the racial
/ ethnic breakdowns of their samples. This seemed curious in light of NCAA statistics
revealing that minorities (particularly Afiican Americans) made up a much larger
percentage of the student athlete population than the college student population (Siegel,
1996). In addition, no studies were found employing both college adjustment and athletic
identity as variables. This may be partly due to the fact that athletic identity is a novel
concept, and tint the AIMS is a recently developed instrument.

Finally, the concept of athletic identity as a unidirnensional or multidimensional
concept is still under debate. Although Brewer et al. (1993) originally viewed athletic
identity as a unidirnensional construct, other researchers have proposed multidimensional
models of athletic identity. More extensive psychometric research differentiating between
the unidirnensional and subsequent multidimensional models of athletic identity are needed
before the AIMS proves useful for personality research in sport (Hale, James, &
Stambulova, 1999; Martin, Eklund, & Mushett, 1997).

W. College adjustment has evolved theoretically from a concept
emphasizing academic performance to a multidimensional concept comprised of social,
psychological, academic, and developmental influences. Early research however focused
primarily on the academic and cognitive factors, often overlooking potential noncognitive,
developmental, and social influences. In addition, special populations, such as minority
students and student athletes, face challenges unique to their college adjustment
experiences and often report feelings of isolation, disillusionment, and academic difficulty.

Although the current literature suggests that student athletes seem to struggle

-33-

academically, much less is known about the social and emotional adjustment of this
population. Athletic participation may play a positive role in the college adjustment of this
student population by providing positive social, emotiornl, and developmental
experiences. However, overidentification with the role of athlete can prove troublesome
for student athletes. Athletic identity may be a double—edged sword, maintaining a
nonlinear relationship with college adjustment. The current study more closely examined
these theorized links among ethnic status, athletic participation, athletic identity, and
college adjustment.
Definitions

A number of terms and concepts needed to be operationally defined. First and
foremost was the outcome variable of “college adjustment”, which was operationally
defined as scores on the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Baker & Siryk,
1989). The four SACQ subscales each served as dependent variables in the current
research design

Second, the terms “minority” and “majority” were used to define the categories
within the “ethnic status” variable in the current study. Minority was used to operationally
define students self-identifying as members of a non-majority, racial, ethnic, or cultural
group in the United States. Any individuals identifying as Black or Afiican American,
Asian, Asian American, or Asian Indian, Indian or Native American, or Hispanic or
Latino, or any subgroup of these categorizations, were included in the minority group. In
addition, Caucasian individuals self-identifying as members of another, non-American,
non-majority culture were defined as minority for the purposes of this study (e.g., a French

Canadian student born and raised in Quebec). Conversely, White and / or majority was

-39-

used to operationally define students not meeting the criteria for minority, and / or self-
identifying as White. In the event a student met multiple criteria for race and / or ethnicity
(e.g., Black Latino or bi-racial student), the student’s preferred self-identification served
as the critical inclusion criteria.

Third, the predictor variable of “athletic participation” was operationally defined as
participation in a university sanctioned varsity level sport in a NCAA Division I or 1AA
athletic program. Male and female athletes, scholarship and non-scholarship athletes, and
athletes participating in major revenue and non-revenue producing sports have all been
included in this study. The sports included men’s football, basketball, baseball, ice
hockey, soccer, tennis, crew, lacrosse, wrestling, and track and field. Women’s basketball,
soccer, softball, ice hockey, field hockey, crew, gymnastics, lacrosse, tennis, and track and
field were also included. These sports were chosen because they all demanded major
commitments of time and effort and all provided scholarships for their athletes. In
addition, many of these sport teams were usually comprised of diverse groups of student
athletes. Club sports were not included, as they are not typically sanctioned by their home
institutions. Junior varsity and intramural sports were also excluded because the focus of
these programs is typically participation and recreation, not competition. Furthermore,
club, junior varsity, and intramural programs are usually voluntary, while varsity programs
require mandatory participation and greater levels of commitment.

Fourth, the term “student” in this study was defined as an individual enrolled with
a firll-time academic course load (typically four or more classes). Since NCAA regulations
prohibit part-time students fiom participating in varsity athletics, participants who met the

athletic participation criteria automatically met the student criteria.

-40-

Fifth, the term athletic identity in this study was operationally defined as scores on
the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS; Brewer et al., 1993).

Hymtheses

In the current study, several hypotheses related to the variables and population
samples in question were tested. First, hypotheses concerning predicted main and
interaction effects among the variables of ethnic status and athletic participation on college
adjustment within the total sample are presented. Second, hypotheses concerning
predicted relationships among gender, ethnic status, and athletic identity within the student
athlete sample are presented.

Main effects. Hypothesis 1 states tlmt ethnic status should significantly predict
college adjustment for the total sample. More specifically, majority students should report
higher adjustment scores across the four SACQ subscales than minority students. This
hypothesis is derived fiom findings in the literature regarding lower graduation and
retention rates among minority students compared to their majority peers (Astin, 1982;
Padilla et al., 1997; Siegel, 1996; Zea et al., 1995). Hypothesis 2 states that athletic
participation (athlete status) should significantly predict college adjustment. In particular,
student non-athletes should report higher scores on the academic, social, and personal-
emotional subscales of the SACQ than student athletes. However, student athletes are
hypothesized to report higher scores on the institutional-attachment subscale than non-
athletes. These hypotheses were derived fiom findings in the literature regarding lower
academic performance of student athletes compared to their non-athletic peers (Ervin et

al., 1985; Kiger & Lorentzen, 1988; Ryan, 1989), and increased satisfaction with college

-41-

and feelings of inclusion for student athletes compared to non-athletes (Danish, Petitpas,
& Hale, 1993; Parharn 1993; Taylor, 1995) .

Although gender Ins revealed significant effects as a predictor of college /
academic adjustment for students and student athletes elsewhere in the literature (Kiger &
Lorentzen, 1988; Smallrnan et al., 1991; Snyder, 1996), no hypotheses regarding gender
were presented in the current study due to the primary focus on predicted ethnic
differences.

Interaction effects. In addition to the main effect hypotheses presented above,
interaction / moderator hypotheses were also being presented. Hypothesis 3 states that
athlete status should significantly interact with ethnic status to predict college adjustment
scores. More specifically, minority student athletes should report higher scores than
minority student non-athletes on the social, personal-emotional, and institutional
attachment subscales of the SACQ. No significant differences on the academic
adjustment scores of minority student athletes and non-athletes are predicted.

A significant interaction of this type would indicate that athletic participation
moderates the effects of ethnic status on college adjustment. The resulting college
adjustment slopes for minority student athletes and non-athletes should be clearly
intersecting, with minority student athletes showing increases in college adjustment scores
and minority student non-athletes showing the opposite pattern

In this moderator role, athletic participation would help buffer minority student
athletes fiom many of the negative social and psychological experiences common to
minority students on predominately White college campuses (Sedlacek, 1987). This

hypothesis is based on findings in the literature indicating that athletic participation may

-42-

positively influence college experiences and graduation rates for minority student athletes
(Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Siegel, 1996).

Withinfiathlete sample effects. In addition to main and interaction effect
hypotheses within the total sample, relationships among variables within the student
athlete sample are also predicted. Hypothesis 4 states that ethnic status should
significantly interact with athletic identity to predict college adjustment within the student
' athlete sample. In particular, majority student athletes reporting higher athletic identity
scores should report lower adjustment scores across each of the four SACQ subscales,
whereas minority student athletes reporting higher athletic identity scores should report
higher adjustment scores across each of these indexes of college adjustment.

A significant interaction would indicate that the athletic identity moderates the
effects of ethnic status on college adjustment. The resulting college adjustment slopes for
minority and majority student athlete groups should thus intersect, with majority athletes
reporting higher levels of athletic identity showing decreases in college adjustment, and
minority athletes showing the opposite pattern across the four SACQ subscales.

Therefore, as a moderator, athletic identity would play a dual role within the
student athlete sample. For majority student athletes, high levels of athletic identity would
hinder college adjustment due to the potential for overidentification with the athlete role
resulting in identity foreclosure (Brewer, 1999). For minority student athletes, high levels
of athletic identity would serve as a buffer against many of the negative social and
psychological experiences encountered on predominately White college campuses

(Sedlacek, 1987).

-43-

CHAPTER III
METHOD

This chapter will describe the sample recruitment procedure, final sample, and data
collection, followed by a detailed review of the measures employed in the current study.
Finally, the research design will be detailed, followed by the data analysis procedures.
Particrp' ants and Procedures

Student athlete recruitment. Student athletes were recruited by contacting athletic
directors, coaches, advisors, and other administrators within the athletic departments of
three participating universities. A fourth university did not meet the athletic eligibility
criteria and was therefore excluded from student athlete recruitment in the current study.
Recruitment and survey administration took place during the second (spring) semester of
the 1999-2000 academic year. The purpose of the proposed study was explained, as well
as the potential benefits of participation for the athletic department. For example, one
identified purpose was to generate recommendations for support programs and clinical
interventions geared towards student athletes. A secondary goal was to improve the
adjustment and retention rates for student athlete populations. Recruitment was
negotiated with those administrators and coaches expressing an interest in participation.

Several strategies were used to recruit individual athletes. Whenever possible,
whole teams were recruited as participants. In addition, departmental events, such as
orientations, study halls, team meetings, and workshops were targeted as recruitment and
data collection opportunities. Survey packets were administered onsite by the principal
investigator at these events. A small number (n < 10) of surveys were administered by an

athletic department official at one university acting on behalf of the principal investigator.

Participants were asked to take part in a study exploring how student athletes adjust to
college life.

Access to student athlete records was negotiated before data collection. Student
athlete academic records were obtained fiom each participating university, or from the
NCAA when not otherwise available. Due to the access limitations placed on student
records at one participating university, individual SAT scores and high school GPAs could
not be obtained for this study. Therefore, at each university academic records consisted of
group-mean high school GPAs and mean SAT scores of entering classes of freshman
athletes fi'om 1994-1999. These scores were used as estimates of the mean high school
GPA and SAT scores for the current class of student athletes (1999-2000). No individual
academic records were employed at any point in this current study. Permission to access
records was secured from the participants via an informed consent form (Appendix B).

Non-athlete recruitment. Non-athletes were recruited through a similar strategy.
Participants were recruited fiom undergraduate classes and fi'eshrnan residence halls at
each of the four universities participating in the study. Access to students was negotiated
through university instructors and administrators, and through the Office of Residence
Life. F lyers were also posted in residence halls offering a $50 cash prize for participation
in a research study (Appendix A).

Data collection entailed distrrhuting survey packets in undergraduate courses and
in campus residence halls. Specific attention was given to classes in which student athletes
were fiequently enrolled. Approximately 75% of the surveys were administered onsite by
instructors in their classes, or advisors in study halls, or other academic settings.

Approximately 25% were administered in the residence halls by resident assistants (RAs)

-45-

acting on behalf of the principal investigator. All participants were asked to take part in a
study exploring how students and student athletes adjust to college life. Completed
surveys and consent forms were then returned to the principal investigator.

Access to non-athlete student records was negotiated through key gatekeepers at
each participating university before data collection. Gatekeepers occupied high-level
administrative positions (e.g., Asst. Dean of Students, Counseling Center Director, and
University Registrar) at their respective universities, and all had the power to grant access
to student records. As with the student athlete sample, group-mean high school GPAs
and mean SAT scores were employed as estimates of obtained sample scores. However,
for the non-athlete sample, group means for the current class of freshman and sophomores
(1999-2000) were obtained. Permission to access records was secured from the
participants via an informed consent form (Appendix C).

Only non-athlete participants were eligible for a random prize drawing of $50 in
exchange for their participation. NCAA regulations forbade student athletes fi'om
participating in such prize drawings, and they were therefore excluded.

Final Smle. The final sample consisted of 207 freshmen and sophomores (97
males, 110 females) recruited from predominantly White universities in the Midwest and
on the East Coast. All were asked to participate in a study of “how students and student
athletes adjust to college”. The final sample comprised 101 varsity student athletes
(48.8% of final sample) and 106 student non-athletes (51.2%). The racial / ethnic
breakdown of the sample revealed 108 majority students (52.2%) and 99 minority students

(47.8%). Table 1 presents the number of minority participants within each ethnic

-46-

subgroup for the minority sample. In addition, 177 (85.5%) of the students were
freshman, and 30 (14.5%) were sophomores.

Within the athlete group (63 males, 38 females), 52 of the participants (51.5% of
athlete sample) were rmjority group members and 49 (48.5%) were minority group
members. Table 2 presents the number and gender of participants within each sport for
the student athlete sample. Within the non-athlete group (34 males, 72 females), 56 of the
participants (52.8% of non-athlete sample) were majority group members and 50 (47.2%)

were minority group members.

 

Table 1

Ethnic Group Distribution Withi_n the Minority Sample

 

 

Ethnic ggoup Athletes Non-athl.
Black 41 25
Asian 0 10
Latino 2 6
Multiracial 5 3
Biracial 0 4
Indian 0 1
Canadian 1 0
Irish 0 1
Not; N = 99.

 

The resulting athlete and non-athlete groups were compared along specific
academic (SAT scores and high school GPA) and background (age and parental
education) variables in an attempt to match groups on key a priori differences. T-tests

were used to compare group mean SAT scores, high school GPAs, and age. A Chi-square

-47-

analysis was used to compare athlete and non-athlete groups along the parental education

variable (number of parents who graduated from college).

 

Table 2

Smrt Distribution Within the Athlete Sar_nple

 

SM Men’s Women’s
Basketball 0 6
Crew 1 1
Field Hockey n/a 2
Football 40 n/a
Gymnastics 0 2
Ice Hockey 7 1
Lacrosse 1 5
Soccer 2 2
Softball n/a 5
Tennis 1 1
Track 9 l 2
Wrestling 3 n/a

 

Note. N = 101. n/a = No equivalent team existed for this gender group.

 

Table 3 presents the between group comparisons of SAT scores, HS GPA, and age
for the final sample. Relative to non-athletes, the institutional mean SAT scores of student
athletes were significantly lower, 1 (205) = -11.88, p < .00]. Groups were not
significantly different with respect to institutional mean high school GPAs, or age.

Chi-square analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the athlete and
non-athlete groups on parental education, indicating that the variables of athlete status and
parental education were independent of each other in the current sample.

All academic records were obtained anonymously to preserve participants’

anonymity. Participant’s race and parental education information was obtained from a

-48-

demographics questionnaire (Appendix D) included in the survey packet. Table 2 presents

the means, standard deviations, and frequency data for the total sample.

 

Table 3

SAT. HS GPA- and Age: Between Grog) Comparisons

 

 

Athletes Non;athletes
M _S_D M S_D_ T statistics
SAT 918 98.30 1067 81.60 -11.88**
HS GPA 3.02 .14 2.95 .35 1.75
AGE 18.95 .93 18.93 2.75 .09

 

Note. ** p < .001.

 

The recruitment goal for the current study was to sample four distinct subgroups
of college students, resulting in a total sample of approximately 200. The four subgroups
were majority student athletes, majority student non-athletes, minority student athletes,
and minority student non-athletes. Obtaining comparable numbers of male and female
participants was a secondary recruitment goal. These goals were generally met by the
current sample. The current sample allowed for between and within group comparisons.
First, between group comparisons were conducted (athletes vs. non-athletes). Second,
within group comparisons were conducted (majority student athletes vs. minority student
athletes, majority student non-athletes vs. minority student non-athletes).

All survey packets distributed to the athlete and non-athlete groups included a
Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix D), the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale

(Appendix E), and the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Appendix F).

-49-

 

Table 4

 

 

 

 

 

Total Sample Descriptive Data
Variable / Measure Mean S_D_
High School GPA 2.98 .27
SAT Scores 994.55 116.82
AGE 18.94 2.07
AIMS Scores 35.91 16.55
Academic adjustment 140.26 24.92
Social adjustment 130.59 23.17
Personal-emotional adjustment 84.27 21.91
Institutional attachment 103.62 18.24
Total adjustment 413.29 66.64

Note. N = 207.

Measures

The following measures were employed in this study.

Demographic Questionnaire. This brief questionnaire solicited information

 

regarding participants’ gender, age, racial / ethnic group membership, year in college,
parental education, sport, scholarship status (scholarship or non-scholarship athlete),
recreational sport participation, and high school sport participation. Additional
information regarding participant’s SAT scores and high school GPA was obtained
through academic records. These variables have been well researched in the literature as
both predictors and moderators of academic adjustment (Cornelius, 1995; Lang et al.,
1988; Petrie & Stoever, 1997; Sellars, 1992; Young & Sowa, 1992; Zea et al., 1995).
These demographic variables were used to examine a priori differences between groups

3 that might predict college adjustment, thus increasing the study’s internal validity.

-50-

Athletic Identity Measurement Scale IAIMS; Brewer. Van Raalte & Linder

 

fl), The AIMS is a 10-item instrument with possible responses ranging fi'om “strongly
agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (7) on a 7-point Likert type scale. This instrument,
which measures strength and exclusivity of identification with the athlete role, includes
items such as “I have many goals related to sport” and “Sport is the only important thing
in my life”. Items were written with the input of undergraduate research assistants and
former student athletes to encompass both strength and exclusivity of identification with
the athlete role. The item pool was designed to be a face valid representation of the
social, cognitive, and affective aspects of athletic identity (Brewer et al., 1993). The 10
items are sunrrned for a total score, which is then reverse scored so that a higher AIMS
score indicates stronger athletic identity (Cornelius, 1995).

The AIMS has demonstrated good internal consistency in several studies
(Cronbach’s alphas ranging fi'om .80 to .93). In addition, stable test-retest reliability (r =
.89) was reported over a 2-week period. AIMS scores correlated highly with a subscale
of the Perceived Importance Profile (PIP; Fox, 1987) assessing the importance of sport
competence (r = .83) and therefore providing some evidence of construct validity. AIMS
scores were also significantly, albeit more moderately, correlated with other PIP scales
assessing the importance of physical conditioning (r = .56), the importance of an attractive
body (r = .35), and the importance of physical strength (r = .53). In the present study,
obtained Cronbach alphas for the AIMS ranged fiom .82 for the non-athlete sample, to .91
for the athlete sample.

Additional support for the construct validity of the AIMS comes from significant

differences in the AIMS scores across levels of athletic involvement. AIMS scores were

-51-

shown to increase with increasing levels of competitive athletic activity. Mean AIMS
scores ranged fi'om 19.57 for non-athletes to 54.49 for intercollegiate, nationally
competitive athletes at a Division I university (Brewer et al., 1993; Cornelius, 1995).

Discriminant validity was demonstrated using the Self-Role Scale (Curry & Weiss,
1989), an instrument designed to measure the involvement of self in the sport role. The
AIMS and the Self-Role Scale were significantly correlated (r = .61, p < .01),
demonstrating that the two constructs are quite similar. However, because they share only
38% of the variance in common, they are not assessing the same underlying construct
(Brewer et al., 1993).

Student Ad_aptation to College Questiom_ahe. (Ba_ker & Siryk. 1989). The SACQ
is a self-report measure of college adjustment consisting of 67 items. Students respond
utilizing a nine-point Likert type scale anchored by the roots (1) “applies very closely to
me” and (9) “doesn’t apply to me at all.” There are four SACQ subscales. The academic
adjustment subscale (24 items) measures the student’s success in coping with the various
educational demands characteristic of the college experience (e.g., “I have been keeping
up to date on my academic work”). The social adm ment subscale (20 items) measures
the student’s success in coping with the interpersonal-societal demands inherent in the
college experience (e. g., “I am very involved with social activities in college”). The
personal / emotional adjustment subscale (15 items) focuses on the student’s intra-psychic
state during his or her adjustment to college (e. g., “I have been feeling tense or nervous
lately”). The institutional attachment subscale (15 items) measures a student’s degree of
commitment to educational goals, and the degree of attachment to the particular

institution being attended (“I am pleased with my decision to attend this college in

-52-

particular”). Each of the four subscales generates a separate score, and the four subscale
scores can be combined to create a total college adjustment score. Normative samples
were derived fiom Clark University students between 1980 and 1984. Additional
normative data on ethnically diverse student populations has also been collected
(Kaczmarek et al., 1990; Young & Koplow, 1997).

Reliability data (Dahmus et al., 1992) reported internal consistency (coefficient
alphas) values ranging from .81 to .90 for the academic adjustment subscale, fiom .83 to
.91 for the social adjustment subscale, item .77 to .86 for the personal / emotional
adjustment subscale, and from .85 to .91 for the institutional attachment subscale. The
full-scale reliabilities ranged fiom .92 to .95. In the present study, the SACQ total scale
obtained a Cronbach alpha of .90. Cronbach alphas in the present sample for the four
SACQ subscales were as follows: .85 (academic adjustment); .84 (social adjustment); .79
(personal-emotional adjustment); and .88 (general institutional attachment).

Baker and Siryk (1989) reported that SACQ academic adjustment scores were
significantly correlated with freshman GPA and membership in an academic honor society,
thus providing some construct validity support. Scores on the social adjustment scale
correlated with scores and the social activities checklist. Low scores on the personal /
emotional adjustment scale predicted student use of counseling services (Gerdes &
Mallinckrodt, 1994). Finally, Dahmus et al. (1992) found that institutional attachment
scores were significantly correlated (negatively) with attrition.

Research Design
The current study employed a correlational field design, with three independent

variables, and four dependent variables. As stated earlier, the dependent variables of

-53-

interest were the reported levels of academic adjustment, social adjustment, personal-
emotional adjustment, and institutional attachment. These variables were operatiomlized
as the four subscale scores on the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Baker &
Siryk, 1989).

The independent variables included: ethnic status, coded as majority or minority
group membership on the Demographic Questionnaire; gender, coded as male or female
on the Demographic Questionnaire; and athletic participation, operationalized as the
participants’ self-identification as a varsity collegiate athlete on the Demographic
Questionnaire.

A 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design (ethnic status x gender x athlete / non-athlete status)
was employed to allow for comparisons between groups along the independent and
dependent variables of interest. In addition, a series of multiple regression analyses were
used to conduct a within-group examination of the contributions of ethnic status, gender,
and athletic identity scores to the college adjustment of student athletes.

Data sis

Data were analyzed in several steps. The first step involved computing descriptive
statistics and frequencies for the total sample. In addition, an intercorrelation matrix
containing the key demographic variables and research measures in the study was
commuted.

Analysis of main and interaction effect hypotheses (athletes vs. non-athletes). In
order to test the predicted main and interaction effects described in the first three
hypotheses, a 2 X 2 X 2 MANOVA of scores on the set of four SACQ subscales for all

participants of the study was conducted.

-54-

Although a priori differences in SAT scores were revealed between the athlete and
non-athlete groups, the nature of the SAT data (group mean data) made its inclusion as a
covariate in the current analysis problematic. However, a lack of a priori differences in
age, high school GPA, and parental education indicated that the two groups were
reasonably matched along these variables.

This analysis allowed for the detection of any main and interaction effects on the
set of college adjustment subscales. Follow-up univariate AN OVAs were used to test
hypotheses in the presence of significant multivariate effects.

Moderator effects were also analyzed within the MANOVA. Utilizing the
guidelines described by Baron and Kenny (1986), evidence of moderation was indicated by
a significant interaction effect between the variables of athlete status and ethnic status in
the current design.

Analysis of within athlete sanmle hypotheses. In order to test within athlete
sample effects described in Hypothesis 4, a separate multiple regression analysis was
conducted on scores of each of the four SACQ subscales for all athletic participants of the
study. The predictor variables for these analyses were: the student athletes’ ethnic status,
coded as majority (White = 1) and minority (non-White = 0); the student athletes’ gender,
coded as male (1) and female (0); the student athletes’ reported levels of athletic identity,
operationalized as the participants scores on the AIMS; and a term representing the
hypothesized interaction between ethnic status and AIMS scores. AIMS scores were

“centered” before being entered into the model in order to minimize multicollinearity

effects (Holrnbeck, 1997).

-55-

Moderator effects were also predicted in Hypothesis 4. Evidence of moderation is
indicated by a significant interaction after the main effects attributable to the predictor and
moderator are controlled (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In the current study, interaction

effects were analyzed within the series of four multiple regression analyses.

-56-

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

This chapter will begin with a review of the correlational findings. Findings from
the multivariate and moderator analyses will then be presented, followed by the
presentation of several post hoc analyses.

Correlational findipgs

Table 3 presents the Pearson correlations of gender, ethnic status, athletic
participation, and the key measures under investigation. Point-biserial correlations were
employed for gender and ethnic status. As expected, the four subscales of the SACQ
(academic, social, personal-emotional, and institutional attachment) were moderately to
highly intercorrelated with one another (range of Q = .43 - .80, all ps < .01). This pattern
of SACQ subscale intercorrelations, which is consistent with findings from previous
studies using this instrument (Baker & Siryk, 1989), was high enough to indicate that the
subscales were indeed measuring a common construct, but moderate enough to support
the conceptualization of that construct as having different facets as represented by the
subscales. It is also important to remember that the subscale of institutional attachment
contains one item from the academic subscale, and eight items form the social adjustment
subscale, thus inflating these intercorrelations somewhat.

The variables of gender, social adjustment, and institutional attachment all revealed
significant intercorrelations. Modest intercorrelations were found between gender and
both the social adjustment (1 = -.18, p < .05), and the institutional attachment subscales (;
= -. 14, p < .05). The directionality of these correlations indicated that women evidenced

somewhat higher scores on these SACQ subscales.

-57-

 

Table 5

I_a_tercorrelations of Key Demographic Variables and Measures

 

Variable / Measure 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender -.00 .31“ .41" -.09 -.18* -.06 -.14*
2. Ethnstat -.01 .11 -.04 -.06 -.04 -.11
3. Varsathl .77" .09 .05 -.01 .14*
4. Aimscore -.09 .04 - .19" -.00
5. Acadadj .43" .58" .54“
6. Socadj .49” .80"
7. Peadj .58"
8. Attach

 

Nag; N = 207; Gender: (0 = Female; 1 = Male); Ethnstat: (0 = minority; 1 == majority);
Varsathl = varsity athlete: (0 = no; 1 = yes); Aimscore = Athletic Identity; Acadadj =
Academic adjustment; Socadj = Social adjustment; Peadj = Personal-emotional
adjustment; Attach = Institutional attachment.

*p < .05.

**p< .01.

-58-

The institutional attachment subscale was also significantly correlated with the
varsity athlete subscale (r = .14, p < .05) indicating that relative to non-athletes, student
athletes reported stronger bonds with their home universities. In addition, gender was
significantly correlated with athlete status (r = .31, p < .01) and scores on the AIMS (r =
.41, p < .01). The directions of these correlations indicated that relative to males, female
students were less represented in the athlete sample and reported lower scores on the
AIMS.

A significant intercorrelation involving athlete status was also observed. Athlete
status correlated with AIMS scores (r = .77, p < .01), indicating that athletes exhibited
higher scores on the AIMS than non-athletes. Scores on the AIMS also correlated with
scores on the personal-emotional adjustment subscale of the SACQ (r = -.19, p < .01),
indicating that students reporting higher scores on the AIMS, reported lower scores on the
personal-emotional subscale.

The an_p° act of eth_nic status, gender, and athletic participation on collegaadjustment: Total
s_a_mnh_=

The present study hypothesized that the variables of ethnic status, gender, and
athletic participation all contributed to students’ college adjustment. As the initial step in
testing these hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) utilizing the four
SACQ subscales as dependent variables, and utilizing ethnic status, gender, and athletic
participation as predictor variables, was conducted.

This section will begin with a review of the significant main and interaction effects.
Findings specific to the hypotheses of the current study will then be presented, followed by

a review of other unexpected findings.

-59-

Main and interaction effects. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations
of scores on the four SACQ subscales, according to the athletic, gender, and ethnic status
of the participants. The 2 X 2 X 2 MANOVA revealed several significant multivariate
effects. Significant effects were revealed for athletes status, Wilks’ _E (4, 196) = 3.86, p <
.01, gender, Wilks’ F (4,196) = 3.21, p < .01, and the interaction of ethnic status and
gender, Wilks’ F (4,196) = 2.66, p < .03. These results lend partial support to several of
the hypotheses of the current study.

Hypotheses results. Hypothesis 1, which stated that ethnic status should
significantly predict college adjustment for the total sample, was not supported. No
significant multivariate main efiects were revealed for ethnic status.

Hypothesis 2 stated that athletic participation (athlete status) should significantly
predict college adjustment, with (a) non-athletes reporting higher scores than athletes on
the academic, social, and personal-emotional subscales of the SACQ, and (b) athletes
reporting higher scores than non-athletes on the institutional-attachment subscale of the
SACQ.

As stated earlier, a significant 1min effect for athlete status was observed.
However, Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Univariate AN OVAs revealed that the main
effect for athlete status was limited to scores on the academic adjustment, E (1 , 199) =
4.03, p < .05 and institutional attachment subscales, E (1, 199) = 8.95, p < 01.

Mean comparisons revealed that athletes scored higher than non-athletes on both
the academic and institutional attachment subscales. Conversely, Hypothesis 2b, which
predicted higher institutional-attachment scores among student athletes than non-athletes,

was supported.

-60-

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Four SACQ Subscales Across

Gender, Ethnic Status, and Athlete Status

 

 

 

 

Group n Acadadj Socadj Peadj Attach
Athletes (n = 101)
Majority 52
Male M 32 141.53 124.88 83.25 101.34
S_D -- 22.21 28.01 23.23 18.04
Female M 20 137.25 138.70 83.80 110.35
_S_D -- 28.43 20.77 21.63 15.26
Minority 49
Male M 31 140.58 131.16 82.61 107.13
S_D -- 24.38 18.17 24.30 16.45
Female M 18 153.28 136.89 88.61 109.27
S_D_ -- 23.89 24.45 25.05 17.16
Group n Acadadj Socadj Peadj Attach
Non-athletes (n = 106)
Majority 56
Male M 18 139.94 125.00 86.44 97.00
S_D -- 26.05 21.34 15.37 17.21
Female M 38 138.11 130.08 81.97 99.82
SD -- 23.85 26.16 21.72 22.26
Minority 50
Male M 16 120.56 119.56 77.63 90.75
S_D -- 17.60 22.10 20.30 17.26
Female M 34 145.47 136.06 89.26 109.44
SQ -- 25.76 18.26 21.28 14.83

 

Note. Acadj = Academic adjustment; Socadj = Social adjustment; Peadj = Personal-

emotional adjustment; Attach = Institutional attachment.

-61-

Hypothesis 3, which stated that athlete status should significantly interact with
ethnic status to predict college adjustment scores, was not supported. No significant
multivariate interaction of ethnic status and athlete status on the set of SACQ measures
was observed.

Other main and interaction effects. Several other significant findings emerged. As
stated earlier, significant main effects for gender, and for the interaction of ethnic status
and gender were observed. For the main effect of gender, univariate AN OVAs revealed
that the effect was limited to student scores on measures of academic adjustment, E (l ,
199) = 4.91, p < .01, social adjustment, E (1, 199) = 9.44, p < .01, and institutional
attachment, E (l, 199) = 9.87, p < .01. Mean comparisons revealed that female students
scored higher than males across all three SACQ subscales. For the interaction effect
between ethnic status and gender, univariate AN OVAs revealed that the effect was limited
to the academic adjustment subscale of the SACQ, E (1, 199) = 9.46, p < .01. Mean
comparisons revealed that minority females reported higher academic adjustment scores
than their peers. No other significant effects were found.

Lh_e_ir_apact of Mstatungenider, a_r;d_athletic identity: Athlete sangfla

It was hypothesized that the variables of ethnic status, gender, and athletic identity
would each contribute to the college adjustment of student athletes. Due to the
continuous nature of the AIMS scores, four separate multiple regressions were conducted,
each utilizing one of thefour SACQ subscales as the dependent variable. Ethnic status,
gender, AIMS scores (centered), and the interaction of AIMS scores and ethnic status
were employed as predictor variables. All predictors were entered simultaneously in the

regression model.

-62-

Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations of scores on the AIMS
according to the athletic, gender, and ethnic status of the participants. This section will
begin with a review of the interaction and moderator effects, followed by findings specific

to Hypothesis 4 of the current study.

 

Table 7
Means and Standard Deyiations of Scores on the AIMS Across Gender. Eth_nic Status,

and Athlete Status

 

 

 

Group 11 Athletes n Non-athl.
Majority
Male M 32 52.34 18 28.78
SD -- 8.17 -- 13.70
Female M 20 49.70 38 23.21
S_D -- 9.26 -- 10.08
Minority
Male M 31 49.68 16 27.19
SD -- 9.53 -- 12.00
Female M 18 40.83 34 19.26
S_D_ -- 8.71 -- 9.78
Note. N = 207.

 

Interaction and moderator effects. Table 8 summarizes the results of this multiple
regression. Overall, the model accounted for 11% of the variance in academic adjustment
scores, total 1:2 = .11, p < .03. In addition, a significant beta was observed for the
interaction of ethnic status and AIMS scores ([5 = -.29, p < .03). Subsequent correlational

analyses, utilizing majority student athlete SACQ scores, revealed that scores on the

-63-

AIMS were significantly, and inversely, related to scores on the academic adjustment
subscale of the SACQ, ; (52) = .41, p < 01. Similar analyses utilizing minority student
athletes’ SACQ scores revealed non-significant intercorrelations, indicating that the
inverse nature of the athletic identity-academic adjustment relationship was specific to

majority student athletes in the current study.

 

Table 8

Summary of Simultaneous Multiple Reggession A_nab[sis for Variables Predmng

Academic Adjustment to Collage. (N = 101)

 

 

 

Variables B SE B 13
Ethnstat -3.07 4.95 -.06
Gender -1 .97 5.15 -.04

AIMS scores -3.22 .36 -.01

Ethn x AIMS -1.15 .52 -.29*

 

Note. 32:.11.

*p < .03.

 

The negative beta associated with the interaction term indicates that, for majority
student athletes, lower athletic identity scores predicted higher academic adjustment
scores. The remaining regressions of SACQ subscale scores (i.e., social, personal-
emotional, institutional attachment) did not account for significant variance in these

adjustment indexes. As stated earlier, findings indicated a significant interaction between

the variables of ethnic status and AIMS scores. The significant interaction result indicates
the presence of a moderator relationship (Baron & Kenny, 1986), and therefore lends
partial support to the hypothesis that athletic identity would moderate the relationship
between ethnic status and college (academic) adjustment within the athlete group.

However, the direction and nature of the relationship did not support the theorized
role of athletic identity as a bufl‘er of ethnic status on college adjustment for minority
student athletes. Although higher levels of athletic identity among majority student athletes
were associated (as expected) with lower levels of academic adjustment, there was no
corresponding indication that higher levels of athletic identity among minority student
athletes were associated with higher levels of academic adjustment. Figure 1 illustrates
the moderator relationship between ethnic status and athletic identity on academic
adjustment.

Hypothesis 4 stated that ethnic status should significantly interact with athletic
identity to predict each of the four indexes of college adjustment. More specifically, (a)
majority student athletes reporting higher athletic identity scores should report lower
adjustment scores across each of the four SACQ subscales, and (b) minority student
athletes reporting higher athletic identity scores should report higher adjustment scores
across each of the four SACQ subscales.

Hypotheses 4 and 4a were partially supported due to the presence of a significant
interaction between ethnic status and athletic identity on the academic adjustment subscale
of the SACQ. Hypothesis 4b was not supported, indicating that there was no relationship

between athletic identity and college adjustment for minority student athletes. Finally, as

-65-

stated earlier, the academic adjustment slopes for the minority and majority student
athletes groups intersected (Figure 1), although not as predicted.

Together, these results indicate that the interaction of ethnic status and athletic
identity was a significant, albeit modest, predictor of academic adjustment. In addition,

ethnic status was a significant, albeit inverse, moderator of academic adjustment for

 

 

 

majority student athletes.
200 u

3 ° 0
8 l 80 ' °
0 n a a u D
2 160' u o D on D a Us a a
a k on 11
a 140. n 0 ° a“ a
O a a
E . °
2 120 ' D U u on
3 U a :3 Ethnic
.2 100. ° Status
E ,
.8 .
8 801 Maj
4:

6O _ ° _ _ ° Min

 

 

 

20 30 do 50 60 7o
Athletic Identity (AIMS scores)
Ligaral. Interaction efiects of athletic identity and ethnic status on academic adjustment.
_S_uLmary. In sum, 3 number of significant findings were observed, lending
support to several hypotheses of the current study. Hypotheses 1 and 3 were not
supported. Hypothesis 2, which stated that athletic participation should predict college
adjustment, was partially supported for scores on the academic adjustment and

institutional attachment subscales. Hypothesis 4, which stated that athletic identity should

-66-

significantly interact with ethnic status to predict college adjustment, was partially
supported for majority student athlete scores on the academic adjustment subscale. In
addition, athletic identity was partially supported as a moderator of ethnic status on
college adjustment for student athletes, albeit in a direction opposite than predicted.
Finally, although not hypothesized, significant main efl'ects for gender, and for the
interaction of gender and ethnic status on college adjustment were observed.

Post hoc analyses

In addition to the analyses presented above, some post hoc analyses were
employed to explore unexpected or non-hypothesized results. First, the possible
contributions of other background demographic variables (e.g., year in college,
scholarship status, parental education, etc.) to college adjustment were tested. Similar
variables have demonstrated their utility as potential contributors to college adjustment in
the literature (Baker & Siryk, 1989; Zea et al., 1995). Second, the potential for
curvilinearity between the variables of athletic identity and of college adjustment was
tested.

Demographic factors contributmg' to college adjustment. Post hoc analyses were
utilized to explore other potential contributors to college adjustment. Other background
demographic variables, not included in the multivariate analyses presented earlier, were the
focus of this analysis. These variables were chosen for the current study because of the
potential influence they may have on college adjustment for student athletes.

Due to the high likelihood of correlation among these variables, four separate
regression analyses were conducted to explore the potential contributions of each

predictor on each outcome. Each subscale of the SACQ was employed as an outcome

-67-

variable. A “forward entry” regression procedure was utilized. The first variable entered
at Step 1 had the highest simple correlation with the outcome. At each subsequent step,
the remaining variable was entered with the next highest correlation with each index of
college adjustment (SPSS Base 9.0, 1999). Predictors included: participation in a
recreational sport (Recsport); participation in a high school sport (Hssport); participant
year in college (Year), parental education (Pared), scholarship status (Schlrshp); and
university afliliation (Univ). Dummy variables were used for all predictors in the model.

Results revealed several significant findings. However, none of the three
regression models accounted for more than 2.5 % of the variance, total 328 = .022 - .024,
indicating that all three were modest predictors. The variable of participation in a
recreational sport (Recsport) significantly predicted social adjustment, [5 = .15, p < .04,
and institutional attachment, [3 = .16, p < .03. The variable of university affiliation (Univ)
significantly predicted academic adjustment, [3 = .15, p < .04. No other significant results
were revealed.

Together, these findings indicated that students involved in recreational sports
reported higher levels of social adjustment and institutional attachment than those who
were not. Furthermore, students attending certain universities in the current study
reported higher levels of academic adjustment.

Curvilinearity between athletic ide college adjustmeat. The rationale for a
curvilinear relationship between athletic identity and college adjustment was based on the
perceived social and emotional benefits of athletic identity. In theory, little or no athletic
identity may leave student athletes feeling socially isolated and withdrawn, while an over-

abundance of athletic identity may result in an over commitment to the athlete role relative

-68-

to the student role. Both scenarios were hypothesized to contribute negatively to college
adjustment in the current study. Moderate levels of athletic identity however, may
contnbute positively to college adjustment because they would allow student athletes to
more fully experience the social and emotional benefits of athletic participation (Danish et
al., 1993; Parharn, 1993; Sellars & Damas, 1996; Taylor, 1995), while avoiding the pitfalls
of over- or under-identification with the athlete role.

The presence of a curvilinear relationship between athletic identity and college
adjustment would suggest the existence of an “optimal zone” between the two variables.
More specifically, extremely low and extremely high athletic identity scores would result
in lower college adjustment scores, while more moderate scores on athletic identity would
result in higher college adjustment scores. A graphic representation of such a relationship
would resemble an inverted U, and in turn would create an optimal zone in which athletic
identity and college adjustment were optimally correlated.

To test for curvilinearity, a separate post hoc analysis utilizing a quadratic
regression equation was conducted. Athletic identity (utilizing centered AIMS scores)
served as the predictor variable while the total college adjustment subscale of the SACQ
was employed as the outcome variable. As part of the analysis, quadratic (curvilinear) and
linear regression equations were compared. Support for a curvilinear relationship would
be indicated if the quadratic regression equation accounted for a greater percentage of the
variance (R2) than the linear equation (Pedhazur, 1982).

Although the curvilinear regression analysis revealed significant results, the
quadratic regression equation, total B} = .06, p < .05 accounted for only slightly more of

the adjustment variance than the linear regression equation, total 32 = .057, p < .02. Due

-69-

to the negligible effect size, curvilinearity between athletic identity (AIMS scores) and

total college adjustment scores was not supported.

-70-

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

Drawing upon several literatures to form its theoretical foundation, the present
study explored whether ethnic status, athletic participation, and athletic identity
contributed to the college adjustment of student athletes and non-athletes. College
adjustment in student athletes, particularly with minority student athletes, has yet to be
adequately researched. The relatively meager literature that does exist tends to reveal
lower graduation rates, lower retention rates, and other “achievement deficits” associated
with this population. However, these studies typically limited their foci to student
athletes’ academic perforrmnce versus their non-athletic peers, rather than the
multidimensional concept of college adjustment.

Siegel (1996) reported that although minority athletes (specifically Black males)
did not graduate from Division I colleges at rates comparable to their majority
counterparts, Black athletes were graduating at rates higher than their non-athletic male
peers. In addition, NCAA (1999) student athlete graduation rate data revealed that Black
male student athletes, and Black and White female student athletes graduated fi'om
Division I universities at significantly higher rates than their non-athletic peer groups.
These findings suggested that athletic participation moderated racial / ethnic effects on
college adjustment. The current study theorized that athletic participation played a
positive role in the college adjustment of minority student athletes. This positive role was
a result of the social and developmental benefits of athletic participation and helped to
offset feelings of isolation and alienation typically reported by minority students on

predominantly White college campuses.

-7]-

Additionally, the present study hypothesized that the concept of athletic identity
would also influence college adjustment by moderating the efiects of ethnic status on
student athletes’ college adjustment. This hypothesis was based on the expectation that
more strongly athletically identified minority athletes would be less likely to feel isolated
on college campuses because of their focus on the athlete role, a role they were better
suited to. Athletic identity was defined as the degree to which an individual identifies with
the athlete role, and is a firnction of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social factors.
Although athletes generally report stronger levels of athletic identity than non-athletes,
research has shown some variation attributable to other individual difference variables,
such as gender, race, age, and personality (Brewer, 1999).

Results fiom the current study lend some support for the contention that athletic
participation and athletic identity did indeed influence college adjustment, albeit in an
unexpected direction. In addition, although ethnic status played a diminished role, gender
played a more prominent role in the college adjustment of students and student athletes.
Overview of find_i_ng§

The current study’s hypotheses focused primarily on the influences of ethnicity,
athletic participation, and athletic identity on college adjustment. Gender, while included
as an independent variable, was not a focus of the current hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Main effect of Mia] / ethnic status on college adjustment for the
total game. The first hypothesis, which stated that ethnic status should significantly
predict college adjustment for the total sample of college students, was not supported due
to the absence of main eflects for ethnic status on college adjustment. The rationale for

Hypothesis 1 was derived from the literature revealing lower graduation and retention

-72-

among minority students compared to their majority peers (Astin, 1982; Padilla et al.,
1997; Siegel, 1996; Zea et al., 1995). In addition, Young and Koplow (1997) revealed
significant differences between White and minority respondents in mean scores on the
academic and personal-emotional subscales of the SACQ.

However, the literature regarding race / ethnicity as a contributor to college
adjustment yielded inconsistent findings. Kaczrnarek et al. (1990) reported no significant
effects for gender or ethnicity on college adjustment using the SACQ with a diverse
sample of college students. Zea et al. (1995) also reported no significant differences in
adaptation to college between ethnic groups utilizing the SACQ (total subscale) with a
diverse group of college students. Together these findings indicate that the lack of
significant main effects for ethnicity, while unexpected in the current study, is not
uncommon in the literature.

The lack of main effects for ethnicity may also be attributable to limitations in the
sampling procedures and / or research design of the current study. For example, when
compared to a random sample of college students, minority students, student athletes, and
minority student athletes were over sampled in the current study in order to create a more
balanced total sample. In addition, the exclusive use of volunteer respondents may have
resulted in a selection bias affecting the composition of majority and minority samples.
Less adjusted minority respondents may have been less likely to participate in research
tlmn their rmjority counterparts due, in part, to feelings of isolation, alienation, and
mistrust typically reported on predominately White college campuses (Graham et al.,

1985; Melendez, 1991; Smedley et al., 1993; Stamps, 1987; Thompson et al., 1990). As a

-73-

result, the final sample of minority respondents may have presented as more highly
adjusted than the actual population of minority students.

The coding of all respondents into majority and minority categorizations may also
have introduced bias. Although the literature has reported differences in graduation and
retention rates of Black and White college students and student athletes (Astin, 1982;
Padilla et aL, 1997; Sedlacek, 1989), fewer studies included other minority groups.
However, within minority group differences have been reported. For example, Latinos
have been reported to graduate at rates as low as 20% (Solberg et al., 1994). By contrast,
Asian Americans have reported more academic success than Whites, Latinos, or Afi'ican
Americans (Zea et al., 1995). In the current study, due to limited numbers of Latino,
Asian, and other non-White respondents, all minority respondents were grouped together,
thus masking these potential differences.

The inability to statistically control for a priori demographic differences such as
SAT scores, family income, prior interracial experiences (Graham et al., 1985), and
generation in college, as well as other sport-related differences, such as revenue status
may have increased the error variance. For example, minority student athletes were more
heavily concentrated within the revenue producing sports in the current study, introducing
a potential source of bias. Future research should control for these and other potential
sources of error variance, as well as utilize captive samples of minority students. Such
refinements would more clearly assess the influence of ethnicity on college adjustment.

Hypothesis 2: Main effect of athletic paMtion on college adjustment for the
total gmple. The second hypothesis stated that athletic participation should significantly

predict college adjustment, with student non-athletes reporting higher scores on the

-74-

academic, social, and personal-emotional subscales of the SACQ than athletes (Hypothesis
2a), and with student athletes reporting higher scores on the institutional attachment
subscale than non-athletes (Hypothesis 2b). This hypothesis was partially supported.

A significant main effect was revealed for athletic participation, indicating that
athletic participation predicted college adjustment. Hypothesis 2a was not supported, as
non-athletes failed to report significantly higher academic, social, and personal-emotional
adjustment scores than student athletes. Interestingly, student athletes reported higher
academic adjustment subscale scores than their non-athletic peers. This result was not
hypothesized in the current study, and may seem perplexing given that student athletes
were reported to be lower in several academic achievement indexes than their non-athletic
counterparts in the literature (Adler & Adler, 1985; Ervin, 1985; Kiger & Lorentzen,
1988; Siegel, 1996).

One explanation may be that educatioml support programs typically provided for
student athletes at rmny universities have offset difl°erences in academic achievement in the
past several years. Siegel’s (1996) finding that Black student athletes graduated college at
higher rates than their non-athletic Black peers from elite Division I institutions was based
on NCAA data collected from freshmen beginning in the 1986-1987 academic year who
were graduating with in 6 years. In the 10 years since that group of student athletes
graduated (1991-1993), university athletic departments have realized the importance of
specialized student athlete support programming and staff, and have increased their
budgets (Anderson, 1998; Singer, 1998). The most recent NCAA graduation rate data
(NCAA, 1999) revealed slight improvements (1% to 6%) in overall graduation rates from

the 1993 data set depending on gender, sport, and ethnicity of the athletes. However, all

-75-

student athletes have shown improvement (9% to 12%) in graduation rates when
compared to their non-athletic peers. In addition, two universities participating in the
current study recently constructed multi-million dollar student athlete support centers to
address the continuing need for improved support services.

Hypothesis 2b, which predicted student athletes would report higher institutional
attachment scores than non-athletes, was supported, indicating that athletic participation
contributed positively to the quality of bonds established between students and their
institutions. Student athletes have traditionally reported greater feelings of inclusion,
satisfaction with college, personal identity and ego linkage to their schools, and increased
motivation to achieve a degree when compared to their non-athletic peers in the literature
(Danish et al., 1993; Parharn, 1993; Ryan, 1989; Taylor, 1995), all of which reflect greater
institutional attachment (Baker & Siryk, 1989).

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, athletic participation did not predict social
adjustment or personal-emotional adjustment to college in the current study. This result is
inconsistent with the literature which, while meager, does suggest that athletic
participation positively influences self-esteem, social involvement in college, development
of interpersonal and leadership skills, and satisfaction with college (Danish, Petitpas, &
Hale, 1993; Taylor, 1995). Perhaps the focus on varsity athletics, which typically requires
greater commitments of time and energy (Sirnons et al., 1999), precluded these student
athletes from experiencing the positive social and emotional benefits. In addition, the
social and emotional benefits may depend on whether it is in-season, pre-season, or off-

season for the athletes.

-76-

Hypothesis 3: Inte_ra_ction of eth_nic status and athletic participation in the total
N. The third hypothesis, which stated that athlete status should significantly interact
with ethnic status to predict college adjustment, was not supported. Moreover, the
absence of a significant interaction indicates tlmt athletic participation did not moderate
the effects of ethnicity on college adjustment as expected. This hypothesis was based on
literature reporting higher graduation rates among minority student athletes compared to
minority non-athletes at Division I colleges and universities (NCAA, 1999; Siegel, 1996).

Once again, this unexpected finding may be attributable to limitations in the
sampling procedures or research design of the current study. For example, the exclusive
use of freshman and sophomore respondents may have limited the potential to detect
moderation. Athletic participation may have a more powerful moderating influence on
more advanced students, who have already experienced some adjustment to college. This
may especially be the case for junior and senior minority student athletes, given the lower
retention and graduation rates of their younger peers when compared to majority students
(Padilla et al., 1997; Zea et al., 1995).

Moreover, the focus on varsity athletes in the current study may also have
hindered the role of athletic participation as a moderator of ethnic status to college
adjustment. Athletic participation at the varsity level may too demanding to buffer
minority student athletes from the adjustment stresses they experience on college
campuses. For these reasons, recreational sport participation, which requires less
commitment, may fimction as a stronger moderator. Future research may need to
corrrpare varsity athletes with club and intramural athletes along similar college adjustment

outcomes.

-77-

Hypothesis 4: Interaction of ethnic status and athletic identity in Lb; student
athlete flame. The fourth hypothesis focused on the student athlete sample exclusively.
It stated that ethnic status should significantly interact with athletic identity to predict
college adjustment, with majority student athletes reporting higher athletic identity scores
evidencing lower adjustment scores across each of the four SACQ subscales, and minority
student athletes reporting higher athletic identity scores demonstrating the opposite
pattern on each of the four SACQ subscales.

Findings revealed that athletic identity significantly interacted with ethnic status to
predict academic adjustment scores of majority student athletes, partially supporting
Hypothesis 4. This contribution was modest however, accounting for 11% of the total
variance in the model. The rennining regressions of SACQ subscale scores did not
account for significant variance. In addition, although the academic adjustment slopes
among minority and majority student athletes did intersect as predicted, the moderator
effect was limited to the majority student athlete sample. No corresponding increases in
academic adjustment scores were observed for the minority athlete sample, indicating that
majority athletes in the current study were more susceptible to the costs of a strong
athletic identity than were their minority peers.

Taken together, these findings did not support the notion of athletic identity as a
buffer of ethnic status in minority student athletes. However, higher levels of athletic
identity were associated with lower academic adjustment among majority student athletes.
This finding, while modest, is unique to the literature, and indicates that athletic identity
can be a double-edged sword for majority student athletes. Brewer (1999) stated that

there “may be both positive and negative consequences associated with a strong athletic

-78-

identity” (p. 12). In his review of the literature, Brewer discussed potential benefits, such
as: acceptance of the body, establishing social networks, and developing life management
skills. Potential costs of strong athletic identity seemed to be particularly problematic
when athletes encountered sport career transitions. Adjustment to injury, adjustment to
sport career terrrrination, and career development and maturity were identified areas of risk
for athletes in the literature.

Brewer’s (1999) findings that athletic identity was negatively correlated with
interest in academic achievement and positively correlated with identity foreclosure lends
support to this contention. In both instances athletic identity served as a hindrance to
developmental processes in student athletes. Career rmturity proved to be significantly,
and inversely, correlated with athletic identity in the literature (Murphy et al., 1993) as
welL Although other studies have reported contradictory findings (Brown et al., 1999;
Brown & Hartley, 1997), these two studies revealed inverse relationships between strong
athletic identity and other educational and developmental constructs, and were consistent
with the current findings.

Interestingly, these results reflected concerns expressed elsewhere in the literature
regarding Afiican American student athletes. Braddock’s (1980) Sport-as-Impediment
hypothesis specifically pointed to sport participation in Afi'ican American student athletes
as an impediment to future career attainment due to the tendency to be overly focused on
athletics as a path to upward mobility at the expense of other skills (Braddock, 1980;
Edwards, 1984; Sellars & Kuperminc, 1997). In the current study, higher levels of athletic
identity were associated with lower levels of academic adjustment only among the

majority student athletes in the sample.

-79-

In a related vein, Brewer (1999) reported that Caucasian student athletes scored
higher on the AIMS than did Afiican American student athletes. This finding was
replicated in the current study, as rrrajority student athletes reported significantly higher
mean AIMS scores than minority student athletes (majority M = 51.3; rrrinority M = 46.4).
According to Brewer, the reasons for these differences may be a function of identity
development. Athletic identity may be less salient than other identities (e.g., racial
identity) for African American student athletes, whereas sport may serve a more functional
purpose (e.g., as a vehicle for receiving a college education) for African American student
athletes than for Caucasian student athletes. Athletic identity my therefore serve different
purposes, or roles, for different racial and ethnic groups. Brewer went on to state that,
“athletic identity has been inversely related to measures of identity development and
psychosocial development for Caucasian athletes but not for Afiican American athletes”
(pp. 10-11).

The proposed differences in the influence of athletic identity across racial / ethnic
groups may explain the lack of a significant moderator effect between athletic identity and
ethnic status in the current study. As college student athletes adjust to college, differences
in athletic identity across racial / ethnic groups may have differing effects on the
adjustment process. For minority student athletes in the current study, athletic identity
may have played a secondary role in identity development, therefore limiting its influence.
For majority student athletes in the current study, athletic identity may have played a more
central role in identity development, thus enhancing its potential to adversely affect their

academic adjustment.

-30-

To better understand the scope of these findings, one must consider the
circumstances under which most student athletes enter college. High school sport has
become as competitive and pressure-packed as the college game in recent years, with
rewards offered, in terms of athletic scholarships, for the best and brightest. High school
students are increasingly encouraged by family, fi'iends, coaches, and even the media to
focus on their athletic pursuits, often at the expense of other academic, social, and
development pursuits (Sirnons et al., 1999). Often, student athletes become identity
foreclosed when the role of athlete becomes the preeminent and exclusive identity role
(Murphy et al., 1993). College student athletes who become identity foreclosed may find
the social, emotional, and academic demands of college life difficult to negotiate, and in
turn may struggle to meet these demands (Anderson, 1998). In addition, college student
athletes may encounter long-term developmental obstacles as their athletic abilities and
opportunities to compete decline. Developing a more balanced “student athlete identity”
stressing both academic and athletic pursuits may play a key role in the improvement of
the college adjustment experience for student athletes. In light of the current findings,
athletic identity should be considered a risk factor in college adjustment, with implications
for retention and graduation.

Invariably, ethnicity also plays a role in the adjustment to college of students and
student athletes (Ervin et al., 1985; Sedlacek, 1987; Smedley et al., 1993; Solberg et al.,
1994; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1988; Young & Koplow, 1997; Young & Sowa, 1992).
Although graduation rates for all student athletes improved slightly since 1992, they still
lagged behind those of the general non-athletic student body. This was especially the case

for majority males, who made up the largest percentage of the collegiate student athlete

-31-

sample in the United States (NCAA, 1999). Current findings suggest that majority
student athletes’ overidentification with the athlete role, as determined by high scores on
the AIMS, may lave hindered college adjustment and retention. Majority athletes seemed
especially vulnerable to this effect in the current study. Equally pertinent was the lack of
significant findings regarding the influence of athletic identity on college adjustment for
minority student athletes.

One explanation for these findings may involve differences in the roles of athletic
participation and college adjustment across racial / ethnic groups in different academic
environments. Minority students attending predominantly White colleges and universities
have reported feelings of isolation, mistrust, and decreased satisfaction consistently in the
literature for many years (Adler & Adler, 1985; Melendez, 1991; Parharn, 1993; Russell &
Petrie, 1993; Young & Sowa, 1992). In contrast, majority (White) students attending
predominately White colleges and universities will generally experience fewer social and
emotional obstacles to college adjustment than their minority counterparts. For majority
students, the college environment may seem less threatening, more welcoming, and in turn
more likely to promote college adjustment. Given the absence of minority-status stressors
as obstacles, majority students may be more vulnerable to other salient, though less
conspicuous, threats to college adjustment. Overidentification with the athlete role may,
therefore, play a more prominent role in impeding the college adjustment of majority
athletes.

For minority student athletes, whose obstacles to college adjustment typically
outnumber those of their majority counterparts, athletic identity may not play as prominent

a role when compared to the myriad of minority-status stressors normally encountered.

-32-

For these athletes, athletic identity may be a less significant factor given the other
obstacles in a culturally isolating environment that may be affecting their adjustment.

Further research utilizing Black student athletes at historically Black colleges and
universities would be helpfirl in examining whether similar ethnic group differences in
college adjustment are exhibited. Recruitment of student athletes at predomirmtely White,
and predominately non-White, universities is needed to better understand the influence of
ethnicity, athletic participation, context differences, and athletic identity on college
adjustment.

A second, more sociocultural explanation for this vulnerability among majority
student athletes may lie in the mythology around race and sport. The myth of the “Black
athlete” often views Black athletes as physically superior and intellectually inferior to their
White counterparts (Edwards, 1983). Although created by White Western society, this
racial myth may be hindering White athletes from achieving success on the playing field by
limiting opportunities for competition, and negatively affecting their confidence. White
athletes who find that they cannot be stars at the collegiate level may be left to struggle
with their identities as athletes, and as students. Without an identity outside of the athletic
realm, these athletes may face a difficult adjustment to college.

Black students may be hindered by the Black athlete myth as well. Black student
athletes, who are typically perceived as academically inferior, are often encouraged to
focus exclusively on their athletic roles by American society (Edwards, 1983; Melendez,
1991). The resulting neglect of the student role can result in reduced rates of retention
and graduation for Black students and student athletes. Clearly, the relationship of athletic

identity to college adjustment needs to be more rigorously researched.

-33-

Main and interaction effects of gender on college adjustme__at for th_e total gpple.
As stated earlier, results of the current study indicated that, relative to males, females
demonstrated higher scores on three of the four SACQ subscales. Moreover, higher
academic adjustment subscale scores reported by female students and student athletes are
unique to the current study and inconsistent with prior findings that did not observe
gender differences on this measure (Baker & Siryk, 1989). However, this result is
consistent with the academic performance literature that indicates women typically
outperform men in college and graduate school (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Rosser, 1989).

This finding may be the result of the inherent differences in opportunities afforded
men and women to compete beyond the collegiate level. Due to the ambition of many
male collegiate athletes to compete at the professional level, men may be more likely to
overidentify with the athlete role at the expense of the student role, thus hindering
acaderrric adjustment. Women’s opportunities to compete beyond the collegiate level,
while improving, are still vastly fewer in number. Therefore, a greater focus on
educational opportunities may result, leading to increased academic adjustment. Female
student athletes have demonstrated superior academic perfonnance when compared to
their male counterparts in the literature (Kiger & Lorentzen, 1988; Simons et al., 1999;
Smallan et al., 1991; Snyder, 1996), indicating differences in the roles of athletics and
acaderrrics for females compared to males.

The significant main effect for gender on institutional attachment scores
demonstrates tlmt female students and student athletes in this study exhibited higher
degrees of corrrrnitrrrent to educational-institutional goals and higher degrees of attachment

to their respective universities. In addition, significant gender differences on the social

-34-

adjustment subscale indicated that female students and student athletes in this study coped
better with the interpersonal-societal demands inherent in the college experience. These
findings were partially supported by the literature, in that gender differences in social
adjustment (favoring women) have been reported (Baker & Siryk, 1989).

In addition to the main effects, a significant interaction of ethnic status and gender
limited to SACQ academic adjustment scores was observed. Minority females reported
higher scores on the academic adjustment subscale of the SACQ than their majority peers.
This unique finding may be attributable to the environmental and / or social experiences of
the minority female subgroup within the current study. For example, all four of the
participant universities in the current study were affirmative action, equal opportunity
institutions with diverse student bodies, and were located near or within diverse
communities. Moreover, three of the four universities were located within major cities on
the East Coast. Due to the diversity within these university communities, feelings of
isolation and decreased satisfaction typically reported by minority students on
predominately White college campuses (Adler & Adler, 1985; Melendez, 1991; Parharn,
1993; Russell & Petrie, 1993; Young & Sowa, 1992) may have been less salient for the
current minority sample. This is especially so for the females, who have reported higher
social adjustment scores in the literature (Baker & Siryk, 1989). Minority females in the
current study may have benefited fi'om a reduction in isolation and dissatisfaction with
college attributable to their diverse campus communities. They may have felt safer, and
more open to asking for help or seeking services when overwhelmed. Male students, who
have reported lower social adjustment scores in the literature (Baker & Siryk, 1989) and

in the current study, may not have been open to reaping the same benefits.

-35-

The presence of uncontrolled variables, such as social support, may have further
facilitated the academic adjustment of minority females. Social support positively efl‘ects
college outcomes such as retention, quality of college life, and college adjustment (Zea et
al., 1995). Social support is especially important for minority students attending
predominantly White colleges and universities (Gloria, Robinson-Kurpius, Hamilton, &
Willson, 1999; Mallinckrodt, 1988; Solberg et al., 1994; Zea et al., 1995). Increased
social support among the minority female participants from family and friends, or through
involvement with social groups on campus such as sororities, support groups, or book
clubs, may have enhanced the academic adjustment of this group beyond that of their
majority counterparts and male peers.

Interpretations of this finding must be guarded given the design and sampling
limitations of the minority sample. For example, difl°erent racial / ethnic groups have
demonstrated different levels of academic success and rates of graduation in the literature
(Astin, 1982; Padilla et al., 1997; Zea et a1, 1993). As stated earlier, ethnicity was treated
as a two-level variable, coded as either majority (White) or minority (non-White) in the
current study. Afiican American, Asian, Latino, and other non-White participants were
coded as minorities regardless of ethnic group differences in academic performance,
retention, or graduation rates, thus introducing error into the design. Future research will
need to better control for within minority group variation by either sampling adequate
numbers of participants to employ separate ethnic samples, or by employing ethnicity as a
covariate in the research design.

Post hoc commisons. In addition to the main contrrbutors described in the

previous sections, post hoc analysis revealed several secondary contributors to college

-86-

adjustment in the current study. The variable of participation in a recreational sport was a
significant, albeit modest, predictor of scores on the social adjustment and institutional
attachment subscales of the SACQ. This finding, although unexpected, lends some
support to the tenets of the current study. Sport participation has been theorized to play
an important role in the development of children and adolescents (Smith & Smoll, 1998).
Furthermore, Parharn (1993) described the psychosocial benefits of athletic participation
as satisfying several basic human needs, including those having to do with success,
approval, validation fi'om others, recognition, and feeling a part of someone or something.
Although participation in a varsity sport my sometimes lead to overidentification with the
athlete role for many student athletes, recreational sport participation may maximize the
psychosocial benefits of sport, while avoiding the potential developmental pitfalls
associated with competition and varsity status. Therefore, club and intramural athletes
may have profited more from the psychosocial benefits of sport participation, since those
athletes were afforded the luxury of participation strictly for enjoyment, and not for
financial obligation or career ambition.

In addition, university affiliation was a modest predictor of scores on the academic
adjustment subscale, indicating that participants across the four participating universities
differed significantly in their reported levels of academic adjustment. This finding should
be expected, however, as no two universities offer the same educational experiences for
their students.

Mary. Although only two of the four hypotheses presented were partially
supported by the current findings, athletic participation significantly contributed to college

adjustment in student athletes. In addition, athletic identity significantly moderated the

-37-

relationship between ethnic status and academic adjustment of student athletes.
Significant main and univariate effects for gender, as well as other post hoc results,
indicated that the relationship between ethnic status, gender, athletic participation, and
college adjustment is complex, and has implications for future student athlete support
programming and research.

Given these findings, recommendations for student athlete support programming,
as well as implications for future research, are needed. Encouraging student athletes to
embrace the social and emotional challenges of college, while also helping them reach
appropriate developmental milestones needs to be a greater focus of university
administrators. In addition, increasing student athlete retention and graduation rates may
be a function of decreasing overidentification with the athlete role.

Lnaplrlrations for studengthlete support services

As freshmen enter a university setting, they are vulnerable to a myriad of
experiences and distractions that can ultimately affect their ability to succeed and thrive in
college. For student athletes, the adjustment process becomes nrore complicated as they
try to negotiate the demands of athletic participation, along with other more typical
developmental, emotional, and academic demands. Although findings of the current study
revealed that student athletes reported higher levels of academic adjustment and
institutional attachment than their non-athletic peers, vulnerable areas for student athletes
were also revealed. In particular, overidentification with the athlete role negatively
predicted academic adjustment within the majority student athlete group, indicating that
high athletic identity may counteract any positive influence that athletic participation has

on academic adjustment.

-88-

Moreover, overidentification with the athlete role, while adaptive during the
competitive years, can hinder student athletes fi'om reaching key social and developmental
milestones. Subsequently, many student athletes are ill equipped to handle the traumatic
psychological and emotional changes that occur when sport termination issues arise due to
graduation or injury (Petitpas, 1998). A more proactive approach to fostering college
adjustment and emotional development of student athletes is warranted. Helping student
athletes transition fi‘om identity foreclosing to more identity reintegrating behaviors is
needed to develop healthy, well adjusted young adults.

IdenItity reinteggation. According to Anderson (1998), “many student athletes
identify more with the ‘athlete’ part than with the ‘student’ part.” He goes on to say,
“overidentification with the role of athlete may predispose a student-athlete to difficulties
in several stages of a college career” (p. 319). Based on the results of the current study,
university administrators will need to consider student athletes’ overidentification with the
athlete role as a long—term retention issue. In addition, strategies for fostering “identity
reintegration,” or the reintegration of social, academic, vocational, and / or other non-
athletic roles and values in student athletes should be developed. Such strategies are best
employed at the student support services level where specialists trained in adolescent
development are commonly located.

As with many of the physical skills student athletes must learn to stay competitive
on the playing field, relevant mental and emotional skills needed to stay competitive off of
the playing field must also be promoted. Although most Division I athletic departments
offer support programs designed to improve academic skills; such as study skills, time

management, test taking, and paper writing (Pinkney, 1996), little emphasis has

-39-

historically been placed on helping student athletes develop non-academic skills that can
firrther their overall adjustment to college and foster a more balanced student athlete
identity. Recently, however, several authors have introduced comprehensive student
athlete support programs designed to address the special educatioml and developmental
needs of student athletes (Anderson, 1998; Denson, 1996; Fitch & Robinson, 1998).
These programs combined academic, social, and emotional components in order to
support the whole person, not simply the athletic part.

Fitch and Robinson (1998) addressed the special needs of male and female
basketball players by creating a counseling intervention program model combining
educational seminars, group and individual counseling, and program evaluation
components. The educational seminar component was focused on the development of life
skills and other topics relevant to student athletes. The counseling component was
focused on the development of socializing techniques, group cohesiveness, and on
fostering interpersonal learning. Other rrrore personal issues such as dating, retirement
from sports, and injury management were addressed in group, or individual, counseling.
Program evaluation options were also considered to establish accountability for the
program The benefits of this program were its reliance on current university
administration and stafl‘, and its relative simplicity. Drawbacks included its reliance on a
small group model, making larger teams more difficult to service.

Denson (1996) developed Student Services for Athletes (SSA) to provide a more
comprehensive support program with an emphasis on enhancing student athlete’s
academic, personal, and social development. The SSA program incorporated academic

mentoring, counseling, programs / workshops, consultation, research, and teaching

-90-

components. Each component contributed to the overall goal of providing
“comprehensive services consonant with a holistic view of the student athletes” (p. 263).
Accountability was established through the use of coach surveys, exit interviews, and
other forms of usage documentation. Strengths of the program included its holistic
approach to student athlete development, and the incorporation of coaches, teachers,
administrators, and counselors into a team mindset. Limitations of the program included
its heavy reliance on university wide cooperation, and its heavy drain on university
resources.

Although these two programs by no means represent the totality of student athlete
support service programs in existence, they offer several developmental components (e. g.,
educational seminars, group counseling) that speak to the identity development concerns
addressed in the current study. The following sections present recommendations for
support programming based on findings of the current study in conjunction with a more
holistic view of student athletes. In addition, implications for future research will be
addressed.

Recommendations for support services. Given the findings of the current study,
future support programs should aspire to help student athletes develop a more rounded
and reintegrated sense of self, one that is less focused on the athlete role and more focused
on positive college experiences and appropriate developmental milestones. The following
recommendations are intended to foster such developmental processes, while allowing
student athletes to continue to perform at, or near, their athletic peaks.

Freshman seminars. One strategy to combat overidentification with the athlete

role is to involve student athletes in a therapeutic self-exploration experience, in the form

-91-

of weekly freshman seminars for student athletes early in their college careers (Fitch &
Robinson, 1998). Utilizing a group therapy model, these seminars would be co-facilitated
by counselors knowledgeable in student athlete adjustment, in conjunction with former
collegiate athletes who have successfully negotiated the demands of college and have
moved on to successfirl non-sport careers.

The focus of the semirmrs would be twofold. First, they would give fi'eshman
athletes a safe and supportive place to voice their concerns about college life, athletic
participation, or any other personal or academic issues. They would also provide student
athletes with mentors who could help them develop a balanced student athlete identity,
while also supporting them through their college experiences. Second, the co-facilitators
would be helping athletes to work towards identity reintegration by utilizing group
dynamics to elicit change. Furthermore, the seminars would give the co-facilitators a
place to teach coping skills; to address pertinent campus issues, such as race, class,
gender, and sexuality; and to explore the wide array of opportunities for learning and
growth available on a college campus. The anticipated result of participation in such
seminars would be more rounded and socially confident student athletes, who feel
comfortable as members of the university community, and who are not fixated exclusively
on the athlete role.

Increased access to specialists. Along a similar line, providing increased access to
counselors and psychologists trained to work with student athletes can only help to firrther
promote identity reintegration. Although most universities provide counseling and

psychological services for students, few employ specialists trained to counsel student

-92-

athletes. This role is often left to coaches or athletic trainers, who may not have
appropriate training in psychology and human development.

Specialists should be housed within the university counseling center, separate from
the athletic department, to help foster a safe environment for athletes to seek help.
However, coaches and trainers should be encouraged develop good working relationships
with the specialists. Such relationships can ease the stigma of psychological services to
student athletes, and help to support the referral process.

Lgreased exposure to caanus life. Another area of concern for student athletes is
their isolation from the general student body at most universities. For example, student
athletes are typically housed in athletic residence halls, separate from their non-athletic
classmates. In addition, practice and study hall schedules limit free time, which could be
spent enjoying the opportunities for socializing afl°orded most college students. While
such living and scheduling constraints can be a positive influence in helping freshmen feel
supported and connected with their universities, they can also contribute to
overidentification with the athlete role and hinder college adjustment.

For these reasons it is recommended student athletes be given every opportunity to
experience co llege life, unencumbered by the burdens of athletic participation. This may
entail housing student athletes in regular dormitories or cutting back on fieshman practice
schedules. Only through increased and consistent exposure to the general student
population will student athletes be able to work towards identity reintegration, a more
balanced student athlete identity, and a less chaotic adjustment to college.

Athletic identig as a dgg' r_rostic tool. As noted earlier, results indicated that

athletic identity moderated the relationship of ethnic status and college adjustment. These

-93-

results were especially pertinent for majority student athletes for whom higher levels of
athletic identity were related to lower academic adjustment. In light of this finding,
athletic identity may be usefirl in assessing potential hindrances to college adjustment of
majority fi'eshman athletes, and maybe helpful in identifying athletes in need of support
services. The Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) (Brewer et al., 1993) can be a
useful diagnostic tool for this purpose. In conjunction with other diagnostic instruments,
the AIMS can help determine which individuals may be overidentified with the athlete
role, and are in need of further support and guidance. In addition, the AIMS can be
employed as an evaluation tool for programs designed to decrease overidentification with
the athlete role. Further psychometric research may be necessary, however, before
employing the AIMS as a personality research (Hale et al., 1998), or program evaluation
tool.
Future Research

No research study can fully address all facets of a given research topic, therefore
fixture research is the next logical step for broadening the knowledge base. Although the
current study has helped to answer some questions regarding the influences among the
variables in question, as is often the case, it has generated many more. The relationships
among ethnic status, gender, athletic participation, and college adjustment are complex
and require further exploration.

First, future research will need to incorporate larger and more balanced sample
sizes. Although the current study incorporated a balanced sample with regards to athletic
participation and racial / ethnic status, there was a gender imbalance across athlete and

ethnic status. Moreover, the current study operationalized ethnicity as membership into

-94-

either the majority (White), or minority (non-White) sample. Although this strategy was
necessary given the size of the current sample, future studies should endeavor to recruit
separate Afiican American, Latino, and Asian American samples.

Research studies would also benefit from obtaining and controlling ability indexes
such as high school GPA, and SAT scores. The employment of individual scores, instead
of the group mean scores employed in the current study, would allow for the statistical
control of these predictors of adjustment, thus resulting in a more powerfirl research
design.

Second, relationships among college adjustment, retention, and rates of graduation
need to be more thoroughly researched. Although college adjustment has proven its utility
as a viable outcome measure in educational research, it tells only part of a larger story.
For many university administrators, improved graduation and retention rates are
considered the “bottom line” for successful outcomes of the collegiate experience. Zea et
al. (1995) stated that successful adaptation to college was “defined as, remaining in
college, enjoying psychological well being, and performing well academically” (p. 511).
Of these factors, “remaining in college” seems to suggest a link between adaptation to
college (college adjustment) and retention.

In the present study, and elsewhere in the literature, it has been argued that
improved adjustment to college should enhance retention and graduation rates. To firlly
comprehend how social, emotional, and psychological factors influence these
relationships, researchers will need to more thoroughly explore the relationship between

indexes of college adjustment and retention.

-95-

Third, racial / ethnic differences in the salience of athletic identity as an obstacle to
college adjustment need to be more thoroughly researched. Although athletic identity
proved to be a significant moderator for majority student athletes in the current study, the
lack of significant results for minority student athletes suggests that different sociocultural
dynamics may be at work. Because this study drew its sample fi‘om predominately White
universities, no hypotheses could be generated regarding minority student athletes
attending predominately non-White, or historically Black, universities. A similar study,
drawing its sample from predominately non-White colleges and universities, could explore
whether differences in majority / minority status at different universities influence the
salience of athletic identity as a moderator of ethnic status.

Fourth, gender proved to be a significant contributor to college adjustment in both
athletes and non-athletes in the current study. Future research into gender difference is
needed to gain more insight into the complexity of college adjustment. In their review of
the literature involving the SACQ, Baker and Siryk (1989) reported gender differences in
several studies, but these differences were limited to the social adjustment and personal-
emotional adjustment subscales. In contrast, the current study revealed significant main
effects for gender (favoring women) on academic adjustment, social adjustment, and
institutional attachment scores that were particularly prominent among minority females.
More research is needed to better comprehend the role of gender in college adjustment.

Fifth, while athletic identity proved to be a moderator of the effects of ethnic status
on academic adjustment for majority student athletes, little is known about the long-term

effects of a strong athletic identity to adult development. Longitudinal research exploring

-96-

the stability of athletic identity across the life span may help to clarify its salience to
college athletes, and its utility as a developmental influence across the life-span.

Finally, the concept of student athlete identity development needs to be more
thoroughly researched. Introduced in the current study, this concept is based on a
theorized equilibrium between academic preparation and athletic identity development.
Theoretically, the development of an “unbahnced” student athlete identity may result in
poor adjustment to college, whereas a more balanced student athlete identity may foster
the college adjustment process. Given the findings of the current study, research
examining the theoretical underpinnings and psychometric characteristics of student
athlete identity development is warranted. In addition, the construction of a student
athlete identity development scale is needed to more clearly assess the theorized influence
of this concept to college adjustment, retention, rates of graduation, vocational
development, and adult development.

Limitations

No study can control for all potential sources of error. In the current study,
several potential confounding variables need to be considered when interpreting the
results. For example, due to access limitations placed on student records by the
participant universities, individual SAT scores and high school GPAs were not available
for either athlete or non-athlete groups. While institutional group—mean data allowed for
group matching on some variables, such as high school GPA, other potential sources of
error could not be controlled for statistically in the current design. Future studies would
benefit from the employment of individual SAT scores and high school GPAs as both

group matching criteria, and potential covariates, to increase power and minimize error

-97-

variance in their designs. Other possible confounding variables included environmental
factors such as geographic differences, individual variables such as intelligence or
personality, and developmental variables such as ethnic identity development and social
competence.

In addition, due to the correlational design, there was no random sampling or
assignment of participants to groups, therefore increasing the risks of selection bias and
other threats to internal validity. Moreover, the correlational design and single time point
assessment precluded any cause-effect linkages. Prospective, longitudinal designs are
needed to assess these relationships. However, because participants were recruited fi'om
multiple sites, generalizability of the findings to similar settings was enhanced. In addition,
generalizability of the findings to other populations of minority students at other
universities was also enhanced.

Admittedly, the variable nature of survey administration potentially introduced
unknown error into to the current design. For example, surveys were administered by a
variety of different people including professors, resident assistants, administrators, and the
principal investigator. The use of a $50 cash prize as a recruitment tool for non-athletic
participants may have also introduced bias into the design. Furthermore, the surveys were
administered in a variety of different settings including, classes, residence halls, study halls,
practices, and libraries. Finally, four different universities fiom the Midwest and East
Coast participated in the study. Each university differed in size, geographic locale,
reputation, campus life, diversity, and sport tradition; all of which potentially influenced
college adjustment of students and student athletes. For example, academic adjustment

was significantly, albeit modestly, correlated to university affiliation in the current study,

-93-

indicating that a priori differences existed among students across the participating
universities. Future research should endeavor to better standardize procedures, in order to
limit extraneous error sources.

Also to be considered was the exclusive use of self-report measures to collect data.
Although the SACQ has been extensively used in prior research, its use with student
athlete populations has been limited. In addition, the AIMS has limited reliability and
validity support, and has limited use with minority samples.

Despite these limitations, the results of this study suggest that ethnic status,
athletic participation, and athletic identity all contrrbute to college adjustment, albeit in
complex and unexpected ways, thus supporting the need further exploration and research.
Athletic policy and direct service recommendations intended to foster identity
development and emotional firlfillment in student athletes should ultimately rest on a firm
empirical foundation of research. Given the reality that collegiate sport has become big
business, often at the expense of student athletes, it is hoped that these results will inspire

further inquiry into the relationships highlighted in this study.

-99-

APPENDIX A

Who Wants to Win $50!!??

Students needed for a
doctoral research study on
college adjustment and sport participation

If you are:
0 a full-time freshman or sophomore and
0 not a varsity athlete

please contact Mickey Melendez, Ed.M. at

(617) 292-9274, ext. 3114
or
mickeymelendez@hotmail.com
Leave your name and phone # or e-mail address

All participants who complete the 20 minute
questionnaire will be entered in a drawing for a
$50 cash prize.

All inquiries and responses are strictly confidential.
This doctoral research is being conducted through
Michigan State University.

-100-

APPENDIX B

Informed Consent Form
Michigan State University

You are being asked to participate in a doctoral research study that will explore
how college students and student athletes adapt to college life.

As a participant in this study, you will be asked attend one testing session in which
you will complete three paper and pencil questionnaires. The questionnaires will be
focusing on aspects of your college adjustment and sport participation. The total time
needed to complete the three questionnaires will be about 25 minutes. All limits of
strictest confidentiality will apply to any subsequern use of the data collected. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participation in the study is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time
without ramification or prejudice. You may also request a summary of the final results
once the study is completed.

Your signature on this informed consent form indicates that you have read and
fully understand the details relevant to your participation in this study and have been given
the opportunity to discuss this project with the principal investigator. In addition, the
above procedures and guidelines have been explained to your satisfaction. Any firrther
questions regarding participation in this study may be directed to Frederick G. Lopez,
Ph.D., Michigan State University, at (517) 355-8502.

If you choose to participate in this study please sign and print your name below.

Participant Signature Participant Name (please print) Date

 

 

-101-

APPENDIX C

Informed Consent Form
Michigan State University

You are being asked to participate in a doctoral research study that will explore
how college students and student athletes adapt to college life.

As a participant in this study, you will be asked attend one group testing session in
which you will complete three paper and pencil questionnaires. The questionnaires will be
focusing on aspects of your college adjustment and sport participation. The total time
needed to complete the three questionnaires will be about 25 minutes. In addition to
completing the three questionnaires, you are being asked to allow your SAT scores, ACT
scores, high school GPA, high school chss rank, and family income to be included in the
study. This background information will be provided to the principal investigator without
any other identifying information (names, student ID numbers, etc.), thus maintaining
participant anonymity. All limits of strictest confidentiality will apply to any subsequent
use of the data collected. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law.

Participation in the study is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time
without ramification or prejudice. While you will not be paid for your participation, all
participants will be entered in a prize drawing. One winner will be chosen at random at
the conclusion of the data collection and will receive 50 dollars (US). The prize will be
sent via mail You may also request a summary of the final results once the study is
completed.

Your signature on this informed consent form indicates that you have read and
fully understand the details relevant to your participation in this study and have been given
the opportunity to discuss this project with the principal investigator. In addition, the
above procedures and guidelines have been explained to your satisfaction. Any firrther
questions regarding participation in this study may be directed to Frederick G. Lopez,
Ph.D., Michigan State University, at (517) 355-8502.

If you choose to participate in this study please sign and print your name below.

Participant Signature Participant Nanre (please print) Date

 

 

-102-

APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE

This brief questionnaire will collect background information important to the

 

purpose of this study.
1. What is your gender?
a. Male b. Female
2. What is your age?
3. What is your race/ethnicity? (circle one)

10.

a. White/Caucasian b. Black/Afi'ican-American
c. Hispanic/Latino (1. Asian e. other

 

What year are you in school? (circle one)
a. freshman b. sophomore c. junior d. senior

Did your parents graduate from college? (circle one)
a. both parents b. one parent c. neither parent

Do you currently play a recreational sport?
a. yes b. no

Did you play a sport in high school?
a. yes b. no

Are you currently a varsity athlete?
a. yes b. no

What varsity sport(s) do you currently play? (write in)

 

Are you currently receiving an athletic scholarship?
a. yes b. no

-103-

APPENDIX E

Athletic Idenyity Measurement Scale (AIMS)

Items

 

1.

8.

9.

I consider myselfan athlete.

I have many goals related to sport.

Most of my fi'iends are athletes.

Sport is the most important part of my life.

I spend more time thinking about sport than anything else.
I need to participate in sport to feel good about myself.
Other people see me mainly as an athlete.

I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sport.

Sport is the only important thing in my life.

10. I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sport.

Scale for items 1-10

 

strongly agree : : : : : : : : strongly disagree

-104-

APPENDIX F

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (sane)

RabanW.aairar.Ph.D.andBohdanSlryk.uA

 

 

 

 

 

 

we: Namr' Date:
“MW
”as”
I.“ ~ ”a
tam” saws
-— —* 10 Number. Sex: 0 F D M Date of Birth:
DlreCtlonS Current Academic Standing: 0 Freshman D Sophomore 0 Junior 13 Senior

Please provide the identifying information
requested on the right. 5C“"“ D I
The 67 items on the front and back of this
form are statements that describe college expe-

02 DSummer or Quarter: 01 02 03 DSummer

Ethnic Background (optional): 0 Asian 0 Black 0 Hispanic

 

 

 

 

denees. Read each one and decide how well it 0 Native American 0 White 0 Other
applies to you at the present time (within the

past few days). For each item. circle the asterisk fl

3: the point in the continuum that best repre- In the example on the right. item A Example

m how closely the statement applies to you. applied very closely. and item B m A ’
Circle only one asterisk for each item. To changed from “doesn‘t apply at all" to ' ' . . ‘ . . ° .
change an answer. draw an X through the ineor- “applies somewhat.“ " ‘ ‘ m ‘ ‘41

met response and circle the desired response. Be
sure to use a hard-tipped pen or pencil and press

Apples Very Dos-t Apply
Closely to Me to Me at All

veryfirmly.Donoterase. . I

————

i. I feel that I fit in well as part of the college environment ..................................
2- lhavebeenfeelingtenseornervousiateiy. .............. . ..........................
. l have been keeping up to date on my academic work. .................................
. I am meeting as many people, and making as many friends as I would like at colle -_ ........

U

 
 

.Lateiylhavebeenfeelingblueandmoodyalot. ........................... .
.Iarnveryinvolved with social aaivities in college. ................. Q ............

4

S

6. I am finding academic work at college difficult .......................

1

8

9. lamadjusting weiltoeoilege .......................... . ...........................

. Lonesomeness for home is a .. roe of difficulty for me now. ...............................
. Getting a college degree is very important to me. ..........................................
24. My appetite has been good lately. ......................................................
25. I havent been very efficient in the use of study time lately. .................................
26. I enjoy living in a college dormitory. (Please omit if you do not live in a dormitory.

any university housing should be regarded as a dormitory.) .................................
27. I enjoy writing papers for courses. ......................................................
28.1haveheenhavingaiotofheadacheslately. .............................................
29. I really haven't had much motivation for studying lately ....................................
30. I am satisfied with the extracurricular activities available at college. .........................
3i. i‘ve given a lot of thought lately to whether 1 should ask for help from the Psychological]

Counseling Services Center or from a psychotherapist outside of college. . . ...................
32. Lately 1 have been having doubts regarding the value of a college education. ..................
33. I am getting along very well with my roommate(s) at college.

(Please omit if you do not have a roommate.) ............................................

 

.iknowwhyl‘mincollegeandwhatlwantoutofit. ............................... .,

   
 
  
 
 
  
 
 

-

  
 

(“2:337 sit: a a 3, 5‘ 5‘ .

Jus- . '
v.1. .. or.

V.

‘V

xmr'i’rio o a o a a o o o a

i

 
  
 
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
  
 

. ' K
‘-
- "“5
a . ,
-. .. r

OOQDCOOOOOOQOOQOOQOOOO
O

I
o

.uamrt;

, r . a 1 j '
' D u . AM a ‘
- -v: ,KM‘RI'R

“'a’

I
‘. ,’. K".
r‘ 'VA‘N"

PLEASE TURN THE FORM OVER NOW AND COMPLETE ITEMS 34 THROUGH 61.

0 rswsywesrlan MCIIOIDOICAL saavrces
Mthhfiuhmmm—Ifluflm .
W-MA Ali‘s“ ”3456189 MhUJA

-105-

 

 

AppllssVsry DoesntApply
CIoaelytoMe toMeatAll

 

A
a

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

34. I wish I were at another college or university ............................................... jg:
35. I‘ve put on (or lost) too much weight recently ............................................. g‘
36. I am satisfied with the number and variety of courses available at college. ................ g
37. i feel that I have enough social skills to get along well in the colic; setting. ............ a
38. l have been getting angry too easily lately. ......................................... I"
39. Recently I have had trouble concentrating when I try to study ........................ q, ,.
40. I haven‘t been sleeping very well. ............................................... .3;

4|. I‘m not doing well enough academically for the amount of work I put i - a.)

42 1 am havrng difficulty feeling at ease with other people at college. .......... a:

43 I am satisfied wrth the quality or the cahber of courses availah ....... a}

44. i am attending classes regularly. ................................................ ‘3‘;

45. Sometimes my thinking gets muddled up too easily. ............................. .2 ~
46. I am satisfied with the extent to which I am part" , ‘ a ' ' {i

 
   

’.

. '<s.e.‘.=§. .9 .0. 5' .9 our; .79 5 o

’1 Hi .r‘

C0.0QOOOQQQOOOOOOCCOOQOODOOO.

' "5‘ .-
“3"“;
-a .k

a. J '1" Jun,

$4 .-

  
  

- er students at college in ways that I dont like. ................
57. On balance. I would rather - home than here. ............................................
58. Most of the things I am interested in are not related to any of my course work at college. ........
$9. Lately 1 have been giving a lot of thought to transferring to another college. ....... . ...........
60. Lately I have been giving a lot of thought to dropping out of college altogether and for good. . . . .
6i. 1 find myself giving considerable thought to taking time off from college and finishing later .......
62. 1 am very satisfied with the professors I have now in my courses ........ . . ....................
63. l have some good friends or acquaintances at college with whom I can talk about

any problemsl may have. ..............................................................
64. I am experiencing a lot of difficulty coping with the stresses imposed upon me in college. ........
65. I am quite satisfied with my social life at college ............................................
66. I‘m quite satisfied with my academic situation at collep .....................................
67. 1 feel confident that I will be able to deal in a satisfactory manner

with future challenges here at college. ....................................................

“.9“

rears-n)!

0‘

” "1'" ’fif‘f‘l’y“!

) a 'M
. a. ~‘r‘:~""
1 ~ , _

w .. L»,

 

-106-

 

REFERENCES

ACT (1999, April 1). Fewer college freshmen drop out, but degree rate also falls.
ACT Newsroom [On-line serial]. Internet: http://www.act.org/news/releases/.

Adan, A. M., & Felner, R. D. (1995). Ecological congruence and adaptation of
minority youth during the transition to college. Journal of Com_munity Psychology, 23,
256-269.

Adler, P. & Adler, P. A. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes
and role engulfinent. New York: Columbia University Press.

Adler, P. & Adler, P. A. (1985). From idealism to pragmatic attachment: The
academic performance of college athlete. Sociology of Education. 58. 241-250.

Anderson, D. F. (1996). Cultural diversity on campus: A look at intercollegiate
football coaches. In R E. Lapchick (Ed.), Sport in society: Equal opportunity or buysin_es_s_
W? (pp. 35-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson, M. B. (1998). Working with college student-athletes. In J. L. Van
Raalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring smrt and exercisepsychokgy (pp. 317-334).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American hi er education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What nutters in college? New York: Jossey-Bass.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college. Journal of

Counseling Psychology. 31. 179-189.

-107-

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). SACO student adaptation to college
questionaaire manu_al_. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. J_o__ur_n_a1
of Personality Ed Social chhology, 51, 1173-1182.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987) The career psychology of women. San
Diego: Academic Press Inc.

Boyer, S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1988). Noncognitive predictors of academic
success for international students: A longitudinal study. Joumal of College Studen_t
Development. 29. 218-223.

Braddock, J.H. (1980). Race, sports, and social mobility: A critical review.
Sociological Symmsiam, 30, 18-38.

Brewer, B. W. (1999). Athletic identity revisited: A five-yvear uflte, Unpublished
manuscript, Springfield College.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder D. E. (1993). Athletic identity:
Hercules’ muscle or Achilles’ heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology,_2§, 235-
254.

Brooks, J. H., & DuBois, D. L. (1995). Individual and environmental predictors
of adjustment during the first year of college. Journal of College StudeatDeveiqmi,
&, 347-360.

Brown, C., Glastetter-Fender, C., & Shelton, M. (1999). Psyhosocial identity and

career control in college student athletes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 56. 53-62.

-108-

Brown, C., & Hartley, D.L. (1997). Athletic identity and career maturity of male
college student athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychologyfi, 17-26.

Brustad, R. J., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1997). Applying social psychological
perspectives to the sport psychology consulting process. The Sport Psychologist, 11,
107-119.

Burke, K (1993). Negative stereotyping of student athletes. In W. D. Kirk & S.
V. Kirk (Eds.), Studen_tathletes: Shattering the myths and sh_arr_ng' the realities (pp. 93-
98). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Cornelius, A. (1995). The relationship between athletic identity, peer and faculty
socialization, and college student development. Jouraal of Collage Studen_t Developme_nt_,
36, 560-573.

Curry, L. A., Rehm, M., & Bemuth, C. (1997). Participation in NCAA Division I

athletics: Self-perception differences in athletes and non-athletes. College Studen_t

 

Journal 31 96-103.

 

Curry, T. J. & Weiss, O. (1989). Sport identity and motivation for sport
participation: A comparison between American college athletes and Austrian student sport
club members. Sociology of Sport JourynaLQ, 257-268.

Dahmus, S., Bernardin, H. J., & Bernardin, K. (1992). Student adaptation to
college questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseliagfld Developm_ent-25.
139-142.

Danish, S. J., Petitpas, A .J., & Hale, B. D. (1993). Life development intervention

for athletes: Life skills through sports. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 352-385.

-109-

Davis, E. R. (1988). The effects of the life development intervention model on
fi'eshman and transfer student athletes. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth
University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts Internatiopa_L, 50, 3149B.

Denson, EL. (1996). An integrative model of academic and personal support
services for student-athletes. In Etzel, E.F., Ferrante, A.P., & Pinkney, J.W. (Eds.),
Counseliag College Studeni Athletes: Issues and Interventions (pp. 247-279).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Edwards, H. (1983). The exploitation of Black athletes. AGB Reports. 28.
37-48.

Edwards, H. (1984). The Black “dumb jock”: An American sports tragedy. 11119
Coll_§ge Board Review. 131. 8-13.

Edwards, H. (1997, February). Race and sport in America. A live roundtable
discussion broadcast on the Entertainment and Sports Network (ESPN), Bristol, CT.

Engstrom, C. M., Sedlacek, W. E. (1991). A study of prejudice toward university
student-athletes. Journal of CounseLngaad Developme_n_t, 70. 189-193.

Engstronr, C. M., Sedlacek, W. E., & McEwen M. K. (1997). Faculty attitudes
toward male revenue and nonrevenue student athletes. Jourrialy of College Studeni
Developmenié6. 217-227.

Ervin, L., Saunders, S. A., Gillis, H. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1985). Academic
performance of student athletes in revenue-producing sports. Journal of College Studen_t

Personnel. 26. 199-124.

-110-

Fitch, T. J ., & Robinson, C. R (1998). Counseling and development interventions
with college athletes: A proposed model. Joumal of College Student Developmgri,3_9,
623-627

Fox, K. R. (1987). The Perceived Iniaortaryce Profilemanaal. De Kalb, IL:
Northern Illinois University, Office for Health Promotion.

Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). EmotionaL $0th and academic
adjustment of college students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseimg' and
Developmaat. 72, 281-287.

Gloria, A. M., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., Hamilton, K.D., Willson, M. S. (1999).
African American student’s persistence at a predominantly White university: Influences of
social support, university comfort, and self-beliefs. Journal of College Studeni
Development, 40, 257-268.

Good, A.J., Brewer, B.W., Petitpas, A.J., Van Raalte, J.L., & Mahar, M.T. (1993,
Spring). Identity foreclosure, athletic identity, and college sport participation. lha
Academic Athletic Journal, 1-12.

Graham, C., Baker, R. W., & Wapner, W. (1985). Prior interracial experience and
Black student transition into predominantly White colleges. Journal of Personalrlyaml
Social Psychology,fl, 1146-1 154.

Grier, W., & Cobbs, P. (1968). Black age. New York: Bantam Books

Hale, B. D., James, B., & Stambulova, N. (1998). Determining the dimensionality
of athletic identity: A herculean cross-cultural undertaking. International Journal of Sport

Psychology. 30. 83-100.

-111-

Hill, T. L. (1993). Sports psychology and the collegiate athlete: One size does not
fit all. The Counselirig Psychologist, 21, 436-440.

Holrnbeck, G. H. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity
in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples fi'om the child-clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consultingaral Clinical Psycholagy,_6_5_, 599-610.

Kaczmarek, P. G., Matlock, C. G., & Franco, J. N. (1990). Assessment of college
adjustment in three freshman groups. Pachological Reports, 66, 1195-1202.

Kiger, G., & Lorentzen, D. (1988). The effects of athletic participation on
university academic performance: A comparison of athletes and the general student
population. College Studen_t Journal, 22, 287-293.

Lang, G., Dunham, R, & Alpert, G. (1988). Factors related to academic success
and failure of college football players: The case of mental dropouts. Youth & Society. 20.
209-222.

Lapchick, R E. (1996). Race and college sports: A long way to go. In R E.
Lapchick (Ed.), Sport in society: Equal opportunity or business as usual? (pp. 5-18).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lent, R W. (1993). Sports psychology and counseling psychology: Players in the
same ballpark? The Counseiiag Psychologist, 21, 430-435.

Levin, J. R, & Levin, M. E. (1993). Methodological problems in research on
academic retention programs for at-risk minority college students. Joumal of Collaga
Studeni Developmarit. 34. 118-124.

Lewis, M. (1993). Athletes in college: Differing roles and conflicting expectations.

College Student Journal. 27, 195-202.

-112-

Lunneborg, C. E., & Lunneborg, P.W. (1986). Beyond prediction: The challenge
of minority achievement in higher education. Journal of Multicultural Comlingaael
Developmen_t,14. 77-84.

Mallinckrodt, B. (1988). Student retention, social support, and dropout intention:
Comparison of Black and White students. Journal of College Studerit Development. 29,
60-64.

Martin, J.J., Eklund, RC., & Mushett, CA. (1997). Factor structure of the athletic
identity measurement scale with athletes with disabilities. flapted Physicg Activity
May, 14, 74-82.

McCartney, M. S. (1992). A survey comparing adjustment to college—for in-state
athletes and out-of-state athletes. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of North
Carolina, Clmpel Hill.

Melendez, M. C. (1991). [he social experiences of Afiican American footbal_l
players on an Eastern university owns: A qualitative approach. Unpublished
manuscript, Boston University.

Morrissey, M. (1995, September). When the cheering stops: Counselors finding a
niche in the psychosocial development of athletes. Counseliag Today, 1-16.

Murphy, G.M., Petitpas, A.J., & Brewer, B.W. (1993). Identity foreclosure,
athletic identity, and career maturity in intercollegiate athletics. fie Sport Psychologiat,
i0, 239-246.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (1999). 1999 NCAA graduation rate

m. [On-line]. Internet: http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/.

-ll3-

National Collegiate Athletic Association (2000). El_rg' ibm' ' criteria. [On-line].
lntemet: http://www.ncaa.org.

Nixon, H. L. (1992). A social network analysis of influences on athletes to play
with pain and injuries. Journal of Sport a_n_d Social Issues. 16, 127-135.

Padilla, RV., Trevino, J., Gonzalez, K., & Trevino, J. (1997). Developing local
models of minority student success in college. Journal of College Studen_t Developmara,
fl, 125-133.

Parharn, W. D. (1993). The intercollegiate athlete: A 1990’s profile. m
Counselirg Psychologist. 21, 411-429.

Parharn, W. D. (1996). Diversity within intercollegiate athletics: Current profile
and welcomed opportunities. In E. F. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. W. Pirrkney (Eds.),
Counseling college studerflthletes: Issues and interventions (2nd ed.) (p. 27-53).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Pascarella, E. T., & Smart, J.C. (1991). Impact of intercollegiate athletic
participation for Afi’ican American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence. Journal of
Collge Student Development. 32. 123-130

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regiession in behavioral research: Explan_a_ti_op
and prediction. New York, NY: CBS College Publishing.

Petitpas, A. J. (1998). Counseling interventions in applied sport psychology. In
J.L. Van Raalte & B.W. Brewer (Eds.), Eaploring spprt and exercise psychology, (pp.

189-204). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

-114-

Petrie, T. A., & Russell, R K (1995). Academic and psychosocial antecedents of
academic performance for minority and nonminority college football players. Journal of
Counseling anadDevelopmenj, 73. 615-620.

Petrie, T. A., & Stoever, S. (1997). Academic and nonacaderrric predictors of
female student-athletes’ academic performances. Journal of Coliege Studeni
Development. 38. 599-610.

Pinkerton, RS., Hinz, L.D., & Barrow, J.C. (1989). The college student athlete:
Psychological considerations and interventions. JoumaMrf American Collage Health. 37,
218-226.

Pinkney, J. W. (1996). Coaching student-athletes toward academic success. In
Etzel, E.F., Ferrante, AR, & Pinkney, J.W. (Eds.), Counselr_ng° College Studeat Athletes:
Issues and Interventions (pp. 309-331). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Inforrmtion
Technologies, Inc.

Ratta, M. D. (1994). Participation in college athletics and its effects on adjustment
to college. Unpublished manuscript, Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland.

Rosser, P. (1989). The SAT gender gap. Washington, DC: Center for Women’s
Policy Studies.

Russell, R K., & Petrie T. A. (1993). Academic adjustment of college students:
assessment and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of
Counseliag Psychology (pp. 485-511). New York: Wiley and Sons.

Ryan, F. J. (1989). Participation in intercollegiate athletics: Affective outcomes.

Jourrial of College Studen_t Development. 30. 122-128.

-115-

Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Blacks in White colleges and universities: Twenty years
of research. Journal of Collage Studen_t Personael. 28, 484-495.

Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Noncognitive indicators of student success. The Journal
of College Admissions, 125, 2-10.

Sedlacek, W. E., & Adams-Gaston, J. (1992). Predicting the academic success of
student-athletes using SAT and noncognitive variables. Journal of Counselipgaad
Developmant. 70. 724-727.

Sellars, R (1992). Racial differences in the predictors for academic achievement
of student-athletes in Division I revenue sports. Sociology of Sport Journgfl, 48-59.

Sellars, R, & Damas, A. (1996). The Afi'ican American student athlete experience.
In Etzel, E. F ., Ferrante, A. P., & Pinkney, J. W. (Eds.), Counseling college studeni;
athletes: Issues and interventiona. (2nd ed.) (pp. 1146-1154). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.

Sellars, R M., & Kuperrninc, G. P. (1997). Goal discrepancy in Afi'ican American
male student-athletes’ unrealistic expectations for career in professional sports. Journal of
Black Psychology, 23, 6-23.

Siegel, D. (1996). Higher education and the plight of the Black male athlete. In
RE. Lapchick (Ed.), Sport in society: Equal opportunity or business as usual? (pp. 19-
34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simons, H.D., Van Rheenen, D., & Covington, M. V. (1999). Academic
motivation and the student athlete. Jourra of College Studerit Developme_nt,_4_Q, 151-

161.

-ll6-

Singer, R. N. (1998). Future of sport and exercise psychology. In J. L. Van
Raalte & B.W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring gran and exercise pmychaipgy (pp. 451-468).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Smallman, E., Sowa, C. J., & Young, B. D. (1991). Ethnic and gender differences
in student-athletes’ responses to stressful life events. Joumal of Collage Student
Development. 32. 230-235.

Smedley, B. D., Meyers, H. F ., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority-status stresses

and the college adjustment of ethnic minority fi'eshman Journal of Igher Eduaation. 64,

 

434-453.

Smith, R E., & Snroll, F. L. (1998). Psychosocial interventions in youth sport. In
J.L. Van Raalte & B.W. Brewer (Eds.), Eaplor_r_ng° spart and exercise psycho—logy, (pp.
287-315). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Snyder, P. L. (1996). Comparative levels of expressed academic motivation

among Anglo and Afi'ican American university student athletes. Joumfi of Black Studies

 

26, 651-667.

Solberg, V. S., Valdez, J., & Villareal, P. (1994). Social support, stress, and
Hispanic college adjustment: Test of a diathesis-stress model. Hispanic Journal of
Briavioral Sciences. 16. 230-239.

Sowa, C. J ., & Gressard, C. H. (1983). Athletic participation: Its relationship to
student development. Journal of College Studenj PersonneL 24. 236-239.

SPSS Base 9.0 [Computer software applications guide]. (1999). Chicago, Illinois:

SPSS Inc.

-117-

Spigner, C. (1993). African American student athletes: Academic support or
institutionalized racism? Education, 114, 144-151.

Stamps, D. B. (1987). Coping ability as a predictor of academic achievement
among selected Black college students: A case study. In G.E. Thomas (Ed.), Blaelg
student retention in higher education. (pp. 83-92). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Taylor, D. L. (1995). A comparison of college athletic participants and non-
participants on self-esteem. Joumal of College Studen_t Developmenta35, 444-451.

Ting, S. R (1997). Estimating academic success in the lst year of college for
specially admitted White students: A model combining cognitive and psychosocial
predictors. Journal of CollagStudepta Development, 38, 401-409.

Thompson, C. E., Neville, H., Weathers, P. L., Poston, W. C., & Atkinson, D. R.
(1990). Cultural mistrust and racism reaction among African American students. iaaraai
of Colleg Studena Devekgrmyaritaii, 162-168.

Tracey, T. J ., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting
academic success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidaace. 16. 171-178.

Tracey, T. J ., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Prediction of college graduation using
noncognitive variables by race. Measuremaataad Evaluation in Counseling and
Development. 19. 177-184.

Tracey, T. J ., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1988). A comparison of White and Black

student academic success using noncognitive variables: A LISREL analysis. Research in

Higher Educatiop, 27, 333-348.

-118-

Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Factor structure of the noncognitive
questionnaire-revised across samples of White and Black college students. Educational
and Psychological Measurement. 49. 637-647.

Winston, R. B., Miller, T. K, & Prince, J. S. (1987). Studerii Development Task
and Lifestyle Inventory. Athens, GA: Student Developmental Associates.

Young, J. W., & Koplow, S. L. (1997). The validity of two questionnaires for
predicting minority students’ college grades. The Journal of General Education. 46. 45-
55.

Young, B. D., & Sowa, C. J. (1992). Predictors of academic success for Black
student athletes. 10%] of College Student Development. 33. 318-324.

Zea, M. C., Jarama, S. L., & Bianchi, F. T. (1995). Social support and
psychosocial competence: Explaining the adaptation to college of ethnically diverse
students. American Journal of ComarrarrityPavchologylii, 509-531.

Zitzow, D. (1984). The college adjustment rating scale. Journal of College

Studen_t Person_nel, 25, 160-164.

-119-