L 5W}

Michigan State
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

 

{A w

 

FEB 0 93006

J .r I Y
.L ’,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

PERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL BASES FOR COACHES’ CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR THE RECOVERY OUTCOME OF INJURED ATHLETES

By

Dawn Kimberly Lewis

A DISSERTATION.

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Kinesiology

2004

ABSTRACT
PERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL BASES FOR COACHES’ CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS FOR THE RECOVERY OUTCOME OF INJURED ATHLETES
By

Dawn Kimberly Lewis

Coaches, despite their importance, continue to ignore injured athletes (Wiese-
Bjornstal & Smith, 1993), their judgment remains a significant source of stress for
injured athletes (Hardy, 1992), and their interactions with injured athletes’ consist of a
significant number of negative interactions (Udry et al., 1997). Jones and Nisbett (1972)
argued that “there is a pervasive tendency for actors [i.e., athletes] to attribute their
actions to situational requirements, whereas observers [i.e., coaches] tend to attribute the
same actions to stable personal dispositions” (p. 80). They contend that differences in the
information available to the actor and observer and differences between the two in the
processing of the available information cause their dichotomous explanations for an
outcome. However, altering coaches’ perspectives to that of the athlete (Batson et al.,
1997; Funder & Colvin, 1997; Gould & Sigall, 1977) and the coaches’ empathic abilities
(Davis, 1996) may change coaches’ causal attributions to more closely reflect those of the
injured athlete. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of (a) coaches’
dispositional empathy, (b) coaches’ perspective-taking condition [Coach-aS-Athlete (CA)
or Coach-as-Coach (CC)], (c) recovery outcome (success vs. failure), (d) coaches’

personal sport injury history, and (e) coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome and

   

15-.

 

 

the athlete’s rehabilitation behavior on coaches’ causal attributions for the athlete’s
recovery outcome.

One hundred fourteen high school and college coaches completed a demographic
survey and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980). After reading each of
the two descriptive recovery scenarios, participants then completed the Causal Dimension
Scale II (CDSII; McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992). Statistical analyses revealed that
perspective-taking condition (Coach-aS-Coach and Coach-as-Athlete), the recovery’s
outcome (success vs. failure), coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome, and
coaches’ perception of the athlete’s rehabilitation behavior (compliant vs. non-compliant)
had a Significant affect on coaches’ causal attributions. Discussion includes
consideration of coaches’ perception of injury severity and characteristics of the coach as
sources of additional information when forming causal attributions. Suggestions and
future directions for sport psychology researchers and practitioners, and coaches are also

given.

Copyright by
DAWN KIMBERLY LEWIS
2004

DEDICATION

‘To Mom anJ(Dac£

rI’Iiarzrfiyou for t/ie wonrfey‘idlifi you fiave given me.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

When I first arrived at Michigan State University as a Master’s student, I was
certain it was going to be a two-year stay. Eight years and a Ph.D. later, I leave this
University with many fond memories, new colleagues, unexpected friends, David and
Hunter “The Wonder Dog”. Today I take a huge leap and dare to call my faculty mentors
Marty Ewing, Deborah F eltz, and Crystal Branta, each of whom I admire greatly, my
colleagues. Most especially, I have spent so many hours in Marty’s care that I am not
certain “thank you ” can ever express my gratitude. As for Dr. Messe, I pray for your
returned health. You were an immense help with this dissertation.

I have also picked up a few friends along the way with whom I have Shared the
dog days of graduate school and they have brightened my days. Dawnyell, Ivy, Michelle,
Lori, Nick, Jen, Ryan, and Aaron, thank you for your camaraderie.

Bridget and Latidra, my Sisters, thank you for making it okay for me to be the one
to leave home for so long. I did not know how much I missed you until I returned.

David, you put up with so much from me. If I were you, I would have run away
screaming a long time ago. You and Hunter “The Love Puppy” are my life. I love you
more each day.

Mom and Dad, I do not have the words to express the love I have for you. My

only hope is that I make you proud.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1
Overview of the Problem ............................................................. 1
Attribution Theory and Sources Of Information for Causal Attributions ...... 3
Causal Attributions and Expectancy ................................................ 12
Need for the Study .................................................................... 14
Purpose of the Study and Exploratory, Working Model for Coaches’ Causal
Attributions for Recovery Outcomes ............................................... 16
Research Hypotheses and Research Question ..................................... 17
Operational Definitions ............................................................... 18
Limitations/Delimitations ............................................................ 1 9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................. 21
Introduction ............................................................................ 2 1
Attribution Theory and The Actor-Observer Effect in Sport Research ........ 23
Sport Injury Research — Attribution Theory and The Actor-Observer Effect. 27
Empathy, Perspective-Taking, and The Actor-Observer Effect ............... 31
Dispositional Empathy ............................................................... 38
Sex/Gender Differences in Empathy ............................................... 44
Summary and Concluding Thoughts ............................................... 45
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ................................................................... 47
Participants ............................................................................. 47
Survey Instruments .................................................................... 50
Procedure ............................................................................... 56
Statistical Analysis .................................................................... 58
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ..................................................................... 60
Preliminary Analyses ................................................................. 60
Research Hypotheses ................................................................. 64
Summary ............................................................................... 121

vii

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS .......................... 124
Differences in Observers’ and Perspective-takers’ Causal Attributions ....... 124
Dispositional (Trait) Empathy and Causal Attributions .......................... 129
Effect of Recovery Success and Failure on Causal Attributions ................ 133
Effect of Perceptions of Rehabilitation Behavior on Causal Attributions. . . .. 135
Causal Attributions’ Association with Coaches’ Expectancy Beliefs .......... 140
Limitations of the Study .............................................................. 142
Revised Working Model for Understanding Coaches’ Causal Attributions
for Recovery Outcomes and Their Relationship with Injured Athletes ....... 147
Implications and Future Directions ................................................. 150

APPENDIX A: Consent Form .............................................................. 153

APPENDIX B: Demographic Survey ...................................................... 155

APPENDIX C: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) .................................... 158

APPENDIX D: Observer Group: Descriptive Scenarios, Causal Dimension Scale

11 (CD811), and Additional Items ....................................... 161

APPENDIX E: Perspective-taking Group: Descriptive Scenarios, Causal

Dimension Scale II (CD8 11), and Additional Items ................. 165

APPENDIX E: Thank You Page for Survey Instruments .............................. 169

APPENDIX G: Reminder Postcard ........................................................ 171

APPENDIX H: Descriptive Statistics for Hypothesis #6 Analyses .................. 173

APPENDIX 1: Coaches’ Statement of the Cause of the Recovery Scenarios’

Outcome and Self-Description of Their Sport Injuries ............... 206

APPENDIX J: Raw Data ................................................................... 222

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 262

viii

 

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

LIST OF TABLES

Description of Participants’ Coaching Position, and Sex by Sport
Level ............................................................................

Frequency of Coaches’ Sport Injury by Severity, Sport Level,
Coaching Position, and Sex ..................................................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, ANOVA Comparison of the
Order of Exposure to the Recovery Scenarios (Failure-Success vs.
Success-Failure) on CDSII Scale Means ..................................

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, ANOVA Comparison of the
Order of Exposure to the Recovery Scenarios (Failure-Success vs.
Success-Failure) on CDSII Scale Means ..................................

ANOVA Comparison of Sex Differences in Coaches’ IRI Scale
Scores on CDSII Scale Means ..............................................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Means and Standard
Deviations for the Perspective-taking Condition Given the Order of
CSDII as the Covariate .......................................................

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Means and Standard
Deviations for the Perspective-taking Condition Given Coaches’
Belief about the Recovery Outcome as the Covariate ..................

Number of Participants at Each Level of the IRI Scales .................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Overall Covariate Effect of
Order of Descriptive Scenarios and Main Effect of Levels of
Empathy on Coaches’ Causal Attributions for Each Separate
MANCOVA Analysis of the IRI Scales ...................................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics
by Levels of Empathy with the Order of CDSII as the Covariate ......

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, Overall Covariate Effect of
Recovery Outcome on Coaches’ Causal Attributions for Each
Separate MANCOVA Analysis of the IRI Scales ........................

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, Overall Main Effect of Levels of
Empathy (Levels of IRI Scales) on Coaches’ Causal Attributions for
the Separate MANCOVA Analyses ........................................

ix

48

49

61

62

63

65

66

67

69

7O

72

72

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics by
Levels of Empathy Given the Order of CDSII as the Covariate ........

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition,
Overall Covariate Effect of Order of Descriptive Scenarios and
Main Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches’ Causal Attributions
for Each Separate MANCOVA Analysis of the IRI Scales .............

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition,
CDSII Descriptive Statistics by Levels of Empathy with the Order
Of CDSII as the Covariate ...................................................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CC Condition,
Overall Covariate Effect of Order of Descriptive Scenarios and
Main Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches’ Causal Attributions
for Each Separate MANCOVA Analysis of the IRI Scales .............

For the Successful Recovery Scenario - Within the CC Condition,
CDSII Descriptive Statistics by Levels of Empathy with the Order
of CDSII as the Covariate ...................................................

For the Failure Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition,
Overall Covariate Effect of Recovery Outcome Belief and Main
Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches’ Causal Attributions for

Each Separate MANCOVA Analysis of the IRI Scales ..................

For the Failure Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition,
CDSII Descriptive Statistics by Levels of Empathy with Coaches’
Recovery Outcome Belief as the Covariate ...............................

For the Failure Recovery Scenario — Within the CC Condition,
Overall Covariate Effect of Recovery Outcome Belief and Main
Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches’ Causal Attributions for

Each Separate MANCOVA Analysis of the IRI Scales ..................

For the Failure Recovery Scenario — Within the CC Condition,
CDSII Descriptive Statistics by Levels of Empathy with Coaches’
Recovery Outcome Belief as the Covariate ...............................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics
for the 2 x 2 MANCOVA Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches’
Injury Severity with the Order of CDSII as the Covariate ..............

73

75

76

78

79

81

82

84

85

88

Table 23:

Table 24:

Table 25:

Table 26:

Table 27:

Table 28:

Table 29:

Table 30:

Table 31:

Table 32:

Table 33:

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics for

the 2 x 2 MANCOVA Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches’

Injury Severity with Coaches’ Recovery Outcome Belief as the

Covariate ....................................................................... 91

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics
for the 2 x 2 MANCOVA Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches’
Injury Type with the Order of CDSII as the Covariate .................. 94

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics for

the 2 x 2 MANCOVA Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches’

Injury Type with Coaches’ Recovery Outcome Belief as the

Covariate ........................................................................ 97

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Main Effect of Injury
Severity and Level of Empathy and their Interaction on Coaches’
Causal Attributions within the Perspective-taking Conditions ......... 101

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Overall Covariate, Main and
Interaction Effects of Test Variables on Coaches’ Causal

.Attributions within the Perspective-Taking Conditions .................. 104

Oneway ANOVA Between Recovery Scenario Comparison of
CDSII Scale Means ........................................................... 106

Oneway AN OVA Between Scenario Comparison of CDSII Scale
Means Excluding Participants Who Believed the Failed Scenario
was a “Success” ................................................................ 107

Within Perspective-taking Condition, Between Recovery Scenario
Oneway ANOVA of CDSII Scale Means Excluding Participants
Who Believed the Failed Scenario was a “Success” ..................... 108

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Oneway MANCOVA Results of
Coaches’ Causal Attributions between Their Beliefs about the

Athletes’ Rehabilitation Behavior (Compliant or Non-Compliant)
Controlling for Coaches’ Belief about the Recovery’s Outcome (as
Success or Failure) ............................................................ 110

For the Recovery Failure Scenario — Within Perspective-taking

Conditions between Recovery Behavior Belief (Compliant or Non-
Compliant) Oneway MANCOVA Between-Subjects Results Per

CDSII Scale .................................................................... 114

Safrit and Wood’s (1995) Guidelines for Interpreting the Size of the
Correlation Coefficient ....................................................... 1 16

xi

Table 34:

Table 35:

Table 36:

Table 37:

Table 38:

Table 39:

Table 40:

For the Successfirl Recovery Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of
the Association of Expectancy with Each CDSII Scale (Controlling
for the Order of Exposure to the Recovery Scenarios) ..................

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of the
Association of Expectancy with Each CDSII Scale (Controlling for
Coaches’ Belief about the Recovery’s Outcome) ........................

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of
the Association of Expectancy with Each IRI Scale (Controlling for
the Order of Exposure to the Recovery Scenarios) .......................

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of the
Association of Expectancy with Each IRI Scale (Controlling for
Coaches’ Belief about the Recovery’s Outcome) ........................

Crosstabulation Analysis of Coach’s Perception of the Severity of
Injury for Each Recovery Scenario .........................................

Crosstabulation Analysis of Coach’s Perception of the Severity of
Injury of Their Sport Injury ..................................................

Crosstabulation Analysis of Coach’s Perception of the Severity of
Injury of Their Sport Injury and If They Continue to Experience
Any Effect of the Injury (Yes or No) .......................................

xii

118

119

120

121

144

145

146

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: A working model for understanding coaches’ causal attributions for
injury recovery outcomes and behavior/interactions with athletes with
sport injuries ...................................................................... 15

Figure 2: Revised working model for understanding coaches’ causal attributions

for injury recovery outcomes and their effect on the coach-athlete
relationship ........................................................................ 149

xiii

 

.o— i .
.y\ a
)5..an u.

a

it.” \\

- wuc‘ AA

 

 

.;:,_\\

 

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Problem
More than 4 million Americans are seriously injured playing sports each year
(Loudan, 1996). Powell and Barber-FOSS’ (1997) 3-year study reported that an average of
6,000 high school athletes were injured at least once each year, an average of 55.5% of the
reported injuries occurred during practice sessions, and 73.5% of these injuries resulted in
a time loss from practice of fewer than 8 days. Data from the National Collegiate Athletic
Association’s (NCAA; 2002) Injury Surveillance System (188) for 16 sports revealed the
following overall injury rates per 1,000 college athlete exposures for the 2001-2002
season: football, 45 injuries; wrestling, 30.2 injuries; men’s soccer, 24.2 injuries;
women’s soccer, 22.4 injuries; women’s gymnastics, 20.1 injuries. [Note, “an athlete
exposure iS one athlete participating in one practice or game in which he or she is exposed
to the possibility of athletic injury” NCAA (2003).] For 10 of the 16 sports analyzed by
the ISS, more than 50% of the injuries occurred during practice. The most recent 188 data
(NCAA, 2003) showed a reduction in practice and game injury rates per 1,000 athlete
exposures for the 2002-2003 season: football, 37.] injuries; wrestling, 31.7 injuries;
men’s soccer, 20.8 injuries; women’s soccer, 18.1 injuries; women’s gymnastics, 17.5
injuries. However, the percent of these injuries requiring restricted or missed participation
for 7 or more days is alarming: football, 47%; wrestling, 52%; men’s soccer, 29%;
women’s soccer, 37%; women’s gymnastics, 70%. While injuries are an unfortunate yet
common reality in sport, the psychological and emotional care of injured athletes is

equally as important as their physical recovery.

A social support system, consisting of people who provide encouragement, advice,
and a helping hand when an individual is down (Ray & Wiese-Bjornstal, 1999), has been
recognized as a key factor in the treatment of athletic injuries (Brewer, Jeffers, Petitpas, &
Van Raalte, 1994; Hardy, 1992; Heil, 1993; Petrie, 1992; Taylor & Taylor, 1997). While
the sources and the type of support these sources provide may vary (Rosenfeld, Richman,
& Hardy, 1989), it has been well documented that, for the injured athlete, social support
from coaches is as much or more important than that received from family and fiiends
(Ray & Wiese-Bjomstal, 1999; Taylor & Taylor, 1997; Wiese-Bjornstal & Smith, 1993).
Despite recognizing coaches’ importance and providing guidelines for coach-athlete
interactions during athletes’ recovery from injury (Hardy, Burke, & Crace, 1999; Heil,
1993; Henderson, 1999; Ray & Wiese-Bjomstal, 1999; Taylor & Taylor, 1997), two
problems remain — coaches continue to pay little attention to injured athletes (Wiese-
Bjomstal & Smith, 1993) and social evaluation by others (particularly coaches) is a major
source of stress for injured athletes (Hardy, 1992).

While the behavior coaches exhibit toward injured athletes can easily be observed
and documented, little is known about the information process through which coaches
develop judgments about injured athletes that influence their behaviors towards and
interactions with these athletes. More Specifically, it is unclear how coaches link or
attribute information from the situation and their personal experiences to their
classification of cause for an athlete’s recovery outcome. Furthermore, the perspective
Situation in which the coaches view an event (coach as the actor or the observer) may also
affect their application of causal attributions to recovery outcomes. For Sport psychology

researchers and practitioners, coaches, and sportsmedicine practitioners, it is important to

understand the function of attributions on the social situation of sport injury. Brawley
(1984) contends that to ignore the attributions coaches apply to an event (i.e., the injury
recovery outcome) “is to ignore the possibility of changing beliefs and/or circumstances
that reduce the frequency of such negatively-valued behaviors” (p. 215) such as those
mentioned above. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of
information variables within the coach (empathy, personal sport injury history, and
perspective situation) and external to the coach (the athletes’ rehabilitation behavior and
the recovery outcome) on how coaches explain injury outcomes of athletes. How coaches
explain the injury outcome may help explain the coach’s behavior toward the athlete.
Attribution Theory and Sources of Information for Causal Attributions

According to Kelley (as cited in Weiner, 1992), a fundamental assumption of
attribution theory is that humans are motivated to cognitively understand the causal
structure of their environment. That is, we want to know why an event has happened and
what caused its occurrence. In sport, it matters to coaches if athletes gave good effort
when they were successful or if they won because the competition was easy.
Furthermore, coaches use these explanations to place meaning to events that are relative
to their past experiences and possibly to value the outcome or to socially-reward the
athlete (Brawley, 1984).

Weiner and associates (Weiner, 1972, 1992; Weiner, Frieze, Kulka, Reed, Rest, &
Rosenbaum, 1972; Weiner, Russell, & Lerman, 1978) assert that persons use four major
causal attributions to explain success or failure in achievement-related settings: ability,
effort, luck, and task difficulty. These elements can be placed along three dimensions;

locus of causality (internal/external), stability (stable/unstable), and controllability

 

 

a-

v I

-J— h-

4
w...‘
, n
i

,- _

we-

‘4‘.

Q- -,

5 5 I

:1 ..,
x

 

 

 

 

 

(controllable/ uncontrollable). First, the internal/extemal (locus of causality) dimension
differentiates between causes that are within the person (i.e., ability, effort, and strength),
and causes that are outside the person, (i.e., luck and task difficulty). Second, the
stability dimension differentiates between causes that are temporary (i.e., luck and effort),
and causes that are stable (i.e., ability and task difficulty). Third, the controllability
dimension acknowledges that individuals can increase or decrease their expenditure
(volitional or Optional control) of internal and external attributes (i.e., laziness,
industriousness, and tolerance).

Attribution research suggests individuals choose attributions to explain success
and failure that are self-serving. Thus, injured athletes might explain a successful injury
recovery as a result of their hard work (effort) and recovery failure as a result of bad luck.
A coach, however, may explain the same recovery success and failure differently. For
example, the coach may explain the successful recovery as a result of the injury being
minor (task ease) and failure due to lack of the athlete’s adherence to the rehabilitation
protocol (effort). These differing explanations for the same event often result in
differential expectancies and affect for the coach and athlete.

Extending Weiner and his colleagues’ model for causal attributions, Jones and
Nisbett (1972) argued that “there is a pervasive tendency for actors [i.e., athletes] to
attribute their actions to Situational requirements, whereas observers [i.e., coaches] tend
to attribute the same actions to stable personal dispositions” (p. 80). They contend that
differences in the information available to the actor and observer and differences between
the two in the processing of the available information cause their dichotomous

explanations for an outcome.

For the observer, the actor’s behavior is the figural stimulus against the

ground of the situation. The actor’s attention is focused outward toward

situational cues rather than inward on his [sic] own behavior, and
moreover, those situational cues are endowed with intrinsic properties that

are seen to cause the actor’s behavior toward them. Thus, for the observer

the proximal cause of action is the actor, for the actor the proximal cause

lies in the compelling qualities of the environment (Jones & Nisbett, 1972,

p. 88).

Jones and Nisbett (1972) suggest categorizing the information available to the
actor and observer to pinpoint the areas where discrepancies are likely to occur. Thus,
the researchers have identified three types of information for the attribution process:
effect data, cause data, and historical data. Effect data are of three broad types: (a) data
about the nature of the act itself (what was done), (b) data about the environmental
outcomes of the act (success or failure, recipient’s response to the action, etc.), and (c)
data about the actor’s affective experiences (pleasure, pain, anger, etc.). Effect data can
provide both the athlete and coach with equivalent information about the nature of the act
and about environmental outcomes (i.e., recovery as success or failure). However, the
coach can have no direct knowledge of the experiential portion of the act for the athlete.
Thus, the coach’s knowledge about the athlete’s feelings is limited to inferences based on
interpreting the athlete’s gestures and direct communication about his/her feelings and
the coach’s personal experience with a similar situation. In either event, the coach’s
knowledge of the athlete’s affective state is never direct, usually sketchy, and sometimes

incorrect. However, the coach’s personal experience with sport injuries and his/her

at»

3»

rs.

IA

LCM

ability to take the perspective of the athlete may be important information the coach uses
when making judgments about the athlete and the situation. Therefore, for this study,
short, descriptive scenarios were carefully constructed to provide coaches with effect
data. That is, the injury and its recovery outcome (success or failure) were described.
How this information influenced coaches’ causal attributions for the recovery outcome
was under investigation. It was hypothesized that coaches who have experienced a
moderate or major Sport injury would attribute athletes’ recovery outcomes to external,
environmental factors more so than coaches who had none or minor sport injuries. Also,
coaches whose sport injuries were career—ending would attribute athletes’ recovery
outcomes to external, environmental factors more so than coaches whose sport injuries
were not career-ending.

Cause data (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) are broken into two broad types: (a)
environmental causes (task difficulty, equipment failure), and (b) intention data (what the
actor meant to do, effort). Under the category of perceived causes, there can be nearly
equal knowledge of the environmental causes on the actor or an outcome. However, like
the actor’s affective experiences in the effect data, the observer can never directly know
the actor’s intentions. Thus, the coach must infer intentions from the athlete’s expressive
rehabilitation behavior (compliant or non-compliant) or from the logic of the Situation.
Therefore, as with affective states, the coaches’ knowledge of athletes’ intentions is
indirect, and can be inferior and fallible. In sport situations, it is not unusual for coaches
to be given or infer information about athletes’ rehabilitation behavior. Thus, in this
study, coaches were aSked to determine if the athlete complied to the rehabilitation

protocol with the intention that coaches would use this information to apply causal

attributions for athletes’ recovery outcomes. Coaches’ beliefs that the athlete exhibited
compliant rehabilitation behavior will elicit external causal explanations more so than
belief that the athlete was non-compliant in rehabilitation.

Additional factors, such as the athlete’s injury history, the coach’s injury history,
and timing of injury occurrence cannot be divorced from a given act or outcome.
According to Jones and Nisbett (1972), “much of the discrepancy between the
perspectives of the observer and actor arises from the differences between the observer’s
inferred history of every man [Sic] and the concrete, individualized history of the Specific
actor” (p. 84). The attributer, be it the actor or observer, possesses three types of
information that correspond to different causal possibilities. First, consensus information
allows for judgment regarding if other actors behave in the same way to a given stimulus.
Distinctive information tells the attributer if the actor, and other actors, behave in the
same manner to other stimuli. Third, consistency information reveals if the actor, and
other actors, behave in the same way to a given stimulus across time and Situational
contexts. To make the best causal inference possible, the attributer will use whatever
information iS available. However, the observer always lacks some of the distinctiveness
and consistency information the actor possesses. With time, conversation, and
investigation, the coach may know an athlete’s personal history, but, again, knowing the
affective experience of the athlete’s historical data cannot be known with great accuracy.
Therefore, athletes and coaches evaluate each outcome along a different scale of
comparison; the coach compares the athlete with other athletes and the athlete refers to
his/her previous actions. However, in the absence of information known by the athlete,

coaches may substitute their own distinctive and consistency information (i.e., personal

Sport injury experiences, past experiences with injured athletes) when forming causal
attributions. Thus, the coaches in this study provided information regarding their sport
injury history, retirement from competitive Sport, and other background information in
hopes of identifying and categorizing such information and to examine how these factors
may influence the causal attributions of coaches. While no hypotheses regarding the
effect of these variables on coaches’ causal attributions have been made for this study,
exploratory analyses of their interaction with key variables of this study may be
conducted to provide additional understanding of how coaches form causal attributions.

While the classic actor-observer effect (actors attribute their own behavior to
external, situational causes, whereas observers attribute the behavior of others to internal
dispositions) popularized by Jones and Nisbett (1972) is well-regarded in the research
community, this effect has not been found uniformly. Monson and Snyder (1977) found
that actors typically ascribe success and failure to ability and/or [long-term] effort
(dispositional factors). Watson (1982) found that actors and observers do not
consistently differ in their attributions to dispositional causes; rather, they typically differ
only in their situational attributions. Also, the actor-Observer effect can be eliminated or
even reversed by a variety of factors, including salience (Storms, 1973; Taylor & F iske,
1975). While the classic actor-observer effect was supported by their study, Robbins,
Spranca, and Mendelsohn’s (1996) additional findings Show that the nature of actor-
observer differences depend on the Specific causal factor invoked, the individual’s history
in the Situation (e.g., personal sport injury history and experiences with injured athletes),
and individual differences among attributors. Wolfson’s (1997) examination of

competitive swimmer’s attributions for competition outcomes also did not support the

.o'

 

.a

classic actor-observer effect. Wolfson’s findings were consistent with those of Mullen
and Riordan’s (1988) meta-analysis where internal attributions generally occurred for
successful outcomes but external explanations were not consistently given for
performance failures. Thus, when examining coaches’ causal attributions for injured
athletes’ recovery outcomes, it is expected that the classic actor-observer effect will not
be found. Instead, it is expected that coaches in both the actor and observer Situations
will attribute recovery outcomes to dispositional factors such as ability and [long-term]
effort.

A basic mechanism for research findings in contention with the classic actor-
observer effect like those aforementioned involves changing the point of view of the
observer to that of the person performing the event (Funder & Colvin, 1997). That is,
altering the coaches’ perspective to that of the athlete may change coaches’ causal
ascriptions. According to Mead (1934), an individual’s capacity to take on the role of
other persons as a means of understanding how they view the world is an extremely
important component in the developmental process of learning to live effectively in a
highly social world. Projecting one’s self (imagine-self) into the situation and then
imagining how you would perceive the situation and how you would feel as a result has
been shown to produce greater physiological arousal and emotion than maintaining a
position of the observer (Stotland, 1969). Furthermore, Davis, Conklin, Smith, and Luce
(1996) report that empirical evidence (e.g., Galper, 1976, Regan & Totten, 1975) has
shown that perspective-taking makes the observer more likely to apply causal attributions
that agree with the actor. Thus, active role-taking tends to reduce or eliminate the classic

actor-observer effect. According to Stotland’s interpretation, when placed in an imagine-

 

.-
c0" \
r“ ,-~
._'~'“
\
,.~.—‘M
P.) “(J
.13 r.
—-- .
t)
5.“

. 4'
-v5‘ 5

‘v-
T's. .-
...5

f!-

..‘ u

‘

 

‘_ l1
“

‘ .

\A
u.

v I"
“~_
3

, .
b, 1

‘ S.
'F

5, ,'
w-

3.»,

self condition, coaches’ causal attributions are expected to be a result of their
physiological and emotional reactions that arise from the projection-of-self into the
situation. Thus, the causal attributions for recovery outcomes of coaches asked to take
the perspective of the athlete (imagine self) are expected to be different from coaches
who remain Observers. Perspective-taking coaches Should apply attributions that
emphasize Situational factors relative to dispositional ones.

In addition to perspective-taking, an individual’s empathic ability may further
alter causal attributions for an event. According to Levinson, Ponzetti, Jr., and Jorgensen
(1999), the most comprehensive and inclusive definition of empathy is given by Davis
(1996) who states that empathy is “a set of constructs having to do with the responses of
one individual to the experiences of another. These [multidimensional] constructs
specifically include the processes [i.e., perspective-taking and fantasy] taking place
within the observer and the affective [i.e., empathic concern and personal distress] and
non-affective [e.g., attributions] outcomes which result from those processes” (p. 12).
Moreover, the process of empathy suggests a more active attempt by one individual
(where the observer acts as a willing agent) to get “inside” the other, to reach out in some
fashion through a deliberate intellectual effort. Within his model, Davis considers the
importance of what the person brings to the situation, the thoughts that accompany and
contribute to empathy, the emotions that are experienced during an empathic episode, as
well as the behaviors that are likely to result from the experience of empathy.

Davis (1996) also asserts that each person has a tendency or disposition for
empathy. “That is, there are people who in general experience emotional reactions to

environmental events more readily or intensely and that they may Simply react with

10

 

,.
54"”
-
-w-nf"
i
y--"‘
.c-o-n ‘
.s- "'
_
\' \'
,UNO.
x
.- . ..

to.

 

«.0
~ .
~.
'4
..r “V.
i V
‘
.5.-
k -‘s.

   

C-
s

'\
k. '
~

greater affect to the observed experiences of others as well” (Davis, 1996, pg. 65).
Empirical evidence supports Davis’ position. For example, F under (1980) found that
perspective as a function of the observers’ levels of trait empathy influence causal
attributions. Gould and Sigall (1977) also found that empathic observers attributed
success to dispositional causes and failure to situational causes. Thus, this study assessed
coaches’ dispositional (trait) empathy and its relationship to coaches’ causal attributions.
It was expected that differences in coaches’ disposition for empathy (high or low) would
lead to differences in their causal attributions for athlete’s recovery outcomes.

While research has demonstrated that empathy has an impact on the process of
role-taking and causal attributions, what remains important to understanding the Sport
injury phenomenon is that once attributional judgments along the three causal dimensions
are made, additional judgments can be made about the athlete by the coach. For example,
and of great concern to those interested in the psychological and emotional care of
injured athletes, judgments of responsibility and expectations for future performance can
be derived from coaches’ causal attributions. That is, estimates can be made about the
athletes’ ability and willingness to have engaged in alternative behaviors. Thus, the
athlete is held responsible for the recovery outcome (success or failure) according to the
degree that the athlete is seen to have deliberately and freely chosen a particular
rehabilitation behavior (compliant or non-compliant rehabilitation behavior). The more a
coach holds an athlete responsible for the athlete’s negative actions, the greater the
likelihood of negative affective (e.g., anger, disappointment) and behavioral reactions
(e.g., exclusion, punishment) from the coach. Presumably, the more a coach is able to

empathize with the athlete, the more similar their attributional perspectives will be

11

 

 

up.»
I
r
0- P Hr"
q 1‘
~uu u.-

' l
Djpl . .‘r.
gufu .‘A“l

.

 

V"

A:

(Weiner, 1992). Furthermore, one’s perspective-taking ability and the ability to
experience the affective responses of another’s distress increase the likelihood of helping
that other person (Betancourt, 1990; Davis, 1996).

Although coaches’ empathic ability is expected to be key to the differentiation in
the perspective-taking and Observer perspective situations, its interaction with coaches’
injury histories may be crucial to understanding how coaches form causal attributions and
expectancies for injured athletes and how they interact with and behave toward athletes
with injuries. Thus, it was hypothesized that the stronger coaches’ empathic ability, the
more likely they are to ascribe environmental/situational reasons for recovery outcomes,
particularly if the outcome is perceived to be a failure. However, it is also expected that
strong empathic ability combined with coaches’ personal Sport injury history will have a
stronger relationship with their ascriptions of environmental/ situational reasoning for
recovery outcomes than when only strong empathic ability is reported.

Causal Attributions and Expectancy

Weiner (1992) proposed an expectancy principle which states “changes in
expectancy of success following an outcome are influenced by the perceived stability of
the cause of the event” (p. 259). Three corollaries are also associated with this principle.
First, if the outcome of an event is ascribed to a stable cause, then that outcome will be
anticipated with increased certainty, or with an increased expectancy, in the future.
Second, if the outcome of an event is ascribed to an unstable cause, then the certainty or
expectancy of that outcome may be unchanged or the future may be anticipated to be
different from the past. Finally, outcomes ascribed to stable causes are anticipated to be

repeated in the future with a greater degree of certainty than are outcomes ascribed to

12

unstable causes. Perceived success and failure at a task also affects expectancy. In his
review of sport-related studies of attributions, Leith (1989) reported that research has
shown that when an athlete perceives the successful outcome to be the result of stable
factors rather than unstable factors, there is a greater expectancy for future success.
However, when the athlete believed the negative outcome resulted from stable factors
rather than unstable factors, there is a lower expectancy for future success. While these
findings are of actor’s evaluation of themselves, Similar responses about expectancy may
be found when coaches evaluate their athletes. SO, success at recovery due to ability or
long-term effort will produce greater anticipation for future success. On the other hand,
failure at recovery due to the same attributions will strengthen coaches’ beliefs that the
athlete will fail at subsequent rehabilitations. However, what is interesting about
Weiner’s (1986, 1992) assertion about stability being the primary associate to
expectancies is that additional empirical research regarding this correlate has not been
found. In fact, many of the attribution researchers (e.g., Graham, 1990; McAuley &
Duncan, 1990; McAuley, Russell, & Gross, 1983) continue to cite Weiner’s assertion
regarding the association of stability with expectancy. However, in the absence of
additional empirical information to substantiate or debate Weiner’s assertion and Leith’s
(1989) findings regarding the effect of outcome on expectancy beliefs, no hypothesis can
be made regarding this factor for this study. Instead, it is an interesting research question

that will be explored.

13

'L’.-

'9“ 'J
w ‘5‘

 

 

v‘--.
v

a. ‘~\

‘oo.
o

‘__“‘

we

-. v
“k
.“

 

Need for the Study

Sport research has Shown that coaches are important sources of social support for
injured athletes (e.g., Rosenfeld, Richman, & Hardy, 1989; Taylor & Taylor, 1997; Udry,
Gould, Bridges, & Tuffey, 1997). Coaches, despite their importance, continue to ignore
injured athletes (Wiese-Bjornstal & Smith, 1993) and their judgment remains a
significant source of stress for injured athletes (Hardy, 1992). Udry et a1. (1997) found
that injured athletes’ interactions with coaches also consist of a significant number of
negative interactions. Examining the perspective taken by coaches as a mediator of
causal attributions for injury recovery outcomes may identify coaches’ perceptions of
injured athletes that govern their thoughts and behaviors toward these athletes. This
study provides additional light on the controversy involving the divergent (or congruent)
perceptions of causality of actors and observers. By examining the relationship between
antecedent information (i.e., empathic ability, personal injury history, and athletes’
rehabilitation behavior) and perspective-taking condition (actor or observer), situational
and personal factors that influence causal ascriptions may be identified. Identifying
influential factors that reduce “blaming” the athlete for recovery failures and encourage
helping and caring behaviors in coaches may be used to strengthen the relationship
between coaches and their injured athlete, encourage greater proactive recovery behavior
by athletes, and create a more positive psychological and emotional recovery from injury.
Thus, information from this study may be used by Sport psychology practitioners working
with injured athletes, coaches, athletic trainers, and coaches’ education program

designers.

14

Sources of Information

Coaches” l
: Empathy

 

 

    
     
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coaches'
Personal Sport Perspective Situation
: InIury History Perspective-taking C I l' """" I
. (coach assumes role of ans? ' Coaches’ '
‘ , , athlete and evaluates self) Sflrlbutlpn ' behavior :
Athlete’s R 'm?“s'°" . . and .
Recovery 0 I.’ Ascnbed for I interaction I
' Outcome Observer Recovery I with injured .
' 7 (coach maintains role as Outcome I athletes I
' X coach and evaluates | I
I Athlete’s 4| athlete) I - - - -|— - - ,
Rehab 1’ I
I BehaVIor J ’r I
I _________ I Y
: : Additional I ,’
I
. I Factors '9 .
I Inherent to I .
k ' Sport Settings I l
l ' --------- y
'4- ---------------- —<- ----------------- —< -----

Figure I. A working model for understanding coaches’ causal attributions for injury

recovery outcomes and behavior/interactions with athletes with sport injuries.

 

Note: Variables in the dotted boxes and dotted lines were not included in this study’s

research design.

Wiese-Bjomstal, Smith, Shaffer, and Morrey’s (1998) integrated model of
response to sport injury lists a multitude of personal and Situational factors that may
interact to effect an athlete’s (or a coach ’3) response to a sport injury. Developing a
Single research study that investigates all the variables within this model is nearly
impossible. Besides, some variables may be more salient for coaches’ response to
injured athletes than others. Thus, this study selected antecedent information believed to
be important moderating factors for coaches’ causal attributions. Furthermore, while the

thoughts and behaviors of coaches toward injured athletes were not directly tested in this

15

an" A
:wc"”
.O
-"\\.'
pt"

"7‘ '
5».

~;_\;

 

 

study, attribution theorists strongly assert that causal attributions can govern behaviors —
a position illustrated in the working model for this study (see Figure 1). While models
serve as useful diagrams of a psychological phenomenon, it is important that Sport
psychology researchers continue to statistically test and analyze the relevance of factors
believed to influence specific social relationships like that of the coach and injured
athlete.
Purpose of the Study and Exploratory, Working Model for Coaches’ Causal Attributions
for Recovery Outcomes

While the actor-observer perspective (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) provides a
framework for understanding the process for arriving at divergent explanations for the
causes of behavior, little is known of how coaches form causal attributions about injured
athletes or to what they attribute athletes’ recovery outcomes. Thus, an exploratory
information-processing model was developed for this study (see Figure 1). This working
model describes the relationship of the variables under investigation and the expectations
for this study. This model suggests that coaches’ empathy, personal sport injury history,
and other factors inherent to sport settings (e.g., time of season, athlete’s importance to the
team, type of injury) will influence their causal attributions for athletes’ recovery
outcomes. Coaches’ causal attributions for recovery outcomes will also result from
additional information about the athletes’ behavior toward the rehabilitation protocol
(compliant vs. non-compliant). Furthermore, when the coach is asked to assume the role
as either coach-as-athlete (CA) (coach evaluates him/herself as the athlete) or coach-as-
coach (CC) (coach evaluates another as the athlete), differences in their causal attributions,

a perspective-taking-observer effect, may exist. Lastly, coaches’ interactions with and

16

 

 

. hku

I._ .-
d
.At-t-dUh

 

'v
‘.9 r
I

.o,

.

o...

‘.

I

I‘

"sin...
e

1..

 

 

 

 

7'
a

behaviors toward injured athletes will be influenced by coaches’ causal attributions for the
athletes’ recovery outcome. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of
(a) coaches’ dispositional empathy, (b) coaches’ perspective-taking condition [ Coach-as-
Athlete (CA) or Coach-aS-Coach (CC)], (c) recovery outcome (success vs. failure), (d)
coaches’ personal sport injury history, and (e) coaches’ perception of the recovery’s
outcome and the athlete’s rehabilitation behavior on coaches’ causal attributions for the
athlete’s recovery outcome.
Research Hypotheses and Research Question

Considering this review of attribution theory and the sources of information for
causal attributions, Weiner’s (1992) principles and postulates, empirical findings
regarding the effect of empathy on causal attributions, and the model described in Figure
1, a number of hypotheses and one research question were made for this study.

HI: Coaches in the coach-aS-athlete (CA) perspective Situation will apply causal
explanations for recovery outcomes that are different than coaches in the
coach-aS-coach (CC) perspective situation.

H2: There will be a main effect of empathy on the causal dimension ascriptions.
Coaches with high empathy subscale scores will attribute recovery outcomes to
external, environmental factors more than coaches with low empathy subscale
scores.

H3: Within perspective-taking conditions, CA and CC coaches with high empathy
subscale scores will attribute recovery outcomes to external, environmental
factors more than CA and CC coaches with low empathy subscale scores.

H4: CA and CC coaches with a history of major Sport injuries will attribute
recovery outcomes to external, environmental factors more than CA and CC
coaches with a history of minor sport injuries.

H5: CA and CC coaches having experienced a career-ending sport injury will

attribute recovery outcomes to external, environmental factors more than CA
and CC coaches not having experienced a career-ending injury.

17

H62

H72

H32

H91

H10:

RQIZ

Within perspective-taking conditions, coaches’ empathy scores and injury
history will interact on the causal dimensions. Coaches with high empathy
subscale scores and having experienced a major sport inj ury(ies) will attribute
recovery outcomes to external, environmental factors more than coaches with
low empathy subscale scores and having experienced minor sport injury(ies).

For CA and CC coaches, successful recovery outcomes will elicit different
causal explanations by coaches in comparison to when the recovery outcome is
failure.

There will be a main effect of rehabilitation behavior on the causal dimension
ascriptions by coaches. Compliant rehabilitation behavior will elicit external
causal explanations by coaches more so than non-compliant rehabilitation
behavior.

For CA and CC coaches, compliant rehabilitation behavior will elicit external
causal explanations by coaches more so than non-compliant rehabilitation
behavior.

For CA and CC coaches, rehabilitation behavior and recovery outcome will
interact on the causal dimensions ascribed by coaches. Compliant
rehabilitation behavior and successful recovery outcome will elicit causal
attributions by CA and CC coaches that are different from the non-compliant
rehabilitation behavior and recovery failure outcome condition.

Which dimension of causality is primarily associated with expectancy?

Operational Definitions

The following terms are defined for clarity of hypotheses and for the construction

of the descriptive scenarios used for the causal attribution instrument. These definitions

are presented and referred to for research design purpose only. They are not for

participant use and referral.

Empathic concern: The tendency to experience feelings of sympathy and compassion

Fantasy:

for unfortunate others (Davis, 1996).
The tendency to imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional

Situations (Davis, 1996).

18

’
"~F"
I "
“Hal

 

y

3.7-4
. (L \ Y
‘ l \

A

_‘ u

L“‘

l“

Major Injury:

Minor Injury:

Moderate Injury:

Personal Distress:

Perspective-Taking:

Any injury that causes a player to be removed from the remainder
of the current session (practice or game) and does not return to
activity for more than 21 days (Powell & Barber-Foss, 1997).
Any injury that causes a player to be removed from the remainder
of the current session (practice or game) where the player returns
to activity within seven days (Powell & Barber-FOSS, 1997).

Any injury that causes a player to be removed from the remainder
Of the current session (practice or game) where the player does
not return to activity for 8 to 21 days (Powell & Barber-Foss,
1997)

The tendency to experience distress and discomfort in response to
extreme distress in others (Davis, 1996).

The tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of

view of others in everyday life (Davis, 1996).

Limitations/Delimitations

A delimitation to this investigation is that coaches in this study reside

predominantly in a mid-west state in the United States and coach high school or college

age athletes. Thus, the results of this study may not generalize to other populations.

This study iS limited by not having direct knowledge of how coaches come to

judge the severity of their sport injuries. The saliency of coaches’ personal injury history

to their causal attributions is bound to participantS’ recollection and report of their Sport

injuries. Coaches’ assignment of severity to their Sport injuries is not controlled for in

this study and may not match the severity categories defined for this study. Factors such

19

as characteristics related to the injury (e.g., type of injury, quality of treatment, time away
from sport, amount of pain) and knowledge/experience gained since the injury (e. g.,
additional/reoccurring injuries, coaching experience with injured players) may have
changed coaches’ original evaluation of their Sport injuries over time. For example,
today coaches’ may deemphasize the significance and severity of an injury they
previously thought was a big deal. Also, due to the number of years between when they
were an athlete and today, coaches may have difficulty recalling sport injuries, especially
if they were believed to be minor.

Another limitation of this study was the order that participants completed the
survey instruments. The order of the descriptive recovery scenarios were varied where
the successful recovery scenario was placed before the failed recovery scenario in the
survey packet and vice versa. The additional questionnaires were strategically ordered in
the survey set to reduce response bias (see Procedures in Chapter 3). The survey packets
were then randomly distributed to the participants. However, it is unknown if
participants completed the questionnaires in the order in which the principal investigator
placed them in the packet. Also, if coaches completed the surveys in an alternative order,

it is unknown how their actions may have affected the results of this study.

20

 

 

 

w‘ J‘V‘
I .

'h 1"

In
_.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction

It is indisputable that coaches play an important role in sport. Sport psychology
research has provided outstanding support for and documentation of the important role
coaches play in the psychological and emotional welfare of their athletes (e. g., Abraham
& Collins, 1998; Bloom, Durand-Bush, Schinke, & Salmela, 1998; Horn & Harris, 1996;
Poczwardowski, Barott, & Peregoy, 2002; Smith & Smoll, 1996).

In the area of Sport injury research, examinations of the role and availability of
social support for injured athletes have been popular (e.g., Gould, Udry, Bridges, & Beck,
1997; Lewis, 1999; Richman, Rosenfeld, & Hardy, 1993; Udry. Gould, Bridges, & Tuffy,
1997). From these reports regarding social support and Sport injury, a plethora of
suggestions for the psychological and emotional care of injured athletes to coaches has
also been made available in the sport psychology literature (e. g., Hardy, Burke, & Crace,
1999; Heil, 1993; Taylor & Taylor, 1997; Yukelson & Heil, 1998). However, two
problems continue to remain prevalent in sport — coaches continue to pay little attention
to injured athletes (Wiese-Bjornstal & Smith, 1993) and social evaluation by others
(particularly coaches) is a major source of stress for injured athletes (Hardy, 1992). Also,
in a study examining the types of social support injured athleteS’ perceived to be
available to them, Lewis (1999) found that injured athletes infrequently mentioned their
coaches as a source for social support in comparison to other persons they frequently

encounter in their lives. When coaxed with additional probing questions during in-depth

21

   

A .:v‘
“”5 . -

.J.‘ r-

\

u v

I 1'
'1', I
vi» ‘4‘

 

..
5.5’ .
u A
-\ e .
V .
“In any
‘n- -7;
.»
---§\.I
h‘V.‘

D—«_. ...I

 

 

 

 

 

interviews, Lewis concluded that athletes were hesitant to discuss their coaches and,
when they did, athletes’ responses more often reflected the findings of Hardy (1992).

Furthermore, a mid-1990’s investigative report of professional sport coaches’
responses to their players’ sport injuries that appeared in an episode of ESPN’S Outside
the Lines provided cause for alarm and further empirical investigation. In the report,
some coaches of professional Sports described injured players as “useless” and stated that
they preferred injured athletes remain separate from the team. One coach announced that
he did not allow injured athletes into the locker room or to attend team meetings.

It is hopeful that the reprehensible thoughts and behaviors exhibited toward
injured players by coaches of professional Sports are not the norm. However, no
empirical studies directly assessing coaches’ perceptions of sport injuries and injured
athletes have been conducted to date. Also, no studies examining coaches’ behaviors
toward and interactions with injured athletes have been conducted. While evidence of
anti-social behavior toward injured athletes by coaches has been alluded to in previous
research (e.g., Lewis, 1999; Udry, 1997) and given the plethora of suggestions to coaches
for dealing with the psychological and emotional care of injured athletes, it is surprising
that coaches’ perceptions of sport injuries has not been directly examined — hence, the
inspiration for this current study. Trying to understand the coaches’ views of injured
athletes is a challenge. One approach would be to start with how coaches explain
athletes’ successful or unsuccessful rehabilitation of injuries. It is expected that factors
contributing to coaches’ explanations would be their level of dispositional (trait) empathy
and their ability to see the injury from the athlete’s perspective. Thus, the following is a

review of literature pertinent to understanding the relationship of the actor-observer effect

22

(Jones & Nisbett, 1972), perspective-taking, and empathy with coaches’ causal
attributions for athletes’ recovery outcomes.
Attribution Theory and The Actor-Observer Effect in Sport Research

Attribution theory asserts that persons use four major causal attributions to
explain success or failure in achievement-related settings: ability, effort, luck, and task
difficulty (Weiner, 1972). These elements can be placed along three dimensions — locus
of causality (internal or external), stability (stable or unstable), and controllability
(controllable or uncontrollable) (Weiner, 1992). Jones and Nisbett (1972) also assert that
there is a fundamental difference in how actors in and observers of a situation apply
causality for the event. The classic actor-observer eflect described by Jones and Nisbett
states that actors attribute causes for an event to external factors while observers will
attribute causes for the same event to internal factors Of the actor. While there have been
many pivotal studies of attribution theory in Sport (e.g., Bukowski, Jr. & Moore, 1980;
Leith, 1989; McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992; McAuley & Gross, 1983; Rejeski &
Brawley, 1983; Roberts & Pascuzzi, 1979), an in-depth review of their contributions to
sport research would constitute a chapter of its own. Therefore, in this section a review
of current attribution research and the actor-observer effect as applied to sport and Sport
injury research is given here. Of particular interest is the effect of perceived outcomes
(success/win or failure/loss) on causal attributions in performance settings.

In his examination of causal attributions for basketball performances by players
and coaches, Lefebvre (1978) set out to place players and coaches’ attributions for sport
performances within the four quadrants describing the relationship of the locus of

causality and stability dimensions (internal/stable, intemal/unstable, external/stable,

23

extemal/unstable). In doing so, Lefebvre found differences in causal ascriptions between
successful and unsuccessful performances. More Specifically, ability and effort (internal
factors) were the major attributions given by coaches and players for successful sport
performances. However, for performances that resemble failure, lack of effort (an
internal, unstable factor) was the only causal ascription significantly applied by both
players and coaches. Lack of ability, task difficulty, and bad luck did not significantly
differentiate for the failure outcome. Thus, this study did not find support for the classic
actor-Observer effect. While coaches applied internal factors for both the successful and
failed performances (in agreement with the classic observer effect), players also applied
internal factors for successful and unsuccessful performances (in opposition to the classic
actor effect).

Van Raalte, Brewer, and Petitpas (1995) examined the actor-observer bias in Sport
through two experiments. The first experiment involved 165 undergraduate students
instructed to imagine themselves as either the coach or athlete in the scenario described.
They found that participants in the coach perspective-taking condition were more likely
than those in the athlete perspective-taking condition to indicate that an athlete’s bad-
mouthing the coach was due to internal characteristics of the athlete and that not hustling
in practice was due to stable characteristics of the athlete. These findings reflect the
classic actor-observer effect.

For their second experiment, Van Raalte and colleagues (1995) had 42 athletes
and 22 coaches review the same two scenarios used in the first experiment. “True”
coaches, like those in the coach perspective-taking condition of the first experiment,

made significantly more internal attributions for the athlete badmouthing the coach and

24

for not hustling in practice, than did “true” athletes. These findings, again, agreed with
the actor-observer effect. However, it Should be noted that in these studies the scenarios
for which participants gave causal attributions were negative in nature (badmouthing the
coach and not hustling in practice). Other studies that examined the actor-observer bias
in sport did not achieve similar findings.

While Van Raalte and colleagues (1995) found support for the classic actor-
observer effect for negative events, Wolfson’s (1997) results were in opposition. Thirty-
four finalists in a British Swimming Grand Prix completed an attribution scale designed
for Wolfson’s study. Swimmers who had completed their final race and changed clothes
volunteered to complete two attribution questionnaires [one evaluating the swimmer’s
own performance (actor condition) and the other evaluating their fellow competitors’
performance (observer condition)]. The results did not lend support for the actor-
Observer effect. Instead, swimmers were more likely to apply more internal cause for
their performance than for their fellow competitors.

The Wolfson (1997) study raises two concerns regarding the measurement of
causal attributions. First, in her write-up, Wolfson assumed the swimmers were
successful simply because they were finalists in a major, national Swimming competition
rather than directly assessing the athletes’ perception of their performance. While
Wolfson may be correct in her assumption, it is equally, if not more, feasible to assume
that swimmers who did not win their final race evaluated their performance as a loss or
failure. The researcher also did not report the race outcome of the study participants or
make relevant statistical analyses. So, if the participants in the study held negative

thoughts about their performance, the classic actor effect found by Wolfson may be due

25

to swimmers’ perceived unsuccessful performance and may not have been found for
athletes who held positive thoughts about their performance. The second issue with
Wolfson’s findings concerns the measurement of causal attributions. Wolfson reports
that the attribution instrument was designed specifically for her study, but does not offer
any discussion about the validity and reliability of the scale. Further discussion about
psychometric concerns for measuring causal attributions will be discussed in more detail
later in this section.

The classic actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) has not been clearly
supported in sport research. However, it is apparent that in sport settings the individuals’
perceptions of the outcome as either a success/positive or failure/negative affect causal
ascriptions given by both actors and observers. Successful, positive performance
outcomes were more likely to inspire internal causal ascriptions by both actors and
observers. Negative, failed performances resulted in an increase in the variability of
causal ascriptions across causal dimensions. In fact, Mullen and Riordan’s (1988) meta-
analysis concluded that while internal attributions generally occurred for successful
outcomes, external explanations were not consistently given for failure in studies of
performance. Therefore, for studies such as this dissertation that examine causal
attributions given for both a successful and failed scenario, it should be expected that
greater variability in responses would occur for the failed recovery scenario rather than
for the successful recovery scenario. However, it is expected that participants in both the
coach-as-coach and coach-as-athlete perspective-taking conditions will apply internal
causal attributions to the cause of the successful recovery outcome, thus agreeing with the

classic observer effect but in opposition to the classic actor effect.

26

l

.‘

5'. an!

 

bi.-.

‘t‘bg

 

 

 

 

I
1....
T. x
e‘.\
.‘..
A

Sport Injury Research - Attribution Theory and The Actor-Observer Effect

In the area of sport injury, very little research that applies attribution theory to
examine differences in athletes’ perceptions has been conducted. In fact, only three
studies have been found for this literature review. No published studies examining
coaches’ causal attributions for the occurrence or recovery outcome of sport injuries have
been found. So, in this section, a review of the three studies and their implications for
this dissertation are discussed.

Grove, Hanrahan, and Stewart (1990) contend that attribution research in sport
has focused on the relationship between objective competitive outcomes (win/loss) and
causal ascriptions and between subjective outcomes (success/failure) and causal
ascriptions. However, studies of Objective and subjective outcomes such as injury
recovery are rarely found in the sport psychology literature. To examine the effect of
speed of recovery (fast or slow) on causal attributions, Grove et al.’s study involved two
hundred seventy-Six undergraduate physical education students who were presented with
two hypothetical injury events in Sport. Participants were instructed to vividly imagine
each injury event happening to themselves (an imagine-self perspective-taking condition)
and state what the single most likely cause of the speed of recovery would be if it
happened to them. Participants then answered a 5-item survey instrument to determine
the degree to which the cause fell along the causal dimensions stated for attribution
theory (locus of causality, stability, controllability, globality, and intentionality).

Grove and colleagues (1990) found that the causes of the slow recovery were
consistently perceived to be less stable, controllable, global, and intentional than causes

Of the rapid recovery. Also, causes of the slow recovery were perceived as more internal

27

than causes for the rapid recovery. Thus, for an induced actor perspective-taking
condition, the rapid recovery situation was more likely to invoke external, Situational
causal ascriptions. Therefore, partial support for the classic actor effect for only the rapid
recovery outcome was found. However, when recovery was perceived to be Slow,
perspective-taking actors were more likely to apply causal ascriptions that were internal
to the athlete (in opposition to the classic actor effect).

The pioneering research findings of Grove et al. (1990) regarding the relationship
between injury recovery outcomes and causal ascriptions are an important contribution to
the sport, sport injury, and sport psychology literature. However, like Wolfson (1997),
their methods for measuring attributions along the dimensions of causality are subject to
critique. Single-item measures of a theoretical construct have been cautioned in social
science research. In their defense, Grove et al. support their l-item per causal dimension
scale by stating “similar methods have been used by other investigators to assess the
same causal dimensions (Peterson, 1992; Russell, 1982)” Q). 108). Although their
instrument’s construct may be validated by review from other experts in the field and/or
structured after similar instruments, statistical support for the reliability of the measure
cannot be given. Also, Sport injury research is young in the field of sport psychology and
the application of attribution theory as a vehicle for studying sport injury has been, to this
date, non-existent. While previous attribution research conducted in Sport lends
information for forming research hypotheses and questions, its application to new,
unresearched sport phenomenon like sport injury leaves room for finding differences than
those found for sport research involving the more popular objective competitive

outcomes (win/loss). Therefore, it is important that researchers make their best effort to

28

use valid and reliable measurement tools that can resist critique and increase the strength
for predicting and concluding the relationship between variables under examination.
Thus, the use of measures such as the Causal Dimension Scale 11 (CDSII; McAuley,
Duncan, & Russell, 1992) becomes an important consideration to the experimental design
of studies such as this dissertation. The CDSII, which was used for this study, measures
causal attributions with three items per dimension of causality and has been found to be a
reliable instrument for Sport studies (Biddle & Hanrahan, 1998; McAuley et al., 1992).
The CDSII is discussed in greater detail in the next chapter of this dissertation.

Laubach, Brewer, Van Raalte, and Petitpas’ (1996) study provided additional
support for Grove et al.’s (1990) research findings. Laubach and his colleagues
examined the relationship of causal ascriptions for recovery from knee surgery to
recovery rate (fast or slow). Thirty-four recreational and competitive athletes rated the
cause for the recovery they stated on the CDSII. Like Grove et al., Laubach and
collaborators found that participants who perceived themselves as recovering rapidly
made more stable, personally controllable, and externally controllable attributions for the
cause of the recovery than participants who perceived themselves as recovering Slowly.
Also, participants designated by their physical therapist or athletic trainer as recovering
rapidly tended to attribute their rehabilitation progress to more internal and personally
controllable factors than participants identified as recovering slowly.

In a follow-up study, Brewer, Cornelius, Van Raalte et al. (2000) investigated the
relevance of causal ascriptions for recovery to sport injury rehab outcomes. This study
replication examined the causal attributions for fast and slow recoveries for 80 patients

who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery. Once again,

29

findings regarding the relationship between causal dimensions rating on the CDSII and
recovery rate reflected the findings of Laubach et al. (1996) and Grove et al. (1990).
Perceptions of faster recovery by the patients were associated with higher scores on
stability and personal control dimensions.

The attribution research in Sport injury recovery does not completely support
Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) classic actor effect (actors as attributing cause to external
factors). Rather, similar to general sport attribution research, sport injury attribution
research indicates that the actors’ bias is affected by its interaction with actors’
perception of the recovery outcome (as fast or slow in progression). Thus, the classic
actor effect is more often found when individuals perceive their recovery to be slow, but
not when the recovery is rapid. However, it should be noted that the injury studies
reviewed here examined only the actors’ perception of their recovery outcome. No
known studies examining coaches’ (Observers’) causal ascriptions for athletes’ (actors)
Sport injury recovery outcome have been published at the time of this literature review.
However, Sellars and Biddle (1994) provide some insight into what may be expected of
coacheS’ attributions for their athletes’ performances.

Sellars and Biddle (1994) examined the attributional style of twenty-four coaches
regarding events involving their athletes. Coaches were asked to recall an occasion that
happened to their athletes that corresponded to the positive and negative outcomes
described in the scenarios presented in the study. Using the Sport Attributional Style
Scale (SASS; Hanrahan, Grove, & Hattie, 1989), for each scenario, coaches wrote the
likely cause of the outcome and then rated the cause on attribution dimensions of locus of

causality, stability, controllability, globality, and intentionality. Results showed that

30

coaches gave attributions for positive outcomes that were more stable and intentional
than for negative outcomes. While differences in coaches’ assignment of the locus of
causality between positive and negative sport events were not found, Sellars and Biddle’s
finding provide reasonable cause to expect differences in coaches’ causal ascriptions due
to factors such as perceived recovery outcome in future research studies.

Given this review of the literature, it was clear that the causal ascriptions
individuals apply to a sport event or sport injury recovery was affected by persons’
perceptions of the outcome of the event (win/loss, success/failure, fast/Slow recovery).
Also, Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) classic actor-observer effect was affected by the
outcome of the event. While the observer effect has been found for both positive and
negative sport outcomes, the actor effect was not consistently found in the area of sport
and Sport injury. Instead, in general Sport and sport injury research, actors attributed
observer-like causes for their successful performance outcomes (applied internal causes
to the event). However, for unsuccessful performances and recoveries, actors were more
likely to apply external causal attributions — thus, resembling the classic actor effect.
Thus, similar findings were expected in this study.

Empathy, Perspective-Taking, and The Actor-Observer Effect

Witnessing another’s emotional state prompts the Observer to covertly, internally,
imitate the other’s emotional cues (e.g., tensing our muscles when witnessing someone
under stress). Thus, empathy suggests a more “active” attempt by one individual to get
inside the other, to reach out in some fashion through a deliberate intellectual effort

(Davis, 1996). Therefore, the result of this process is the production of similar, though

31

weaker, reactions in the observer. Also, this sharing of emotions between target and
observer is believed to foster a better understanding of the actor.

This initial definition of empathy as a function of perspective-taking is broad and
does not contribute to distinguishing empathy from related, but separate emotions.
However, it has been long held that empathy may best be considered a set of related
constructs including both emotional and non-emotional components (Davis, 1983, 1996;
Hoffman, 1977). According to Davis (1983, 1996), empathy is best defined as a
multidimensional construct composed of the cognitive processes taking place within the
observer (i.e., perspective-taking) and the affective (i.e., empathic concern and personal
distress) and non-affective (e.g., attributions, helping behaviors) outcomes that result
from these processes. Furthermore, four components of empathy that are of special
interest to this study have also been defined by Davis (1983). Empathic concern refers to
an individual’s tendency to experience feelings of warmth, compassion, and concern for
others. Personal distress refers to the feelings of anxiety, distress, and unease individuals
experience in tense or crisis situations. Thus, empathic concern and personal distress are
the emotional reactions to the observed experiences of others. Individuals’ tendency to
imagine or fantasize themselves in the place of another person or character has been
identified as a component of empathy that is more emotional (affective) in nature.
Perspective-taking refers to the spontaneous tendency of individuals to adopt the
psychological perspective of other peOple or to entertain the view of others. Perspective-
taking has been identified as the non-emotional, cognitive portion of empathy.

Jones and Nisbett (1972) noted that the more an observer is set to empathize with

the actor, the more similar their attributional perspectives will be. Thus, perspective-

32

taking, the cognitive, non-emotional component of empathy, has been a popular research
variable for examining differences in causal ascriptions. In their investigation of Jones
and Nisbett’s assertion, Regan and Totten (1975) had female undergraduate students
watch an unscripted “get acquainted” conversation between two female students where
one student (Margaret) was designated as the target. After watching the videotaped
dyadic interaction, the participants were asked to rate Margaret on four dimensions
(friendliness, talkativeness, nervousness, and dominance), and to indicate for each
dimension the degree to which that behavior was caused by her personal characteristics
and the degree to which it was caused by characteristics of the Situation. Regan and
Totten found that participants given instructions to empathize with the stimulus person
(Margaret) in the videotape made more Situational causal attributions for Margaret’s
behavior than participants given non-empathic (observer-like) instructions.

Galper (1976) provided additional evidence for the effectiveness of perspective-
taking (empathy) on causal attributions. Here, 36 male undergraduate students were
divided into two observer groups where in each condition they read a story that vividly
described a young man’s heroic rescue of a baby from a burning building. One group of
observers, the “empathy” condition, was instructed to “Put themselves in the place of”
the heroic rescuer while reading the story. The other group, the “social perception”
condition, was instructed to “picture the event clearly.” Participants then answered an
open-ended question to explain why the young man saved the child rather than act to
secure his own safety. Finally, participants rated the extent to which the young man’s

behavior was due to (a) personal and (b) situational characteristics.

33

Galper (1976) found that participants in the “empathy” condition placed greater
emphasis on environmental, Situational factors (as opposed to personal characteristics of
the actor) to explain the young man’s behavior than did the “social perception” group.
Participants in the “social perception” group displayed the typical observer bias (of Jones
& Nisbett, 1972), rating personal factors as significantly more important than Situational
factors. Thus, Galper’s results demonstrated that changing the perspective of observers
to reflect that of the actor can elicit “actor—like” causal attributions from observers.

Extending Regan and Totten’s (1975) and Galper’s (1976) findings, Gould and
Sigall (1977) proposed that empathic observers and actors are functionally equivalent.
Thus, they predicted that empathic observers (compared to their non-empathic
counterparts) would make causal attributions that have typically been found for actors.
That is, empathic observers would attribute an actor’s success to dispositional causes, but
an actor’s failure to Situational causes. Gould and Sigall had forty-eight female students
view a Short videotape depicting a male student engaged in a “get acquainted”
conversation with a female student. Prior to viewing the videotape, participants received
written instructions directing them to either empathize with or carefully Observe the male
on the tape. Participants were also given feedback concerning the kind of impression the
male made on the female in the video where half of the participants were led to believe
the male had made a good impression and the other half of the participants were led to
believe the opposite. Participants then responded on an 1 1-point scale anchored at the
extremes “Dispositional Factors: Characteristics of the Male” (1) to “Situational Factors:
Characteristics of the Environment and/or Characteristics of the Female” (11) to the

impression the male made in the encounter. A significant difference for locus of

34

causality between the empathy group and the observer group was not found (no main
effect of empathy). However, assignment of locus of causality differed for the outcome
(success or failure). Furthermore, the interaction of perspective-taking condition
(empathy or observer) with outcome (success or failure) had a significant effect on locus
of causality ascriptions. That is, as predicted, Gould and Sigall found that instructions to
empathize led to dispositional assignment of locus of causality for success and Situational
assignment of locus of cause for failure, while standard observation instructions resulted
in dispositional causal ascriptions regardless of the outcome. Thus, Gould and Sigall’s
findings also support the position that differential information processing may
sufficiently account for the effects of outcome on causal attributions.

While the findings of early research in the combined areas of attribution theory,
actor-Observer bias, and empathy, such as that of Regan and Totten (1975), Galper
(1976), and Gould and Sigall (1977), were ground breaking and pivotal to the field, a
number of dilemmas exist with regard to the construction of this study. First, these
research studies equate empathy Simply with perspective-taking. However, as discussed
earlier in this literature review, perspective-taking is merely the cognitive, non-emotional
component of a more complex construct known as empathy.

Second, these studies assessed situational empathy and its effect on causal
attributions. Participants’ tendency (or disposition) for perspective-taking (and the other
dimensions of empathy) were not directly measured, which is under investigation in this
study. Moreover, some investigators have identified situations in which actors make
more dispositional attributions than observers and other conditions in which Observers

make more dispositional attributions than actors (e.g., Ross, Bierbrauer, & Polly, 1974;

35

Snyder, 1976; Snyder, Stephan, & Rosenfield, 1976 as cited in Monson & Snyder, 1977).
Therefore, predictions that participants would apply causal ascriptions similarly across
different situations cannot be accurately made. Thus, research findings cannot be
generalized beyond the situation presented to the participants in these studies.

Thirdly, studies like Regan and Totten (1975), Galper (1976), and Gould and
Sigall (1977) measured the effect of perspective-taking on only the locus of causality
(LOC) dimension of attribution. While such studies help future researchers form
research hypotheses for LOC, they add little predictive value for the stability and
controllability dimensions of causal attributions. Also, these studies used only one item
to measure LOC.

Next, confusion about the effect of empathy (or more specifically, perspective-
taking) on causal ascriptions remains. While Gould and Sigall’s (1977) findings support
Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) classic actor-observer effect, it is only the main effect of the
Situation (success or failure) and the interaction of perspective-taking condition (empathy
or Observer) with situation that effected participants’ assignment of LOC. Perspective-
taking alone did not have a main effect on causal ascriptions. Also, it is important to note
that while Gould and Sigall found that instructions to empathize led to dispositional
attributions for success and Situational attributions for failure, Monson and Snyder (1977)
found that for success are! failure actors (the research manipulation equivalent of the
perspective-taker) typically attribute to themselves more responsibility (dispositional
factors) for their own behaviors and the consequences of their actions than do Observers.
Thus, Monson and Snyder’s report disputes the classic actor-observer effect popularized

by Jones and Nisbett.

36

Lastly, most studies that examine the effect Of perspective-taking (operationalized
as empathy) on the actor-observer bias (e.g., Betancourt, 1990; Davis, 1983; Galper,
1976; Gould & Sigall, 1977; Regan & Totten, 1975) employed perspective-taking
instructional sets that used some version of imagine-the-other instructions. However,
Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997) remind us of Stotland’s (1969) early findings that
there are two different ways of perceiving the other’s Situation, each having a specific
instruction set and having differing analytical consequences. In an imagine other
instruction set, participants are challenged to imagine how the other person perceives the
situation and how that person feels as a result. On the other hand, the imagine self
condition invites persons to imagine how they would perceive the Situation if they were
in the other person’s position and how they would feel as a result. Here, in the imagine
self condition, it is likely that coaches would rely on their personal history with and
knowledge about sport injuries when imagining themselves in a Sport injury recovery
scenario. Stotland (1969) and Batson et al. (1997) found that both the imagine other and
imagine self instruction sets led to more physiological arousal and self-reported emotion
than the objective (Observer-like) condition. However, while the imagine other group
exhibited greater vasoconstriction [evidence that they were reacting to the feelings they
perceived the model to be experiencing (empathy)], the imagine self group experienced
greater palmar sweat and reported feeling more tension and nervousness [evidence of
self-oriented emotional reactions that were not tied to the model (empathy and distress)].
Davis’ (1996) review of the effectiveness of perspective-taking instructional sets in other
research studies (e.g., Davis, 1983; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Miller et al., 1991; Toi &

Batson, 1982) concur with the findings of Stotland and Batson et al. Thus, when

37

designing studies examining the actor-observer bias where perspective-taking instructions
are utilized to invoke empathy, the use of imagine self instructions better encourages
observers to become more functionally equivalent to actors than imagine other
instructions. It Should be noted that in this study, imagine self instructions have been
utilized to create the perspective-taking condition.

Dispositional Empathy

Levinson, Ponzetti, Jr., and Jorgensen (1999) have identified three levels of
analysis for understanding empathy. The first level of analysis considers empathy in the
context of the evolution of altruism (i.e., unselfish regard for devotion to the welfare of
others). The second level of analysis focuses on empathy as a stable disposition (or trait)
that varies across individuals. The third level of analysis focuses on the situational
variables that promote or discourage empathic responses. While each level of analysis of
empathy has its own unique set of literature, it is the second level, dispositional empathy,
that was measured in this study. The evaluation of dispositional empathy as it relates to
causal attributions and sport have not yet been applied (or found in my extensive
literature search), thus creating a firndamental problem when trying to provide empirical
support for this study’s conceptual model (see Figure 1) and the research hypotheses
regarding the moderating role of empathy on coaches’ causal ascriptions.

Betancourt (1990) asserts that although certain attributions may directly influence
behavior, “the most important influence of attributions is thought to be through a
cognition (attribution) —> emotional sequence” (p. 576). In the study of attribution
theory, perspective—taking, the cognitive portion of empathy, has been heralded as the

vehicle to modify the classic actor-observer effect — that is, to change observer causal

38

attributions to more closely reflect those of the actor. However, as in the aforementioned
empirical studies, perspective-taking has been utilized as a situation variable and has not
been assessed for the effect of dispositional (trait) empathy on the actor-Observer bias.
While only one known study in Sport research (i.e., Bump, 1986) has examined the role
of dispositional empathy of coaches on communication with their athletes, the effect of
dispositional empathy has yet to be applied to attribution research in such a manner
proposed in this current study. Thus, a fundamental problem has been created for when
trying to provide empirical support for this study’s conceptual model (see Figure 1) and
the research hypotheses regarding the role of dispositional empathy on coaches’ causal
ascriptions. However, dispositional empathy has been widely applied to research
examining its effect on helping behavior, the “end product” of this study’s conceptual
model.

Coke, Batson, and McDavis’ (1978) two-stage model of empathy-mediated
helping states that (a) taking the perspective of a person in need increases one’s empathic
emotional response, and (b) helping is mediated by empathic concern and personal
distress (the emotional components of empathy). Archer, Diaz—Loving, Gollwitzer,
Davis, and Foushee (1981) found that a dispositional tendency to experience emotional
empathy was related to the emotional reactions of both empathic concern and personal
distress. Thus, evidence supports the view that individual variations in empathic
tendencies (dispositional empathy) may be an important factor influencing emotional
reactions and helping (Davis, 1983).

Davis (1983) pretested 158 undergraduate psychology students’ dispositional

empathy using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980, 1983). After being

39

Lb~‘, A.
U

> -. .'
"I" \ ,‘
no.5 " '

‘2') .
m5: 0

 

‘V'VJ'
mie‘
.

v
o -.,o, .,
1_ .
04.54il‘»

 

T3”!
.l';

.“

yarn.
”~-
-

 

‘

t

given imagine-self or observer instructions, participants listened to a tape that described
the story of an orphaned college senior’s effort to complete her studies while supporting
her two younger siblings and her continued struggle to keep her siblings out of foster
care. After listening to the tape, participants completed a mood measure, a questionnaire
that served as a check on the perspective-taking instructional set manipulation, and a
survey assessing participants’ emotional state. Participants then read a letter from the
fictitious “Katie Banks” asking study participants to help her by donating their time to
baby-sit, do chores, and provide transportation. Participants were instructed to write
down their contact information (e.g., name, telephone number) and the number of hours
they were willing to volunteer for Katie, then seal their response form in an envelope and
place it in a box.

Davis (1983) found that perspective-taking did not have a Significant association
with helping behavior. However, participants’ sex had a significant main effect on
helping behavior — females were more likely to offer help than males. Neither
dispositional perspective-taking or empathic concern had a significant main effect on
helping. However, the interactions of dispositional perspective-taking with the
perspective-taking condition (imagine self or Observer) and dispositional empathic
concern with the perspective-taking condition Significantly predicted helping behavior.
More specifically, the interaction of dispositional perspective-taking with the perspective-
taking condition had no effect on Observers’ helping behavior, but had a Significant
facilitative effect on those in the perspective-taking condition. The interaction of
dispositional empathic concern with the perspective-taking condition yielded a different

behavioral pattern. Dispositional empathic concern had a significant positive relation

40

with helping for those given observer instructions, but no effect of dispositional empathic
concern on participants in the imagine self condition was found. Finally, while feelings
of sympathy and concern (empathic concern) were significantly related to helping,
feelings of personal distress were not related.

Coke et al.’S (1978) two-stage model described empathic concern and personal
distress as mediators of helping behavior. However, Davis (1983) found that while
empathic concern predicted helping, personal distress was not related to helping
behavior. Thus, a problem for understanding the role of the emotional components of
empathy (empathic concern and personal distress) is created. Batson and his colleagues’
(e.g., Baston, 1991, 1998; Batson & Coke, 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982) continued work in
this area provide additional understanding of the role of emotional empathy in helping
behavior. Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997) asserts that empathic concern seems to
reflect “an gtlriuoriented emotional response congruent with the perceived plight of the
person in need; it taps feelings for the other” (p. 752). Thus, empathic concern is
assumed to influence helping positively, regardless of whether the potential helper has an
easy way out of the situation without helping. Personal distress, on the other hand,
reflects “a Mofiented aversion emotional response; it taps more direct feelings Of
discomfort evoked by witnessing the plight of the other” (p. 752). Thus, in contrast to
empathic concern, feeling upset or disturbed because of another’s need or suffering
(personal distress) would increase helping only when escape from the Situation is
difficult. Therefore, for the purpose of predicting helping behavior, when escape from
the distressful situation is easy, persons low in dispositional personal distress may be

more inclined to help a person in need in comparison to persons with a tendency to

41

experience high levels of personal distress. Thus, Storms’ (1973) and Robins, Spranca,
and Mendelsohn’s (1996) assertion regarding the saliency of the event to the study’s
participants becomes important to the construction of experimental Situations (e.g.,
descriptive stories and scenarios) when examining the role of empathy on causal
ascriptions and helping.

This review of the situational and dispositional empathy literature stimulates three
implications for this research study. First, neither Situational nor dispositional
perspective-taking alone is expected to be a strong enough predictor of causal
attributions, expectancy, or helping behavior (i.e., how coaches interact with their injured
athletes). This supports my thoughts about the possible number of antecedent sources of
information and their exhaustive number of interactions that may act on coaches when
they are forming causal ascriptions, expectancy judgments, and decisions for interacting
with injured athletes (see Figure 1). Therefore, it is important that exploratory
examinations of the interactive relationship of dispositional empathy scores with
variables that are intuitively relevant to how coaches may differ in causal attributions and
expectancy (e.g., perspective-taking condition, the athlete’s recovery outcome, the
coaches’ personal sport injury history, coaching level) be conducted and have been
hypothesized for this study.

Second, instructions to participants for perspective-taking Should utilize imagine-
self coaxing. Imagine-self instructions have been found to produce greater physiological
arousal and emotion than imagine-other and observer instructional sets. It stands to
reason, then, that imagine-self instructions would evoke coaches’ personal history with

and knowledge about sport injuries (their own and experiences with their athletes) when

42

responding to the descriptive scenarios of this study. It should be noted that in this study
imagine-self instructions were given to coaches in both perspective-taking conditions.
That is, coaches in the actor-like condition were asked to imagine themselves as the
athlete in the scenario. Coaches in the observer-like condition were instructed to imagine
themselves as the coach in the scenario. While, the direction of the interaction of
coaches’ personal injury history (e. g., none, major, career-ending) with dispositional
empathy on causal attributions and expectancy is unknown and not hypothesized,
differences between groups were expected and evaluated in this study.

Finally, the saliency and authenticity of the scenario described to the study’s
participants must be considered when constructing the descriptive scenarios in the
experiment. A finding of a positive correlation of empathic concern and a negative
correlation of personal distress with helping behavior suggests that the relevance of the
Situation to coaches may effect their causal attributions and expectancy. Particularly, it is
important to choose injuries for the scenarios that popularly occur in a variety of Sport
settings SO that coaches have the Opportunity to easily imagine the injury occurring to
themselves or their athletes. The recovery protocol described in the scenario Should also
be realistic to what is oftentimes prescribed by physicians, athletic trainers, and physical
therapists in Sport settings. Also, recall from this literature review that Batson and his
colleagues (e.g., Batson, 1991; Batson & Coke, 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982) have
identified the interaction of level of personal distress with the ease for avoiding a
situation to be associated with the likelihood of individuals to help. Therefore, it stands
to reason that the more authentic and salient the descriptive scenarios are to the coaches

in the study coupled with the imagine-self instructions for both perspective-taking

43

conditions may reduce the ease for fleeing the Situation for this study’s participants.
Thus, for this study, improving the saliency and authenticity of sport injury scenarios is
believed to increase the likelihood for obtaining causal attributions and judgments for
expectancy that would naturally occur in the field.
Sex/Gender Diflerences in Empathy

An impression long held by psychologists and the population at large is that
females are more empathic than males (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Despite this
stereotype, the data pertaining to this issue are complex (Eisenberg, 2000). Early reviews
on this matter (Block, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) found that no reliable gender
difference in empathy existed. However, these reviews used a broad definition of
empathy and included studies that examined emotional reactions, social sensitivity, role-
taking, and accuracy in person perception. Hoffman (1977) differentiated between
measures of empathy in which empathy was defined as an emotional response and studies
in which researchers measured role-taking or social sensitivity. When empathy was
defined in this way, females scored higher on empathy than males. However, in
Eisenberg and Lennon’s (1983) review, gender differences in empathy appeared to
depend on how empathy is operationalized. For paper-and-pencil self-report measures of
empathy, such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980, 1983), gender
differences were found. For picture/story indiceS, small gender differences were found.
For other measures such as facial/ gestural and physiological measures, no gender
differences were found. However it should also be noted that Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller,
Miller et al. (1991) later found gender differences on physiological measures of empathy.

Gender differences favoring females as being more empathic than males may be due to

44

different patterns of socialization. However, Lennon and Eisenberg (1987) contend that
“researchers have not controlled the demand characteristics associated with self-report
questionnaires, nor have many differentiated among the various possible emotional
responses that people may experience in reaction to another’s affect. Thus, the reason for
the large gender difference in responses to self-report empathy questionnaires is unclear,
especially given the lack of such a large gender difference for other indices of empathy”
(p. 200). Thus, because the IRI, a self-report measure of empathy that has shown gender
differences in scores (e.g., Davis, 1983, Davis, Mitchell, Hall et al., 1999; Trobst, Collins,
& Embree, 1994) was used in this study, gender differences (females as higher in
empathy than males) were expected and evaluated for differences in causal attributions.
Summary and Concluding Thoughts

This review of the pertinent literature has led to several expectations for this
study. First, recovery outcomes are expected to affect coaches’ causal ascriptions. For
the successful injury recovery scenario, coaches in both the coach-as-coach (CC) and
coach-aS-athlete (CA) perspective-taking conditions are expected to apply internal,
personal attributions to the cause of the athlete’s recovery outcome. Differences in the
application of causal attributions are expected for the failed recovery scenario. Coaches
in the CC condition are expected to exhibit the classic observer bias, thus applying causal
attributions for recovery failure that are internal to the athlete. For the failure recovery
scenario, coaches in the CA condition are expected to report causal attributions that are
more situational and external to the athlete, thus finding the classic actor bias.

Second, dispositional perspective-taking will be associated with coaches’ causal

ascriptions and expectancy. Coaches’ tendency for experiencing empathic concern and

45

personal distress will be related to coaches behaviors toward and interactions with injured
athletes [the un-measured portion of the conceptual model designed for this study (see
Figure 1)]. Dispositional personal distress may also be associated with coaches’
expectancy for similar recovery outcomes.

Third, dispositional empathy is expected to be associated to coaches causal
attributions, however, its predictive power may not be strong enough to explain with
certainty coaches causal ascriptions for recovery outcomes and expectancy. Exploratory
examination Of dispositional empathy’s interaction with other factors measured in this
study may provide additional understanding of the dynamics of coaches’ perceptions of
sport injuries.

Lastly, gender differences in dispositional empathy are expected. Statistical
analyses examining the effect of gender biases on coaches’ causal attributions are also

conducted and discussed.

46

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Participants

To protect the rights of participants, University guidelines for the use of humans
as subjects will be followed (see Appendix A). One hundred eighteen coaches returned
questionnaire sets. Four participants were excluded from the study because their
questionnaire sets were incomplete. Therefore, the study’s sample consisted of 114
males (N = 45) and females (N = 69) coaching at various sport levels and maintaining
head coach (N = 73) or assistant coach (N = 39) positions (see Table 1 for details). Two
participants did not reveal their coaching position. Coaches’ ages ranged from 21 to 75
years (M = 35.79, SD = 10.87). Participants also varied in their number Of years of
experience as a coach, ranging from 1 to 40 years (M = l 1.87, SD = 9.48). Participants
represented an array of sports including, but not limited to, basketball, track and field,
softball, soccer, baseball, swimming and diving, field hockey, gymnastics, tennis, and
volleyball. Coaches in this study were predominantly European American/Caucasian (N
= 96). Coaches of African American/Black (N = 10), Hispanic/Latino(a) (N = 3), and
Asian American (N = 1) ethnicities were also represented in this sample. Four
participants did not reveal their ethnic identity.

Participants in this study provided information regarding their personal history
with Sport injuries. ’A majority (76.3%) of the participants in this study described
themselves as having a moderate (N = 5 3) or major (N = 34) sport injury while an athlete

in their sport. F iffy-two coaches (45.6%) who described their sport injury as moderate or

47

Table 1

Description of Participants ’ Coaching Position, and Sex by Sport Level

 

Sport Level”

 

Collegiate (N) High School (AL) Total

Head 27 46 73
Assistant 21 1 8 39
Male 26 1 9 45
Female 22 45 67

 

* Missing two cases

major also reported having continued effects from the injury. Injuries that were described
as moderate or major by coaches in the study included, but were not limited to, strained
muscles, torn cartilage, torn meniscus, Achilles tendonitis, stress fractures and broken
bones, chipped bones in joints, concussions, torn and reconstructed anterior cruciate
ligament (ACL), plantar fascitis, and dislocated joints. The remaining 23.7% of the
respondents reported their Sport injury as either minor (N = 17) or having no sport injury
(N = 10) as an athlete. Injuries described as minor included a broken wrist, hyper-
extended knee, Shin splints, broken toes and fingers, tendonitis, ankle sprains, and
hamstring pulls. Four coaches who described their sport injuries as minor also reported
experiencing continued effects from the injury. See Table 2 for additional descriptions of

participants’ sport injury history.

48

Table 2

Frequency of Coaches ’ Sport Injury by Severity, Sport Level, Coaching Position, and Sex

 

Severity of Injury

None (N) Minor (N) Moderate (N) Maior (N) Total
Total Coaches 1O 17 53 34 1 14

 

 

Coaches continuing to have

 

 

 

effects from their injury 5 25 22 52
*Sport Level
Collegiate 1 6 20 21 48
High School 9 11 31 13 64
"Coaching Position
Head Coach 6 11 36 20 73
Assistant Coach 4 6 16 14 40
Sex of Coach
Female 8 11 29 21 69
Male 2 6 24 13 45

 

* Missing two cases; ** Missing one case

The majority of coaches in this study also had at least one athlete who
experienced an injury severe enough to cause the athlete to miss several weeks of practice
and/or competition (N = 90; 78.9%). Participants provided information about the
availability of treatment for their athletes’ sport injuries at their institution. Eighty-three
coaches stated that their institution provides their athletes with access to a physician for
sport injuries (college, N = 46; high school, N = 37). However, only 57 coaches reported
that their institution pays some or all of the cost of athletes’ visits to physicians for sport
injuries (college, N = 44; high school, N = 13). An athletic trainer was available at least
twice per week to 105 of the coaches’ athletes (college, N = 47; high school, N = 58).
Ninety-nine coaches (college, N = 42; high school, N = 57) reported that they have been

trained and certified in CPR and First Aid. However, a number of these coaches (n = 50)

49

were also in need of renewing their CPR and First Aid certifications (college, N = 20;
high school, N = 30).
Survey Instruments

Demographic Survey. The demographic survey (see Appendix B) provided
general descriptive information such as age, ethnicity, and sex of the participants in this
study. Participants also provided non-intrusive information describing their own sport
injury history (i.e., recall of occurrence and recovery from injury that invoked vivid
memory, continuing effects of sport injuries), their experience as a coach (i.e., total
number of years coaching, sport(s) currently coaching, competition level of sport team
coaching), and the availability of medical treatment for their athletes. To assess their
personal injury history, coaches were asked to state the most significant sport-related
injury they experienced as an athlete, self-describe the injury as minor, moderate, or
major, disclose if the injury ended their sport career, and describe any continuing effects
from the injury. The decision to have coaches self-describe the severity of their injuries
rather than by the researcher is based on an argument put forth by Russell (1982).
Russell argues that when researchers apply descriptive codes to participant data a
fundamental research error may be created. That is, coaches’ assignment of a particular
severity rating for their injury may not be perceived in the same way by the researchers,
thus its severity may be over- or underestimated by researchers. For this study, it is the
cognitive process by which coaches form judgments about injured athletes that is under
investigation. Thus, it is the coaches’ perception of their injuries, rather than the injuries’
clinical assessment or researcher’s judgment, and how coaches use this information to

make causal attributions and expectancies regarding injured athletes that is under

50

investigation. Descriptive statistical analyses (means, standard deviations, cross
tabulations) were conducted to provide a narrative of the study’s participants. Coaches’
demographic variables (e.g., sex, coaching level, injury history) were also analyzed as a
predictor of their causal attributions.

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). The Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(IRI; Davis, 1980) (see Appendix C) was used to measure trait empathy. The 28-item
scale is divided into four subscales: perspective-taking (PT), fantasy (F S), empathic
concern (EC), and personal distress (PD). Each subscale is measured using 7 items with
responses along a 5-point likert scale ranging from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4
(describes me very well). Scores for each subscale are totaled for a score ranging from O
to 28. IRI items corresponding with each subscale for scoring were as follows: FS, items
1, 5, 7, 12,16, 23, and 26; EC, items 2, 4, 9,14, 18, 20, and 22; PT, items 3, 8, 11, 15, 21,
25, and 28; and PD, items 6, 10, 13, 17, 19, 24, and 27. Items 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18,
and 19 were reverse scored. Because the IRI is a measure of four distinct elements of
empathy, the subscale scores should not be totaled to form a total trait score. Therefore,
analysis of empathy required individual assessment of each subscale.

Coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) was calculated to determine the internal
consistency of the four subscales of the IRI. All values were within the acceptable range
(according to Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987; Davis, 1980; R. DeShon, personal
communication, November 5, 2002; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) for the four scales of the
IRI (FS, or = .79; EC, or = .72; PT, (1 = .78; PD, (1 = .74). These values were also
consistent with Davis’ (1980) scale assessment who reported coefficient alphas ranging

from .71 to .77 for the four scales of the IRI. AS with most empathy measures, Davis

51

(1983) reported significant sex differences existed for each scale of the IRI, with females
scoring higher than males on each of the four scales. Similar sex differences in empathy
scores were expected for this study.

The Descriptive Injury Scenarios. Using the guidelines provided by Roberts and
Pascuzzi (1979), two scenarios describing a sport injury and a different sport injury
recovery outcome were presented to the study’s participants (see Appendices D and E).
To make certain the sport injuries described in the scenarios were realistic and classified
as moderate to major in severity, the scenarios were reviewed by two NATA certified
head athletic trainers at a NCAA Division I university and two educational sport
psychologists. Upon their review, the sport injuries were declared to be realistic and
moderate to major in their severity. Additional suggestions from the reviewers led to the
inclusion of information regarding the athlete’s performance on sport Skills upon return to
practice in the scenarios. The rationale for the inclusion of return to practice performance
information in the scenarios was that while an athlete can be cleared to return to Sport by
medical and athletic training personnel once an injury has sufficiently healed according to
clinical standards, coaches were more likely to judge recovery outcomes based on the
athletes’ performance on sport skills and tasks when they return to practice.

The scenarios varied according to (a) the perspective situation (CA or CC), and
(b) athlete’s recovery outcome (success or failure). Thus, the first scenario described an
injury to ligaments in which surgery was conducted for their repair, rehabilitation
exercises were given to the athlete, the athlete returned to sport participation on schedule,
and the athlete did not experience pain when performing sport skills. This injury

scenario’s recovery outcome was considered to be a success by the principal investigator,

52

two NATA certified athletic trainers, and two educational sport psychologists. The
second scenario described “a severe, 3’d degree ankle sprain” for which a physician
recommended a recovery protocol. However, when returned to sport practice, the athlete
favored the ankle and had difficulty performing Sport Skills. This injury scenario’s
recovery outcome was considered to be a failure by the principal investigator, two NATA
certified athletic trainers, and two educational Sport psychologists.

Researchers often assume that study participants will describe success or failure
according to whether there was a win or loss in some achievement or competitive event.
Brawley (1984) contends that this assumption has created a methodological problem.
That is, perceptions of how an actor fared have been ignored and only causal ascriptions
for absolute outcomes (win/loss) have been examined. Thus, the methodological
problem becomes one of not knowing whether coaches in this study were responding to
only the absolute outcome (recovery success or failure) or a personal achievement
criterion (effort toward rehabilitation), or a combination of the two. For this study, it was
hopeful that coaches would attend to both types of information when assigning causal
attributions. So, three items act as “checks” for agreement between the principal
investigator and participants’ perception of each scenario’s content. After reading each
scenario, participants were asked to determine (a) the severity of the injury (minor,
moderate, or major), (b) the athlete’s rehabilitation behavior (compliant or non-
compliant), and (c) the recovery’s outcome (success or failure). Analysis of the effects of
these “check” items on coaches’ causal attributions serve to explain firrther the dynamics

of sport injury under investigation in this study.

53

The Causal Dimension Scale 11 (CDSII). The Causal Dimension Scale 11 (CDSII)
(McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992) (see Appendices D and E) was used to assess
coaches’ attributions for the cause of recovery outcomes (success or failure) along the
three causal dimensions of attribution theory [locus of causality (LOC), stability (ST),
and controllability (personal and external)]. While three causal dimensions are identified
according to attribution theory (locus of causality, stability, and controllability), the
CDSII consists of four scales in which the controllability dimension was separated into
two scales [personal (PC) and external (EXC) control]. After reading each scenario,
participants were instructed to list “the single most likely cause” of the recovery outcome
(see Appendices D and E) in a box provided on the questionnaire form. The CDSII’S 12-
item semantic differential scale followed the box in which coaches listed a cause for the
recovery outcome. The total score for each causal dimension was obtained by summing
the items delegated to each dimension. CDSII items corresponding with each scale for
scoring were as follows: locus of causality, items 1, 6, and 9; stability, items 3, 7, and 11;
personal control, items 2, 4, and 10; and external control, items 5, 8, 12.

Coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) was calculated to determine the internal
consistency of the four scales. The internal consistencies for this study’s sample were as
follows: locus of causality, a = .89; stability, or = .66; personal control, a = .88, external
control, a = .89. These reliability scores were greater or consistent with the average
internal consistencies across four studies conducted by the instrument’s creators
(McAuley et al., 1992) who reported the following: locus of causality, or = .67; stability,

(1 = .67; personal control, a = .79, external control, a = .82.

54

Additional Items. After completing the CDSII, coaches responded to five
additional items for each injury scenario (see Appendices D and E). First, participants
identified the person “most responsible for the athlete’s recovery outcome” by choosing
one of the multiple choice selections [i.e., Me — the coach or Me — the athlete (depending
on the perspective Situation taken), the coach or the athlete (depending on the perspective
situation taken), the physician, the athletic trainer, the parents, or other]. This item may
provide additional insight into the perceived responsibility of persons involved in the care
of injured athletes.

Second, one expectancy item to assess coaches’ beliefs about the likelihood of a
similar recovery outcome in the future was given. This item was reviewed and its content
validity confirmed by two experts (D. Feltz, personal communication, November 27,
2002; B. Weiner, personal communication, November 19, 2002). Coaches were asked to
respond to this item along a 10-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all likely) to 9
(extremely likely). Analyses involving this expectancy item served to answer the
research question put forth in this study.

Third, as a perspective-taking check item, coaches were asked to rate how easily
they were able to place themselves in the descriptive scenario along a 10-point scale
ranging from 0 (not at all easy) to 9 (extremely easy). Finally, for each injury scenario,
coaches reported the sport in which they imagined the athlete participated. Participants in
the observer situation also revealed the sex of the athlete they imagined in the injury
scenario. These final three items were included as possible contributors to interpretation

of results.

55

Procedure

Coaches who participated in this study were recruited via attendance at a sport
conference or meeting (N = 43) and coaches and athletic directors who identified possible
participants (N = 57). The principal investigator attended and distributed surveys to
coaches attending a sports leadership conference and a coaches’ meeting. Data collection
opportunities were lost when two coacheS’ education workshops were cancelled.

Consent forms and survey sets were mailed to coaches residing in the continental United
States. A reminder postcard (see Appendix G) followed the original mailing to coaches
who had not returned the surveys within 12-15 days. Forty-six percent of the coaches
who received surveys by mail returned consent forms and surveys in the return-addressed
stamped envelope provided by the principal investigator. Coaches who returned surveys
by mail were representative of 12 states and a variety of sports. Twenty-three of the
surveys distributed by high school athletic directors were completed and returned. The
low response rate from these coaches was most probably due to the distribution of
surveys late in the academic calendar year.

University guidelines for the use of human subjects were adhered to at all times.
Participants were asked to read and sign a consent form (see Appendix A). After reading
and Signing the consent form, participants completed the questionnaires and returned both
the consent form and all survey instruments to the principal investigator either at the sport
conference or meeting or by mail in the return addressed stamped envelope provided with
the consent form and survey instruments. To maintain confidentiality, high school
coaches who received questionnaire sets from their athletic director were instructed to

seal their responses in the attached return addressed envelope before returning it to their

56

athletic director for pick-up by the principal investigator. Approximately 20 to 30
minutes were needed to complete the questionnaires.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the perspective-taking (N = 57) or
Observer situation (N = 57). To reduce order effects, participants were also randomly
assigned to the order of exposure to the injury scenarios. Fifty-three participants received
a survey set in which the failure scenario was placed before the success scenario. The
remaining sixty-one participants received a survey set in which the success scenario was
placed before the failure scenario. Thus, the order of the survey set was as follows: (1)
consent form, (2) IRI, (3) injury scenario with CDSII and additional items for each of the
scenarios (i.e., read scenario #1 and complete survey items; read scenario #2 and
complete survey), (4) the demographics questionnaire, and (5) a “thank you” page (see
Appendix F). To reduce the possibility of another order effect, the demographics
questionnaire was placed last in the survey set. That is, it was feared that coaches’ active
recollection of their personal sport injury history and other demographic items prior to
completing the IRI and CDSII could confound coaches’ responses. However, the order
in which coaches chose to complete the survey packet could not be controlled. It was
simply hoped and assumed that coaches completed the surveys in the order they were
presented in the packet.

Instructions to participants for completing the attribution survey were adapted
from Hanrahan, Grove, and Hattie (1989). In the observer situation, coaches were
instructed to maintain their role as the coach of the athlete recovering from the injury in
each injury scenario of the CDSII (see Appendix D). Instructions to observers included

“Read each event and vividly imagine it happenirg to ONE OF YOUR ATHLETES.” In

 

57

the perspective-taking situation, coaches were instructed to take the role of the athlete
recovering from the injury in each injury scenario of the CDSII (see Appendix E).

Instructions to actors included “Read each event and vividly imagine it happening to

 

XQII”
Statistical Analysis

The demographic survey was analyzed to provide descriptive information about
the study participants. Categorization of coaches’ sport injury history was also delineated
from these data and included as an independent variable for additional statistical analysis
Of causal ascriptions. As previously discussed, coaches self-described their Sport injuries
as minor, moderate, or major and indicated if the injury was or was not career-ending.
Coaches’ self-descriptions of their injuries were categorized into two injury history
groups: (a) none/minor or moderate/major, and (b) career-ending or not career-ending.

Coaches were identified as high, low, or neutral empathic for each subscale of the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Each subscale of the IRI consists of seven items,
thus, scores on each subscale can range from 0 to 28. The following classifications were
given to scale scores: 0 — 11 = low empathy, 12 — 16 = neutral empathy, 17 — 28 = high
empathy. A series of statistical analyses involving IRI scale group scores’ effect on
causal dimension scale scores were conducted in accordance to the hypotheses stated for
this study.

Gender differences for coaches’ empathy scores were expected (Davis, 1983;
Eisenberg, 2000) and found for this sample on two scales of the IRI (fantasy and
empathic concern) (see Table 3). While no research hypothesis or question regarding sex

differences in empathy scores were made for this study, additional statistical analyses

58

(e.g., descriptive, analysis of variance, cross tabs) relevant to this study’S working model
(see Figure 1) and research hypotheses were conducted to provide additional
understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Coaches’ responses to the expectancy item were categorized into three groups
(low, moderate, and high) for analysis. Expectancy scores ranging from zero to three
were classified as “low.” Scores ranging from four to Six were classified as “moderate.”
High expectancy was reflected by scores ranging from seven to nine. Analysis of
variance procedures and partial correlations were conducted to answer the research
question stated for this study.

Analysis of variance procedures were used to examine the dimensional properties
of the causal statements provided by the coaches (hypotheses testing). The dependent
variables were the four causal dimension scales of the CDSII (locus of causality, stability,

personal control and external control). The independent variables were (a) perspective

 

Situation (perspective-taking or observer), (b) empathy subscale groups (high, neutral, or
low), (c) personal injury history conditions (minor, moderate, or major, and career-ending
or not career-ending), (d) rehabilitation behavior (compliant or non-compliant), and (e)

recovery outcome (success or failure). For the research question, the dependent variables

 

were the expectancy scores for the successful and failed recovery scenarios. The

independent variables were the four causal scales. Additional analyses of demographic

 

variables (sex, years coaching, sex of athletes coaching, etc.) were also conducted.

Significant findings were reported and discussed.

59

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses

Before conducting statistical analyses for the research hypotheses and question
stated for this study, three preliminary analyses were performed. First, as stated in the
methods section, the order of the two descriptive recovery scenarios (success and failure)
was randomized and randomly distributed to the participants. While it was hopeful that
the order of exposure to the different recovery outcomes would not significantly affect
participants’ causal attributions, analysis of variance between the order of exposure was
warranted. Second, sex differences in empathy scale scores were expected (Davis, 1983;
Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983), thus prompting its preliminary analysis and report. Lastly,
while the recovery scenarios were reviewed for their realism, severity, and intended
perceived outcome (success or failure) by several professionals within the field of
kinesiology, participants’ disagreement with the principal investigator’s description of the
recoveries’ outcome may confound research findings and conclusions. Therefore,
statistical review of participants’ perception of the recovery outcomes described in the
scenarios was also necessary.

Effect of order of exposure to the descriptive recovery scenarios on causal
attributions. Four separate oneway ANOVAS Showed that the order of exposure to the
recovery scenarios had an effect on coaches’ causal attributions for the successful
recovery scenario (see Table 3). For the successful recovery outcome, coaches who were
exposed to the successful recovery scenario before the failed recovery reported higher

LOC scores (M = 18.10, SD = 7.38) than coaches who read the failed recovery scenario

60

before the successful recovery scenario (M: 13.13, SD = 7.41), F(1, 113) = 12.71,p <
.001. Also, coaches who were exposed to the successful recovery scenario before the
failed recovery reported higher personal control scores (M = 19.33, SD = 6.95) than
coaches who read the failed recovery before the successful recovery scenario (M = 14.60,
SD = 6.93), F (1, 114) = 13.14, p < .001. For the failed recovery scenario, a oneway
ANOVA indicated that the order of exposure to the descriptive recovery scenarios had no
significant effect on coaches’ causal attributions (see Table 4). Therefore, subsequent
MANCOVA analyses of coaches’ causal attributions for the successful recovery scenario
were conducted with order-Of-scenarios as a covariate. Such treatment of the data for the
failed recovery scenario was not warranted.

Table 3

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, ANO VA Comparison of the Order of Exposure to
the Recovery Scenarios (Failure-Success vs. Success-Failure) on CDSII Scale Means

 

CDSII Scale Scenario Order N Mean SD df F p n2

 

Locus of Causality

failure then success 53 13.13 7.41

success then failure 60 18.10 7.38 1 12.71 ** .00 .11
Stability

failure then success 53 15.17 5.28

success then failure 60 14.73 5.26 1 0.19 .66 .01
Personal Control

failure then success 53 14.60 6.93

success then failure 61 19.33 6.95 1 13.14” .00 .11
External Control

failure then success 53 16.28 6.98

success than failure 59 15.20 7.00 1 0.67 .42 .01

 

*p < .05; ”p < .01; “*p < .001

61

Table 4

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, ANO VA Comparison of the Order of Exposure to the
Recovery Scenarios (F ailure-Success vs. Success-Failure) on CDSII Scale Means

 

CDSII Scale Scenario Order N Mean SD df F p r;2

 

Locus of Causality

failure then success 53 13.36 6.65

success then failure 59 15.49 7.12 1 2.67 .11 .02
Stability

failure then success 53 9.98 3.58

success then failure 60 10.98 4.38 1 1.75 .19 .12
Personal Control

failure then success 53 15.51 5.91

success then failure 60 17.50 7.30 1 2.50 .12 .02
External Control

failure then success 53 14.15 6.65

success then failure 60 11.92 6.42 1 3.29 .07 .03

 

Sex difl'erences in empathy scores. Davis (1983) reported Significant sex
differences existed for each scale of the IRI, with females scoring higher than males on
each of the four scales. However, four separate one-way ANOVAS revealed significant
sex differences for only two scales of the IRI for this study’s sample (see Table 5). That
is, female coaches had higher scores for Fantasy (FS) and Empathic Concern (EC) than
male coaches. Thus, subsequent tests of hypotheses involving the fantasy and empathic

concern scales of the IRI included analyses for sex differences.

62

Table 5

ANO VA Comparison of Sex Differences in Coaches’ IRI Scale Scores on C DSII Scale
Means

 

 

IRI Scale N M SD df F p 172
Fantasy (FS)

Female 65 15.20 5.95

Male 44 12.93 4.68 1 450* .04 .04
Empathic Concern (EC)

Female 65 21.71 3.57

Male 44 19.00 4.19 1 13.12“ .00 .11
Perspective-Taking (PT)

Female 65 20.00 4.17

Male 44 18.41 4.40 1 3.66 .06 .03
Personal Distress (PD)

Female 65 8.48 4.25

Male 44 6.98 4.15 1 3.33 .07 .03

 

*p < .05; ”p < .01

Participants ’ perceptions of the outcome of the injuries described in the
scenarios. Before reviewing the statistical findings for each research hypothesis, it was
important to determine whether participants viewed the success or failure of the
rehabilitation similar to the investigator and a panel of experts. For each scenario,
participants were asked to check whether they perceived the outcome to be a success or
failure. The manipulation check item revealed a difference in participants’ interpretation
of the scenario described as a recovery failure by the principal investigator. A frequency
distribution revealed 66.7% (N = 76) of participants agreed with the principal investigator
that the recovery described in the failure scenario was indeed a failure. However, 29.8%
(N = 34) of participants believed the recovery to be a success. Four participants (3.5%)

did not respond to this manipulation check item. For the recovery success scenario, all

63

participants (N = 114) agreed with the principal investigator that the recovery outcome
was successful. Therefore, subsequent MANCOVA analyses of coaches’ causal
attributions conducted for the recovery failure scenario included their belief about the
recovery outcome (success or failure) as a covariate. Such treatment of data for the
successful recovery scenario was not warranted.
Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. It was expected that coaches in the Coach-as-Athlete (CA)
perspective-taking condition would apply causal explanations for recovery outcomes
differently than coaches in the Coach-aS-Coach (CC) perspective-taking condition. As
expected, participants in the CA condition attributed the cause of their recovery outcomes
differently than participants in the CC condition’s explanation for the cause of their
athlete’s recovery outcomes for both the successful and unsuccessful recovery outcomes.

For the recovery success scenario, a oneway MANCOVA (perspective-taking
condition co-varied with order of descriptive scenario) was performed. Wilks’ Lambda
revealed that the covariate order of CDSII scenarios had a significant overall effect on
coaches’ causal attributions, A = .85, F (1, 109) = 4.70, p = .002, n2 = .15. Test of
between-subjects effects further revealed that the order of CDSII had a significant effect
on locus ofcausality, F(1, 111) = l2.l9,p = .001, if = .10, and personal control, F (1,

111) = 11.25, p = .001, n2 = .09 (see Table 6 for means and standard deviations).

64

Table 6

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Means and Standard Deviations for the
Perspective-taking Condition Given the Order of CSDII as the Covariate

 

 

 

 

CA Condition CC Condition
(N = 57) (N = 54)
CDSII Scale M SD M SD
Locus of Causality*** 21.02 5.30 10.37 6.09
Stability'" 16.84 5.20 13.04 4.60
Personal Control*** 21.89 5.16 12.06 5.78
External Control*** 13.00 6.22 18.59 6.69

 

*p < .05; "p < .01; ***p < .001

According to Wilks’ Lambda, the independent variable, coaches’ perspective-
taking condition, also had a significant overall effect on coaches’ causal attributions, A =
.47, F (l, 109) = 29.13, p < .001, n2 = .53. Analysis of between-subjects effects revealed
that coaches in the CA condition reported the “Single most likely cause” Of their recovery
outcome to be more internal, F (l, 111) = 93.76, p < .001, n2 = .47, more stable, F (1,
111)=17.45,p < .001, n2 = .14, and ofmore personal control, F(l,111)= 89.70,p <
.001, n2 = .44, in comparison to coaches in the CC condition’s attributions for their
athlete’s recovery outcome (see Table 6 for means and standard deviations). However,
coaches in the CA condition attributed less external control to the cause of their recovery
outcome in comparison to coaches in the CC condition ascription of external control for
their athlete’s successful recovery outcome, F (l, 111) = 20.83, p < .001, n2 = .16.

For the recovery failure scenario, a oneway MANCOVA [perspective-taking
condition (CA or CC) co-varied with recovery’s outcome (success or failure)] was
performed. Wilks’ Lambda revealed that the covariate, coaches’ belief about the

recovery’s outcome, did not have a significant overall effect on participants’ causal

65

attributions, A = .92, F (1, 107) = 2.20, p = .07, n2 = .08. However, perspective-taking
condition had a significant overall effect, A = .54, F (1, 107) = 22.27, p < .001, n2 = .46.
The between-subjects test revealed that causal attributions of coaches in the CA condition
were more internal, F (l, 109) = 54.05,p < .001, n2 = .50, more stable, F (1, 109) = 3.98,
p < .05, I72 = .32, and of greater personal control, F(1, 109) = 23.34,p < .001, n2 = .39, in
comparison to the causal attributions for their athlete’s unsuccessful recovery made by
coaches in the CC condition (see Table 7 for means and standard deviations). Consistent
with their attribution of personal control, coaches in the CC condition attributed more
external control for their athlete’s unsuccessful recovery outcome than coaches in the CA
condition, F(1, 109) = 42.98, p < .001, n2 = .34.

Table 7

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Means and Standard Deviations for the

Perspective-taking Condition Given Coaches ’ Belief about the Recovery Outcome as the
Covariate

 

 

 

 

CA Condition CC Condition
(N = 55) (N = 54)
CDSII Scale M SD M SD
Locus of Causality*** 18.38 6.23 10.29 5.20
Stability* 11.24 3.87 9.72 4.23
Personal Control‘“ 19.26 6.38 13.67 5.98
External Control” 9.62 5.16 16.78 5.97

 

*p < .05; “p < .01; *“p < .001
IR] Scale Groups. Before conducting analysis of variance tests for hypotheses
regarding levels of empathy (low or high), participants’ scores were categorized as low,

neutral, or high for each scale of the IRI. For each scale of the IRI, the score range for

66

each category was as follows: low, 0 - 11; neutral, 12 — 16; and high, 17 — 28. The
number of participants for each scale of the IRI by level of empathy is listed in Table 8.
Table 8

Number of Participants at Each Level of the [RI Scales

 

 

 

Level of IRI
IRI Scale Low Neutral High Missing Total N
Fantasy 32 39 42 1 1 14
Empathic Concern 2 19 92 1 114
Perspective-Taking 5 26 79 4 1 14
Personal Distress 85 27 0 2 1 14

 

The fantasy scale achieved a sufficient sample for each level for comparison of
participants in the low fantasy group to those in the high fantasy group. However,
because the empathic concern, perspective-taking, and personal distress scales did not
achieve a sufficient sample for either the low or high group, adjustments to comparison
groups were made. For empathic concern (EC), statistical comparisons consisted of the
low-neutral EC and high EC groups. Comparison levels of perspective-taking (PT)
consisted of low-neutral PT and high PT groups. Personal distress (PD) was analyzed
according to low PD and neutral PD groups.

Hypothesis 2. It was expected that coaches with high empathy scale scores would
attribute recovery outcomes to external, environmental factors more than coaches with
low empathy subscale scores. Support for this research hypothesis was not found.

For the recovery success scenario, four separate MANCOVA analyses were
conducted. A separate 2 x 2 MANCOVA (level of empathy by sex co-varied with order

of CDSII scenario) was conducted for the fantasy (FS) and empathic concern (EC) scales

67

of the IRI for a total Of two analyses. A separate oneway MANCOVA (level of empathy
co-varied with order of CDSII scenario) was conducted for the perspective-taking (PT)
and personal distress (PD) scales of the IRI for a total of two analyses. The Wilks’
Lambda revealed that participants’ sex did not have an overall main effect on coaches’
causal attributions for either the fantasy scale, A = 1.00, F (3, 67) = .08, p = .99, n2 = .01,
or the empathic concern scale, A = .92, F (3, 106) = .20, p = .94, n2 = .01. The interaction
of participants’ sex with levels of fantasy did not have a significant effect on coaches’
causal ascriptions, A = .95, F (3, 67) = .79, p = .54, n2 = .05. Also, the interaction of
participants’ sex with levels of empathic concern did not have a significant effect on
coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .99, F (3, 106) = .28, p = .89, r72 = .01.

Wilks’ Lambda further revealed that overall the order in which coaches were
exposed to the descriptive scenarios had a significant covariate effect on their causal
ascriptions for each analysis of the IRI scales (see Table 9). For the fantasy scale
analysis, the test of between-subjects effects (sex of coach) revealed that the covariate
had a significant effect on coaches’ attribution of locus of causality, F (1 , 71) = 9.80, p =
.003, n2 = .13, and personal control, F (1, 71) = 5.45,p = .02, n2 = .08 (see Table 10 for
means and standard deviations). For the empathic concern scale analysis, the test of
between-subjects effects revealed that the covariate had a significant effect on coaches’
attribution of locus of causality, F (1, 110) = 13.31, p < .01, n2 = .11, and personal
control, F (1, 110) = 12.53, p = .001, n2 = .10. For the perspective-taking scale analysis,
the test of between-subj ects effects revealed that the covariate had a significant effect on
coaches’ attribution Of locus of causality, F (1, 108) = 13.01, p < .01, n2 = .11, and

personal control, F (1, 108) = 12.23, p = .001, n2 = .10. Finally, for the personal distress

68

scale analysis, the test of between-subjects effects revealed that the covariate had a
significant effect on coaches’ attribution of locus of causality, F (1 , 109) = 13.50, p < .01,
n2 = .11, and personal control, F(1, 109) = 12.74,p = .001, n2 = .11.

While Significant covariate effects on coaches’ causal attributions for the athlete’s
successful recovery were found for each separate MANCOVA analysis, Wilks’ Lambda
revealed that the independent variable, levels of empathy, did not have a significant
overall effect for any scale of the IRI (see Table 9). Unfortunately, the lack of finding
Significant differences in coaches’ causal attributions between levels of empathy do not
support the second research hypothesis stated in this study.

Table 9
For the Successfitl Recovery Scenario, Overall Covariate Eflect of Order of Descriptive

Scenarios and Main Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches ' Causal Attributions for
Each Separate MANC OVA Analysis of the IRI Scales

 

 

 

 

Overall Covariate Effect of Scenario Overall Main Effect of Levels of
Order on Coaches Causal Empathy on Coaches Causal
Attributions Attributions
IRI Scale df 1, 2 Wilks’ A F p n? Wilks’ A F p n2
Fantasy 3, 67 .80 3.85“ .007 .20 .88 1.87 .13 .1 1
Empathic Concern 3, 106 .83 5.11” .001 .17 .96 0.20 .94 .04
Perspective-taking 1, 106 .84 4.79“ .001 .16 .97 0.78 .54 .03
Personal Distress 1, 107 .83 5.12" .001 .17 .99 0.39 .81 .02

 

*‘p < .01

69

Table 10

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics by Levels of Empathy

with the Order ofCDSII as the Covariate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale
Level of Personal
IRI Scale Empathy E Locus of Cause 3% Co_ntrgl External Control
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Fantasy
low female 13 15.31 8.43 15.46 7.52 17.23" 7.49 17.38 5.92
male 18 17.61 9.15 16.83 4.74 18.06" 8.40 17.72 7.39
Total 31 16.65 8.79 16.26 5.99 17.71 7.91 17.58 6.71
high female 30 17.40 7.17 15.23 5.01 17.47 7.36 13.80 7.11
male 10 13.70 7.51 13.90 4.63 14.70 7.54 14.80 8.77
Total 40 16.48 7.34 14.90 4.89 16.78 7.41 14.05 7.45
Total female 43 16.77 7.53 15.30 5.79 17.40 7.31 14.88 6.90
male 28 16.21 8.67 15.79 4.83 16.86 8.13 16.68 7.88
Total 71 16.55 7.94 15.49 5.40 17.18 7.59 15.59 7.30
Empathic
Concern
low-neutral female 8 16.50 7.45 16.75 5.82 18.50” 4.63 14.13 7.92
male 13 16.08 9.58 16.54 5.52 16.62" 8.63 14.92 8.14
Total 21 16.24 8.63 16.62 5.49 17.33 7.28 14.62 7.86
high female 57 16.00 7.54 14.63 5.44 17.07 7.23 15.26 6.72
male 32 15.25 8.01 14.44 4.72 16.91 7.91 17.06 6.97
Total 89 15.73 7.68 14.56 5.17 17.01 7.44 15.91 6.83
Total female 65 16.06 7.47 14.89 5.48 17.25 6.95 15.12 6.82
male 45 15.49 8.39 15.04 5.00 16.82 8.02 16.44 7.30
Total 110 15.83 7.83 14.95 5.27 17.07 7.38 15.66 7.02
Perspective
-taking
low-neutral 31 15.74 7.82 15.52 5.42 16.48" 7.45 14.26" 7.29
high 77 15.70 7.91 14.56 5.17 17.18" 7.43 16.22" 6.93
Total 108 15.71 7.84 14.83 5.24 16.98 7.41 15.66 7.06
Personal
Distress
low 83 16.34 7.86 15.19 5.45 17.46" 7.68 15.41" 7.26
neutral 26 14.15 7.80 14.27 4.77 15.77“ 6.45 16.69" 6.25
Total 109 15.82 7.86 14.97 5.29 17.06 7.41 15.72 7.03

 

‘p < .05; "p < .01; *“p < .001

70

For the recovery failure scenario, four separate MANCOVA analyses were
conducted. A separate 2 x 2 MANCOVA (level of empathy by sex co-varied with
coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome) was conducted for the fantasy (FS) and
empathic concern (EC) scales of the IRI for a total of two analyses. A separate oneway
MAN COVA (level of empathy co-varied with coaches’ perception of the recovery’s
outcome) was conducted for the perspective-taking (PT) and personal distress (PD) scales
of the IRI for a total of two analyses. Wilks’ Lambda revealed that participants’ sex did
not have an overall main effect on coaches’ causal attributions for either the fantasy
scale, A = .92, F (3, 67) = 1.38,p = .25, n2 = .08, or the empathic concern scale, A = .92,
F (3, 104) = 2.20, p = .07, n2 = .08. The interaction of participants’ sex with levels of
fantasy did not have a Significant effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .95, F (3, 67)
= .79, p = .54, n2 = .05. Also, the interaction of participants’ sex with levels of empathic
concern did not have a Significant effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .96, F (3,
104) = .93, p = .45, n2 = .04. Furthermore, Wilks’ Lambda revealed that coaches’ belief
about the athlete’s recovery outcome as either a success or failure did not have a
significant covariate effect on their causal attributions (see Table 11).

Like the findings for the successful recovery scenario, levels of empathy did not
have a significant overall effect on coaches’ attributions for the cause of the athlete’s
failed recovery for any scale of the IRI (see Tables 12 and 13 for Wilks’ Lambda and
descriptive statistics). The lack of significant differences in coaches’ causal attributions

between levels of empathy do not support the research hypothesis stated in this study.

71

Table l 1

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, Overall C ovariate Effect of Recovery Outcome on
Coaches ’ Causal Attributions for Each Separate MANCO VA Analysis of the IRI Scales

 

Overall Covariate Effect of Scenario Order on Coaches
Causal Attributions

 

 

 

IRI Scale df1 df2 Wilks’A F p r)2
Fantasy 3 67 .87 2.47 .06 .13
Empathic Concern 3 104 .92 2.26 .07 .08
Perspective-taking 1 103 .92 2.1 1 .09 .08
Personal Distress 1 105 .92 2.18 .08 .08
Table 12

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, Overall Main Effect of Levels of Empathy (Levels of
IRI Scales) on Coaches ' Causal Attributions for the Separate MANC OVA Analyses

 

Overall Main Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches
Causal Attributions

 

 

IRI Scale df1 df2 Wilks’A F p 172
Fantasy 3 67 .99 0.09 .99 .01
Empathic Concern 3 104 .95 2.26 .07 .05
Perspective-taking 1 103 .10 0.07 .99 .00
Personal Distress 1 105 .97 0.67 .61 .03

 

72

Table 13

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics by Levels of Empathy
Given the Order of CDSII as the Covariate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

CDSII Scale
Level of Locus of Personal External
IRI Scale Empathy _S_ex CLusg S_ta§il_ify M gggfrgl
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Fantasy
low female 14 13.29 9.31 9.50 4.62 16.07 8.35 13.36 6.07
male 17 14.29 7.61 11.53 5.42 17.41 7.00 15.12 7.17
Total 31 13.84 8.29 10.61 5.10 16.81 7.54 14.32 6.65
high female 31 16.39 6.14 10.23 3.35 17.32 5.73 12.03 6.58
male 9 11.22 7.01 10.22 4.71 15.56 7.32 14.56 8.38
Total 40 15.23 6.62 10.23 3.63 16.93 6.07 12.60 6.99
Total female 45 15.42 7.31 10.00 3.75 16.93 6.58 12.44 6.38
male 26 13.23 7.42 11.08 5.13 16.77 7.02 14.92 7.45
Total 71 14.62 7.37 10.39 4.30 16.87 6.70 13.35 6.85
Empathic
Concern
low-neutral female 7 10.86 6.07 9.00 5.66 10.29 6.02 11.14 5.49
male 13 13.92 6.08 10.77 3.44 16.31 6.90 13.62 7.24
Total 20 12.85 6.10 10.15 4.28 14.20 7.08 12.75 6.64
high female 59 15.41 7.22 10.05 3.49 17.02 6.67 12.80 6.40
male 29 13.41 7.15 11.48 5.04 16.76 6.69 14.24 7.22
Total 88 14.75 7.22 10.52 4.09 16.93 6.64 13.27 6.68
Total female 66 14.92 7.21 9.94 3.73 16.30 6.89 12.62 6.29
male 42 13.57 6.77 11.26 4.57 16.62 6.67 14.05 7.15
Total 108 14.40 7.04 10.45 4.11 16.43 6.77 13.18 6.64
Perspective-
taking
low-neutral 31 14.45 7.39 10.48 4.26 16.13 7.22 13.32 6.43
high 74 14.39 7.01 10.52 4.01 16.36 6.67 13.34 6.76
Total 105 14.41 7.09 10.51 4.06 16.30 6.81 13.33 6.63
Personal
Distress
low 81 14.57 7.13 10.45 4.33 16.87 7.01 12.87 6.59
neutral 26 13.42 6.55 10.50 3.50 14.88 5.93 14.50 6.58
Total 107 14.29 6.98 10.46 4.13 16.39 6.80 13.27 6.60

Hypothesis 3. It was hypothesized that the within participants’ perspective-taking
conditions (CA or CC) would yield differences in causal attributions between levels of
IRI scale scores. More specifically, it was expected that coaches in the CA condition
with high IRI scale scores would attribute the cause of recovery outcomes to external
factors more so than coaches in the CA condition with low empathy scores. The same
was expected of coaches with high and low empathy scores in the CC condition. A lack
of support for this research hypothesis was found for the IRI scales for both recovery
outcomes.

Successful recovery scenario — within Coach-as-Athlete (CA) condition. A
separate 2 x 2 MANCOVA (level of empathy by sex co-varied with order of descriptive
recovery scenario) was conducted for the fantasy (F S) and empathic concern (EC) scales
of the IRI analyses of CDSII scores within the coach-aS-athlete (CA) condition. A
separate oneway MANCOVA (level of empathy co-varied with order of descriptive
recovery scenarios) was conducted for the perspective-taking (PT) and personal distress
(PD) scales of the IRI. (See Tables 14 and 15 for Wilks’ Lambda and descriptive
statistics.) Wilks’ Lambda revealed that, within the CA condition, the sex of the
participants did not have an overall main effect on coaches’ causal attributions for either
the fantasy scale, A = .88, F (3, 33) = l.02,p = .42, n2 = .13, or the empathic concern
scale, A = .93, F (3, 53) = .87, p = .49, n2 = .07. The interaction of participants’ sex with
levels of fantasy did not have a significant effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .91 ,
F (3, 33) = .69, p = .60, r72 = .10. Also, the interaction of participants’ sex with levels of
empathic concern did not have a significant effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .93,

F (3, 53) = .91, p = .47, n2 = .08. Wilks’ Lambda further revealed that the covariate

74

effect of the order of descriptive scenarios on coaches’ causal attributions was not
significant for any IRI scale analysis. Also, contrary to the research hypothesis,
according to Wilks’ Lambda, levels of empathy did not have an overall Significant main
effect on the causal attributions of coaches within the CA condition.

Table 14

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition, Overall Covariate

Eflect of Order of Descriptive Scenarios and Main Eflect of Levels of Empathy on
Coaches' Causal Attributions for Each Separate MANCO VA Analysis of the IR] Scales

 

 

 

 

Covariate Effect on Coaches in Main Effect of Levels of

the CA Condition’s Causal Empathy on Coaches in the CA

Attributions Condition's Causal Attributions

lRl Scale df1,2 A F p n2 A F p n2
Fantasy 3, 33 .88 1.01 .42 .12 .77 2.11 .11 .23
Empathic Concern 3, 53 .87 1.87 .31 .12 .93 0.87 .49 .06
Perspective-taking 1, 53 .88 1.63 .18 . 12 .94 0.80 .53 .06
Personal Distress 1, 54 .87 1.81 .14 .13 .96 0.46 .76 .04

 

75

Table 15

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition, CDSII Descriptive
Statistics by Levels of Empathy with the Order of CDSII as the Covariate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale
Level of Locus of Personal External
lRl Scale Empathy SQ Cpupp gm m Qgippl
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Fantasy
low female 5 24.20 2.17 17.00 8.00 24.80 4.38 14.00 4.42
male 10 22.20 7.41 19.50 4.62 22.20 7.08 15.20 7.27
Total 15 22.87 6.13 18.67 5.79 23.07 6.27 14.80 6.32
high female 16 22.69 3.79 17.06 5.20 22.50 4.32 10.13 5.41
male 6 16.33 4.68 14.50 4.23 18.83 6.11 12.83 7.41
Total 22 20.95 4.88 16.36 4.99 21.50 5.00 10.86 5.96
Total female 21 23.05 3.49 17.05 5.75 23.05 4.34 1 1.05 5.36
male 16 20.00 6.99 17.63 5.00 20.94 6.74 14.31 7.17
Total 37 21.73 5.42 17.30 5.37 22.14 5.52 12.46 6.33
Empathic
Concern
low-neutral female 2 13.00 8.49 14.00 7.07 9.50 9.19 6.00 4.24
male 8 16.25 6.50 12.00 3.38 18.63 7.27 11.00 5.66
Total 10 15.60 6.54 12.40 3.89 16.80 8.08 10.00 5.60
high female 29 20.10 5.70 10.59 3.15 20.14 6.01 9.10 4.72
male 16 17.00 6.35 11.69 4.95 19.19 5.88 10.31 5.85
Total 45 19.00 6.06 10.98 3.86 19.80 5.91 9.53 5.12
Total female 31 19.65 5.99 10.81 3.41 19.45 6.60 8.90 4.69
male 24 16.75 6.26 11.79 4.41 19.00 6.22 10.54 5.67
Total 55 18.38 6.23 11.24 3.87 19.25 6.38 9.62 5.16
Perspective-
taking
low-neutral 18 20.39 5.78 17.61 5.26 20.83 6.36 11.39 6.29
high 37 21.27 5.2 16.22 5.21 22.41 4.61 13.62 6.19
Total 55 20.98 5.36 16.67 5.21 21.89 5.24 12.89 6.26
T’Srsonal
Distress
low 45 21.07 5.63 17.16 5.49 22.13 5.49 12.8 6.64
neutral 11 21.18 4.05 15.91 3.99 21.18 3.84 14.09 4.46
Total 56 21.09 5.32 16.91 5.22 21.94 5.19 13.05 6.26

76

Successful recovery scenario — within Coach-as-Coach (CC) condition. A
separate 2 x 2 MAN COVA (level of empathy by sex co-varied with order of descriptive
recovery scenario) was conducted for the fantasy (F S) and empathic concern (EC) scales
of the IRI analyses of CDSII scores within the coach-aS-coach (CC) condition. A
separate oneway MANCOVA (level of empathy co-varied with order of descriptive
recovery scenarios) was conducted for the perspective-taking (PT) and personal distress
(PD) scales of the IRI. (See Tables 16 and 17 for Wilks’ Lambda and descriptive
statistics.) Wilks’ Lambda revealed that, within the CC condition, the sex of the
participants did not have an overall main effect on coaches’ causal attributions for either
the fantasy scale, A = .97, F (3, 30) = .24, p = .92, n2 = .04, or the empathic concern scale,
A = .95, F (3, 49) = .60, p = .66, n2 = .05. The interaction of participants’ sex with levels
of fantasy did not have a significant effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .94, F (3,
30) = .39, p = .82, n2 = .06. Also, the interaction of participants’ sex with levels of
empathic concern did not have a significant effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .94,
F(3, 49) = .73, p = .58, n2 = .06.

Wilks’ Lambda further revealed that the covariate effect of the order of
descriptive scenarios on coaches’ causal attributions was Significant for empathic
concern, perspective-taking, and personal distress scales of the IRI. However, contrary to
the research hypothesis, levels of empathy did not have an overall significant main effect

on the causal attributions of coaches within the CC condition (see Tables 16 and 17).

77

Table 16

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CC Condition, Overall Covariate
Effect of Order of Descriptive Scenarios and Main Eflect of Levels of Empathy on
Coaches’ Causal Attributions for Each Separate MANCO VA Analysis of the IRI Scales

 

Overall Covariate Effect on
Coaches in the CC Condition’s
Causal Attributions

 

Overall Main Effect of Levels of
Empathy on Coaches in the CC
Condition’s Causal Attributions

 

 

 

IRI Scale df1,2 A F p n2 A F p n2
Fantasy 3, 30 .75 2.19 .10 .25 .91 0.91 .61 .09
Empathic Concern 3, 49 .78 3.21 * .02 .22 .97 0.32 .86 .03
Perspective-taking 1, 49 .79 2.98" .03 .21 .96 0.42 .80 .04
Personal Distress 1, 51 .77 3.53” .01 .23 .96 0.48 .75 .04
*p < .05

78

Table 17

For the Successful Recovery Scenario — Within the CC Condition, CDSII Descriptive
Statistics by Levels of Empathy with the Order of CDSII as the Covariate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cosn Scale
Level of Personal
IRI Scale E_mp_a_tpy Sex _L_oc_usflau_se_ Spam _Co_nlpg[ External Control
N M SD M SD M so M SD
Fantasy
'0‘” fema'e 8 9.75 5.23 14.50 7.60 12.50 4.31 19.50 5.98
"‘3"? 8 11.88 8.08 13.50 2.07 12.88 7.20 20.88 6.66
T015“ 16 10.81 6.67 14.00 5.40 12.69 5.74 20.19 6.16
“‘9“ fema'e 14 11.36 4.92 13.14 4.00 11.71 5.69 18.00 6.58
We 4 9.75 9.91 13.00 5.72 8.50 4.80 17.75 10.94
T018" 18 11.00 6.03 13.11 4.24 11.00 5.54 17.94 7.36
1013' fema'e 22 10.77 4.98 13.64 5.44 12.00 5.14 18.55 6.26
"‘3'9 12 11.17 8.33 13.33 3.42 11.42 6.63 19.83 7.95
T01?“ 34 10.91 6.24 13.53 4.77 11.79 5.61 19.00 6.81
Empathic
Concern
'OW'“9“"3' Iema'e 5 14.20 7.79 15.60 6.84 15.80 1.64 18.00 5.20
"'3"? 5 7.60 5.08 12.60 4.62 9.40 3.78 17.00 9.14
“‘3' 10 10.90 7.11 14.10 5.72 12.60 4.35 17.50 7.03
“‘9“ fema'e 28 9.82 4.55 12.57 4.38 11.82 5.26 18.57 5.97
"‘3'9 15 10.60 8.00 12.80 4.28 11.53 7.39 19.13 8.19
7013' 43 10.09 5.90 12.65 4.29 11.72 6.00 18.77 6.74
We“ fema'e 33 10.48 5.25 13.03 4.82 12.42 5.08 18.48 5.79
"‘3"? 20 9.85 7.37 12.75 4.24 11.00 6.64 18.60 8.24
_ T015“ 53 10.25 6.08 12.92 4.57 11.89 5.70 18.53 6.74
Perspective
-taking
low-neutral 13 9.31 5.31 12.62 4.31 10.46 3.69 18.23 6.89
high 38 10.89 6.31 13.03 4.80 12.71 6.13 18.76 6.61
Total 51 10.49 6.06 12.92 4.64 12.13 5.66 18.63 6.62
Tersonal
Distress
low 38 10.74 6.31 12.87 4.43 11.92 6.06 18.50 6.81
neutral 15 9.00 5.45 13.07 5.06 11.80 4.87 18.60 6.81
Total 53 10.25 6.08 12.92 4.57 11.89 5.70 18.53 6.74

79

Failure recovery scenario - within Coach-as-Athlete (CA) condition. A separate
2 x 2 MANCOVA (level of empathy by sex co-varied with coaches’ perception of the
recovery’s outcome) was conducted for the fantasy (FS) and empathic concern (EC)
scales of the IRI for a total of two analyses. A separate oneway MANCOVA (level of
empathy co-varied with coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome) was conducted
for the perspective-taking (PT) and personal distress (PD) scales of the IRI for a total of
two analyses. Wilks’ Lambda revealed that participants’ sex had an overall main effect
on coaches’ causal attributions for the fantasy scale, A = .64, F (3, 32) = 3.91 , p = .01,, n2
= .36, but not for the empathic concern scale, A = .87, F (3, 51) = 1.70,p = .17, n2 = .16.
The between-subjects test analysis involving the fantasy scale indicated that female
coaches within the CA condition attributed greater internal locus of causality to the cause
of the athlete’s recovery failure (N = 21, M = 21.52, SD = 4.66) than male coaches (N =
15, M: 16.53, SD = 7.20), F(1, 36) = 8.38,p = .01, n2 = .21. However, the interaction
of participants’ sex with levels of fantasy did not have a significant effect on coaches’
causal ascriptions, A = .97, F (3, 32) = .24, p = .92, n2 = .03. Also, the interaction of
participants’ sex with levels of empathic concern did not have a significant effect on
coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .87, F (3, 51) = 1.79, p = .15, n2 = .13. Furthermore,
Wilks’ Lambda revealed that the covariate effect of coaches’ recovery outcome belief on
their causal attributions was not significant for any IRI scale analysis. Also, contrary to
the research hypothesis, levels of empathy did not have an overall significant main effect
On the causal attributions of coaches within the CA condition (see Tables 18 and 19 for

Wilks’ test and descriptive statistics).

80

Table 18

For the Failure Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition, Overall C ovariate Eflect

of Recovery Outcome Belief and Main Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches’ Causal
Attributions for Each Separate MANCO VA Analysis of the IRI Scales

 

Overall Covariate Effect on
Coaches in the CC Condition's

Causal Attributions

 

Overall Main Effect of Levels of
Empathy on Coaches in the CC
Condition's Causal Attributions

 

2

 

IRI Scale df1, 2 A F p n A F p 7]

Fantasy 3, 32 .88 0.98 .44 .12 .88 0.98 .44 .13
Empathic Concern 3, 51 .87 1.72 .16 .25 .88 1.62 .19 .14
Perspective-taking 1, 51 .93 0.87 .49 .07 .93 0.85 .50 .07
Personal Distress 1, 52 .92 0.99 .42 .08 .90 1.35 .27 .10

 

81

Table 19

For the Failure Recovery Scenario — Within the CA Condition, CDSII Descriptive
Statistics by Levels of Empathy with Coaches’ Recovery Outcome Belief as the C ovariate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

CDSII Scale
Level of Personal nggpppl
IRI Scale mm S_6>s W SEEM! 99M Duffel
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Fantasy
low female 5 23.80 4.55 11.00 3.94 23.20 4.92 12.40 6.54
male 10 17.80 6.73 12.30 4.64 20.00 6.99 10.70 5.72
Total 15 19.80 6.60 11.87 4.32 21.07 6.39 11.27 5.82
high female 16 20.81 4.59 10.50 3.12 20.63 5.32 8.31 4.30
male 5 14.00 8.22 10.60 5.37 19.00 5.24 12.20 7.53
Total 21 19.19 6.18 10.52 3.61 20.24 5.21 9.24 5.30
Total female 21 2152* 4.65 10.62 3.23 21.24 5.22 9.29 5.06
male 15 1653* 7.20 11.73 4.77 19.67 6.29 11.20 6.14
Total 36 19.44 6.27 11.08 3.92 20.58 5.66 10.08 5.54
Empathic
Concern
low-neutral female 13.00 8.49 14.00 7.07 9.50 9.19 6.00 4.24
male 16.25 6.50 12.00 3.38 18.63 7.27 11.00 5.66
Total 10 15.60 6.54 12.40 3.89 16.80 8.08 10.00 5.60
high female 29 20.10 5.70 10.59 3.15 20.14 6.01 9.10 4.72
male 16 17.00 6.35 11.69 4.95 19.19 5.88 10.31 5.85
Total 45 19.00 6.06 10.98 3.86 19.80 5.91 9.53 5.12
Total female 31 19.65 5.99 10.81 3.41 19.45 6.60 8.90 4.69
male 24 16.75 6.26 11.79 4.41 19.00 6.22 10.54 5.67
Total 55 18.38 6.23 11.24 3.87 19.25 6.38 9.62 5.16
Perspective
-taking
low-neutral 18 17.83 6.33 12.17 4.15 18.00 7.61 10.56 5.23
high 35 18.71 6.42 10.77 3.69 19.69 5.82 9.23 5.13
Total 53 18.42 6.34 11.24 3.87 19.11 6.45 9.68 5.15
Personal
Distress
low 44 17.95 6.56 11.14 4.08 19.48 6.77 9.55 5.17
neutral 10 19.50 4.28 11.80 3.12 18.20 4.87 10.60 5.10
Total 54 18.24 6.19 11.26 3.90 19.24 6.45 9.74 5.13
*p<.05

Failure recovery scenario — within Coach-as-Coach (CC) condition. A separate 2
x 2 MANCOVA (level of empathy by sex co-varied with coaches’ perception of the
recovery’s outcome) was conducted for the fantasy (FS) and empathic concern (EC)
scales of the IRI for a total of two analyses. A separate oneway MANCOVA (level of
empathy co-varied with coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome) was conducted
for the perspective-taking (PT) and personal distress (PD) scales of the IRI for a total of
two analyses. (See Tables 20 and 21 for Wilks’ Lambda and descriptive statistics.)
Wilks’ Lambda revealed that participants’ sex did not have an overall main effect on
coaches’ causal attributions for either the fantasy scale, A = .90, F (3, 31) = .77, p = .56,
n2 = .10, or the empathic concern scale, A = .84, F (3, 49) = 2.14,p = .09, n2 = .10. The
interaction of participants’ sex with levels of fantasy did not have a Significant effect on
coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .86, F (3, 31) = 1.1 l, p = .37, n2 = .16. Also, the
interaction of participants’ sex with levels of empathic concern did not have a Significant
effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .99, F (3, 49) = .10, p = .98, r72 = .01.
Furthermore, Wilks’ Lambda revealed that the covariate effect of coaches’ recovery
outcome belief on their causal attributions was not Significant for any IRI scale analysis.
Also, contrary to the research hypothesis, levels of empathy did not have an overall
Significant main effect on the causal attributions of coaches within the CC condition (see

Tables 20 and 21).

83

Table 20

For the Failure Recovery Scenario - Within the CC Condition, Overall Covariate Effect
of Recovery Outcome Belief and Main Effect of Levels of Empathy on Coaches’ Causal
Attributions for Each Separate MANCO VA Analysis of the IRI Scales

 

 

 

 

Covariate Effect on Coaches in Main Effect of Levels of Empathy

the CC Condition's Causal on Coaches in the CC Condition's
Attributions Causal Attributions

IRI Scale df1, 2 A F p n2 A F p n2
Fantasy 3, 31 .91 0.65 .63 .06 .96 0.32 .86 .05
Empathic Concern 3, 49 .94 0.67 .60 .06 .84 2.14 .09 .16
Perspective-taking 1, 48 .88 1.51 .22 .12 .93 0.89 .48 .08
Personal Distress 1, 51 .90 1.31 .28 .10 .99 0.17 .95 .01

 

84

Table 21

For the Failure Recovery Scenario - Within the CC Condition, CDSII Descriptive
Statistics by Levels of Empathy with Coaches ’ Recovery Outcome Belief as the Covariate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale
Level of Personal
IFLSQEIQ Emmy E: W $9.1M! Co_ntr9_| Extemdflmml
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Fantasy
low female 9 7.44 4.80 8.67 4.97 12.11 7.20 13.89 6.13
male 7 9.29 6.05 10.43 6.60 13.71 5.50 21.43 2.99
Total 16 8.25 5.27 9.44 5.61 12.81 6.36 17.19 6.21
high female 15 11.67 3.46 9.93 3.67 13.80 3.78 16.00 6.34
male 4 7.75 3.50 9.75 4.50 11.25 7.85 17.50 9.54
Total 19 10.84 3.75 9.89 3.73 13.26 4.75 16.32 6.84
Total female 24 10.08 4.43 9.46 4.15 13.17 5.24 15.21 6.21
male 11 8.73 5.12 10.18 5.69 12.82 6.18 20.00 6.05
Total 35 9.66 4.63 9.69 4.61 13.06 5.46 16.71 6.48
Empathic
Concern
low-neutral female 5 10.00 5.83 7.00 4.24 10.60 5.73 13.20 4.71
male 5 10.20 2.95 8.80 2.77 12.60 4.72 17.80 8.11
Total 10 10.10 4.36 7.90 3.51 11.60 5.06 15.50 6.70
high female 30 10.87 5.44 9.53 3.77 14.00 5.91 16.37 5.80
male 13 9.00 5.55 11.23 5.34 13.77 6.60 19.08 5.75
Total 43 10.30 5.48 10.05 4.31 13.93 6.05 17.19 5.85
Total female 35 10.74 5.41 9.17 3.88 13.51 5.93 15.91 5.71
male 18 9.33 4.91 10.56 4.82 13.44 6.02 18.72 6.26
Total 53 10.26 5.24 9.64 4.22 13.49 5.90 16.87 5.99
Perspective-
taking
low-neutral 13 9.77 6.25 8.15 3.31 13.54 5.99 17.15 6.12
high 37 10.46 5.12 10.08 4.31 13.54 6.11 16.78 5.95
Total 50 10.28 3.58 9.59 4.13 13.54 6.02 16.80 5.93
Personal
Distress
low 37 10.54 5.56 9.62 4.52 13.78 6.04 16.84 5.92
neutral 16 9.63 4.53 9.69 3.57 12.81 5.69 16.94 6.34
Total 53 10.26 5.24 9.64 4.22 13.49 5.90 16.87 5.99

 

85

In summary, within perspective-taking conditions, levels of empathy did not have
a Significant effect on coaches’ attributions for the cause of the athlete’s successful or
failed recovery for any scale of the IRI. The lack of significant differences in coaches’
causal attributions between levels of empathy do not support the third research hypothesis
stated in this study.

Hypothesis 4. It was expected that between perspective-taking conditions (CA and
CC), coaches with a history of a moderate or major Sport injury would attribute the cause
of the recovery outcome to external factors more so than coaches who had none or a minor
sport injury when an athlete. Statistical support for this hypothesis was not found for
either the successful or failure recovery scenarios.

For the successful recovery outcome, a 2 x 2 MANCOVA (perspective-taking
condition by coaches’ injury severity with the order of descriptive scenarios as a covariate)
was conducted to test differences in coaches’ causal attributions. Wilks’ Lambda revealed
that the order in which coaches were exposed to the descriptive recovery scenarios had a
Significant covariate effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .85, F (3, 107) = 4.62, p =
.002, n2 = .15. Also, the perspective-taking condition had a Significant main effect on
coaches’ ascriptions of cause for the successful recovery scenario, A = .56, F (3, 107) =
20.33, p < .001, n2 = .44. More specifically, test of between-subjects effects revealed that
the causal attributions for their successful recovery given by coaches in the CA condition
were more internal, F(1,111)= 65.61,p < .001, if = .38, more stable, F(1, 111) = 11.17,
p < .001, n2 = .10, and of greater personal control, F(1, 111) = 57.40,p < .001, n2 = .35, in
comparison to the causal attributions given by coaches in the CC condition for their

athlete’s successful recovery (see Table 22 for means and standard deviations). Coaches

86

in the CC condition reported that the cause of their athlete’s successful recovery was of
greater external control in comparison to coaches in the CA condition’s causal ascriptions
for their successful recovery, F (1, 111) = 16.73, p < .001, n2 = .14. However, Wilks’
Lambda revealed that the severity of the injury coaches experienced while they were an
athlete (none/minor or moderate/major) did not have an overall significant effect on their
causal attributions, A = .98, F (3, 107) = 0.47, p = .76, r72 = .02. Also, the interaction of
perspective-taking condition with coaches’ injury severity did not have a Significant effect
on their causal attributions for the successful recovery scenario, A = .99, F (3, 107) = 0.26,

p=.9l,r72=.01.

87

Table 22

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, C DSII Descriptive Statistics for the 2 x 2
MANC OVA Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches’ Injury Severity with the Order of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII as the Covariate
CDSII Scale Pempec""e"ak’”9 Injury Severity N M so
Condition
Locus of Causality
Coach-as-Coach none or minor injury 13 11.62 6.21
moderate or major injury 41 9.98 6.07
Total 54 10.37" 6.09
Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 21.07 4.41
moderate or major injury 43 21.00 5.61
Total 57 21 .02“ 5.30
Total none or minor injury 27 16.52 7.12
moderate or major injury 84 15.62 8.03
Total 111 15.84 7.79
Stability
Coach-as-Coach none or minor injury 13 13.23 3.49
moderate or major injury 41 12.98 4.94
Total 54 13.04" 4.60
Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 16.36 4.31
moderate or major injury 43 17.00 5.50
Total 57 16.84“ 5.20
Total none or minor injury 27 14.85 4.18
moderate or major injury 84 15.04 5.58
Total 111 14.99 5.26

 

88

Table 22 (continued)

 

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Condition Injury Seventy N M SD
Personal Control
Coach-as-Coach none or minor injury 13 12.69 4.48
moderate or major injury 41 11.85 6.17
Total 54 12.06“ 5.78
Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 20.79 5.82
moderate or major injury 43 22.26 4.95
Total 57 21 .89" 5.16
Total none or minor injury 27 16.89 6.57
moderate or major injury 84 17.18 7.62
Total 111 17.11 7.35
External Control
Coach-as-Coach none or minor injury 13 19.15 5.65
moderate or major injury 41 18.41 7.05
Total 54 18.59" 6.69
Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 12.43 5.79
moderate or major injury 43 13.19 6.40
Total 57 13.00“ 6.22
Total none or minor injury 27 15.67 6.58
moderate or major injury 84 15.74 7.18
Total 111 15.72 7.01

 

“p < .01

For the failed recovery scenario, a 2 x 2 MANCOVA (perspective-taking condition
by coaches’ injury severity with coaches’ recovery outcome beliefs as a covariate) was
conducted to test differences in coaches’ causal attributions. Wilks’ Lambda revealed that,
overall, coaches’ recovery outcome beliefs for the failure scenario did not have a
significant covariate effect on their causal ascriptions, A = .92, F (3, 105) = 2.16, p = .08,

n2 = .08. However, the perspective-taking condition had a significant main effect on

89

coaches’ ascriptions of cause for the failed recovery scenario, A = .60, F (3, 105) = 16.88,
p < .001, n2 = .40. More specifically, test of between-subj ects effects revealed that the
causal attributions for their failed recovery given by coaches in the CA condition were
more internal, F (1, 109) = 41.04, p < .001, r72 = .28 and of greater personal control, F (1 ,
109) = 14.47, p < .001, n2 = .12, in comparison to the causal attributions given by coaches
in the CC condition for their athlete’s successful recovery (see Table 23 for means and
standard deviations). Also, coaches in the CC condition responded that the cause of their
athlete’s successful recovery was of greater external control in comparison to coaches in
the CA condition’s causal ascriptions for their successful recovery, F (1, 109) = 32.58, p <
.001, n2 = .24. However, between perspective-taking conditions, coaches’ attribution of
stability to the cause of the failed recovery did not significantly differ, F (1, 109) = 3.53, p
= .06, if = .03. Like the covariate, Wilks’ Lambda revealed that the severity of the injury
coaches experienced while they were an athlete (none/minor or moderate/major) did not
have a significant overall effect on their causal attributions for the failed recovery scenario,
A = .93, F (3, 105) = 2.03, p = .10, if = .07. Also, contrary to the research hypothesis, the
interaction of perspective-taking condition with coaches’ injury severity did not have a
significant overall effect on their causal attributions, A = .99, F (3, 105) = 0.20, p = .94, n2

=0].

90

Table 23

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics for the 2 x 2 WNCO VA
Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches ’ Injury Severity with Coaches’ Recovery
Outcome Belief as the Covariate

 

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Condition Injury Seventy N M SD
Locus of Cause
Coach-as-Coach none or minor injury 13 12.69 5.19
moderate or major injury 41 9.54 5.03
Total 54 1030*“ 5.20
Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 20.57 4.47
moderate or major injury 41 17.63 6.60
Total 55 1838*“ 6.23
Total none or minor injury 27 16.78 6.20
moderate or major injury 82 13.59 7.11
Total 109 14.38 7.01
Stability
Coach-as—Coach none or minor injury 13 9.54 3.18
moderate or major injury 41 9.78 4.54
Total 54 9.72 4.23
Coach-as—Athlete none or minor injury 14 11.57 3.37
moderate or major injury 41 11.12 4.06
Total 55 1 1.24 3.87
Total none or minor injury 27 10.59 3.38

moderate or major injury 82 10.45 4.34
Total 109 10.49 4.10

 

91

Table 23 (continued)

 

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Condition Injury Seventy N M SD
Personal Control

Coach-as-Coach none or minor injury 13 15.15 6.19

moderate or major injury 41 13.20 5.92

Total 54 13.67“” 5.99

Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 19.43 4.96

moderate or major injury 41 19.20 6.86

Total 55 19.25“" 6.38

Total none or minor injury 27 17.37 5.89

moderate or major injury 82 16.20 7.05

Total 109 16.49 6.77
External Control

Coach-as—Coach none or minor injury 13 16.00 6.03

moderate or major injury 41 17.02 6.01

Total 54 1678*" 5.97

Coach-as-Athlete none or minor injury 14 9.00 5.31

moderate or major injury 41 9.83 5.16

Total 55 9.62"" 5.16

Total none or minor injury 27 12.37 6.60

moderate or major injury 82 13.43 6.64
Total 109 13.17 6.61

 

“*p < .001

Hypothesis 5. It was expected that the type of sport injury coaches experienced as
an athlete would affect their assignment of causality. More specifically, it was
hypothesized that between perspective-taking conditions coaches who experienced a
career-ending injury would attribute the cause of the recovery outcomes differently than
coaches whose Sport injury was not career-ending. Statistical support for this hypothesis

was not found for either the successful or failed recovery scenario.

92

C01

\V

‘5 If

Ill

For the successful recovery scenario, a 2 x 2 MANCOVA (perspective-taking
condition by injury type with the order of the descriptive scenario as a covariate) was
conducted to test differences in coaches’ causal attributions due to the interaction of
perspective-taking condition with their injury’s type (career-ending or not career-ending).
Wilks’ Lambda revealed that the order in which coaches were exposed to the descriptive
scenarios had a significant covariate effect on coaches’ causal attributions, A = .85, F (3,
97) = 4.11, p = .004, n2 = .15. Test of between-subjects effects firrther revealed that the
order in which coaches were exposed to the descriptive scenarios had a significant
covariate effect on their application of the locus of causality, F (1, 101) = 11.59, p = .001,
r72 = .11, and personal control, F (1, 101) = 6.72,p = .0], r72 = .07 (see Table 24 for
descriptive statistics). AS expected, perspective-taking condition had a Significant main
effect on coaches’ causal attributions for the successful recovery scenario, A = .80, F (3,
97) = 5.99, p < .001, n2 = .21. Test of between-subjects effects revealed that coaches in
the CA condition ascribed the cause of their successfirl recovery to be more internal, F (1,
101) = l8.20,p < .001, n2 = .16, more stable, F(1, 101) = 4.63,p = .03, r72 = .05, and of
greater personal control, F (l , 101) = 19.49, p < .001, r72 = .17, in comparison to coaches
in the CC condition’s attributions for the cause of their athlete’s successful recovery (see
Table 24 for descriptive statistics). However, Wilks’ Lambda also revealed that the type
of injury coaches experienced while they were an athlete (career-ending or not career-
ending) did not have a significant overall effect on their causal attributions for the
successful recovery scenario, A = .96, F (3, 97) = 0.86, p = .49, 772 = .04. Also, contrary

to the research hypothesis, the interaction of perspective-taking condition with coaches’

93

injury type did not have a Significant overall effect on their causal attributions, A = .10, F
(3, 97) = 0.09, p = .98, r72 = .00.

Table 24

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics for the 2 x 2

MANC OVA Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches’ Injury Type with the Order of
CDSII as the Covariate

 

Perspective-taking

CDSII Scale Condition

Injury Type N M SD

 

Locus of Cause

 

 

 

 

 

Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 14.75 9.39
not career-ending 45 9.87 5.78
Total 49 1027*” 6.16
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 22.33 5.03
not career-ending 49 20.96 5.39
Total 52 21 04"“ 5.34
Total career-ending 7 18.00 8.31
not career-ending 94 15.65 7.86
Total 101 15.81 7.87
Stability
Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 13.25 4.92
not career-ending 45 12.87 4.78
Total 49 1290* 4.74
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 17.33 1 .15
not career-ending 49 17.24 5.30
Total 52 1725* 5.15
Total career-ending 7 15.00 4.16
not career-ending 94 15.15 5.49
Total 101 15.14 5.39

 

94

Table 24 (continued)

 

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Condition Injury Type N M SD
Personal Control
Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 16.00 10.17
not career-ending 45 1 1.47 5.37
Total 49 11.84"" 5.87
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 24.00 2.65
not career-ending 49 21.94 5.01
Total 52 2206*“ 4.92
Total career-ending 7 19.43 8.50
not career-ending 94 16.93 7.37
Total 101 17.10 7.43
External Control
Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 21.25 5.91
not career-ending 45 18.53 7.01
Total 49 18.76 6.91
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 1 5.67 2.08
not career-ending 49 13.12 6.36
Total 52 13.27 6.21
Total career-ending 7 18.86 5.27
not career-ending 94 15.71 7.17
Total 101 15.93 7.08

 

*p < .05; "*p < .001

For the failed recovery scenario, a 2 x 2 MANCOVA (perspective-taking
condition by coaches’ injury type with coaches’ recovery outcome beliefs as a covariate)
was conducted to test differences in coaches’ causal attributions. Wilks’ Lambda
revealed that coaches’ belief about the failed recovery’s outcome (as failure or success)
did not have a significant covariate effect on their causal ascriptions, A = .91, F (3, 95) =

2.22, p = .07, n2 = .09. AS expected, perspective-taking condition had a significant main

95

effect on coaches’ causal attributions for the failed recovery scenario, A = .82, F (3, 95) =
5.05, p < .001, n2 = .18. Test of between-subjects effects revealed that coaches in the CA
condition ascribed the cause of their failed recovery to be more internal, F (1, 99) = 6.64,
p = .01, n2 = .07, and of less external control, F (1, 99) = 12.46,p < .001, r72 = .12 in
comparison to coaches in the CC condition’s attributions for the cause of their athlete’s
failed recovery (see Table 25 for descriptive statistics). Coaches’ attribution of stability,
F(1, 99) = 0.35, p = .56, r72 = .00, and personal control, F(1, 99) = 1.68, p = .19, n2 = .02
did not differ between perspective-taking conditions. However, Wilks’ Lambda also
revealed that the type of injury coaches experienced while they were an athlete (career-
ending or not career-ending) did not have a significant overall effect on their causal
attributions for the failed recovery scenario, A = .97, F (3, 95) = 0.68, p = .61, n2 = .03.
Also, contrary to the research hypothesis, the interaction of perspective-taking condition
with coaches’ injury type did not have a significant overall effect on their causal

attributions, A = .94, F (3, 95) = 1.56, p = .19, r72 = .06.

96

Table 25

For the Failed Recovery Scenario, CDSII Descriptive Statistics for the 2 x 2 MANCO VA
Perspective-taking Condition by Coaches ’ Injury Type with Coaches’ Recovery Outcome
Belief as the Covariate

 

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Condition Injury Type N M SD
Locus of Cause
Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 14.00 4.55
not career-ending 45 9.33 4.85
Total 49 9.71 * 4.95
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 16.67 6.66
not career-ending 47 18.06 6.38
Total 50 1798* 6.34
Total career-ending 7 15. 14 5.21
not career-ending 92 13.79 7.16
Total 99 13.89 7.02
Stability
Coach—as-Coach career-ending 4 15.25 5.97
not career-ending 45 9.00 3.88
Total 49 9.51 4.36
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 10.67 3.79
not career-ending 47 11.47 3.92
Total 50 1 1.42 3.88
Total career-ending 7 13.29 5.35
not career-ending 92 10.26 4.07
Total 99 10.47 4.21

 

97

Table 25 (continued)

 

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Condition Injury Type N M SD
Personal Control
Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 17.00 3.16
not career-ending 45 12.96 5.90
Total 49 13.29 5.82
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 16.67 7.51
not career-ending 47 19.32 6.58
Total 50 19.16 6.58
Total career-ending 7 16.86 4.88
not career-ending 92 16.21 7.00
Total 99 16.25 6.85
External Control
Coach-as-Coach career-ending 4 18.50 3.32
not career-ending 45 16.73 6.34
Total 49 1688*" 6.15
Coach-as-Athlete career-ending 3 8.33 6.1 1
not career-ending 47 9.98 5.15
Total 50 9.88*** 5.15
Total career-ending 7 14.14 6.89
not career-ending 92 13.28 6.66
Total 99 13.34 6.65

 

*p < .05; ***p < .001

Hypothesis 6. It was hypothesized that coaches within the perspective-taking
conditions (CA or CC) having high IRI scale scores and having experienced a moderate
or a major sport injury would attribute the cause of athletes’ recovery outcomes to
external factors more SO than coaches with low IRI scale scores and having experienced
none or a minor sport injury. To test the interaction effect of injury severity with levels

of dispositional empathy on coaches’ causal attributions, Sixteen separate MANCOVA

98

analyses were conducted — eight for each of the descriptive recovery scenarios. For the
successful recovery scenario and within each perspective-taking condition, a separate 2 x
2 x 2 MANCOVA (injury severity by level of empathy by sex co-varied with order of
descriptive recovery scenario) was conducted for the fantasy and empathic concern scales
of the IRI analyses of CDSII scores. A separate 2 x 2 MANCOVA (injury severity by
level of empathy co-varied with order of descriptive recovery scenarios) was conducted
for the perspective-taking and personal distress scales of the IRI. For the recovery failure
scenario and within each perspective-taking condition, a separate 2 x 2 x 2 MANCOVA
(injury severity by level of empathy by sex co-varied with coaches’ perception of the
recovery’s outcome) was conducted for the fantasy and empathic concern scales of the
IRI. A separate 2 x 2 MANCOVA (injury severity by level of empathy co-varied with
coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome) was conducted for the perspective-taking
and personal distress scales of the IRI. The following is a review of the significant
covariate, main, and interaction effects that were found. The results for the successful
recovery scenario are described first, followed by those of the recovery failure scenario.
For the successful recovery scenario, no significant sex effect was found within
the perspective-taking conditions. However, Wilks’ Lambda further revealed that the
covariate variable, order of exposure to the descriptive recovery scenarios, had a
significant effect on only coaches in the Coach-aS-Coach (CC) condition’s causal
attributions. More specifically, the order of exposure to the recovery scenarios affects the
causal responses of coaches in the CC condition for the Perspective-Taking, and Personal
Distress scales of the IRI (see Table 26 for Wilks’ test statistics and Appendix H, Tables

H1 - H8 for descriptive statistics). Between-subjects analyses within the CC condition

99

further revealed that the covariate variable had a significant effect on coaches’ ascriptions
Of locus of causality (LOC) for the perspective-taking (PT), F (l , 53) = 5.12, p = .03, n2 =
.08, and personal distress, F (1, 53) = 8.13,p = .01, 772 = .15, scales ofthe IRI (see
Appendix H, Tables H1 - H4 for descriptive statistics). No other Significant effects of the
covariate variable were found within the CC condition. Also, the covariate variable did
not have a Significant overall effect on coaches within the Coach-aS-Athlete (CA)
condition’s causal attributions for any scale of the IRI (see Table 26 and Appendix H,
Tables H5 - H8).

Wilks’ Lambda analyses of the main effects of coaches’ injury severity and levels
of empathy and their interaction (injury severity x level of empathy) did not significantly
differentiate coaches’ attributions for the cause of the athletes’ successful recovery (see
Table 26 for Wilks’ test statistics and Appendix H, Tables H9 - H16 for descriptive
statistics). Thus, support for this research hypothesis for the successful recovery scenario

was not found.

100

Table 26

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Main Eflect of Injury Severity and Level of

Empathy and their Interaction on Coaches’ Causal Attributions within the Perspective-

 

 

 

 

 

taking Conditions
lncfipggdgnl PersIézzlgvgc-jljlking IRI Scale df1 df2 Wilks' A F p r72
Order of
CDSII
Scenarios
(covariate)
Coach-as-Coach
Fantasy 7 26 0.84 1.05 0.40 .16
Empathic Concern 7 45 0.82 2.24 0.08 .18
Perspective-taking 3 49 0.77 3.30' 0.02 .21
Personal Distress 3 49 0.74 402* 0.01 .26
Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 30 0.89 0.84 0.51 .11
Empathic Concern 7 49 0.90 1.31 0.28 .06
Perspective-taking 3 53 0.88 1 .55 0.20 .12
Personal Distress 3 52 0.87 1.75 0.15 .13
Injury Severity
Coach-as—Coach
Fantasy 7 26 0.96 0.20 0.94 .03
Empathic Concern 7 45 0.87 0.32 0.86 .03
Perspective-taking 3 49 0.96 0.43 0.78 .04
Personal Distress 3 49 0.99 0.10 0.98 .01
Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 30 0.72 2.26 0.09 .27
Empathic Concern 7 49 0.97 0.38 0.82 .04
Perspective-taking 3 53 0.96 0.55 0.70 .05
Personal Distress 3 52 1.00 0.03 1.00 .00

 

101

Table 26 (continued)

 

 

Independent Perspective-taking , 2
1 RI Grou p

Coach-aS-Coach

 

 

 

Fantasy 7 26 0.84 0.99 0.44 .15
Empathic Concern 7 45 0.95 0.57 0.69 .05
Perspective-taking 3 49 0.96 0.42 0.80 .04
Personal Distress 3 49 0.85 1.99 0.11 .15

Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 30 0.89 0.84 0.51 .12
Empathic Concern 7 49 0.97 0.39 0.81 .02
Perspective-taking 3 53 0.95 0.66 0.62 .05
Personal Distress 3 52 0.98 0.27 0.90 .02

Injury Severity
X IRI Group

Coach-as—Coach
Fantasy 7 26 0.89 0.70 0.60 .11
Empathic Concern 7 45 0.92 0.92 0.46 .08
Perspective-taking 3 49 0.95 0.53 0.71 .05
Personal Distress 3 49 0.81 2.58 0.05 .19

Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 30 0.75 2.11 0.11 .24
Empathic Concern 7 49 0.95 0.56 0.70 .07
Perspective-taking 3 53 0.96 0.48 0.75 .04
Personal Distress 3 52 0.92 1 .10 0.37 .08

 

*p < .05
For the recovery failure scenario, only one significant sex effect was found within
the perspective-taking conditions. That is, overall, within the CA condition for the

empathic concern scale analysis, the interaction of sex with injury severity significantly

102

affected coaches’ attributions for the cause of their athlete’s successful recovery, A = .70,
F (7, 47) = 4.57, p < .01, n2 = .29. However, the test of between-subjects effects did not
reveal any specific CDSII scale that consisted of Significant differences due to this

overall interaction effect.

Similar to the successful recovery scenario, a lack of support was found for the
Sixth research hypothesis for the recovery failure scenario. Within the CC and CA
conditions, the covariate variable, coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome
(successful or a failure), did not significantly differentiate their attributions for the cause
of the recovery’s failure (see Table 27 for Wilks’ test results). Neither the main effect of
coaches’ injury severity (none/minor vs. moderate/major) or the main effect of coaches’
level of empathy on their causal attributions for the athlete’s failed recovery was found to
be significant for either the CC or CA conditions (see Table 27). Finally, and contrary to
the proposed research hypothesis, the interaction of coaches’ injury severity and level of
empathy did not significantly affect participants’ causal ascriptions for the athlete’s failed
recovery within either perspective-taking condition (see Table 27). Descriptive statistics

for these analyses can be found in Appendix H, Tables H9 to H16.

103

Table 27

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Overall C ovariate, Main and Interaction Effects of

Test Variables on Coaches ’ Causal Attributions within the Perspective-Taking

 

 

 

 

 

Conditions
“fig/lg” Pe’s’észgfiéfki"9 IRI Scale df1 df2 WIIkS'A F p rr’
Perceived Recovery
Outcome (covariate)
Coach-as—Coach
Fantasy 7 27 .86 0.92 .47 .1 1
Empathic Concern 7 45 .91 1.08 .38 .10
Perspective-taking 3 48 .92 0.99 .43 .1 1
Personal Distress 49 .91 1 .12 .36 .09
Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 29 .92 0.57 .69 .1 1
Empathic Concern 7 47 .85 1.96 .12 .18
Perspective-taking 3 49 .95 0.57 .69 .05
Personal Distress 3 50 .91 1.10 .37 .09
Injury Severity
Coach-as-Coach
Fantasy 7 27 .94 0.37 .83 .07
Empathic Concern 7 45 .91 1.02 .41 .09
Perspective-taking 3 48 .90 1 .17 .34 .09
Personal Distress 3 49 .91 1 .12 .36 .09
Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 29 .82 1 .36 .28 .23
Empathic Concern 7 47 .93 0.77 .55 .06
Perspective-taking 3 49 .84 2.14 .09 .06
Personal Distress 3 50 .89 1.48 .22 .1 1

 

104

Table 27 (continued)

 

Independent

Perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

Variable Condition IRI Scale df1 df2 Wilks'A F p n
IRI Group
Coach-as-Coach
Fantasy 7 27 .86 0.97 .44 .14
Empathic Concern 7 45 .86 1.73 .16 .15
Perspective-taking 3 48 .93 0.77 .55 .07
Personal Distress 3 49 .93 0.87 .49 .07
Coach-as-Athlete
Fantasy 6 29 .91 0.65 .63 .12
Empathic Concern 7 47 .81 2.46 .06 .20
Perspective-taking 3 49 .95 0.54 .71 .05
Personal Distress 3 50 .87 1 .64 .1 8 .13
Injury Severity X
IRI Group
Coach-as-Coach
Fantasy 7 27 .86 0.75 .57 .10
Empathic Concern 7 45 .89 1.27 .30 .11
Perspective-taking 3 48 .84 2.06 .10 .16
Personal Distress 3 49 .88 1.48 .22 .12
Coach-as—Athlete
Fantasy 6 29 .93 0.47 .76 .02
Empathic Concern 7 47 .91 1.01 .41 .09
Perspective-taking 3 49 .93 0.89 .48 .07
Personal Distress 3 50 .85 2.08 .10 .15

 

105

Hypothesis 7. It was expected that the successful recovery outcome would elicit
different causal explanations by coaches in comparison to when the recovery outcome
was a failure. A oneway ANOVA was conducted to analyze differences between CDSII
scale mean differences between the two recovery scenarios. As hypothesized,
participants ascribed greater stability and external control to the cause of the athlete’s
successful recovery in comparison to their attribution of these same dimensions of
causality to the athlete’s failed recovery (see Table 28). However, participants did not
differ in their application of personal control to the cause of the successful or failed
recovery outcome.

Table 28

Oneway ANO VA Between Recovery Scenario Comparison of C DSII Scale Means

 

CDSII Scale by

2
Recovery Scenario N M SD F df 1'2 p '1

 

Locus of Causality - Success 111 15.88 7.79
Locus of Causality - Failure 112 14.48 6.95 1.88 1, 221 .17 .01

 

 

Stability - Success 111 14.99 5.27
Stability - Failure 112 10.52 4.06 50.67*** 1, 221 .00 .19
Personal Control - Success 111 17.11 7.35
Personal Control - Failure 112 16.57 6.73 0.36 1, 221 .55 .00

 

External Control - Success 111 15.72 7.01
External Control - Failure 112 13.05 6.56 8.61“ 1, 221 .00 .04

 

*p < .05; “p < .01;***p < .001;
However, because some participants believed the failed recovery to be a
“success”, further clarity was necessary. Therefore, participants who believed the failed

recovery to be a “success” were excluded and the oneway ANOVA was run again.

106

Participants’ scores Of stability for the successful recovery scenario were higher than their
ascription of stability and external control to the cause of the athlete’s failed recovery
(see Table 29). However, participants’ application of external control for the cause of the

recovery outcome for the two scenarios no longer significantly differed.

Table 29

Oneway ANO VA Between Scenario Comparison of CDSII Scale Means Excluding

Participants Who Believed the Failed Scenario was a “Success ”

 

CDSII Scale -

 

 

 

 

Recovery Scenario N M 80 F df 1’2 p '7
Locus of Causality - Success 111 15.88 7.79
Locus of Causality - Failure 75 14.29 7.17 1.87 1, 184 .17 .01
Stability - Success 111 14.99 5.27
Stability - Failure 75 10.57 4.32 36.38“" 1, 184 .00 .17
Personal Control - Success 111 17.11 7.35
Personal Control - Failure 75 16.76 6.81 0.11 1, 184 .75 .00
External Control - Success 111 15.72 7.01
External Control - Failure 75 14.41 6.38 1.67 1, 184 .20 .01

 

*p < .05; "p < .01;*“p < .001;

Continuing to exclude participants who believed the failed recovery scenario to be
a “success”, two separate oneway ANOVAS of CDSII scale means for each of the
recovery scenarios, but within perspective-taking conditions (CA and CC), were
conducted to explain further the variance in coaches’ causal explanations for a recovery
outcome. With the exception of the locus of causality scores of participants in the Coach-
as-Coach condition, as hypothesized, all other within perspective-taking condition

comparisons of CDSII scale means were significantly different (see Table 30). Coaches

107

in both the CC and CA conditions attributed greater stability to the cause of the
successful recovery than to the failed recovery. No other significant differences between
the recovery scenarios within the perspective-taking conditions were found.

Table 30

Within Perspective-taking Condition, Between Recovery Scenario Oneway ANO VA of

CDSII Scale Means Excluding Participants Who Believed the Failed Scenario was a
“Success ”

 

Perspective- CDSII Scale — Recovely

2
taking Condition Scenario Pair N M 30 F df 1' 2 P ’1

 

Coach-as-Coach
Locus of Causality - Success 54 10.37 6.09
Locus of Causality - Failure 40 10.48 5.43 0.01 1, 92 .93 .00

 

Stability - Success 54 13.03 4.60
Stability - Failure 40 10.15 4.28 9.59" 1, 92 .00 .09

 

Personal Control - Success 54 12.06 5.78
Personal Control - Failure 41 13.98 6.39 2.31 1, 92 .13 .03

 

External Control — Success 54 18.59 6.69
External Control-Failure 41 17.70 5.52 0.47 1,92 .49 .01

 

Coach-as-Athlete
Locus of Causality - Success 57 21.20 5.30
Locus of Causality - Failure 35 18.66 6.42 3.66 1, 90 .06 .04

 

Stability — Success 57 16.84 5.20
Stability — Failure 35 11.06 4.37 30.19“" 1, 90 .00 .25

 

Personal Control — Success 57 21.89 5.16
Personal Control - Failure 35 19.94 5.88 2.79 1, 90 .10 .03

 

External Control - Success 57 13.00 6.21
External Control - Failure 35 10.66 5.14 3.50 1, 90 .07 .04

 

*p < .05; “p < .01;"**'p < .001;
Hypothesis 8. After reading each descriptive scenario, participants were asked if

they believed the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol. It was hypothesized

108

that a main effect of coaches’ belief about the athlete’s rehabilitation behavior (compliant
or non-compliant) on the causal dimension ascriptions by coaches would be found. That
is, it was expected that coaches who believed the athlete complied with the rehabilitation
protocol would attribute the cause of the recovery outcomes to external, Situational
factors more so than coaches who believed the athlete did not comply with the

rehabilitation.

For the successful recovery scenario, a oneway MANCOVA (recovery behavior
with the order of the descriptive scenarios as a covariate) was conducted to examine
differences in coaches’ causal ascriptions due to their differing belief about the athlete’s
recovery behavior. It should be noted that for this analysis, all participants’ responses
were grouped per descriptive recovery scenario, therefore creating a within scenario,
between recovery behavior belief analysis. One hundred-eight participants believed the
athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol while three coaches stated the athlete
was non-compliant with the rehabilitation. Thus, the MANCOVA results for the
successful recovery scenario were not reported here because there were too few subjects

who responded that the athlete was non-compliant.

For the recovery failure scenario, a oneway MANCOVA (recovery behavior with
coaches’ recovery outcome belief as a covariate) was conducted to examine differences
in coaches’ causal ascriptions due to their differing belief about the athlete’s recovery
behavior. Seventy-five participants believed the athlete complied with the rehabilitation
protocol while 33 coaches stated the athlete was non-compliant with the rehabilitation.
The covariate variable, coaches’ perception of the failed recovery scenario, did not have a

Significant overall effect on coaches’ causal attributions, A = .93, F (1, 106) = 1.81, p =

109

.13, n2 = .07. However, as expected, coaches’ belief about the outcome of the recovery
(as success or failure) had a Significant overall effect on their causal ascriptions for the

failed recovery scenario, A = .51, F(1, 106) = 10.29, p < .001, 772 = .29.

In further support of the eighth research hypothesis, the test of between-subjects
test revealed that coaches’ belief about the athlete’s recovery behavior had a Significant
effect on their responses for all scales of the CDSII (see Table 31 for analysis of variance
and descriptive statistics). AS expected, coaches who believed the athlete complied with
the rehabilitation protocol but still failed to recovery attributed less internal locus of
causality and personal control to the failed recover than their cohorts who believed the
athlete was non-compliant. However, unexpectedly, coaches who believed the athlete
complied with the rehabilitation protocol also ascribed that the cause of the recovery
failure was more stable than coaches who believed the athlete was non-compliant. Thus,

for the failed recovery scenario, partial support for the research hypothesis was found.

Table 31

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Oneway MANCO VA Results of Coaches ’ Causal
Attributions between Their Beliefs about the Athletes’ Rehabilitation Behavior
(Compliant or Non-Compliant) Controlling for Coaches ’ Belief about the Recovery ’s
Outcome (as Success or Failure)

 

Coaches’ Rehabilitation Behavior Belief

 

 

 

 

Compliant Non-compliant
(N = 75) (N = 33)
Causal Attribution M so M SD df F p n2
Locus of Causality 13.80 6.41 16.03 7.95 1 1870*" .000 .26
Stability 10.69 4.02 10.12 4.34 1 2266*” .000 .30
Personal Control 15.68 6.55 18.33 7.1 1 1 20.40*** .000 .28
External Control 12.41 6.24 14.51 7.07 1 4.11" .019 .07

 

*p < .05; “*p < .001

110

Hypothesis 9. Within perspective-taking condition differences in coaches’ causal
attributions due to their belief about the athletes’ rehabilitation behavior were also
expected. More specifically, it was expected that, within their perspective-taking
conditions, coaches who believed the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol
would attribute the cause of the recovery outcomes to external, situational factors more so
than coaches who believed the athlete did not comply with the rehabilitation. To test this
hypothesis, four separate MANCOVA analyses were conducted — two per recovery

scenario, each within the perspective-taking conditions.

For the successful recovery scenario, two separate oneway MANCOVA analyses
(recovery behavior with the order of the descriptive scenarios as a covariate) were
conducted to examine within perspective-taking condition [coach-as-coach (CC), coach-
aS-athlete (CA)] differences in coaches’ causal ascriptions due to their differing belief
about the athlete’s recovery behavior. Within the CC condition, 53 participants believed
the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol while one coach stated the athlete
was non-compliant with the rehabilitation. Within the CA condition, 55 participants
believed the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol and two coaches stated the
athlete was non-compliant with the rehabilitation. Thus, the MANCOVA results for the
successful recovery scenario were not reported here because there were too few subjects
within the perspective-taking conditions who responded that the athlete was non-

compliant.

For the recovery failure scenario, two separate oneway MANCOVA analyses
(recovery behavior with coaches’ recovery outcome belief as a covariate) were conducted

to examine within perspective-taking condition (CC and CA) differences in coaches’

111

causal ascriptions due to their differing belief about the athlete’s recovery behavior.
Within the CC condition, 34 participants believed the athlete complied with the
rehabilitation protocol and 19 coaches stated the athlete was non-compliant with the
rehabilitation. Within the CA condition, 41 participants believed the athlete complied
with the rehabilitation protocol and 14 coaches stated the athlete was non-compliant with
the rehabilitation. Given these sample sizes per recovery behavior group for each
perspective-taking condition, the following is a review of the significant covariate and

main effects that were found, but should be interpreted with caution.

Within the CC condition, Wilks’ Lambda revealed that coaches’ belief about the
recovery’s outcome (as successful or a failure) did not have a Significant effect as the
covariate variable on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .90, F (1, 51) = 1.36, p = .27, r72 =
.10. However, as hypothesized, coaches’ beliefs regarding their athlete’s recovery
behavior had an overall effect on coaches’ attributions for the cause of the failed
recovery, A = .59, F ( 1, 51) = 3.59, p = .001, n2 = .23. Test of between-subjects effects
further revealed coaches’ beliefs about their athlete’s recovery behavior significantly
differentiated their causal attributions for all scales of the CDSII (see Table 32 for
statistics). Coaches within the CC condition who believed their athlete did not comply
with the rehabilitation protocol attributed the cause of the failed recovery to factors that
were of greater internal locus of causality, personal control, and external control in
comparison to coaches who reported that athlete was compliant (see Table 32 for
descriptive statistics). However, coaches within the CC condition who reported that the
athlete did not comply with the rehabilitation protocol also ascribed that the cause of the

failed recovery was less stable than coaches who believed their athlete was compliant.

112

Within the CA condition, Wilks’ Lambda also revealed that coaches’ belief about
their recovery’s outcome (as successful or a failure) did not have a significant covariate
effect on coaches’ causal ascriptions, A = .85, F (1, 53) = 2.18,p = .09, n2 = .15.
However, as hypothesized, coaches’ beliefs regarding their recovery behavior had an
overall effect on coaches’ attributions for the cause of their failed recovery, A = .28, F (1,
53) = 10.75, p < .001, 772 = .47. Test of between-subjects effects further revealed
coaches’ beliefs about their recovery behavior significantly differentiated their causal
attributions for all scales of the CDSII (see Table 32 for statistics). Coaches within the
CA condition who believed they did not comply with the rehabilitation protocol
attributed the cause of their failed recovery to factors that were of greater internal locus
of causality, stability, and personal control in comparison to coaches who reported that
they were compliant (see Table 32 for descriptive statistics). However, coaches within
the CA condition who reported they did not comply with the rehabilitation protocol also
ascribed that the cause of their failed recovery was of less external control than coaches

who believed they were compliant.

113

Table 32

For the Recovery Failure Scenario — Within Perspective-taking Conditions between
Recovery Behavior Belief (Compliant or Non-Compliant) Oneway MANC OVA T Between-
Subjects Results Per CDSII Scale

 

Compliant Non-compliant

 

Perspective-taking

Condition CDSII Scale N M 80 N M SD df F p I]

 

Coach-aS-Coach
Locus of Cause 34 10.41 5.24 19 10.47 5.12 1 467* .01 .16
Stability 34 10.24 4.61 19 8.95 3.49 1 6.14“ .00 .20
Personal Control 34 13.29 5.88 19 14.21 6.43 1 584* .01 .19
External Control 34 15.50 6.03 19 18.63 5.28 1 6.32" .00 .20
Coach-aS-Athlete
Locus of Cause 41 16.61 5.95 14 23.57 3.61 1 31.59“ .00 .55
Stability 41 11.07 3.48 14 11.71 4.97 1 21 .03” .00 .45
Personal Control 41 17.66 6.47 14 23.93 2.97 1 22.05” .00 .46

External Control 41 9.85 5.22 14 8.93 5.09 1 363* .03 .12

 

T Coaches’ recovery outcome belief (success or failure) was the covariate variable in these

analyses

*p < .05; “p < .01

Hypothesis 10. The interaction of the coaches’ belief about the athlete’s
rehabilitation behavior (compliant or non-compliant) with their belief about the
recovery’s outcome (success or failure) was expected to affect coaches’ causal
ascriptions. For the successful recovery scenario, all participants (N = 114) agreed with
the principal investigator that the recovery outcome described in the scenario was indeed
a “success”. Also, while 108 participants reported that the athlete complied with the

rehabilitation protocol, only three coaches believed the athlete was non-compliant.

114

Because there was no comparison group (those believing the recovery to be a “failure” or
enough in the non-compliant group), an analysis of the interaction of rehabilitation
behavior by recovery outcome on CDSII scale means was not conducted for the
successful recovery scenario.

For the failed recovery scenario, as reported previously, 75 coaches believed the
athlete was compliant and 33 coaches stated the athlete did not comply with the
rehabilitation protocol. Also, while 74 participants agreed with the principal investigator
that the recovery outcome of the scenario was indeed a failure, 34 participants contended
that the failed recovery was actually a “success”. However, for conducting a 2 x 2
MANCOVA to test the interaction, two comparison recovery outcome groups (success
an_d failure) within the non-compliant rehabilitation behavior condition did not exist for
this sample. That is, all of the coaches who stated the athlete was non-compliant also
believed the recovery was a failure (with none believing it to be a “success”). Thus,
analysis of the interaction of rehabilitation behavior by recovery outcome on CDSII scale

means was not conducted for the failed recovery scenario.

Research Question. Weiner (1986, 1992) stated that the stability dimension of
causality is primarily associated with expectancy beliefs. However, additional empirical
research regarding this correlate has not been found. In the absence of additional
empirical information to substantiate or debate Weiner’s assertion and Leith’s (1989)
findings regarding the effect of outcome on expectancy beliefs, only a research question
as to which dimension of causality would be primarily associated with expectancy was

proposed for this study.

115

For each of the recovery scenarios, a series of separate partial correlations were
conducted. The partial correlation was preferred for these analyses because it controls for
the effect of the covariate variables identified earlier in this chapter for each recovery
scenario. Safrit and Wood’s (1995) guidelines for interpreting the size of the correlation
coefficient was used for reporting results (see Table 33).

Table 33

Safi'it and Wood ’5 (I 995) Guidelines for Interpreting the Size of the Correlation
Coeflicient

 

 

Strength of the Correlation Coefficient
Relationship Range
High 1.80 -1.00
Moderately high 1 .60 - .79
Moderate :t .40 - .59
Low :1: .20 - .39
No relationship :1: .00 - .19

 

Three separate partial correlations were performed for the successful recovery
scenario: a) including all participants, b) coaches within the CC perspective-taking
condition, and c) coaches within the CA perspective-taking condition. The covariate
variable was the order in which coaches were exposed to the descriptive recovery
scenarios. (See Table 34 for complete partial correlation analyses results.) The analyses
containing all participants (N = 111) revealed that personal control had a low, positive
relationship with participant’s expectations for a similar successful recovery in the future,
r = .23, p = .02. That is, as coaches attributed greater personal control to the cause of the
successful recovery, the more coaches expected the athlete to have a successful recovery

from the sport injury. For the CC perspective-taking condition, no dimension of causality

116

Significantly correlated with coaches’ expectancy for a similar successful recovery for
their athlete in the future. However, within the CA perspective-taking condition, three
dimensions of causality Significantly correlated with coaches’ expectancy for a similar
successful recovery for themselves. For coaches in the CA condition, as greater internal
locus of causality was given to the cause of their successful recovery, the more they
expected to have a similar recovery outcome in the future, r = .39, p = .003. As coaches
in the CA condition attributed greater personal control to the cause of their successful
recovery, the more they expected to have a similar recovery outcome in the future, r =
.55, p = .000. Lastly, within the CA condition, external control maintained a low,
negative correlation with future expectancy. That is, the more coaches attributed external
control to the cause of their successful recovery, the less they expected to have a similar
recovery outcome in the future, r = -.32, p = .02.

Three separate partial correlations were also performed for the recovery failure
scenario: a) including all participants, b) coaches within the CC perspective-taking
condition, and c) coaches within the CA perspective-taking condition. The covariate
variable was coaches’ beliefs about the recovery’s outcome (as a success or a failure).
(See Table 35 for complete partial correlation analyses results.) For each analysis, (all
participants, coaches within the CC condition, and coaches within the CA condition), no
dimension of causality Significantly correlated with coaches’ expectancy for a similar

recovery failure for the athlete in the future.

117

Table 34

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of the Association of
Expectancy with Each CDSII Scale (Controlling for the Order of Exposure to the
Recovery Scenarios)

 

Expectancy Partial Correlation Coefficient for Each CDSII

 

 

Scale

Perspective-taking Condition Locus of Cause Stability Personal Control External Control
Combined PT-Conditions (N = 111)

r .18 -.03 .23* -.12

p .07 .73 .02 .20
Coach-as-Coach (N = 54)

r 04 -.21 06 04

p 76 .14 65 79
Coach-as—Athlete (N = 57)

r .39" .11 .55*** -.32*

p 00 .42 00 02

 

*p < .05; “p < .01; ***p < .001

118

Table 35

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of the Association of
Expectancy with Each CDSII Scale (Controlling for Coaches ’ Belief about the
Recovery ’s Outcome)

 

Expectancy Partial Correlation Coefficient for Each CDSII

 

 

Scale

Perspective-taking Condition Locus of Cause Stability Personal Control External Control
Combined PT-Conditions (N = 107)

r .01 -. 04 .00 . 16

p .93 .68 1 .00 .1 0
Coach-as-Coach (N = 52)

r 20 .03 09 05

p 15 .85 55 71
Coach-as-Athlete (N = 55)

r 17 -.05 14 01

p 23 .74 31 95

 

Given the discussion within the review of literature that suggested empathy,
particularly personal distress, may be associated with helping behavior, evaluation of the
relationship of expectancy to empathy was warranted. The same methods used to
examine the association of expectancy to the causal dimensions were used to measure the
relationship of expectancy to the IRI scales. For the successful recovery scenario, only
the personal distress scale of the IRI was found to have a low, negative association to
expectancy for the analysis of all participants, within the CC condition, and within the
CA condition (see Table 36). That is, as coaches scored higher in personal distress the
lower their expectations for the athlete to have a similar successful recovery outcome in
the future. For each analysis for the recovery failure scenario (all participants, within the

CC condition, and within the CA condition), no scale of the IRI significantly correlated

119

with coaches’ expectancy for a similar recovery failure for the athlete in the future (see
Table 37).

Table 36

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of the Association of

Expectancy with Each IRI Scale (Controlling for the Order of Exposure to the Recovery
Scenarios)

 

Expectancy Partial Correlation Coefficient for

 

 

Each IRI Scale

Perspective-taking Condition Fantasy [2,31,23th Perngzp’gve- [2:533:21
Combined PT-Conditions (N = 109)

r .04 .07 .12 -.32**

p 67 .47 24 00
Coach-as-Coach (N = 55)

r .15 .08 .15 -.34*

p .28 .56 .27 .01
Coach-as—Athlete (N = 54)

r -.13 .06 .11 -.28*

p 34 .68 44 O4

 

*p < .05; ”p < .01

120

Table 37

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Partial Correlation Results of the Association of
Expectancy with Each IRI Scale (Controlling for Coaches ’ Belief about the Recovery ’s
Outcome)

 

Expectancy Partial Correlation Coefficient for

 

 

Each IRI Scale

Perspective-taking Condition Fantasy £2223: Pegsgzggve- 23:22:,
Combined PT-Conditions (N = 103)

r 04 -.07 15 15

p .68 .50 . 14 .13
Coach-as-Coach (N = 51)

r .21 -.08 .06 .23

p .15 .57 .69 .11
Coach-as-Athlete (N = 52)

r -.08 -.04 .23 .05

p 59 .76 1O 72

 

Summary

Preliminary analyses revealed that, for the successful recovery scenario, coaches’
causal attributions were affected by the order in which they were exposed to the recovery
scenarios. Furthermore, the order of exposure to the scenarios had a significant covariate
effect on coaches’ causal attributions for several hypothesis analyses for the successful
scenario. For the failure scenario, all coaches did not believe the recovery outcome was a
failure. However, when added as a covariate in all hypothesis analyses of the failure
scenario, coaches’ perception of the recovery outcome did not have a significant effect on
their causal attributions. Hypotheses testing for the successful recovery scenario

provided some support to Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) actor-observer effect where, in this

121

study, coaches in the Coach-as-Athlete (CA) condition attributed the cause of the
recovery success to factors that were more internal and of greater personal control in
comparison to the causal attributions of coaches in the Coach-as-Coach (CC) condition.
However, the failure recovery scenario did not generate support for the actor-observer
effect. Instead, coaches in the CA condition reported the failure’s cause was more
internal, stable, and controllable in comparison to the causal ascriptions of coaches in the

CC condition.

Preliminary analysis of all coaches’ empathy subscale scores Showed that female
coaches were higher in fantasy (FS) and empathic concern (EC) than male coaches.
However, when added as a covariate in all analyses involving the F S and EC subscales of
the IRI for each recovery scenario, participants’ sex did not have a significant effect on
coaches’ causal attributions. Hypothesis testing further revealed that coaches’ level of
empathy did not differentiate coaches’ CDSII scale scores for either recovery outcome

scenario.

Recovery outcome (success vs. failure) had a significant effect on coaches’ causal
ascriptions of stability. For each coach group analyzed (all coaches, within the CC
condition, and within the CA condition), coaches attributed greater stability to the cause

of the successfirl recovery in comparison to the failed recovery.

Coaches’ beliefs about the athlete’s behavior in rehabilitation (compliant vs. non-
compliant) had a significant effect on their causal attributions for the failed recovery
scenario. Examination of all coaches showed that coaches who reported that the athlete
complied with the rehabilitation attributed the cause of recovery failure to factors that

were less internal, more stable, and less controllable in comparison to coaches who

122

believed the athlete did not comply with the rehabilitation. Within perspective-taking
condition comparisons further revealed that coaches in the CC condition who believed
their athlete did not comply with the rehabilitation attributed the recovery failure to
factors that were more internal, less stable, and of greater personal and external control in
comparison to the casual ascriptions of their cohorts who believed their athlete complied
with the rehabilitation. In contrast, coaches in the CA condition who reported they did
not comply with the rehabilitation attributed their recovery failure to factors that were
more internal, more stable, and of greater personal control in comparison to the casual

ascriptions of their cohorts who believed they complied with the rehabilitation.

Lastly, for the successful recovery outcome, coaches’ expectancy beliefs were
associated with their causal ascriptions. More specifically, examination of all coaches
revealed a low, positive correlation of expectancy and personal control. Within
perspective-taking condition analyses Showed that, within the CA condition, coaches’
expectancy beliefs was correlated with locus of causality, personal control, and external
control. Within the CC condition, expectancy beliefs did not correlate with any CDSII
scale for the successful recovery outcome. Also for the successful recovery scenario, the
personal distress subscale of the IRI was negatively correlated with coaches’ expectancy
belief for each coach group analyzed (all coaches, within the CA condition, within the
CC condition). For the failure recovery scenario, coaches’ expectancy belief did not

correlate with any scale of the CDSII or subscale of the IRI.

123

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Differences in Observers’ and Perspective-takers’ Causal Attributions

According to attribution theory (Weiner, 1972), individuals use four major causal
attributions to explain success or failure in achievement settings —— ability, effort, luck,
and task difficulty. These attributions can be placed along three dimensions — locus of
causality, stability, and controllability. In addition, Jones and Nisbett (1972) assert that
actors tend to attribute the cause of their actions to extemal/Situational factors while
Observers attribute the same actions to stable, personal factors of the actor. Although this
classic actor-observer effect has been found in sport research (e.g., Van Raalte, Brewer,
& Petitpas, 1995), it is more often unsupported in the sport-achievement setting (e. g.,
Grove et al., 1990; Lefebvre, 1978; Wolfson, 1997). Instead, in the sport-achievement
setting, actors tend to ascribe intemal/personal attributions for their successes and
external/Situational attributions for their performance failures (Mullen & Riordan, 1988;
Wolfson, 1997). Thus, in the sport domain, occurrence of the classic actor-observer
effect seems to be contingent on the performance outcome (win/loss, success/failure).

In addition to its being affected by the outcome of the event (success or failure),
the classic actor-observer effect has also been altered by perspective-taking (e.g., F under,
1980; Funder & Colvin, 1997; Galper, 1976; Gould & Sigall, 1977; Regan & Totten,
1975). That is, observers who are prompted to imagine themselves as the other person
have inspired observers in the perspective-taking condition to make causal ascriptions
Similar to those typically made by the actor (Situational/extemal). For this study, two

research hypotheses addressed these tenets in hopes of expanding our understanding of

124

coaches’ application of causal attributions for athletes’ successful and unsuccessful sport
injury recoveries.

Given the research findings regarding the classic actor-Observer effect in sport
research, it was hypothesized that the coaches’ causal ascriptions for the recovery
outcomes would not differ between the two perspective-taking conditions [Coach-as-
Coach (CC) vs. Coach-as-Athlete (CA)]. Contrary to the research hypothesis, differences
in causal attributions between perspective-taking conditions were found for both the
successful and failed recovery scenarios. For the successful recovery scenario, coaches
in the CA condition responded that the cause of their recovery’s success was more
internal and of their personal control compared to coaches who maintained their
perspective as the coach. For the recovery failure scenario, coaches in the CA condition
responded that the cause of their failed recovery was of greater internal locus of causality,
more stable, and of greater personal control in comparison to coaches in the CC
condition. Also, for the failed recovery scenario, coaches in the CA condition reported
that the cause of their failed recovery was of less external control in comparison to
coaches in the CC condition.

While it iS encouraging to find that coaches in the CA condition attributed their
recovery success to internal factors that were of their personal control, their causal
ascriptions for their recovery failure are worrisome. Intuitively, it is understandable that
coaches in the CC condition would not overwhelmingly attribute the cause of their
athlete’s failed recovery to internal and controllable factors of themselves - the coach. It
is also understandable that in achievement settings such as sport, coaches taking the

perspective of the athlete would attribute the cause of their failed recovery to internal and

125

controllable factors of themselves as the athlete. In fact, Mullen and Riordan (1988)
assert that while internal attributions (i.e., higher locus of causality and personal control
scores) generally occur for successful outcomes, external explanations are not
consistently given for failure situations. However, differences between the coaches in the
CA and CC conditions’ causal attributions for the failed recovery may reveal a potent
reason why athletes who lack recovery progress may not comply with the rehabilitation
protocol and the resulting negative relationship they Share with their coaches.

The locus of causality dimension differentiates between causes that are within the
person (i.e., ability, aptitude, effort, strength) and causes that are outside the person, (i.e.,
luck, task difficulty). The stability dimension differentiates between causes that are
temporary (i.e., luck, Short-term effort), and causes that are stable (i.e., ability, task
difficulty, long-term effort). Weiner (1992) asserts that perceived causal stability is the
essential attributional determinant of task expectancies (future success or failure) while
perceived locus of causality determines affective consequences (pride/satisfaction,
shame/dissatisfaction). Citing the earlier work of Atkinson, Weiner continues to remind
us that motivation is partly determined by expectancy of success and affective
anticipation (pride and satisfaction). Consequently, injured athletes (or coaches taking
the perspective of the injured athlete) who perceive the cause of the failed recovery to be
both stable and internal are, according to attribution theory, more likely to expect similar
or continued recovery failure, experience greater negative affect, and lack motivation to
continue the rehabilitation protocol, thus making recovery and a healthy return to sport
difficult, if not impossible. On the other hand, coaches observing the event of injury

rehabilitation, such as the coaches in the CC condition of this study, are also subject to

126

the influence of causal attributions on their expectancy beliefs and affective anticipation.
Therefore, when coaches attribute the cause of the failed recovery Similarly or as more
stable than the athlete ascribes, the coach may take the position that their efforts to help
their athlete will not change subsequent recovery outcomes. Thus, the expectation of
similar recovery failures in the future may serve to inhibit a pro-social, proactive
relationship between the coach and the injured athlete.

Coaches’ in the CA condition ascription that the cause of the recovery failure is
more internal and stable than coaches in the CC condition may have occurred because the
Coach-as-Athletes may not be able to divorce themselves from the injury and they lack
an identifiable external source of blame. The coaches in the CA condition may, like
athletes themselves, view the Situation of injury as a personal, internal condition that
cannot be divorced from the self. The discussion in the psychology Of sport injury
literature of the role of physical self-efficacy and athletic identity in athletes’ cognitive
appraisal and psychological response to injury draws close to explaining this idea;
however the issue of injury-as-self has not been clearly established. Ray and Wiese-
Bjomstal (1999) reported that Sport injury may have a significant influence on athletes’
perceptions of physical self-efficacy (athlete’s Situation-Specific confidence for a
particular physical task). Because specific physical Skills are hampered by a sport injury,
it is logical that athletes’ perceptions of their specific physical abilities suffer during the
recovery period.

While injury may threaten a Specific portion of athletes’ self-concept (physical
self-efficacy), Brewer (1993) suggests that the individuals’ athletic identity (and perhaps

global self-identity) may be severely quaked by a sport injury. Brewer contends that

127

when a substantial part of an athlete’s identity is removed because of injury, the
remaining part may not be able to obtain sufficient validation and meaning from other
aspects of life to maintain some sense of personal equilibrium. Hence, “the loss of an
anchor in athletic participation can result in a sense of inadequacy and worthlessness,
feelings Of depression and helplessness, and a general inability to gain fulfillment and
validation from life” (Taylor & Taylor, 1997, p. 37).

However, while athletes with an injury may mourn the loss of their athletic
identity, they may also adopt a new identity that reflects their current situation. That is,
an athlete who sustains a severe injury or one who requires a lengthy recovery period
may shift his/her self-perceptions from “sport-able” to that of “injured athlete” and adopt
an identity of injury-as-self where the injury, including its cause and recovery outcome, is
viewed as a comprehensive characteristic or integral part of the individual. Therefore,
maintaining a holistic view of the injury-as-self may diminish athletes’ (and perspective-
taking coaches’) ability to View the cause of the failed recovery as anything but an
internal part of the individual. However, while consequential shifis in self-concept
thysical self-efficacy and self-identity) may occur with the onset of sport injury and
throughout the recovery process, Pargman (1999) optimistically states “self-concept is a
psychological variable that may fluctuate within short time frames and is, therefore,
amenable to strategic manipulation” (p. 8).

From a cognitive appraisal standpoint, differences between coaches in the Coach-
as-Athlete (CA) perspective-taking condition and the Coach-as-Coach (CC) condition
causal attributions for the failed recovery scenario provides hope that coaches can

empathize with and understand the challenges athletes face while recovering from an

128

injury. The loss of an athletic identity and adoption of an inj ury-identity are data about
the athlete’s affective experiences that a coach can have no direct knowledge. However,
coaches can draw on their personal sport injuries to help take the perspective of the
athlete. Coaches who have not experienced a severe or menacing sport injury but are
high in dispositional empathy may also be amenable to such introspection.

A second reason coaches in the CA perspective-taking condition may have
attributed the recovery failure to more internal and stable causes than coaches in the CC
condition is that the participants in this study retain a sufficient amount of confidence in
the sportsmedicine personnel. An earlier study of injured athletes (Lewis, 1999) revealed
that injured athletes are confident in their athletic trainers and sportsmedicine physicians
and their ability to properly diagnose and treat the injury. Such confidence in the athletic
trainers and sportsmedicine physicians may further serve to reduce injured athletes’, or in
this study coaches in the CA condition’s, options for external causes of the failed
recovery. Thus, internal attributions are encouraged. Similarly, if coaches in the CC
condition hold strong efficacy beliefs about the sportsmedicine personnel, they too may
exclude this external factor as a possible cause for the failed recovery and rely on causal
factors related to the athlete. However, at this time, no study Of coaches’ efficacy beliefs
about the sportsmedicine personnel has been found to support this line of thinking.
Dispositional (Trait) Empathy and Causal Attributions

Davis (1996) maintains that persons who are more empathic by trait may react
with greater affect to the observed experiences of others in comparison to persons low in
dispositional empathy. Three research hypotheses involving the effect of coaches’

dispositional empathy on their causal attributions were stated for this study. First,

129

coaches with high empathy subscale scores were expected to attribute recovery outcomes
to external/Situational factors more so than coaches with low empathy subscale scores.
However, support for this hypothesis was not found for either the successful or failed
recovery outcome for any subscale of the IRI [perspective-taking (PT), fantasy (FS),
empathic concern (EC), personal distress (PD)]. Lack of sufficient sample size for the
dichotomous levels (low vs. high) of empathy subscales may have hampered efforts to
test this hypothesis sufficiently (see Tables 8, 10, and 13). In fact, because the EC and
PT subscales severely lacked sufficient sample for the low group (N = 2 and 5
respectively), the participants in the neutral category were combined to create a
comparison of low-neutral to high EC and PT scores. Also, none of the coaches in the
study had a high personal distress subscale score, thus forcing a dichotomous comparison
of low PD to neutral PD, rather than low to high. From an educational Sport
psychologist’s point of view, finding that the coaches in this study had dispositional
empathy scores that are positively associated with pro-social and helping behaviors
provides evidence that these coaches may interact positively with their injured athletes.
However, future investigations of the effect of trait empathy on coaches’ causal
attributions for recovery outcomes must first establish distinct low and high empathy
subscale groups that contain sufficient sample Size for statistical comparisons. Further
confounding the results of the first hypothesis regarding the effect of empathy on
coaches’ causal attributions was the significant covariate effect of the order of the
recovery scenarios on attributions for the successful recovery scenario. This covariate

effect will be discussed more in the following paragraphs.

130

The second hypothesis regarding dispositional empathy and coaches’ causal
attributions examined differences within the perspective-taking conditions [Coach-as-
Coach (CC) and Coach-as-Athlete (CA)]. It was expected that within the CA and CC
perspective-taking conditions, coaches with high empathy subscale scores would attribute
recovery outcomes to extemal/Situational factors more so than coaches with low empathy
subscale scores. This hypothesis also was not supported by the statistical analyses for
either the successful or failed recovery scenario because of lack of sample size per level
of empathy for sufficient comparisons (see Tables 15, 17, 19, and 21). However, in this
analysis, the covariate effect of the order of the recovery scenarios on causal attributions
for the successful recovery outcome was further clarified and provided additional
considerations for research methods. The order in which coaches in the CC condition
were exposed to the descriptive recovery scenarios had a Significant covariate effect on
their causal ascriptions for the EC, PT, and PD subscales of the IRI (see Table 9). A
similar covariate effect was not found within the CA condition. This suggests that future
examination of empathy and causal attributions, like this study, must hold the order of
exposure to the recovery scenarios constant. Because the recovery failure scenario did
not exhibit a covariate effect of the scenario order (see Table 4), preferably, the
successful recovery scenario should be read and responded to before the recovery failure
scenario.

Finding an order effect on coaches’ causal attributions for the successful recovery
outcome within the CC condition but not within the CA condition makes for an
interesting discussion point. Earlier in this dissertation (see Chapter 1), several sources

of information for causal attributions were identified and discussed. While effect, cause,

131

and historical data about an observed event are available to both the coach (the observer)
and the athlete (the actor), not only may these two individuals be privy to differing
Specific types of data, they may also focus on particular data and disregard other
information when forming causal attributions. These dynamic interactions for
information processing are what make the application of attribution theory to the study of
coach-athlete relationships during Sport injury recovery so interesting. Through this
study, it becomes evident that coaches use the historical information of athletes’ previous
injury recovery outcomes to explain subsequent recovery outcomes.

The final hypothesis involving trait empathy and causal attributions examined the
interaction of empathy with coaches’ injury severity on coaches’ causal attributions. It
was hypothesized that coaches within the perspective-taking conditions (CA or CC)
having high IRI subscale scores and having experienced a moderate or a major sport
injury would attribute the cause of athletes’ recovery outcomes to external factors more
so than coaches with low IRI scale scores and having experienced none or a minor sport
injury. Once again, because of lack of sample size to satisfy the two levels of empathy
and injury severity groups under inspection, significant findings were not found. Here,
the issue of response bias becomes critical to the conduct of Sport injury research.
Eighty-seven participants (76.3%) self-identified their sport injury as moderate (N = 53)
or major (N = 34) while the remaining 27 participants (23.7%) reported having either
none (N = 10) or a minor (N = 17) injury during their athletic playing years. Similarly,
assessment of the hypothesis examining the main effect of injury type (career-ending or
not career-ending) on causal ascriptions was derailed by lack of sufficient sample size.

Here, only seven participants reported having a career-ending sport injury in comparison

132

to the 94 coaches whose injury was not career-ending. Because the topic of a study may
be of more personal interest to some potential participants than others, the response rate
to form dichotomous groups under investigation may not be achieved, thus reducing the
investigators’ ability to conduct specific analyses and to generalize results (Alreck &
Settle, 1995). Therefore, when conducting injury research, it becomes very important to
employ data collection methods that will encourage achieving a sample that is
representative of the larger population. However, even the best efforts to secure a
dichotomous sample may still result in response bias as a limitation of the study.
Effect of Recovery Success and Failure on Causal Attributions

Hypotheses that reflect the expectations of the working model for this study (see
Figure 1) and designed to provide additional understanding of coaches causal attributions
were made. One such hypothesis was that recovery outcome would have a main effect on
coaches’ causal ascriptions where the successful recovery outcome would elicit different
causal explanations in comparison to when the recovery was a failure. An initial analysis
of all participants’ responses revealed that coaches ascribed greater internal locus of
causality, stability, and external control to the cause of the athlete’s successful recovery
compared to the failed recovery scenario (see Table 28). However, differences in
coaches’ perception of the recovery’s outcome influenced their causal ascriptions of
stability. All of the coaches in this study agreed with the principal investigator that the
successful recovery scenario was a success. On the other hand, for the recovery failure
scenario, 66.7% of the participants (N = 76) agreed with the principal researcher that the
recovery described in the scenario was a failure. Thirty-four coaches (29.8%) perceived

the failure scenario to be a success and four participants (3.5%) did not respond to this

133

item on the questionnaire. When the participants who perceived the failed recovery was
a success were excluded from the analysis, differences in ascriptions of stability were
found. That is, the cause of the successful recovery was more stable than the recovery
failure scenario (see Table 29).

Differences in coaches’ perceptions of the stability of the recovery outcome’s
cause may be explained by how coaches utilize different information (data) when
forming judgments about the outcome of an event. For example, a team may win a
competition but the coach may not view the win as a success because the players did not
execute sport Skills proficiently or communicate well with teammates when on the field.
In this study, 26 coaches who believed the failure recovery scenario was a failure
attributed the outcome to the athlete’s lack of compliance in rehabilitation (see Appendix
1). Another two coaches attributed the recovery’S failure to improper diagnosis or
treatment protocol for the injury. These two most likely causes were expressed by
coaches who believed the recovery was a failure, but were not given by coaches who
perceived the recovery as a success. However, other causal explanations were shared by
both coaches who perceived the recovery to be a failure and those who thought it was a
success. Thus, disparity in data appraisal and processing does not seem to be the only
explanation for perceptual differences.

While the processing of different types of information may differentiate coaches’
perceptions of a recovery’s outcome, coaches may also process identical information but
arrive at different conclusions about the outcome of an event thus influencing differences
in their causal attributions. For the recovery failure scenario, coaches who judged the

outcome to be a failure and who perceived it to be a success Often attributed the athlete’s

134

experience Of continued discomfort and pain to fear of re-injury, returning to Sport too
early before the injury was properly healed (see Appendix I). Similarity in coaches’
causal explanations that yield different perceptions of the recovery’s outcome suggests
that a mediator (e.g., trait empathy, coaches’ injury history, coaches’ experience with
injured athletes) may buffer their judgment about the outcome.

Differences in coaches’ causal ascriptions between the two recovery scenarios
were also found within the perspective-taking conditions. Again, the participants who
believed the recovery failure scenario was a success were excluded from these analyses.
Within the CC condition, coaches reported the cause of the successful recovery was more
stable and of greater personal and external control than for the recovery failure scenario
(see Table 30). Within the CA condition, coaches reported the cause of the successful
recovery was of greater internal locus of causality, more stable, and of greater personal
and external control than for the recovery failure scenario (see Table 30). However,
causal ascriptions are dependent on the outcome of the recovery. The literature proposes
that internal, stable, and controllable ascriptions for recovery success encourage
expectancy for similar success in the future. However, the effect of causal ascriptions for
the failure situation has not been sufficiently discussed in the attribution, classroom
achievement or sport achievement literature. Therefore, research that Specifically focuses
on causal attributions for failure in sport, specifically injury recovery failure, and their

subsequent effect on expectancy, affect, and motivation is necessary.

135

Effect of Perceptions of Rehabilitation Behavior on Causal Attributions

Afier reading each descriptive scenario, participants were asked if they believed
the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol. It was expected that coaches who
believed the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol would attribute the cause of
the recovery outcomes to external, Situational factors more so than coaches who believed
the athlete did not comply with the rehabilitation. For the successful recovery scenario,
statistical analysis of between recovery behavior beliefs (compliant vs. non-compliant)
was not conducted because only three coaches reported that the athlete did not comply
with the rehabilitation protocol while the remaining 108 participants believed the athlete
was compliant. It should be noted that all of this study’s participants, including the three
who perceived non-compliant behavior, reported that the successful recovery scenario’s
outcome was indeed a success. However, these three coaches provided dissimilar causes
for the athlete’s recovery success. A coach in the CA condition reported that “rehab at
the therapist office,” an external attribute, was the most likely cause of her recovery
success. A second coach in the CA condition stated that her recovery success was most
likely caused by “[her] body’s natural ability to bounce back,” an internal, stable cause.
The third coach, who was in the CC condition, attributed the cause of his athlete’s
successful recovery to the extensive recovery time (3 months) associated with ACL
surgery rehabilitation, an external, unstable attribute. Interestingly, the only attributional
dimension these three differing causal explanations have in common is controllability.
That is, each of these causal explanations is not within the personal control of the athlete,

or of the coach for that matter.

136

Within perspective-taking condition, analyses regarding differences in coaches’
causal attributions between those who complied and did not comply with the
rehabilitation protocol were also conducted. Again, because all of the coaches reported
that the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol for the successful recovery
scenario, only statistical analyses for the failed recovery outcome were conducted.
Similar to the analysis of differences between all coaches, it was expected that, within the
perspective-taking conditions, coaches who believed the athlete complied with the
rehabilitation protocol would attribute the cause of the recovery outcomes to external,
Situational factors more so than coaches who believed the athlete did not comply with the
rehabilitation.

For the failed recovery outcome, coaches’ beliefs about the athlete’s recovery
behavior influenced their casual ascriptions. Forty-one participants in the Coach-as-
Athlete (CA) condition reported that they complied with the rehabilitation protocol for
the failed recovery scenario, while the remaining 14 coaches reported they were non-
compliant. In fact, oneway MANCOVA analysis of recovery behavior (compliant or
non-compliant) within the perspective-taking conditions revealed that coaches in the CA
condition who stated they did not comply with the rehabilitation protocol reported the
cause of their recovery’s failure was more internal, more stable, and of greater personal
control than coaches who complied with the rehabilitation (see Table 32). Finding
differences in coaches in the CA condition ascriptions of locus of causality, stability, and
personal control offers additional support for Atkinson’s and Weiner’s position regarding
the dynamic interaction of the dimensions of causal attributions and provides additional

understanding of attributional factors that may affect motivation in rehabilitation settings.

137

In addition, for the failed recovery scenario, 34 coaches within the Coach-as-
Coach (CC) condition reported that the athlete complied with the rehabilitation protocol
while 19 coaches stated that their athlete did not comply with the rehabilitation.
MANCOVA analyses (see Table 32) revealed that coaches who perceived non-compliant
behavior by their athlete attributed the cause of recovery failure to factors that were more
internal, less stable, of greater personal control, and of greater external control than
coaches who perceived compliant behavior. These findings may indicate that when a
coach believes his/her athlete’s recovery is not successful, more can be done to improve
the recovery’s outcome. Recall that the stability dimension, according to Weiner (1992),
determines future expectancy. While individuals may have a general pattern for giving
effort toward tasks that can be considered to be a stable trait of the persons, they can also
apply different amounts of effort at various points in time and toward a specific task
(unstable effort). The attribution of less stability when the athlete is non-compliant than
when compliant may indicate that coaches are capable of recognizing that effort toward
recovery is not static, but changeable. In fact, Graham (1990) asserts that “attributing
failure to lack of effort [or compliance] is more adaptive because effort is perceived as
both changeable and under one’s volitional control” (p. 17). Higher personal control
scores attributed to the cause of the failure for non-compliant behavior than for compliant
behavior may also indicate that coaches are aware of the influential role they play in
helping their athletes to comply with the rehabilitation protocol. Thus, when faced with
their athlete’s unsuccessful recovery, coaches who believe that they did not try hard
enough to help their athlete comply with the rehabilitation protocol can be encouraged by

the expectation that failure need not occur again and by the belief that there is a

138

relationship between their efforts and subsequent recovery outcomes. On the other hand,
coaches’ attribution of greater stability to the cause of recovery failure when the athlete
was believed to be non-compliant may lead to pessimistic recovery expectancy beliefs,
thus leading the coach to anti-social interactions with the athlete.

Coaches’ perception of an athlete’s compliance behavior can have a significant
effect on their willingness to help the injured athlete. Interpreting Schmidt and Weiner
(1988), coaches are more likely to help (or maintain a pro-social relationship with) an
injured athlete when the cause of the recovery failure is due to uncontrollable factors
(such as when the athlete complies with the rehabilitation) than when the athlete’s
behavior is perceived to be controllable (non-compliant, lack Of effort in rehabilitation).

As for the personal attributes of the coach in regards to helping behavior, coaches
who perceive themselves as lacking personal control over the recovery situation or
outcome are more likely to become passive and provide little social support to the injured
athlete. Also, interpreting the work of Reeve (1996), coaches’ helping behavior may also
decrease or cease to exist when the coaches believe themselves to be incapable of
executing the helping behaviors that are required to control the recovery outcome they
and their athlete desires. This second point may be a critical explanation as to why
coaches seem absent in the athletes’ recovery process, a point generated in an earlier
study of athletes’ perception of social support during injury recovery (Lewis, 1999).
However, if this is indeed a Significant factor, it remains unknown if the coach is
incapable of helping the injured athlete because he/she sincerely lacks the inherent
abilities (or qualities) associated with helping behavior or are overwhelmed with the

responsibilities of coaching and therefore unable to devote attention to helping. So in

139

addition to empathic ability, assessment of personal and situational factors that allow
coaches to provide social support may be warranted.
Causal Attribution ’s Association with Coaches’ Expectancy Beliefs

Weiner (1986, 1992) states that stability is primarily associated with expectancy
beliefs, however the findings of this study do not support his assertion. For the
successful recovery scenario, partial correlation analyses did not reveal a Significant
relationship between stability and coaches’ expectancy beliefs for any of the groups
under analysis (all coaches, coaches within the CC condition, coaches within the CA
condition; see Table 34). However, partial correlation analyses revealed that personal
control positively correlated with coaches’ expectancy beliefs for the analysis of all
coaches and within the CA condition. Also within the CA condition, coaches’
expectancy beliefs for the outcome of their future injury recovery were positively
correlated with locus of causality and negatively correlated with external control.
However, for the within Coach-as-Coach condition, no causal dimension significantly
correlated with coaches’ expectancy beliefs for the outcome of their athlete’s future
injury recovery. For the recovery failure scenario, partial correlation analyses revealed
no Significant relationship between stability, or any other causal dimension for that
matter, and coaches’ expectancy beliefs for any of the coach groups under analysis (see
Table 35).

Given the discussion within the review of literature that suggested empathy,
particularly personal distress, may be associated with helping behavior, evaluation of the
relationship of expectancy to empathy was conducted. Exploratory analysis of partial

correlations revealed that for the successful recovery scenario, personal distress was

140

negatively correlated with coaches’ expectancy beliefs for each coach group (all coaches,
within the CC condition, within the CA condition, see Table 36). However, no empathy
subscale Significantly correlated with coaches’ expectancy beliefs for the recovery failure
scenario. These findings provide limited support for the idea that dispositional empathy,
especially coaches’ disposition for experiencing personal distress in crisis situations, may
mediate causal attributions and their effect on coaches’ interactions with their injured
athletes.

These findings regarding the relationship of causal attributions and empathy with
expectancy beliefs are quite mind-boggling and difficult to interpret; however, the within
CC condition findings are of the most personal interest. Finding a lack of association
between coaches in the CC condition’s causal attributions and future expectancy may be
an indication of their perceived lack of contribution for future recovery outcomes.
Perhaps they believe that their efforts for helping their athlete recover from injury will
have little to no impact on the athlete’s recovery outcome in the future. Instead, coaches
may believe that it is largely the efforts of the athlete, not the coach, that make
subsequent recovery outcomes. Another reason these findings may not support Weiner’s
(1986) position may be that research conducted to confirm stability is primarily
associated with expectancy has been done from the actor’s perspective (i.e., Duncan &
McAuley, 1987; Leith, 1989; Nichols, 1976) rather than from that of the observer. The
moderate correlation between expectancy and personal control within the Coach-as-
Athlete condition provides some evidence that this may be the case. However, these

conclusions are purely speculative and require additional study.

141

Limitations of the Study

Coaches’ assignment of severity to the injuries in the descriptive scenarios and to
their own sport injuries was not controlled in this study and may not have matched the
severity categories defined in this study. Powell and Barber-Foss (1997) provide
definitions for determining the severity of sport injuries that are widely accepted in the
sport science literature (see Operational Definitions). When designing the descriptive
recovery scenarios for this study, two NATA certified head athletic trainers (one of which
was Powell himself) and two educational sport psychologists reviewed the injury
descriptions to confirm they were realistic and classified as moderate to major in severity.
However, the definitions of injury severity were not made available to the coaches in this
study. Instead, participants were left to their own devices when they determined the
severity of the injury described in the recovery scenarios. For the scenario that described
an athlete’s successful recovery from ACL surgery, frequency scores for coaches’
categorization of the severity of the injury were as follows: major, N = 70; moderate, N =
36; minor, N = 8 (see Table 38). For the scenario that described an athlete’s unsuccessful
recovery from a “severe 3rd degree ankle sprain”, frequency scores for coaches’
categorization of the severity of the injury were as follows: major, N = 39; moderate, N =
71; minor, N = 4 (see Table 38). As for their own sport injuries, frequency scores for
coaches’ categorization of the severity of their injury were as follows: major, N = 34;
moderate, N = 53; minor, N = 17; none, N = 10 (see Table 39).

Reviewing the self-described sport-related injuries coaches had when they were
athletes seems to indicate that time spent away from sport, Powell and Barber-Foss’

(1997) central delineation of severity, is not the only information coaches use to

142

determine the severity of sport injury. At a glance, and without any further information
than the coaches’ description of their injury jotted down in the space provided on the
demographic questionnaire, some of their injuries may have been, according to Powell
and Barber-Foss, more or less severe. (See Appendix I for coaches’ self-description of
their sport injury.) For example, minor injuries listed by coaches included a broken wrist,
knee hyperextension, atom ligament in the hand, and rotator cuff tendonitis. While 104
participants reported having had a sport injury, 52 of these coaches stated that they
continue to experience effects of their injury (see Table 40). Most interestingly, five of
the eight coaches who reported their sport injury as being minor also continue to
experience effects of their injury. Thus, additional factors such as the athlete’s
importance to the team, characteristics related to the injury (e. g., type and location of
injury, relevance of injury to sport play, timing of injury, length of recovery time, amount
of pain and its expression, quality of treatment), knowledge/experience gained since the
injury (e.g., additional/reoccurring injuries, coaching experience with injured players),
and desensitization to chronic, long-term pain may influence how coaches evaluate the
severity of their own and their athletes’ sport injuries. Future study of the social support
available to injured athletes from their coaches Should examine the process in which
coaches come to judge the severity of sport injuries and how their judgments affect the
coach-athlete relationship. In the meantime, for the practicing educational sport
psychologist working with injured athletes, awareness of the inconsistencies in coaches’
evaluation of the severity of sport injuries in comparison to Powell and Barber-Foss’

definition may help in the counseling of injured athletes.

143

Table 38

Crosstabulation Analysis of Coach ’s Perception of the Severity of Injury for Each
Recovery Scenario

 

Perspective-Taking (PT)
Condition

 

. . . CC Condition CA Condition Total
Recovery Scenario Injury Seventy N = 57 N = 57

 

N = 114
Successful ACL
Recovery
minor
Frequency 3.00 5.00 8.00
% Within PT Condition 5.26 8.77
% of Total 2.63 4.39 7.02
moderate
Frequency 15.00 21.00 36.00
% Within PT Condition 26.32 36.84
°/o of Total 13.16 18.42 31.58
major
Frequency 39.00 31.00 70.00
% Within PT Condition 68.42 54.39
% of Total 34.21 27.19 61.40
Failed 3rd Degree
Ankle Sprain Recovery
minor
Frequency 2.00 2.00 4.00
% Within PT Condition 50.00 50.00
% of Total 1.75 1.75 3.51
moderate
Frequency 31.00 40.00 71.00
"/6 Within PT Condition 43.66 56.34
% of Total 27.19 35.09 62.28
major
Frequency 24.00 15.00 39.00
% Within PT Condition 61.54 38.46
% of Total 21.05 13.16 34.21

 

144

Table 39

Crosstabulation Analysis of Coach ’5 Perception of the Severity of Injury of Their Sport

 

 

 

Injury
Coaches' Self-Description of the
Severity of Their Sport Injury
None Minor Moderate Major Total

All Coaches

Frequency 10.00 17.00 53.00 34.00 114.00

% of Total 8.77 14.91 46.49 29.82 100.00
CC Condition

Frequency 5.00 8.00 25.00 19.00 57.00

% WIthin Severity Group 50.00 47.06 47.17 55.88

% of Total 4.39 7.02 21.93 16.67 50.00
CA Condition

Frequency 5.00 9.00 28.00 15.00 57.00

% Within Severity Group 50.00 52.94 52.83 44.12

% of Total 4.39 7.89 24.56 13.16 50.00

 

145

Table 40

Crosstabulation Analysis of Coach ’s Perception of the Severity of Injury of Their Sport
Injury and If T hey Continue to Experience Any Effect of the Injury (Yes or No)

 

Coaches' Self-Description of the
Severity of Their Sport Injury

 

Continued Effect

 

of Injury Minor Moderate Major Total
Yes
Frequency 5.00 25.00 22.00 52.00
% Within Continued Effect 9.62 48.08 42.31
% of Total 4.81 24.04 21.15 50.00
No ’
Frequency 12.00 28.00 12.00 52.00
% Within Continued Effect 23.08 53.85 23.08
% of Total 11.54 26.92 11.54 50.00
Total
Frequency 17.00 53.00 34.00 104.00
% of Total 16.35 50.96 32.69 100.00

 

In addition to their perception of the injury’s severity, demographic variables of
the coaches may also vary their causal ascriptions. For example, head coaches and
assistant coaches may interact with their athletes differently and may also differ in their
perceptions of the injured athlete and his/her recovery outcome. Number of years
coaching, sex of the athlete they coach, and level of coaching (youth vs. high school vs.
college) are other variables that may significantly impact coaches causal attributions.

Therefore, firture studies similar to this Should make efforts to control for such

146

demographic variables of the coach that may interfere with Obtaining robust findings and
hamper the researcher’s ability to generalize results across contexts.

A final limitation of this study was that the randomization of the order in which
participants completed the survey instruments could not be controlled. It was assumed
that coaches responded to the instruments in the order in which they were placed in the
packet by the principal investigator. However, if coaches completed the surveys in
another order and its resulting affect on their responses is unknown.

Revised Working Model for Understanding Coaches’ Causal Attributions for Recovery
Outcomes and Their Relationship with Injured Athletes

A working model for understanding coaches’ causal attributions for injury
recovery outcomes and coaches’ behavior and interactions with their injured athletes was
developed for this study (see Figure 1). However, after considering the data of this study,
several changes have been made to suggest a more comprehensive approach for
understanding coaches’ causal attributions that lead to their relationship with their injured
athletes (see Figure 2). In the event of a sport injury and a recovery outcome, coaches
will use data about the athlete’s recovery outcome, rehabilitation behavior, injury
severity, the athlete’s value to the team, and additional factors inherent to the sport injury
setting (e.g., quality of sportsmedicine personnel and rehabilitation facility, length Of
recovery, timing of injury) to evaluate the recovery. (Note that the original model did not
include the severity of injury and the athlete’s value to the team as sources of
information.) Coaches’ evaluation of the information about the recovery will either
directly affect their causal ascriptions or specific factors (or characteristics) of the coach

will mediate (buffer) their effect. In this revised model, trait empathy (originally

147

believed to have a direct effect) along with perspective-taking ability, coaches’ sport
injury history, and other demographic variables of the coach (e.g., number of years
coaching, CPR/FA training, coaches’ education training) are listed as possible mediators
of the data used when forming causal attributions.

A substantial addition to the revised model is the resulting expectancy beliefs and
affect of attributions and their effect on the coach-athlete relationship. Weiner (1986,
1992) posits that coaches’ causal ascriptions a) directly determine coaches’ expectancy
beliefs, and b) determine specific emotions either directly or indirectly via expectancy
beliefs. Therefore, it is the coaches’ affective response, rather than causal ascriptions,
that directly determines the social relationship between the coach and the injured athlete.

A final revision to the model was the addition of two separate paths for the coach-
athlete relationship once an affective response has been formed by the coach. This
differentiation is not meant to imply that the coach will respond differently (more or less
pro-socially) to the athlete when the recovery is a failure in comparison to when it is a
success. In fact, a coach can respond similarly to the athlete’s recovery under either
circumstance. However, when the athlete’s recovery is unsuccessful, the athlete most
often returns to rehabilitation where the coach will continue the cognitive evaluation
process described by this model. In the event of a successful recovery, the athlete will
return to sport practice and competition, thus sending the coach into an evaluation
process that may be dissimilar (or contain different evaluative elements) than the one

described by this model.

148

.mEmaouEOc 8623-580 2:

co Combo :65 use 888:5 b.1388 in? SC 303353 398 .8580 wfiwcflmeoecs SC 358 $5103 newt/Om .N SEEK

 

amp—0.. Ow wsauwb —

 

con; uses
- 4.63 c.3252 _
_ 05.5
m m_ bosom.
can; 225m

85? 5?
c9893.: can

 

 

 

8323 who—woo

33383
E r6699.
:9? 925m
85.: 5?
5.6925 new
8523 c.5230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

CE 2 mEBm:
cons mafia
4.03 9925/34

 

 

oEooSO
62692 A
c.5660
£26m
Geogaxm
c.5080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.656920
03350660 3:58 bis.
9580 team 2 E205:
3:39.928 cope“. .8863. ‘
5:5.ow bore: tic.
.638 Co 38: team «.5030
9:850 Each on. 2 o:_m>
e686”. e___a< 8%. Seesaw age.
.2 5:353 626326.”. 339.3 cocoa
.mmzmo whomoo oEooSO E6606”.
585 @2622
.mcozfioamfi
:uuoo foam—EOE. Co 39:69

05 Co 220a“.
messes:

E26061

05 Co 5:333 9:300 aco>m

149

Implications and Future Directions

The National Standards for Athletic Coaches (N ASPE, 1995) provides
descriptions of essential knowledge and experiences required of coaches at various levels
of competition. These standards provide a framework for creating educational programs
that meet the needs of prospective and current coaches. The standard aimed at the
prevention, care, and management of injuries advises that coaches be able to identify and
correct unsafe conditions, be prepared to stop or modify practices and play when unsafe
conditions exist, and be able to select and maintain equipment that safeguards against
injury. However, Clarke (2000) criticized NASPE’S standards for their lack of influence
on coaches to be more concerned with the well-being of the total athlete. The following
are some practical ideas for educational sport psychologists, coaches, and possibly
sportsmedicine professionals (i.e., athletic trainers, physicians) to consider when working
with injured athletes. Future directions for research are also discussed.

The attribution literature suggests that helping behavior is encouraged by coaches’
causal attributions and expectancy beliefs. More specifically, coaches are more likely to
help their injured athletes when the cause of their assistance is due to uncontrollable
factors such as low ability and trait-like effort than when assistance is perceived as due to
controllable factors such as insufficient effort (e.g., non-compliant behavior) (Graham,
1990; Reeve, 1996; Schmidt & Weiner, 1988). Furthermore, as found in this and other
studies (e. g., Leith, 1989, McAuley & Gross, 1983), the recovery outcome has a
significant impact on coaches’ causal attributions and expectancy beliefs. Therefore,

rather than wait for a recovery outcome to occur and be used as information to form

causal attributions and expectations, it is important to get the coaches involved in a

150

supportive role early in their athlete’s recovery. Coaches’ early involvement in the
recovery process may help minimize the effect of recovery setback and failure on their
causal ascriptions by allowing the coaches to more realistically attend to all of the factors
(personal and situational) that bear on the recovery outcome.

Therefore, coaches’ education programs should include workshops that provide
practical information and training dedicated to the coaches’ role in the psychological
development and welfare of athletes with injuries. Training Should include discussion of
how to help the athlete restore and maintain his/her athletic identity during the recovery
process. This may include methods such as cognitively relating rehabilitation activities
to Sport conditioning activities and involving the athlete in as many practice and
competition activities as possible (e.g., temporary assignment to managerial roles,
inclusion in team meetings). Second, coaches should be trained to identify controllable
factors that are specific to the coach (e.g., overseeing quality of medical care and
compliance behavior) and the athlete (e.g., effort in rehabilitation, avoiding behaviors
that compromise recovery) that can be enhanced to improve the outcome of the recovery.
Coaches should also learn the importance of acknowledging and addressing
extemal/Situational factors outside of the athlete that may interfere with recovery. Lastly,
in the absence of recovery progress, coaches should learn to acknowledge anything
(effort in therapy, improved physiological state, a new hair cut) that will give the athlete
some sense of pride, recognition, and value from their coach.

In addition to the recommendations for coaches’ education programs, ideas for
future research have also been generated by this study. First, the comparison of a true

actor-Observer condition involving coaches and their injured athlete that utilizes both

151

quantitative and qualitative methods Should be conducted. This study Should include
measurement of causal attributions, expectancy, affect, and the social interaction shared
by the coach and athlete. Qualitative methods should include direct questions to the
coaches and athletes that reveal Specifically what the athlete and coach can do to help
athletes recover successfully. Next, and not exclusive from the first point, future study of
causal attributions in the Sport injury sphere should more closely examine the recovery
failure situation. Lack of finding a causal dimension associated with recovery failure and
other findings between the recovery outcome scenarios indicates this is a rich area for
studying the breakdown in the coach-athlete relationship during injury recovery.

A final point for future research is directed toward the measurement of causal
attributions and empathy. While the CDSII is a valid measure of the dimensions of
causal attributions, it has been criticized for its difficult semantic differential scale and
ambiguous wording that may confuse participants who complete the survey (Biddle &
Hanrahan, 1998). Also, the instrument should be tailored to measure the Specific
variables under investigation. Adjusting the CDSII to, perhaps, a likert-type scale with
an item for each dichotomous pair of the present semantic differential where the items
more closely reflect the variables under investigation may reduce error in measurement
and strengthen the interpretive quality of the results. AS for the measurement of empathy,
the IRI is also a valid measure of dispositional (trait-like) empathy and continues to be a
worthy investigative tool for a study such as this one. However, the addition of items to
create subscales to measure situational empathy Specific to sport injury may provide
additional information to explain the cognitive process coaches undergo when forming

causal attributions for recovery outcomes.

152

APPENDIX A

Consent Form

153

 

Coaches’ Perceptions of Sport Injuries Study
Explanation and Consent to Participate

Coaches are always trying to avoid injuries to their athletes. Despite all efforts, injuries continue
to occur. The purposes of this project are to explore the role of coaches in the recovery of
injured athletes and to examine how coaches explain athletes’ recovery success and failure.

 

It will take you approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaires. There
is no compensation for participating in this study. Participation in this study is voluntary. You
are under no obligation to be a participant and, if at any time, you do not feel comfortable with a
question being asked, you may skip the item or withdraw from the study without any penalty.

All information given will be kept strictly confidential by the study’s investigator. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You will not be identifiable in any
report of this research study. Only group data will be presented in write-ups and discussions of
this study. However, to protect your identity and maintain confidentiality in your responses, d9
not write your name on the survey forms. Results of the study may be made available to you
upon request and within the restrictions outlined on this form.

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

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

Print Name

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

 

Signature

DEC 2 7 2003

Date SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

 

Return this consent form and completed questionnaires to:
Dawn Lewis, 39 1M Sports Circle, Michigan State University. [East Lansing, MI 48824

154

APPENDIX B

Demographic Survey

155

Background Information

Age Ethnicity
D African American/Black Cl Hispanic American! Latino
Sex Cl Female E1 Asian American C1 Native American/Indian
E1 Male C1 European American/ 121 Pacific Islander
Caucasian C] Other

 

Total Number of Years Coaching:

 

Are you currently coaching? [:1 Yes C1 No
If you are not currently coaching, how long has it been since you coached?

Sport Level Currently Coaching

Cl Intercollegiate CI Select Travel Teams (e.g., AAU, soccer, hockey)
C1 Competitive Club Sport D Other
E] Interscholastic

 

Check all sports you are coaching during the 2002-2003 academic year 9311 circle the sex (male,
female, or both) of the athletes you coach in the sport.

 

D Baseball C1 Football C1 Swimming M / F

D Basketball M / F D Golf M / F D Tennis M I F

D Competitive Cheer M / F El Gymnastics [:1 Track 8 Field M / F

El Crew Cl Hockey C1 Wrestling

C1 Cross Country M / F El Soccer M IF C1 Volleyball M I F

D Diving M / F D Softball D Other M /
Cl Field Hockey M / F F

Of all the sports you coach, in which sport do you have the most sport-related injuries?
02° How many athletes are on this team?
02° Are you the head or assistant coach of this team? C1 Head Coach Cl Asst. Coach

 

Does your institution provide your athletes with access to a physician for sport 1:] Yes El No
injuries?

Does your institution pay some or all of the cost of athletes’ visits to physicians C1 Yes CI No
for sport injuries?

Is an athletic trainer available to your athletes on a regular basis (at least twice D Yes D No
per week)?

Have you ever been trained and certified in CPR and First Aid? D Yes C1 No
Are your CPR and First Aid certifications expired (in need of renewal)? D Yes C1 No
Have you had an athlete on your team who experienced an injury severe D Yes El No

enough to cause him/her to miss several weeks of practice and/or competition?
If yes, what was the nature of the injury or injuries?

“OVER“

156

In the space below, state the most significant sport injury you had when you were an athlete. If
you had no sport injuries during your Sport career, write “none” in the space below.

 

 

Check the best description of the injury you stated above. El Minor Cl Moderate C1 Major

Did the injury stated above permanently end your career as an athlete in the sport?
C1 Yes C1 No

Do you experience any continuing effects from your sport injuries? CI Yes CI No
If yes, briefly describe.

157

APPENDIX C

Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)

158

Interpersonal Reactivity Index
Directions: Read each statement listed below and indicate the degree to which the statement
describes you by circling the number that best corresponds to your thoughts. There is no right or
wrong answer. Just indicate how much the statement describes you.

 

 

Does not Describes
describe me very
me well well
1. I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that 0 1 2 3 4
might happen to me.
2. 1 Often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate 0 l 2 3 4
than me.
3. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the “other person’s” 0 l 2 3 4
point of view.
4. Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for other people when they are 0 l 2 3 4
having problems.
5. I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel. 0 l 2 3 4
6. In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease. 0 1 2 3 4
7. I am usually objective when I watch a movie or play, and I don’t 0 1 2 3 4
Often get completely caught up in it.
8. I try to look at everybody’s Side of a disagreement before I make a 0 1 2 3 4
decision.
9. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of 0 l 2 3 4
protective toward them.
10. I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very 0 l 2 3 4
emotional situation.
1 l. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining 0 l 2 3 4
how things look from their perspective.
12. Becoming extremely involved in a good book or movie is 0 1 2 3 4
somewhat rare for me.
13. When I see someone get hurt, I tend to remain calm. 0 l 2 3 4
14. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great 0 l 2 3 4
deal.
15. If I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t waste much time 0 1 2 3 4

listening to other people’s arguments.

*****CONTINUE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS PAGE*****

159

16.

17.
18.

19.
20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.

27.

28.

After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as though I were one of
the characters.

Being in a tense emotional situation scares me.

When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t
feel very much pity for them.

I am usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies.
I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.

I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look
at them both.

I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

When I watch a good movie, I can very easily put myself in the
place Of a leading character.

I tend to lose control during emergencies.

When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in
his/her shoes” for a while.

When I am reading an interesting story or novel, I imagine how I
would feel if the events in the story were happening to me.

When I see someone who badly needs help in an emergency, 1 go
to pieces.

Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if
I were in their place.

160

Does not
describe

me well

0

l

Describes
me very
well
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4

APPENDIX D

Observer Group: Descriptive Scenarios, Causal

Dimension Scale 11 (CDS II), and Additional Items

161

The Coaches’ Perceptions of Sport Injuries Questionnaire
Instructions

This questionnaire describes several positive and negative events in sport.
Please try to vividly imagine yourself as the coach in the situation. If such an event
happened to one of your athletes, what would have caused it? While events may have
many causes, we want you to pick only one - the single most likely cause if this event
happened to one of your athletes. Please write this cause in the blank space provided.
Then answer the questions about the causes and about the event. To summarize, we
want you to:

1.

Read each event and vividly imagine it happening to ONE OF YOUR
ATHLETES.

2. Answer 3 questions about the event.

9’

Decide what you feel would be the single most likely cause of the event if it
happened to one of your athletes.

 

. Write the most likely cause in the blank space provided.

4
5.
6
7

Answer the 12 items about the cause.

. Answer 3 additional questions about the event.

. Go to the next event.

Treat each event independently, trying to vividly imagine yourself as the coach in
the situation. Then answer the questions as they apply to how you would feel. Please
note that you can use any part of the ratingscale when answering a question. The
labels at each end of the scale are only for your guidance. Make sure that your answers
accurately reflect how YOU would feel.

 

 

Please Continue

162

 

 

You are the coach of an athlete who had surgery to repair ligaments damaged during a sport
competition. The physical therapist gives your athlete rehabilitation exercises to complete at the
therapist's office and at home. At the end of the 4-month rehab period, the physical therapist
insists that your athlete has recovered sufficiently and is ready to return to sport participation on
schedule. When your athlete returns to practice, he/she does not have any pain or discomfort in
the injured area when performing sport skills.

 

 

How severe is your athlete’s injury? D Minor D Moderate CI Major
Did your athlete comply with the rehabilitation protocol? Cl Yes Cl No
Was your athlete’s recovery a success or failure? Cl Successful Cl Failure

What is the single most likel1 cause of your athlete being able to perform drills without pain or
discomfort after recovery? Write your response in the box below.

Think about the reason you have written above. The items below concern your impressions or
opinions of this cause of your athlete’s recovery. Circle one number for each of the following
quesflons.

As the coach of the athlete, is the cause written in the box above something:

1. That reflects on an aspect of yourself 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Reflects an aspect of the situation

1
2. Manageable by you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not manageable by you
3. Permanent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Temporary
4. You can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 You cannot regulate
5. Over which others have control 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which others have no control
6. Inside ofyou 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Outsideofyou
7. Stable overtime 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Variable overtime
8. Under the power of other people 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not under the power of other people
9. Something about you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Something about others
10. Over which you have power 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which you have no power
11.Unchangeable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Changeable
12. Other people can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Other people cannot regulate

Who is most responsible for your athlete being able to perform drills without pain or discomfort after
recovery? (check one)

Cl Me — the coach D the doctor 0 the athlete’s parents
C] the athlete D the athletic trainer/physical therapist Cl other (specify)

When injured in the future, what is the likelihood that your athlete will have a similar recovery result?
Extremely likely 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 Notat all likely

How easily were you able to place yourself as the coach in this scenario?
Extremely easy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l O Notalleasy

When you imagine the scenario above, what is the sex of the athlete? CI Female Cl Male

 

When you imagine the scenario above, in what sport does the athlete compete? O-S

163

 

 

You are the coach of an athlete who experiences a severe, 3rd degree ankle sprain during
competition. The doctor recommends that your athlete sit out practice and competition for the
next 10 days while doing rehabilitation exercises. When your athlete returns to practice, helshe
favors the injured ankle and has difficulty completing sport drills.

 

 

How severe is your athlete’s injury? D Minor Cl Moderate C] Major
Did your athlete comply with the rehabilitation protocol? Cl Yes CI No

Was your athlete’s recovery a success or failure? Cl Successful Cl Failure

What is the single most likely cause of your athlete favoring the injured ankle and having
difficulty doing sport drills? Write your response in the box below.

 

Think about the reason you have written above. The items below concern your impressions or
opinions of this cause of your athlete’s recovery. Circle one number for each of the following

gusets’t'frgac” of the athlete, Is the cause written in the box above something:
1. That reflects on an aspect of yourself 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Reflects an aspect of the situation
2. Manageable by you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not manageable by you
3. Permanent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Temporary
4. You can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 You cannot regulate
5. Over which others have control 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which others have no control
6. Inside of you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Outside of you
7. Stable overtime 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Variable overtime
8. Under the power of other people 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not under the power of other people
9. Something about you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Something about others
10. Over which you have power 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which you have no power
11. Unchangeable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Changeable
12. Other people can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Other people cannot regulate

Who is most responsible for your athlete favoring the injured ankle and having difficulty doing sport drills?
(check one)

Cl Me — the coach [3 the doctor 0 the athlete’s parents

Cl the athlete C] the athletic trainer/physical therapist Cl other (specify)

 

When injured in the future, what is the likelihood that your athlete will have a similar recovery result?
Extremely likely 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 Notatall likely

How easily were you able to place yourself as the coach in this scenario?
Extremely easy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 Not all easy

When you imagine the scenario above, what is the sex of the athlete? Cl Female Cl Male

When you imagine the scenario above, in what sport does the athlete compete?

 

or

164

APPENDIX E

Perspective-taking Group: Descriptive Scenarios, Causal

Dimension Scale 11 (CDS II), and Additional Items

165

Perceptions of Sport Injuries Questionnaire
Instructions

This questionnaire describes several positive and negative events in sport.
Please try to vividly imagine yourself as the athlete in the situation. If such an event
happened to you, what would have caused it? While events may have many causes, we
want you to pick only one - the single most likely cause if this event happened to you.
Please write this cause in the blank space provided. Then answer the questions about
the causes and about the event. To summarize, we want you to:

1.
2.
3.

Read each event and vividly imagine it happening to YOU.
Answer 3 questions about the event.

Decide what you feel would be the single most likely cause of the event if it
happened to you.

. Write the most likely cause in the blank space provided.

4
5.
6
7

Answer the 12 items about the cause.

. Answer 3 additional questions about the event.

. Go to the next event.

Treat each event independently, trying to vividly imagine yourself as the athlete
in the situation. Then answer the questions as they apply to how you would feel. Please
note that you can use any part of the rating scale when answering a question. The
labels at each end of the scale are only for your guidance. Make sure that your answers
accurately reflect how YOU would feel.

Please Continue

166

 

 

You are an athlete who had surgery to repair ligaments damaged during a sport competition.
Your physical therapist gives you rehabilitation exercises to complete at the therapist’s office and
at home. At the end of the 4-month rehab period, the physical therapist insists that you have
recovered sufficiently and you are ready to return to sport participation on schedule. When you
return to practice, you do not have any pain or discomfort in the injured area when performing
sport skills.

 

How severe is your injury? [3 Minor Cl Moderate C! Major
Did you comply with the rehabilitation protocol? D Yes Cl No
Was your recovery a success or failure? CI Successful Cl Failure

What is the single most likely cause of your being able to perform sport skills without pain or
discomfort after recovery? Write your response in the box below.

 

Think about the reason you have written above. The items below concern your impressions or
opinions of this cause of your recovery. Circle one number for each of the following questions.

As the athlete, is the cause written In the box above something:

1. That reflects on an aspect of yourself 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Reflects an aspect of the situation
2. Manageable by you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not manageable by you

3. Permanent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Temporary

4. You can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 You cannot regulate

5. Over which others have control 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which others have no control
6. Inside ofyou 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Outsideofyou

7. Stable overtime 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Variable overtime

8. Under the power of other people 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not under the power of other people
9. Something about you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Something about others

10. Over which you have power 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which you have no power
11. Unchangeable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Changeable

12. Other people can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Other people cannot regulate

Who is most responsible for your being able to perform sport skills without pain or discomfort after
recovery? (check one)

Cl Me —— the athlete Cl my doctor Cl my parents
Cl my coach Cl my athletic trainer/physical therapist Cl other (specify)

When injured in the future, what is the likelihood that you will have a similar recovery result?
Extremely likely 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 Not at all likely

How easily were you able to place yourself as the athlete in this scenario?

Extremely easy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 Not all easy

In the scenario above, in what sport do you compete?

 

PT-S

167

 

 

You are an athlete who experiences a severe, 3rd degree ankle sprain during
competition. The doctor recommends that you sit out practice and competition for the
next 10 days while doing rehabilitation exercises. When you return to practice, you
favor the injured ankle and have difficulty completing sport drills.

 

 

 

How severe is your injury? Cl Minor CI Moderate D Major
Did you comply with the rehabilitation protocol? Cl Yes Cl No
Was your recovery a success or failure? 0 Successful Cl Failure

What is the single most likely cause of your favoring the injured ankle and having difficulty
doing sport drills? Write your response in the box below.

Think about the reason you have written above. The items below concern your impressions or
opinions of this cause of your recovery. Circle one number for each of the following questions.
As the athlete, is the cause written in the box above something:

1. That reflects on an aspect of yourself 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Reflects an aspect of the situation
2. Manageable by you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not manageable by you

3. Permanent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Temporary

4. You can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 You cannot regulate

5. Over which others have control 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which others have no control
6. Inside of you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Outside of you

7. Stable overtime 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Variable overtime

8. Under the power of other people 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not under the power of other people
9. Something about you 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Something aboutothers

10. Over which you have power 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Over which you have no power
11. Unchangeable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Changeable

12. Other people can regulate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Other people cannot regulate

Who is most responsible for your favoring the injured ankle and having difficulty doing sport
drills? (check one)

Cl Me — the athlete Cl my doctor Cl my parents
Cl my coach CI my athletic trainer/physical therapist Cl other (specify)

 

When injured in the future, what is the likelihood that you will have a similar recovery result?
Extremely likely 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not at all likely

How easily were you able to place yourself as the athlete in this scenario?

Extremelyeasy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Notall easy

In the scenario above, in what sport do you compete?

 

PT-F

168

APPENDIX F

Thank You Page for Survey Instruments

169

 

Thank You for Your Cooperation

Please return your consent form and questionnaires to
Dawn Lewis
39 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

170

Appendix G

Reminder Postcard

171

...........................................................................................................................

A Friendly Reminder

Please complete and return your consent form and
questionnaires for the

 

 

Coaches’ Perceptions of Sport
Injuries Study

__4

Your participation in the study is greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

If you have already completed and returned your
questionnaires, thank you for your participation.

Dawn Lewis, M.S.
Department of Kinesiology
Michigan State University
lewisdaw@msu.edu

172

APPENDIX H

Descriptive Statistics for Hypothesis #6 Analyses

173

 

EL

Table H1

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of within the CC Condition
2 x 2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Fantasy by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Coaches’

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Fantasy Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low female 2 16.50 0.71
male 1 3.00 .
Total 3 12.00 7.81
High female 5 12.00 5.57
male 1 9.00 .
Total 6 11.50 5.13
Total female 7 13.29 5.06
male 2 6.00 4.24
Total 9 1 1.67 5.63
mod/major Low female 6 7.50 3.73
male 7 13.14 7.82
Total 13 10.54 6.70
High female 9 11.00 4.85
male 3 10.00 12.12
Total 12 10.75 6.63
Total female 15 9.60 4.64
male 10 12.20 8.70
Total 25 10.64 6.53
Total Low female 8 9.75 5.23
male 8 11.88 8.08
Total 16 10.81 6.67
High female 14 11.36 4.92
male 4 9.75 9.91
Total 18 11.00 6.03
Total female 22 10.77 4.98
male 12 11.17 8.33
Total 34 10.91 6.24
Stability none/minor Low female 2 1 1.00 2.83
male 1 1 1 .00 .
Total 3 11.00 2.00
High female 5 13.00 4.12
male 1 18.00 .
Total 6 13.83 4.22
Total female 7 12.43 3.69
male 2 14.50 4.95
Total 9 12.89 3.76
mod/major Low female 6 15.67 8.52
male 7 13.86 1.95
Total 13 14.69 5.75
High female 9 13.22 4.18
male 3 1 1.33 5.69
Total 12 12.75 4.39
Total female 15 14.20 6.12

174

'
r -_
it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

male 13.10 3.35

Total 13.76 5.13

Total Low female 14.50 7.60
male 13.50 2.07

Total 14.00 5.40

High female 13.14 4.00

male 13.00 5.72

Total 13.11 4.24

Total female 13.64 5.44

male 13.33 3.42

Total 13.53 4.77

Personal Control none/minor Low female 14.50 0.71
male 15.00 .

Total 14.67 0.58

High female 10.00 4.30

male 9.00 .

Total 9.83 3.87

Total female 1 1.29 4.15

male 12.00 4.24

Total 1 1.44 3.91

mod/major Low female 1 1.83 4.88
male 12.57 7.72

Total 12.23 6.31

High female 12.67 6.36

male 8.33 5.86

Total 11.58 6.29

Total female 12.33 5.64

male 1 1.30 7.18

Total 11.92 6.18

Total Low female 12.50 4.31
male 12.88 7.20

Total 12.69 5.74

High female 11.71 5.69

male 8.50 4.80

Total 1 1.00 5.54

Total female 12.00 5.14

male 1 1.42 6.63

Total 11.79 5.61

External Control none/minor Low female 2 21.00 8.49
male 1 27.00 .

Total 3 23.00 6.93

High female 5 21.00 5.24

male 1 16.00 .

Total 6 20.17 5.12

Total female 7 21.00 5.51

male 2 21 .50 7.78

Total 9 21.11 5.51

mod/major Low female 6 19.00 5.87
male 7 20.00 6.68

Total 13 19.54 6.08

 

 

 

 

High female 9 16.33 6.91
male 3 18.33 13.32

Total 12 16.83 8.23

Total female 15 17.40 6.43
male 10 19.50 8.36

Total 25 18.24 7.17

Total Low female 8 19.50 5.98
male 8 20.88 6.66

Total 16 20.19 6.16

High female 14 18.00 6.58
male 4 17.75 10.94

Total 18 17.94 7.36

Total female 22 18.55 6.26
male 12 19.83 7.95

Total 34 19.00 6.81

 

176

 

Table H2

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of within the CC Condition
2 x 2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Empathic Concern by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Injury Level of Empathic Coaches'

CDSII Scale Severity Concern Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 19.00 4.36
male 1 7.00 .
Total 4 16.00 6.98
High female 7 10.71 5.06
male 2 6.00 4.24
Total 9 9.67 5.07
Total female 10 13.20 6.11
male 3 6.33 3.06
Total 13 11.62 6.21
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 7.00 5.66
male 4 7.75 5.85
Total 6 7.50 5.21
High female 21 9.52 4.46
male 13 11.31 8.31
Total 34 10.21 6.16
Total female 23 9.30 4.48
male 17 10.47 7.79
Total 40 9.80 6.04
Total Low-Neutral female 5 14.20 7.79
male 5 7.60 5.08
Total 10 10.90 7.11
High female 28 9.82 4.55
male 15 10.60 8.00
Total 43 10.09 5.90
Total female 33 10.48 5.25
male 20 9.85 7.37
Total 53 10.25 6.08
Stability none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 12.67 3.51
male 1 17.00 .
Total 4 13.75 3.59
High female 7 12.57 3.55
male 2 14.50 4.95
Total 9 13.00 3.64
Total female 10 12.60 3.34
male 3 15.33 3.79
Total 13 13.23 3.49
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 20.00 9.90
male 4 11.50 4.51
Total 6 14.33 7.15
High female 21 12.57 4.70
male 13 12.54 4.33
Total 34 12.56 4.49
Total female 23 13.22 5.39

177

I
'—TL i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

male 17 12.29 4.25

Total 40 12.83 4.90

Total Low-Neutral female 5 15.60 6.84
male 5 12.60 4.62

Total 10 14.10 5.72

High female 28 12.57 4.38

male 15 12.80 4.28

Total 43 12.65 4.29

Total female 33 13.03 4.82

male 20 12.75 4.24

Total 53 12.92 4.57

Personal Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 15.67 2.08
male 1 13.00 .

Total 4 15.00 2.16

High female 7 1 1.57 5.44

male 2 12.00 4.24

Total 9 11.67 4.95

Total female 10 12.80 4.96

male 3 12.33 3.06

Total 13 12.69 4.48

mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 16.00 1.41
male 4 8.50 3.70

Total 6 11.00 4.86

High female 21 11.90 5.34

male 13 11.46 7.88

Total 34 1 1.74 6.32

Total female 23 12.26 5.23

male 17 10.76 7.13

Total 40 11.63 6.07

Total Low-Neutral female 5 15.80 1.64
male 5 9.40 3.78

Total 10 12.60 4.35

High female 28 1 1.82 5.26

male 15 11.53 7.39

Total 43 1 1.72 6.00

Total female 33 12.42 5.08

male 20 1 1 .00 6.64

Total 53 11.89 5.70

External Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 19.00 6.93
male 1 19.00 .

Total 4 19.00 5.66

High female 7 18.57 5.97

male 2 21 .50 7.78

Total 9 19.22 6.00

Total female 10 18.70 5.87

male 3 20.67 5.69

Total 13 19.15 5.65

mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 16.50 2.12
male 4 16.50 10.47

Total 6 16.50 8.17

 

' —u

 

 

 

 

 

High female 21 18.57 6.12
male 13 18.77 8.50

Total 34 18.65 7.00

Total female 23 18.39 5.88
male 17 18.24 8.70

Total 40 18.33 7.11

Total Low-Neutral female 5 18.00 5.20
male 5 17.00 9.14

Total 10 17.50 7.03

High female 28 18.57 5.97
male 15 19.13 8.19

Total 43 18.77 6.74

Total female 33 18.48 5.79
male 20 18.60 8.24

Total 53 18.53 6.74

 

179

Table H3

For the successful recovery scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CC condition 2 x
2 MANCO VA injury severity by level of perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Perspective— Taking N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 13.25 3.86
High 9 10.89 7.10
Total 13 11.62 6.21
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 7.56 5.05
High 31 10.45 6.22
Total 40 9.80 6.04
Total Low-Neutral 13 9.31 5.31
High 40 10.55 6.34
Total 53 10.25 6.08
Stability
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 14.00 3.92
High 9 12.89 3.48
Total 13 13.23 3.49
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 12.00 4.56
High 31 13.06 5.05
Total 40 12.83 4.90
Total Low-Neutral 13 12.62 4.31
High 40 13.03 4.70
Total 53 12.92 4.57
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 12.00 2.94
High 9 13.00 5.15
Total 13 12.69 4.48
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 9.78 3.93
High 31 12.16 6.52
Total 40 1 1 .63 6.07
Total Low-Neutral 13 10.46 3.69
High 40 12.35 6.18
Total 53 1 1.89 5.70
External Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 17.75 6.29
High 9 19.78 5.63
Total 13 19.15 5.65
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 18.44 7.50
High 31 18.29 7.12
Total 40 18.33 7.11
Total Low-Neutral 13 18.23 6.89
High 40 18.63 6.78
Total 53 18.53 6.74

 

180

Table H4

For the successful recovery scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CC condition 2 x
2 MANCO VA injury severity by level of personal distress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Personal Distress N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low 8 14.38 6.23
Neutral 5 7.20 2.86
Total 13 11.62 6.21
mod/major injury Low 30 9.77 6.06
Neutral 10 9.90 6.31
Total 40 9.80 6.04
Total Low 38 10.74 6.31
Neutral 15 9.00 5.45
Total 53 10.25 6.08
Stability
none/minor injury Low 8 13.25 3.81
Neutral 5 13.20 3.35
Total 13 13.23 3.49
mod/major injury Low 30 12.77 4.64
Neutral 10 13.00 5.91
Total 40 12.83 4.90
Total Low 38 12.87 4.43
Neutral 15 13.07 5.06
Total 53 12.92 4.57
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low 8 12.50 4.04
Neutral 5 13.00 5.61
Total 13 12.69 4.48
mod/major injury Low 30 11.77 6.54
Neutral 10 11.20 4.66
Total 40 11.63 6.07
Total Low 38 1 1.92 6.06
Neutral 15 11.80 4.87
Total 53 11.89 5.70
External Control
none/minor injury Low 8 19.13 5.64
Neutral 5 . 19.20 6.34
Total 13 19.15 5.65
mod/major injury Low 30 18.33 7.16
Neutral 10 18.30 7.35
Total 40 18.33 7.11
Total Low 38 18.50 6.81
Neutral 15 18.60 6.81

Total

53

18.53

6.74

 

181

Table H5

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of within the CA Condition
2 x 2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Fantasy by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Fantasy Coaches' Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low female 2 22.50 2.12
male 2 22.50 2.12
Total 5 23.40 3.51
High female 1 12.00 .
male 6 21 .50 5.61
Total 7 23.14 3.02
Total female 1 12.00 .
male 8 21.75 4.83
Total 3 25.33 1.53
mod/major Low female 10 22.20 7.41
male 13 22.92 6.59
Total 11 22.36 4.03
High female 5 17.20 4.66
male 16 20.75 4.77
Total 14 23.00 3.80
Total female 15 20.53 6.89
male 29 21.72 5.66
Total 5 24.20 2.17
Total Low female 10 22.20 7.41
male 15 22.87 6.13
Total 16 22.69 3.79
High female 6 16.33 4.68
male 22 20.95 4.88
Total 21 23.05 3.49
Total female 16 20.00 6.99
male 37 21.73 5.42
Total 2 15.00 9.90
Stability none/minor Low female 2 15.00 9.90
male 5 15.80 4.09
Total 1 19.00 .
High female 6 16.33 3.88
male 7 15.57 5.26
Total 1 19.00 .
Total female 8 16.00 5.01
male 3 18.33 8.50
Total 10 19.50 4.62
mod/major Low female 13 19.23 5.33
male 11 17.64 5.71
Total 5 13.60 4.04
High female 16 16.38 5.46
male 14 17.79 6.03
Total 15 17.53 5.17
Total female 29 17.66 5.50
male 5 17.00 8.00

182

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 10 19.50 4.62

Total Low female 15 18.67 5.79
male 16 17.06 5.20

Total 6 14.50 4.23

High female 22 16.36 4.99

male 21 17.05 5.75

Total 16 17.63 5.00

Total female 37 17.30 5.37

male 2 27.00 0.00

Total 2 27.00 0.00

Personal Control none/minor Low female 5 21.20 5.93
male 1 8.00 .

Total 6 19.00 7.56

High female 7 22.86 5.61

male 1 8.00 .

Total 8 21.00 7.39

Total female 3 23.33 5.51

male 10 22.20 7.08

Total 13 22.46 6.55

mod/major Low female 11 23.09 3.56
male 5 21.00 3.39

Total 16 22.44 3.54

High female 14 23.14 3.80

male 15 21.80 5.99

Total 29 22.45 5.01

Total female 5 24.80 4.38

male 10 22.20 7.08

Total 15 23.07 6.27

Total Low female 16 22.50 4.32
male 6 18.83 6.11

Total 22 21 .50 5.00

High female 21 23.05 4.34

male 16 20.94 6.74

Total 37 22.14 5.52

Total female 2 10.00 0.00

male 2 10.00 0.00

Total 5 10.80 6.46

External Control none/minor Low female 1 3.00 .
male 6 9.50 6.60

Total 7 10.57 5.29

High female 1 3.00 .

male 8 9.63 5.58

Total 3 16.67 3.51

Total female 10 15.20 7.27

male 13 15.54 6.49

Total 11 9.82 5.19

mod/major Low female 5 14.80 6.30
male 16 11.38 5.85

Total 14 11.29 5.58

High female 15 15.07 6.73

183

 

 

 

 

male 29 13.24 6.39
Total 5 14.00 4.42
Total female 10 15.20 7.27
male 15 14.80 6.32
Total 16 10.13 5.41
Total Low female 6 12.83 7.41
male 22 10.86 5.96
Total 21 11.05 5.36
High female 16 14.31 7.17
male 37 12.46 6.33
Total
Total female
male
Total

 

184

Table H6

For the Successful Recovery Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of Within the CA Condition
2 x 2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Empathic Concern by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Empathic Coaches’
CDSII Scale Injury Severity Concern Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 15.00
male 1 23.00 .
Total 2 19.00 5.66
High female 8 22.88 2.90
male 4 18.50 5.80
Total 12 21.42 4.38
Total female 9 22.00 3.77
male 5 19.40 5.41
Total 14 21.07 4.41
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 23.00 5.66
male 7 21.14 8.28
Total 9 21.56 7.49
High female 21 21.62 4.78
male 13 19.62 5.62
Total 34 20.85 5.13
Total female 23 21.74 4.73
male 20 20.15 6.49
Total 43 21.00 5.61
Total Low-Neutral female 3 20.33 6.1 1
male 8 21.38 7.69
Total 11 21.09 7.01
High female 29 21.97 4.33
male 17 19.35 5.50
Total 46 21 .00 4.90
Total female 32 21.81 4.42
male 25 20.00 6.19
Total 57 21.02 5.30
Stability none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 15.00
male 1 19.00 .
Total 2 17.00 2.83
High female 8 15.13 5.03
male 4 18.50 2.89
Total 12 16.25 4.59
Total female 9 15.11 4.70
male 5 18.60 2.51
Total 14 16.36 4.31
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 20.50 3.54
male 7 19.00 5.07
Total 9 19.33 4.61
High female 21 17.19 5.93
male 13 15.08 4.99
Total 34 16.38 5.61
Total female 23 17.48 5.78

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

male 20 16.45 5.25

Total 43 17.00 5.50

Total Low-Neutral female 3 18.67 4.04
male 8 19.00 4.69

Total 11 18.91 4.32

High female 29 16.62 5.68

male 17 15.88 4.74

Total 46 16.35 5.31

Total female 32 16.81 5.53

male 25 16.88 4.86

Total 57 16.84 5.20

Personal Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 18.00

male 1 23.00 .

Total 2 20.50 3.54

High female 8 22.38 5.37

male 4 17.75 7.50

Total 12 20.83 6.24

Total female 9 21.89 5.23

male 5 18.80 6.91

Total 14 20.79 5.82

mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 25.50 2.12
male 7 20.86 8.25

Total 9 21.89 7.47

High female 21 22.05 4.81

male 13 22.85 3.05

Total 34 22.35 4.19

Total female 23 22.35 4.72

male 20 22.15 5.32

Total 43 22.26 4.95

Total Low-Neutral female 3 23.00 4.58
male 8 21.13 7.68

Total 11 21.64 6.80

High female 29 22.14 4.88

male 17 21.65 4.74

Total 46 21.96 4.78

Total female 32 22.22 4.78

male 25 21.48 5.68

Total 57 21.89 5.16

External Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 17.00

male 1 12.00 .

Total 2 14.50 3.54

High female 8 10.88 4.97

male 4 14.50 8.27

Total 12 12.08 6.13

Total female 9 1 1.56 5.08

male 5 14.00 7.25

Total 14 12.43 5.79

mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 3.00 0.00
male 7 13.86 8.40

Total 9 11.44 8.71

 

186

 

 

 

 

High female 21 12.52 6.22
male 13 15.46 4.46

Total 34 13.65 5.73

Total female 23 11.70 6.53
male 20 14.90 5.96

Total 43 13.19 6.40

Total Low-Neutral female 3 7.67 8.08
male 8 13.63 7.80

Total 11 12.00 7.96

High female 29 12.07 5.86
male 17 15.24 5.29

Total 46 13.24 5.80

Total female 32 1 1.66 6.08
male 25 14.72 6.08

Total 57 13.00 6.22

 

187

Table H7

For the successful recovery scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CA condition 2 x
2 MANCO VA injury severity by level of perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Perspective- Taking N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 19.50 3.15
High 7 22.71 5.25
Total 13 21.23 4.55
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 20.83 6.82
High 30 20.93 5.23
Total 42 20.90 5.64
Total Low-Neutral 18 20.39 5.78
High 37 21.27 5.20
Total 55 20.98 5.36
Stability
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 16.67 5.13
High 7 15.29 3.40
Total 13 15.92 4.15
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 18.08 5.48
High 30 16.43 5.57
Total 42 16.90 5.53
Total Low-Neutral 18 17.61 5.26
High 37 16.22 5.21
Total 55 16.67 5.22
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 20.17 5.67
High 7 21.43 6.75
Total 13 20.85 6.05
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 21.17 6.90
High 30 22.63 4.08
Total 42 22.21 5.00
Total Low-Neutral 18 20.83 6.36
High 37 22.41 4.61
Total 55 21.89 5.24
External Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 1 1.83 4.83
High 7 1 1.86 6.54
Total 13 11.85 5.58
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 1 1.17 7.09
High 30 14.03 6.15
Total 42 13.21 6.48
Total Low-Neutral 18 1 1.39 6.29
High 37 13.62 6.19
Total 55 12.89 6.26

 

188

Table H8

For the successful recovery scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CA condition 2 x
2 MANCO VA injury severity by level of personal distress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Personal Distress N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low 10 21.30 4.74
Neutral 4 20.50 4.04
Total 14 21.07 4.41
mod/major injury Low 35 21.00 5.92
Neutral 7 21.57 4.31
Total 42 21.10 5.64
Total Low 45 21.07 5.63
Neutral 11 21 .18 4.05
Total 56 21.09 5.32
Stability
none/minor injury Low 10 15.90 4.48
Neutral 4 17.50 4.20
Total 14 16.36 4.31
mod/major injury Low 35 17.51 5.76
Neutral 7 15.00 3.87
Total 42 17.10 5.53
Total Low 45 17. 16 5.49
Neutral 11 15.91 3.99
Total 56 16.91 5.22
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low 10 20.70 6.58
Neutral 4 21 .00 4.08
Total 14 20.79 5.82
mod/major injury Low 35 22.54 5.18
Neutral 7 21.29 4.03
Total 42 22.33 4.98
Total Low 45 22.13 5.49
Neutral 11 21.18 3.84
Total 56 21.95 5.19
External Control
none/minor injury Low 10 11.20 6.12
Neutral 4 15.50 3.87
Total 14 12.43 5.79
mod/major injury Low 35 13.26 6.80
Neutral 7 13.29 4.86
Total 42 13.26 6.46
Total Low 45 12.80 6.64
Neutral 1 1 14.09 4.46
Total 56 13. 05 6.26

 

189

Table H9

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of Within the CC Condition 2 x
2 x 2 MANCOVA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Fantasy by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Fantasy Coaches’ Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low female 2 10.00 7.07
male 1 3.00 .
Total 3 7.67 6.43
High female 5 13.00 3.08
male 1 12.00 .
Total 6 12.83 2.79
Total female 7 12.14 4.10
male 2 7.50 6.36
Total 9 11.11 4.68
mod/major Low female 7 6.71 4.42
male 6 10.33 5.89
Total 13 8.38 5.27
High female 10 11.00 3.59
male 3 6.33 2.52
Total 13 9.92 3.86
Total female 17 9.24 4.40
male 9 9.00 5.22
Total 26 9.15 4.59
Total Low female 9 7.44 4.80
male 7 9.29 6.05
Total 16 8.25 5.27
High female 15 11.67 3.46
male 4 7.75 3.50
Total 19 10.84 3.75
Total female 24 10.08 4.43
male 1 1 8.73 5.12
Total 35 9.66 4.63
Stability none/minor Low female 2 8.00 7.07
male 1 7.00 .
Total 3 7.67 5.03
High female 5 9.80 2.77
male 1 10.00 .
Total 6 9.83 2.48
Total female 7 9.29 3.77
male 2 8.50 2.12
Total 9 9.1 1 3.37
mod/major Low female 7 8.86 4.95
male 6 11.00 7.04
Total 13 9.85 5.84
High female 10 10.00 4.19
male 3 9.67 5.51
Total 13 9.92 4.27
Total female 17 9.53 4.40
male 9 10.56 6.25

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 26 9.88 5.01

Total Low female 9 8.67 4.97
male 7 10.43 6.60

Total 16 9.44 5.61

High female 15 9.93 3.67

male 4 9.75 4.50

Total 19 9.89 3.73

Total female 24 9.46 4.15

male 11 10.18 5.69

Total 35 9.69 4.61

Personal Control none/minor Low female 2 11.00 11.31
male 1 16.00 .

Total 3 12.67 8.50

High female 5 13.40 3.97

male 1 17.00 .

Total 6 14.00 3.85

Total female 7 12.71 5.77

male 2 16.50 0.71

Total 9 13.56 5.27

mod/major Low female 7 12.43 6.88
male 6 13.33 5.92

Total 13 12.85 6.20

High female 10 14.00 3.89

male 3 9.33 8.39

Total 13 12.92 5.22

Total female 17 13.35 5.18

male 9 12.00 6.60

Total 26 12.88 5.62

Total Low female 9 12.1 1 7.20
male 7 13.71 5.50

Total 16 12.81 6.36

High female 15 13.80 3.78

male 4 1 1.25 7.85

Total 19 13.26 4.75

Total female 24 13.17 5.24

male 11 12.82 6.18

Total 35 13.06 5.46

External Control none/minor Low female 2 1 1.00 5.66
male 1 25.00 .

Total 3 15.67 9.02

High female 5 18.00 6.44

male 1 12.00 .

Total 6 17.00 6.26

Total female 7 16.00 6.68

male 2 18.50 9.19

Total 9 16.56 6.73

mod/major Low female 7 14.71 6.42
male 6 20.83 2.79

Total 13 17.54 5.83

High female 10 15.00 6.38

191

 

 

 

 

male 3 19.33 10.79

Total 13 16.00 7.31

Total female 17 14.88 6.19
male 9 20.33 5.87

Total 26 16.77 6.53

Total Low female 9 1 3.89 6.1 3
male 7 21.43 2.99

Total 16 17.19 6.21

High female 15 16.00 6.34
male 4 17.50 9.54

Total 19 16.32 6.84

Total female 24 15.21 6.21
male 11 20.00 6.05

Total 35 16.71 6.48

 

192

Table H10

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of Within the CC Condition 2 x
2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Empathic Concern by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Empathic Coaches’

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Concern Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 12.00 6.08
male 1 15.00 .
Total 4 12.75 5.19
High female 7 14.14 4.71
male 2 7.50 6.36
Total 9 12.67 5.50
Total female 10 13.50 4.90
male 3 10.00 6.24
Total 13 12.69 5.19
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 7.00 5.66
male 4 9.00 1.41
Total 6 8.33 2.94
High female 23 9.87 5.34
male 11 9.27 5.69
Total 34 9.68 5.38
Total female 25 9.64 5.30
male 15 9.20 4.86
Total 40 9.48 5.08
Total Low-Neutral female 5 10.00 5.83
male 5 10.20 2.95
Total 10 10.10 4.36
High female 30 10.87 5.44
male 13 9.00 5.55
Total 43 10.30 5.48
Total female 35 10.74 5.41
male 18 9.33 4.91
Total 53 10.26 5.24
Stability none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 7.67 5.03
male 1 11.00 .
Total 4 8.50 4.43
High female 7 10.43 2.76
male 2 8.50 2.12
Total 9 10.00 2.65
Total female 10 9.60 3.53
male 3 9.33 2.08
Total 13 9.54 3.18
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 6.00 4.24
male 4 8.25 2.87
Total 6 7.50 3.15
High female 23 9.26 4.04
male 11 11.73 5.66
Total 34 10.06 4.68
Total female 25 9.00 4.06

193

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

male 15 10.80 5.21
Total 40 9.68 4.55
Total Low-Neutral female 5 7.00 4.24
male 5 8.80 2.77
Total 10 7.90 3.51
High female 30 9.53 3.77
male 13 11.23 5.34
Total 43 10.05 4.31
Total female 35 9.17 3.88
male 18 10.56 4.82
Total 53 9.64 4.22
Personal
Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 11.00 8.00
male 1 14.00 .
Total 4 11.75 6.70
High female 7 16.71 6.55
male 2 16.50 0.71
Total 9 16.67 5.68
Total female 10 15.00 7.10
male 3 15.67 1.53
Total 13 15.15 6.19
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 10.00 1.41
male 4 12.25 5.38
Total 6 11.50 4.37
High female 23 13.17 5.60
male 111 13.27 7.10
Total 34 13.21 6.01
Total female 25 12.92 5.44
male 15 13.00 6.51
Total 40 12.95 5.78
Total Low-Neutral female 5 10.60 5.73
male 5 12.60 4.72
Total 10 11.60 5.06
High female 30 14.00 5.91
male 13 13.77 6.60
Total 43 13.93 6.05
Total female 35 13.51 5.93
male 18 13.44 6.02
Total 53 13.49 5.90
External Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 3 10.67 4.04
male 1 13.00 .
Total 4 11.25 3.50
High female 7 18.00 5.54
male 2 18.50 9.19
Total 9 18.11 5.80
Total female 10 15.80 6.05
male 3 16.67 7.23
Total 13 16.00 6.03
mod/major Low-Neutral female 2 17.00 2.83
male 4 19.00 8.83

194

 

 

 

 

 

Total 6 18.33 7.03

High female 23 15.87 5.90
male 11 19.18 5.58

Total 34 16.94 5.93

Total female 25 15.96 5.69
male 15 19.13 6.24

Total 40 17.15 6.03

Total Low-Neutral female 5 13.20 4.71
male 5 17.80 8.11

Total 10 15.50 6.70

High female 30 16.37 5.80
male 13 19.08 5.75

Total 43 17.19 5.85

Total female 35 15.91 5.71
male 18 18.72 6.26

Total 53 16.87 5.99

 

195

Table H11

For the recovery failure scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CC condition 2 x 2
MANCO VA injury severity by level of perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Perspective- Taking N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 11.25 4.35
High 9 13.33 5.63
Total 13 12.69 5.19
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 9.11 7.06
High 30 9.67 4.54
Total 39 9.54 5.13
Total Low-Neutral 13 9.77 6.25
High 39 10.51 4.99
Total 52 10.33 5.28
Stability
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 9.25 4.35
High 9 9.67 2.83
Total 13 9.54 3.18
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 7.67 2.92
High 30 10.50 4.69
Total 39 9.85 4.48
Total Low-Neutral 13 8.15 3.31
High 39 10.31 4.31
Total 52 9.77 4.16
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 12.25 7.27
High 9 16.44 5.61
Total 13 15.15 6.19
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 9 14.1 1 5.73
High 30 12.47 5.89
Total 39 12.85 5.82
Total Low-Neutral 13 13.54 5.99
High 39 13.38 6.00
Total 52 13.42 5.94
External Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 4 1 1.50 3.32
High 9 18.00 5.98
Total 13 16.00 6.03
mod/major injury Low—Neutral 9 19.67 5.39
High 30 16.73 5.93
Total 39 17.41 5.87
Total Low-Neutral 13 17.15 6.12
High 39 17.03 5.89
Total 52 17.06 5.89

 

196

Table H12

For the recovery failure scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CC condition 2 x 2
MANCO VA injury severity by level of personal distress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Personal Distress N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low 8 14.38 5.01
Neutral 5 10.00 4.69
Total 13 12.69 5.19
mod/major injury Low 29 9.48 5.30
Neutral 11 9.45 4.68
Total 40 9.48 5.08
Total Low 37 10.54 5.56
Neutral 16 9.63 4.53
Total 53 10.26 5.24
Stability
none/minor injury Low 8 9.63 3.93
Neutral 5 9.40 1.82
Total 13 9.54 3.18
mod/major injury Low 29 9.62 4.74
Neutral 11 9.82 4.21
Total 40 9.68 4.55
Total Low 37 9.62 4.52
Neutral 16 9.69 3.57
Total 53 9.64 4.22
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low 8 14.88 7.08
Neutral 5 15.60 5.18
Total 13 15.15 6.19
mod/major injury Low 29 13.48 5.83
Neutral 11 1 1.55 5.68
Total 40 12.95 5.78
Total Low 37 13.78 6.04
Neutral 16 12.81 5.69
Total 53 13.49 5.90
External Control
none/minor injury Low 8 14.63 5.53
Neutral 5 18.20 6.76
Total 13 16.00 6.03
mod/major injury Low 29 17.45 5.97
Neutral 11 16.36 6.39
Total 40 17.15 6.03
Total Low 37 16.84 5.92
Neutral 16 16.94 6.34
Total 53 16.87 5.99

 

197

Table H13

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of Within the CA Condition 2 x
2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Fantasy by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Coaches'

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Fantasy Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low female 2 25.50 2.12
male 2 25.50 2.12
Total 5 23.20 2.77
High female 1 20.00 .
male 6 22.67 2.80
Total 7 23.86 2.67
Total female 1 20.00 .
male 8 23.38 2.83
Total 3 22.67 5.86
mod/major Low female 10 17.80 6.73
male 13 18.92 6.65
Total 11 19.73 4.94
High female 4 12.50 8.66
male 15 17.80 6.67
Total 14 20.36 5.06
Total female 14 16.29 7.41
male 28 18.32 6.56
Total 5 23.80 4.55
Total Low female 10 17.80 6.73
male 15 19.80 6.60
Total 16 20.81 4.59
High female 5 14.00 8.22
male 21 19.19 6.18
Total 21 21.52 4.65
Total female 15 16.53 7.20
male 36 19.44 6.27
Total 2 10.50 7.78
Stability none/minor Low female 2 10.50 7.78
male 5 10.80 3.49
Total 1 12.00 .
High female 6 11.00 3.16
male 7 10.71 4.27
Total 1 12.00 .
Total female 8 10.88 3.98
male 3 1 1.33 0.58
Total 10 12.30 4.64
mod/major Low female 13 12.08 4.05
male 11 10.36 3.11
Total 4 10.25 6.13
High female 15 10.33 3.87
male 14 10.57 2.77
Total 14 11.71 4.95
Total female 28 11.14 3.98

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

male 5 11.00 3.94

Total 10 12.30 4.64

Total Low female 15 1 1 .87 4.32
male 16 10.50 3.12

Total 5 10.60 5.37

High female 21 10.52 3.61

male 21 10.62 3.23

Total 15 11.73 4.77

Total female 36 1 1.08 3.92

male 2 25.00 2.83

Total 2 25.00 2.83

Personal Control none/minor Low female 5 20.80 5.02
male 1 16.00 .

Total 6 20.00 4.90

High female 7 22.00 4.73

male 1 16.00 .

Total 8 21.25 4.86

Total female 3 22.00 6.24

male 10 20.00 6.99

Total 13 20.46 6.63

mod/major Low female 1 1 20.55 5.68
male 4 19.75 5.74

Total 15 20.33 5.50

High female 14 20.86 5.59

male 14 19.93 6.44

Total 28 20.39 5.93

Total female 5 23.20 4.92

male 10 20.00 6.99

Total 15 21.07 6.39

Total Low female 16 20.63 5.32
male 5 19.00 5.24

Total 21 20.24 5.21

High female 21 21 .24 5.22

male 15 19.67 6.29

Total 36 20.58 5.66

Total female 2 12.00 12.73

male 2 12.00 12.73

Total 5 10.80 3.42

External Control none/minor Low female 1 3.00 .
male 6 9.50 4.42

Total 7 11.14 5.93

High female 1 3.00 .

male 8 10.13 6.20

Total 3 12.67 2.08

Total female 10 10.70 5.72

male 13 11.15 5.10

Total 11 7.18 4.31

mod/major Low female 4 14.50 6.35
male 15 9.13 5.76

Total 14 8.36 4.52

 

199

 

 

 

 

High female 14 11.79 5.92
male 28 10.07 5.46
Total 5 12.40 6.54
Total female 10 10.70 5.72
male 15 11.27 5.82
Total 16 8.31 4.30
Total Low female 5 12.20 7.53
male 21 9.24 5.30
Total 21 9.29 5.06
High female 15 11.20 6.14
male 36 10.08 5.54
Total
Total female
male
Total

 

200

Table H14

For the Recovery Failure Scenario, Descriptive Statistics of Within the CA Condition 2 x
2 x 2 MANCO VA Analysis of Injury Severity by Level of Empathic Concern by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Empathic Coaches'
CDSII Scale Injury Severity Concern Sex N M SD
Locus of Cause none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 19.00
male 1 1 1 .00 .
Total 2 15.00 5.66
High female 8 23.50 2.67
male 4 17.50 1.73
Total 12 21 .50 3.75
Total female 9 23.00 2.92
male 5 16.20 3.27
Total 14 20.57 4.47
mod/major Low-Neutral female 1 7.00 .
male 7 17.00 6.63
Total 8 15.75 7.09
High female 21 18.81 6.05
male 12 16.83 7.35
Total 33 18.09 6.51
Total female 22 18.27 6.42
male 19 16.89 6.90
Total 41 17.63 6.60
Total Low-Neutral female 2 13.00 8.49
male 8 16.25 6.50
Total 10 15.60 6.54
High female 29 20.10 5.70
male 16 17.00 6.35
Total 45 19.00 6.06
Total female 31 19.65 5.99
male 24 16.75 6.26
Total 55 18.38 6.23
Stability none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 9.00
male 1 11.00 .
Total 2 10.00 1.41
High female 8 11.00 4.04
male 4 13.50 1.73
Total 12 11.83 3.56
Total female 9 10.78 3.83
male 5 13.00 1.87
Total 14 11.57 3.37
mod/major Low-Neutral female 1 19.00 .
male 7 12.14 3.63
Total 8 13.00 4.14
High female 21 10.43 2.84
male 12 11.08 5.57
Total 33 10.67 3.97
Total female 22 10.82 3.32

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

male 19 11.47 4.86
Total 41 11.12 4.06
Total Low-Neutral female 2 14.00 7.07
male 8 12.00 3.38
Total 10 12.40 3.89
High female 29 10.59 3.15
male 16 11.69 4.95
Total 45 10.98 3.86
Total female 31 10.81 3.41
male 24 11.79 4.41
Total 55 11.24 3.87
Personal
Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 16.00
male 1 16.00 .
Total 2 16.00 0.00
High female 8 21.88 4.39
male 4 16.25 4.92
Total 12 20.00 5.15
Total female 9 21.22 4.55
male 5 16.20 4.27
Total 14 19.43 4.96
mod/major Low-Neutral female 1 3.00 .
male 7 19.00 7.77
Total 8 17.00 9.15
High female 21 19.48 6.49
male 12 20.17 6.03
Total 33 19.73 6.24
Total female 22 18.73 7.25
male 19 19.74 6.53
Total 41 19.20 6.86
Total Low-Neutral female 2 9.50 9.19
male 8 18.63 7.27
Total 10 16.80 8.08
High female 29 20.14 6.01
male 16 19.19 5.88
Total 45 19.80 5.91
Total female 31 19.45 6.60
male 24 19.00 6.22
Total 55 19.25 6.38
External Control none/minor Low-Neutral female 1 9.00
male 1 6.00 .
Total 2 7.50 2.12
High female 8 10.75 5.60
male 4 6.25 5.25
Total 12 9.25 5.69
Total female 9 10.56 5.27
male 5 6.20 4.55
Total 14 9.00 5.31
mod/major Low-Neutral female 1 3.00 .
male 7 11.71 5.71

202

 

 

 

 

 

Total 8 10.63 6.12

High female 21 8.48 4.33
male 12 11.67 5.58

Total 33 9.64 4.99

Total female 22 8.23 4.39
male 19 11.68 5.47

Total 41 9.83 5.16

Total Low-Neutral female 2 6.00 4.24
male 8 11.00 5.66

Total 10 10.00 5.60

High female 29 9.10 4.72
male 16 10.31 5.85

Total 45 9.53 5.12

Total female 31 8.90 4.69
male 24 10.54 5.67

Total 55 9.62 5.16

 

203

Table H15

For the recovery failure scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CA condition 2 x 2

MANCO VA injury severity by level of perspective-taking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Perspective- Taking N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 22.00 3.69
High 7 19.86 5.21
Total 13 20.85 4.52
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 15.75 6.44
High 28 18.43 6.74
Total 40 17.63 6.69
Total Low-Neutral 18 17.83 6.33
High 35 18.71 6.42
Total 53 18.42 6.34
Stability
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 11.17 4.22
High 7 11.43 2.76
Total 13 11.31 3.35
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 12.67 4.21
High 28 10.61 3.91
Total 40 11.23 4.06
Total Low-Neutral 18 12.17 4.15
High 35 10.77 3.69
Total 53 11.25 3.87
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 20.50 5.13
High 7 18.14 5.21
Total 13 19.23 5.10
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 16.75 8.51
High 28 20.07 5.99
Total 40 19.08 6.90
Total Low-Neutral 18 18.00 7.61
High 35 19.69 5.82
Total 53 19.11 6.46
External Control
none/minor injury Low-Neutral 6 11.83 5.91
High 7 7.43 3.87
Total 13 9.46 5.22
mod/major injury Low-Neutral 12 9.92 5.00
High 28 9.68 5.37
Total 40 9.75 5.20
Total Low-Neutral 18 10.56 5.23
High 35 9.23 5.13
Total 53 9.68 5.15

 

204

Table H16

For the recovery failure scenario, descriptive statistics of within the CA condition 2 x 2
MANCO VA injury severity by level of personal distress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDSII Scale Injury Severity Level of Personal Distress N M SD
Locus of Cause
none/minor injury Low 10 20.40 5.21
Neutral 4 21 .00 2.16
Total 14 20.57 4.47
mod/major injury Low 34 17.24 6.80
Neutral 6 18.50 5.21
Total 40 17.43 6.55
Total Low 44 17.95 6.56
Neutral 10 19.50 4.28
Total 54 18.24 6.19
Stability
none/minor injury Low 10 11.30 3.62
Neutral 4 12.25 2.99
Total 14 11.57 3.37
mod/major injury Low 34 11.09 4.26
Neutral 6 11.50 3.45
Total 40 11.15 4.11
Total Low 44 1 1.14 4.08
Neutral 10 11.80 3.12
Total 54 11.26 3.91
Personal Control
none/minor injury Low 10 19.90 5.51
Neutral 4 18.25 3.59
Total 14 19.43 4.96
mod/major injury Low 34 19.35 7.17
Neutral 6 18.17 5.91
Total 40 19.18 6.94
Total Low 44 19.48 6.77
Neutral 10 18.20 4.87
Total 54 19.24 6.44
External Control
none/minor injury Low 10 6.90 3.84
Neutral 4 14.25 5.12
Total 14 9.00 5.31
mod/major injury Low 34 10.32 5.30
Neutral 6 8.17 3.66
Total 40 10.00 5.10
Total Low 44 9.55 5.17
Neutral 10 10.60 5.10
Total 54 9.74 5.13

 

205

APPENDIX I
Coaches’ Statement of the Cause of the Recovery Scenarios’ Outcome and Self-

Description of Their Sport Injuries

 

:8 .292 Em

 

 

 

 

 

£90388 Emu. age 5.;
o: o: o: 5 mm 88 E .
“M88 “Coma? no .8; o. 826% .o: n. 02 no E 83:63 2.288% m o .65 8o 3m
58 .853,
828% 5 89.20
cam 38:53:. Jose 89% 88 8:2 €6qu o. 55:520. Ea
2:52 as 35% a) 8 .5... 2 85. 29. Se 85 Jog—Na mews .._ oz 82 28882582 m o as so 8...
8% em .3992. 5 3826. so. a 8 s 2,2 .208
.288m 9.3% .o: as 22% 65 5? 85358
ms: 22 m 8m;
8% .aumwfiw a: 22.9 as
o: o: . 55, mecca .o .o. m
at; 8on .68 02m 885 65 3.8 n. o .9: m. 685 82:: 56 m 0 nos 80 mom
so: 22% 5 we: .
958.. 388 .8 on 2:27. $0.5m £5
9::
Co 2595 Eugene Sac.
Em .2 85. cm. 8» 8» 85. FE . . u. o no... .8; 2 6E5 296% m o 5:. Bo Sm
E. 8: 8 E: 85.8 -9 $65 $5 BEE, . .
_ .55 38> a .___.m
:oEESmB 825:8 M 82.5. comm =65. Wm H cozcé new “mm .3 82.3 m o a m.
.o .538me m... .o 83:83 85830 M W 9:830 m m m luau.
m. 23 £88 >883. 3 8:8 w. m am>86m 8 8an M m m. N
.w 29.: ~82 295 m. .o. 29.: 92 8.95 m .m m
”92a”. :88”. M w 888w 828$. w w W
m l m (
w d
M. W
9 U
W (.0

 

won uied aouauadxa "its (53) uoeoo sao

 

¢6ugpuaiaaieo se bnlu! uods s,uoeo:y

 

 

lbnluj pods jo uonduosag-jjas s,uoeo

(Joletu JO ‘ajeiapoui 'JOU!u.l ‘auou) hue/ta

 

(alnuej 10 sseoons) oueuaos alnjge
Mawooag 10; 8111001an0 uogduosag s

 

Jog/leuag qeuaa-ainjjezj Mariooa

 

 

'JOUlLU)A1!JSASS MnluI-einuezj Ila/rose

 

(ainuej JO ssaoons) oueuaos sseoon
Mawooag 10; aurooino jo uoitduosag s

 

 

JoiAeuag qeuag-ssaoons MaAooa

 

'JOUlLU) hue/res hnlul-ssaoons MSAOOB

JO JSMSSQO) uompuog 5U!)191'6A!10808Ja

 

 

 

 

207

 

0:8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

958 .828 88. ms
8 o: 88.8 8.8 5:. a o 8:. ._m:. 8o 3m
.8 8.; 8.05 22 as. .9. n... 5.; 8:88 me
o: o: 228.: 2.8 .m:. conflmmmfi 02 ._m:. 88. no:. 8o «5
299..
o: o: :8: 8.8.3 .mE 8mm : 02 no:. 2.9.58 8 no: no:. So m5
5 228.: 89?. ea: o. 8.8.». 98: 8 .o: 8; 8...: ms
58:. :8; n8 Ema 85: .888. 3.2.8
Ema 8:8 8:8 28. 8: o: 98:88.88 no:. 2 gmn o: 85 02 no:. 8885 38:9 5:. 8o :5
.o 8 8.588% 82 £898. 858:: o.o:. 88. ._ .8: n8 95mm: .2 me:
888
9.9. 8:8. .o .8: o no:. 88888: .88 me So o8
.588 8.96
Em m 8.8m.
o.o:..€m o. me... £958
.82 8:. m 88 85. .o: m. gmn o F .82
8 9.88.8 .o: E: 8 888 oz. .88. 9:8 288 8888
so .88 898 gm; 8: o: 85. no:. 85 35:88 02 no:. 88. on. 9.36:9 no:. So mom
2.8.88 o. 8m; :3 _ c. 888:. EB on Eon 8.25m
89.: 5 8888.8 8:5 28:. .88.
.88.:n .m :88.
8.5m 8858
8589.. 8.388.:
on 9. 828 88.8 no:. :o_.m:_5m8. o _m:. 8:8:88. me So mom
5:: 9.33:8 .o: 9:26:9—
oco: 88. 05 on .9. 8 02 .8. 82.8.6 9.35:0. 5:. 8o Sm
2:38
o: o: awonhm ”whammy. no:. @5888. 2.2 .o: o no:. nonoowmfioww 8:. 8o mom
- has 8::
:_mm.mlmc_8&m;
8.: : .88.:
o: o: 08:80 So. .85 o. 35:8 on _:3 o no:. 88. ._m:. 8o mom

 

 

 

 

 

n8 .smmm : 9.8::
.o 888 .8 .85

 

 

 

 

5 Em; 88; 85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

208

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88. 8.. .8229
8. o: :8...» 2.8 no:. 88 oo. .. o m : 2:8 0 nos 88. 8 8.32.2 82 .o nun
m5:on:o. :m:o:m
o: o: :8 686. 5:. .88 8: o 8:. a: 0.568.... .so: no:. .o mum
9.8: .8888
o: o: 2.8 8.8.: 8:. m m. 26 o ”NEW. 02 no:. n8 88. 88:6. 8:. .o «mm
o : ._ .. n.n 82.8 2.58:
52::
688 .8: .mm o. 8.8....
:8: 8:.. .3 8888688. . o... m888xo 88.
- 8:82... .o 888 8. o: .6... :6. 8:. 88.88 02 no:. 8:. 5.; 82.8.85 8:. .o Em
88. ...6..o. .o: n.n 8.8.88...
8:. 82.2.2 _
2.8 8:88 8:... 0:...
o: o: .8___8< 8:88 no:. 8.8m. :968 .o: 02 8:. 8268. n8 88. 8:. 8o own
E n8 82o
o: o: 8.88:8 n8: 8:. .8. 8:88: 0 nos m..o.oon @5328. 8:. 8o 2m
>88... 9.
E.m.sm....n..m.nm_:.whmwwm; 8888 88. 88:8
. 85w 2.8, M :8“ 8. o: 258 58 5:. m... on 2 88m: 02 8:. .88... 8288 no:. So 3m
8. ._ 02:8 88 :5 8:. 8:. 98.8 .9. 2.. o. 2.88
5 :8: 8.88. 28...
2.88 .5: 8a
2.8 .6. .95. 8.88. 258 ._ on o.
8.. 2.8 9: .o 8.. o: 5 8o: 8 8:28 8:: .8. o no:. 28 m: o. 8.88 m... 8:. 8o :5
8.8.8; 2.. o. one
688:. .o 8: 82.88:. 8.29:8
86:98. - 8898 8.. o: 5 .889 so.“ no:. 88.588. oz no:. 82.8.85 88. 8:. 8o :5
8:.. N 8: m8: . ._ 9526.6. .o: 8.526. 8.8
888.88%:
8.. o: 5:. .8. o 8:. 88822.88”. 8:. 8o m .m

 

 

 

88:.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

209

 

m._m.m 9......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm;
u.....m 892.85. 98.. .8...) cm." mm;
5 35.20.2322. .
. . was... 3.... .29.... 8.8.8.. as
_ Emmoooamsc 92.. mm» 2. 51.09:... Em E. as 9:8; 9.22.39. oz 8.... 85. _.m 3.99:8 o no:. a 5m
3.... 8.593 808 8525.51...
N «£189.35; . $5.. 2%.»...
Em $.55 «>2 _ ,
.o>8m.
c2888. coam.___nm..m. cam
mm. o: no... son... 2955 o no... . . o .8... a can
~c3... v.08 =3? 9.35 .9. 3:5... 02.7.8 m
magemfi
8.2.322 3.29.. 5;...
9.9. 3.29:8 02 no... 2.. 5.; 92.9... o 5... .a mmm
3.89.. .o:
5592.. .8.
o: 9. 8.5.9.. 5.: onto mmm_u.mxm 02 no:. 85.2. 25...... oz no:. a mmm
m... 26.6. 2...... _ .939. $.68 E.
roam
2:5... mm. o: .8. 58.5... no... 8.8.22 m. 2.8 o .5... o. 539 o. 9.8.. o a... .a Rm
.95. 32.32..
8.... .smcmumm..___.s_ 8.. 9. $7.30... no... 58 299225 0 no... .m 9858 2.8.... o no... a mmm
2m .83 o... 92 _
=m§m=o>
.o flaming .._ 8.2m.
team :08 96.. 8:...
_.< .m: c. ._ a... .2. saw 8....
.85 wage—.8. m9. 9. 2.5... 8.8%... 8:. .3588 29% o no... 7.39m... 2.6 5.2.2 oz no... a mum

m... 59.95.... 3:...
m .o v .82 .m 9.5...
~E. 8.82m... 26.. _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.. o. 99.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.9. :8... 8. .999. o 8... .8 9.... 8:8 9.. .9.. a 8m
9 28.. .9. o. 8...... >8 .8. 9.9. 8..
9.. 88....
.9.. 82m 8.. 3.8. 2.8 9.. ....88 29. 9..
8.538 8.. .88.. .m 8.8... 9.. 8.8 .9.. 8.929 .88
:8 5.88 .. =9 8. 9. 2.8 829.. 8... .9. .o 89.89.88 0 8... 8.9.... 8. 8 . .8 .9.. ... 8m
. 88 283 2 228 3... 98 8.5.2.9 .o .8. 8.8.. 3.9288
2 8.... 9..
8.03 8.59:8 8:88 8..
9. 9. .08.. 829.. 2... 9... E... .28.. 8.... o 8... ..2.9.....9.9 .99 8... .q .8
9.. .9.. .8. 8 29. .9.. .8228 8.9.
8.. 9. .8 8. 82%..“ .9.. 8.8.. .9. m... o 8... 29. 9. 8... a 8m
8... .820... .9....
9. 9. 8.98 228 m 8... 9.. 32.9 .8 99.9 oz 8... ....3 :89... 832.9 .9.. ... mmm
2. .2. 8 =9 .9..
8 8...... 2.8.
5.3 82.8
2 .. .. 8.6 88%“ 8. 9. c. 8.8... .9.. 88 o 8... 829.8389 .9.. a vmm
.09 9..... .98.. ...3. .898 9.8 . 99.8.. _..3 .. 82...... 88...
c. 9...... 9.9
8. 8.3.8..
..2.9...8..9 82.958.
9. 9. 2.8 8 298 2... 98 9.... 99.. 89. . o 8... 2.28.. 8.32.9 .9.. ... mmm
.8898.
.oumo;
-9.... m 2 8.9.
. .8 .x9. 9..
...m3 8. .838 88..
9. 9. . ..89...< 8... 832.9 .9. 983 oz 8... .....9.. v 9.. 8...... 8... a Nmm
3889.8... m8.o.mxo E 9.. 832.983 .5 9..
82:... 8...
8.83.. 8.... .5.
.89... 3... 9....

 

 

 

83 9..... 9... <

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

211

 

8.. 88....
2 98. 8......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

828.8 98 83 9. .8889... 8.... 3.9... 9.. 8 32.9.8 8... .88. 8... 8 8m
.8898
58.8 228
8.8... .o 889 8...... 83 9. .2.3 88..., 8... 8.8.. 388898 .9. 8... 8.8. 8.298 8... 8 mvm
888.. 2 .9.. 29. 2.89.8. 8889 8...
2.. 98 8.... 82.8 83 9. mzmwfiMfiB 8... 3.889 89.9. 8... 38.9.. 92.888 8... ... 3m
88....
8.. 2.8.8... 9.8
92328 9 8.8.8...
8.3... 889... . 8.8.9.9.. c. .83
.89. 8.. 888. 83 9. 8...... .89. 2... 9..... 8... 99. .883 8.8. 8... 8 m...”
29. 9.29. 38.8..
98 8.85898
8899..
2.8
9. 9. 8.8.8 .89. 2... 8.989 3.9 .9. 8... 8.8. 8... 8 N3.
2 .889. .8.
88..on 9.. 5.3 cm ..%.......“..WMH..MM.HWW .h. 99.. 8.8.. 8.. 3... 8
.9.. 9.2.88 883.... 8 3 8 3 . 89.8 8... 8... 3.. 88x89 9. 8... 88 88.8.88... 8... 8 3m
98 88... 92.8 8 c. . . 9.98.98 9 89. . .89. 9.8 .8838 88.8.8.
8 8839. - 2...... 98 . . 9389.9. .9... 88 8.8.. 88.. m
8.... o3.
8.8 2 83
_ 8.... 28.8.8 E
.9. 983 9.98 9.9. 3.929 .0 .8. 8... E288 8 8.. 98 8... 8 3m
2.... .9.. .8. .8. 3.3.... 9. .0. _

 

 

 

9.. o. 9... 9.9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89. 839.... a 8 9.....
.o 9.... .o 9.... 9.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . 8.88.88...
9. 9. 9888.. 8... ._8 .881 8.8.. o 8... 9.. .8 9...... .8... 8 «mm
88889.9. m.-. 8598 .9 m a 9 9. 89:8
.88. .8 .8. 99.. . .. .. .. _
889. 9.8 9. ..
8.8... m 9.8.. “mm” 98.8 9.88 m.
.o 898. 98 9.8 8. 9. 98 8.9. 8.8... .8... 8.89.9.8 o 9.... 85.8... 88.88 E... .. mom
5 9.8.. 9.8.
- 89989.
9.8
9. 9. 8.98 9.8 8:. m 9. a... 9 .o 89 o 8... 9.9 8... 8 a...”
..o<
. .88. 9.8..
9.8 8.8.8 .88. 9.8..
8.... 9.9.8 8. 8. 988.... ..9.. 8°89... 839.9 02 ..9.. 98.8.... 9.30.. 9 9.... 8 .mm
9.9. .9. 89..
9.8 8.
.98; ..
.8. 9...... 8.8...
9. 9. 8.8328 9.. 9.... ...o9.8 9.89.9.9. oz 5... .88. 8... .. own
.8... 98.. 8.8...
.8.... 8.... .998 89. 9 9...3 8.9... 88 9..
8. 9. 8... m 9.9 8.. 8.98 o 8... 888.8 9 .88. 8... 8 a...“
9.988.. 8...
9.8 8989.8 5.3 9.988 283 _
9.8 .8... 9....
9. 9. 9.88.... .8. 8... 89.899888... 0 .8... 899898.... 8... 8 a...”
89.8.8
98 9.89..
.9 .898
8.58. - .8.
9. 9. .989. .8... .9 9.... 9.... o .8... 59.8.8.8. 8... 8 .8
9.88 8 9.3....
9.88.. 89:98

 

 

 

88.8..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

213

 

.92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9....88888898.
.m 3.63 898 88a
.mm>.mm_.88:8. 8. 8.. .66 8.3.8.. .9: 85.22. £8.82 88 95. .9: a Nam
828 8.28:8 $8. 8... 82
8.8358 .8 8.8.
8.682.. 5.68.
2.8 .8 .288 28.. 8.. 8 8988288 .65 88.5. .588 .o: 88 .8; 22 .9: a an
on £958
mm 8.. 8 on o. 28
2o: .8 Em _ 8 $8. .0: 88 8.. 0.0:... 55 a 8m
.3803 m_ 2.8 .8
.cmEmmcaé ago:
9588 585...". 8. o: . 1 o m. 56 6 *8. m_ mica .9: 88. 885 as a man
m2 5 85:8 @5828
8828..
8. _ 888.com
.E: .80 _ 8:;
88:82.8 282.
8a 3:8 82:
can 32.. 9:8. .8
88205808898 . . . ._m=_zo__o.8m
9,2 8.2 .o 8. o: .8 A... 28.8.. .9: .8.....ch 8.8.5 as 88. 8.2858 .56 a 8m
$.83 a2 26.. 8 @5558...
888 main .858
.8 _ .2. £8 .8.ch
€88.65 38:8
60. .3. .o 6.888
.52. E: .80 ___.m _
._ 05.5.2 88..
o: o: «:8 858% .9: .29.: _ .9.. 2.58... 55 Em _ .2. 882:8 EE 6 5mm
828.7. 8588.
o: o: 8.82% .9: 2.5: .me 868. m... 2.. SE a on.”
m__mtmu_=ocm >5. ..=_o_ 8. o: 8.32 .5 2o: .9: 2.88:8 Emma 85 .o__m 2.. 8m 8.. o. .9: a own

8288 88. m 96.. _

 

 

 

 

 

._ E... ___.s _ Ewan Em _

 

 

 

 

95. 888 ._ 9mm _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E...

a 8.88 8 888..
m. 9.... m8... 8 8..
o. 8.88.... 8... 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8... 88.58.. 8... 8 m _ 88.8 88.8.
8. 8.. 8.8.8 .8... “8.2..“ ...m..m. 88... .8... 88. 88.88 .8 .8... 8 on.”
8.8 8.8.. 8... 8......5. 8.8.2.8 898 .8888
8... 88.88
88... 88.28
m. 8.... 8....
2258
8a.. .8... 8.8.. 8... 8 88.. 88....
8.8... m 8 898 8.8.8. .8. 8 888 88 .888... .88
88.8 .88.. 8.8 .88.. 8.. o.. 8 a m 8.8. 8... - .88 c. 8.. 88.. .o.. 8... m .8 8...... .898 .8... 8 8..
$8.88. 88.9.8 8. 8.. . 5 8.. 9.; 888.. .88 m .8 88
m 8; 8...... 8... $88.88 88:8...
82. .8.... 8...
5.8.... 8.. 8.8 8.8 .E E .8.... .o 8.88
8.85.8888 8.8 8.. o.. 8.8... 8 m. .8... 8.8.8 .o 8.888... .8... 88. 888... .8... m8 mam
0.8.8.8 8....88. . 8 ._ 8 . .. 8 88. 88.; .8.... a 8.8.8.
.8...... 8...
o. 8.8 8... 888.5...
.8 8.. 8... .88....
8.. 8.. .8 8.88.. s... 88.8... 8.. 8 8.... 8.88... 88...... .8... m8 .8
8.8.8... o. .8; =8 8... 8.. 88......8
.8 .88 .8.. 8m
2 .8... 8 .8.... 2.
85.8... N .8 - =8 mmmcmmmwmhfi 8.8.588.
8.. 8.. 8....888. 8.....o< .8. 8. 8.8888 .8... 8888.18.88.80 .8... 8.. 8m
38.8.. .8 8.88. .8“.
_ . ..
8.. 8.. 88.. 8.8... 8... 88. .8888 8.. .8... 88. .8... m8 mom
8:8 8:8 88.
8.. 8.. 88.8.8 28.. .8... o. 8.... 88.88 .8... .8 8:... 8.8.. .8... m8 Em
8.8
0.. 8.. .8... 8.. .8... 88. 88.8.8... .8... 88 mom

 

 

 

8.8 8.8.. 8...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

215

 

88.8.88 .0..
8 . 888.. 8. 8.8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.8.8.8000 8.0.8....
.8800... 8.88 80.8
0. 800 80.... .. 88808.. 8.858.888. .08. ....8 .0.. 0.002. 80....0 8.8.8.... 08
8. 0.. 80.8 .8... oz 00... ...... 80 Km
08 8.8.8.... 88 0. ... 8800... 8 0. .0 8.8. ..0 888.... 8.8.. .8 88. 0.0
800 0... ..8. .... 8080 . .. .. 8 ....8; 8.8.8
8.8:... 08.8.88
0.08..
830. ... 8.. 8.....00...
...0; 88$...
0.. 0.. 80.008 8.0... .8... ..0..8......8.. 8. .00.. oz .8... 008......88. 88.8.... 00... 80 8...
0.8.. 8.. 0.. ....0 8 an0 E 8.68. ... 8 8. .800... .8... 80 mum
.08.. 82.0. 8.8.8000 8...... ......8... 83%. 00 8.0... 8088.. ....8 o 00 0 .. .
0.8.. .
.08.. 08 88.... 8.8.88 8.... 08.008. 8.80...
80.8 8.08 808.888 8.. 0.. ..8. ... 8008.8... 00... 8 80.8 8... ..0 8.8 oz .8... 00.8....88. .....s .8... 800 Em
....8 . .8.... .8 8.0.0.. .0 .8. ......8 .0.. 0.0 8.8.8 8... 8......80 8.8....8 8...
8.8.88.8 8 8; _
8 8 8.8. 88808..
.89... 8.0... ... 8......8 ..0 89.0 8.. ..... . 80.0... 08.8. 8... .0 8.8.0.8..
.....888 8.008 .0 .00 ....8 8.. 0.. .. ......m 00... 8... .....s ......80 ...... oz 00... 8... 0. 800 8. .8... 80 m...
0. ....8 ..8. .0. .0808. 8 80... 8. .0.. 0.0 8.8.8 8... 88.88. 5.88008
.. . 8. . .0 8.8.8.8 8...
8088.0. 0.8.. 988..
0.. 0.. 8...... 80.8 00... 1.0.... 8... .0 3.8.8 o .8... 8088.0. 8.. .8... 80 N...
8.0.. 8...
8 8.... ..0...
. .8 “:88“... 8... 8.0.0.....”.mm...w. 8mm“... ... .0008... 8... 830.8.
0.. 0.. - 88.08 .8888 ...... . . 8. o 00... 08 88. 88.088 .8... 800 Km

 

 

 

08 ...00. 8 .8.
- 800 8.... 8 ....
88. ... .... 8.8..

8.608. ..0. 8... .0008
82888.08 8.

0. 0.8.. 08.00....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

216

 

98:. 9..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o: 8 o. 9 ... 8.. m m. 9. m 8:. .8. 88....8..9 .89.. .9: 8o 8..
98.. 88.880 88.8... 85. 888 95. m m 8 o: m
. .o 8898:... 8.. 8 .8... .9689 5.; .9: ..cm.>.88.a a... 9... o .89 m 8.... 889.. .9.. m8 8m
.59 85. c. 58 8.82.889 ta... 8 ...o 9.8 2 882.829 9..
c8 8.8.8.88 ._o< .. . :
8.2.6..V
85.8.. .898.
8.8 898 .98 .
bmm.8...§.cmem>oe 8» 9. So. 9.8 .9: 2.8 9.. 8.5.8.9 o 5... 888.0. 58.8.96 8:. 8 8m
..2 o... .8889... .59. ES. 858.8 .88 58:8
. 98 90. 38.8..
98.8.98.
.8......9 9.8... 9......
3.9.. c... 8 .88...
. 85m 8:. 8.858
89. 9.9. 8.5.5
895...... 9.8.. .8. .92
c... 9.8:..08559. 8.. o: 8.8 88.8 8:. 29:8 9.. 9.88. o 8:. E985 8:9 80m .8. m8 8m
m 832.2 98.8
new 8.9:...— Eo... .9. 8 8.5.... ..m
89:. 8899.38
n8 9.2.8 - :8
29. .0 08.96 ES.
8.. .8: .8 8288
..8. 9.0 o:
8.. 8.. 8,—5.2 .9.. -889. 8.8.8.8 o 8:. 8.5.... .9.. m8 «8
.9. m. 8.8 9..
.08 826. a... .8; 3829.9 859..
o: o: .....m... 88.99. 8:. o. 9.... 888 .9. o .9.. 859.2 8.32.2 8:. 8o Sn
8 o: 8.889 ...E 3.58 88:9. 02 8:. 8... 8:99.326. .5... 80 own
...989 .0. 826.8 88....88.
9.2. 9.... 888.8 o ..m... 9.898 98.8.8 .9.. 8 2m
:88. .8; 0. b3... 88. .o
o: o: 8:84. So. 8:. .29.... 8.58.9. o .9.. 8.8:... 8.8398 .8. m8 Em

 

 

 

.9288

88.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o: o: 8. m .m a 8 . 8... 9 m. ...: 8 .o: 2.. oz 8.: 88. 8.2.88 0 .9: 9... .8
88:8... 828....
o: o: 8:.. 8.... .9.. 8... 998 o 8... 88.9.. 8.2.2.0. o 8.: ... mam
99: 82. 8.5 9.. ..8 28:8... .955
o: o: 2.8 8598 8.: 8.59 .o .8. o 8:. 59.89. .89.. o .9: ... Nam
”Luau“... S .380...
o: 0: 5.9.5.0. .228 8.: 8. 8.. .9. 98... 02 8E 88 :8th o 8.: ... .8
9 8855.99.
5 9:8 8:8
.8: 8. ....8 38:99..
8. .8.... 88.... 8.8.. 8.5
o: o: 8.88.. 8...... 5E . ..8 8.8 98 . o .9: 9.. 8 9.... 888 o .9: ... 8m
8... 8.9... 8; 2.8 m8. 8 .... 88. 2.. _
888.8 :88. .
..8 59. .59. .8...... 2.99. 859%. 8.8.: .wmuwfi 929.8 9 “WM”.
.5... 9.. “5%.“... ......mwwmm 8. 8. m m ”...... “...”..mcm .8. 88. 8u8EE89. oz .9: m ....5 08... 0.8 o 8.: 80 mm.”
.o. m m 2 .wm m...%m .m .....o..... ......< .....o... - 9.. 929.8 .0: .8.... 8.. m 8..
2:58 88.. 88... .85. .8 :85. ...o 2.8 .8: .8m .98... 85.5 9..
8.8.9.. 59.. 8..
859. 2.28 .
. 8822...... .o. .8...
2.8 9.. .0 8289.8. -
o: 0: 8598.88... 8.: 9.. 8.6. ..8... oz 8:. ..Mwmfimwmfimafiw o .9: 9... 8m
:88... 928 9.. . .
9.. 2.. 928 9..
52:;
99.. 8.85.8... .:2...9.E8
88.9. o. .o. .89 .9. o.
289. 2859.8 ..8 88. 99: 9.59: m 8858..
888.: 8.. o. 882 85:98.. 8.58. ..8 .88... 8 9.9. .9.:
8.5.5 8.29-89. 5 8. o: ..8 .98.. 2.. .9: 8... 99,8 99: o 8.: .285... oz .9.. 9.0 :8
8.898 9228 9...: 83 .. 8.... .8... 9.. ... 8288...
..82 .38. 8.5.... ...o; 9.8.9.8
29. ..8 .8: 9.. ....z ..8 88. 832...“.

98.9. 808898...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

898.. 8:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o: o: .. .88.... 8:.. 8:. 8:9 8:8 888 o .9: .9: ... Nov
...... 2.8 8.9..
8.. ......
9:. a... 9.9. 88... I.
88 ..8. 9 88: 8 a Maw... o .M...
.. 8 ......z. 8 88 .. . . : h.“ . 9...: ...... . m
88.. m. 8980 9.8 E ._ 8 .88... 8.8.. .8... ..9
.. . . 88.: .9... 5 . . ..8 39988
8.. 8:8 ...9 9:8 8.. o: . . 8.: ..:8: .. ...m «8 8.. o 8.: .8. ... .8
.8 8.8 m .8 88.88.88.888.
...: 8.8:. 8.88 898 9. . ..8 9:88. . 9.. ...... ...: 8 9 8:88.
988... 98.8.9. 8:.. ....E .98 m... 9.9.. o. 8...... : .
8:. 8:; 8.8 8:. .8. 898.. E...
. .82 .85. .80 _ 8 .
98.. m 8: 8:.. ...).
88:8... 8.8.: .
m 8 o. 888 99.8 9.8 .98.. 8.. m ... _......w_......>...h......m8_;
8:. .. ....9...:. 8:. 5 8.. o: 8.8... .85.. .8. 988m... .8.. .88. o 8:. :. .9. .. ..... 8:. 8.. 8..
8.28 9.:2. 8:88 5 9:989. 8. 8.9.85 9. ...:8 .88. ..8 8:9
8.:. 9.8 .5. 85.8.... 88:...
.958
......8... ... .8. .59. 8.. o: 8.:. 8:.. 8:. 59. o .9: m. 8.5 9.. 88:8 .8. m8 mam
8.9. - 8.8.08.8
88.. 59.9
89.9.. 9 9.... ..:9:8.o>o..
o: o: .85. 8...... 5.: 8:9 8.88. .0: oz 8.: 989: 808.9. 8.: 8.. 8..
8.8.8.8 8:9
5 888 ”.8 59. .. 89.80 . 898:. 9...: .flwommmu 8:9 ..8 9.... .
8.8.8.8 : m8. 8 o: 88.8.: - 8:.. .9: 888 .o: .880... o 8... .o .898 .98... .9: 8.. ..mm
8:.. .8...... m. 8.8:. a
5.8: 99885
8:.. 888 8.88:.
o: o: .88 8:98 5.: .8: ... .9888 02 .9: 85.98 ... 8.8.... .9: 8: 8m
0. 8589 .8 8:9 88.8.8 ...: .8 98 89.8....
o: o: 8:.. .8: 8.: 85.8 8.. m. 8.:. o ...... 88. .o 8.8.: v .9: 8.. mam

 

 

 

5 89:8... 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

219

 

:28...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.228 822.8 .0 82. .o 09.2 ...mm 28 89% .23 52.25
9.2. m .28 .22. 28 8.. o: c. m .8 8.. 8:. 822.2% 2 2.... o 82 .8; _ .2.. «.885 .2: a 2..
2....032 2. 22. 82... . ... a . 22.. m8oz 85...... 22.2 ... 9.22...
.2. 2.2.88...
8.82.8.8 .2.
.2. .222. m... 2.2.8 82252 .. 9.32.2 En. 2..
... mm; _ 8;; 2.222. 82.2. 2. 2 882.8 .0 22.882282
2:... .222 82% 2 8.. o: 2.. 222. .8; .2.. mm; _ 2...; 2.8 2.. oz .2.. 2.. 8:. ... o S
2... 2.2...26 2.26.... m ....m :26... 8303 2.2.2.22. _ 2 8.2.8 _ 8:88
38...... 2,2. _
82.22.28
.8.... .8; . ._ .8. .2 388.888...
. .2. a 82.2.
2.2. mflumnhhmfiwmmm oz .2.. 2.25. 2822.2 8... a mow
2.2... .22.. m 83 .. 822.. 22.2 2..
82.2.2 28 2......
2222.. m 8.. _
86...... .282 2 92.2.82...
2. 2. .228 822% 8... 22: 82. o 8:. 2828.. 8.282 .2.. a wow
8.8.2.. 28
.228 82.8
2. 2. 2..%. 8.8 8:. .208 2.. 2... oz .2.. .28.. www.mwflwwmfi” .2.. a 8..
852% .298 8. 2.. to 22m .8... 22.2 2.. 2 8.22%
82 2. 22 2.8 ...E 8.8.. o 8:. 8.8.. . .2.. .a wow
. ....2 .o: m. 2.8 2.. .
828% 8:2 2..
2. 2. 8.28% 82 2.... 2.2.82 .o .8. o 8:. ... 2.... 2.. 9.22. .2.. ... wow
22% 2.. .o ...mmnmwmmmmmh 2mm
2. 2. 2“...” Mumbom 8... - .m2. 2 2..... 388 oz .2.. 5.8.2.. 2.. .2.; 2.. 82 a vow
. ._ ... 2.2:. 2.. 8.2.. .2.
.62. 28
.8: c. 822% .82.. 8. 2. 2..% 82:... 8... 2.2.2.2 .o .8. o 8:. 89% .o .....2... .2.. a 8..

E2 .82.. 8.92.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

220

 

 

 

 

 

82... 2 .2:
...2. :. 88.2.8 28:8. 2.: .o m :m .m 28 .. 2.2 228
8» 8.. 2...o 88m... .2: to we“... 588..“0: oz ..2: 2.. 2.2. 2:25 ..2: So 3..
2... 2 m: mom a . . 38...... 2.882
. ..2 .322: 8.2::
Emma 2.8 ...o; 8.58.
2.. ..2. 2 82:2... 8 9.8 28
25: .2. :8 2.2:. :m o 8.: 882: 822.582 .2: 2.0 m3
.2... 252:2 8.2. 2.. 2.; 8.22m
80: .8. 8% o ..2: 8:2 8% 8:. 2.0 N S

 

 

 

 

oo. .02. 9:28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

221

APPENDIX J

Raw Data

to
[\J
Ix.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subject situatio cdsorder iri1 iri2 iri3 M4

1 301 CC fail/succ 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00

2 302 CC fail/succ 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

3 303 CC fail/succ 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

4 304 CC fail/succ 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00

5 305 CC fail/succ 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

6 306 CC fail/succ .00 3.00 3.00 3.00

7 307 CC fail/succ .00 4.00 .00 3.00

8 308 CC fail/succ .00 3.00 2.00 .00

9 309 CC fail/succ 4.00 4.00 1 .00 3.00
10 310 CC fail/succ 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
11 31 1 CC succ/fail .00 4.00 1.00 4.00
12 312 CC succ/fail 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00
13 313 CC succ/fail 1.00 3.00 4.00 2.00
14 314 CC succ/fail 3.00 3.00 .00 2.00
15 315 CC succ/fail 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
16 316 CC succ/fail 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
17 317 CC succ/fail 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00
18 318 CC succ/fail 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
19 319 CC succ/fail 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
20 320 CC succ/fail 1 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00
21 321 CA succ/fail 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
22 322 CA succ/fail 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
23 323 CA succ/fail 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
24 324 CA succ/fail 1 .00 4.00 .00 3.00
25 325 CA succ/fail 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
26 326 CA succ/fail 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00
27 327 CA succ/fail 4.00 3.00 1 .00 1 .00
28 328 CA succ/fail 4.00 3.00 .00 2.00
29 329 CA succ/fail .00 2.00 1 .00 2.00
30 330 CA succ/fail 4.00 4.00 2.00 1 .00
31 331 CA succ/fail 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
32 332 CA succlfail 3.00 4.00 3.00 .00
33 333 CA succ/fail 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
34 334 CA succ/fail 3.00 4.00 .00 3.00
35 335 CA fail/succ 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
36 336 CA fail/succ 1 .00 2.00 1 .00 .00
37 337 CA fail/succ 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
38 338 CA fail/succ 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri5 M6 M7 M8 iri9 iri10 iri1 1

1 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00

2 2.00 3.00 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00

3 4.00 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00

4 4.00 2 .00 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 4.00

5 3.00 .00 2.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

6 .00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00

7 4.00 1 .00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00

8 .00 3.00 1 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

9 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
10 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
1 1 4.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00
12 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
13 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00
14 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
15 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
16 3.00 4.00 .00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 3.00
17 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
18 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
19 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
20 .00 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1 .00 4.00
21 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 .
22 .00 3.00 .00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
23 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 4.00
24 1 .00 2.00 1 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
25 3.00 1 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 .00
26 2.00 1 .00 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
27 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
28 4.00 1 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
29 3.00 .00 1.00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 3.00
30 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
31 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
32 4.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 1 .00 1 .00 4.00
33 4.00 2.00 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
34 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 4.00
35 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
36 2.00 2.00 .00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00
37 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
38 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00

 

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri12 iri1 3 iri14 iri15 iri16 iri17 M18

1 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

2 3.00 1 .00 1 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 .00

3 3.00 .00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

4 4.00 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00

5 2.00 .00 .00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00

6 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00

7 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 4.00

8 .00 1 .00 2 .00 1.00 .00 3.00 1.00

9 2.00 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
10 .00 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
1 1 2.00 .00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
12 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
13 1 .00 1 .00 .00 . . . .
14 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
15 3.00 .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
16 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
17 4.00 .00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
18 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00
19 .00 .00 1.00 3.00 1 .00 1.00 3.00
20 .00 .00 3.00 1.00 .00 1.00 3.00
21 .00 .00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
22 .00 .00 3.00 3.00 .00 1.00 3.00
23 2.00 .00 .00 3.00 1 .00 1.00 3.00
24 1 .00 .00 3.00 3.00 1 .00 4.00 3.00
25 .00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 1 .00 .00
26 2.00 .00 1 .00 .00 .00 1.00 2.00
27 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
28 3.00 .00 2.00 .00 4.00 3.00 3.00
29 .00 .00 2.00 1.00 .00 1.00 3.00
30 1.00 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00
31 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00
32 3.00 .00 2.00 1 .00 3.00 2.00 3.00
33 1.00 .00 2.00 .00 1 .00 2.00 2.00
34 3.00 .00 1 .00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
35 4.00 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
36 2.00 .00 2.00 .00 1 .00 1.00 3.00
37 .00 1.00 2.00 .00 .00 1.00 2.00
38 4.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri19 iri20 iri21 iri22 iri23 iri24 iri25

1 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 2.00

2 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

3 .00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 .00 3.00

4 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00

5 .00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 .00 1.00

6 1 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00

7 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00

8 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 .00 .00 3.00

9 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
10 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
11 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00
12 1.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
13 . . . . . . .
14 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00
15 .00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
16 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
17 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 .
18 1 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
19 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
20 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 .00 3.00
21 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
22 1 .00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 1 .00 2.00
23 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
24 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 .00 2.00 4.00
25 .00 3.00 3.00 2.00 .00 3.00 3.00
26 .00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00
27 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 2.00
28 .00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00
29 .00 4.00 1.00 2.00 .00 .00 1.00
30 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00
31 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00
32 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00
33 .00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
34 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 1 .00
35 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
36 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
37 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 .
38 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.00

 

226

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri26 iri27 iri28 in jseves behavios outcomes cds1s

1 1 .00 1.00 4.00 major compliant success 5.00

2 2.00 2.00 4.00 moderate compliant success 4.00

3 4.00 .00 4.00 major compliant success 6.00

4 4.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 5.00

5 4.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 1 .00

6 .00 3.00 4.00 major compliant success 6.00

7 3.00 1.00 4.00 minor compliant success 1 .00

8 .00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 1 .00

9 3.00 1 .00 4.00 moderate compliant success 4.00
10 3.00 1.00 4.00 major compliant success 8.00
1 1 4.00 1.00 4.00 minor compliant success 4.00
12 4.00 1 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 3.00
13 . . . moderate compliant success 5.00
14 2.00 2.00 3.00 major compliant success 2.00
15 2.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 8.00
16 2.00 2.00 2.00 major compliant success 5.00
17 4.00 1 .00 4.00 major compliant success 6.00
18 4.00 3.00 3.00 moderate compliant success 3.00
19 1 .00 1 .00 4.00 major compliant success 3.00
20 3.00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 3.00
21 4.00 1 .00 4.00 major compliant success 9.00
22 1 .00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 8.00
23 3.00 1 .00 4.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
24 3.00 1 .00 4.00 major compliant success 8.00
25 1.00 3.00 3.00 moderate non-compli success 7.00
26 3.00 1 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
27 4.00 1 .00 2.00 major compliant success 7.00
28 4.00 1.00 3.00 moderate non-compli success 6.00
29 .00 .00 4.00 minor compliant success 5.00
30 2.00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 7.00
31 2.00 1 .00 4.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
32 4.00 1 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
33 2.00 2.00 4.00 major compliant success 8.00
34 4.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 5.00
35 4.00 2.00 3.00 major compliant success 9.00
36 4.00 1 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 2.00
37 2.00 2.00 4.00 moderate compliant success 3.00
38 4.00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 4.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

227

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds23 cds3s cds4s cds5s cds6s cds7s cdsBs

1 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 9.00 5.00

2 6.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00

3 6.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 6.00

4 4.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 5.00

5 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00

6 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

7 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00

8 5.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 1 .00 9.00 5.00

9 4.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 6.00
10 7.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 7.00
11 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 . 7.00 1.00
12 2.00 2.00 6.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 8.00
13 7.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 7.00
14 2.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 3.00
15 6.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 6.00 3.00
16 5.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 3.00 4.00 6.00
17 7.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 .
18 1.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 8.00
19 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 .
20 3.00 1 .00 4.00 8.00 1 .00 1 .00 7.00
21 9.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 4.00
22 9.00 1.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 1.00
23 9.00 3.00 9.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 3.00
24 8.00 8.00 4.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 4.00
25 9.00 3.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 5.00 6.00
26 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
27 6.00 7.00 6.00 2.00 8.00 5.00 4.00
28 4.00 6.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 8.00 2.00
29 9.00 2.00 9.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 2.00
30 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 7.00
31 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 1.00
32 9.00 9.00 9.00 1 .00 9.00 9.00 1.00
33 9.00 9.00 9.00 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00
34 9.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 4.00
35 9.00 2.00 8.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 6.00
36 5.00 7.00 3.00 1 .00 4.00 6.00 2.00
37 7.00 8.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 7.00
38 4.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 2.00

 

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cdst cds1 Os cdst 1s cds12s responss expects ptes

1 5.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 the ATIPT 9.00 9.00

2 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 the ATIPT 5.00 6.00

3 5.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00

4 5.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 8.00

5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00

6 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 the athlete 6.00 8.00

7 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00

8 1.00 5.00 9.00 5.00 the athlete .00 .00

9 4.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 the athlete 7.00 7.00
10 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 the AT/PT 7.00 7.00
11 9.00 9.00 . 7.00 the athlete 7.00 9.00
12 5.00 6.00 2.00 8.00 the athlete 2.00 5.00
13 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
14 6.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 the athlete 7.00 6.00
15 8.00 6.00 2.00 6.00 the athlete 9.00 5.00
16 4.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 the doctor 8.00 8.00
17 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 7.00
18 2.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 the athlete 8.00 8.00
19 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 the athlete 2.00 4.00
20 5.00 6.00 1.00 7.00 the athlete 8.00 8.00
21 8.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 me-the athl 6.00 9.00
22 8.00 9.00 1.00 4.00 me-the athl 8.00 8.00
23 9.00 9.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
24 8.00 5.00 3.00 6.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
25 6.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 the ATIPT 6.00 7.00
26 7.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 me—the athl 9.00 9.00
27 9.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 7.00 4.00
28 8.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 me-the athl 3.00 2.00
29 9.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
30 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 me-the athl 6.00 5.00
31 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 7.00 9.00
32 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
33 8.00 9.00 5.00 3.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
34 8.00 7.00 2.00 3.00 me ATIPT 5.00 8.00
35 6.00 8.00 1.00 7.00 me-the athl 8.00 7.00
36 7.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
37 8.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 me-the athl 9.00 6.00
38 7.00 7.00 3.00 2.00 me-the athl 6.00 9.00

 

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

athsexs athspts in jsevef behaviof outcomef cds1f cds2f

1 male swimming moderate compliant failure 4.00 5.00

2 female softball major compliant failure 6.00 2.00

3 female soccer moderate non-compli failure 3.00 8.00
4 female swimming moderate non-compli failure 5.00 4.00

5 female soccer moderate compliant failure 2.00 6.00
6 female softball moderate compliant failure 6.00 7.00

7 female soccer major non-compli failure 8.00 9.00
8 female basketba major compliant success 1 .00 5.00
9 female soccer moderate non-compli failure 4.00 2.00
10 female cheer moderate compliant success 5.00 5.00
11 female volleyba moderate non-compli failure 2.00 8.00
12 female basketba moderate non-compli failure 2.00 6.00
13 female softball major non-compli failure 1.00 9.00
14 female basketba moderate compliant failure 5.00 3.00
15 female basketba major compliant success 7.00 4.00
16 female tennis moderate non-compli failure 7.00 6.00
17 female volleyba moderate compliant success 1.00 6.00
18 female volleyba major non-compli failure 5.00 6.00
19 male basketba moderate compliant success 2.00 5.00
20 female track major non-compli failure 1.00 7.00
21 softball moderate non-compli failure 2.00 8.00
22 basketba moderate non-compli failure 8.00 8.00
23 swimming major compliant success 9.00 9.00
24 softball moderate compliant failure 6.00 5.00
25 moderate compliant success 3.00 3.00
26 basketba moderate compliant success 1 .00 3.00
27 softball major compliant failure 3.00 5.00
28 basketba moderate non-compli failure 7.00 8.00
29 softball moderate non-compli failure 9.00 9.00
30 basketba moderate compliant failure 8.00 8.00
31 basketba moderate non-compli failure 9.00 9.00
32 track moderate non-compli failure 9.00 9.00
33 basketba moderate compliant failure 7.00 7.00
34 basketba moderate compliant success 5.00 8.00
35 soccer moderate non-compli failure 3.00 3.00
36 soccer moderate compliant failure 4.00 5.00
37 basketba moderate compliant success 7.00 9.00
38 volleyba moderate compliant success 9.00 7.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds3f cds4f cds5f cdsSf cds7f cds8f cdsQf

1 3.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 6.00

2 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 7.00 4.00

3 3.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 4.00

4 1.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

5 2.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00

6 4.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

7 5.00 9.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00

8 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1 .00

9 3.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
10 3.00 4.00 7.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 6.00
1 1 1.00 8.00 1.00 . 8.00 1 .00 .
12 4.00 6.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00
13 2.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 6.00
14 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
15 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
16 3.00 7 .00 6 .00 5.00 3 .00 7 .00 6.00
17 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00
18 3.00 5.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 2.00
19 2.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
20 1 .00 8.00 5.00 1.00 1 .00 5.00 3.00
21 3.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 8.00
22 5.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 4.00 2.00 8.00
23 3.00 9.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 9.00
24 3.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00
25 3.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 7.00
26 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 .00 1 .00 7.00
27 2.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 6.00
28 3.00 8.00 4.00 8.00 3.00 4.00 9.00
29 2.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 2.00 1 .00 9.00
30 3.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 6.00 3.00 8.00
31 1.00 9.00 1 .00 9.00 9.00 1 .00 8.00
32 5.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 1.00 9.00
33 6.00 8.00 7.00 9.00 5.00 7.00 8.00
34 4.00 6.00 2.00 7.00 4.00 2.00 7.00
35 1.00 9.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 3.00 7.00
36 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 6.00
37 3.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 7.00 1 .00 6.00
38 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 8.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds10f cds1 1 f cds12f responsf expectf ptef athsexf

1 6.00 3.00 6.00 athlete's pa 7.00 7.00 female
2 4.00 3.00 5.00 the AT/PT 5.00 3.00 female
3 5.00 3.00 7.00 me-the coa 4.00 9.00 female
4 5.00 2.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 8.00 female
5 7.00 1.00 2.00 me-the coa 5.00 8.00 female
6 5.00 5.00 5.00 the athlete 7.00 7.00 female
7 8.00 1.00 7.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00 female
8 1.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 5.00 3.00 female
9 5.00 4.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 6.00 female

10 3.00 4.00 5.00 the athlete 6.00 7.00 female

11 3.00 1.00 1.00 the doctor 4.00 9.00 female

12 4.00 4.00 5.00 the athlete 8.00 8.00 female

13 5.00 6.00 3.00 the athlete .00 9.00 female

14 3.00 5.00 5.00 the athlete 6.00 7.00 female

15 3.00 3.00 3.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00 female

16 6.00 3.00 7.00 me-the coa 8.00 6.00 female

17 6.00 1.00 2.00 the athlete 8.00 8.00 female

18 3.00 2.00 8.00 the athlete 6.00 9.00 female

19 4.00 3.00 5.00 the athlete 5.00 1.00 female

20 7.00 1.00 6.00 the athlete 4.00 3.00 female

21 8.00 2.00 3.00 me-the athl 2.00 2.00

22 8.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 7.00 .00

23 9.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 3.00 9.00

24 5.00 4.00 5.00 me-the athl 3.00 8.00

25 5.00 4.00 2.00 me-the athl 8.00 8.00

26 2.00 8.00 2.00 other 2.00 3.00

27 5.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 5.00 5.00

28 9.00 3.00 4.00 me-the athl 2.00 4.00

29 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 6.00 9.00

30 9.00 5.00 2.00 me-the athl 6.00 8.00

31 8.00 1.00 2.00 me-the athl 7.00 6.00

32 9.00 5.00 1.00 me-the athl 7.00 4.00

33 8.00 5.00 7.00 me-the athl 4.00 9.00

34 6.00 4.00 5.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00

35 7.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 2.00 8.00

36 4.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 2.00 7.00

37 7.00 5.00 1.00 me-the athl 7.00 6.00

38 8.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 7.00 9.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

232

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

athsptf age sex ethnicit cchyrs sptlevel numspts
1 volleyba 25.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 2.00
2 volleyba 56.00 female Caucasian 10.00 interschola 3.00
3 soccer 23.00 female Caucasian 6.00 interschola 1.00
4 swimming 31.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 1.00
5 soccer 25.00 male Caucasian 4.00 intercollegi 1.00
6 softball 21.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 1.00
7 soccer 50.00 female Caucasian 27.00 interschola 1.00
8 basketba 25.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 2.00
9 soccer 28.00 female Caucasian 5.00 interschola 2.00
10 cheer 49.00 female Caucasian 10.00 interschola 1.00
11 volleyba 47.00 female Caucasian 20.00 interschola 3.00
12 basketba 24.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 2.00
13 softball 30.00 female Caucasian 9.00 interschola 1.00
14 basketba 37.00 female Caucasian 13.00 interschola 1.00
15 basketba 38.00 female Caucasian 15.00 interschola 1.00
16 tennis 45.00 female Caucasian 5.00 interschola 1.00
17 volleyba 26.00 female Caucasian 2.00 interschola 2.00
18 volleyba 26.00 female Caucasian 1.00 interschola 1.00
19 track 30.00 female Caucasian 5.00 interschola 3.00
20 track 34.00 female Caucasian 11.00 interschola 2.00
21 basketba 26.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 3.00
22 volleyba 35.00 female Caucasian 12.00 interschola 1.00
23 swimming 30.00 female Caucasian 5.00 interschola 1.00
24 basketba 25.00 female Caucasian 2.00
25 basketba 29.00 female Caucasian 6.00 . .
26 basketba 30.00 female Caucasian 8.00 interschola 1.00
27 softball 31.00 female Caucasian 8.00 interschola 1.00
28 basketba 27.00 female Caucasian 2.00 interschola 2.00
29 softball 25.00 female Caucasian 7.00 interschola 1.00
30 basketba 29.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 1.00
31 volleyba 31.00 female Caucasian 10.00 interschola 1.00
32 basketba 27.00 female Caucasian 1.00 interschola 1.00
33 soccer 30.00 female Caucasian 9.00 interschola 2.00
34 basketba 24.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 2.00
35 basketba 22.00 female Caucasian 3.00 interschola 2.00
36 soccer 45.00 female Caucasian 7.00 interschola 2.00
37 basketba 34.00 male Caucasian 10.00 interschola 2.00
38 volleyba 21.00 female Caucasian 4.00 interschola 2.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

233

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sptcch1 sexof1 cchposit doctor paydoc trainer cprfa

1 swimming fema|e&m head coac yes no yes yes

2 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes

3 soccer female head coac yes no yes no

4 swimming female&m assistant c no no yes yes

5 soccer male assistant c yes yes yes no

6 softball female assistant c yes no yes yes

7 soccer female head coac yes no yes yes

8 basketba female head coac no no yes yes

9 soccer female head coac no no no yes
10 cheer female head coac yes yes yes yes
11 x-countr . head coac yes no yes yes
12 basketba female assistant 0 no no no yes
13 softball female head coac yes no yes yes
14 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
15 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
16 tennis female&m head coac yes no yes yes
17 track female&m assistant c yes yes yes no
18 volleyba female assistant c no no yes no
19 basketba female head coac no no no yes
20 x-countr female head coac yes no yes yes
21 basketba female assistant 0 yes yes yes yes
22 softball female head coac no no no yes
23 swimming female&m head coac no no yes yes
24 assistant o no yes yes yes
25 . . no no yes yes
26 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
27 softball female head coac yes yes yes yes
28 basketba female assistant c yes yes yes yes
29 volleyba female assistant c yes no yes yes
30 basketba female&m assistant c no no yes yes
31 volleyba female head coac yes no yes yes
32 softball female assistant c no no yes no
33 basketba female head coac no no yes yes
34 basketba female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
35 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
36 soccer female&m assistant c no no no yes
37 basketba female&m assistant 0 yes yes yes yes
38 softball female assistant c no no yes no

 

234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

needcprf athwin j injtype ending continue

1 no yes major yes yes

2 yes yes major no no

3 yes moderate no yes

4 no no moderate no no

5 no yes major no no

6 yes yes moderate no no

7 yes no none

8 no yes moderate no no

9 no yes moderate no yes
10 no no none .
1 1 no yes moderate no yes
12 yes yes major no no
13 no no major no no
14 yes yes minor no no
15 no yes minor no yes
16 no yes moderate no yes
17 no no moderate no yes
18 no minor no yes
19 yes no major no no
20 no yes moderate no no
21 yes no major no yes
22 no no major no no
23 no no minor no no
24 no yes moderate no yes
25 yes moderate no yes
26 yes yes moderate no yes
27 yes yes moderate no yes
28 yes yes minor no no
29 yes no none
30 yes yes moderate no yes
31 yes yes major no yes
32 yes moderate no no
33 no yes minor no no
34 no yes major no yes
35 no yes moderate no no
36 yes no major no yes
37 no yes minor no no
38 no yes moderate no yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

235

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subject situatio cdsorder iri1 iri2 iri3 iri4
39 339 CA fail/succ 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
40 340 CA fail/succ 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
41 341 CA succlfail 1.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
42 342 CA succlfail 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
43 343 CA succlfail 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00
44 344 CA succlfail .00 3.00 3.00 3.00
45 345 CA succlfail .00 2.00 2.00 2.00
46 346 CA succlfail 3.00 4.00 1.00 1 .00
47 347 CA succlfail 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
48 348 CA succlfail 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 3.00
49 349 CA succlfail 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
50 350 CA succlfail 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00
51 351 CA succlfail 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
52 352 CA succlfail 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
53 353 CA fail/succ 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
54 354 CA fail/succ 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
55 355 CA fail/succ .00 4.00 2.00 3.00
56 356 CA fail/succ .00 .00 4.00 3.00
57 357 CA fail/succ .00 4.00 3.00 3.00
58 358 CA fail/succ 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
59 359 CA fail/succ 3.00 3.00 2.00 1 .00
60 360 CA fail/succ 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
61 361 CA fail/succ 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
62 362 CA fail/succ 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
63 363 CC fail/succ 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
64 364 CC fail/succ 1 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00
65 365 CC fail/succ 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
66 366 CC fail/succ 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00
67 367 CC fail/succ 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
68 368 CC fail/succ 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
69 369 CC fail/succ .00 3.00 3.00 2.00
70 370 CC fail/succ 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
71 371 CC fail/succ 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00
72 372 CC fail/succ .00 4.00 4.00 4.00
73 373 CC fail/succ .00 2.00 4.00 2.00
74 374 CC fail/succ 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
75 375 CC fail/succ .00 2.00 4.00 3.00
76 376 CC fail/succ .00 3.00 3.00 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

236

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri5 iri6 iri7 iri8 iri9 iri10 iri1 1
39 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00
40 4.00 3.00 1 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
41 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
42 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 4.00
43 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
44 4.00 .00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
45 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
46 2.00 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 .00 3.00
47 2.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
48 2.00 1 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
49 3.00 1 .00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
50 2.00 .00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
51 .00 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 .00 4.00
52 1 .00 1 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2 .00 2.00
53 4.00 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 4.00
54 .00 1 .00 1 .00 4.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
55 .00 .00 1 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00
56 .00 .00 4.00 2.00 1 .00 .00 1.00
57 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
58 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
59 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
60 4.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 .00 3.00
61 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00
62 4 .00 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
63 2.00 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 .00 2.00
64 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
65 2.00 1 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
66 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
67 2.00 1 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
68 3.00 .00 1.00 2.00 4.00 .00 2.00
69 .00 .00 1 .00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00
70 1 .00 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
71 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
72 2.00 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 4.00
73 2.00 .00 1.00 4.00 3.00 .00 4.00
74 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
75 2.00 1.00 2 .00 4.00 3.00 1 .00 3.00
76 .00 .00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

237

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri12 iri13 iri14 iri15 iri16 iri17 iri18
39 1 .00 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
40 3.00 1.00 3.00 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00
41 .00 .00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
42 2.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 .00 3.00 4.00
43 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 .00 2.00 2.00
44 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
45 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
46 2.00 .00 2.00 1.00 2.00 .00 3.00
47 3.00 .00 1.00 2.00 .00 .00 3.00
48 1.00 1 .00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
49 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
50 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
51 .00 .00 4.00 3.00 .00 .00 4.00
52 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
53 4.00 .00 2.00 3.00 .00 .00 2.00
54 1 .00 1.00 2.00 .00 .00 1 .00 2.00
55 .00 .00 4.00 2.00 .00 .00 4.00
56 4.00 1 .00 2.00 3.00 .00 .00 2.00
57 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1 .00 3.00
58 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1 .00 3.00
59 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
60 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 4.00
61 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 4.00
62 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1 .00 4.00
63 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 .00 4.00
64 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1 .00 2.00 3.00
65 3.00 3.00 1 .00 2.00 .00 4.00 4.00
66 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 4.00
67 1.00 .00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1 .00 .00
68 4.00 .00 2.00 2.00 .00 .00 4.00
69 .00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1 .00 .00 3.00
70 4.00 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00 .00 4.00
71 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
72 4.00 .00 4.00 4.00 2.00 .00 .00
73 2.00 .00 1.00 3.00 .00 .00 4.00
74 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
75 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
76 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 .00 .00 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

238

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri19 iri20 iri21 iri22 iri23 iri24 iri25
39 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
40 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
41 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
42 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 .00 3.00
43 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 .00 3.00
44 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 .00 2.00
45 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
46 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 .00 2.00
47 .00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 .00 1.00
48 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00
49 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
50 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00
51 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 .00 3.00
52 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
53 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 4.00
54 .00 3.00 4.00 2.00 .00 .00 2.00
55 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 .00 4.00
56 .00 1 .00 2.00 .00 .00 .00 1 .00
57 1.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 .00 2.00
58 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
59 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
60 .00 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 .00 1.00
61 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 4.00
62 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 .00 2.00
63 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 .00 2.00
64 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
65 .00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
66 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
67 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
68 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 .00 2.00
69 .00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 .00 1.00
70 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 .00 4.00
71 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
72 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 .00 4.00
73 .00 1.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 .00 3.00
74 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
75 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00
76 1.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 .00 .00 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri26 iri27 iri28 in jseves behavios outcomes cds1s
39 3.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 7.00
40 4.00 1.00 4.00 moderate compliant success 7.00
41 1.00 1.00 4.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
42 2.00 .00 4.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
43 1.00 .00 2.00 moderate compliant success 7.00
44 1.00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 3.00
45 2.00 1 .00 1.00 moderate compliant success 8.00
46 2.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 8.00
47 1.00 .00 1.00 moderate compliant success 8.00
48 1 .00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 9.00
49 2.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 5.00
50 2.00 1.00 2.00 moderate compliant success 7.00
51 .00 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 7.00
52 1.00 1.00 2.00 major compliant success 9.00
53 .00 .00 3.00 minor compliant success 1 .00
54 1.00 1 .00 2.00 major compliant success 6.00
55 .00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 9.00
56 .00 .00 1.00 minor compliant success 8.00
57 2.00 1.00 3.00 minor compliant success 9.00
58 3.00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 7.00
59 3.00 2.00 2.00 major compliant success 4.00
60 3.00 .00 3.00 minor compliant success 5.00
61 2.00 1.00 4.00 major compliant success 1.00
62 2.00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 5.00
63 1 .00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 1.00
64 2.00 1 .00 2.00 major compliant success 1.00
65 1.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 1.00
66 3.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 6.00
67 3.00 1 .00 2.00 moderate compliant success 4.00
68 3.00 .00 2.00 moderate compliant success 1.00
69 1 .00 .00 1 .00 major compliant success 2.00
70 3.00 .00 4.00 moderate compliant success 1.00
71 2.00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 3.00
72 4.00 .00 4.00 major compliant success 1 .00
73 2.00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 6.00
74 2.00 2.00 2.00 major compliant success 1.00
75 1.00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 3.00
76 1.00 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 2.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cdsZs cds3s cds4s cds5s cds6s cds7s cdsBs
39 5.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 5.00
40 7.00 3.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 9.00 6.00
41 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 5.00
42 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 5.00
43 7.00 7.00 9.00 6.00 9.00 7.00 3.00
44 4.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 5.00 3.00 8.00
45 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
46 8.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 2.00
47 8.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 1.00
48 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
49 5.00 5.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00
50 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 4.00
51 8.00 2.00 7.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 7.00
52 9.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 9.00 5.00 5.00
53 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
54 8.00 2.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 7.00 6.00
55 9.00 9.00 9.00 5.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
56 8.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 2.00
57 9.00 9.00 7.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
58 8.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 6.00
59 6.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 6.00
60 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 1.00
61 5.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
62 9.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 8.00 2.00
63 1.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 1.00 5.00 8.00
64 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
65 1.00 3.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 9.00
66 7.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00
67 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 8.00 5.00
68 4.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 9.00 6.00
69 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 6.00
70 1.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 8.00
71 2.00 4.00 3.00 9.00 3.00 2.00 9.00
72 1.00 9.00 1 .00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00
73 2.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 2.00 2.00 7.00
74 3.00 5.00 2.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 9.00
75 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 6.00
76 2.00 7.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 7.00 7.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

241

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds9s cds105 cds1 1s cds12$ responss expects ptes
39 7.00 7.00 2.00 3.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
40 8.00 5.00 1.00 7.00 me-the athl 9.00 2.00
41 9.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 the doctor 5.00 9.00
42 8.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 the doctor 7.00 7.00
43 7.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 me—the athl 7.00 8.00
44 5.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 the ATIPT 5.00 9.00
45 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
46 5.00 9.00 2.00 5.00 me-the athl 9.00 8.00
47 8.00 8.00 6.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 7.00
48 9.00 9.00 1.00 2.00 me-the athl 8.00 4.00
49 6.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
50 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 7.00 8.00
51 4.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 me-the athl 9.00 7.00
52 9.00 9.00 9.00 5.00 me-the athl 7.00 5.00
53 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
54 8.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 . 9.00 9.00
55 9.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
56 8.00 8.00 7.00 2.00 me-the athl 8.00 8.00
57 9.00 9.00 5.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
58 5.00 7.00 3.00 6.00 the ATIPT 6.00 9.00
59 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 6.00 3.00
60 5.00 3.00 8.00 1.00 the ATIPT 9.00 2.00
61 8.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 the doctor 8.00 9.00
62 9.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 8.00 6.00
63 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 8.00 9.00
64 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 the athlete 8.00 8.00
65 3.00 1.00 2.00 8.00 the ATIPT 2.00 9.00
66 8.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 the ATIPT 9.00 5.00
67 4.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 the ATIPT 3.00 2.00
68 5.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 the athlete 5.00 3.00
69 2.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 the athlete 7.00 9.00
70 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 the doctor 8.00 9.00
71 1.00 2.00 2.00 9.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
72 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
73 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
74 1.00 2.00 5.00 9.00 the athlete 6.00 9.00
75 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 7.00
76 2.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 the athlete 9.00 6.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

242

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

athsexs athspts in jsevef behaviof outcomef cds1f cdst
39 basketba moderate compliant success 7.00 7.00
40 track moderate compliant success 5.00 7.00
41 basketba major compliant failure 1.00 4.00
42 footbal moderate compliant failure 3.00 3.00
43 basketba moderate compliant failure 1.00 7.00
44 rowing moderate compliant success 2.00 8.00
45 track major compliant success 1.00 1.00
46 volleyba major compliant success 1 .00 2.00
47 f-hockey major compliant failure 1 .00 1 .00
48 swimming moderate compliant failure 1.00 9.00
49 track moderate compliant . 4.00 6.00
50 lacrosse minor non—compli failure 8.00 8.00
51 soccer moderate non-compli failure 8.00 8.00
52 tennis moderate compliant success 6.00 7.00
53 f-hockey moderate compliant success 5.00 9.00
54 basketba moderate compliant success 2.00 8.00
55 track moderate compliant success 9.00 9.00
56 track major compliant success 8.00 8.00
57 volleyba minor compliant success 2.00 9.00
58 track major compliant failure 2.00 6.00
59 gymnasti major compliant failure 6.00 6.00
60 football moderate compliant success 9.00 5.00
61 gymnasti moderate compliant failure 1.00 3.00
62 . basketba moderate compliant success 2.00 2.00
63 female basketba major compliant success 1.00 1.00
64 male soccer moderate compliant failure 1 .00 1.00
65 female basketba major compliant failure 3.00 1.00
66 male track moderate compliant success 2.00 5.00
67 female track minor compliant success 4.00 4.00
68 female crew major compliant failure 1.00 5.00
69 female softball moderate compliant failure 2.00 2.00
70 female basketba moderate compliant failure 7.00 5.00
71 female softball moderate compliant success 5.00 7.00
72 female basketba major compliant success 1 .00 1.00
73 male baseball moderate non-compli failure 6.00 2.00
74 male track major non-compli failure 3.00 4.00
75 male diving moderate compliant success 3.00 6.00
76 male soccer major non-compli failure 2.00 2.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

243

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds3f cds4f cdsSf cdst cds7f cds8f cds9f
39 4.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 7.00
40 2.00 6.00 4.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 7.00
41 2.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 5.00
42 2.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 8.00
43 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 7.00
44 3.00 8.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 7.00
45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 5.00
46 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 5.00
47 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1 .00 5.00
48 1.00 9.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 9.00
49 3.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 7.00
50 6.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 7.00
51 3.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 4.00 2.00 9.00
52 7.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 7.00
53 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 9.00
54 1 .00 8.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 8.00
55 1.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 9.00
56 2.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 8.00
57 1.00 9.00 1 .00 8.00 2.00 1 .00 8.00
58 2.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 7.00
59 3.00 5.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 7.00
60 1.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 1.00 8.00
61 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00
62 3.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 5.00
63 1.00 4.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00
64 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 5.00
65 4.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 1.00
66 2.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 5.00
67 2.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00
68 3.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 1.00
69 2.00 2.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 7.00 2.00
70 3.00 5.00 7.00 3.00 9.00 7.00 2.00
71 3.00 6.00 7.00 3.00 1.00 8.00 5.00
72 1.00 3.00 9.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 7.00
73 2.00 3.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 8.00 3.00
74 3.00 4.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 3.00
75 1.00 7.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 4.00
76 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 2.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

244

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds10f cds1 1f cds12f responsf expectf ptef athsexf
39 7.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
40 6.00 5.00 7.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
41 9.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 5.00 9.00
42 3.00 5.00 2.00 other 5.00 8.00
43 5.00 5.00 2.00 other 7.00 8.00
44 7.00 1.00 7.00 me-the athl 5.00 9.00
45 5.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl .00 9.00
46 2.00 8.00 2.00 other 8.00 8.00
47 1.00 9.00 1.00 other .00 9.00
48 9.00 2.00 4.00 me-the athl 1.00 8.00
49 7.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
50 7.00 4.00 5.00 me-the athl 3.00 8.00
51 9.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 6.00 .00
52 7.00 4.00 7.00 me-the athl 2.00 5.00
53 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
54 7.00 5.00 6.00 me-the athl 8.00 8.00
55 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 5.00 9.00
56 8.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 8.00 7.00
57 8.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 3.00 8.00
58 5.00 3.00 3.00 other 3.00 9.00
59 5.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 4.00 4.00
60 4.00 2.00 1.00 me-the athl 2.00 9.00
61 5.00 1.00 5.00 other 9.00 9.00
62 2.00 4.00 1 .00 other 4.00 8.00 .
63 5.00 1.00 8.00 the athlete 5.00 9.00 female
64 2.00 8.00 2.00 other . 8.00 male
65 1.00 3.00 3.00 the ATIPT 2.00 8.00 female
66 5.00 2.00 2.00 me-the coa 8.00 9.00 female
67 7.00 3.00 1.00 other 5.00 6.00 male
68 5.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete . .00 female
69 1.00 2.00 6.00 the athlete 1.00 9.00 female
70 2.00 2.00 8.00 the athlete 6.00 9.00 female
71 7.00 2.00 7.00 the athlete 7.00 9.00 female
72 5.00 9.00 5.00 the athlete 7.00 9.00 female
73 2.00 2.00 8.00 the athlete 8.00 9.00 male
74 1.00 3.00 9.00 the athlete 4.00 9.00 female
75 7.00 2.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 3.00 male
76 2.00 3.00 8.00 the athlete 2.00 2.00 male

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

athsptf age sex ethnicit cchyrs sptlevel numspts
39 basketba 27.00 female Caucasian 4.00 interschola 1.00
40 basketba 47.00 female Caucasian 8.00 interschola 2.00
41 basketba 60.00 male Caucasian 30.00 intercollegi 1.00
42 baseball 35.00 male Caucasian 19.00 intercollegi 1.00
43 basketba 33.00 male . 9.00 intercollegi 1.00
44 soccer 45.00 female Caucasian 26.00 intercollegi 1.00
45 track 32.00 male Caucasian 10.00 intercollegi 1.00
46 volleyba 32.00 male Caucasian 10.00 intercollegi 1.00
47 f-hockey 26.00 female Other 3.00 intercollegi 1.00
48 soccer 39.00 male Caucasian 22.00 intercollegi 2.00
49 track . male African Am 25.00 intercollegi 2.00
50 lacrosse 41.00 male Hispanic/L 6.00 intercollegi 1.00
51 soccer 32.00 male Hispanic/L 10.00 interschola 2.00
52 tennis 37.00 male Caucasian 15.00 intercollegi 1.00
53 f-hockey 42.00 female Caucasian 22.00 intercollegi 1.00
54 track 47.00 male African Am 23.00 intercollegi 1.00
55 track 32.00 female Caucasian 9.00 intercollegi 1.00
56 track 75.00 male Caucasian 40.00 intercollegi 2.00
57 volleyba 30.00 female Caucasian 7.00 intercollegi 2.00
58 track 25.00 male Caucasian 3.00 intercollegi 2.00
59 basketba 22.00 female Caucasian 1.00 intercollegi 1.00
60 basketba 25.00 male African Am 2.00 interschola 1.00
61 gymnasti 24.00 male Caucasian 2.00 intercollegi 1.00
62 f—hockey 32.00 female Caucasian 8.00 intercollegi 1.00
63 basketba 48.00 female Hispanic/L 22.00 intercollegi 1.00
64 soccer 38.00 male Caucasian 18.00 intercollegi 1.00
65 basketba 34.00 female African Am 7.00 intercollegi 1.00
66 track 27.00 female Caucasian 5.00 intercollegi 2.00
67 track 28.00 male African Am 6.00 intercollegi 1.00
68 crew 33.00 male Caucasian 16.00 intercollegi 1.00
69 softball 40.00 female Caucasian 15.00 intercollegi 1.00
70 basketba 28.00 female Caucasian 6.00 intercollegi 1.00
71 softball 30.00 female Asian Am. 10.00 intercollegi 1.00
72 basketba 54.00 female Caucasian 32.00 intercollegi 1.00
73 baseball 33.00 male Caucasian 7.00 interschola 1.00
74 volleyba 33.00 male Caucasian 11.00 interschola 2.00
75 diving 41.00 male Caucasian 25.00 intercollegi 1.00
76 soccer 55.00 male Caucasian 29.00 intercollegi 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

246

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sptcch1 sexof1 cchposit doctor paydoc trainer cprfa
39 track fema|e&m assistant c no no yes yes
40 basketba female assistant c yes yes yes yes
41 basketba male head coac yes yes yes yes
42 gymnasti female assistant c yes yes yes yes
43 golf male head coac yes yes yes yes
44 crew female head coac yes yes yes yes
45 track . assistant 0 yes yes yes no
46 volleyba female assistant 0 yes yes yes yes
47 f-hockey female assistant c yes yes yes yes
48 swimming female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
49 track female&m head coac yes yes yes no
50 lacrosse male head coac yes yes yes yes
51 golf male head coac yes yes yes yes
52 tennis male head coac yes yes yes yes
53 f—hockey female head coac yes yes yes yes
54 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
55 track female&m assistant 0 yes yes yes yes
56 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
57 basketba female assistant 0 yes yes yes yes
58 track fema|e&m assistant c no no yes yes
59 golf female assistant c yes yes yes no
60 basketba female assistant c yes no yes yes
61 gymnasti female assistant c yes yes yes yes
62 f—hockey female head coac yes yes yes no
63 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
64 soccer male head coac yes yes yes no
65 basketba female assistant c yes yes yes yes
66 track female assistant c yes yes yes yes
67 track fema|e&m assistant c yes no yes yes
68 crew female assistant c yes yes yes yes
69 softball female head coac yes yes yes yes
70 lacrosse female assistant c yes yes yes yes
71 softball female head coac yes yes yes yes
72 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
73 baseball male head coac yes no yes yes
74 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
75 diving female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
76 soccer male head coac yes yes yes yes

 

247

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

needcprf athwin j injtype ending continue

39 no yes none

40 yes no none

41 no yes major yes yes
42 no yes minor no no
43 no yes minor no yes
44 no yes moderate no yes
45 yes yes major no yes
46 no yes moderate no yes
47 no yes moderate no no
48 no yes moderate no no
49 yes moderate no yes
50 yes yes moderate no no
51 . yes moderate yes yes
52 yes yes moderate no no
53 no yes major no yes
54 no yes moderate no no
55 yes yes major no yes
56 no yes major no no
57 no yes major no no
58 yes yes major no yes
59 no yes minor no yes
60 yes yes none

61 no yes major no yes
62 yes major yes yes
63 no yes major no no
64 no yes moderate no no
65 yes yes moderate no no
66 yes yes major no no
67 yes no minor no no
68 no yes moderate no yes
69 no yes major no no
70 yes yes moderate no yes
71 no yes minor no no
72 no yes moderate no no
73 yes yes moderate no yes
74 yes yes moderate no yes
75 no no moderate no yes
76 no yes major no no

 

248

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subject situatio cdsorder iri1 iri2 iri3 iri4
77 377 CC succlfail 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
78 378 CC succ/fail 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
79 379 CC succlfail 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
80 380 CC succlfail 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00
81 381 CC succ/fail 3.00 4.00 1 .00 3.00
82 382 CC succlfail .00 4.00 3.00 1 .00
83 383 CC succlfail 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
84 384 CC succlfail 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
85 385 CC succ/fail 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00
86 386 CC succlfail 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00
87 387 CC succlfail 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
88 388 CC succlfail 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
89 389 CC succlfail 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
90 390 CA fail/succ 1 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00
91 391 CA succlfail 1 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00
92 392 CA succlfail 2.00 1 .00 4.00 3.00
93 393 CA succlfail .00 4.00 4.00 2.00
94 394 CC fail/succ .00 2.00 2.00 3.00
95 395 CC fail/succ 1 .00 3.00 2.00 3.00
96 396 CC fail/succ 4.00 3.00 4.00 .00
97 397 CC fail/succ 1 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00
98 398 CC succlfail 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00
99 399 CC succlfail 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00
100 400 CC succlfail 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
101 401 CA fail/succ 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00
102 402 CA fail/succ 1 .00 3.00 4.00 1 .00
103 403 CA fail/succ 1 .00 4.00 3.00 2.00
104 404 CA fail/succ 3.00 4.00 1 .00 2.00
105 405 CA fail/succ 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
106 406 CA fail/succ 1 .00 2.00 3.00 3.00
107 407 CA succlfail .00 3.00 4.00 4.00
108 408 CA succlfail 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
109 409 CA succlfail .00 4.00 4.00 4.00
1 10 410 CA succlfail 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
1 11 41 1 CA succlfail 1 .00 2.00 3.00 1.00
112 412 CC fail/succ 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
113 413 CC fail/succ 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
1 14 414 CC succlfail 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

249

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri5 iri6 iri7 iri8 iri9 iri10 iri1 1
77 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00
78 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
79 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
80 1 .00 1.00 .00 2.00 3.00 .00 3.00
81 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00
82 2.00 .00 2.00 4.00 3.00 .00 2.00
83 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
84 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
85 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 .00 4.00
86 2.00 .00 .00 4.00 3.00 .00 4.00
87 4.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
88 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
89 1 .00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
90 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
91 1.00 1.00 1 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
92 1 .00 1 .00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
93 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 .00 3.00
94 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
95 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00
96 .00 2.00 .00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
97 2.00 .00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
98 .00 1.00 1 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
99 .00 1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
100 .00 2.00 4 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
101 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
102 3.00 .00 2.00 3.00 3.00 .00 4.00
103 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
104 4.00 2.00 1 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
105 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
106 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
107 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
108 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 3.00
109 4 .00 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 .00 4.00
110 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
111 .00 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
112 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 4.00
113 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
114 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri12 iri13 iri14 iri15 iri16 iri17 M18
77 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
78 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
79 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
80 1 .00 1 .00 3.00 1.00 .00 .00 1.00
81 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
82 3.00 .00 2.00 3.00 .00 .00 4.00
83 .00 .00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00
84 4.00 1 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00
85 4.00 .00 4.00 4.00 .00 .00 4.00
86 4.00 .00 2.00 4.00 .00 .00 4.00
87 3.00 1 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
88 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
89 .00 .00 1 .00 .00 .00 1 .00 2.00
90 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
91 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
92 3.00 .00 2.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 4.00
93 3.00 .00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00
94 3.00 2.00 2.00 .00 .00 2.00 3.00
95 3.00 .00 3.00 1 .00 2.00 .00 4.00
96 4.00 1 .00 3.00 2.00 .00 3.00 4.00
97 1 .00 .00 2.00 4.00 .00 .00 4.00
98 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
99 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
100 3.00 .00 4.00 2.00 .00 2.00 4.00
101 4.00 1 .00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
102 4.00 .00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
103 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .00 1 .00 1.00 2.00
104 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 2.00
105 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
106 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
107 2.00 .00 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00
108 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1 .00 4.00
109 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
110 4.00 1 .00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
111 4.00 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
112 3.00 .00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
113 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
114 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00

 

251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri19 iri20 iri21 iri22 iri23 iri24 iri25
77 1 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00
78 1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
79 1 .00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
80 3.00 2.00 1 .00 1 .00 .00 4.00 2.00
81 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 .00 1.00
82 .00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1 .00 .00 1.00
83 1 .00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1 .00 .00 3.00
84 2.00 3.00 3.00 1 .00 4.00 .00 2.00
85 1 .00 4.00 4.00 3.00 .00 .00 3.00
86 .00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00
87 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
88 1 .00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 4.00
89 1 .00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 1.00 1.00 .00
90 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
91 1 .00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1 .00 1.00 2.00
92 .00 2.00 4.00 1 .00 2.00 .00 2.00
93 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 .00 2.00
94 .00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 .00 2.00
95 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
96 1 .00 3.00 2.00 4.00 .00 3.00 1.00
97 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 .00 2.00
98 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00
99 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1 .00 1.00 2.00
100 1 .00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
101 1 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
102 1 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
103 1 .00 2.00 .00 2.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00
104 1 .00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
105 1 .00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00
106 1 .00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
107 .00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 .00 2.00
108 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
109 .00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 .00 3.00
110 1 .00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 .00 3.00
1 11 .00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 .00 2.00
1 12 .00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
113 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
114 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00

 

252

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iri26 iri27 iri28 in jseves behavios outcomes cds1s
77 3.00 1.00 3.00 minor compliant success 1.00
78 2.00 1.00 1 .00 major compliant success 4.00
79 2.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 1.00
80 .00 1.00 1.00 major compliant success 7.00
81 2.00 .00 1 .00 moderate compliant success 4.00
82 1 .00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 9.00
83 3.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 3.00
84 4.00 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 6.00
85 .00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 1.00
86 2.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 1.00
87 3.00 2.00 3.00 major non-compli success 8.00
88 3.00 1.00 4.00 major compliant success 1.00
89 1 .00 .00 1.00 moderate compliant success 5.00
90 2.00 1.00 2.00 major compliant success 6.00
91 1 .00 1.00 2.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
92 3.00 .00 4.00 major compliant success 1 .00
93 3.00 1.00 3.00 moderate compliant success 5.00
94 2.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 1.00
95 2.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 1.00
96 1 .00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 1.00
97 3.00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 2.00
98 1 .00 1.00 2.00 moderate compliant success 6.00
99 1.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 5.00
100 2.00 1.00 4.00 moderate compliant success 6.00
101 1 .00 2.00 .00 major compliant success 5.00
102 2.00 1.00 3.00 major compliant success 7.00
103 1.00 1.00 1.00 major compliant success 1.00
104 3.00 2 .00 2.00 m oderate compliant success 8.00
105 2.00 1.00 2.00 major compliant success 8.00
106 2.00 1.00 2.00 major compliant success 3.00
107 2.00 .00 3.00 major compliant success 8.00
108 3.00 1 .00 3.00 major compliant success 1.00
109 4.00 .00 1.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
1 10 3.00 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 9.00
1 1 1 3.00 .00 2.00 major compliant success 9.00
1 12 3.00 .00 3.00 moderate compliant success 7.00
113 3.00 2.00 3.00 major compliant success 3.00
1 14 2.00 1 .00 4.00 major compliant success 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

253

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cdsZs cds3s cds4s cdsSs cds6s cds7s cds8s
77 2.00 3.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00
78 6.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 6.00 7.00
79 7.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00
80 7.00 5.00 4.00 9.00 3.00 3.00 9.00
81 5.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.00
82 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 1.00 9.00
83 5.00 3.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 1.00 1.00
84 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00
85 6.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 5.00 7.00 8.00
86 2.00 2.00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 1.00
87 5.00 5.00 5.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
88 3.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 5.00
89 5.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 6.00
90 5.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00
91 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
92 9.00 1 .00 9.00 7.00 3.00 5.00 5.00
93 5.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 4.00
94 1 .00 5.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 9.00
95 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 8.00
96 1.00 5.00 8.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 9.00
97 2.00 7.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 8.00
98 3.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 6.00
99 3.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 8.00 3.00
100 9.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00
101 7.00 3.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 5.00 5.00
102 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 4.00
103 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00
104 8.00 7.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 7.00 2.00
105 8.00 2.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00
106 6.00 2.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 3.00
107 9.00 8.00 9.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 7.00
108 9.00 3.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 7.00 8.00
109 9.00 1.00 9.00 4.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
110 9.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 3.00
111 9.00 8.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.00
112 3.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 7.00
113 3.00 6.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 7.00 6.00
114 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 9.00

 

 

254

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds9s cds10$ cds1 1s cds125 responss expects ptes
77 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
78 5.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 the athlete 7.00 8.00
79 2.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
80 7.00 4.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 9.00 7.00
81 5.00 6.00 3.00 7.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
82 8.00 9.00 3.00 8.00 the doctor 9.00 9.00
83 4.00 5.00 9.00 9.00 the athlete 7.00 9.00
84 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 the athlete 7.00 5.00
85 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 the athlete 9.00 .
87 8.00 5.00 3.00 8.00 me-the coa 8.00 8.00
88 6.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 the ATIPT 9.00 8.00
89 6.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 the ATIPT 6.00 7.00
90 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 the ATIPT 7.00 7.00
91 9.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 the ATIPT 9.00 7.00
92 5.00 9.00 3.00 6.00 the ATIPT 7.00 7.00
93 5.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 the doctor 8.00 .00
94 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00
95 1.00 5.00 1.00 7.00 the athlete 7.00 5.00
96 1.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 the ATIPT 9.00 6.00
97 2.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 the ATIPT 8.00 9.00
98 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 me-the coa 6.00 7.00
99 7.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 the athlete 5.00 6.00
100 6.00 6.00 4.00 7.00 the athlete 4.00 9.00
101 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 8.00 7.00
102 7.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 me-the athl 8.00 7.00
103 1.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 the doctor 4.00 .00
104 8.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 me-the athl 8.00 8.00
105 8.00 8.00 3.00 5.00 me-the athl 7.00 7.00
106 7.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 me-the athl 5.00 4.00
107 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 me-the athl 8.00 8.00
108 8.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 me-the athl 8.00 5.00
109 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 2.00
110 9.00 9.00 6.00 3.00 me-the athl 8.00 9.00
111 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00
112 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 the ATIPT 7.00 7.00
113 2.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 the athlete 8.00 6.00
114 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 the ATIPT 5.00 9.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

255

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

athsexs athspts in jsevef behaviof outcomef cds1f cds2f
77 female track moderate non-compli failure 2.00 2.00
78 male football major compliant failure 3.00 6.00
79 female gymnasti major compliant failure 1.00 9.00
80 female basketba moderate non-compli failure 3.00 1.00
81 female lacrosse major compliant failure 7.00 7.00
82 female basketba moderate compliant failure 9.00 9.00
83 female basketba moderate compliant success 4.00 3.00
84 female softball minor compliant failure 2.00 1.00
85 female softball major compliant success 1.00 1.00
86 female tennis major . . . .
87 female track moderate compliant failure 1.00 1.00
88 female volleyba moderate non-compli failure 2.00 5.00
89 female soccer major non-compli failure 3.00 5.00
90 basketba major compliant failure 7.00 5.00
91 basketba moderate non-compli failure 9.00 7.00
92 basketba moderate compliant failure 7.00 9.00
93 . track moderate compliant failure 1.00 1.00
94 male football moderate non-compli failure 1.00 5.00
95 female track major compliant failure 1.00 4.00
96 female basketba major . failure 1.00 4.00
97 female soccer moderate compliant failure 2.00 2.00
98 female volleyba moderate non-compli failure 5.00 7.00
99 male football major compliant . 5.00 6.00
100 female basketba moderate compliant failure 6.00 9.00
101 volleyba moderate compliant failure 7.00 6.00
102 football major compliant failure 7.00 7.00
103 soccer moderate compliant success 5.00 1.00
104 tennis major non-compli failure 8.00 8.00
105 basketba moderate compliant failure 7.00 8.00
106 xcountry moderate compliant failure 3.00 6.00
107 basketba major non-compli failure 8.00 9.00
108 xcountry moderate compliant failure 2.00 8.00
109 track major non-compli failure 8.00 8.00
110 softball major non-compli failure 8.00 9.00
111 . basketba moderate compliant 3.00 7.00
112 female basketba major compliant success 6.00 3.00
113 male basketba moderate compliant failure 6.00 7.00
114 male basketba major non-compli failure 1.00 5.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

256

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds3f cds4f cdsSf cdst cds7f cdst cds9f
77 3.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 1.00
78 5.00 6.00 7.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 5.00
79 1.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 2.00 4.00
80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00
81 2.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 8.00
82 9.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 8.00 4.00
83 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00
84 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00
86 . . . . . . .
87 3.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 8.00 2.00
88 2.00 6.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 3.00
89 3.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 4.00
90 3.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 7.00
91 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 7.00
92 1.00 7.00 3.00 8.00 1.00 3.00 8.00
93 3.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00
94 1.00 4.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00
95 1.00 4.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00
96 1.00 6.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00
97 5.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 3.00
98 5.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 5.00
99 2.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 3.00 6.00
100 6.00 9.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
101 2.00 6.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
102 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 5.00
103 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.00 7.00 3.00
104 7.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 7.00 2.00 8.00
105 3.00 7.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
106 2.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 7.00
107 8.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 7.00 1.00 9.00
108 2.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 7.00 7.00
109 2.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 2.00 8.00
110 5.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 1.00 9.00
111 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 9.00
112 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 6.00
113 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
114 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

257

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cds10f cds1 1f cds12f responsf expectf ptef athsexf

77 1.00 1.00 9.00 the athlete 7.00 9.00 male
78 6.00 3.00 6.00 the doctor 4.00 8.00 male
79 8.00 1.00 5.00 me-the coa 6.00 9.00 female
80 1.00 1.00 3.00 the athlete 9.00 7.00 female
81 8.00 1.00 7.00 me-the coa .00 9.00 female
82 8.00 9.00 9.00 other 9.00 9.00 female
83 4.00 5.00 7.00 the athlete 5.00 9.00 female
84 5.00 2.00 4.00 the athlete 8.00 5.00 female
85 1 .00 9.00 1.00 other .00 9.00 female
86 . . . . . . .
87 1.00 5.00 8.00 the athlete 8.00 8.00 female
88 3.00 3.00 6.00 the athlete 7.00 8.00 female
89 4.00 4.00 6.00 the athlete 6.00 8.00 female
90 6.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 6.00 8.00
91 7.00 5.00 7.00 me—the athl 5.00 9.00
92 9.00 1.00 3.00 me-the athl 5.00 7.00
93 6.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 4.00 8.00 .
94 5.00 3.00 7.00 the athlete 9.00 9.00 male
95 1.00 1.00 5.00 the athlete 3.00 8.00 female
96 6.00 5.00 7.00 the ATIPT 6.00 1.00 male
97 5.00 3.00 7.00 the ATIPT 5.00 7.00 female
98 5.00 3.00 4.00 me-the coa 6.00 7.00 female
99 2.00 2.00 3.00 the athlete 7.00 7.00 male

100 5.00 7.00 5.00 the doctor 5.00 9.00 female

101 5.00 5.00 5.00 me-the athl 6.00 5.00

102 7.00 3.00 3.00 me-the athl 3.00 7.00

103 6.00 2.00 4.00 me-the athl 7.00 6.00

104 8.00 4.00 3.00 me—the athl 6.00 7.00

105 7.00 2.00 6.00 me-the athl 6.00 7.00

106 5.00 7.00 6.00 me-the athl 5.00 4.00

107 9.00 7.00 1.00 me-the athl 3.00 9.00

108 8.00 2.00 8.00 me-the athl 2.00 4.00

109 2.00 2.00 2.00 me-the athl 2.00 8.00

110 9.00 1.00 3.00 me—the athl 3.00 9.00

111 9.00 1.00 5.00 me-the athl 9.00 9.00 .

112 4.00 4.00 3.00 the athlete 6.00 6.00 female

113 5.00 4.00 4.00 the athlete 7.00 2.00 male

114 5.00 5.00 5.00 the doctor 8.00 9.00 male

 

258

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sptcch1 sexof1 cchposit doctor paydoc trainer cprfa
77 track female&m assistant c yes yes yes yes
78 football male assistant c yes yes yes yes
79 gymnasti female head coac yes yes yes yes
80 golf female head coac yes yes yes yes
81 lacrosse female assistant c yes yes yes yes
82 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
83 volleyba female assistant c no no no yes
84 softball female assistant c yes . yes yes
85 softball female assistant c yes yes yes yes
86 tennis female head coac yes yes yes yes
87 track female head coac yes yes yes yes
88 volleyba female head coac yes yes yes yes
89 soccer female&m head coac no no no yes
90 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
91 softball female head coac no no yes yes
92 basketba female head coac no no yes yes
93 track female head coac yes no yes yes
94 football male head coac no no yes yes
95 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
96 baseball male head coac no no yes yes
97 soccer female head coac no no yes yes
98 volleyba female head coac no no yes yes
99 track male head coac no no yes yes
100 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
101 volleyba female head coac yes no yes yes
102 football male assistant c yes no yes yes
103 soccer female&m head coac no yes yes
104 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
105 basketba female&m head coac no no yes yes
106 track female head coac no no yes yes
107 basketba female&m head coac no no yes yes
108 xcountry female&m head coac yes no yes no
109 volleyba female head coac no no yes yes
1 10 softball female assistant 0 yes yes yes yes
111 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
112 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
113 basketba male head coac yes no yes yes
114 basketba male head coac yes no yes no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

259

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sptcch1 sexof1 cchposit doctor paydoc trainer cprfa
77 track female&m assistant c yes yes yes yes
78 football male assistant c yes yes yes yes
79 gymnasti female head coac yes yes yes yes
80 golf female head coac yes yes yes yes
81 lacrosse female assistant c yes yes yes yes
82 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
83 volleyba female assistant c no no no yes
84 softball female assistant c yes yes yes
85 softball female assistant c yes yes yes yes
86 tennis female head coac yes yes yes yes
87 track female head coac yes yes yes yes
88 volleyba female head coac yes yes yes yes
89 soccer female&m head coac no no no yes
90 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
91 softball female head coac no no yes yes
92 basketba female head coac no no yes yes
93 track female head coac yes no yes yes
94 football male head coac no no yes yes
95 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
96 baseball male head coac no no yes yes
97 soccer female head coac no no yes yes
98 volleyba female head coac no no yes yes
99 track male head coac no no yes yes
100 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
101 volleyba female head coac yes no yes yes
102 football male assistant c yes no yes yes
103 soccer female&m head coac no yes yes
104 track female&m head coac yes yes yes yes
105 basketba female&m head coac no no yes yes
106 track female head coac no no yes yes
107 basketba female&m head coac no no yes yes
108 xcountry female&m head coac yes no yes no
109 volleyba female head coac no no yes yes
1 10 softball female assistant c yes yes yes yes
111 basketba female head coac yes yes yes yes
112 basketba female head coac yes no yes yes
113 basketba male head coac yes no yes yes
114 basketba male head coac yes no yes no

 

260

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

needcprf athwinj injtype ending continue
77 yes yes major no yes
78 yes yes moderate no no
79 yes yes none
80 no yes minor no no
81 yes yes moderate no no
82 yes yes major yes yes
83 yes yes moderate no yes
84 no yes major no yes
85 yes yes major no yes
86 yes yes moderate no no
87 no yes major no yes
88 no yes moderate no no
89 yes yes major yes yes
90 yes no minor no no
91 no moderate no no
92 no yes moderate no no
93 yes yes moderate no no
94 yes yes moderate no no
95 yes yes moderate no no
96 no yes minor no no
97 no yes major no yes
98 no yes minor no no
99 no no moderate no yes
100 no yes major no yes
101 yes yes moderate no yes
102 no no moderate no no
1 03 yes yes moderate no yes
104 yes yes moderate no no
105 yes no moderate no no
106 yes no minor no yes
107 yes yes moderate no no
108 yes moderate no no
109 yes no none .
1 10 no yes major no yes
1 1 1 yes yes moderate no yes
1 12 yes yes none
1 13 yes yes none
1 14 no major yes yes

 

 

261

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach
development. Quest, 50, 59-79.

Alreck, P.L., & Settle, RB. (1995). The survey research handbook (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Archer, R.L., Dial-Loving, R., Gollwitzer, P.M., Davis, M.H., & Foushee, HQ (1981).
The role of dispositional empathy and social evaluation in the empathic mediation
of helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 786-796.

Batson, CD. (1991). The altruism question toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson, C.D., & Coke, J. (1981). Empathy: A source of altruistic motivation for
helping? In P. Rushton & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baston, C.D., Early, S., Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective-taking: Imagining how
another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

Batson, C.D., Fultz, J ., & Schoenrade, RA. (1987). Adults’ emotional reactions to the
distress of others. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its
development (pp. 163-184). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Betancourt, H. (1990). An attribution-empathy model of helping behavior: Behavioral

intentions and judgments of help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 16, 573-591.

Biddle, S., & Hanrahan, S. (1998). Attributions and attributional style. In J .L. Duda
(Ed.), Advances in exercise psychology measurement (pp. 3-19). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Block, J .H. (1976). Assessing sex differences: Issues, problems, and pitfalls. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 22, 283-308.

Bloom, G.A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R.J., & Salmela, J .H. (1998). The importance
of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 29, 267-281.

Brawley, LR. (1984). Attributions as social cognitions: Contemporary perspectives in

sport. In W.F. Straub, & J.M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp.
212-230). Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates.

262

 

Brewer, B.W. (1993). Self-identity and specific vulnerability to depressed mood.
Journal of Personality, 61, 343-364.

Brewer, B.W., Cornelius, A.E., Van Raalte, J .L., Petitpas, A.J., Sklar, J .H., Pohlman,
M.H., Krushell, R.J., & Ditmas, TD. (2000). Attributions for recovery and
adherence to rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions:
A prospective analysis. Psychology and Health, 15, 283-291.

Brewer, B.W., Jeffers, K.E., Petitpas, A.J., & Van Raalte, J .L. (1994). Perceptions of
psychological interventions in the context of sport injury rehabilitation. The Sport
Psychologist, 8, 176-188.

Bukowski, Jr., W.M., & Moore, D. (1980). Winners’ and losers’ attributions for success
and failure in a series of athletic events. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 195-210.

Bump, LA. (1986). Empathy in coaches and its influence on athletes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Urbana, IL.

Clarke, MA. (2000). Who’s coaching the coaches? In J .R. Gerdy (Ed.), Sports in
school: T he future of an institution (pp. 53-65). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Coke, J .S., Batson, C.D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A
two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 752-766.

Cronbach, LJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 296-334.

Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Davis, M.H. (1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and
helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167-184.

Davis, M.H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, Inc.

Davis, M.H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on
the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713-726.

Davis, M.H., Mitchell, K.V., Hall, J.A., Lothert, J ., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M. (1999).
Empathy, expectations, and situations preferences: Personality influences on the

decision to participate in volunteer helping behavior. Journal of Personality, 67,
469-501.

Duncan, T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Efficacy expectations and perceptions of causality in
motor performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 385-393.

263

 

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Empathy and sympathy. In M. Lewis & J .M. Haviland-Jones
(Eds.), Handbook ofemotions (2"d ed.) (pp. 677-691). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Schaller, M., Miller, P., Carlo, G., Poulin, R., Shea, C., &
Shell, R. (1991). Personality and socialization correlates of vicarious emotional
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 459-470.

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities.
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). Empathy, sympathy, and altruism: Empirical and
conceptual links. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its
development (pp. 292-316). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

F under, DC. (1980). The “trait” of ascribing traits: Individual differences in the
tendency to trait ascription. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 376-385.

Funder, D.C., & Colvin, CR. (1997). Congruence of others’ and self-judgments of
personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 617-647). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Galper, RE. (1976). Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a
function of “empathy.” Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 328-335.

Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good
teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham & V.S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory:
applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 17-
36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grove, J .R., Hanrahan, S.J., & Stewart, R.M.L. (1990). Attributions for rapid and slow
recovery from sports injuries. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 15, 107-114.

Gould, D., Udry, E., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Coping with season-ending
injuries. Sport Psychologist, 11, 379-399.

Gould, R., & Sigall, H. (1977). The effects of empathy and outcome on attribution: An
examination of the divergent-perspectives hypothesis. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 13, 480-491.

Hanrahan, S.J., Grove, J .R., & Hattie, J .A. (1989). Development of a questionnaire
measure of sport-related attributional style. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 20,114-134.

Hardy, C]. (1992). Psychological stress, performance, and injury in sport. British
Medical Bulletin, 48, 615-629.

264

Hardy, C.J., Burke, K.L., & Crace, R.K. (1999). Social support and injury: A framework
for social support-based interventions with injured athletes. In D. Pargman (Ed.),
Psychological bases of sport injuries (2Ind ed.) (pp. 175-198). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Heil, J. (1993). Psychology of sport injury. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hoffman, ML. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 712-722.

Horn, T.S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence in young athletes: research
findings and recommendations for coaches and parents. In F .L. Smoll & R.E.
Smith (Eds.), Children in youth sport: A Biopsychosocial Perspective (pp. 309-
329). Chicago, IL: Brown & Benchmark.

Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, RE. (1972). The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of
the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett,
S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior
(pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Laubach, W., Brewer, B.W., Van Raalte, J.L., & Petitpas, A.J. (1996). Attributions for
recovery and adherence to sport injury rehabilitation. Australian Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 28, 30-34.

Lefebvre, L.M. (1978). Causal attributions for basketball performances by players and
coaches. In F. Landry, & W.A.R. Orban (Eds.), Motor learning, sport
psychology, pedagogy and didactics of physical activity (p. 355-3 62). Miami, FL:
Symposia Specialists, Inc.

Leith, L.M. (1989). Causal attribution and sport behavior: Implications for practitioners.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 12, 213-225.

Lewis, D.K. (1999). Cognitive and emotional processes during the rehabilitation of
severe athletic injuries. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University.
East Lansing, MI.

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and
sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp.
195-217). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, D., Ponzetti, Jr., J .J ., & Jorgensen, PF (1999). Encyclopedia of Human
Emotions (V 01. 1). New York, NY: MacMillan Reference.

Loudan, L. (1996). A costly rite of passage. Consumers ’ Research, 79, 36.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex diflerences. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.

265

McAuley, E., & Duncan, TE. (1990). Causal attributions process in sport and physical
activity. In S. Graham & V.S. F olkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to
achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 37-52). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McAuley, E., & Gross, J .B. (1983). Perceptions of causality in sport: An application of
the causal dimension scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 72-76.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T.E., & Russell, D. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The
revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDS II). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 566-573.

McAuley, E., Russell, D., & Gross, J.B. (1983). Affective consequences of winning and
losing: An attributional analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 278-287.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Monson, T.C., & Snyder, M. (1977). Actors, observers, and the attribution process:
Toward a reconceptualization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,
89-111.

Mullen, B., & Riordan, CA. (1988). Self-serving attributions for performance in
naturalistic settings: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 18, 3-22.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). (1995). Quality
coaches, quality sports: National standards for athletic coaches. Reston, VA:

NASPE.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (2002, November). 2001-2002 Injury
Surveillance System statistics. Retrieved December 30, 2002, from
http://wwwl .ncaa.org/membership/ed_outreach/health-safety/iss/index.htm1

National Collegiate Athletic Association (2003, February). Survey shows reduced injury
rates for several fall sports. Retrieved July 26, 2004, from
http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/2003021 7/awide/4004n1 3 .htrnl

Nicholls, J. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement-related cognitions:
Effects of task outcome, attainment value and sex. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 379-389.

Pargman, D. (1999). Sport injuries: An overview of psychological perspectives. In D.
Pargman (Ed.), Psychological bases of sport injuries (pp. 3-11). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Peterson, SE. (1992). A comparison of causal attributions and their dimensions for
individual and cooperative group tasks. Journal of Research & Development in
Education, 25, 103-112.

266

Petrie, TA. (1992). Psychological antecedents of athletic injury: The effects of life,
stress and social support on female collegiate gymnasts. Behavior Medicine, 18,
127-138.

Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J .E., & Peregoy, J .J . (2002). The athlete and coach: Their
relationship and its meaning. Methodological concems and research process.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 98-115.

Powell, J .W., & Barber-Foss, K.D. (1997). Injury patterns in selected high school sports:
A review of the 1995-1997 seasons. Journal of Athletic Training, 34 277-284.

Ray, R., & Wiese-Bjomstal, D.M. (1999). Counseling in sports medicine. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.

Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Regan, D.T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into
actors. Journal of Personality and social Psychologi, 32, 850-856.

Rejeski, W.J., & Brawley, LR. (1983). Attribution theory in sport: Current status and
new perspectives. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 77-99.

Richman, J.M., Rosenfeld, L.B., & Hardy, C.J. (1993). The social support survey: A
validation study of a clinical measure of the social support process. Research on
Social Work Practice, 3, 288-311.

Roberts, G.C., & Pascuzzi, D. (1979). Causal attributions in sport: Some theoretical
implications. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 203-211.

Robins, R.W., Spranca, M.D., & Mendelsohn, GA. (1996). The actor-observer effect
revisited: Effects of individual differences and repeated social interactions on
actor and observer attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 375-389.

Rosenfeld, L.B., Richman, J .M., & Hardy, C.J. (1989). Examining social support
networks among athletes: Description and relationship to stress. The Sport
Psychologist, 3, 23-33.

Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive
causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1 137-1 145.

Safrit, M.J., & Wood, TM. (1995). Introduction to measurement in physical education
and exercise science (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of motivated
behavior: Replications examining judgments of help-giving. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 610-621.

267

Sellars, C., & Biddle, S. (1994). Attributional style of the coach. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 12, 209.

Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F .L. (1996). The coach as a focus of research and intervention in
youth sports. In F .L. Smoll & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Children in youth sport: A

Biopsychosocial Perspective (pp. 125-144). Chicago, IL: Brown & Benchmark.

Storms, MD. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actor’s and
observers’ points of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27,
1 65-1 75.

Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-313). New York:
Academic Press.

Taylor, J ., & Taylor, S. (1997). Psychological approaches to sports injury rehabilitation.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Taylor, S., & Fiske, S. (1975). Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of
Personality, 32, 439-445.

Toi, M., & Batson, CD. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.

Trobst, K.K., Collins, R.L., Embree, J .M. (1994). The role of emotion in social support
provision: Gender, empathy and expressions of distress. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 11, 45-62.

Udry, E. (1997). Coping and social support among injured athletes following surgery.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 71-90.

Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Tuffy, S. (1997). People helping people? Examining
the role of social ties of athletes coping with burnout and injury stress. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 368-395.

Van Raalte, J .L., Brewer, B.W., & Petitpas, A.J. (1995). The actor-observer bias in sport.
Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 80-92.

Watson, D. (1982). The actor and observer: How are their perceptions of causality
divergent? Psychological Bulletin, 92, 683-700.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.

268

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kulka, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, RM. (1972).
Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E.E., Jones, D. Kanouse, H.H.
Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the
causes of behavior (pp. 95-120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Weiner, 8., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affective consequences of causal
ascriptions. In J .H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in
attribution research, vol. 2 mp. 59-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wiese-Bjomstal, D.M., & Smith, AM. (1993). Counseling strategies for enhanced
recovery of injured athletes within a team approach. In D. Pargman (Ed.),
Psychological bases of sport injuries (pp. 149-182). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.

Wiese-Bjomstal, D.M., Smith, A.M., Shaffer, S.M., & Morrey, MA. (1998). An
integrated model of response to sport injury: Psychological and sociological
dynamics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 46-69.

Wolfson, S. (1997). Actor-observer bias and perceived sensitivity to internal and
external factors in competitive swimmers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 477-
483.

Yukelson, D., & Heil, J. (1998). Psychological considerations in working with injured
athletes. In P.1K. Canavan (Ed.), Rehabilitation in sports medicine (pp. 61-70).
Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lance.

269

   

l1111111111111lllll