. 1 3n. 3. .....
..u. y. 1....

L

..
4. {5... :.
Z15». I.
. .
..

L;

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL MOTIVES FOR
FEMALE NOVICE COLLEGIATE ROWERS

presented by

ANGELA KAY LOUND

has been accepted towards fuifillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Kinesiolgy

77

 

Major Professor’s Sigdatune
7 -— é —o ‘I

Date

MSUIsenAflIrmfiwAcflorVEquelOpportunltyhsdwflon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan State

LIBRARY

University

 

 

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

 

NOV .‘3 n 2008

r

Alnn

00

 

114‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/Deteouopes-ots

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL MOTIVES FOR FEMALE NOVICE
COLLEGIATE ROWERS

By

Angela Kay Lound

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Kinesiology

2004

ABSTRACT

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL MOTIVES FOR FEMALE NOVICE
COLLEGIATE ROWERS

By
Angela Kay Lound

Rowing is one of the fastest growing college sports for women in the United
States. Opportunities to be on a team are ofien greater than the number of qualified
high school rowers available. Many colleges are using walk-ons as the bulk of their
Novice class. However, after a few months, many of these “potential rowers” have quit
the team. The purpose of this study was to look at characteristics and differences
between novice rowers who continued participation and those who withdrew with
respect to commitment, goal orientation, and perceived benefits. Thirty female rowers
who participated in this study were required to be full-time students at a Midwest
university and meet eligibility requirements for participation. Goal orientations,
commitment levels, and perceived benefits were found in two stages between athletes
who decided to stay and athletes who decided to dropout. Coaches should focus on

helping athletes maximize their perceived benefits to participation.

Cepyright by
ANGELA KAY LOUND
2004

To Bilal,

for his patience and love

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many important people in my life that I need to thank and I must start
with my parents, Gary and Barbara For even though they did not always understand
why I made the choices I did, they always supported and encouraged me. To allow a
child to follow her heart can sometimes be a scary adventure for parents, but they did it
with tremendous poise and grace. I thank you for letting me find my passion in life.

It is with great warmth of heart that I thank my advisor, Dr. Martha Ewing, for
taking me in, making me laugh, making me believe I always knew what I was doing,
and teaching me a great deal along the way. Your faith in me, knowing that the only
thing I knew about sport psychology was that I wanted to learn, was a huge boost to my
confidence, and I will always appreciate the time you spent talking about coaching with
me.

I want to thank all the members of my committee, Dr. Crystal Branta, Dr. Gail
Dummer, and Dr. Yevonne Smith. Your thoughtful suggestions and advice were
extremely helpful and are deeply appreciated. Dr. Branta, thank you for jumping in at
the last minute and staying until the end.

I need, of course, to give great thanks to all the wonderful participants who took
the time to complete and return my surveys. I admire your courage for trying
something new.

Finally, I would like to recognize and thank my husband, Bilal. Thank you for
understanding my dreams and pushing me to chase them. Thank you for being my
comic relief when I needed it. Thank you for loving me and showing how much you

care. Ilove you “mucho-mucho” Sweetpea. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1:1NTRODUCTION1
Overview of the Problem ..................................................................... 1
Commitment ................................................................................... 3
Goal Orientations .............................................................................. 4
Perceived Benefits ............................................................................ 6
Need for the Study ............................................................................. 9
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................... 10
Hypotheses ..................................................................................... l 1
Research Questions .......................................................................... 12
Operational Definitions ...................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATUREIS
Sport Participation and Withdrawal ........................................................ 15
Perceived Benefits ............................................................................. 20
Achievement Goal Orientation Theory ..................................................... 24
Commitment ................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ............................................................................ 32
Participants .................................................................................... 32
Instrumentation ................................................................................ 35
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................. 36
Analysis of the Data .......................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................. 42
Perceived Benefits ............................................................................ 44
Commitment .................................................................................... 51
Goal Orientations ............................................................................. 59
Summary ....................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 64
Hypotheses .................................................................................... 64
Research Questions .......................................................................... 67
Implications for Rowing .................................................................... 68
Review and Discussion of the Study ....................................................... 71
Conclusions ................................................................................... 73
Future Recommendations ................................................................... 73

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 91

vi

LIST OF TABLES
1. Participant Demographic Data .................................................................. 34
2. Continuing and Dropout Participant Age, Ethnicity, and Sport Played by Season ...43
3. Total Group Benefits Survey Results Comparison From Pre-Season to Post-Season...45
4. Pre-Season Survey Results Comparison Between Continued Participants and
Dropouts .............................................................................................. 47
5. Post-Season Survey Results Comparison between Continued Participants and
Dropouts .............................................................................................. 50
6. Significance of Commitment Level Differences between Participants and Dropouts on
Pre-Season Survey .................................................................................. 54
7. Significance of Commitment Subscale Level Differences between Participants and
Dropouts on Pre-Season Survey .................................................................. 55
8. Significance of Commitment Subscale Level Differences between Participants and
Dropouts on Post-Season Survey .................................................................. 55
9. Significance of Participant Commitment Subscale Level Changes between Pre and Post-
Season Surveys ...................................................................................... 55
10. Significance of Dropout Commitment Subscale Level Changes between Pre and Post-
Season Surveys ...................................................................................... 56
ll. Cronbach’s Reliablity Coefficients for Commitment Factor Analysis .................. 58
12. Pre-Season and Post-Season Goal Orientation Comparison between Participants and
Dropouts .............................................................................................. 61
13. ANOVA Summary Table for Achievement Goal Orientations by Participation Status

and Time .............................................................................................. 62

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. An Integrated Model of Youth Sport Withdrawal ............................................. 8

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Problem

Rowing is one of the fastest growing college sports for women in the United
States, adding 158 Division I, II, and III teams in the years from 1988 to 2002 (Bray,
2003). Opportunities to be a member of a team are often greater than the number of
qualified high school rowers available to fill them. Therefore, many colleges are using
walk-ans as the bulk of their Novice recruiting class. Out of a few hundred athletes who
try out, many with no rowing experience at all, coaches select who they believe to be the
best potential rowers of the group. However, after a few months, many of these
“potential rowers” have quit the team. Why are these athletes withdrawing so early into
their participation on the team?

Participation and dropout factors, models, and theories have been identified or
developed and studied with a number of groups in a range of sports throughout recent
years. However, these studies are often done using sports that are well-known, played,
and understood by the athletes since childhood. Rowing is a unique sport that is not
widely known or understood by the general public, and due to the skills and equipment
needed, the few athletes who do participate before college do not start until high school.
There is a strong focus on the learning of tasks and being a “team player.” Additionally,
rowing requires a strong commitment to physical training as most of a rower’s time is
spent in conditioning for the few competitions during the academic year, which may be
perceived by many as an extreme cost to participation. Benefits of participation in

rowing are not always immediately realized. First time rowers were asked to take the

word of their new coaches and older teammates on the “good experiences” they will have
by staying and participating the whole year.

As novices, or beginning rowers at the college level, the athletes will often find
themselves in a new, and sometimes stressful, weekly routine. They would be required to
attend one rowing practice each day, Monday through Friday, either early in the morning,
around 5 am, or later in the afiemoon, around 3pm. These practices typically last
between 2-3 hours. They would also be required to attend a Saturday morning practice,
again for 2-3 hours. Additionally, they would begin a strength training and weight lifting
routine twice a week for an hour each session. Coaches expect athletes to be on time and
at every practice unless the athlete has a class, is severely ill, or has a family emergency.
Coaches ask that the athletes push themselves to work their hardest and best every day, as
with any Division I college sport. The athletes, who are told to prepare accordingly,
ofien practice outside in many challenging weather conditions, including wind, rain, light
snow/cold, and hot temperatures. When weather conditions become unsafe, as advised
by weather experts and coaches’ experience, practice is moved indoors or, in rare cases,
cancelled. Some athletes adjust well to these new expectation levels for practices and
performance, while others struggle to see the significance or importance of these changes
from high school or club sports.

This study is intended to be the first step in looking into the motivation of college
female rowing participants in the United States. The uniqueness of rowing poses several
questions about motivation of novice rowers and why they dropout. Little is known
about the commitment levels, perceived benefits, and sport orientations of freshmen

college women with a chance to jump into a brand new sport opportunity. Is there a

difference in participation and dropout motives between “traditional sports” and the
unusual sport of rowing? In other words, why do female athletes with a history of
“traditional sports” try out for the rowing team in the first place, and why do some decide
to quit after a few weeks? How do those who stay differ from those who withdraw in
commitment levels, goal orientations, and perceived benefits? Finally, could the results
of this study suggest different strategies that coaches could use to keep more athletes
interested and involved longer in the sport of rowing, as well as attract more women from
diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds?
Commitment

Collegiate rowing requires a high level of commitment to the betterment and
achievement of both the team and the athlete. Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, and
Keeler (1993) define sport commitment as “a psychological state representing the desire
or resolve to continue sport participation (p. 1).” Carpenter and Coleman (1998) used this
definition and the sport commitment model developed by Scanlan and her colleagues
(Carpenter, 1995; Carpenter, Scanlan, Simons, & Lobe], I993; Scanlan, Carpenter, Lobe],
& Simons, 1993; Scanlan, Simons, Carpenter, Schmidt, & Keeler, 1993) in their studies
involving male elite cricket players. They found that attractiveness of alternatives to
continued involvement, personal investment, investment opportunities, sport enjoyment,
and social constraints were components that influenced the commitment levels of the
athletes. Ifthese components fluctuated within an athlete, they could be used as
predictors of an increase or decrease in commitment level and eventual dropout or
continued participation in sport. The researchers also observed that commitment level

was an important factor in sport participation.

Commitment is an extremely important component in a number of studies looking
at success in sport participation. Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf, Medbury, and Peterson
(2000) found that at the Olympic level, teams who were very successful and exceeded the
researchers’ performance level (a pre—detennined set of successful performance
characteristics) were very committed up to and throughout the Olympics. However,
teams who did not meet the researchers’ performance level and did not perform well at
the Olympics had problems with commitment. Another study that focused on the
importance of commitment level was done by Rusbult (1983) and also focused on
alternatives and investments, as well as rewards, costs, and satisfaction for each partner
(Schmidt & Stein, 1991). Changes in these components would predict an increase or
decrease in the commitment to the relationship. In terms of sports, a strong commitment
was characterized by low alternatives and high investments, high rewards, low costs, and
high satisfaction. Withdrawal from sport could be predicted for those athletes with
increasing alternatives and decreasing investments, decreasing rewards, increasing costs,
and decreasing satisfaction (Schmidt & Stein, 1991).

This study looked at the alternatives, investments, and enjoyment as a part of
commitment to rowing. A commitment scale was used to determine what a beginning
rower perceives to be her alternatives, investments, and enjoyment as she tries out this
new sport. Based on these studies, it was hypothesized that commitment would predict
dropouts from rowing.

Goal Orientations
Rowing, like many other sports, requires a pattern of behaviors conducive to skill

mastery, individual and team achievement, and hard work. Achievement Goal Theory

(Nicholls, 1984, 1989) posits that there are multiple goals or orientations that could
influence these behaviors, i.e., ego and task. These orientations may influence a
person’s decision to approach or avoid certain activities as well as persist in an activity.
With an ego orientation, an athlete may engage in sport to demonstrate high levels of
her/his skill in order to boost her/his feelings of self-worth. If the athlete is unable to
demonstrate these high levels of skill, she/he may choose to withdraw from the sport
rather than risk continuing to demonstrate low ability compared to the other participants.
With a task orientation, the athlete is concerned with skill and performance improvement.
Athletes who are unable to see improvement in personal performance and skill may
withdraw from the sport. Duda (1988), in a study involving female and male athletes in
team or intramural leagues in college, found that an orientation towards mastery or task
lead to longer periods of involvement over winning or ego orientation. It is also
significant to note that the women in the study were more inclined than men to be of
mastery or task orientation. Also, Ntoumanis (2001) found a link between orientation
and self-determination. British college athletes who were high in task orientation were
also high in self-determination, or had feelings of independence and control of their own
skill mastery, while athletes high in ego orientation were low in self-determination.
Since Nicholls’ conceptualization of task and ego orientations, additional
orientations have been identified. Maehr and Midgely (1991, 1996) argue that additional
goals, i.e., ego-defensive orientation, work avoidance orientation, and social approval
orientation, reflect behaviors seen in many classrooms. When a school and classroom
environment are set up to focus on ability, children who are already skilled in topic areas

will receive the credit and rewards for their high ability. This situation leaves children

with low ability “marked” as bad or underachieving students. These students may then
develop a work avoidance orientation, where they do as little work as possible to get by,
because they know they cannot compete with the more skilled students. Children with
ego-defensive orientations are constantly looking for extrinsic rewards to justify their
feelings of self-worth and to distinguish themselves from the group, while children with
social approval orientation are looking to social groups and significant others as a source
of positive reinforcement of their effort that impacts their feelings of self-worth,
belonging, and motivation.

These five orientations, ego—enhancing, task, ego-defensive, work avoidance, and
social approval have been found to be correlated (Maehr & Midgley, 1996) and can be
used in sport environments such as rowing. Determining the level of each orientation in
an athlete using an instrument such as the Multiple Goal Orientation Scale, MGOS
(Duda, 1989a; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Ewing, 1981) may help predict continued
participation or withdrawal from rowing.

Perceived Benefits

In collegiate rowing, much time is spent in practice and the weight room for a few
opportunities to travel and compete. However, many experienced rowers will tell you
there is more to gain in rowing than just practice, hard work, and time spent.
Unfortunately, the loss of many participants in novice women’s rowing occurs in the first
few weeks to months of participation, before they have had many of the same
experiences as their older teammates. As a novice rower, an athlete will go through
tryouts, and sometimes cuts, and weeks of on—land instruction mixed with on-water

instruction. She will have to attend every practice on time, listen and believe what her

new coaches are telling her, and be very patient with her own progress. She is putting in
a lot of time, effort, and thought, but not very sure of what is to come or how it will make
her life better.

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) weighs the perceived costs and
benefits to participation as an indicator of continued participation or withdrawal from
sport. Brodkin and Weiss (1991) found that factors such as competition, health, fitness,
social status, affiliation, energy release, and fim are some benefits or reasons to
participate for an athlete. Johns, Lindner, and Wolko (1990) found that time demands,
injury, loss of interest, pressure, other options, and expense were reasons or costs leading
an athlete to withdraw from a sport. If the weight of the costs is greater than the benefits,
Social Exchange Theory predicts withdrawal from the sport. If benefits are greater than
the costs, participation will continue until a change in the balance occurs, or external
factors (e.g., injury, eligibility, graduation, or other interests) present themselves. Guillet,
Sarrazin, Carpenter, Trouilloud, and Cury (2002) found this to be the case in their study
of female handballers. Athletes tended to participate as long as they could see the
benefits to participation, but began to dropout as social constraints and alternate activities
presented themselves.

Gould (1987) provides an example of Social Exchange Theory in a model for
examining sport participation and withdrawal. The four components of the model are
Motivation for Sport Withdrawal, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Child or Externally Controlled

Withdrawal, and Sport Withdrawal. These four components are shown in Figure 1, An

Figure 1

An Integrated Model of Youth Sport Withdrawal

Figure removed

Integrated Model of Youth Sport Withdrawal. Sport Withdrawal is discontinued
participation in a sport with the understanding that the sport or other sports may be taken
up at a later time. Motivation for Sport Withdrawal has two subcomponents consisting of
explanations and ratings of a sport’s costs, and of the theories involved, such as
achievement orientation, cognitive-affective model, and competence motivation. Costs-
Benefits Analysis is where a child weighs the perceived costs and benefits of
participation, and attractiveness and availability of other sport or non-sport activities to
the current activity. If the overall costs are greater than the benefits, it is predicted that
the child will withdraw from the current sport. Child or Externally Controlled
Withdrawal looks at whether the decision to withdraw was made by the child, or by an
external force, such as an injury, lack of money or necessary support, or opportunity set.

Benefits and costs to participation in rowing can be measured with quantitative
survey instruments. The Sport Participation Questionnaire is a survey instrument used by
Seefeldt, Ewing, and Walk (1991) in a study of youth sport programs in the United
States. It contains questions regarding participation motives as well as dropout motives
that can be adapted and applied to the sport of rowing. For example, in the current study,
the item Someone I admire played this sport, was adapted to Someone I admire rows.
Need for the Study

It is important to understand the participation and drop-out motivations for female
rowers. This study is needed as a building block, first, for understanding the motivations
and expectations of female athletes entering into a sport where they realistically have
little experience, skill, and understanding of the physical, mental, and emotional demands

that will be made on them. The results will help coaches understand which athletes are

best suited for their program as well as understand how their program can change to
appeal to wider or different groups and how they can encourage athletes to participate
longer. This study will begin to show if the sport of rowing presents unique motives,
benefits, and factors for its participating athletes. Additionally, commitment and goal
orientation will be examined for their importance in continued participation or
withdrawal. Once the major appeal, commitment levels, goal orientations, and motives
for rowing participation are understood for the majority of female college novice rowers,
attempts to understand minority groups’ motivation in rowing (e.g., minority ethnic
groups, disabled, elderly, etc.) can be given specific consideration to increase scholars’,
coaches’, and the public’s awareness and enjoyment of rowing.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to understand participation and dropout motives of
female athletes in college revving and provide recommendations to coaches and
administrators on how to adapt their programs to the needs of the athletes. Another
purpose is to find a difference or differences in motives between those who withdraw and
those who stay in the sport. A final purpose is more applied, that is, to look for changes
that can be made to rowing programs to promote greater retention of athletes.
Participation motives will be determined by administering questionnaires adapted from
the Commitment Model, Multiple Goal Orientation Scale, and Sport Participation

Questionnaire to all participants.

10

Hypotheses

A. There will be no difference on pre-season commitment subscales at the

beginning of the season between the continuing participants and eventual
dropouts of rowing.

There will be a difference on post-season commitment subscales at the end
of the study between the continuing participants and the dropouts of
rowing. Specifically, continuing participants will have a higher level of
commitment than those who withdraw from rowing, based on the
commitment subscales.

There will be an increase on the post-season commitment subscales for
continuing participants, up from the pre-season commitment subscales,
while there will be no change or a decrease on the commitment subscales
for the dropouts, down from the pre-season commitment subscales, by the

end of the study.

. Orientations from the pre-season surveys for the participants who continue

for the whole semester and for participants who drop out from rowing will
not be different, but both will be different from the participants who are
cut fi'om the team. Specifically, those who are cut from the team will
score higher on ego-defeating orientation, work avoidance orientation, and
social approval orientation, and lower in task orientation, and ego-
enhancing than those who remain on the team or eventually drop ficm the

team.

11

E. Orientations from the post-season surveys for the participants who
continue for the whole semester and for participants who drop out from
rowing will be different. Those who remain on the team will be higher in
ego-enhancing orientation, and task orientation, and lower in ego-
defeating orientation, work avoidance orientation, and social approval
orientation, than those who withdraw from rowing.

Research Questions

A. Is there a difference in reasons for participating in rowing for novice
rowers who continue participation and those who withdraw from novice
rowing?

B. Is there a difference in reasons for dropping-out of rowing for novice
rowers who continue participation, but have thought about quitting, and

those who withdraw from novice rowing?

Operational Definitions
Perceived Benefits: Individually decided or externally determined motives or
outcomes of participation that prompt participation or continued participation
in sport.
M: Individually decided or externally determined motives or outcomes of
participation that prompt withdrawal from participation or inhibit

participation.

12

Cost/benefit Mysis: The process of comparing and weighing the motives
for withdrawal against the motive for participation as a step in the decision to
participate or withdraw.

Crew: Another term for rowing, sometimes referring to the team or group of
athletes rowing a boat or fleet of boats.

§_u_t: Removal fi'om team membership by coach due to non-compliance with
team rules and regulations or inability to meet performance expectations.

Drop out: A rower who has been confirmed by the head novice coach to no
longer be a part of the team due to voluntary withdrawal.

Erg Room: Room designated for a rowing team containing a number of
rowing ergometers.

Field House: A building on a college campus that has been designated for the
use of sport training.

M: An athlete in her first year of college rowing.

Preseason: First few weeks before and during a novice rower’s first semester
on the team.

Postseason: Last few weeks of and after a novice rower’s first semester on the
team.

Rowing Egrometer: A piece of equipment that simulates the rowing motion.
A rower sits on a seat that has small wheels underneath that allow the seat to
move along a rail. Wooden foot placements are on each side of the rail near a

wooden handle that is attached to a chain. The chain is linked to a fly-wheel

13

that provides resistance to moving the seat along the rail when the rower
pushes her/his feet against the foot placements.

Traditional smrts: Sports that most Americans are exposed to and recognize
from an early age including (but not limited to) soccer, swimming, football,
baseball, tennis, track, basketball, volleyball, hockey, and cycling.

WM: Athlete brought onto an institution’s athletic program who was not

formally recruited.

l4

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter will review the literature that helped to frame and build the research
questions and structure of this study. First, an overall look at sport participation and
withdrawal will be discussed. Then, the components of participation and withdrawal
used as measures in this study, namely commitment, goal orientation, and perceived
benefits will each be examined by reviewing the past literature done on “traditional”
sports. Since little research has been done using the sport of rowing, what is known
about these measures must come from studies using other sports, and can serve as a good
beginning for comparing and contrasting these sports with rowing.

Sport Participation and Withdrawal

The research, work, and findings in the area of sport participation and withdrawal
were critical areas to understand when structuring the current study on attrition in college
rowing. Little research has been done on the sport of rowing, especially females in
rowing. Therefore, it was important to understand and recognize participation and
withdrawal patterns in “traditional” sports in order to find any major differences or
similarities in rowing. The following studies helped explain sport participation and
withdrawal behaviors and shape the current study.

Gould’s (1987) work on youth sport participation and attrition proposed four
different areas of focus, and are reviewed in greater detail in the section below. Gould
first reviewed previous studies on youth withdrawal to determine current levels of
knowledge in the area. Next, Gould looked at new and upcoming studies that attempted

to examine and model attrition. A model developed by Gould to help explain and depict

15

youth sport attrition is introduced and finally, future research directions and implications
are suggested.

The review of past studies on youth sport attrition revealed varied and numerous
reasons for deciding to drop out of sport. Orlick and Botterill (1975) asked 60 children,
ages 7 to 19, to give reasons for withdrawing from sport. Seventy-five percent stated that
they did not enjoy the orientation of the program, with emphasis on competition and
winning. Twenty-one percent had commitment conflicts, saying they left because of
other interests. All of the elementary children stated they left because they felt
unsuccessful or were never given a chance to play, thereby not gaining any perceived
benefits from staying. In 1978, Sapp and Haubenstricker asked 1183 athletes in the 11?
18 year age range and 418 parents of athletes 6-10 years old to complete a survey on
reasons to participate and reasons to withdraw. Of the athletes who did not plan on
participating the next season, 64% stated that commitment to other activities was more
important than the current sport involvement, and 34% said they were no longer
interested in the sport. Similarly, in 1982, Petlichkoff found that 78% of 46 former
athletes, ages 12-18, rated commitment in other activities as reasons for withdrawing
from sport. Petlichkoif also found that 52% did not believe they were improving their
skills, 52% felt they were not as good as they needed or wanted to be, and 52% did not
enjoy the participation. Robinson and Carron (1982) looked at withdrawal from sport
from both an environmental and personal perspective in a study of 98 former high school
football players. They found that social reasons to withdraw were often complex, a
mixture of a variety of reasons including lack of feelings of inclusion, lack of

participation enjoyment, lack of social support, and lack of ability. These reasons were

16

measured using variables such as achievement motivation, trait anxiety, self-esteem,
group cohesion, communication, and sportsmanship.

After a number of studies had been done on youth sport attrition, a few
researchers began to develop models for participation and withdrawal in an attempt to
explain this pattern of behavior. Achievement Orientation Theory and Social Exchange
Theory were two that were developed. Ewing (1981) stated that the desire to achieve in
sport depended on an individual’s orientation. This orientation could focus on ability
(those who have better skills and win more often are more successful), task (those who
work to show skill and task improvement are successful), social (those who make friends,
get support from family, and become popular are successful), or a combination of two or
more. If the sport environment has goals and demands similar to the individuals’
orientation, then the athlete is likely to feel successful. On the other hand, if the
environment is very dissimilar to the individual’s orientation, he or she may feel
frustrated and unfulfilled with participation, and decide to withdraw.

Smith (1986) developed a Social Exchange Theory for sport participation and
withdrawal that was based on Thibaut and Kelly’s (1959) work on costs (perceived
negative aspects to an activity) versus benefits (perceived positive aspects to an activity).
In relation to sport, Smith stated that individuals will weigh the costs and benefits as they
see them to sport participation. If the benefits outweigh the costs, they will often
continue with participation. If the costs outweigh the benefits, they will often withdraw
fi'om participation. However, individuals also often look to other options available that
may be appealing to them before staying or leaving. If they are dissatisfied with a sport,

but nothing else is available, they may opt to continue for “something to do.” Also, if

17

they are happy with the sport, but something else is more appealing, they may withdraw
to “devote more time” to the preferred activity.

Gould (1987) provides a model for examining sport participation and withdrawal.
The four components of the model are Motivation for Sport Withdrawal, Cost-Benefit
Analysis, Child/Athlete or Externally Controlled Withdrawal, and Sport Withdrawal.
These four components are shown in Figure 1, An Integrated Model of Youth Sport
Withdrawal (see p. 8 in Chapter 1). Motivation for Sport Withdrawal has two
subcomponents consisting of explanations and ratings of a sport’s costs, and of the
theories involved, such as achievement orientation, cognitive-affective model, and
competence motivation. Costs-Benefits Analysis is where a child weighs the perceived
costs and benefits of participation, and attractiveness and availability of other sport or
non-sport activities to the current activity. If the overall costs are greater than the
benefits, it is predicted that the child will withdraw from the current sport. Child/Athlete
or Externally Controlled Withdrawal looks at whether the decision to withdraw was made
by the child/athlete, or by an external force, such as an injury, lack of money or necessary
support, or opportunity set. Sport Withdrawal is discontinued participation in a sport
with the understanding that the sport or other sports may be taken up at a later time.

Finally, Gould (1987) discusses future directions of study using his integrated
model. Gould stresses a need to continually utilize the latest forms of research and
theories so that new insights may arise. Study construction, such as achieving a
minimum participant number, using valid and reliable instruments, and using a variety of
assessments to help in understanding the varying reasons and complexity of participation

and withdrawal was also suggested as a way to improve research.

18

The move from high school to college brings many changes. Students often find
themselves in new and often confusing surroundings, and looking for ways to “fit in” and
“find their place.” This may lead students to search for and try out new or somewhat
familiar activities. Harter (1978, 1981) believed that part of the desire to participate in an
activity is connected to an individual’s need to feel competent and have mastery over
some area of the environment in which he/she lives. These feelings of competence and
mastery lead to feelings of joy in performing the activity with continued attempts at
mastery. Harter developed a model of competence motivation based on White’s (1959)
effectance motivation. White theorized that individuals want to interact with their
environment in an effective way, and therefore engage in an activity in order to feel they
are in control and are able to manipulate their surroundings. Once an individual is able to
control an aspect of his/her environment, feelings of competence and mastery lead to
feelings of being efficient. When individuals feel efficient and competent, they become
confident in their abilities and curiosity may lead them to try new activities or continue
on with the current activity to gain greater mastery.

Harter (1978) modified White’s model in a number of ways, including adding a
socialization factor. Harter believed that friends, family, peers, and authority figures play
an important role in an individual’s competence motivation. As children grow, they learn
through observation how to attempt control and mastery of the surrounding environment.
Some children learn to value mastery attempts for the intrinsic values, such as challenge
and enjoyment. Other children learn to value mastery attempts for the extrinsic values,
such as social approval or recognition. When positive feedback was given after early

mastery attempts despite the outcome, children were more likely to continue in the

19

mastery attempt as well as develop a greater sense of intrinsic, rather than extrinsic,
motivation.

While the participants in this study are no longer children developing perceptions
of competence, it is interesting to note that they are learning new movements and new
rules that will need to be mastered in order to row. Harter’s (1978) insights into the
socialization of children at young ages will help to explain the differences in participants’
attempt at rowing. Those who are intrinsically motivated may feel satisfaction and
success as they learn the movements and overcome physical challenges, while those who
are extrinsically motivated may feel satisfaction and success when they hear praise fi'om
their coaches or are better than their teammates.

Gould’s research and Harter’s research in sport participation and withdrawal
provide the foundation for the current study. Reasons to participate, reasons to withdraw,
a model of participation and withdrawal, and recommendations for future studies all give
structure to the three components, goal orientation, perceived benefits, and commitment,
used in this study.

Perceived Benefits

Novice rowers may see many perceived benefits when trying out for a varsity
college rowing team. Social status, awards, new friends, free gear, exercise, and firn may
all appeal to a beginning athlete in a collegiate sport. What may not be so obvious at the
start are the costs to participation, such as the amount of work, time, patience, and
diligence it takes to be successful. Just what exactly is important in terms of costs and
benefits to novice rowers has never been examined before, yet it is an important

component to sport participation and withdrawal. The section below will look closer at

20

perceived costs and benefits in more “traditional” sports and the importance on continued
participation.

Perceived costs and benefits in sport can be linked back to the Social Exchange
Framework developed by Thibaut and Kelley in 1959. Looking at interactions and
relationships between groups of people, Thibaut and Kelley found that all decisions to
engage or withdraw from certain interactions could be based on a system of perceived
rewards, or benefits, and costs to the individual involved in the interaction. Rewards
were defined as pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications the person enjoys. The
provision of a means whereby a drive is reduced or a need fulfilled constitutes a reward.
Costs were defined as any factors that operate to inhibit or deter the performance of a
sequence of behavior. The greater the deterrence to performing a given act — the greater
the inhibition the individual has to overcome — the greater the cost of the act ( Kelley,
1983). Thibaut and Kelley go on to say that individuals will inherently want to maximize
rewards and minimize costs to him or herself based on what he or she feels is personally
“deserved,” and will continually evaluate and adjust interactions to maintain the optimal
balance. In terms of sport participation, an individual, the athlete, will continue to play as
long as the participation provides more rewards than costs than any other available
option. As soon as the costs rise higher than the rewards, or other options provide a more
optimal balance, withdrawal from the sport will occur. This system of rewards, or
benefits and costs, is now often referred to in sport as Social Exchange Theory (Smith,

1 986).
A number of studies have been done to determine perceived benefits and costs

from sport participation. In 1991, Brodkin and Weiss studied motivation for participating

21

in competitive swimming for athletes in six different age groups. Using a version of the
Participation Motivation Questionnaire by Gill, Gross, and Huddleston (1983), Brodkin
and Weiss (1991) found that factors such as competition, health, fitness, social status,
affiliation, energy release, and fun are some benefits or reasons to participate for an
athlete, although order and strength of importance was different for each age group. For
high school and college age swimmers specifically (n =10, ages 15-22 years), the top ten
questionnaire items rated as benefits to participation were I like to be physically active, 1
want to stay in shape, I want to get in shape or get stronger, I like to exercise, I want to
improve my health, I like to have fim, I like the challenge, I like how my body looks/feels
when I swim, I want to improve my skills, and 1 like to do something I ’m good at. Johns et
al. (1990) used parts of Social Exchange Theory to examine reasons for withdrawal in
female gymnasts. A total of 76 former gymnasts, average age of 14 with 6.29 years of
experience, were asked to complete a Likert scale questionnaire on reasons for leaving
gymnastics. The researchers found that time demands, injury, loss of interest, pressure,
other options, and expense were some of the major reasons or costs leading an athlete to
withdraw from a sport. When asked about their overall sport experience, most former
gymnasts reported that they had enjoyed learning new skills, making new fi'iends, and
meeting new challenges that gymnastics presented. Most respondents said they liked
their coaches and felt that their coaches thought of them as competent athletes. However,
when asked about time demands, most respondents said that since they stopped
participating in gymnastics, they now had time to spend with their other friends outside
of gymnastics, engage in hobbies, and participate in youth culture activities that were

restricted by the time demands of participation. Social Exchange Theory predicts

22

withdrawal from the sport when the costs to participation outweigh the benefits or a
change in the balance, such as other interests presenting themselves, occurs. So, even
though most former gymnasts agreed that their experience was a positive one, they
perceived that the time spent in practice and restriction from other activities to be too
great a cost to overcome the positive aspects to participation.

Guillet et a]. (2002) looked at perceived benefits to sport participation in a study
done with French female handball players. A cost versus benefit analysis for 488
athletes, ages 15-19, (M = 17.06), found that perceived benefits gained fi'om participation
can come from a number of sources such as learned competence, sport progress, coach’s
support, relatedness, autonomy, and time of play. The researchers correlated high levels
of perceived benefits with high levels of sport enjoyment. In a second study done in
connection with the first, 253 French female handball players, ages 14-16, M = 15 years,
completed a questionnaire on commitment to their sport. Results showed that athlete
commitment (and consequently continued participation) was high as long as: (a) the
benefits to participation outweighed the costs, (b) attractiveness to other options remained
lower than the attractiveness of handball, (c) investment level was perceived to be high,
and (d) perceived social constraints were low. Perceived benefits carried the most weight
out of the four components, therefore having a strong influence on the commitment of the
athlete to continued participation. The 8-month study found that when commitment
levels fell as a result of a significant shift in balance of the four commitment components,
withdrawal from the sport occurred. This model proposed by the researchers was able to
account for 44% of the variance of the athletes’ actions. The researchers also

acknowledged that factors outside the athlete’s control, such as injury, sickness, or forced

23

removal fi'om the team also accounted for discontinued participation in sport, even when
perceived benefits and commitment remained high.

Perceived costs and benefits play an important role in the commitment level and
overall satisfaction of an athlete in sport participation. Understanding what novice
rowers believe participation in rowing will gain and cost them is critical in developing
successful and long lasting team membership.

Achievement Goal Orientation Theory

Achievement Goal Theory (Nicholls, 1984, 1989) posits that there are multiple
goals or orientations that could influence sport participation and withdrawal behaviors,
i.e., ego-enhancing or ability and task. These orientations may influence a person’s
decision to approach or avoid certain activities as well as persist in an activity. This
theory is very important in terms of novice rowers, who are trying a brand new sport at a
brand new place (i.e., college). What orientations are best for trying the unknown and
committing when the athlete is unsure of the outcome? Can more than one orientation be
important for committed and successful novice rowers? The following is a description of
the goal orientations and studies done on these orientations.

In ego-enhancing orientation, athletes may engage in sport to demonstrate high
levels of their skill in order to boost their feelings of self-worth. If athletes are unable to
demonstrate these high levels of skill, they may choose to withdraw from the sport rather
than risk continuing to demonstrate low ability compared to the other participants. In
task orientation, the athlete is concerned with skill and performance improvement.
Athletes who are unable to see improvement in personal performance and skill may

withdraw from the sport. A study by Duda in 1988 looked at the difference in continued

24

persistence at a sport between athletes who were mastery oriented versus athletes who
were ego or social comparison based oriented. The study involved 67 female and 67
male athletes in team or intramural basketball and volleyball leagues at a large university.
The participants had to have been involved for at least a year of play at the competitive or
recreational level. The average age of the participants was 21 years old. The participants
were asked to fill out questionnaires regarding their preference toward “personal ego
involvement (i.e., scoring the most points/kills, doing better than other people in the
game), personal mastery (i.e., improving one’s skill, playing one’s best in the game),
group ego involvement (i.e., the team beating other teams, the team winning), or group
mastery (i.e., the team trying its best, the team playing as well as it can).” Duda found
from the study that an orientation towards mastery or task leads to longer periods of
involvement over ability or ego-enhancing orientation. Athletes who were more task-
oriented tended to focus on mastery and control, which is linked to intrinsic motivation
and the desire to continue when the athlete felt that progress was being made. Athletes
who were more ego-oriented tended to continue with participation as long as extrinsic
factors, such as social recognition were received. Once ego-oriented athletes stop
receiving this extrinsic motivation, they may lose interest in participation. Individuals
can be high in both task and ego orientation, as well as other orientations, such as work
avoidance orientation and social approval orientation. In other terms, if the goals of one
orientation are not being met, participation may still continue if sufficient goals from
other orientations are met. It is also significant to note that the women in the study were
more inclined to be of mastery or task orientation than men. Also, Ntoumanis (2001)

found a link between orientation and self-determination. The study involved a total of

25

268 British college students (247 after outliers were removed), 154 male, 108 female, 6
who did not specify, between the ages of 18 and 36 years of age with the mean age being
20.4 years. The participants were asked to complete a series of three surveys measuring
their goal orientations (specifically task and ego- orientation), motivational type (intrinsic
motivation to know, to accomplish, and to experience simulation; extrinsic motivation
such as identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation; and finally,
amotivation), and perceived competence. Results from the study found athletes high in
task orientation to be high in self-determination, or feelings of independence and control
of their own skill mastery, and high in perceived competence, while athletes high in ego-
enhancing orientation were low in self-determination. It was noted in the study that
athletes with both hi gh-task orientation and high-ego orientation exist. These athletes
value extrinsic rewards as well as intrinsic rewards, but self-deterrnination is driven by
the high task-orientation with no influence from high-ego orientation. In other words,
these athletes compete to satisfy their desire to meet internal challenges and to feel
competent independently of the rewards they feel from external motivations.

Additional orientations have also been identified. Maehr and Midgely (1991,
1996) argue that additional goals, ego—defensive orientation, work avoidance orientation,
and social approval orientation, reflect behaviors seen in many classrooms. In ego-
defensive orientation, a student feels successful if she does not receive any negative
feedback about her ability and/or performance level from others. If she does, she
becomes discouraged and defensive. Children with ego-defensive orientations are
constantly looking for extrinsic rewards to justify their feelings of self-worth. In work-

avoidance orientation, a student feels successful when she can get through a class session

26

with doing as little work as possible to pass. When a school and classroom environment
is set up to focus on ability, children who are already skilled in topic areas will receive
the credit and rewards for their high ability. This leaves children with low ability
“marked” as bad or underachieving students. These students may then develop a work
avoidance orientation, where they do as little work as possible to get by, because they
know they can not compete with the more skilled students. In social approval orientation,
a student feels successful when she gains recognition from authority figures, friends, and
other important people in her life. Children with social approval orientation are looking
to social groups and significant others as a source of positive reinforcement toward their
feelings of self-worth and motivation.

These five orientations, ego-enhancing, task, ego-defensive, work avoidance, and
social approval have been found to be correlated (Maehr & Midgley, 1996). A student is
not restricted to having one goal-orientation, but may have multiple orientations to
varying degrees. This was found to be the case in a number of studies on orientation
(Spray & Wang, 2001; Issac, Sansone, & Smith, 2002; Standage & Treasure, 2001) In a
study on discipline in physical education using 511 students, Spray and Wang (2001)
found that a combination of high ego and high task orientation was presents in students
with the highest levels of discipline. Standage and Treasure (2001) looked at the goal
orientations of 182 male and 136 female students in physical education. The results also
suggested that students could have a combination of orientations and that students high in
task orientation and ego orientation were most likely to be self-determined in their
motivation in physical education. Isaac et a1. (2002) found that a combination of high task

orientation and high interpersonal or social orientation lead to greater commitments to

27

and enjoyment of an activity or similar activities in students when participating in groups.
Regarding novice, or beginning rowers, a questionnaire to establish the proportion of
each orientation could be developed to help coaches determine which athletes would
naturally enjoy and understand the sport of rowing and which athletes may need extra
guidance and support. This exercise would help coaches build strong team membership
with athletes who are strongly committed to staying with the team throughout the season.
Commitment

Being a novice rower takes a great deal of commitment without always knowing
or understanding exactly what will happen in the days, weeks, or months to come.
Because many of the novice rowers have never rowed before, they must trust in their
coaches and older teammates that things will happen a certain way. To be successful on
the team, the novice rowers must make a commitment to be and do their best every day,
without necessarily understanding what their best is supposed to be or look like. Being
able to measure commitment would help coaches understand which athletes are likely to
succeed on their own and which athletes may need some additional help along the way.

Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, B. (1993) define commitment as
related to sport as “a psychological construct representing the desire and resolve to
continue sport participation.” Carpenter and Coleman (1998) used this definition and the
sport commitment model developed by Scanlan and her colleagues (Carpenter, 1995;
Carpenter, et a1. 1993; Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993; Scanlan,
Simons, Carpenter, Schmidt, & Keeler, 1993) in their study involving male elite cricket
players. The study involved 78 elite English male cricket players, age 9-17 years old, M

= 13.65 years old. The participants were asked to complete the Athletes’ Opinion Survey

28

(Carpenter 1995; Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993), which had been
adapted for cricket playing, at the beginning and end of the playing season. The survey
used a 7-point Likert scale to measure perceived competence, commitment, enjoyment,
negative affect, personal investment, involvement alternatives, involvement
opportunities, social opportunities, recognition items, social support, and social
constraint. Multiple regression analysis, using changes in scores over the season, was
used. The researchers found that attractiveness of alternatives to continued involvement,
personal investment, investment opportunities, sport enjoyment, and social constraints
were components that influenced the commitment levels of the athletes. Ifthese
components fluctuated within an athlete, they could be used as predictors of an increase
or decrease in commitment level and eventual dropout or continued participation in sport.
The researchers also observed that commitment level was an important factor in sport
participation. Not only did the athletes who were more committed to their sport
participate longer, they also tended to be more successful.

Commitment is an extremely important component in a number of studies looking
at success in sport participation. Gould et al. (2000) interviewed various participating
sports teams at the 2000 Olympic games in Sydney, Australia. The researchers decided
on a set of performance guidelines and selected teams based on the level of performance
as perceived by the researchers. The researchers found that at the Olympic level, teams
who were very successfirl and exceeded the researchers’ perceived performance level
were very committed up to and throughout the Olympics. Those teams talked about
having a common vision, goal, and determination to put the team first in all situations

they encountered. However, teams who did not meet the perceived performance level

29

and did not perform well at the Olympics had had problems with commitment. The
members of these teams did not always share common goals, sometimes did not have
clear goals set, and in general, did not work well together as a “team.” Another study that
focused on the importance of commitment level in close relationships by Rusbult (cited
in Schmidt & Stein, 1991) focused on alternatives and investments, as well as rewards,
costs, and satisfaction for each partner. A total of 17 men and 17 women attending
college were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their dating relationships. The
participants continued answering the questionnaires every 17 days until the end of the
relationship or the end of the academic year. Based partly on the work and theory of
Thibaut and Kelley (1959), Rusbult hypothesized that changes in three components, the
balance of rewards and costs of the current activity, the quality of alternatives, and the
size of the current investment would predict an increase or decrease in the commitment to
the relationship. Rusbult found that for the participants who stayed in their relationship,
“rewards increased over time, costs increased less, satisfactions increased more,
alternative quality declined more, investment size increased more, and commitment
increased more” whereas for the participants who withdrew from their relationship
showed “very little increase over time in rewards, great increases in costs, a slight
reduction in satisfaction, an increase in alternative quality, a decrease over time in
investments, and a decline in level of commitment.” Schmidt and Stein (1991) adapted
the results of Rusbult’s study to participation in sports, where a strong commitment was
characterized by low alternatives and high investments, high rewards, low costs, and high
satisfaction. Withdrawal, or dropout from sport was characterized with increasing

alternatives and decreasing investments, decreasing rewards, increasing costs, and

30

decreasing satisfaction, and importantly distinguished fi'om the term “burnout,” where
there is a sharp increase in costs with no increase in rewards and no perceived
alternatives over a prolonged period of time.

Goal orientations, perceived benefits, and commitment are all major components
to sport participation and withdrawal as seen in many studies done on “traditional” sports.
It has also been shown that these components are interrelated and influence one another.
However, there are no data for these components on novice rowers to understand why a

large number of athletes try out for the team and only a small number of athletes remain

throughout the year.

31

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants

A total of 30 female rowers participated in this study. Participants were required
to be enrolled as full-time students at a Midwest university, be at least 18 years of age,
and meet the eligibility requirements for participation set by the National Colligate
Athletic Association (NCAA) and the participating university. Age, past sporting
experiences, and ethnic background data (see Table 1) were also collected for each
participant as part of the demographic data. These participants had little to no previous
rowing experience. Thirty athletes participated, but only 13 of those athletes completed
both the pre and post-season surveys. The other 17 athletes completed either the pre-
season or the post-season survey. Table 1 is a summary of pre-season and post-season
participation. Age in years, ethnicity, a sport played before college, and participation in
the pre and post-season surveys are listed by participant ID code. Average age for pre-
season participants was 18.38, SD = 0.77, while post-season average age was 18.61, SD
= 0.98. In the pre-season survey, I3 participants (56.5%) said they were European
American, 2 were African American (8.7%), 2 were Middle East American (8.7%), and 6
said Other or Did not answer (26.1%). In the post-season survey, 13 participants said they
were European American (65%), 3 were Afi'ican American (15%), and 4 said Other or
Did not answer (20%). In the pre-season survey, track was most often cited as a sport
played with 4 athletes having participated (17.4%), followed by soccer with 3 athletes

having participated (l 3 %), and hockey with 2 athletes having participated (8.7%). In the

32

post-season survey, cross-country, soccer, and track were the sports most often cited as a

sport played, each with 3 athletes (15%) of the group having participated.

33

Table 1

Participant Demographic Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Ethnicity Sport played Pre-season Survey Post-season Survey
18 Other Hockey X

18 Other Hockey X

19 European American Gymnastics X

18 European American Track X

18 Other Basketball X

18 European American Softball X

18 European American Cycling X

18 African American None X

19 Did not answer Did not answer X

18 European American Soccer X

19 Middle East American Basketball X X
19 Other Cross-country X X
19 European American Cheer X X
19 European American Lacrosse X X
18 Middle East American Rowing X X
17* African American Track X X
18 Other Golf X X
18 European American Rowing X X
18 Did not answer Soccer X X
18 European American Swimming X X
19 European American Soccer X X
21 European American Track X X
18 European American Track X X
20 European American Cross-country X
19 European American Dance X
18 Other Soccer X
18 European American Did not answer X
18 Did not answer Did not answer X
18 European American Cross-country X
18 European American Rowing X

 

 

 

 

 

* Emancipated minor

34

 

Instrumentation

Commitment Scale. The subscales of sport commitment, social constraints,
personal investments, involvement alternatives, investment opportunities, and sport
enjoyment were measured with a sport commitment scale adapted from Scalan, et al.
(1993). For example, the Sport Enjoyment question Do you enjoy playing in (program)
this season? was adapted to Do you enjoy rowing this season? The reliability
coefficients for the six subscales range fi'om 0.77 to 0.91 , and has construct validity (see
Scanlan, et al., 1993). A copy of the adapted sport commitment model can be seen in
Appendix A. Reliability coefficients were also calculated for this study using Cronbach’s
alpha and ranged from 0.45 to 0.91.

Multiple Gaal Orientation Scale (MGOS). The subscales of ego-enhancing, ego-
defensive, task, work-avoidance, and social approval were measured using the Multiple
Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire, MGOS, (Stefanek, Gano-Overway, Cummings,
& Ewing, 2001). The MGOS is a 28 item scale with 5 response options ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree about how the respondent personally feels on differing
aspects of sport participation, such as I feel successful in sport when I am the only one
who can do a skill. The reliability coefficients for the subscales range between 0.81 and
0.87. A copy of the MGOS can be found in Appendix B. Reliability coefficients were
also calculated for this study using Cronbach’s alpha and range from 0.78 to 0.90.

Snort Participation Motive Sflev. Importance of perceived benefits was
measured using a Likert type scale on an adapted version of the Sport Participation
Questionnaire - Part A (Seefeldt et al., 1991). This survey has face validity and asked the

participants to rate the importance of an array of reasons for participating in sports. The

35

survey has been adapted to be specific to the sport of rowing. For example, the item
Someone I admire plays this sport was changed to Someone I admire rows. A copy of the
adapted Sport Participation Questionnaire — Part A can be found in Appendix C. _

Demoggrphic Questionnaire. Age, ethnic background, sports played, academic
major, swimming ability, fitness level, rowing experience, health habits, and perceived
ability to learn were collected on a survey information sheet. A copy of the Demographic
Questionnaire survey sheet can be found in Appendix D.
Data Collection Procedures

Data collection, which began following approval from the University’s human
subject committee (see Appendix E), was originally scheduled to take place on the first
and second day during the initial week of tryouts for novice participation on the women’s
rowing team at a Midwest university. Due to an unusually low turn out, data collection
was rescheduled for the following week after practice. The women were told about the
study and informed of their role as voluntary participants. Because not all the women
were at the initial briefing, a number of meetings took place in the following days. These
multiple attempts were used to ensure that all the novices were given an instruction
packet with the four surveys, plus a demographic questionnaire and consent form (see
Appendix F) to read and return if willing to participate. The surveys were collated in
different orders to offset any order effect associated with completing the four surveys.

Because the investigator was a volunteer coach with the team, a graduate student
who is not a coach of the participants gave the initial introduction to the study and
informed the participants about their rights as stated on the consent form. Participants

who signed the consent form were given brief instructions on how to construct their

36

unique identification code number, (ID Code), specifically, the number of sisters a rower
has followed by the number of brothers 3 rower has followed by the middle initial of the
rower followed by the last four digits of the home phone number of the rower. When
each participant was finished with the packet of surveys, she handed it back to the
graduate student who reviewed and compared the packet to a completion checklist, gave
a cepy of the consent and rights information back to the participant, and placed the packet
into a manila envelope for safe keeping. If the graduate student was not available, the
participant was asked to separate the consent form from the packet before returning the
surveys to the researcher to help ensure confidentiality. The manila envelope was kept in
a safe location at the graduate student’s office and returned to the researcher after the post
survey collection process was completed. Rowers were thanked for participating.

After the initial participants completed the surveys, the graduate student compiled
a master code list with the participants’ names and ID Codes. This list was kept safe out
of sight of the primary investigator and all other coaches until the day after the end of the
semester surveys were completed on November 15th, 2003.

The participants who remained on the team as well as the participants who chose
to drop out of the program over the course of the semester were asked to complete three
of the original surveys, approximately two and a half months after the first surveys were
administered. On November 15‘“, an email went out to all athletes who had tried out for
the team, asking them to again complete the commitment questionnaire, the multiple goal
orientation in sport questionnaire, and the participant motivation questionnaire part A
(participant motives). The fourth survey, reasons for dropping-out (participant motivation

questionnaire part B), was removed from the study due to the low turn-out of participants.

37

Due to this low turn-out no athletes were initially cut from the team, resulting in no data
available for hypotheses and research questions pertaining to cut athletes. The surveys
were located on a website where all dropout participants had access to them. Participants
were identified only by their II) Code. The website tracked ofly the participants ID
Codes and whether they were a dropout or a continuing participant, with no other way of
identifying the rower.

Once an athlete filled out the questionnaires on the website, the Webmaster
forwarded the researcher the results of the surveys with the ID Code that was used for
identification. After all participants had completed the surveys, the researcher compiled a
list of the identification code numbers to see who completed the second set of surveys.
This list was compared with the original master code list to determine dropout participant
data and continued participant data. It should be noted that a number of participants who
did not complete the first set of surveys decided to complete the second set of surveys.
This unusual circumstance left the researcher with 23 people who completed the first
survey, 20 people who completed the second survey, but only 13 people who completed
BOTH the first and second surveys. T-tests were run to check for consistency in answers
between the groups. No significant differences between groups were found.

Analysis of the Data

For the first hypothesis, There will be no diflerence on commitment subscales at
the beginning of the season between the continuing participants and eventual dropouts of
rowing, the dependent variables were the six subscales of the Sport Commitment Model.

The independent variable has two categories, the continued participants and the dropouts.

38

Each of the six pre-season subscales was analyzed separately using one-way AN OVAs.
Significance for the analysis was set at p=0.05.

For the second hypothesis, There will be an increase on the post-season
commitment subscales for continuing participants while there will be no change or a
decrease on the commitment subscales for the dropouts by the end of the study, the
dependent variable was a subscale of the Sport Commitment Model. There were two
independent variables. The first independent variable was participant group, i.e.,
continuing participants and the dropouts. The second independent variable was time of
survey comparison, i.e., pre-season and post-season. Each of the six post-season
subscales was analyzed separately using a 2 x 2 ANOVA (group x time). For each
subscale, the main effects for both independent variables were found. For the first
independent variable, the average of the continuing participants’ pre and post—survey
scores (Xpmflg), and the average of the dropout participants’ pre and post-season survey
scores (dewvg) was found. For the second independent variable, the average of the pre-
season continuing participant and scores (Xpmmg), and the average of the post-season
continuing participant and dropout scores (XposHVg) was found. Interaction effect (group
x time) was done to find the average of the continuing participants at the pre-season
survey (Xmg), the average of the dropouts at the pre-season survey (sz), the average of
the continuing participants at the post-season survey (Xgavg), and the average of the
dropouts at the post-season (Xmg).

For the third hypothesis, Orientations from the pre-season surveys for the
participants who continue for the whole semester and for participants who dropout from

rowing will not be diflerent, but both will be diflrrent fi'om the participants who are cut

39

from the team, the dependent variables were the five correlated subscales of the Multiple
Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. The independent variable has three groups, the
continuing participants, the participants who dropout, and the participants who are cut
from the team. A oneway MAN OVA was not used to analyze the data as originally
planned due to the low number of participants. Significance for the analysis was to help
eliminate type 1 and type 2 errors. A post hoc test, Discriminate Function Analysis, used
to interpret results, was also cancelled.

For the fourth hypothesis, Orientations from the post-season surveys for the
participants who continue for the whole semester and for participants who dropout fi'om
rowing will be diflerent, the dependent variables are the five correlated subscales of the
Multiple Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. The independent variable has two
groups, the continuing participants and the participants who dropout. A oneway
MANOVA was used to analyze the data. Significance for the analysis was set at p=0.01
to help eliminate type 1 and type 2 errors. A post hoc test, Discriminate Function
Analysis, was done to interpret results.

For the first research question, Is there a dijfkrence in reasons for participating in
rowing for novice rowers who continue participation and those who withdraw fiom
novice rowing, a top ten list of reasons for participating for both the continuing
participants and the dropout participants was developed from mean rankings. A t-test
was used on reasons that are placed in different order between the two groups.

For the second research question, Is there a dryfirence in reasons for dropping-out
of rowing for novice rowers who continue participation, but have thought about quitting,

and those who withdraw from novice rowing, a top ten list of reasons for dropping-out of

40

rowing for both the continuing participants and the dropout participants was developed
from mean ranking. A t-test was used on reasons that are placed in a different order

between the two groups.

41

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Results of the data analysis are presented here in sections. Demographic data
about the participants is presented first. Perceived benefits to participating in novice
collegiate rowing will be discussed, followed by commitment levels, and then
achievement goal orientations of the athletes.

Table 2 is a summary of participant age, ethnicity, and sporting experience broken
down by season and participation status. T-tests were run on the age differences between
the continuing participants and dropout participants. No significance in age difference
between the two groups was found. Age, ethnicity, and past sporting experience are
presented for both pre-season and post-season. Pre-season age for the total group was M
= 18.3 8, SD = 0.77. Ethnicity for the pre-season participants was 56.5% European
American (1 3 athletes), 8.7% African American (athletes), 8.7% Middle East American
(2 athletes), and 26.1% Other/did not answer (6 athletes). The pre-season group as a
whole participated in 13 different sports previous to college rowing with track being the
most often played at 17.4% (4 athletes). Post-season age for the total group was M =
18.61, SD = 0.98. Ethnicity for the post-season participants was 65% European
American (13 athletes), 15% African American (3 athletes), and 20% Other/did not
answer (4 athletes). The post-season group as a whole participated in II different sports
previous to college rowing with track, cross-county, soccer, and high school rowing

being the most often played at 15% (3 athletes) each.

42

Table 2

Continuing and Dropout Participant Age, Ethnicity, and Sport Played by Season

 

Pre-season - Ag:

 

Cont. Participants (N = 14)

Dropout Participants (N = 9)

Total Pre-season (N = 23)

 

M = 18.29. SD = 0.88

M = 18.56, SD = 0.53

M = 18.38. SD = 0.77

 

Pre-season — Ethnicity

 

Cont. Pagiciplrnts (N = 14)

Dropput ParticipanLS (N = 9)

Tomlin-season (N = 23)

 

Euro. American. 9 64%
African American, 1 7.2%
Other, 4 28%

European American. 4 45%
African American, 1 11%
Mid-East American, 2 22%
Other/DNA, 2 22%

Euro. American. 13 56%
African American, 2 9%
Mid-East American, 2 9%
Other/DNA, 6 26%

 

Pre-season -— Sport played

 

Cont.PJarticipants (N = 14)

Dropout Participants (N = 9)

TotalPre—season (N = 23)

 

Basketball. 1 7.1%
Golf, 1 7.1%
Gymnastics, 1 7.1%
Hockey, 2 14%
Rowing, 1 7.1%
Soccer, 3 21%
Swimming, 1 7.1%
Track, 4 29%

 

Basketball. 1 11.1%
Cheer, 1 11.1%
Cross-country, 1 11.1%
Cycling, 1 11.1%
Lacrosse, 1 11.1%
Rowing, 1 11.1%
Softball, 1 11.1%
None, 1 11.1%
Did not answer, 1 11.2%

 

Basketball. 2 8.7%
Cheer, 1 4.3%
Cross—country, 1 4.3%
Cycling, 1 4.3%
Golf, 1 4.3%
Gymnastics, 1 4.3%
Hockey, 2 8.7%
Lacrosse, 1 4.3%
Rowing, 2 8.7%
Soccer, 3 13.0%
Softball, 1 4.3%
Swimming, 1 4.3%
Track, 4 17.4%
None/DNA, 2 8.6%

 

Post-season - Age

 

Cont. Participants (N = 12)

Dropout Participants (N:8)

Total Pre-season (N = 20)

 

M =18.30. SD = 1.06

 

M = 18.86. SD = 0.69

 

M = I.8.61. SD = 0.98

 

Post-season — Ethnicity

 

Cont. Participants (N = 12)

Dropout Particiaants (N = 8)

Total Post-swn (N = 20)

 

Euro. American. 9 75%
Afiican American, 1 8.3%
Other, 1 8.3%
Did not answer, 1 8.4%

Euro. American. 4 50%
African American, 2 25%
Other, 2 25%

Euro. American. 13 65%
African American, 3 15%
Other/DNA, 4 20%

 

Post-season - Sport played

 

Cont. Participants (N = 12)

Dropout Participants (N = 8)

Total Post-season (N = 20)

 

 

Cross-county. I 8.3%
Golf, 1 8.3%
Rowing, 2 17%
Soccer, 2 17%
Swimming, 1 8.3%
Track, 3 25%
Did not answer, 2 16%

 

Basketball. 1 12.5
Cheer, 1 12.5
Cross-country, 2 25.0
Dance, 1 12.5
Lacrosse, 1 12.5
Rowing, 1 12.5
Soccer, 1 12.5

 

Basketball. 1 5.0%
Cheer, l 5.0%
Cross-country, 3 15%
Dance, 1 5.0%
Golf, 1 5.0%
Lacrosse, l 5.0%
Rowing, 3 15.0%
Soccer, 3 15.0%
Swimming, 1 5.0%
Track, 3 15.0%
Did not answer, 2 10.0%

 

43

 

Results of this study are presented in sections according to study hypotheses.
Each section will look at the research question or hypothesis presented in Chapter One,
and then discuss results from the appropriate analyses.
Perceived Benefits

All participants were asked to complete the adapted version of the Sport
Participation Questionnaire to determine reasons for participating in rowing. The list of
benefits, number of participants, rank order of importance (symbol #), means, standard
deviations, and level of significance are presented in Table 3. The survey was based on a
5-point Likert scale with 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. The
participants as a whole listed To play as part of a team, For excitement of competition, To
stay in shape, To have fun, and To get exercise as the top five reasons to try-out and
participate in revving during the pre-season. The pest-season survey found that the top-
five reasons for participating stayed the same, but were new in a different order of
irnpertance To stay in shape, To get exercise, To play as part of a team, To have fun, and
For the excitement of competition. The only item to approach significance, p < 0.1, from
the pre-season to pest-season was To play as part of a team. The mean for the group
dropped in importance from 4.83 in the pre-season to 4.53 in the post-season, but it still
remained the most important reason. It should also be noted that the item For the team
spirit was ranked in the top ten irnpertant benefits to the athletes while the item To win

did not rank in the top ten benefits.

44

Table 3

Total Group Benefits Survey Results Comparison From Pre-Season to Post-Season

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefit Pre-Season Survey Post-Season Survey Sig
N # M SD N # M SD
To play as part of a team 24 1 4.83 0.38 19 3 4.53 0.61 *
For excitement of competition 24 2 4.75 0.53 19 5 4.47 0.70 ns
To stay in shape 24 3 4.71 0.55 19 1 4.68 0.58 us
To have fun 24 3 4.71 0.55 19 3 4.53 0.61 ns
To get exercise 24 3 4.71 0.55 19 2 4.63 0.68 ns
To irnpreve my skills 24 6 4.54 1.06 19 8 4.26 1.05 us
For the challenge of competition 24 6 4.54 1.06 19 6 4.32 0.75 ns
To go to a higher level of competition 24 8 4.50 1.02 19 11 4.00 1.16 ns
To meet new friends 24 9 4.46 0.66 19 6 4.32 0.82 ns
For the team spirit 24 9 4.46 0.83 19 10 4.11 0.99 ns
To win 24 l 1 4.29 0.96 19 12 3.95 1.03 ns
To learn new skills 24 11 4.29 1.08 19 9 4.21 0.79 us
To release energy/stress 24 13 3.92 0.93 19 13 3.68 1.20 us
To do something I’m good at 24 14 3.87 0.99 19 14 3.58 1.31 ns
I like the coaches 24 15 3.79 1.06 19 15 3.42 1.54 ns
To have something to do 24 16 3.71 1.27 19 19 3.16 1.39 us
To feel important 24 17 3.42 1.38 19 16 3.32 1.11 us
For the rewards 24 18 3.37 1.31 19 18 3.21 1.32 us
To use the equipment 24 19 3.25 1.26 19 20 2.74 1.10 us
To be with friends 24 20 3.21 1.22 19 17 3.26 1.37 ns
For the travel 24 21 2.67 1.13 19 21 2.26 0.99 ns
Someone I admire rows 24 22 1.92 1.28 19 22 2.21 1.65 ns
To attract social attention 24 23 1.75 0.94 19 24 1.53 0.70 ns
Parents/friends want me to participate 24 23 1.75 1.03 19 23 2.16 1.26 us
To be popular by being a good athlete 24 25 1.62 1.01 19 24 1.53 0.91 ns

 

*=p<fiJ
ns = not significant

# = rank order

45

 

Athletes were asked to complete the adapted version of the Sport Participation
Questionnaire during the pre-season phase of the study to determine reasons for trying-
out and participating in rowing. The completed surveys were split into two groups at the
end of the study, the continuing participant group and the dropout or withdrawal group.
The list of benefits, number of participants, rank order of importance (symbolized by #),
means, standard deviations, and level of significance are presented and compared in
Table 4 for the continuing participants and the dropout participants of rowing. The
participants who decided to stay listed T 0 play as part of a team, For the excitement of
competition, To have fim, For the team spirit, To get exercise, and T 0 stay in shape as the
six most important benefits. The participants who decided to dropout of rowing listed T 0
play as part of a team, To stay in shape, To get exercise, To have jun, and To improve my
skills as the top five reasons to participate. T-tests were performed on all of the reasons
to determine if participants and dropouts differed in benefits associated with rowing.
There were no significant differences on any of the items between the two groups during
the pre-season phase of the study. The lack of significant differences answers one of the
primary research questions of the study in that there does not appear to be any difference
between the continuing participants and dropouts of rowing in their initial perceptions of

what they will gain or benefit from by participating in college rowing.

46

Table 4

Pre-Season Survey Results Comparison Between Continuing Participants and Dropouts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefit Participants Drop-outs Sig
N # M SD N # M SD
To play as part of a team 15 l 4.87 0.35 9 1 4.78 0.44 us
For excitement of competition 15 1 4.87 0.35 9 6 4.56 0.73 us
To stay in shape 15 4 4.67 0.62 9 1 4.78 0.44 ns
To have fun 15 3 4.73 0.59 9 4 4.67 0.50 ns
To get exercise 15 4 4.67 0.62 9 l 4.78 0.44 ns
To improve my skills 15 10 4.47 1.25 9 4 4.67 0.71 us
For the challenge of competition 15 4 4.67 1.05 9 8 4.33 1.12 ns
To go to a higher level of competition 15 8 4.53 1.06 9 7 4.44 1.01 ns
To meet new friends 15 8 4.53 0.74 9 8 4.33 0.50 us
For the team spirit 15 4 4.67 0.62 9 10 4.1 l 1.05 ns
To win 15 10 4.47 0.83 9 12 4.00 1.12 ns
To learn new skills 15 12 4.40 1.12 9 10 4.11 1.05 us
To release energy/stress 15 15 3.87 0.92 9 12 4.00 1.00 ns
To do something I’m good at 15 114 3.93 0.96 9 14 3.78 1.09 ns
1 like the coaches 15 13 4.00 1.00 9 16 3.44 1.13 us
To have something to do 15 16 3.73 1.34 9 15 3.67 1.23 ns
To feel important 15 17 3.47 1.51 9 18 3.33 1.23 ns
For the rewards 15 18 3.40 1.06 9 18 3.33 1.73 us
To use the equipment 15 19 3.13 1.36 9 16 3.44 1.13 ns
To be with friends 15 19 3.13 1.36 9 18 3.33 1.00 ns
For the travel 15 21 2.53 1.19 9 21 2.89 1.05 ns
Someone I admire rows 15 22 2.13 1.41 9 24 1.56 1.01 ns
To attract social attention 15 24 1.60 0.74 9 22 2.00 1.23 ns
Parents/friends want me to participate 15 23 2.00 1.13 9 25 1.33 0.71 us
To be popular by being a good athlete 15 25 1.40 0.51 9 22 2.00 1.50 ns

 

ns = not significant

# = ranked order

47

 

Athletes were asked to complete the adapted version of the Sport Participation
Questionnaire during the post-season phase of the study to determine if differences in
benefits occurred following withdrawal from revving. The completed surveys were split
into two groups at the end of the study, the continuing participant group and the dropout
or withdrawal group. The list of benefits, number of participants, rank order of
importance (symbolized by #), means, standard deviations, and level of significance are
presented and compared in Table 5 for the continued participants and the dropouts of
revving. The participants who decided to stay listed To stay in shape, To get exercise,
For the excitement of competition, To play as part of a team, and For the challenge of
competition as the top five reasons to participate. The participants who decided to
dropout of rowing listed To have fun, To play as part of a team, To stay in shape, To meet
new friends, and To get exercise as the top five reasons to participate. Although there
were no significant differences in the pre-season phase, the post-season survey results
show four items, For excitement of competition, T 0 get exercise, To stay in shape, and To
release energy/stress, approached a significant, p < 0.10, difference between those who
chose to continue participating and those who chose to dropout. Also, one item, Someone
I admire rows, had a significant, p < 0.05, difference between those who chose to
continue participating and those who chose to dropout. Results suggest that the answer to
the question as to whether continuing athletes and dropouts differ in their reasons to
participate varies with time. Pre-season results showed no difference in reasons to
participate between groups, but as time went by, those who stayed began to value
different benefits than those who dropped out of rowing. It should be noted that research

for the exact answer the research question could not be obtained due to low number of

48

participants, so data were collected on participation reasons at the end of the semester

instead of dr0pout reasons so that t-tests and comparisons could be run.

49

Table 5

Post-Season Survey Results Comparison Between Continuing Participants and Dropouts

 

 

Benefit Participants Drop-outs Sig

 

N # M SD N # M SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To play as part of a team 1 1 4 4.64 0.67 8 2 4.37 0.52 ns
For excitement of competition 1 l 3 4.73 0.65 8 6 4.12 0.64 *

To stay in shape 1 1 1 4.91 0.03 8 2 4.37 0.74 *

To have fun 11 7 4.45 0.69 8 1 4.62 0.52 us
To get exercise 1 1 l 4.91 0.30 8 5 4.25 0.89 *

To improve my skills 1 1 5 4.55 0.93 8 8 3.87 1.13 us
For the challenge of competition 1 1 5 4.55 0.69 8 7 4.00 0.76 ns
To go to a higher level of competition 1 1 10 4.27 1.27 8 12 3.62 0.92 ns
To meet new friends 1 1 10 4.27 0.91 8 2 4.37 0.74 us
For the team spirit 1 l 9 4.36 0.81 8 10 3.75 1.17 ns
To win 11 13 4.09 1.04 8 10 3.75 1.03 ns
To learn new skills 1 1 7 4.45 0.69 8 8 3.87 0.84 ns
To release energy/stress 1 1 12 4.18 0.75 8 15 3.00 1.41 "

To do something I’m good at 11 14 3.91 1.30 8 14 3.12 1.25 ns
1 like the coaches 1 1 15 3.73 1.35 8 16 3.00 1.77 us
To have something to do 1 1 16 3.55 1.29 8 19 2.63 1.41 ns
To feel important 11 19 3.18 1.25 8 13 3.50 0.93 ns
For the rewards 1 1 18 3.36 1.50 8 16 3.00 1.70 us
To use the equipment 11 20 3.00 1.18 8 20 2.37 0.92 ns
To be with friends I 1 17 3.45 1.29 8 16 3.00 1.51 ns
For the travel 1 1 22 2.55 1.04 8 22 1.87 0.84 ns
Someone I admire rows 11 21 2.82 1.89 8 25 1.38 0.74 "
To attract social attention 1 1 24 - 1.55 0.69 8 24 1.50 0.76 ns
Parents/fiiends want me to participate l 1 23 2.18 1.08 8 21 2.12 1.55 us
To be popular by being a good athlete l 1 25 1.36 0.67 8 23 1.75 1.17 ns

*=p<fiJ
** = p < 0.05

ns = not significant

# = ranked order

50

 

Commitment

Athletes were asked to complete the adapted version of the Commitment Scale
Questionnaire to determine pre-season and pest-season commitment to rowing. The
survey was based on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being the least important and 5 being
the most important. The completed surveys were split into two groups at the end of the
study, the continuing participant group and the dropout or withdrawal group. It was
hypothesized there would be no difference in the commitment levels of the continuing
participants and the eventual dropouts of rowing during the pre-season, but by the post—
season, a significant difference in commitment between the groups resulted. It was also
hypothesized that commitment levels for the continuing participants would increase from
the pre-Season to the post-season, while the commitment levels for the dropouts would
remain the same or decrease from pre-season to post-season.

Independent sample t-tests were run on the commitment items and commitment
subscales to determine significant differences or changes in groups. The list of
commitment items, number of participants, means, standard deviations, and level of
significance between the groups are presented in Table 6 (see page 54). Table 6 looks at
the commitment levels on the pre-season survey between the eventual continuing
participants and the dropouts from the team, item by item. The only significant, p_<_0.05,
difference was on the item How much eflort have you put into rowing so far this season
with the continuing participants’ mean at 4.80 and the eventual dropouts at 3.89. These
results support the hypothesis that there would be no difference in pre-season

commitment levels between groups.

51

Table 7 (see page 55) looks at the commitment subscale scores on the pre-season
survey between the continuing participants and the dropouts from the team. No
significant difference for the four commitment subscales was found: Specifically, for the
sport cemmitrnent subscale, t(22) = 0.561, p < 0.60; for the sport enjoyment subscale,
t(22) = 0.560, p < 0.60; for the social constraints subscale, t(22) = -0.722, p < 0.50; and
for the involvement opportunities subscale, t(22) = 1.444, p < 0.20. This result supports
the hypothesis that there would be no difference between the continuing participants and
dropout participants at the start of the study.

Table 8 (see page 55) looks at the commitment subscale levels on the post-season
survey between the continuing participants and the dropouts from the team. The subscale
of sport commitment was significantly, t(16) = 2.768, p < 0.05, higher for the continuing
participants than the dropout participants. The commitment subscales of sport enjoyment
and involvement opportunities approached a significant, t(15) = 2.207, p < 0.10, and
t(16) = 0.384, p < 0.07 respectively, difference between the two groups, and the
commitment subscale of social constraints had no significant difference between the
groups, t(16) = 0.337, p < 0.75. These results partially support the hypothesis that the
post-season commitment levels would be different between groups.

Table 9 (see page 55) looks at the significance of commitment subscale level
changes for continuing participants from pre-season to post-season. The commitment
subscale of social constraints was the only subscale to approach significance, t(14) = -
1.815, p < 0.10, while the other three subscales of sport commitment, sport enjoyment,
and involvement opporttmities were not significantly different, t(24) = 0.960, p < 0.35,

t(23) = 0.736, p < 0.50, and t(24) = -1.371, p < 0.20 respectively. The change in the

52

social constraint was toward weaker commitment levels at the post-season survey and
does not support the hypothesis.

Table 10 (see page 56) looks at the significance of cemmitrnent subscale level
changes for dropouts from pre—season to post-season. The commitment subscale of sport
commitment had a significant, t(6.407) = 3.038, p < 0.05, change from pre-season to
post-season, with average commitment subscale levels falling fiom 4.67 to 3.12. The
sport enjoyment subscale also approached a significant change, ((8) = 2.268, p _< 0.10,
and the other two commitment subscales, social constraints and involvement
opportunities, had no significant changes from pre-season to post-season, t(l4) = -.0972,
p < 0.35 and t(l4) = 0.399, p < 0.70 respectively. These changes in commitment levels
from pre-season to post-season support the hypothesis that there would be a decrease in

commitment levels for dropout participants.

53

Table 6
Significance of Commitment Level Dijflrences between Participants and Dropouts on

Pre-Season Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Participants Drop-Outs sig
N | M I so Ni M 1 so
How proud are you to tell people that you’re a r 15 4.73 0.59 9 5.00 0.00 ns
ower
Do you want to keep participating in college rowing 15 4.87 0.52 9 4.78 0.44 us
How dedicated are you to college rowing 15 4.93 0.26 9 4.78 0.44 ns
What would you be willing to do to keep on rowing 15 4.80 0.56 9 4.56 0.53 us
How hard would it be for you to quit rowing 15 4.47 0.64 9 4.11 0.78 ns
How determined are you to stay in college rowing 15 4.73 0.59 9 4.78 0.44 us
Do you enjoy rowing so far this season 15 4.73 0.59 9 4.67 0.50 ns
Are you happy rowing so far this season 15 4.73 0.59 9 4.56 0.73 ns
Do you have fun rowing so far this season 15 4.67 0.72 9 4.67 0.71 ns
Do you like rowing so far this season 15 4.93 0.26 9 4.67 0.71 ns
How interesting are other activities besides rowing 15 3.47 0.92 9 4.00 0.71 ns
How much fun are other activities besides rowing 15 3.40 0.83 9 3.67 0.07 ns
How much would you like other activities 15 3.40 0.91 9 3.11 1.27 ns
How difficult was it to choose rowing over other act. 15 2.33 1.29 9 2.22 1.48 ns
How much of your time have you put into rowing 15 4.20 0.78 9 4.00 0.71 ns
How much effort have you put into rowing 15 4.80 0.56 9 3.89 1.17 **
How much money have you put into rowing 15 2.07 1.28 9 1.33 0.71 ns
I feel I have to row to be with my friends 15 1.40 0.74 9 1.56 0.73 ns
I feel I have to row to please my fiiends 15 1.27 0.59 9 1.33 0.71 ns
I feel I have to stay in rowing because of my 15 1.27 0.59 9 1.22 0.44 ns
I feel I have to row to please my mom 15 1.20 0.56 9 1.44 1.01 ns
I feel 1 have to row to please my dad 15 1.20 0.56 9 1.56 1.01 ns
I feel I have to row to please my coach 15 1.60 0.99 9 1.56 0.88 ns
1 stay in rowing so people won't think I'm a quitter 15 1.73 0.80 9 2.11 1.45 ns
Would you miss being a rower if you left the team 15 4.60 0.74 9 4.56 0.73 ns
Would you miss your coach if you left the team 15 3.87 1.13 9 3.56 1.01 ns
Would you miss the good times if you left the team 15 4.47 0.83 9 3.89 1.05 ns
Would you miss your friends if you left the team 15 4.47 0.74 9 3.56 1.67 ns
** = p < 0.05

ns = not significant

54

Table 7
Significance of Commitment Subscale Level Diflkrences between Participants and

Dropouts on Pre-Season Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscale Participants Drop-Outs Sig.
N 1 M ] so N] M j so

Sport commitment 15 4.76 0.42 9 4.67 0.28 ns
Sport enjoyment 15 4.77 0.49 9 4.64 0.63 ns
Social constraints 15 1.38 0.54 9 1.54 0.49 ns
Involvement opportunities 15 4.35 0.61 9 3.89 0.96 ns
ns = not siggificant
Table 8
Significance of Commitment Subscale Level Diflerences between Participants and
Dropouts on Post-Season Survey

Item Participants Drop-Outs Sig.

N l M ] so N] M Fso

Sport commitment 11 4.56 0.53 7 3.12 1.32 **
Sport enjoyment 11 4.60 0.65 7 3.32 1.43 *
Social constraints 11 2.01 1.06 7 1.84 0.74 ns
Involvement opportunities 1I 4.64 0.38 7 3.68 1.15 *
*=p<flJ
** = p < 0.05
ns = not significant
Table 9

Significance of Participant Commitment Subscale Level Changes between Pre and Post-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Season Surveys

Item Pre-Season Post-Season sg

N [ M I so N L M 1 so

Sport commitment 15 4.76 0.42 11 4.58 0.53 ns
Sport enjoyment 15 4.77 0.49 11 4.60 0.65 ns
Social constraints 15 1.38 0.54 11 2.01 1.06 *
Involvement opportunities 15 4.35 0.61 11 4.64 0.38 ns
*=p<0J

ns = not sigaificant

 

55

 

 

 

Table 10

Significance of Dropout Commitment Subscale Level Changes between Pre and Post-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Season Surveys

Item Pre-Season Post-Season Sig.

N l M J so N l M | so

Sport commitment 9 4.67 0.28 *‘
Sport enjoyment 9 4.64 0.67 *
Social constraints 9 1.54 0.49 ns
Involvement opportunities 9 3.89 0.96 ns
*=p<flJ
** = p < 0.05

ns = not sigaificant

 

 

Table 11 presents Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for each of the commitment
subscales. It should be noted that the reliability of the Personal Investments subscale is
below 0.70. The items of the subscale were retested in pairs in an attempt to raise the
reliability by eliminating a weak item, however, none of the pairs resulted in a reliability
higher than 0.48. These findings are consistent with Scanlan et al. (1993) in their study
on the sport commitment model. Therefore the Personal Investment subscale was
dropped from further analysis. Although, the involvement alternative items were found
reliable in this study, with a reliability coefficient of 0.82, the involvement alternative
items were found to be unreliable by Scanlan et a1, (1993) in their study on the sport
commitment model. The involvement alternative items have therefore also been dropped

from further analysis in this study.

57

Table 11

Cronbach ’s Reliability Coefficients for Commitment Factor Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscale Construct Reliability Number of Items Number of Cases
Sport Commitment 0.7968 6 23
Sport Enjoyment 0.9133 4 23
Involvement 0.8238 4 23

Alternatives (dropped)
Personal Investments 0.4533 3 23
(dmpped)
Social Constraints 0.7769 7 23
Involvement 0.7694 4 23
Opportunities

 

 

 

 

58

 

Goal Orientations

Athletes were asked to complete the adapted version of the Multiple Goal
Orientation Scale Questionnaire to determine pre-season and post-season orientations
toward rowing. The survey was based on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being the least
important and 5 being the most important. The completed surveys were split into two
groups at the end of the study, the continuing participant group and the dropout or
withdrawal group. It was hypothesized there would be no difference in the orientations
of the continued participants and the eventual dropouts of rowing during the pre-season,
but both would be different in orientations fi'om those who were cut from the team.
Because of the low turnout of participants, no one was cut from the team. Therefore, data
could not be collected for athletes who were cut from the team, and the analysis of
orientation differences between athletes dismissed fi'om the team and the rest of the team
was not completed. It was also hypothesized that by the post-season, a significant
difference in orientations between the continued participants and the dropouts would
occur. Table 12 (see page 61) gives a summary of the means and standard deviations of
each orientation for the continued participants and the dropouts at both the pre-season
and the post-season.

Separate 2 x 2 (participation status by time) ANOVAs were performed on the five
orientation constructs. Overall, it was found that there were no significant changes in any
of the orientations overtime or between participants and dropouts. The one exception
was a trend in the ego-defeating orientation where athletes who dropped-out of rowing

showed a higher level of ego-defeating orientation than athletes who continued with

59

rowing. There were no significant interactions found for any one of the AN OVAs (See

Table 13 for a summary of the AN OVAs).

60

Table 12

Pre-season and Post-season Goal Orientation Comparison Between Participants and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dropouts
Pre-Season Post-Season
Participants Drop—outs Participants Drop-outs

N M SD M SD N M SD N M SD
Task 15 4.51 0.52 4.76 0.29 1 1 4.45 0.59 8 4.32 0.39
Ego-enhancing 15 3.50 0.76 3.94 0.74 1 1 3.68 0.67 8 3.60 0.54
Ego-defeating 15 2.90 0.80 3.28 0.95 1 1 2.82 0.91 8 3.42 0.56
Social 15 3.80 0.58 4.27 0.69 1 1 4.13 0.64 8 4.00 0.52
Approval
Work 15 1.43 0.45 1.50 0.53 1 1 1.43 0.37 8 1.69 0.56
Avoidance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

 

Table 13

ANO VA Summary Table for Achievement Goal Orientations by Participation Status and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time
Orientation Effect df F P Comment
Task Participation 1 0.144 0.707 Not Significant
Time 1 2.743 0.106 Not Significant
Participation x Time 1 1.589 0.215 Not Significant
Ego-enhancing Participation 1 0.705 0.406 Not Significant
Time 1 0.132 0.719 Net Significant
Participation x Time 1 1.428 0.239 Not Significant
Ego-defeating Participation 1 3.568 0.066 Trend
Time 1 0.012 0.913 Not Significant
Participation x Time 1 0.182 0.672 Not Significant
Social Approval Participation 1 0.787 0.380 Not Significant
Time 1 0.025 0.875 Net Significant
Participation x Time 1 2.410 0.129 Not Significant
Work Participation 1 1 .188 0.282 Not Significant
. Time 1 0.396 0.533 Not Significant
Amman“ Participation x Time 1 0.409 0.526 Not Significant

 

 

Results do not support the hypothesis that goal orientations between the

continuing participants and drop outs would be different at the end of the season.

Although there were differences in the average means between the continuing

participants and dropouts during both the pre-season and the post-season, these

differences were not significant.

Summary

Analysis of the data showed support for three of the five hypotheses. Hypothesis

A was supported with no significant changes between continuing participants and

dropout participants on commitment subscales at the beginning of the study. Hypothesis

B was supported with a significant difference between continuing participants and

dropout participants on the sport commitment subscale at the end of the study.

62

 

Hypothesis C was not supported since commitment subscale levels did not increase for
the continuing participants at the end of the semester, and even approached, p < 0.10, a
significant drop on the social constraints subscale. Hypothesis D was supported with no
significant differences in achievement goal orientations between the continuing
participants and the dropout participants at the beginning of the study. Hypothesis E was
not supported since no significant changes in orientation occurred between the continuing
participants and the dropout participants at the end of the study although the ego-
defeating orientation approached a significant, p < 0.10, difference.

Analysis of the data indicated there was no difference in perceived benefits to
participating in revving when first trying out for the team (Research Question A);
however, as time passes, a difference in reasons to participate begins to appear between
the continuing participants and dropouts (Research Question B). Due to a low number of
participants, Research Question B was modified to look at participation reasons at the end
of the semester instead of dropout reasons in order to have adequate data for comparison

analysis.

63

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to look at characteristics and differences between
novice female rowing athletes who continued participation and those who decided to
withdraw from sport with respect to commitment, sport orientation, and perceived
benefits. This chapter will look at the hypotheses and research questions to see how and
if the results of the study support or move away from theory based on “traditional” sports.
Additionally, implications for improvement in the sport of rowing will be discussed.
Finally, review of the study, conclusions, and future recommendations will be presented.
Hypotheses

The first hypothesis tested the difference on both pre-season and post-season
commitment subscales between the continuing participants and eventual dropouts of
rowing. Pre-season commitment surveys found only one item, dealing with the amount
of effort put into the rowing season so far, to be significantly different between the
groups. The participants who ended up staying on the team felt they invested more effort
into being on the team than did the participants who eventually dropped-out of the
program. This may be due to a difference in understanding among athletes in the
relationship between work and success in rowing. Athletes who had to work hard to be
successful in high school are more likely to understand the same is true in college, while
athletes who were “naturally talented” in high school and for whom the hours of work
may have been forgotten, may struggle to understand why they are not automatically “the

best” in their new sport. However, when overall commitment subscales were compared

64

for the pre-season surveys between continuing participants and dropout participants, no
significant differences were found. The one item of significance did not carry enough
weight to make a significant change in the subscale. Pest-season surveys found a
significant difference in the sport commitment subscale levels. Athletes who stayed were
significantly more proud to admit that they were a rower, dedicated to rowing, willing to
keep on rowing, determined to stay in rowing, enjoyed revving, and willing to put effort
into revving. These athletes seem to have a better grasp of the work and time needed to
be successful in rowing, have decided to accept and commit to that work and time, and
are beginning to see the rewards and benefits of their efforts. With the athletes who
dropped out of rowing, they either did not understand the work and time needed to be
successful, or it was not important enough to them, and consequently, their commitment
levels began to drop until they decided to withdraw from the team. A similarsituation
was found in a study by Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2002) who looked at the self-
regulatory process of novice and expert volleyball players. Expert volleyball players,
with an average of 7.75 years of experience showed much higher levels of perceived
instrumentality, or “an individual’s understanding of the instrumental or utility value of a
behavior to their future goals,” than the novice players who had no experience. The
expert players were much better at setting and attaining goals and understood how their
work would benefit them. The athletes who had spent a number of years working on
skills understood what needed to be done in order to improve their abilities, while the
beginning athletes had no structure or set goals to guide them, and consequently,
struggled with self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. The rowers who decided to

withdraw may have similar work experiences to the novice volleyball players, while the

65

rowers who decided to stay may have similar work experiences to the expert volleyball
players.

The second and third hypothesis stated that there would be an increase on the
post-season commitment subscales for continuing participants while there would be no
change or a decrease on the commitment subscales for the dropouts by the end of the
study. Results showed no support for the second hypothesis and good support for third
hypothesis. The participants who stayed had no significant increase in the commitment
subscales from pre-season to post-season, and actually approached a significant decrease
in the social constraints subscale. The participants who dropped-out of the program had a
significant decrease in the sport commitment subscale and approached a significant
decrease on the sport enjoyment subscale. Based on observation of the participants over
the course of the semester, the high levels of commitment at the start of the season may
be due to preconceived ideals of team membership based on high school experiences and
the desire to be “a part of a team” again. However, the levels of work, expectation, time.
commitment, stress, and responsibility have increased dramatically fi'om the high school
to college level. Athletes who were once the best on the team find themselves starting
over, making constant mistakes, and feeling unable to execute skills effectively. Athletes
begin to realize the magnitude of work needed to be successful at the college level, but
are still unsure if this new sport is right for them. Therefore, athletes cautiously drop
their level of commitment to the team as they continue to “test the waters” to see if the
future rewards will be worth the effort they give.

The fourth hypothesis, Orientations from the pre-season surveys for the

participants who continue for the whole semester and for participants who dropout from

66

rowing will not be diflerent was supported with no significant changes in the orientations
subscales, but part of the hypothesis, that both will be dijfirent from the participants who
are cut fiom the team, was not tested due to a lack of participant numbers and a lack of
data concerning athletes who were cut from the team.

The fifth hypothesis, Orientations fiom the post-season surveys for the
participants who continue for the whole semester and for participants who dropout fiom
rowing will be difi’erent, was not supported. No significant differences on the
orientations subscales between the groups were found even though the difference
between the groups’ means became larger on all orientations. It should be noted that a
trend was discovered with the ego-defeating orientation, where the participants who
stayed became less ego-defeating oriented over time, while the participants who dropped-
out became more ego-defeating over time. Because many research studies have shown
orientation to be a factor in participation and withdrawal, this result may change with a
larger sample size. Increasing the number of participants may lead to significant trends
and changes in orientations observed in this study.

Research Questions

The first research question was, Is there a difierence in reasons for participating
in rowing for novice rowers who continue participation and those who withdraw fi'om
novice rowing? Results of the survey found no significant differences in reasons for
participating between the groups. This may be due to a lack of knowledge about the
sport of rowing and what benefits may be gained from participation. Many athletes may
be joining because they enjoyed their sport experiences in high school and are new

hoping to gain the same experiences and benefits from a college sport. Since many of the

67

participants played many of the same sports in high school, it would be natural to assume
that their perceived benefits would be similar.

The second research question was, Is there a diflerence in reasons for dropping-
out of rowing for novice rowers who continue participation, but have thought about
quitting, and those who withdraw fiom novice rowing? and was looked at from a slightly
different angle due to the low number of participants. Instead of looking at specific
dropout reasons, the participants responded to the same benefits to participation on the
post-season survey that they did on the pre-season survey. The researchers felt this
would give more overall data because a comparison between groups and a comparison
over time could be made. It was found that on the post-season survey, four benefits
approached significance between the groups. It should be noted that one item Someone I
admire rows, was found to be significant. The athletes who decided to stay were
connected with someone in the rowing community much more strongly than the athletes
who decided to dropout. This connection may have brought added stability, fi'iendship,
understanding, and devotion that other athletes did not have, and consequently, they may
have felt unwanted or alienated from the team. Over time, only one item, To play as part
of a team, changed significantly from pre-season to post-season for the group as a whole.
It may have become less important of a benefit as other benefits surged in importance.
Implications for Rowing

A number of implications for the sport of rowing present themselves as a result of
this survey. One aim of this study was to understand the motivations for trying out and
participating in collegiate rowing and which motivations are changing sufficiently that

participants decided to dropout of revving. When looking at pre-season commitment of

68

the athletes, there appears to be little commitment difference between continued
participants and dropouts except in the amount of perceived effort put into being on the
team. Because commitment is often linked to the amount of perceived benefit one is
getting from an activity, as seen in previous literature, the athletes most likely to stay are
the ones who understand it takes an initial investment of effort and hard work before all
the desired benefits are felt or realized. Coaches can use this early measure of
commitment to talk with athletes, stressing that the benefits of rowing often do not show
themselves right away, that it is a process that builds over time. Coaches can discuss
with athletes what exactly they want out of being on the team, and what the athletes can
specifically do or contribute to in order to maximize those benefits as they develop.

When looking at the changes in perceived benefits over time between the athletes
who continue participation and the athletes who decide to dropout of rowing, one item
from the Sport Participation Questionnaire, Someone I admire rows, really stands out. It
is the only perceived benefit item that is significantly different between the groups on the
post-season survey. What starts to become clear is that even though this item is not
viewed consciously as a major reason to participate, having someone to “look-up” to and
admire on the team is having an effect on the decision to continue participating or not. In
a casual discussion with some of the continuing athletes, they noted that the older rowers
did not spend a lot of time getting to know the younger women in the very beginning.
These new rowers felt a bit intimidated and that they were not wanted on the team.
However, as the number of new rowers began to drop, and the older women began to see
and recognize the same faces daily at practice, they began to talk and befriend the

younger women. The new rowers stated that they new realized how much the older

69

women cared about them and wanted them there. Upon asking a few older athletes about
this, the older athletes felt a bit overwhelmed with the huge number of new athletes on
the team and knowing the history of such a large loss in numbers within the first few
months, they felt it a waste of time and energy trying to get to know everyone. There are
also a few exceptions where new rowers come onto the team already fiiends with the
older rowers, usually from high school or even related (such as sisters or cousins). These
new rowers have instant friends and a support group. The new athletes who have this
advantage tend to stay with the team much longer than the new athletes who know no-
one from the team previously. Here is where coaches can encourage a change to promote
continued participation. Coaches could pair the new athletes with the old athletes from
the very first week, encouraging the older women to show up at try-outs and talk with the
new athletes, share experiences and what the first few months will be like, exchange
email addresses and/or phone numbers, and attempt to form an early bond between the
newer and older athletes. Each older athlete would spend time getting to know just a few
new rowers, and the new rowers would know that the older athletes care and want them
to participate.

When looking at orientations of the participants and comparing orientations
between continuing participants and dropouts, there were no significant differences.
However, it should be noted that, overall, the athletes who continued in the rowing
program were slightly higher in task, higher in ego-enhancing, lower in ego-defeating,
lower in social approval, and lower in work avoidance than participants who decided to
dropout at the time of the pre-season survey. Coaches can use these orientations as a

guide when choosing athletes for the team. It should be noted that social approval

70

orientation became much stronger for the athletes who continued as the season
progressed. Again, it seems that the athletes who decide to stay are finding and
developing social expectations to team participation that are a benefit to them that are not
being met for the athletes who decide to dropout.
Review and Discussion of the Study

This section looks at the study and some of the questions that arose during the
course of data collection. First of all, one goal of the study was to compare results with
results of studies using “traditional” sports. When looking at the perceived benefits to
sport participation by Seefeldt et al. (1991), there are some small differences between
rowing and other sports. The study by Seefeldt et al. listed the top ten reasons to
participate in sports for girls as To have fun, To improve my skills, For the excitement of
competition, To do something I ’m good at, To stay in shape, For the challenge of
competition, To play as part of a team, To win, My parents or close friends want me to
play, and To go to a higher level of competition. The novice rowers as a group during the
pre-season survey listed To play as part of a team, For the excitement of competition, To
stay in shape, To have fun, To get exercise, To improve my skills, For the challenge of
competition, To go to a higher level of competition, To meet new friends, and For the
team spirit. The difference is that the rowers did not list To win, To do something I’m
good at, or My parents or close fiiends want me to play as reasons to participate and
instead, listed To get exercise, For the team spirit, and To meet new fiiends in their top
ten reasons to participate. Its seems that the novice rowing athletes want to again be a
part of a team or group where they can participate and join a social group, but do not

believe they will win or be good at rowing right away.

71

When looking at cemmitrnent in novice rowing as compared to other sports, it
was interesting to note that; overall, the new participants’ commitment was very positive
at the beginning when they had no idea what they were getting into. Almost all of the
participants dropped in commitment level responses by the end of the semester, even
though these drops were not significant. This has been found in other sports as well.
One study of gymnasts (Johns et al., 1990) found that those who withdrew from
competitive gymnastics and tried another sport were not nearly as committed to the new
sport. They did not practice as much or as hard, and did not believe they would go as far
in their new sport. This may be a similar phenomenon as when successful high school
athletes try rowing in college for the first time. They may have a feeling of having to
start all over again, whereas in high school, they were at the top of their game. It may be
an overwhelming and frustrating feeling. Yet, even though an overall decrease in
commitment occurred with the continuing participants, some athletes stay with the
rowing program and excel. Is this due to better athletic ability, better conditioning at the
start, or a different mental mindset from those who quit? Does it go back to achievement
orientations and how the athlete is defining success for herself?

Orientations in rowing also show similar patterns to orientations of other sports
and activities (Issac, et. a1, 2002; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Spray & Wang, 2001;
Standage & Treasure, 2001 ;). The novice rowers of this study showed combinations of
multiple goal orientations, and the athletes that stayed were often high in ego-enhancing,
task, and social orientation, and low in work-avoidance and ego-defeating orientation.

Next, it should be noted that many of the study participants were people who

ended up staying with the program anyway. Many of the people who dropped-out never

72

even bothered to complete the first survey, even though it was stressed to all the new
athletes that data from people who dropout was an important part of the study. Why did
the dropouts never even bother to fill out an initial questionnaire, when many of the
continuing participants did? Future research will have to provide insight into these
questions.
Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to look at beginning rowers’ reasons for trying-out
and participating in college rowing, and why many decide to dropout of revving. A
second purpose of the study was to provide suggestions to coaches to help retain a larger
number of athletes throughout the season. It was found that only slight differences
appear in the early stages between the athletes who decide to stay and the athletes who
decide to dropout. Coaches can focus on an individual athlete’s desired benefits fi'om
team participation and how that athlete can maximize the realization of the benefits for
herself. Also, coaches can encourage bonding and support between the new athletes and
the older athletes at a very early stage in order to create an environment of acceptance,
encouragement, and teamwork. Finally, when choosing new athletes, coaches can look
for athletes already high in task and ego-enhancing orientations, and low in ego-
defeating, social approval, and work avoidance orientations.
Future Recommendations

This study provides an initial insight into the reasons collegiate women decide to
try-out and participate for college rowing and then decide to dropout of the program after
only a few weeks or months. Unfortunately, the unexpected low number of study

participants may have had a huge effect on significant findings. Future studies should

73

incorporate a larger number of participants, in both the continuing participant and
dropout groups. Ideally, the same participants are kept throughout the whole study. The
use of new participants at the time of the post-study was felt necessary for the sake of
data analysis, but did limit what could be done with the data Analysis with respect to
time interaction was performed to ensure that the data from the extra post-season
participants was consistent with data from participants who did both the pre and the post-
season surveys or just the pre-season survey. No significant differences were found.
Even so, it is recommended to keep the same participants for both sets of surveys to
ensure internal integrity of data.

Data should be collected from a number of sites around the country to strengthen
generalization of study findings, and a study done over a period of a few years, following
the athletes as they become more experienced would give great insight into reasons for

continuing participation in the sport of rowing.

74

APPENDIX A

0Commitment Questionnaire.

75

COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions

ID Code:

Please read the following questions and statements and circle the response that is most

appropriate for you right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not at all/ not very/ neutral/ above a lot/ very
nothing not much average average much
1.How proud are you to tell other 1 2 3 4 5
people that you will be or a rower?
2.Do you want to keep participating
in college rowing? I 2 3 4 5
3.How dedicated are you to college rowing? 1 2 3 4 5
4.What would you be willing to do to keep
on rowing? 1 2 3 4 5
SHOW hard would it be for you to quit
rowing? 1 2 3 4 5
6.How determined are you to stay in
college rowing? l 2 3 4 5
7.Do you enjoy rowing so far this season? 1 2 3 4 5
8.Are you happy rowing so far this season? 1 2 3 4 5
9.Do you have fun rowing so far this
season? 1 2 3 4 5
10.Do you like rowing so far this season? 1 2 3 4 5
11.How interesting do you think other
activities besides rowing are/would be? 1 2 3 4 5
12.How much fun do you think other
activities besides rowing are/would be? 1 2 3 4 5
l3.How much would you like to do other
activities besides rowing? 1 2 3 4 5

76

 

14.How difficult was it to choose rowing
over other activities?

15.How much of your time have you put
into rowing this season?

l6.How much effort have you put into
rowing this season?

17.Hew much money have you put into
rowing this season?

18.1 feel I have to row to be with my
friends.

19.1 feel 1 have to row to please my friends.

20.1 feel I have to stay in rowing because
my parents have done so much.

21. I feel I have to row to please my mom.

22. I feel I have to row to please my dad.

23.1 feel I have to row to please my coach.

24.1 feel I have to stay in rowing so people
won’t think I’m a quitter.

25.Would you miss being a rower if you
left the team?

26.Would you miss your coach if you left
the team?

27.Would you miss the good times you
had if you left the team?

28.Would you miss your friends if you
left the team?
29.Would you miss competing if you

left the team?

30.Would you miss traveling if you
left the team?

1

l

1

77

APPENDIX B

OMultiple Goal Orientation Scale (MGOS)-

78

Multiple Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire

ID Code:

 

Directions: Please read each of the statements listed below and show us how much you agree with each
statement by circling the appropriate response. In general, when do you feel successful in sports? In other
words, when do you feel a sporting activity has gone really well for you? Remember there are no right or
wrong answers.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

1. I feel successful in sport when 1

do my very best. SD D N A SA
2. I feel successful in sport when

I play better than my teammates. SD D N A SA
3. I feel successful when I don’t

make a fool of myself in my

sport skills. SD D N A SA

4. I feel successfirl when I please
people important to me. SD D N A SA

5. I feel successful when the coach
doesn’t work us too hard. SD D N A SA

6. I feel successful in sport when
I learn a new skill and it makes
me want to practice more. SD D N A SA

7. I feel successful at sport when

I do better than other players. SD D N A SA
8. I feel successful when my

practicing helps me avoid

being embarrassed. SD D N A SA

9. I feel successful when 1 am
able to do as little as possible
at practice. SD D N A SA

10. I feel successful in sport when
I work really hard. SD D N A SA

79

11. I feel successful in sport when
1 score the most points, goals,
or have fire fastest time.

12. I feel successful when others
don’t think poorly of me when
I play badly.

13. I feel successful when 1
demonstrate my worth to others.

14. I feel successful when there is
no hard work.

15. I feel successful in sport when
I learn something new
that is fun to do.

16. I feel successful in sport when
I am able to perform skills
that others cannot.

17. I feel successful when my
practicing makes others not
think I am one of the least
skilled players.

18. I feel successful when others
thought I played a sport well.

19. I feel successful when I avoid
diflicult tasks or skills.

20. I feel successful in sport when
something I learn makes me want
to go and practice more.

21. I feel successful in sport when
I show that I can do sport skills
better than my teammates.

22. I feel successful when others
don’t notice when I make a
mistake in sport.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

80

D

Strongly
Agree

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral

23. I feel successful when other
people tell me I performed well. SD D

24. I feel successful in sport when a
new skill I learn really feels
right. SD D

25. I feel successful in sport when
I am the only one who can do

a skill. SD D
26. I feel successful when I avoid

looking stupid while playing

sports. SD D

27. I feel successful when I make
other people happy. SD D

28. I feel successful in sport when
I learn a new skill by trying hard. SD D

81

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

Subscales from the Multiple Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire

Task Orientation (Task subscale from Duda, 1989; Duda & Nicholls, 1992).

I feel most successful in sport when I do my very best.

I feel most successful in sport when I learn a new skill and it makes me want to practice more.
I feel most successful in sport when 1 work really hard.

I feel most successful in sport when I learn something new that is fun to do.

I feel most successful in sport when something I learn makes me want to go and practice more.
I feel most successful in sport when a new skill I learn really feels right.

I feel most successful in sport when I learn a new skill by trying hard.

Self-Enhancing Ego (Ego subscale adapted from Duda, 1989; Duda & Nicholg, 1992).

I feel most successful in sport when I play better than my teammates.

I feel most successful in sport when 1 do better than other players.

I feel most successful in sport when 1 score the most points, goals, or have the fastest time.

I feel most successful in sport when I am able to perform skills that others cannot.

I feel most successful in sport when 1 show that I can do sport skills better than my teammates.
I feel most successful in sport when I am the only one who can do a skill.

Self-Defeating Ego

I feel most successful in sport when I don’t make a fool of myself in my sport skills.

I feel most successful in sport when my practicing helps me avoid being embarrassed.

I feel most successful in sport when others don’t think poorly of me when I play badly,

I feel most successful in sport when my practicing makes others not think I am one of the least skilled
players.

I feel most successful in sport when others don’t notice when 1 make a mistake in sport.

I feel most successful in sport when I avoid looking stupid while playing sports.

Social Approval (adapted from Ewing, 1981)

I feel most successful in sport when I please people important to me.

I feel most successful in sport when others thought I played a sport well.

I feel most successful in sport when I make other people happy.

I feel most successfirl in sport when 1 demonstrate my worth to others.

I feel most successful in sport when other people tell me I performed well.

Work Avoidance (adapted from Duda & Nicholls, 1992)

I feel most successful in sport when the coach doesn’t work us too hard.

I feel most successful in sport when I am able to do as little as possible at practice.
I feel most successfirl in sport when there is no hard work.

I feel most successful in sport when I avoid difficult tasks or skills.

82

APPENDIX C

0 Sport Participation Questionnaire (adapted).

83

SPORT PARTICIPATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Directions: Part A - Reasons to Participate ID Code:
The following is a list of potential reasons for trying out for the revving team.

Please circle the number that corresponds to the importance of each reason to you.
There are no RIGHT or WRONG answers.

very somewhat slightly not at all
important important important important important
1.To improve my skills 1 2 3 4 5
2.To be with friends 1 2 3 4 5
3.To win I 2 3 4 5
4.Someone I admire rows 1 2 3 4 5
5.For the travel that goes with being 1 2 3 4 5
on a team
6.To stay in shape 1 2 3 4 5
7.To play as part of a team 1 2 3 4 5
8.For the excitement of competition 1 2 3 4 5
9.My parents or friends want me 1 2 3 4 5
to participate
10.To learn new skills 1 2 3 4 5
11.To meet new friends 1 2 3 4 5
12.Te do something I’m good at l 2 3 4 5
13.To release energy/stress 1 2 3 4 5
14.For the rewards, such as medals 1 2 3 4 5
and championships
15.To get exercise 1 2 3 4 5
l6.To have something to do 1 2 3 4 5
17.For the team spirit 1 2 3 4 5
18.To feel important 1 2 3 4 5
19.To go to a higher level of l 2 3 4 5
competition
20.To be popular by being a 1 2 3 4 5
good athlete
21 .For the challenge of competition 1 2 3 4 5
22.1 like the coaches I 2 3 4 5
23.To have fun 1 2 3 4 5
24.To use the equipment and facilities 1 2 3 4 5
25.To attract social attention 1 2 3 4 5
26.0ther reasons 1 2 3 4 5
27.0ther reasons 1 2 3 4 5

84

APPENDIX D

ODemographic Questionnaireo

85

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

 

ID Code:
Directions: Please fill out the following information about youself.
All questions are optional.

Age: Birth date: Height:
Ethnic Background (please circle one):
Afiican American Middle Eastern American
Asian American Latin American
European American Asian Pacific American
American Indian Other
Academic Major:
Sports Played in High School

1. 4.

2. 5.

3. 6.
Have you ever rowed before? Yes No

What is your swimming ability?
I can not swim or tread water (1)
I can tread water but can not swim (2)
I can tread water and swim when necessary (3)
I swim for fun and exercise (4)
I swim for have swum competitively (5)

What is your overall fitness level?
I never work out (1)
I work out once a week 30 minutes or more (2)
I work out 2-4 times a week, 30 minutes or more (3)
I work out 5-6 times a week, 30 minutes or more (4)
I work out 7+ times a week, 30 minutes or more (5)

Rate your ability to learn new skills:
I have trouble learning new athletic skills (1)
I can learn new athletic skills (2)
I am good at learning new athletic skills (3)
I learn new athletic skills without any trouble (4)
I enjoy learning new athletic skills (5)

86

Please rate yourself on the following:
Never 1 time 2-4 times 5-6 times 7+ times
a week a week a week a week

Drink alcohol to get a “buzz” l 2 3 4 5
Smoke a pack a day 1 2 3 4 5
Use recreational drugs 1 2 3 4 5
Have asthma attacks 1 2 3 4 5
Have you ever been pregnant? Yes No
Have you had any past sport injuries? Yes No

If yes, what were they and when?

 

Do you have a friend who is currently a member of MSU varsity rowing?

Yes No

87

APPENDIX E

OUCHRIS Approval Letter-

88

MICHIGAN STATE
0 N l v E R s l T Y

August 25, 2003

TO: Martha E. EWING

138 IM Sports Circle
MSU

RE: IRB# 03-020 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-2

APPROVAL DATE: August 22, 2003
EXPIRATION DATEzJuly 22. 2004

TITLE: PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL MOTIVES FOR FEMALE NOVICE
COLLEGIATE ROWERS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects
continuing beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such
expedited renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time
need to submit a 5-year application for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the Change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form
with the renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new Information indicating

greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http:/Mwwmsuedu/user/ucrihs

Sincerely,

W2.

Peter Vasllenko lll, Ph.D.
UCRIHS Chair

PV: kmb

cc: Angela Lound
5675 Valencia
Lansing, MI 48911

89

APPENDIX F

l l

OCOflseflt Form-

90

PARTICPATION AND WITHDRAWAL MOTIVES FOR FEMALE NOVICE
COLLEGIATE ROWERS

Consent Form -— Researcher’s & Participant’s Copy

This is an invitation to participate in a study being conducted by Angela Lound, a
graduate student in sport psychology at Michigan State University. The goal of the study
is to understand reasons athletes participate in and withdraw from college rowing, and
ultimately to provide recommendations for coaches to adapt their programs to the needs
of the athletes.

There are two phases to this study. The first phase is the completion Of the packet
Of surveys and questionnaires given to you during your tryout week of women’s rowing.
The surveys and questionnaires will ask you about your commitment level to rowing,
your sport motivation, your perceived benefits and costs to participation in rowing, and
demographic information (such as your age, ethnic background, and health habits). The
surveys and questionnaires should take about 20-30 minutes to complete. All the
information you provide will be kept in a secure location where only researchers
associated with this study will have access to the data. Also, all information from this
study will be reported as group data and not on individuals.

The second phase Of the study will occur at the end of the first semester where
you will fill out the surveys and questionnaires again. If you decide to voluntarily
withdraw fiom the rowing team, before the end of the semester, you will be asked to
complete the surveys and questionnaires again, as your responses are very important to
the study.

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may Choose not tO participate at all,
may refuse to answer certain questions, or may discontinue participation at any time.
Participation in this study and your responses do I_\I_(_)_I_ determine membership on the
rowing team in any way. You will be given a ID Code (the number Of sisters you have
followed by the number of brothers you have followed by your middle initial followed by
the last four digits of your home phone number e.g., 20K0927) to use instead Of your
name on the survey packet so that neither the coaches nor the researchers will know who
you are, thereby protecting your privacy. You are guaranteed confidentiality and privacy
to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the project director, Dr.
Martha Ewing of the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports at (517) 353-4652 or email
mewing@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
anonymously or otherwise contact Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

91

PARTICPATION AND WITHDRAWAL MOTIVES FOR FEMALE NOVICE
COLLEGIATE ROWERS

Consent Form — Researcher’s & Participant’s Copy
Participant:
I, (print name) , would like tO volunteer to participate in the

study called “Participation and Withdrawal Motives for Female Novice Collegiate
Rowers.”

 

 

Signature: . Date:
Parent/Guardian:
I, (print name) . give permission for my daughter,

 

, to volunteer to participate in the study
called

“Participation and Withdrawal Motives for Female Novice Collegiate Rowers.”

92

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bray, C. (Eds). (2003). Sports sponsorship and participation rates report, 1 982-2002.
Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Brodkin, P., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). Developmental differences in motivation for
participating in competitive swimming. Journal of Sport &Exercise Psychology,
12, 248-263.

Carpenter, P. J. (1995) Modification and extension of the Sport Commitment Model.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 1 7, S37.

Carpenter, P. J., & Coleman, R. (1998). A longitudinal study of elite youth cricketers’
commitment. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 195—210.

Carpenter, P. J ., Scanlan, T. K., Simons, J. P., & Lobel, M. (1993). A test of the Sport
Commitment Model using structural equation model. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 15, 119-133.

Duda, J. L. (1988). The relationship between goal perspectives, persistence and
behavioral intensity among male and female sport participants. Behavior
Sciences, 10, 95-106.

Duda, J. L. (1989a). The relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived

purpose Of sport among high school athletes Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 11, 95-106.

Duda, J. L. (1989b). Goal perspectives, participation and persistence in sport.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 42-56.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions Of achievement motivation in
schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Ewing, M. E. (1981). Achievement orientations and sport behaviors of males and
females. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.

Gill, D. L., Gross, J. B., & Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth
sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1 4, 1-14.

Gould, D. (1987). Understanding attrition in Children’s sport. In D. Gould & M. Weiss
(Eds), Advances in pediatric sport sciences (pp. 61 -83). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

93

Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (2000). Factors
affecting Olympic performance: Perceptions Of athletes and coaches from more
and less successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13(4), 1-16.

Guillet, E., Sarrazin, P., Carpenter, P. J., Trouilloud, D., & Cury, F. (2002). Predicting
persistence or withdrawal in female handballers with social exchange theory.
International Journal of Psychology, 3 7(2), 92-104.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Human Development, 12, 34-64.

Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in Children: Individual
differences and developmental Change. In W.A. Collins (Eds), Minnesota
Symposium on Child Psychology (V 01. 14. pp. 215-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Isaac, J.D., Sansone, C., & Smith, J.L. (2002). Other people as a source Of interest in an
activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 239-265.

Johns, D. P., Lindner, K. J., & Wolko, K. (1990). Understanding attrition in female
competitive gymnastics: Applying Social Exchange Theory. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 7, 154-171.

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B]. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among
novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91-105.

Kelley, H.H. (1983). Love and Commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A.
Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levenger, E. McClintOCk, L. A.
Peplau, & D. R. Petersen (Eds) Close Relationships (pp. 265-314). New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide
approach. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 399-427.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming School Cultures. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task Choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-
determination theory in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 397-409.

Orlick, T.D., & Botterill, C. (1975). Every kid can win. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

94

Petlichkoff, L.M. (1982). Motives interscholastic athletes have for participation and
reasons for discontinued involvement in school sponsored sport. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Robinson, T., & Carron, A. (1982). Personal and situational factors associated with

dropping out versus maintaining participation in competitive sport. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 4, 364-378.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) Of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-1 17.

Sapp, M., & Haubenstricker, J. (1978). Motivation for joining and reasons for not
continuing in youth sport programs in Michigan. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Alliance for Heath, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance,
Kansas City, MO.

Scanlan, T. K., Carpenter, P. J ., Lobe], M., & Simons, J. P. (1993). Sources of enjoyment
for youth-sport-athletes. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 275-285.

Scanlan, T. K., Carpenter, P. J., Schmidt, G. W., Simons, J. P., & Keeler, B. (1993). An
introduction to the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 15, 1-15.

Scanlan, T.K., Simons, J.P., Carpenter, P.J., Schmidt, G.W., & Keeler, B. (1993). The
sport commitment model: Measurement development for the youth-sport domain.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 16-38.

Schmidt, G. W., & Stein, G. L. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating

enjoyment, dropout, and burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8,
254-265.

Seefeldt, V., Ewing, M., & Walk, S. (1991). An overview of youth sports programs in the
United States. Youth Sports Institute, Michigan State University. Paper

commissioned by Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. Washington, D.
C.

Smith, RE. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.

Spray, C.M., & Wang, GK]. (2001). Goal orientations, self-deterrnination and pupils’
discipline in physical education Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 903-913.

95

Standage, M., & Treasure, DC. (2001). Relationship among achievement goal
orientations and multidimensional situational motivation in physical education.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 87-103.

Stefanek, K. A., GanO-Overway, L. A., Cummings, S. P., & Ewing, M. E. (2001). The
multiple goal orientation in sport questionnaire. Paper presented at the
Association for the Advancement Of Applied Sport Psychology. Orlando, Florida.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York:
Wiley.

White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66, 297-330.

96