INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us fo r microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target1' for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you o f complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been film ed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin film ing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB BO.. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 8216595 Underwood, Clarence, Jr. AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE VALUES OF SELECTED FOOTBALL PLAYERS A N D NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AS DETERMINED BY THE ROKEACH VALUE SURVEY INSTRUMENT Michigan State University University Microfilms International PH.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 Copyright 1982 by Underwood, Clarence, Jr. All Rights Reserved 1982 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed In the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored Ellustrations, paper or pri nt______ 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages num bered____________. Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other_________________________________________________________________________ ^ University Microfilms International AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE VALUES OF SELECTED FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AS DETERMINED BY THE ROKEACH VALUE SURVEY INSTRUMENT By Clarence Underwood, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1982 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE VALUES OF SELECTED FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AS DETERMINED BY THE ROKEACH VALUE SURVEY INSTRUMENT By Clarence Underwood, Jr. The purpose of this study was to investigate certain values held by selected students at Michigan State U n i ­ versity. The investigation focused on whether or not football players and nonfootball players had different values as defined by the Rokeach Value Survey. Procedure To conduct the investigation, Survey Instrument was used. the Rokeach Value It contained a listing of eighteen terminal values and eighteen instrumental values. The survey instrument was mailed to 200 n o n ­ football players who were randomly selected by the Office of the Registrar. The instrument was given to sixty-nine football players in a group setting and also mailed to fifteen additional football players. Each respondent was requested to complete the survey instrument by answering the questions and arranging the values in order of their importance to them. The final sample consisted of eighty-eight nonfootball players and eighty football players. Analysis of Data The results were reported in descriptive, tabular and graphic form in two sections. The first section revealed findings from the analysis of variance data (ANOVA). One-way analysis of variance was calculated to analyze the relationships. The second section showed tables on the frequency distributions, means, ranks, and standard deviations of the entire sample. Nine statistically significant differences were found between football players and nonfootball players on the eighteen terminal values. The nine values were: A Comfortable Life, An Exciting Life, A World at Peace, Equality, Family Security, Happiness, Inner Harmony, Mature Love and True Friendship. The results showed five values were statistically significant different on the eighteen instrumental values. Honest, These values were Broadminded, Cheerful, Clean, and Obedient. The frequency distribution showed a similarity in the way football players and nonfootball players ranked the values on the Terminal and Instrumental scales. The results of this preliminary study would suggest that although there were significant differences, players and nonfootball players at M.S.U. generally share similar perceptions about the values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. football ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Richard Featherstone, my committee chairman, and academic advisor. He demonstrated much patience, under­ standing and effective guidance in helping me through this dissertation. Also, I am very grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Gwendolyn Norrell, Dr. Eldon Nonnemaker and Dr, Larry Foster whose counsel and critical commentary contributed immeasurably to this study. Moreover, I would like to thank Dr. Howard Teitelbaum for his continued encouragement and support. Special thanks are due to Athletic Director Douglas W. Weaver, Dr. Rebecca Henry, Dr. William Lazer and Dr. Marilee Davis. Finally, to my wife Noreese and our three children, Jacqueline Bonita, Alvin Timothy, and David Lynn, their continued love and strong support. for TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I . INTRODUCTION................................ II. 1 Statement of the Problem................ Focus of the Problem..................... Significance of the Study............... Purpose of the Study..................... The Theoretical Meaning ofValues........ Generalizations........................ Definitions............................ Definition of T e rms ...................... Limitations and Delimitations........... Limitations............................ Delimitations.......................... Design of the Study...................... Hypotheses................................ Organization of the Study............... 8 13 13 14 15 15 18 21 22 22 22 22 24 25 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 27 The Pioneer E r a ........................... An acceptable way of life............. Period of stability.................... Era of Rebellion......................... Reactions of traditional coaches....... The traditional athlete and football values................................ Contemporary athletes and traditional values................................ Winning At All Costs..................... Promoting Institutional Image........... Commercialism.......................... Athletics and character development... Former Research Studies................. Summary of Literature Review............ III. ' METHODOLOGY................................ Introduction.............................. Derivation of the Study................. Target Population....................... Sample Design............................ Data Collection.......................... Survey Instrument....................... Coding and Key Punching................. iii 28 30 34 37 40 46 53 56 59 65 73 75 81 84 84 84 87 88 89 93 99 IV. ANALYSIS OF D A T A .......................... Introduction............................ Analysis of Variance.................... Analysis of Procedures.................. General introduction to the main data analysis............................. Analysis................................. Results of Terminal Values............. Instrumental values................... Results of terminal values........... Entire Sample One Way Analysis......... Spearman RHO Correlation Coefficients.. V. 102 102 102 103 106 108 146 150 180 183 191 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS............................... 194 Summary.................................. Purpose and background............... Findings................................. Terminal values....................... Instrumental values................... General Conclusions..................... Terminal values....................... Instrumental values................... Implications for Further Research..... 194 194 196 196 200 203 204 208 211 APPENDICES A. B. C. D. The Questionnaire and Rokeach Value Survey Instrument..................... Data Request Letter to Office of the Registrar and Approval M e m o .......... Cover-Letter; Letter to UCRINS and Letter of Approval from UCRINS...... Questionnaire Return R a tes ............. BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 221 224 227 228 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Profile of Coaches...................... 41 2. Athlete-Coach Value Classifications.... 54 3. Win-Lose Concept......................... 70 4. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value A Comfortable L i f e ......... 110 5. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value A Comfortable Life for Football Player's and Nonfootball Players..... HI 6. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value An Exciting L i f e ........... 114 7* Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value An Exciting Life for Football Players and Nonrootball Players............. 114 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value A Sense of Accomplishment. 117 Analysis of Variance Table tations on the Terminal Sense of Accomplishment Players and Nonfootball 117 8. 9. 10. with Compu­ Value A for Football Players ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value A World At P e ace........... v 118 Table 11. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value A World at Peace for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.............. 118 12. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value A World of Beauty.......... 121 13. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value A World of Beauty for Football PTayers and Nonfootbali Players.............. 121 14. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Equality.................... 122 15. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Equality for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 122 16. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Family Security............ 125 17. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Family Security for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 125 18. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Freedom..................... 128 19. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Freedom for Football Players and NonfootbaTl' Players................................ 128 20. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Happiness.................. vi Table 21. Page Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Happiness for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 129 22. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Inner Harmony.............. 132 23. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Inner Harmony for Football Players and N on­ football Players...................... 132 24. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Mature L o v e ................ 134 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Mature Love for Football Players and Nonfootball Players...................... 134 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value National Security.......... 137 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value National Security for Football Players and Nonfootball Players..... 137 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Pleasure.................... 138 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Pleasure for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 138 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Salvation........ 140 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. vii Table 31. Page Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Salva­ tion for Football Players and NonFootball Players...................... 140 32. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Self Respect............... 141 33. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Self Respect for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 141 34. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Social Recognition......... 142 35. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Social Recognition for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 142 36. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value True Friendship............ 144 37. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value True Friendship for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 144 38. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Wisdom. .................... 147 39. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Terminal Value Wisdom for Football Players and Nonfootball Players .......................... 40. 147 ANOVA Test, for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Ambitious................... 151 viii Table Page 41. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Ambitious for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 151 42. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Broadminded................ 153 43. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Broadminded for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 153 44. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Capable..................... 155 45. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Capable for Football Players and Nonfootball Players............ 155 46. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Cheerful.................... 157 47. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Cheerful for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 157 48. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value C lean................^...... 160 49. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Clean for Football Players and Non­ football Players...................... 50. 160 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Courageous................. 162 ix Table 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. Page Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Courageous for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 162 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Forgiving.................. 164 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Forgiving for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 164 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Flayers for the Value Helpful.................... 165 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Helpful for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 165 56. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Honest.................... . 166 57. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Hone st for Football Players and Non­ football Players..................... 166 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Imaginative................ 169 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Imaginative for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 169 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Independent................ 170 58. 59. 60. x Page Table 61. 62. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Independent for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 170 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Intellectual............... 171 63. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Intellectual for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.............. 64. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Logical 17 3 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Logical for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 173 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Loving...................... 17.4 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Loving for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 174 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Obedient.................... 175 Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Obedient for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 175 ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Polite...................... 178 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. xi Page Table 71. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Polite for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.................. 178 72. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Responsible................ 179 73. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Responsible for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................... 179 74. ANOVA Test for Comparison of Cell Means by Year of Student Between Football Players and Nonfootball Players for the Value Self Controlled............ 181 75. Analysis of Variance Table with Compu­ tations on the Instrumental Value Self Controlled for Football Players and Nonfootball Players.............. 181 76. Entire Sample--One Way Analysis Fre­ quencies, Means and Standard Devia­ tions for Terminal Value for Football Players and Nonfootball Players..... 185 77. Entire Sample--One Way Analysis--Means and Ranks for Terminal and Instru­ mental Values......................... 186 Category Samples--One Way Analysis-Terminal Values, M eans, and Ranks for Football Players and Nonfootball Players................................ 187 Entire Sample--One Way Analysis--Frequency Distributions, Mean and Standard Deviations for Football Players and Nonfootball Players..... 188 Spearman Rho Correlation Coefficients for Football Players and Nonfootball Players on Terminal Values (Entire Sample N=100)......................... 192 78. 79. 80. xii Table 81 Page Spearman RHO Correlation Coefficients for Football Players and Nonfootball Players on Instrumental Values (Entire Sample N=100)................. 193 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Comfortable Life......................... 112 2. An Exciting Life ........................... 115 3. A World At P e a c e ........................... 120 4. Equality................................... 124 5. Family Security............................ 126 6. Happiness................................... 130 7. Inner Harmony.............................. 133 8. Mature L o v e ................................ 136 9. True Friendship............................ 145 10. Broadminded................................ 154 11. Cheerful.................................... 158 12. Clean....................................... 161 13. Honest...................................... 168 14. Obedient.................................... 177 xiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For many years, Americans of every social class have been bombarded with the notion that football is a game with positive values for those who participate in it. The literature often describes football as a game which builds men, molds character, and teaches strong moral values. Despite these great claims, the values of football from its beginning have been under critical attack. At the intercollegiate level, parents, spectators, faculty members, alumni, and even some student athletes have frequently questioned the value of football. Many of these critics judge football solely on the basis of a team's won-and-lost record, its overall cost in relationship to the cost of other intercollegiate sports, or the risk of injury inherent in the sport. These factors have been used effectively at times by the critics to bring about the demise or the de-emphasis of football at some institutions. For example, between 1960 and 1970, forty-two 1 2 colleges dropped intercollegiate football.^1 In an earlier era, the University of Chicago dropped inter­ collegiate football after the 1939 season. This demise was brought on primarily by University President Robert Maynard Hutchins, who singlehandedly, through his critical attacks, convinced the institution that foot­ ball detracted significantly from the educational purposes of the University. The values in intercollegiate football have under­ gone several changes since the first organized football game was played in America in 1875 between Yale and Harvard. These changes have been generally charac­ teristic of the shifting attitudes associated with the American public. Lending support to this perspective was Peter C. McIntosh, the Senior Inspector of the London County Council College of Physical Education in 197 3, who stated that "a competitive sport inevitably 3 reflects the value of the society in which it appears." From 1875 until around 1888, football was regarded ^Neil Amdur, The Fifth Down (New York: McCann, Geoghegan, 1971), p. 38. Coward, John F. Rooney, J r . , The Recruiting Game (Lincoln: University of Nebraska PresT] 1980) , p . 18. ■^Peter C. McIntosh, "Values and Competitive Sport," in Development of Human Values Through Sports, ed, Reuben B. Frost and Edward J. Sims (Washington, D .C .: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1973), p. 11. 3 as a casual, unstructured sport where participation took place mostly in a spontaneous and unorganized manner. The value of intercollegiate football then, according to J. Robert Evans, was to offer a recrea­ tional outlet outside the classroom where physically adroit students from one institution could compete against students from other institutions.^ During the pioneer stages of intercollegiate football, two notable public figures were influential, yet they had two contrasting philosophies with regard to the value of intercollegiate football. Since the philosophies of the university president and football coach have helped shape, over the years, the attitudes of the American public about the value of intercollegiate football, it is appropriate to examine their views. Charles W, Eliot, President of Harvard University in the late 1800s, was strongly oriented to keeping football in its place. He believed that intercollegiate football should be played purely on an amateur basis. To him, the game of football was merely an activity to play to help fulfill the recreational interests of students in their leisure time. During his tenure, he was continuously critical of organized football ^J. Robert Evans, Blowing the Whistle on Inter­ collegiate Sports, (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co., 1974) , 4 being played at a collegiate institution for purposes other than leisure. He publicly opposed football as entertainment for the spectators and was equally against the business activities of football on a college campus. He viewed winning as an inconsequential part of football. Although he was vociferous in his negative assertions concerning the value of football, his viewpoint repre5 sented that of a minority. Contrasting with President Eliot was Walter Camp, the head football coach at Yale University, who saw a positive value in intercollegiate football. He came from a middle-class background and had worked his way to the top of a large manufacturing firm. He believed winning was the most essential objective of football competition and therefore gave Yale spectators precisely what they wanted--winning football teams. According to C a m p , A true sportsman has taught himself to be a good loser, but if he's a real man you would have to tear out the grand central ganglion of his nerves before you could make him enjoy losing.6 Mr. Camp believed there were some similarities between ^David L. Westby and Allen Sack, "The Commer­ cialization and Functional Rationalization of College Football," Journal of Higher Education 47 (November/ December, 1976), p p . 642,43. ^Ibid., pp. 643-45. 5 winning football teams and successful business practices, in that football taught a young man those qualities demanded in business. As a successful coach, he pr o ­ moted intercollegiate football as an entertainment attraction for Yale spectators, and for the purpose of generating revenue for the entire intercollegiate program. Having witnessed the success of winning football teams and revenue generated at Yale under Coach Walter Camp, other colleges and universities rapidly adopted his philosophy of football at their institutions. From 1890 until the early 1900s colleges and universities hired professional football coaches, trainers, charged admission fees, and endorsed alumni financial support earmarked for intercollegiate football. Control of the intercollegiate athletic program was vested in the hands of students, coaches, alumni, and a few faculty. During this time, according to John Rooney, Host faculty members shied away from the intercollegiate program. There were no eligibility rules and it was not uncommon to find faculty and students playing together on the same team or to find some players representing a different team each w e e k .t By 1905 the game of football had blossomed into a highly competitive sport characterized by violence 7 Rooney, The Recruiting G a m e , p. 12. 6 which brought on additional criticism. As early as 1905, for instance, President Theodore Roosevelt became so concerned by the violence inherent in the game that he convened a conference for the purpose of exploring a variety of reforms, including the possibility of making the game illegal in America, The most acceptable pro­ posal which emerged gave birth to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) organized in 1906 to monitor intercollegiate football. The National Collegiate Athletic Association states in Article 1 (Purposes and Fundamental Policy, 1980-81 Manual) that the competitive athletic programs of the colleges are designed to be a vital part of the educational system. A basic purpose of this association is to maintain inter­ collegiate athletics as an integral part of the student body and by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between college athletics and professional sports.8 The writer has chosen to focus this study on the values of intercollegiate football as opposed to organized football at the interscholastic or the pro­ fessional levels, because the fundamental purposes of collegiate football, as defined by the NCAA, are integrated into the educational values of the academic institution. Also, it is at the intercollegiate level Q National Collegiate Athletics Association, Manual (Shawnee Mission, Kansas: NCAA, 1980), p. 5~. 7 that the question of the value of football is often debated. Moreover, football at the intercollegiate level has traditionally been more popular and generated more support from the general public, alumni, students, and faculty than any other community or institutional sport. In contrast, professional football is more of a business with the values often sought or trans­ mitted in a collegiate setting having been removed from it. Despite criticisms of it, intercollegiate football is a part of the educational institution. Coaches and administrators are employed to administer the athletic program within the educational values of the institution and transmit these values to the student athletes. This leads to the central question. What can intercollegiate football teach participants about educa­ tional, moral or spiritual values and do the athletes actually absorb these values? According to Professor Reuben B. Frost in Development of Human Values Through Sports, inter­ collegiate athletics mirror society and, therefore, promote the same values shared by most Americans. It is generally held that sports are a microcosm of the life itself and thus serve as a laboratory where a positive value system may be formulated and developed. q Sharing this view is Educator George H. Sage who wrote in the October 1978 Journal of Physical Education and Recreation that organized sports at every level function for the primary purpose of instilling the American value system into its y o u t h . ^ Speaking about the general purpose of intercolle­ giate athletics in his book, Social Problems in Athlet­ ics , Daniel M. Landers reports on a study which examines some of its values. The study indicated that athletics serves as a social device for steering young people, participants and spectators alike into the main stream of American life through the overt and covert teaching of appropri­ ate attitudes values and norms and behav­ ior patterns.H Statement of the Problem The introduction cited has shown that the values inherent in intercollegiate football are difficult to prove. the This is further evident in Chapter IXwhere author reviewed the statements of a number of foot­ ball coaches, educators, sociologists, psychologists, Q Reuben B. Frost, "Forevard" in Development of Human Values Through Sports, p. 5. 10 George H. Sage, Journal of Physical Education and Recreation A3 (October 1978), "pp. 10-12". 11 Daniel M. Landers, Social Problems in Athletics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976), pp\ 201-2. sportswriters, former collegiate and professional players. For this writer the problem is to ascertain whether or not participation in intercollegiate football promul­ gate a certain set of values using a sample of Michigan State University students. The background reading and research showed disagreement as to whether the traditional assumed values of football of character building or moral development continued in an increas­ ingly technological, commercial, post-industrial society. In the last twenty five years social science research methodology has been applied to examine the effect of athletic participation in both secondary and post­ secondary education. The Rokeach Value Survey instru­ ment will be used in this research to draw a value profile of both players and nonplayers to see if a different picture emerges. The underlying assumption is that participation in football would be the variable responsible for whatever differences might be revealed. Amidst recent attacks on the place of intercollegiate football in an educational institution and questions raised by parents of players, the writer felt that such research would be a necessary and valuable addition to the research of the last quarter century. In the literature review there is a confusion of definition and a propensity for making normative 10 statements that are unsubstantiated by: (a) objective research, or (b) a plausible chain of logical reasoning. Out of a wealth of self-serving statements from predomi­ nately traditional coaches who were not researchers, but writers of popular literature, there emerged a slight consensus that football is a conditioner not only of men's bodies but of their character and minds as well. The football values described by coaches in the literature review have undergone several changes over the years. These values have moved from an emphasis on informal play to highly organized competition} from control by students to administrative-executive control} a shift from playing for fun to a "winning is everything" philosophy. Over the years, critics including socio­ logists, educators, and others have severely questioned the values. They believe that football and other at h ­ letic programs constitute, in fact, the antithesis to the moral and physical growth of students. The presence of football or other athletic activities on the college campus represent a trivialization of the educational process according to some critics. One of the greatest American social critics, Thorstein Veblen, puts the matter thusly: This expression of the barbarian temperament [sports] is to be credited primarily to the body of students rather than to the temper 11 of colleges as such; except insofar as the colleges or the college official--as sometimes happens--actively countenance and foster the growth of sports. The like is true of college fraternities as of college sports, but with a difference. The latter are chiefly an expres­ sion of the predatory impulse simply.12 There is, then, a polarity of thought with respect to the place and value of intercollegiate athletics at an institution of higher learning. The division between coaches, players, and critics is interesting, in that each side presents powerful arguments. Until recently, it has been difficult, due to the lack of a scientific instrument, to prove the value or lack of value of athletics per se of a given branch of athletic activity such as football. Any attempt to do so in the past would have run into such obstacles as 1. The lack of scientific standards to anchor the research 2. The lack of any way in which to precisely measure any supposed growth in moral or spiritual worth on the part of a given athlete 3. The inability to discern a mechanism by which the supposed changes occur 4. An inability to conduct such longitudinal 1? Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, The Modern Library (New York: Random H o u s e , 1934), pp. 478-9. 12 studies as would be necessary to determine whether the supposed changes--assuming they occur--are permanent in nature 5. The absence of an agreed upon definition by coaches as to what constitutes a value Milton Rokeach has developed an instrument to measure values entitled the Rokeach Value Survey. He defines a value as "an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct (instrumental value) or end-state of existence (terminal value) is preferable to its opposite" and defines a value system as "an array of values along a continuum of relative importance." 13 Using this definition as a reference, Rokeach gives the clear impression that values are assumed to have a relatively enduring, trans-situational character (can be trans­ ferred) , and they operate as general criteria for guiding actions, attitudes, moral judgments and attempts to influence others. The instrument is designed to determine a res­ pondent's hierarchical arrangements of two kinds of values: instrumental and terminal. The survey requires the respondent to place in rank order eighteen instru­ mental values and eighteen terminal values. 13 The Oscar Krisen Buros, The Eighth Mental Measure­ ments Yearbook, 16th e d . , v o l s . 1-713 (Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphen Press, 1965), p. 1031. 13 respondent personally determines which value is given preference over another. The values may be arranged and rearranged until the respondent feels the ranking is important to him/her. Focus of the Problem The study does not address questions concerning the moral, spiritual, or educational values of football, and it does not directly suggest normative statements concerning either athletics in general or the place of football on a college campus. Its focus is on the value profiles of varsity football players and nonfoot­ ball players. It identifies the values participants bring to the game of football compared to the values of a selected group of nonfootball players. It will also deal with the perceived worth of these values by the participants and nonparticipants. Significance of the Study This study will make a contribution to two fields, both of which are of importance to education. In the first place motivation could be studied by showing which values motivate a young man to take up football. This influence could be indicated through the hierarchy of values ranked by the players who participate in football as compared to nonparticipants. u A second contribution of this study is ancillary to the first. It relates to the understanding of the psychology of work. College football players work very hard at what they do and they receive virtually no monetary rewards for it. Although most football players at the collegiate level aspire to progress to the professional r a n k s , few players will ever achieve the opportunity to play professional football. There must be something else other than a professional career that causes young men to put in long, hard hours on the football field. tified as aspiration. This characteristic could be iden­ Its importance could be deter­ mined by the hierarchy of the values ranked by the players who participate in football as compared to nonparticipants. The significance of this study is not only related to motivation but also the relationship of aspiration to o n e 's w o r k . Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which certain values are held by selected students at Michigan State University. The investiga­ tion will determine whether or not selected football players and nonfootball players have different values as defined by the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. 15 Two groups of students consisting of varsity football players and a random sample from the undergraduate student body at large will be used. The random sample might include athletes from other MSU sports because they were not deleted from the sample. These groups of students were selected to determine whether or not participation in football has an effect on the develop­ ment of values. All respondents will be given the test and value profiles of football players and nonfoot­ ball players will be calculated. The study will identify certain perceptions football players bring to the college game--the way in which they perceive the importance of their involvement in intercollegiate football. The Theoretical Meaning of Values Generalizations As already noted and developed in the next chapter there has been little scientific writing which defines a value in football. Since the fundamental purpose of this study is to examine the values of football players and nonfootball players using the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument, the author felt it necessary to examine the literature on the meaning of values. The concept of values has been given many interpre­ tations from writers in a wide variety of disciplines. It connotes words such as good, bad, likes, dislikes, 16 moral connotations, desires, pleasures, needs, and interests.^ These are just a few of the broader based concepts of values. The concept is interwoven into a general academic term known as the "Theory of value." This theory is commonly studied in disciplines such as ethics, aesthetics, logic, theory of knowledge, economics, political science, anthropology and socio­ logy.15 The study of values by these various disciplines has historically precipitated ideological conflicts.1^ The problem, in part, has been caused by a lack of agreement concerning the definition of a value. The philosophical differences have existed for more than a century. This lack of consensus is noted by Dewey. He believed the confusion exists because it has been difficult for philosophers and others to agree on "whether a value is abstract, whether it is an object, or whether it exists unattached by itself." 17 Further bringing about confusion has been the contrast between ^ S t e p h e n C. Pepper, The Sources of Value (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California P r e s s , 1958), pp. 7-8. 15I bid., pp. 1-5. 16I bid., pp. 7-8. 17 John Dewey, Theory of Valuation, Foundations of the Unity of Science, vol. II, no. 4, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939). 17 the traditional and empirical schools of thought. One school is represented by the linguist who tries to gain a perspective about values by critically analyzing certain value terms such as good, bad; right, wrong or ought. This would be one of the traditional approaches trying to resolve problems through language. The second school uses empirical methods to examine values. facts. In this method values are examined based on 18 The method involves looking at a sentence, for example, "the boy is bad" and making a value judg­ ment about it. Given the two traditional approaches there is a humanistic approach offered by Flewelling. He indicates that all human effort is based on some concepts of value because they are "created, evaluated and enjoyed by humans." All values, according to him, exist to serve the gratification of human beings. He describes these human values as love, friendship, play, loyalty, etc. as the most meaningful treasures a person can 19 possess. 18 Most Pepper, Sources of V a l u e , pp. 19-23. ■^Ralph Tyler Flewelling, The Things That Matter (New York; The Ronald P ress, 1946), pT 21. 18 Definitions According to David L. Sills in his review of the social sciences on the concept of values, he defines values as "standards of desirability that are most nearly independent of specific situations." 20 These standards are established to accept or reject desirable and undesirable actions. The literature is filled with other different definitions on the meaning of values. Among these other definitions is one offered by Gruber. He contends that values are "felt desires or needs, good if satisfied, bad if not." 21 He believes that a person has strong feelings about those things most desired, particularly those things which make him happy and equally strong feelings about things which make him unhappy. Another definition which relates to the one advanced by Gruber is offered by Flewelling. He defines a value as "whatever we want or that which is worth seeking." 22 All these definitions take into consideration that a value is an important goal someone has determined is worth striving for. It is predicated on the belief 20 David L. Sills, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 16 (New York: MacMillan), p. 283. phia: ^ F r e d e r i k C. Gruber, Aspects of Values (Philadel­ University of Pennsylvania Press, lV59) , p. 78. ^ F l e w e l l i n g , Things That Matter M o s t , p. 25. 19 that something is either good or bad, right or wrong, satisfying or unsatisfying. The importance of the goal depends on the feelings of the person. Since one of the fundamental components of this study is to have two groups of students rank the values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument, it would be valuable to examine the definition of values offered by Rokeach. In his book, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, he provides a progressive foundation about the origin of values. beliefs. He begins this foundation by reviewing He indicates that every adult person has thousands of beliefs about the quality of life and his environment. He defines a belief as "an inference made by a person about basic states of expectancy." An example would be a person saying, will rain tomorrow." 23 "I believe it One of the problems with infer­ ences in human values is that they can only be evident in what a person says or does. In other words, they cannot be seen or physically examined like a piece of property. All people do not have the same beliefs, and some beliefs are stronger than others. On the subject of attitudes, he defines them as 23M ilton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and V a l u e s , (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1970), pp. 1-4. 20 "a relatively enduring organization of beliefs around an object or situation predisposing a person to respond 0/ in some preferential manner." They differ from beliefs because all attitudes incorporate beliefs but not all beliefs are permanent enough to be a part of attitudes. Attitudes predetermine a person's actions either verbal, nonverbal, positive or negative. These actions are governed by the extent of a person's feelings toward an object or situation. Some examples would be a person's feeling toward issues like welfare, abor­ tion, or some political situation. In contrast to beliefs and attitudes which serve as the basis for value formation, a person has only several values. Rokeach's definition of a value has been previously defined in the Statement of the Problem and will not be repeated here. However, he believes that values are centrally located within a person's total belief system which determines how one ought or ought not to behave. 25 He believes values can be abstract ideals either positive or negative. He considers values to be more permanent than attitudes and serve as criteria to guide one's actions as well as to judge other people. Rokeach further divides values into 24I bid., p. 112. 2^Ibid., pp. 124-26. 21 two types, Terminal and Instrumental, whose definitions will follow. Definition of Terms The following important terms will be used through­ out the study and are defined to ensure clarity and continuity for the reader. 1. Value--an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct (instrumental value) or end-state of existence (terminal value) is preferable to its opposite as defined by the Rokeach scale 2. 26 Value System--an array of values along a con­ tinuum of relative importance 3. Terminal Values--something socially and pe r ­ sonally worth striving for such a s : a comfortable life, an exciting life, a sense of accomplishment, a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, family, security, freedom, happiness, inner harmony, mature love, national security, pleasure, salvation, self respect, social recognition, true friendship, and wisdom 4. as: Instrumental Values--means to an end such ambitious, broadminded, capable, cheerful, clean, courageous, forgiving, helpful, honest, imagination, independent, intellectual, logical, loving, obedient, polite, responsible, and self-controlled 5. Football Player--an MSU varisty player 22 6. Nonfootball Flayer--a person who has never participated on a collegiate varsity squad as a football player Limitations and Delimitations Limitations The major limitation of this study is that the values purported to be enhanced by an athletic program can be framed by the values assessed by the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. Properly stated, the values of the athletic program that are in common with the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument will be assessed and displayed. The Rokeach instrument has been widely tested and has been accepted as an instrument that does not encourage socially desirable answers. Delimitations The study will draw its sample from Michigan State University. Consequently any generalization beyond the target population of Michigan State University must be done with caution. Design of the Study The target population for this study are selected students at Michigan State University. The sample includes two groups of currently enrolled Michigan 23 State University undergraduate students. One group consists of varsity football players; the second group is composed of a sample of male students from the under­ graduate student body, excluding varsity football players but possibly including other athletes. The sample consists of 284 respondents with the football players consisting of eighty four students and nonfootball players comprising 200 persons. The researcher will order from the Evaluation and Research Unit of the Office of the Registrar, M ichi­ gan State University, 200 names from the undergraduate students. These names will be randomly selected by academic class. Each class will consist of fifty names starting with the freshman and progressing to the Senior class. The first twenty five returns in each class will constitute the sample. The eighty four varsity football players will be recruited by the researcher who will contact the head football coach at Michigan State University and request his permission to adminis­ ter the survey instrument to the players in a group setting. The survey instrument was adapted from the Rokeach Value Scale. It contains a listing of the eighteen terminal values and the eighteen instrumental values placed in alphabetical order. Each respondent will be requested to arrange the values in order of their 24 importance to them. The survey instrument accompanied by a letter of explanation and a return envelope will be mailed to the students who do not play football requesting their participation in the study. The letter of explanation will indicate that each respon­ dent's reply will be kept confidential. Each envelope mailed to the respondents will contain a numerical code so a follow-up letter can be mailed ten days after the first return. Those respondents not answering the first survey instrument or the second request will be contacted by telephone to encourage their cooperation in the s tudy. The data collected will be prepared and presented in tabular and written form. The analysis of survey data will be reported in descriptive and comparative styles using, in most cases, summary statistical formats. Hypotheses In analyzing the relationships which might exist, either positively or negatively, between the ranking of values by football players and nonfootball players on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument, two null hypothe­ ses were developed for testing this study: Ho-. : There is no significant difference between football players and no n ­ football players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of Terminal Values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. 25 Hc^: There is no significant difference between football players and non­ football players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of Instrumental Values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. Organization of the Study The study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I includes the introduction, the statement of the problem, focus of the problem, significance of the study, purpose of the study, theoretical meaning of values, definition of terms, limitations and delimitations, design of the study, hypotheses and an outline of the organization of the study. Chapter II includes a review of literature concerning the values of football as identified by coaches, pro­ fessional and collegiate athletes, educators, professional and collegiate athletes, educators, commentators, sports- writers, and sociologists. Chapter III contains the methodology of the survey of the respondents and an explanation of the survey instrument. Chapter IV includes a comparative analysis of the results of the survey assessing the responses of the two groups of MSU students. The analysis determines if there are significant differences in the way the football players, and nonfootball players rank the thirty-six values in the Rokeach scale. 26 Chapter V contains a summary of the entire study followed by conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER XI REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An ERIC computer search was conducted to retrieve appropriate literature to enable the writer to conduct a thorough review of the literature on the value of intercollegiate football. few scientific studies. This search yielded only a Popular literature on the sub­ ject was found by using the Educational Index, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, Social Science Index and Sociological Abstracts; these yielded most of the data to be reviewed. Although there is a substantial body of literature related to the question of the value of intercollegiate football, there is a scarcity of formal research. Speci fically, previous popular literature has, without exception, sought to determine whether or not football develops a certain set of values in those who play it. None of the writers, however, has felt it necessary to define these values; will understand. they list them assuming the reader Moreover, although a few writers have sought to demonstrate a correlation between an individ­ ual's possession of certain positive values and the playing of football, none of their work has 27 28 satisfactorily demonstrated why this is so. For the purpose of this study, the researcher has divided the review of literature as much as possible into chronological periods consisting of material from football coaches and intercollegiate and professional football players; commentators and educators; partici­ pants, sociologists, sports writers, and formal researchers. The Pioneer Era The period from 1875 until 1910 should be considered the pioneer era of intercollegiate football in America. Football was developing in America and searching for its identity. [This era also led to World War I which lasted from 1914 to 1918.3 Coaches during this early period frequently compared the value of intercollegiate football to that of war. Walter Camp who coached at Yale was the most famous and successful coach in America then. He is credited with single-handedly bringing some structure and organization into American football at the intercollegiate level. In the preface to his book, Football, written in 1896 and co-authored by Lorin F. Deland, the Harvard football coach, he compares the qualities of football to the positive moral qualities required of American soldiers. He believed football, like war, demands "bravery, obedience, self control 29 and mentalkeenness. " He also infers that the benefits of football are much more profound than the physical aspects observed by the average spectator. The real values of football, he concludes, "are in making the boy into a real man."1 John W. Heisman, for whom the Heisman Trophy was named, was one of the true students and coaches of the game of football. He coached at several colleges and is known as "the father of the forward pass." In the opening chapter of Principles of Football, written in 1904, he, like Camp and Deland, makes reference to the valuable mental and moral benefits of football. He indicates that there was, at that time, a weakness in the American value system since there was no place for a young man to go, or no institution established to teach him "moral qualities of the mind." moral qualities as will power, He identified these self-control, clear thinking, memory, scholastic standing, sportsmanship, and the formation of good habits. He concludes his first chapter indicating that the game of football is the best laboratory known to help a young man develop these moral qualities. ^Walter Camp and Lorin P. Deland, Football (Cam­ bridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1895), p. ii. n John W. Heisman, Principles of Football (St. Louis, Mo.: Sports Publishing Bureau, 1904), pp. 1-9. Agreeing with Heisman and further stressing the mental qualities needed in America was Howard J. Jones who coached football at The University of Iowa in 1923. It is possible that his perception about what America needed was influenced by the Industrial Revolution which took place when America was trying to revitalize itself after World War I. In How to Coach and Play Football, he identified the mental qualities of ambition, deter­ mination, and confidence as most essential for any man desiring to develop a successful life. In addition, he emphasized that as in football and life, each man should develop the qualities of service, loyalty, unity, and self sacrifice to be successful.^ Two other successful football coaches felt the need to defend the intercollegiate game from criticism brought on in part by its rapid growth in the 1920s. Football had spread quickly in America and was beginning to challenge the popularity of professional baseball. An Acceptable Way of Life In response to the critics, Percy Haughton in Football and How to Watch It lays out a strong foundation for the positive values of football as he tries to help a growing number of uninformed fans understand the game. Howard L. Jones, How to Coach and Play Football (Iowa City: Clio Press" 1923) , p p . 126-28. 31 The other purpose of his book was to answer criticisms from those educators who saw no value in football. He argued that the game of football was taught by collegeeducated men and that the educational benefits inherent in the game were more valuable than some other college courses taught by professors. Furthermore, values learned in football carried over to later life. He concluded that while football may have faults which in time could be corrected, it should be acceptable because it was an indigenous American game which pro­ moted the American value system. ^ The second coach, William Roper who headed the football program at Prince­ ton wrote in Football: Today and Tomorrow, that football was a worthy college sport with many positive values. He labeled football a first class game played by men of high moral values. In addition, a successful foot­ ball team helps create interest among the student body to participate in other collegiate sports. He then jus­ tifies the football admission fees as necessary to help support the entire athletic program. He concludes by asserting that there appears to be a correlation between great football players and high intellectual ability."’ ^Percy Haughton, Football and How to Watch It (Boston: Little, Brown & C o . , 1924), ppl 216-27. "’William Roper, Football: Today and Tomorrow (New York: Duffield & Co. , 192^) , p p . 128-38. 32 Two years after the end of World War II another coach felt compelled to defend intercollegiate football. Dana X. Bible, who successfully headed football programs at several colleges before he wrote Championship Football in 1947, attempted to exonerate the game of football itself from the criticism directed at it. He emphasized that although the positive values of football became somewhat distorted at times, this was in no way the fault of football itself. He indicated that irrespective of the faults in football perceived by the critics, they could be corrected. He also explained to the doubters that football was a worthy game supposed to be played hard by young m e n .6 Frank Leahy used the American victory in World War II to help promote the value of intercollegiate football at The University of Notre Dame where he was a coach. Four years after the war, in Notre Dame Football: The T-Formation, he argues that America stands head and shoulders above every other nation in the world. He traces the origins of the nation's superiority using the game of football as an example. The "American Spirit" learned by young men from the game of football has kept our country victorious in the two great wars. ^Dana X. Bible, Championship Football (New York: Prentice-Hall), 1953, pp. 60-61. 33 He follows with an exhortation praising football for its physical and moral development of endurance, compe­ titiveness, loyalty and team work, all necessary quali­ ties to help a young man develop into a man.^ Tucked away in the conclusion of Charles W. Caldwell, J r . ’s book, Modern Single Wing Football written in 1951, is an intellectual justification for playing intercollegiate football on college and uni­ versity campuses. Caldwell, who was a successful coach at several universities including Princeton, gives the indelible impression that football participation is a causal factor in an athlete's academic motivations and professional attainment. In promoting the intel­ lectual qualities of intercollegiate football he provides some evidence which shows that on the 1949 team at Prince­ ton, nine out of the ten graduating lettermen went on to graduate studies in law, medicine, engineering, and business administration. He continues by emphasizing that since football teaches a young man how to budget his time effectively, college men with less academic aspiration could enhance their studies by participation in football.® ^Frank L e a h y , Notre Dame Football: The T-Formation (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1947)7 PP- 229-36. ^Charles Caldwell, J r . , Modern Single Wing Football (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1951), p p . 272-74. 34 The general theme so far throughout this review has been on coaches who emphasize the moral values inter­ collegiate football inculcates in the young men who participate in it. From the inception of football in 1875 until 194 0 when most of the coaches cited in the review were actively coaching football (some wrote their books near the end of their coaching careers), America was going through an identity crisis, trying to build her foundation on a strong moral basis. She was trying to encourage her people to rally around the idea that America was morally strong which made her superior in war to other nations. Coaches using this moral theme in football support the contention of M c ­ Intosh that "a competitive sport inevitably reflects 9 the value of the society in which it appears." Period of Stability During the Korean War in 1953 when football had become much more acceptable, Clarence "Biggie" Munn continued to highlight the positive values of inter­ collegiate football but focused more on the importance of teamwork, a far simpler claim. Formerly the head football coach at Michigan State University, he indicates in his 1953 book, Michigan State Multiple Offense, that □ McIntosh, "Foreward" in Development of Human V a l u e s , p. 11. 35 the single most important value a participant receives from playing the game of football is to be a member of a team. He stated that the values an athlete learns from associating with his teammates on the playing field carries over into life's w o r k . ^ Charles E. Caldwell, the famous Princeton football coach, cites the need for intercollegiate football to serve as entertainment for the American people during the Korean War. In 1953, in his second book Football for the Spectator, he argues that one function of inter­ collegiate football should be to serve as sheer enter­ tainment for the spectators. He compares the excitement derived from watching a football game to a good dramatic production. A winning football team also improves a university1s prestige and enhances alumni-university relations which is a general benefit to the University. 11 Bobby Dodd, the head football coach at Georgia Tech, in his 1954 book Bobby Dodd on Football, supports the notion after the Korean War that football had become well accepted into the American way of life. He concludes that its values are interwoven into those of America. Closing out the fifties era was James Holgate who coached in Clarence "Biggie" Munn, Michigan State Multiple Offense (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1953), pp. 206-7. ^ C h a r l e s Caldwell, Modern Football for the Spec­ tator (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1953). 36 at Yale. In his 1958 book, Fundamental Football, he discusses the values intercollegiate football incul­ cates in the athletes. He reiterates the moral claims of Heisman, Leahy, Munn and others who stated that football causes its players to have courage, gives them the feeling of belonging to a group, fosters sportsman­ ship, and provides a sense of teamwork and physical fitness.^ The review of literature from the fifties would suggest that it was a rather traditional decade in America--a period giate football. of stability for values in intercolle­ Although coaches cited during this era did not stress moral principles as much as was done in previous decades, they did continue to project them­ selves and football as guardians of the establishment. Other than making some general references to the Korean War by pointing out the need for "teamwork" and the need for intercollegiate athletics to serve as "entertain­ ment", coaches chose either not to get involved or to completely ignore the racial problems which had come to the fore in America. One partial explanation for this apparent omission from the literature offered by this researcher is that a significant number of American colleges and universities were entirely segregated. 19 Bobby Dodd, Bobby Dodd on Football Prentice-Hall, 1954), pp. 1-5. (New York: 37 These educational institutions generally reflected the attitudes of the societies in which they were located. Since the late 1940s black athletes had been involved in intercollegiate athletics at some predominantly white institutions, but their numbers were very small and they were particularly excluded from teams in the southern part of the United States. Era of Rebellion The decade of the 1960s was the era when Black Americans and other minorities openly, through protest movements, confronted institutional racism in America. The civil rights movement, stirred the consciousness of white America, and precipitated additional protests from other groups in America, particularly, young college students who philosophically and physically rebelled against America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Ben Martin, formerly the head coach of the United States Air Force Academy, in his 1961 book Ben Martin* s Flexible T-Offense, recognizes a characteristic of the generation gap facing America by stating that one of the greatest values of intercollegiate football was the aspect of human relations in which players and coach 38 work closely together to accomplish a goal. 13 Another coach, Rip Engle, who was at Penn State, did not show the sensitivity to youth in his 1962 book Championship Football that Ben Martin did. A very successful coach who had served as President of the American Football Coaches Association, he takes a traditional position by describing three important values of football: the importance of hard work.; the necessity of good preparation for a given task; and the necessity for an athlete to give of himself and his time to football. If football does not inculcate these values into young men, then there is little justification for 1/ football on a college campus. The first football coach to question the popular opinions of other coaches about the positive values of intercollegiate football was David Nelson who coached for several years at the University of Delaware. In his 1962 book, Football Principles and P l a y , he dis­ cusses the positive values claimed by other football coaches to be inherent in the sport. He questions whether the values were actually transmitted to the athletes or whether they already possessed the qualities 1^ Ben Martin, Flexible T-Offense (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-HalTj 1953), pp. 2-3. 1/ Rip E n g l e , Champ ion ship Football (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1962), pp. 2-5. N.J.: 39 when they came to the sport. 15 He examines the physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual values of intercolle­ giate football claimed by other coaches. He found that while there may be some justification for the temporary physical benefits, there is some question if football actually develops the other qualities to the extent claimed by some coaches. The decade of the 1970s was a turbulent time in the midst of economic affluence in America. be considered the freedom era in America. It could It was a time when Blacks and other minorities continued the struggle for equal opportunities. Young people demanded more personal freedom for themselves from authority figures such as parents, teachers, and coaches because they wanted to develop their own individuality. College students across the country had united to protest the Vietnam War. Moreover, it was the era when Black athletes at several colleges and universities revolted claiming dis­ crimination on the part of their coaches. Although some of these problems originated in the late 1960s, America, "the home of the free and the land of the brave," cer­ tainly had its value system tested in the 1970s. 1S York: David Nelson, Football Principles and Play (New Ronald Press, 1962Y, p p . 22-31. 40 Reactions of Traditional Coaches Some traditional football coaches who were products of a different era naturally resisted the rebellious behavior of the new generation of young people including some football players on their squads. A few other coaches showed some flexibility by making adjustments in their football programs. The characteristics of coaches are shown in Table 1. Generally this was an emotional time for coaches when their authority was being challenged. Several examples of the coaches' reactions were described in 1971 in The Fifth D o w n . Jim Sweeney, a coach of Washington State reacted as a guardian of the establishment: To me, football and athletics are a fortress that has held the wall against radical ele­ ments. I look for them to continue to play that same r o l e . 1- 6 Further using football as an example to appeal to the concerned silent majority was Tom Hamilton, coach and former Commissioner of the Pacific Eight Conference. In The Fifth D o w n , he is cited comparing football to war stating that they both "functioned best under authoritarian rule." In his opinion, the traditional values upheld by football coaches were necessary to keep ^ C i t e d in Amdur, The Fifth D o w n , pp. 29-30. TABLE 1 PROFILE OF COACHES NEO TRADITIONAL TRADITIONAL CONTEMPORARY 1. Authoritarian 1. Leadership concept 1. Participatory 2. Disciplinarian 2. Goal oriented 2. Accommodating 3. Teach moral values 3. Written training rules 3. Self determination 4. Demands conformity 4. Promotes teamwork 4. Individualism 5. Demands obedience 5. Loyalty 5. Self-expression 6. Inhumane 6. Considerate 6. Humanistic 7. Believes in hard physical work 7. Productivity oriented 7. Skill concept 8. Football makes boy into man 8. Football prepares one for life 8. Entertainment (business) 9. Winning is important 9. Winning is everything 9. Winning comes from personal motivation. It isn't everything; it's the only thing. hi America s t r o n g . ^ Another coach reacting in the same manner as Sweeney and Hamilton was Paul Dietzel who coached at South Carolina. Also quoted in The Fifth D o w n , he answers the demands of some athletes at a few colleges and universities desiring to have some input into their athletic programs: We have a complete democracy [in football] as far as the squad is concerned. We do exactly as I want them to do, and in my way of thinking that is a complete democ­ racy, because I am very prejudiced. These attitudes exemplified the feelings of most coaches who tried to serve as guardians of society and football. Most coaches were very reluctant to compromise the values in their football programs by implementing the changes demanded by their athletes. Athletes were making some sweeping demands for change in discriminatory hiring practices, training rules, hair length requirements, and dehumanizing impersonal coaching methods. Waivering somewhat in his support of his colleagues to resist change was John Ralston, coach of Stanford. He was credited in The Fifth Down with recognizing that there should be a separation of values on and off the football field. He believed that a coach should not compromise his program's values on the field but should be more ^ I b i d . , pp. 30-31. 18Ibid., p. 30. 43 humane to his players off the field. 19 A few coaches in the 1970s were flexible to change which enabled them to make some adjustments in their coaching styles. They did not react as rigidly to the demands of the times as did the other more tradi­ tional coaches. This was observed by George Davis, a college coach who warned coaches that the "game of football is in constant flux and the coach who remains on inflexible will not remain." Another coach who demonstrated much understanding about the changes in values confronting the sport-of football was Joe Paterno., head coach at Penn State University. He remarked that "football is a product of a culture and it's got to adapt to society." 21 He believed that the dissident college football player was not playing games with authority figures in his desire to develop his individuality and search for freedom. He concluded indicating that the traditional authoritarian model of coaches had now become outdated. "I don't think an athlete will buy this business that they'll do something just because you have 'coach' in l9Ibid., p. 30. 20I b i d . , p. 30. 21Ibid. , p. 39. AA front of your n a m e .M 22 John Ralston makes the transition by putting into practice the new role model advocated by Joe Paterna. He was identified earlier as willing to show some compromise off the playing field but not on the playing field. In 1971 in a book he co-authored with his assis­ tant coach Mike White of Stanford, Coaching Today's A t h l e t e , he did not completely abandon all the tradi­ tional values in their program, but changed the methods by which they transmitted their coaching values to their players. Rather than dictating what the players' behavior should or should not be on and off the playing field, they chose to serve as role models by setting proper examples of behavior for the players. They also tried to cultivate an atmosphere in which each player would be responsible for developing his own motivation, personal pride, and self respect. 23 Alonzo "Jake" Gaither, a great Black coach for many years at Florida A and M University, a predomi­ nately Black college, in the book Human Values Through Spo r t s , provides a clear summary about the new genera­ tion of college athletes. He draws upon his rich ^ C i t e d in Amdur , The Fifth D o w n ,, p. 29. ^ J o h n Ralston and Mike White, Coaching Today's Athlete (Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press Book, 1971), pp. AT-50. 45 experience in coaching to explain. While the majority of American athletes were still ’’clean cut” and believed in American traditional v a l u e s , a new breed of athlete had emerged on the scene who was demanding his personal freedom. This new breed was not at all modest about questioning those who were in authority and were quick to remind adult Americans about their past mistakes. 24 Some athletes caught up in the new protest movement spreading across college campuses in America dramatized their frustration in another way by simply quitting the football team which brought new problems for the coach. Scholarship football players voluntarily dropped out of football in search for freedom. Several univer­ sities were affected by the dropout rate, such as Brown University which reported in The Fifth Down that the dropouts had hurt their program. 25 An attempt to explain the reason for the dropout rate was made by Bob Odell, an assistant coach at Penn State University. He blamed athlete attrition on the affluent society, "Too many boys have too much given 26 to them early in life without working for it." Taking 0/ Cited by McIntosh, "Forward" in Development of Human Values Through Sports, p. 17. 25Ibid., p. 62. 26Ibid., pp. 62-63. 46 a similar view was Bear Bryant, head coach at The University of Alabama, as they used to b e . "Kids simply aren't as hungry I am not being critical of the kids, it's the t i m e s , " ^ The review of popular literature written by coaches would suggest that from its inception in American in 1875, intercollegiate football coaches undoubtedly believed that the game naturally imparted certain moral values to those who played it. Coaches also believed intercollegiate football was necessary to prepare young men for war by bringing -some structure into their lives. Some coaches were convinced that the values a young man learned in football carried over to adult life to help him live a better life. Moreover, while some coaches adhered rigidly to the traditional values because they were unchallenged, at a later time some others were persuaded to change because of pressure from athletes reflecting changes in society at large. These characteristics of football coaches are summarized in a profile format in Table 1 on page 41. The Traditional Athlete and Football Values Whether the coaches were successful in transmitting those values listed above to their collegiate athletes 27 Quoted in Evans, Blowing the Whistle on Inter­ collegiate Athletics, p. 87. 47 is an important point to consider. In reviewing the literature on the values collegiate players absorbed from participating in the sport of football, there is some evidence from popular literature supporting the view that coaches' efforts to transmit positive values to players were successful. Otto Graham, a star athlete himself in college who subsequently coached college football for many years, believes football teaches a player many positive values. In his 1953 book, T-Quarterback, he indicated that football taught him, as a player, valuable lessons which could be carried over into later life. Football was a great teacher to help a young man learn how to handle success and defeat, and how to help a fellow man in need. Football taught the player the important value of hard work. 28 Like Otto Graham, Red Grange played football during an era when athletes did not question the value of football; they readily accepted the authoritarian role of coaches. The generation gap, if it existed then, was not commonly talked about. Red Grange attributed his success in life to football. He was an all-American football player at The University of Illinois from the 1923 through the 1924 season. In his 1953 28 Otto Graham, T-Quarterback (New York: H a l l , 1954), pp. 208-9, 215. Prentice- 48 autobiography, The Red Grange S tory, he describes the many positive things football did for him. He met many people and made lasting friendships, had the oppor­ tunity to travel to places which he might not have otherwise gone, and it provided him the opportunity to earn a good living. 29 Gerald R. Ford, who later became President of the United States, played football at The University of Michigan during the depression years in 1932-33. He told what football meant to him as a player in Sports Illustrated in 1974. The experience of playing the game can be applied to the rest of your life, and can be drawn from freely. An important value football taught him was learning how to win. It was not enough to just compete, winning is very important--maybe more important than ever b ef o r e .^ Jim Lynch compares his experience of playing collegiate football at Notre Dame in the 1950s to playing professional football on the Kansas City Chiefs. In an interview quoted in The Death of an American G a m e , he states "he had met some fine people in and out of the game, that the college game is fun while ^ R e d Grange, The Red Grange Story (New York: Putnam, 1953), pp. 177-178. Gerald R. Ford, "In Defense of the Competitive Edge," Sports Illustrated 18 July 1974, pp. 17-23. 49 the professional game is a cold, cold business." 31 Some other successful football players did not find the need to differentiate between their experiences as both collegiate and professional players. They recounted the values their total football experiences had taught to them in The Game of Their L ives. Andy Robustelli, who played professionally for the New York Giants, indicated that, among other things, football taught him how to survive by looking out for himself 32 both as a player and citizen. Both Johnny U n i t a s , former player with the Baltimore Colts and Sam Huff, former player with the New York Giants, reported experiencing a great deal of fun playing the game. 33 Jerry Kramer, who played professionally with the Green Bay Pack e r s , saw the game as a means to develop some really good friendships with his teammates. 34 Another prominent professional football player who spoke positively about the game was Roosevelt Grier who played with the New York Giants for several years. 31 John Underwood, The Death of An American Game (Boston: Little, Brown & C oV, 1979) , p . 6l"! ^ D a v e Klein, The Game of Their Lives (New York: New American Library^ 1977), p . 181. ^ I b i d . , p. 42, p. 200. o / Cited by Dorcas Susan Butt, Psychology of Sport (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1976), p. 52. 50 In the book, The Game of Their Lives, he is quoted as stating that football taught him to do his very best at whatever he did. 35 Grier's former teammates, Charlie Connerly and Alex Webster, praised football for helping them become responsible adults. 36 According to Gino Marchetti, another former successful football player with the Baltimore Colts, football put discipline in his life and "discipline is very necessary in the game of football. "37 Not all former successful professional football players found that the values they learned on the playing field carried over to life nor helped them make adjust­ ments following their playing careers. Some athletes left the game frustrated and disappointed. For example, Lenny Moore, an outstanding Black player with the Balti­ more Colts for several years, felt disappointed when he was forced to retire from the game. football is illusory. The game of It is a big let down for the athlete who has not prepared himself for a second career upon retirement. He found football might be great while he played, it, but the minute his career 33Cited in Klein, The Game of Their Lives, p. 109. 36Ibid., p. 78, p. 226. 37Ibid., p. 51. 51 ended, no one recognized him. 38 Jack Stroud, another former professional player who had difficulty making the transition from a highly successful football career with the New York Giants to another career, states that he had a problem in trying to recapture the same motivational level that made him such a successful football player in another job. He found no other job which gave him the exhilira- ting satisfaction comparable to football. He felt football was ingrained in his heart and soul. it twenty-four hours a day. satisfaction in other jobs. He lived He has not found the same 39 Dr. Zanny Leibowitz, a psychologist who does counsel­ ing for the National Football League Players Association, confirms the humiliating reality Moore and Stroud con­ fronted upon their retirement. "Everyone else acknowl­ edges them as football stars but when they retire, they have to ask, who am I?" He further stated, as he tried to explain the limited experience of athletics, "What you do is what you are in society. A retired hockey player, Bernie Parent, agreed 38Ibid., p. 166. 39Ibid., p. 39. ^8Cited in "Retired Athletes: Challenge Begins After Game End," The New York T i m e s , 28 October 1980, p. 30. 52 with Dr. Leibowitz that when the game is over the real challenge begins. "In hockey, you live by what you do on the ice, hot what you are as a human being.,|4^ This may imply that an athlete's image and skills developed on the playing field are not transferable to everyday living off the playing field. The players cited above in the literature review participated in both college and professional football in the 1940s and the decade of the 1950s. During these eras the values of intercollegiate football were based on a whole set of different attitudes than those which emerged in the 1960s and the 1970s. Those attitudes were precipitated principally by philosophical difference brought on by some social and cultural changes in America. These changes which primarily affected young people started in the mid 1960s but did not really gain national attention until the 1970s. Among the factors causing the changes were the Vietnam War, search for individual freedom, insti­ tutional racism, and the dehumanized treatment athletes claimed they received from coaches. This review will continue by tracing that protest era as it relates to collegiate and professional athletes. 41I b id., p. 29. 53 Contemporary Athletes and Traditional Values The Vietnam War brought about the most unrest in collegiate athletics. Some football players' value systems were in conflict with the emerging emphasis then found in football. These value systems shown in Table 2 can interact to give either complimentary or conflicting classifications. Several football players quit their respective teams because they saw football as a perpetrator of the inhumanity associated with the war. Other players were affected by the violence and overemphasis on winning--that is, "winning is everything." A football player at the University of Texas quit the team because it interfered with his desire to be a student. a2 Another player left the team after his sophomore year at Swarthmore College because he saw similarities between football and the negative aspects of the Vietnam War. Chris Leinberger states that "he couldn't kill and expect to be a conscientious objector." He continues by commenting that "I had to run over a friend three times in a one-on-one [football] drill. tn I was putting him down when he needed my help.” a9 A m d u r , The Fifth D o w n , p . 67. 43I bid., p. 62. A 54 TABLE 2 ATHLETE-COACH VALUE CLASSIFICATION COACHES Traditional Contemporary Traditional A B Contemporary C D STUDENT ATHLETES A. Traditional Coach - Traditional student athlete yields little or no conflict in values B. Contemporary Coach - Traditional student athlete yields probable conflict in values C. Traditional Coach - Contemporary student athlete yields probable conflict in values D. Contemporary Coach - Contemporary student athlete yields little or no conflict in values 55 potential all-American linebacker at the University of Florida quit the team because, in his judgement, the game had become dehumanized and because sportsman­ ship had been replaced with the attitude that winning is everything.44 At Harvard, a football player quit the team because he recognized, after playing several years, that there was too much violence involved in the game.4"* Offering a reason for the attrition rate among football players Carlos Alvarez, an all-American foot­ ball player in the 1970s at The University of Florida, puts forth the idea that "athletes had an obligation to speak out to help change the value system in America." He commented further that "love not violence was the key to a better world." 46 Echoing support was the captain of the Army team who believed that his team­ mates would vote overwhelmingly to ending the Vietnam War.47 This would suggest that the traditional moral values promoted by Camp, Heisman, Roper and others had been either deemphasized by a new generation of football coaches or those values were not being accepted 44Ibid., pp. 60-61. 4"*Ibid. , p . 61. 46Ibid. , p. 65. 47Ibid., p. 57. 56 by the new generation of student athletes. Challenging the racial discrimination in inter­ collegiate football, Black athletes protested the positive values in football were declining because of the insensitivity of white coaches to the plight of Black athletes. Their dissatisfaction spurred on the revolt of Black athletes across the country and resulted in some Black athletes walking off teams at various colleges. They united and formed Black student unions to demand a greater say in the intercollegiate athletic programs. Winning At All Cost Vince Lombardi, famous former coach of the Green Bay Packers in the 1960s, is credited with creating and promoting the slogan, "Winning Isn't Everything, I t ’s the Only Thing." This philosophy of winning at all cost became prevalent in major intercollegiate football programs in the 1960s and 1970s and brought complaints of dehumanization from some athletes. Part of the heavy emphasis on winning resulted because successful teams were often featured on national tele­ vision which brought additional revenue to the institu­ tion's intercollegiate program. Harold A. Cramer, a football player at Springfield College in 1973, criticized the all-out winning concept in the book, Development of Human Values Through Sports. Football had become too mechanized with too much empha­ sis on winning. He believed that the concentrated attention now devoted to the won-lost record of foot­ ball had become a valid barrier to the development of positive values.^® In Meat on the H o o f , Gary Shaw a former player with the University of Texas shows that the potentially positive values of football were overwhelmingly compro­ mised by the negative value of winning at all costs: This it seems to me is the crux of the big time football player's predicament. All of his values, his reactions, his ways of measuring himself as a man were given to him [by football]. So here is his dilemma; if he clings to these criteria, he's headed for a narrow constricting life based on some masculine myth about winning; and if he cuts loose, rejects the values, the rules, the measures that he's built his whole life on up to that point, he's at a complete and painful loss.49 George Sauer, a star player both in college and in profesional football, in his introduction to S h a w ’s book says he felt that the only way a player could keep himself from getting brainwashed about the moral values of football is to simply resist the notion that AQ Harold A. Cramer, "A Student-Athlete's Viewpoint, in Development of Human Values Through Sports, pp. 68-70 ^ G a r y Shaw, Meat On the Hoof (New York: Publishing Co., 1972) , p"! 279. Dell 58 a scholarship for an athlete is different from the wages paid for a fellow student waiting table. After playing for several years, he saw no educational purpose in football. A number of professional football players became critics of the game in the 1970s. Dave Meggyesey who played for the St. Louis Cardinals is reported to have described football in the book, The Fifth D o w n , as ua glorification of violence." 51 Lending support to Meggyesey's view is Jack Tatum who tells first hand about his experience as a professional player with the Oakland Raiders in They Call Me Assassin, stating "professional football is war between two teams and the player's role is to be a warrior in a very physical way. Chip Oliver, another professional player who became a critic of the values of football, was a highly regarded linebacker with the Oakland Raiders. In The Fifth Down he calls football a silly game which dehumanizes players. 5? John McMurtry, who played Canadian football 50I b id., pp. 9-10. “*^Amdur, The Fifth D o w n , p. 58. Jack Tatum, They Call Me Assassin (New York; Avon Books, 1980), p~! 10" "^Cited in A m d u r , The Fifth D o w n , p. 58. 59 criticizes the game in Psychology of Sport. Football made him feel like a robot and the fun of the game had been lost. 54 Coaches, players, and analysts have examined foot­ ball and its values and have shown varying perspectives. The views range from the traditional values espoused by early coaches about its humane values in building manhood's moral and mental qualities, to more recent players who see football as war and its players as dehumanized and inhumane. Observers, as well, have seen fit to analyze the value of intercollegiate foot­ ball and as commentators act as social critics whether in their roles as educators, psychologists or sociol­ ogists, or sportswriters. Promoting Institutional Image In the Phi Delta Kappan, Louis E. Alley who was head of the Physical Education Department for men, University of Iowa, observes that intercollegiate athletics could be good or bad, depending on the way they are used at the University. 55 Former president of the University of Connecticut, Homer Babbidge, in "^Cited in Butt, Psychology of Sport, p. 57. ^ L o u i s E. Alley, "Athletics in Education: The Double-Edged Sword," Phi Delta Kappan 56, (October 1974), pp. 102-3. 60 a 1973 article in the Journal of College Student Per­ sonnel indicates that there is a diverse opinion within the university community on the values of intercollegi­ ate athletics and that division will always be present in America. He believes the on-going debate revolves around the question whether intercollegiate athletics belong on a university campus. Some analysts have described how the game of inter­ collegiate football has helped promote the university. John Underwood, a sportswriter, in his book The Death of an American G a m e , explains that intercollegiate football is far better than professional football because it engenders a spirit which gets most campus and community people involved in the game. tifies with the team." 57 "Everyone iden- Educator J. S. Coleman explains in Social Problems in Athletics that one of the important benefits a winning football team brings to an educational institution is "prestige" which creates much favorable publicity for an institution over a large geographical CQ area. Bill Gilbert, an author who writes for Sports 5 fi Cited in Roger D. Harrold and Benjamin Lowe, "Intercollegiate Athletics in the Contemporary Student Value System," Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (July 1973), p. 5. 57 58 p. 244. Underwood, The Death of An American G a m e , p. 224. Cited in Landers, Social Problems in Athletics, 61 Illustrated and other magazines, in an article in Phi Delta Kappan states that the prestige a university incurs from a winning football team is not restricted to an institution. It is also bestowed on the out­ standing athlete which brings him fame and status-much sought after human values. 59 Three university presidents, James B. Conant of Harvard, Whitney Gris­ wold of Yale, and Harrold Dobbs of Princeton, tried to put the value of intercollegiate football in some kind of perspective in the 1950s. In The Recruiting Game they emphasize that the only reason a student should take part in intercollegiate athletics is because of "the value of the experience for him. This could suggest that each athlete participates in athletics for an array of different values that are uniquely self-serving to him. Daniel M. Landers, however, found this not to be the case. In the book Social Problems in Athletics he reports a study which revealed that athletes partici­ pate in organized athletics for two basic reasons: skill development and the prospect of v i c t o r y . ^ *^Bill Gilbert, "What Counselors Need to Know About College and Pro Sports," Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974), pp. 121-24. ^ C i t e d in Rooney, The Recruiting G a m e , p. 156. ^L a n d e r s , 29. Social Problems in Athletics, pp. 228- 62 Providing additional support about the broad community values of intercollegiate football is Gerald R. Ford, former President of the United States of America, who states in Sports Illustrated in 1974 that a successful football team can "galvanize an entire metropolitan area." A successful team lifts the campus spirit, and generates funds to support the entire athletic p r o g r a m . ^ Edgar L. Harden, former President of Northern Michigan University, focuses more specifically on what intercollegiate athletics does for the participant. In the March 1960 Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, he identifies several positive values that intercollegiate athletics contribute to the parti­ cipants: helping the individual learn the value of hard work, experiencing competition, contributing to a team effort, losing. 63 learning how to win and adjust to In the same source, former head basketball coach at Michigan State University, Fordy Anderson indicates that athletics teach a boy to be a m a n . ^ fi9 Ford, "In Defense of the Competitive Edge," pp. 17-23. £n Edgar L. Harden, "What College Presidents Say About Athletics," Journal of Health. Physical Education and Recreation 31 (March 1960), p. 15^ ^ C i t e d in Jack Daugherty "Athletics: Let's Accentuate the Positive," Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974): p. 138. 63 Famed Olympic track star Jesse Owen identifies three basic values which athletics teach its participants: "knowing your fellow man, knowing yourself, in God." 6 'i and believing Walter Cronkite, the renowned news commenta­ tor believes that the discipline an athlete acquires in athletics may be the most important value to be successful in this w o r l d . ^ Contrary to popular opinion, a large segment of support for intercollegiate athletics comes directly from the faculty on campus. Robert Blackburn and Michael Nyikas report on several studies about faculty interest in intercollegiate athletics. One shows that 60 percent of the faculty at small-sized Ferris State College, Michigan, had participated in interscholastic athletics. Also, over 80 percent of the faculty at the intellectually elite Carleton College in Minnesota were spectators at athletic events while 60 percent actually participate in some sport. Additionally, more than 90 percent of the faculty at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, a middle-sized institution in an urban area, either are spectators or participants in some form of sport. 65Ibid. 66I b i d . , p. 140. ^ R o b e r t T. Blackburn and Michael S. Nyikas, "College Football and Mr. Chips: All in the Family," Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974), p. 111. 67 64 Only one study showed what the general student body thought about the role of intercollegiate athletics. Educators, Roger D. Harrold and Benjamin Lowe, (in an article in Journal of College Student Personnel) showed that among 1,000 undergraduate students surveyed at a large university, the majority did not think inter­ collegiate athletics were out of phase with the dominant student value system. Over 45 percent of the respondents felt intercollegiate athletics were an integral part of the goals of the educational institution. 68 The other side of the diverse opinions reported by such educators as Alley and Babbidge comes in the form of condemnation from social analysts detailing the negative values of intercollegiate athletics. Part of the disdain stems from the belief of some analysts that athletics has a higher priority value on campus than the educational purposes. In his book, The American W a y , John Tunis, a sportswriter, indicates that football has grossly reduced the educational image of an institution. He thinks the general public identifies an institution's greatness by its football team rather than its academic 68 Roger D. Harrold and Benjamin Lowe, "Inter­ collegiate Athletics in the Contemporary Student Value System," Journal of College Student Personnel 4 (July 1973) , p p . 345-51". 65 excellence. 69 Eric Sevareid, famed news commentator, believes that the educational values on campus have been distorted for athletics. In Tunis' book, he states "We have exalted the athlete above the scholar." He warns that "What seems less obvious is that we had better reverse gears quickly."'7® Tunis condemned the lo.fty position intercollegiate athletics held in society as early as 1928: Why not stop talking about the noble purposes which sports fulfill and take them for what they are? . . .In short, let us cease the elevation of [sport] to the level of a religion.71 Commercialism In a study of American college athletics in 1929, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching identified two general problems connected with intercollegiate athletics: "Commercialism" and the community's indifference toward the educational service for which the American college exists. 72 The commercial aspect of college athletics has led some 69 John Tunis, The American Way (New York: Sloan & Pearce, 1957), p . €l, D uell, 7®Cited in Tunis, The American W a y , p. 173. 71Ibid., p. 100. 72 Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, The Study of American College Athletics (New York: The Merrymount Press, 1927), P • 109. 66 writers to question whether or not intercollegiate athletics should be a part of an educational institution. Homer Babbidge, in Sports in Society comments that "sport has no official place on a college or university campus unless it is a recognized part of the educational program. In The Recruiting G a m e , Rooney attempts to explain, but not justify, the reason for intercollegiate football becoming so commercially oriented at an educational institution. He states that high quality live entertainment is wanted everywhere not just in the big cities where the professional franchises are located, and so the colleges have moved in to fill the void.74 This purpose of entertainment is directly related to the attitude of the necessity to win. This has forced educational institutions to try to offer a winning football program to attract large crowds to ensure both financial success and prestige. Evans states that bigtime football programs are trapped in the dilemma of trying to adhere to their educational goals and competing with professional sports for the 7T Cited in Jay J. Coakley, Sports in Society (St. Louis, Mo.: C. V. Mosby CoT, 1978") , p"! T777 ^Rooney, The Recruiting G a m e , p. 161. 67 entertainment d o l l a r . ^ According to Professor Revel Denney, cited in The American W a y , the entertainment interest in inter­ collegiate athletics can best be measured by its economic growth in America. In 1958, he estimated that forty billion dollars was spent on recreation, and of that amount, at least two hundred million is invested yearly in intercollegiate football. He con-! eluded that intercollegiate football is fighting to get a bigger share of the entertainment d o l l a r . ^ Intercollegiate football at most institutions is required to be self-supporting and to earn sufficient amounts of revenue to finance the entire athletic program. Since revenue is highly related to winning teams, to become successful in intercollegiate foot­ ball, it is necessary to recruit outstanding athletes for the football team. Rooney calls these outstanding athletes "quasi-amateur performers" and questions whether they should be on c a m p u s . ^ Vociferously opposing the recruiting of athletes for the intercollegiate athletic programs is Jerry Izenberry, a sportswriter. ^Evans, Blowing the Wh i s t l e , p. 80. ^ C i t e d in Tunis, The American W a y , p. 60. 77 Rooney, The Recruiting G a m e , p. 144. 68 In How Many Miles to Camelot, he characterizes it, "recruiting--the demeaning practice where grown men must beg youngsters who have recently passed puberty to please attend their institution— is not wrong-i t 1s sick. This entertainment aspect has led to another major criticism of intercollegiate football, its overemphasis on winning which has caused the university or college educational institution to depart dramatically from its educational purposes. The philosophy of winning at all cost instead of the developing of human values has brought criticism from several social critics. Holmes N. Van Derbeck, professor of Religion and Philosophy of Springfield College, in Development of Human Values Through Sports states that this value [winning], which only a few can achieve, tends to discount the very real values derived from losing and it encourages some very questionable practices to reach the goal.79 He is, therefore, critical of this over-emphasis on winning and its place in intercollegiate athletics. Football can be viewed as a zero-sum.game. That is, the win-lose concept implies that for every winner 78 Jerry Izenberry, How Many Miles to Camelot? (New York: Holt, Rinehart S Wins'ton", 1972) , p . 53. 79 Holmes N. Van Derbeck, "No Respect" in Development of Human Values Through Sports, p. 46. 69 there is a loser. In a football game, the win-win, and lose-lose situations are impossible since both teams cannot win nor can both teams lose. The win- lose and lose-win situations are most probable since they reveal the likely outcome of every football game played at the intercollegiate level. are summarized in Table 3. These notions In a 1974 Phi Delta Kappan article, Darrell Crase emphasizes "It's very painful to think of all the youngsters who love sport but who are being eliminated at every stage just because they aren't going to be winners." 80 J. Robert Evans believes that the overemphasis on winning has significantly destroyed the traditional fun and character-building values of intercollegiate football. He further believes that the past teacher- student relationship has been replaced by an employeremployee relationship. 81 There are differences of opinion in the literature as to who might be responsible for bringing about the overemphasis of winning in intercollegiate football. Some suggest that it begins with paternal pressure long before the boy enters organized athletics. 80 The Darrell Crase, "The Continuing Crises in A th­ letics," Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974), p. 100. 81 Evans, Blowing the Whistle, p. 85. 70 TABLE 3 WIN-LOSE CONCEPT YOUR TEAM WIN-WIN THEIR TEAM WIN-LOSE --------LOSE-WIN LOSE-LOSE 71 father perpetrates an attitude which he wants his son to live by, that life is a dog-eat-dog competition. Professor David N. Campbell in a Phi Delta Kappan article states that "Everywhere a parade of frustrated fathers determine that their son(s) will be winner(s) and make up for their own personal failures." 82 Evans blames the coaches emphasizing that "some coaches will do anything to win." 83 John Underwood defends coaches stating that "coaches at every level are under intense pressure to win. Their margin for error is painfully thin."84 Another critic castigated the alumni for causing the overemphasis on winning in intercollegiate foot­ ball. Senator William J. Fullbright commenting in The Recruiting Game believes that the overemphasis is connected with society's expectations and brought on by the insatiable needs of the alumni to boost their institution's football team: "Our colleges, tinder extreme pressure from the alumni, have become so intent upon winning games that they use any means to obtain 82 David N. Campbell, "On Being Number One: Compe­ tition in Education," Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974) , p. 144. 88E v a n s , Blowing the Whistle, p. 86. 84Underwood, The Death of an American G a m e , p . 58. 72 their ends."85 Where do university presidents stand with respect to their institution's preoccupation with winning only? Do they know what is going on? to both questions. John Tunis offers answers He feels that university presidents are well aware of the pressure for their intercollegiate football teams to win and that they see the "drawback and the defects of the system more than anyone else." 86 The problem, however, is that they lack the courage to change the system. The modern day "single purpose concept that winning is everything" has replaced the moral values of character building, sportsmanship, and loyalty that were promoted so prominently earlier by such traditional football coaches such as Camp, Holgate, Heisman, and Jones. The evidence suggests that no one connected with the university is willing to stick his/her neck out and revert the intercollegiate program back to the traditional moral principles. Perhaps one reason academic administrators do not attempt in large numbers to return their inter­ collegiate football programs back to the philosophy of moral values is that some critics have consistently attacked the values of intercollegiate football by 8^Cited in Rooney, The Recruiting G a m e , p. 20. Of. Tunis, The American W a y , p. 64. 73 questioning only the traditional values concepts, especially as they relate to morality. These attacks have been persuasive among some segments of the American public to hinder the modern day academic administrator from espousing the moral virtues of intercollegiate football. Athletics and Charac­ ter Development Psychologists Thomas Tutko and William Burns quoted in Sports in Contemporary Society ironically comment that "Sports don't build character, they build characters." 87 In a similar way when sportswriter Haywood Hale Braun was asked if athletics could build character he responded that "sports do not build character, but reveal it." 88 Another critic, Dr. Harry Edwards, professor of sociology, carefully examined a list of twelve characteristics which had been tradi­ tionally attributed to athletic participation to develop character: loyalty, altruism, discipline, fortitude, preparation for life, opportunities for advancement, physical fitness, mental alertness, educational 87 Stanley D. Eitzen, Sports in Contemporary Society (New York: St. Martin's P r e s s , 1980), pp. 232-33. ®®Cited in Charles R. Kniker, "The Values of Ath­ letics in Schools: A Continuing Debate," Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974), p. 116. 74 achievement, religiosity, and nationalism. He con­ cludes that the evidence for claims that athletics develop these qualities in participants were very doubtful, unsubstantiated, or nonexistent: "The claims made on behalf of sports do not have a sufficient basis in current knowledge to justify the dogmatic certainty with which they are expressed." 89 Further refuting the claim that sports build character are Thomas Tutko and Bruce Ogilivie, professors of psychology. After doing extensive research on ath­ letes from the interscholastic to the professional level they find some evidence which suggests that rather than building character, athletics actually prevents a growth in some instances. Their research also shows that the careful selections process contributes more to an athlete's positive attitude than participation in the sport itself. 90 Supporting the two studies a b o v e , about the nega­ tive benefits of intercollegiate athletics to character building is educator Peter McIntosh who believes that it is very doubtful whether athletics can build charac­ ter. In his book, Development of Human Values Through 89 Cited in Eitzen, Sports in Contemporary Society, p. 232. 90Ibid., pp. 232-33. 75 Sports, he indicates that the formation of character is well established before the age of puberty. 91 Reiterating this belief is Robert Singer cited in Psychology of S p o r t , who reviews several studies which showed that star athletes have poor character develop­ ment. He concludes by stating athletes and varsity letter winners exhibit poorer attitudes toward fair play and sports­ manship than non-athletes and non-letter winners. It seems the better the athlete, the poorer the character d e v e l o p m e n t . 92 There is a question if sports caused these careless attitudes or whether the athletes already possessed the attitudes. Former Research Studies The literature contained only a few scientific studies on the values of intercollegiate football. A study conducted by Walter Kroll and E. H. Peterson was reported in The Research Quarterly concerning the "Study of Values Tests and Collegiate Football Teams." The purpose of the study was to investigate possible differences between winning and losing football teams on life-value profiles identified as theoretical, 91 McIntosh, "Forward," in Development of Human Values Through Sports, p. 12. 92 59. Cited in Butt, Psychology of S port, pp. 57- 76 economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious using multivariate analysis procedures. Six collegiate football teams were selected, three nationally ranked teams and three teams with losing records. The researchers found the social factor was the most impor­ tant difference between the two groups of teams; winning teams scored lower on this factor than losing teams. The winning teams scored high on the economic factor but low on the theoretical factor, while losing teams scored much higher on the theoretical factor. ship athletes scored low in sportsmanship. Scholar­ This study suggests that the sportsmanship qualities possessed by athletes were different where it was found to be low and high among athletes on losing teams where no scholarships existed. 83 The purpose of Lowell G. Bibbulph1s study on the "Athletic Achievement and the Personal and Social Adjustment of High School Boys" reported in The Research Quarterly was to determine the relationship between athletic achievement and personal and social adjustment. Specifically, the author wanted to find whether high achievers in athletics were more socially and personally adjusted than low achievers in athletics. Approximately qo Walter Kroll and Kay H. Peterson, "Study of Value Tests and Collegiate Football Teams," The Research Quarterly 36 (July 1964), pp. 441-46. 77 461 high school males were given a battery of skill tests. The group was divided into two groups consisting of high school boys of high athletic achievement compared with high school boys of low athletic achievement. Outstanding athletes and students with physical handi­ caps were excluded from the study. The author found students with high athletic achievement showed a sig­ nificantly greater degree of personal and social adjust­ ment than did the group ranking low in athletic achieve­ ment. Also, it suggested students with coordinated motor skills possessed a better self image in the areas of personal worth, self reliance, personal freedom, and an increased worth as a social being. The author further suggests that other things being equal, the individual who has developed a high degree of motor skill will be better equipped to meet the problems of personal and social adjustment than will the individual who is frustrated in the motor control of his body. 94 Michael C. Malmisur conducted a study of the ego development stages of a sample of college football players, using as his subjects eighty-one football players involved in spring football at a large state university. His purpose was to examine the social ^ L o w e l l G. Biddulph, "Athletic Achievement and the Personal and Social Adjustment of High School Boys," The Research Quarterly 25 (1954), pp. 1-7. 78 and psychological ego development of the football players by using a sentence completion test of thirty-six items. The test was to assess the athletes' unity of personality, individuality, their method of facing problems, opinion about themselves and their knowledge of the problems of life. The author's study revealed that on the college football team there were no real ego development prob­ lems among the football players. However, the author cautions that the data does not prove that ego develop­ ment is either enhanced or retarded by competitive athletics. He further suggested that athletes, as a group, are more conservative rather than dominant and leading. 95 However, this suggestion needs further study. E. G. Booth used the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory) to compare the personality ratings of male athletes and nonathletes at Grinnel College in Iowa during 1955-56. students. He used three groups of college The first group consisted of freshmen and upperclass athletes and nonathletes; a second group were freshmen and varsity athletes who participated in only team, individual, or team and individual sports; the third group were athletes and nonathletes rated as poor or good competitors. 95 Twenty-two factors from Michael C. M a lmisur, "Ego Development Stages of a Sample of College Football Players," The Research Quarterly, 47 (May 1976), pp. 148-52. 79 the 500 items of the MMPI were selected because they discriminated significantly between poor and good competitors. Some of the author's major findings suggest that nonathletes scored significantly higher than- at h ­ letes on the interest variable. Varsity athletes scored significantly lower than the freshmen athletes, freshmen nonathletes, and upperclass nonathletes on the anxiety item. On the social responsibility variable, the upperclass nonathletes scored higher than the freshmen athletes, and the freshmen nonathletes, and the varstiy athletes. The varsity athletes and the upperclass nonathletes scored significantly higher than the freshman athletes and nonathletes. In conclusion, the author indicates that differences do exist between athletes and nonathletes and between participants in individual sports, in team sports, in team individual sports as measured by the MMPI. Howard Davis and Glen D. Baskett in the Journal of Athletic Administration report on their study, "Do Athletes and Non-Athletes Have Different Values?", using the Rokeach Value Survey. The results were based on 119 respondents randomly selected from three groups, athletes, nonathletes and professional employees in E. G. Booth, J r . , "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the MMPI: A Rebuttal," The Research Quarterly 32 (September 1960), pp. 421-23. 80 various careers. The purposes of the study were to determine if significant differences exist between the way the three groups ranked the two sets of values and what degree of differences existed among the pro­ fessional employees themselves. The authors report that all three groups showed significant degrees of similarity. The nonathletes tended to be more like the professional employees than were the athletes, but this difference was not significant. 97 In summary, the authors report that the results of the study show that athletes and nonathletes do have different terminal values and yet both groups are reasonably similar to the professional employees. Fewer differences between athletes and nonathletes were observed on the instrumental values, but neither group showed significant correlation. In the Development of Human Values Through Sports, Max Shifren is cited for having done a study concerning "What Happened to Ik Former County Town High School Athletes and What Did They Think of Their High School Athletic Experience." The study was done a decade after the athletes had graduated from high school and revealed that eighty-nine percent of the students thought athletics was a contributing factor toward their ^ H o w a r d Davis and Glen D. Baskett, "Do Athletes and Non-Athletes Have Different Values?" Athletic Administration 13 (Spring 1979), pp. 17-19. 81 remaining physically fit; the habits of eating, sixty-five percent believed sleeping, and exercising acquired as young athletes had carried over into their present living; ninety-two percent believed they had developed some lasting friendships from their athletic participa­ tion; eighty-four percent stated they had learned the qualities of calmness and poise under pressure; ninetyfour percent learned cooperation and teamwork, and seventy-seven percent said they had developed leader­ ship qualities from their high school athletic partici­ pation. Summary of Literature Review The review of literature and statement of problem indicate that only in the last twenty-five years have scientific studies of athletic participation been carried out. Previous popular literature argues whether or not football did inculcate moral and spiritual values, however, without systematic research. In the early period of football1s development prior to World War I it was assumed that football built good American men with the same values necessary for good warriors. Its rapid development in the twenties and after World War I 98 Leona Holbrook, "Human Values in Sports Educa­ tion and Their Relationship to Social Ends," in Development of Human Values Through Sports, pp. 25-26. 82 opened more discussion about what had been assumed to be the traditional values. Answering critics, suppor­ ters felt whatever distortion of values might occur were not inherent in the game and World War IX vindicated the triumph of American values. During the fifties football had become an established part of American campus life and was seen as a value to spectators, to the community and to the university spirit. Since sport is an American artifact it is affected by historical and sociological changes as witnessed by the influence of the sixties, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. In this tumultous period questions were raised as to whether or not football could inculcate positive values. Carried over from the civil rights movement and concomitant with the increasing number of minority players were arguments over equality. Hierarchial, authoritarian and traditional coaching methods were rebelled against. The new breed of athlete in the post-industrial age was not willing to yield to authority as did those who grew up in the age of submissive blue collar factory workers. Despite these problems many former players and coaches since the fifties have written about how foot­ ball contributed to their success in later life, although several seemed severely disappointed. The sixties, however, were a watershed and the literature ignored 83 the problems of authoritarianism, racism, the violence inherent in the game, the overemphasis on winning, and the commercialization of intercollegiate football. Sportswriters and educators alike argue that the sport was beneficial to the institution as entertainment for public relations and in building community spirit. A summary of the literature review indicates a contrast between the supporters who see the positive aspects of moral and spiritual development which were agreed on in an earlier more traditional age prior to World War I versus critics who would argue that the influence is negative in building poor character, overemphasizing winning and violence, unrealistic expectations. and creating The last quarter century witnesses the application of social science techniques and computer analysis which allows scientific research into the values of football participants in both high school and college. This study is in a direct line with other research using the Rokeach Value Survey as an instrument to study the values of football players and non-football players. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction This study, as previously indicated, was to inves­ tigate the extent to which certain values were held by selected students at Michigan State University. The investigation was to determine whether or not there was a difference between the values of football players and nonfootball players as defined by the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. This chapter, after explaining the derivation of the study, will explain the target population, sample design, data collection, survey instrument, and coding procedures used. Derivation of the Study The writer, as Assistant Director of Athletics of Michigan State University, has spoken to many audiences consisting primarily of high school athletes, parents, and to civic groups. Invariably during the question-and-answer session following the author's presentation, some members of the audience asked about the value of football to its participants. The questions were focused around a general topic and were similar 84 85 in scope, including the following; Why should my son continue to participate in football when there are so many injuries to the participants? Can you tell me why anyone would want to play football after obser­ ving all the violence on television in collegiate and professional games? motivation. Other questions related to academic Some parents, mostly mothers, wanted to know how they could get their sons as interested in school work as they were in the game of football. Confronted with such stimulating and sensitive questions in front of some attentive groups, the writer was often hard pressed to come up with some plausible answers. The writer frequently responded attempting to minimize the injury and violence mentioned by audiences by highlighting what he felt to be the posi­ tive values fostered by participating in football such as enjoyment, teamwork, discipline, and a sense of equality. However, the writer often felt uncomfortable after these responses since he felt he was asked to defend what he had done as a former football player, what he did in his professional life as well as to re-examine what he had assumed to be the positive values inherent in participating in team sports. To help resolve this dilemma and to prepare for similar challenges in the future, the writer searched for articles in the educational literature which would 86 serve as the basis for a study of the values students perceived in participating in football. Through this investigation the Rokeach Value Survey instrument was discovered and appeared to meet the requirements. (The Rokeach Value Survey Instrument will be explained in detail at the end of this chapter.) The writer there­ fore followed his need to formally investigate whether or not there was a difference between the values of football players and nonfootball players and to detail a scientific analysis for any differences which might be found to exist. The original intent of the writer in the study was to examine football players and nonfootball players in high school to determine if there were differences in the way they perceived the values of football. How­ ever, it was the consensus of the high school adminis­ trators and the writer in their discussions that a study of high school students would be too time consuming and difficult to administer because of the prerequisite of obtaining parental permission for a minor to partici­ pate. The focus was then shifted to college students. The writer wanted to use the Big Ten universities, but after receiving six negative responses from the head coaches the writer decided to concentrate on Michi­ gan State University students. 37 Target Population The target population included two groups of Michigan State University students. The first group consisted of eighty-four varsity football players who were enrolled in the spring of 1981. At the time, these players were either actively involved in spring football practice or had completed their term of eligibility in football in the fall term of 1980, but had continued to pursue their bachelor degrees. This group of students consisted of male freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors who lived either on or off campus. Since most of these football players assembled as a group five days a week for football practice, it was con­ venient for the writer to meet with them. Prior to contacting any football player, the writer met with the head football coach and requested his permission to administer the survey to them. The writer followed this verbal request with a written request to the coach. The second group involved a random sample of 200 male undergraduates who were enrolled spring term 1981. Only male students were selected to provide a compari­ son with the all-male varsity football players. The Registrar's Office, upon written request, provided the names, local addresses, academic majors, and 88 academic classifications of the undergraduates. The list of on-campus and off-campus students contained the names of fifty students from each of the four undergraduate classes. In order for the samples of each group to be separate and homogeneous, varsity football players were excluded from the nonfootball players sample. Approval was sought and given by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) on April 6, 1981 before the instru­ ment or any other materials were given to the foot­ ball players or sent to the sample of male under­ graduates. The approval letter is found in Appendix C. This committee is concerned with guaranteeing the rights and welfare of the human subjects involved in any research study on the campus of Michigan State University. Sample Design The purpose of the sample design used in the study was to enable comparison and subsequent analyses of certain values held by football players and nonfoot­ ball players using the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. The writer determined early on that a good sample design necessitated the participation of a significant number of the eighty-four eligible varsity football players in the study. It was then necessary to obtain an equal 89 or greater number of participants from the sampled population of the nonfootball players to ensure a good statistical analysis. Eighty football players and eighty-eight nonfootball players were obtained which provided the data for this study. Details of how these subjects were obtained are found on pages 89-93The data from the sample of football players was taken mostly in aggregate form (i.e. in a group setting). In order to get a representative sample of the nonfootball players a stratified random sample was ordered from the office of the Registrar.- This group was broken into four groups of fifty students each consisting of freshmen, seniors. sophomores, juniors and This proportional sample was necessary to avoid the possibility that a subpopulation was omitted or a subpopulation was overlooked in the sample. It was important for both groups to come from the same population to make it convenient for the writer to compare differences and similarities in the two groups of students. Also, the year in school for each of the groups served to form subsamples for comparison purposes in the analysis of the data. Data Collection Both an on-site group setting and a mail survey were used to collect data for the study which consisted 90 of a sample size of 284 students. These methods were convenient for the respondents and were relatively inexpensive for the writer to administer. The writer, after consulting with the Office of Research Consul­ tation (ORC) of Michigan State University, found out that a sample size of 30 respondents per group would have been statistically valid to conduct the study. Since the football players were readily accessible to the writer, he decided that an acceptable number of returns from the football players should be at least eighty of the eligible population. In order to get a similar return from the nonfootball players, the writer was advised by the ORC to send 200 questionnaires. The primary purpose during the data collection was to obtain a high rate of return from both the eighty-four football players and the 200 nonfootball players in order to have a statistically sufficient sample. Since most of the football players were engaged in spring training, it was convenient for the writer to administer the survey instrument to them following one of their training table meals on campus. On May 6, 1981 the writer met with them after their dinner in the Crossroads Cafeteria at the International Center. At this time the sixty-nine varsity football players present completed the survey instrument constituting eighty-two percent of the eighty-four varsity football 91 players. Initial mailings containing the survey instru­ ment and instructions were sent to the remaining fifteen players on May 10th. These players were absent from the dinner meeting for various reasons, such as injuries or conflict with their academic schedules. The letters of instruction were typed on the Department of Inter­ collegiate Athletics stationery and sent with the survey instrument via first class mail with a self-addressed prepaid postage envelope enclosed. in Appendix C. The letter is found This mailing followed up by telephone calls resulted in the return of eleven survey instru­ ments constituting a combined return from the eligible population of eighty instruments or ninety-five percent. On May 25th, all the instruments were received. As previously indicated, in order to obtain a high percentage of participation from the nonfootball players, 200 undergraduate students were randomly selected with the anticipation of a 50 percent return rate of about 100 instuments. The printed materials used in the survey were typed professionally on the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics letterhead as were those sent to the football players. The materials included the survey instrument and the letter of instruc­ tion which had the endorsement of both the writer and the Director of Athletics to ensure respondent partici­ pation and envelopes. The reply envelope was 92 self-addressed and prepaid. Each survey instrument mailed contained a numerical code matched with a list of the sampled students in the study to enable the writer to conduct a follow-up mailing to the nonres­ pondents. The initial mailings to the nonfootball players via campus mail for on-campus students and regular first class mail for off-campus students were made on May 4, 1981. The first returns were received on May 6th, from some of the on-campus respondents. Ten days later sixty students, or thirty percent of the respondents, had returned their survey instruments. All nonrespondents were then telephoned personally by the writer to encourage their participation in the study on Saturday morning, May 16th. A few students had gone away for the weekend or had left early for their jobs, but most were at home. After apologizing to each student for calling them so early on Saturday morning (7:30 - 11:30 a.m.) the writer reminded the student kindly to return the survey instrument. A few of the students reacted unpleasantly initially indicating they were asleep at the time of the call, but most were pleasant and expressed a willingness to participate in the study. Information was left with a roommate for those students who were not at home. Most students indicated they had forgotten to 93 complete the instrument but promised to do so within a day or two and to mail it. Only two students requested another instrument which was mailed the same day. Eighteen survey instruments were received between the day following the telephone calls until the survey was terminated on May 31, 1981. Eighty-eight of 200 questionnaires mailed were returned constituting a forty-three percent return rate. Thus, the goal of obtaining a similar number of returns from the nonfoot­ ball players to compare with the number of returns from the football players was accomplished. Ten ques­ tionnaires had been returned unopened to the writer from the nonfootball players because the addresses were insufficient. A summary of the rate of returns of the questionnaires is in Appendix E, Survey Instrument After reviewing the literature in search of a questionnaire with proven high reliability and validity to measure values and which could be administered easily, the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument was chosen to collect data for the study. The writer considered using other measurement techniques including the Allport-VernerLindzey Study of Techniques, but its reliability and 94 validity are somewhat suspect."^ The Rokeach Survey Instrument has reliability in the 70s and according to various testers, high predictive validity on most items in the instrument. First published in 1967, it has been given quite extensively to people aged 11-90 and from a wide variety of social and ethnic backgrounds. The instrument is highly recommended as a general probe into values for use with respondents 3 whose academic attainment is average or above. Since students, regardless of their beliefs and attitudes, have many values, it was necessary to find a measurement technique designed to force each student to carefully consider his own value system.^ The Rokeach Value Survey Instrument is a method using a ranking procedure to make the respondent examine his own values in relationship to the values listed in the instrument. The test is short, self-administered and the data are relatively easy to process. It consists of two sets of eighteen values each (Terminal and Instrumental). Each respondent is requested to rank order the values from 1 to 18 in order of their importance to the respondent. The first set of Terminal Values contained ^Buros, Mental Measurements Yearbook, pp. 384-85. 2 Ib i d . 3 Ibid. ^Rokeach, Belief Attitudes and Values, pp. 124-25. 95 the following lifetime aims: a comfortable life, an exciting life, a sense of accomplishment, a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, family security, freedom, happiness, inner harmony, mature love, national security, pleasure, salvation, self respect, social recognition, true friendship, and wisdom. These terminal values are philosophically abstract terms which most people personally strive for during their life times in one way or another. Most people according to Rokeach have few Terminal Values because they are the end results of daily living--the goals people seek. Functionally related to the Terminal Values on the Rokeach scale are the second set of values known as the Instrumental Values. The Instrumental Values represent a person's definite position in regard to certain beliefs about certain objects. Like Terminal Values, the Instrumental Values are relatively abstract terms which indicate a person’s beliefs in respect to modes of conduct or how he should behave.^ The Instrumental Values are identified as ambitious, broad­ minded, capable, cheerful, clean, courageous, forgiving, helpful, honest, imaginative, independent, intellectual, logical, loving, obedient, polite, responsible, and '’ibid. , p . 162. 6 Ibid., p. 160. 96 self controlled. The example given by Rokeach is a personal statement, "I believe that honesty is personally and socially preferable in all situations with respect to all objects.”^ The survey instrument was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of two sections which were related functionally to the Rokeach Survey Instrument. The first section was designed to elicit biographical information from the respondents. Its basic purpose was to obtain identification and classification data from the respondents. Among the questions asked were those relating to age, major, racial/ethnic origin, and grade point average. The respondents were requested to respond to the questions by circling a number. This portion of the questionnaire was relatively easy to administer. The second section of part one solicited data from the respondents about their past academic and athletic achievement both in high school and college. In responding to this section, respondents were requested to provide answers to both closed and open-ended ques­ tions. The closed questions required the respondents to circle a number while the open-ended questions, such as how many years they participated in high school ^Ibid., p . 160. 97 football, required the respondent to write in the answer. Section two also contained a question designed specifi­ cally for football players requesting them to identify their playing positions. This information was not deemed necessary from the nonfootball players since their sampled populations excluded football players. The omission of this question for the nonfootball players on page 3 of the questionnaire caused the inadvertent omission of another important question on this page pertaining to the nonfootball players requesting the academic class of the student. It was the conclusion of the writer and staff members in the ORC that part one of the questionnaire was appropriately designed to sufficiently obtain a good return and secure the information needed for the study. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument which was the fundamental component of the questionnaire. The two sets of Terminal and Instrumental Values in the survey instrument (18 in each set) were designed to have each respondent carefully examine his values as listed on the Rokeach Scale. The respondents were then requested to exhibit their value system by ranking the values in order of importance to the respondent from 1 to 18. This ranking method compelled, in a manner, to develop his own value system. the respondent It was important to 98 the writer to compare the rankings of the football players with the rankings of the nonfootball players to determine to what extent similarities and differences existed among the two groups on their rankings of the two sets of eighteen values. Each value in the instrument contained clarifying words to help each respondent understand the meaning of the value. Two respondents wrote on their returned questionnaire that they had no problem understanding the words in the instrument, but that they found some of the meanings closely related to the extent that they experienced some difficulty in ranking the values. In these two c a ses , the writer noted that the respondents did rank all eighteen values on each scale in order of importance to them. The writer did not become aware of any other respondents who experienced these semantic differences. The entire questionnaire can be found in appendix A. Rokeach recognized the dilemma some respondents would have in differentiating between some of the values on the instrument. He indicated in the instructional phase of his test that it would be impossible to abso­ lutely determine which value is the most important. He believed that since the relative rather than the absolute ranking of values is sought, that the important values will be clustered together by their ratings. 99 Coding and Key Punching; The survey instrument was constructed to allow the writer to code each item directly on the instrument as it was required. However, as indicated previously, page 3 of the questionnaire was not designed for the nonfootball players. It contained questions mainly about the football players' playing positions. Also on this page was one other pertinent statement which was not on the questionnaire given to the nonfootball players stated as follows: Cirlce o n e : 1 2 3 4 5 Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Fifth Year After the writer entered this question by hand on the returned questionnaires, he coded the appropriate response in accordance with the computer printout data received from the Registrar's office as variable 41. The instrument did not contain a question to ascertain from either of the respondent groups whether they were football players or nonfootball players. The writer could easily determine by the coding system whether each returned questionnaire was from a football player or a nonfootball player. the writer to write the question: or 2 . It was convenient for 1. football player nonfootball player on the proper questionnaire 100 as they were returned. The number was then coded accordingly in variable 73. As each questionnaire was returned, it was logged in on a form and the return data recorded. Each instru­ ment was carefully sorted and checked for accuracy and completeness. Six of the 168 questionnaires had some information missing since the respondents failed to respond, or gave two of the values in the survey the same number. In treating these situations, the writer simply left omitted responses uncoded and they were not included in the study. Items given the same numbers were both coded as such so both numbers were included in the study. The writer and staff members in the ORC reasoned that since so few questions were not answered or double coded by the respondents, it would not weaken the data statistically. Also, there was the possibility that the respondents actually intended to leave some ques­ tions blank or that they might have experienced some difficulty, as some students indicated, in word associa­ tion which led them to not respond. Moreover, rather than returning the questionnaires to the students thereby risking not having them returned or having the respondent change his rank order the second time around, the writer was concerned in retaining the data in the same form in which it was received. In this way the 101 study would be a true comparison of the two groups of students. On June 4, the writer took the coded questionnaires to the keypunching unit of the Computer Center of Michigan State University where they were processed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of football players as compared with the perceptions of a sample of nonfootball players at Michigan State University using the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. This chapter contains the analysis of data collected from the respondents who participated in the study. The results are presented in descriptive, tabu­ lar, and graphic form and reported in two sections. The first section reveals findings from the one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), which are explained in the next paragraph, and the second section displays tables on the frequency distributions, m e a n s , ranks and standard deviations of the entire sample. Analysis of Variance The analysis of variance as used in this study is recommended in the literature.^" The f test only reveals whether or not there are statistical differences in the i R. J. Senter, Analysis of Data (Glenview, Scott, Foresman & Company, 1969), p p . 241-50. 111: 102 103 way football players and nonfootball players rank the values on the terminal and instrumental scales. It does not show which group, if any, is responsible for the difference. The writer is principally interested in finding out if there are differences between the two groups, and which group is responsible for the difference. The analysis tests whether or not the football players and nonfootball players share the same values and also determine if significant difference exists between the category means of football players and nonfootball players. The null hypothesis of no significant difference between the two groups was tested. The hypothesis testing revealed whether variations exist within the two category means and if there are variations between the category means. The analysis further tested the interaction b e ­ tween the two groups by type of variation. Analysis of Procedures The two major hypothesis which guide this disser­ tation are discussed among the variables. They are restated here in null form to provide for convenience in the interpretation of the data. Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences between football players and nonfootball players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of ter­ minal values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. 10 A Hypothesis 2; There are no significant differences between football players and nonfootball players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of instrumental values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. The method used to test the hypotheses is one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if the football players differ from the nonfootball players. significance will be the "traditional" Statistical .05 level in reporting the results of the study. The major analysis involves the apparent straight­ forward comparison of football players with nonfootball players using the collected data. Therefore, the composi­ tion of groups and the fact that age, maturity, experience and many other environmental factors may impact on one's value system, should not affect the analysis of the data nor infer causal relationships in this study. Causal relationships could be analyzed in another study. This analysis considers the variables as being "assessed" by the student's academic year in school. Meaning that whether one is a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior can be a variable which enables blocks of students conceptually similar to others in the group to be formed. The implication of this second way of stra­ tifying the sample used in this study allows the writer more precision in stating the results. The combinations of football players or nonfootball 105 players by academic year might show how much of any difference— should one exist--can be attributed to the fact that the group is composed of football players or nonfootball players or whether it is attributed to academic year. More importantly, whether or not the difference can be attributed to the interaction of these two factors was also investigated. The sample consisted of 168 students comprising 80 football players and 88 nonfootball players. To obtain an overall impression of the relationships among the variables used in this study, a correlation coefficient between pairs of dependent variables was computed. 81. These results appear in Table 80 and The one-way analysis of variance analyzed the football players as a group by year in school against the nonfootball players as a group by year in school. The data on the total sample is reported in terms of means, ranks, standard deviations, and frequency distribution. 1. The analysis will proceed as follows: An interpretation of the findings of each value was discussed in relation to the hypotheses 2. The name of value is presented 3. The tables of average rankings is displayed 4. The results of the statistics are presented 5. Should a significant interaction exist, a graph of the interaction is shown 106 General Introduction to the Main Data Analysis A general format is now presented to enable the reader to follow the data presented for this study. The table of cell means tableau has two dimensions: (1 ) the horizontal dimension indicates the year in school of the respondent (i.e. freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior); (2 ) the vertical dimension indi­ cates whether the respondent is a football player or nonfootball player. This will produce a cross classification of each individual as shown below: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Football player 7.88 (17) 6.50 (15) 7.11 (16) 8.50 (2 0 ) Nonfootball player 6 .85 (15) 7.14 (17) 8.15 (14) 9.60 (13) 7. 21 6 .11 5.25 5.11 Each cell contains two numbers. The first will be the mean rank given to the value in question by each cross classified group of individuals. The second number, found in parenthesis, indicates the number of freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors who responded. An example is found above in which seven­ teen freshmen football players rated the hypothetical value as 7.88. In the interpretation it should be explained 107 that in the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument the range of numbers for the ranking can be from the low of 1.00 to the high of 18.00. A value that has a low ranking is most important to the respondent while a value with a high ranking is considered less impor­ tant to the respondent. Thus, the rating of 7.88 given by the freshmen football players in contrast to the 6.85 rating shown for the freshmen nonfootball players reveals that both groups perceived the value to be important, but the nonfootball players' rating lies closer to the most important end of the scale. The category means method of classification allow for group comparisons between the football players and nonfootball players. The number 7.00 indicates that all football players irrespective of year in school perceive the value as being toward the impor­ tant end of the scale. The nonfootball players (6.00) perceived the value to be more important to them than the football players. The statistical question will be to discern if these two numbers are different enough from each other to correctly infer a real difference in perception between the two groups of students. If such a difference is statistically justified the difference will be referred to as being statistically significant. The table also allows comparisons between 108 respondents classified by year in school notwith­ standing of being a football player player. or nonfootball The numbers at the bottom of the table beginning horizontally with 7.21 would give an initial impression that the value is perceived to have impor­ tance attached to it. The first set of variables to be investigated are those dealing with Terminal Values. In summary, this study will look at respondent scores along two dimensions. The first dimension will be whether the person is a football player or nonfootball player. The second dimension will be whether this person is a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior in school. These dimensions will be named TYPE OF STUDENT and YEAR IN SCHOOL respectively. This biclassification allows the testing of an interaction between these two variables to also be assessed. The results of these tests are summarized in an analysis of variance table following each hypothesis. Analysis Hypothesis 1 stated in Chapter I caused the writer to theorize that there is no significant difference between football players and nonfootball players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of terminal values on the Rokeach Value Survey 109 Instrument. The comparison of category means given in Table 4 which tested this hypothesis for the value of A Comfortable Life shows an observed difference in the way football players and nonfootball players perceived the value (p <.05). The data in Table 5 further shows that a significant difference occurred by the type of student at the .045 level, and a sig­ nificant year by group interaction at the statistically significant level of .01 occurred in accordance with the respondents' year in school. The type of student and year in school seems to influence how important the respondents perceived this value. The results of Table 5 would suggest that the null hypothesis of no significant difference between football players and nonfootball players on the value of A Comfortable Life can be rejected. The data analysis would also suggest that there is a statistical significant difference between the rankings of football players and nonfootball players on the value A Comfortable Life. A graph of cell means to highlight the signifi­ cant differences is shown in Figure 1. An examination of this graph reveals the football players and no n ­ football players perceive the value A Comfortable Life different at the freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years with the greatest differences 110 TABLE 4 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS A Comfortable Life--A Prosperous Life SO JR SR 6.25 (24) 6 .52 9.69 (13) 8.38 (26) 8.88 10.55 (2 0 ) 6.00 (24) 7.79 7.56 8.40 7.60 FR Football players 6.88 (17) Nonfootball players (23) (17) 7.05 8.55 Ill TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE VALUE OF A COMFORTABLE LIFE FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 3 97.87 1 97.87 4.10 .045 Year in school^ 24.77 3 8.26 .35 .792 282.04 3 94.01 3.94 Error 3722.50 156 23.86 Total 4121.19 163 25.28 Type X yearc .01 aType of student compares football players versus nonfootball players. W e a r in school compares freshmen, juniors and seniors. sophomores, Type X year tests the interaction of the type of student and year in school. This notation is used throughout the presentation of statistical findings. Since type X year is significant at the .01 level the cell means will be graphed. Tnis will help clarify any further findings related to this variable. This pattern of graphing is followed throughout the study. THE TERMINAL VALUE - A COMFORTABLE LIFE FOOTBALL PLAYERS NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS 1-------- FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 1. JUNIORS A Comfortable Life SENIORS 113 occurring at the junior and senior years. This would suggest that nonfootball players place less emphasis than football players on A Comfortable Life at each undergraduate year until the senior year when the nonfootball players view A Comfortable Life much more important to them than do football players. The category means found in Table 6 show that there is a significant difference in the rating of the value An Exciting Life by football players and nonfootball players. The outcome of the F test for the value of An Exciting Life found in Table 7 reveals statistically significant differences occurred by the type of student at the .026 level and at the inter­ action level of .018 by type of student times the year. The analysis would suggest that football players and nonfootball players share different perceptions about the value to cause the null hypothesis of no significant difference to be rejected at the .05 level. To highlight the significant differences shown in Table 7 a graph of cell means will be displayed. The graph in Figure 2 shows that football players at the freshmen level perceived the value An Exciting Life more important to them than did the nonfootball players. The perceptions changed at the sophomore, junior and senior levels where the nonfootball players placed more emphasis on the value than did football 114 TABLE 6 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS An Exciting Life--A Stimulating, Active Life Football players FR 8.00 (17) SO 10.08 (24) JR 9.39 (23) SR 13.69 (13) Nonfootball players 8.73 (26) 8.58 (24) 8.45 (2 0 ) 7.18 (17) 8.44 9.33 8.95 10.00 TABLE Q3 J-u.uj n 'io 8,32 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE AN EXCITING LIFE FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Sum of Degrees of Source Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 116.51 1 116.51 5.06 .026 Year in school 44.26 3 14.75 .64 .590 228.22 3 79,41 3.45 .018 Error 3594.45 156 23.04 Total 2995.56 163 24.51 Type X year TERMINAL VALUE-AN EXCITING LIFE 13 12 11 10 9 115 8 7 6 5 FOOTBALL PLAYERS ---- it NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS --3 FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 2. JUNIORS An Exciting Life SENIORS 116 players. This would suggest that nonfootball players at every undergraduate year perceived the value An Exciting Life to be more essential to them than the football players, except at the freshmen year where football players rated the value more important to them. Table 8 indicates that the hypothesis relating to the value A Sense of Accomplishment of no significant difference cannot be rejected because there is no statistical significant difference in the category means of the football players and nonfootball players. The results of the F test located in Table 9 show that there are no statistical differences in either the main effects or the interactions between the foot­ ball players and nonfootball players on the value of A Sense of Accomplishment. The null hypothesis of no significant difference can be rejected for the value of A World at P eace. Investigation of Table 10 shows significant difference in the rating of the value as illustrated in the cell means and category means. It was found, as indicated in Table 11, that a highly statistical significant difference occurred at level .002 by the type of student between football players and nonfootball players. This would suggest that whether the student is a foot­ ball player or nonfootball player would make a difference 117 TABLE 8 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS A Sense of Accomplishment Football players FR 7.82 SO 7.79 JR 9.65 SR 9.38 8.62 Nonfootball players 6.27 7.88 7.90 8.94 7.61 6.88 7.83 8.84 9.13 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Significance Level p < Mean Square f 1 33.911 1.34 .249 114.29 3 38.10 1.50 .216 25.30 3 8.43 Error 3951.21 156 25.33 Total 4132.81 163 25.26 Source Type of student Year in school Type X Year Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom 33.911 .333 .802 118 TABLE 10 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS A World at Peace--Free of War and Conflict Football players Nonfootball players FR 10.18 (17) SO 7.96 (24) JR 10.30 (23) SR 6.46 (13) 11.12 11.58 (24) 11.05 (2 0 ) 11.76 (17) 9. 77 10.65 9.47 (26) 10. 74 TABLE 8 .90 11.36 11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE VALUE A WORLD AT PEACE Source Sum of Degrees of Freedom Squares Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 248.84 1 248.84 9.83 .002 Year in school 48.06 3 16.02 .63 .595 131.04 3 43.68 1. 73 .164 3948.03 156 25.31 4374.36 163 36.84 Type X year Error Total 119 in the way the value of A World at Peace is perceived. To help highlight the difference between the two groups of students, a graph of the cell means is found in Figure 3. The graph in Figure 3 shows a contrast in the way football players and nonfootball players rated the value A World at P e a c e . Football players at every academic level placed more importance on this value than did the nonfootball players. It was found as pointed out in the cell means of Table 12 that there were similarities in the rating of the value A World of Beauty by football players and nonfootball players. The contrast between the category means of the two groups of students also highlights the resemblance. An inspection of the F-test in Table 13 also shows no statistical signifi­ cant difference between the rating of the value A World of Beauty by the football players and nonfootball players. The hypothesis of no significant difference cannot be rejected. Examination of Table 14 shows the analysis of category means. It shows a significant difference in the rating of the value Equality between football players and nonfootball players. Table 15 reveals that the null hypothesis can be rejected for the value Equality. A significant difference at the .001 level TERMINAL VALUE-A WORLD AT PEACE ___© © - ■ 120 FOOTBALL PLAYERS NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 3. JUNIORS A World at Peace SENIORS 121 TABLE 12 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS A World of Beauty Football players FR 12.18 (17) SO 13.54 (24) JR 13.65 (23) SR 14.00 (13) Nonfootball players 13.42 (26) 14.12 (24) 12.55 (2 0 ) 14.53 (17) 12.93 13.83 13.14 14.30 13.35 13.63 TABLE 13 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE A WORLD OF BEAUTY Sum of Degrees of Source Squares Freedom Type of student 3.524 Significance Level p < .647 14.79 .884 .451 3 10.53 .629 .597 2609.80 156 16. 73 2689.00 163 16.50 44.37 Type X year 31.594 Total 3.524 F .211 Year in school Error Mean Square 1 3 122 TABLE 14 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Equality Football players Nonfootball players FR 9.18 (17) SO 8.83 (23) JR 12.30 (23) SR 7.38 (13) 12.38 (26) 12.37 (24) 12.60 (20) 12.94 (17) 11.12 10.64 12.44 10.53 9. 71 12.54 TABLE 15 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE EQUALITY Sum of Degrees of Source Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 351.79 1 351.79 15.24 .001 Year in school 121.69 3 40.56 1. 76 .158 Type X Year 130.313 3 43.44 1.89 .135 3577.24 155 23.08 4154.05 162 25.64 Error Total 123 is evident by the type of student. This would suggest that football players and nonfootball players have different perceptions about the value Equality as listed on the terminal scale of the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. The graph of cell means is found in Figure 4.. The graph in Figure 4 illustrates that football players place more emphasis on the value Equality than do nonfootball players at the freshman, sophomore, junior and senior levels. The contrasts of cell means and category means of football players and nonfootball players denoted in Table 16 reveal that the two groups of students do differ significantly in their rating of the value Family Security. There is a significant difference found in Table 17 by type of student at the .007 level. This level of relationship is statistically signifi­ cant to cause the hypothesis of no significant difference to be rejected for the value Family Security. A graph of cell means to help highlight the differences is shown in Figure 5. An examination of Figure 5 reveals that football players at each of the four undergraduate levels dis­ cerned the value Family Security to be significantly more important to them than did the nonfootball players. The analysis of category means illustrated in TERMINAL VALUE-EOUALITY 13 12 ©- -©■ 11 ig 9 8 7 6 5 FOOTBALL PLAYERS --- 4 NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS___ 3 in FRESHMEN ......................L i .11 i . i— .................... .................... SOPHMORES JUNIORS Figure 4. Equality in SENIORS 125 TABLE 16 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NOITFOOTBALL PLAYERS Family Security Football players Nonfootball players FR 6.06 (17) SO 5.62 (23) JR 8.30 (23) SR 6.08 (13) 6 ‘62 8.04 (26) 8.54 (24) 9.20 (20) 7.65 (17) 8,37 7. 26 7.13 8.72 6.97 TABLE A AO b o o 17 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE FAMILY SECURITY Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 141.941 1 141.941 7.35 .007 Year of student 99.07 3 33.02 1.71 .167 Type X Year 23.143 3 7.71 .40 .753 2991.95 155 19.30 3238.31 162 19.99 Error Total TERMINAL VALUE-FAMILY SECURITY 13 12 11 10 9 126 8 7 6 5 FOOTBALL PLAYERS --- 4 NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS ___ 3 FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 5. JUNIORS Family Security SENIORS 127 Table 18 indicates that the null hypothesis of no significant difference cannot be rejected for the value Freedom. There are no significant differences found in either the cell means or the category means. This conclusion is also borne out in the findings in Table 19. It shows no statistical significant differences in the main effects or the interaction between football players and nonfootball players. Inspection of Table 20 shows that the null hypothe­ sis of no significant difference can be rejected for the value Happiness■ The comparison of category means reveals that there is a highly significant difference in the way football players and nonfootball players perceived this value. Examination of Table 21 discloses that there is a difference in the rating of this value by the year of student at the .038 level. This data would suggest that whether the student would be a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior will make a difference in how they rate the value Happiness. A graph of the cell means to help highlight the differ­ ences between the two groups of students is displayed in Figure 6. It was found as shown in Figure 6 that football players at the freshmen and junior levels were more favorably influenced by the value Happiness than other football and nonfootball players. Nonfootball players 128 TABLE 18 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Freedom Football players FR 8.71 (17) SO 8.30 (23) JR 8.61 (23) SR 5.77 (13) Nonfootball players 9. 69 (26) 7.67 (24) 7.40 (20) 8.00 (17) 9. 30 7.98 8.05 7.03 8.05 8 .28 TABLE 19 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE FREEDOM Source Type of student Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom .944 1 Mean Square .944 f Significance Level p < .038 .846 Year of student 95.19 3 31.73 1.279 .284 Type X Year 66.121 3 22.04 .888 .449 2845.86 155 24.81 Total -4009.19 162 24. 75 Error 129 TABLE 20 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS feY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Happiness Football players FR 4. 41 (17) SO 8.39 (23) JR 5.91 (23) SR 8.08 (13) Nonfootball players 5. 27 (26) 6.42 (24) 6.10 (20) 4.88 (17) 4. 93 7.38 6.00 6.27 6 .70 5.70 TABLE 21 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE HAPPINESS Source Sum of Degree of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 32.17 1 32.17 2.16 .144 Year of student 128.68 3 42.89 2.88 . 038 96. 74 3 32.245 2.17 .094 2308.86 155 14. 90 2574.53 162 15.89 Type X Year Error Total TERMINAL VALUE-HAPPINESS 13 12 11 10 9 130 8 7 6 5 FOOTBALL PLAYERS --- A NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS ___ 3 ^ FRESHMEN — , . ■ S0PHM0RES Figure 6. mm i I------------------------------- JUNIORS Happiness 1 SENIORS 131 at the sophomore and senior levels ranked the value higher than did other nonfootball players and foot­ ball players. The category means comparisons as exemplified in Table 22 show a significant difference between football players and nonfootball players in the way they ranked the value Inner Harmony. The analysis of variance in Table 23 reveals a highly statistical significance occurred at the .011 level by the type of student. These data indicate that whether or not the student is a football player or nonfootball player would influence how they perceived the value. To help highlight the differences between the two groups of students on the value Inner Harmony, a graph of cell means is shown in Figure 7. An inspection of Figure 7 shows that nonfootball players at each of the four undergraduate academic levels were consistent in rating the value Inner Harmony statistically more important to them than did the football players. The results of these data would suggest that the null hypothesis of no signifi­ cant can be rejected for the value Inner Harmony. The hypothesis of no significant difference con­ cerning the value of Mature Love can be rejected. In the comparison of cell means and category means in Table 24, there are significant differences between 132 TABLE 22 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Inner Harmony Football players FR 11.41 (17) SO 1 0 .00 (23) JR 8.83 (23) SR 9. 23 (13) Nonfootball players 9. 27 (26) 7.00 (24) 6,75 (20) 8.41 (17) 10.12 8.47 7.86 8 .77 9.83 7.90 TABLE 23 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE INNER HARMONY Source Sum of Degree of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 182.35 1 182.35 6.62 .011 Year of student 148.55 3 49.52 1.80 .150 Type X Year 21.583 3 Error 4268.71 155 27.54 162 28.34 Total 4590.32 7.19 .261 .853 --O’" FOOTBALL PLAYERS NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS FRESHMEN SOPHMQRES Figure 7. JUNIORS Inner Harmony SENIORS 134 TABLE 24 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Mature Love Football players FR 11.12 (17) SO 9.50 (24) JR 8.70 (23) SR 9.08 (13) Nonfootball players 7.65 (26) 7.92 (24) 7.80 (20) 7.06 (17) 9.02 8 .71 8 .28 7.93 9.55 7.64 TABLE 25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE MATURE LOVE Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f 8.07 Significance Level p < Type of student 154.90 1 154.90 Year of student 32.54 3 10.85 .565 .639 Type X year 37.091 3 12.36 .644 .588 Error 2995.42 156 19.20 163 19. 71 Total 3212.78 .005 135 the football players and nonfootball players in the way they rated the value. An inspection of Table 25 shows that a significant difference exists by the type of student at the significant level of ,005 on the value of Mature L o v e . This would suggest that whether a student is a football player or nonfootball player would make a difference in the way the value would be perceived. A graph of cell means is shown in Figure 8 to help highlight the difference. It was found, as pointed out in Figure 8, that nonfootball players in contrast to football players perceived the value Mature Love to be more important to them. This significant importance was observed at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior levels. Table 26 points out that the cell means and cate­ gory means for the value National Security show no statistical difference in the perceptions of football players and nonfootball players. The outcome of the F test in Table 27 further shows that there is no statistical significant difference in the rating of the value by the two groups of students. The results from these tables would clearly suggest that the null hypothesis of no significant difference cannot be rejected. The results of the test of the value Pleasure is presented in Table 28. Inspection of Table 28 TERMINAL VALUE-MATURE LOVE 13 12 11 10 9 136 3 7 6 5 H FOOTBALL PLAYERS --NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS ____ 3 ...... * -------- FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 8. i ... ■ JUNIORS Mature Love . | SENIORS 137 TABLE 26 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS National Security Football players FR 13.41 (17) SO 13.38 (24) JR 13.22 (23) SR 13.08 (13) Nonfootball players 14.38 (26) 14.92 (24) 14.20 (20) 13.63 (17) 14.00 14.15 13.67 13.40 13. 29 14.34 TABLE 27 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE NATIONAL SECURITY Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 46. 28 1 46.28 Year of student 13.03 3 4.34 .281 .839 4.69 3 1.56 .101 .959 2407.65 156 15.43 2471.19 163 15.16 Year X Type Error Total 3.00 .085 138 TABLE 28 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Pleasure Football players FR 9.76 (17) SO 12.63 (24) JR 10. 57 (23) SR 11.62 (13) Nonfootball players 9. 23 (26) 9.67 (24) 11.55 (20) 11.47 (17) 9.44 11.15 11.02 11.53 TABLE 11.21 10.32 29 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE PLEASURE Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 24.63 1 24.63 1.32 .252 Year of student 95.26 3 31. 75 1.703 .169 Type X Year 93.85 3 31.29 1.68 .174 2908.55 156 18.65 3129.73 163 19. 20 Error Total 139 indicates that the hypothesis of no significant differ­ ence cannot be rejected since there is no statistical significant differences in the category means of the football players and nonfootball players. The findings in Table 29 indicate that there is no statistical difference in the main effect or interaction between the two groups of students. The null hypothesis relating to the value of Salvation cannot be rejected as indicated by the analy­ sis of cell means in Table 30. There are no statistical significant differences found in the category means or in the results of the F test found in Table 31. These data would suggest that football players and nonfootball players share similar perceptions about the value Salvation. It was found as shown in Table 32, by comparing the category means of the football players and non­ football players that there is no statistical signifi­ cant difference in the way the two groups of students rated the value Self Respect. Table 33 reveals that the null hypothesis of no significant difference cannot be rejected since there is no difference exemplified in either the main effects or the interaction. The outcome of the test for cell means in Table 34 shows no significant differences in the way football players and nonfootball players rated the value of 140 TABLE 30 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Salvation Football playersi FR 10.29 (17) SO 8.96 (24) JR 9.09 (23) SR 7.08 (13) Nonfootball players 10.27 (26) 11.29 (24) 9.60 (20) 13.59 (17) 10.28 10.13 9.33 10. 77 8.97 11.05 TABLE 31 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE SALVATION Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square Type of student 163.43 1 163.43 Year of student 28.48 3 9.50 217.05 3 72.35 7146.23 156 45.81 7567.12 163 46.42 Type X Year Error Total f Significance Level p < 3.57 .061 .207 1.58 .891 .197 141 TABLE 32 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Self Respect Football players FR 8.06 (17) SO 8.92 (24) JR 6.52 (23) SR 6 .77 (13) Nonfootball players 8.46 (26) 7.00 (24) 7.40 (20) 6.18 (17) 8.30 7.96 6.93 6.43 7.65 7.37 TABLE 33 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE SELF RESPECT Source Siam of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square Type of student 4.74 1 4.74 Year of student 87.361 3 29.12 Type X Year Error Total 51.85 3 17.28 2916.55 156 18.70 3059.00 163 18.77 Significance Level p < f .254 .615 1.558 .202 .924 .431 142 TABLE 34 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Social Recognition Football players FR 12.35 (17) SO 13.88 (24) JR 1 2 .26 (23) SR 11.69 (13) Nonfootball players 13.28 (25) 12.21 (24) 13.05 (20) 11. 53 (17) 12.90 13.04 12.63 11.60 12.69 12.58 TABLE 35 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE SOCIAL RECOGNITION Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Type of student .284 1 Year of student 42.951 3 Type X Year 48.603 3 Mean Square .015 .902 14.32 .760 .518 16.201 .860 .463 .284 2919.90 155 18.84 Total 3011.92 162 18.592 Error f Significance Level p< 143 Social Recognition. Table 35 also denotes that the null hypothesis of no significant differences cannot be rejected because there is no statistical difference between the perceptions of the two groups of students on the value Social Recognition. Inspection of Table 36 exemplifies differences in the category means of the football players and nonfootball players. The nonfootball players category mean show that they, in contrast to the football players, place more emphasis on the value True Friend­ ship. The data displayed in Table 37 reveals that a significant statistical difference exists between football players and nonfootball student on the value True Friendship at the significance level of .001. Whether the person is a football player or nonfootball students would make a difference in their perception of the importance of True Friendship to them. A graph displaying the significant difference is shown in Figure 9. The graph in Figure 9 contrasts the mean rankings of the value True Friendship by type and year of student. It shows that nonfootball players generally perceive this value to be more important to- them than do the football players. This importance is high­ lighted at the freshman and sophomore years more so than the junior and senior years. 144 TABLE 36 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS True Friendship Football players Nonfootball players FR 10.12 (17) SO 8.33 (24) JR 9.30 (23) SO 8.31 (13) 6 .52 (25) 5.83 (24) 7.40 (20) 7.82 (17) 7.98 7.08 8.42 8.03 9.01 6 .79 TABLE 37 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE TRUE FRIENDSHIP Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 203.12 1 203.12 12.291 .001 Year of student 46. 26 3 15.42 .933 .426 Type X Year 43.38 3 14.46 .875 .456 2561.58 155 16.53 2851.85 162 17.60 Error Total TERMINAL VALUE-TRUE FRIENDSHIP -® FOOTBALL PLAYERS NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 9. JUNIORS True Friendship SENIORS 146 The null hypothesis of no significant difference cannot be rejected for the value W i s d o m . An inspection of the cell means and category means in Table 38 reveals a high relationship in the rating of the value between the football players and the nonfootball players. The analysis in Table 39 shows no statistical significant difference in the rating of the value by the two groups of students. Results of the Terminal Values One purpose of the study was to analyze the rela­ tionships between football players and nonfootball players by using the eighteen terminal values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. This purpose was accomplished by analyzing the relationships between mean scores resulting from the rating of values by football players and nonfootball players. These rela­ tionships were analyzed through a one-way analysis of variance. The results for the one-way analysis of variance tables for the eighteen terminal values reveal that the null hypothesis of no significant differences between the mean ratings of football players and non­ football players were rejected at the .05 significant _level on nine or half of the eighteen values. values were: These A Comfortable Life (p <.045) by type of 147 TABLE 38 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Wisdom Football players FR 10.00 (17) SO 8.04 (24) JR 7.83 (23) SR 6.15 (13) Nonfootball players 8.92 (25) 9.13 (24) 7.45 (20) 9.41 (17) 9.36 8.58 7.65 8.00 8.09 8.73 TABLE 39 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE TERMINAL VALUE WISDOM Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p< Type of student 12.10 1 12.10 Year of student 64. 23 3 21.41 1.03 .380 Type X Year 93.492 3 31.164 1.50 .216 3213.49 155 20.732 3387.94 162 20.913 Error Total .584 .446 148 student (p <.01) by type of student times year; An Exciting Life (p <.026) by type of student and (p c.018) by type of student times year; Family Security (p <.007) by type of student; Happiness (p <.038) by year of student; Inner Harmony (p <.011) by type of student; A World of Peace (p <.002) by type of student; Equality (p <.001) by type of student; Mature Love (p <.005) by type of student; and True Friendship (p <.001) by type of student. Graphs were displayed to show the differences between the two groups of students with respect to the nine terminal values. The results revealed that football players were more favorably influenced by the values A Comfortable L i f e , A World At P eace, Equality, and Family Security than were the nonfoot­ ball players. The graphs also revealed that nonfoot­ ball players perceived the values An Exciting L i f e , Inner H a r mony, Mature Love and True Friendship more importantly than did the football players. The two groups of students manifested mixed ratings on three values. Two of these values have already been identi­ fied as A Comfortable Life and An Exciting L i f e . Foot­ ball players at the freshmen, sophomore, and junior levels rated this value A Comfortable Life more signifi­ cantly than did the nonfootball players. The nonfoot­ ball players rated this value important at the senior 149 level. Nonfootball players rated the value An Exciting Life more importantly than football players at every academic level except at the freshmen level where football players viewed the value to be of much more consequence to them. The other value which received diversed rating was Happiness. The ratings on this highly promoted American value were signifi­ cantly in favor of the football players at the fresh­ men and junior levels. The nonfootball players gave the value significant importance at the sophomore and senior levels. The hypothesis of no significant differences of mean ratings between football players and nonfoot­ ball players cannot be rejected for nine or half of eighteen values at the (p <.05) level on the terminal values. There was no statistical significant differ­ ences found in either the main effects or the inter­ actions of the values; A Sense of Accomplishment, A World of Bea u t y , F reedom, National Security, Pleasure, Salvation, Self Respect, Social Recognition, and Wisdom. The results of the terminal values showed significant differences between the two groups of students on nine values and no statistical differences on nine values. This would suggest that while there are significant differences between the football 150 players and nonfootball players, a closer examination showed the number of differences could be equivalent between the two groups of students. This assumption is closely analyzed in Chapter V where the implica­ tions of the findings are explained. Instrumental Values The second set of variables to be investigated are those dealing with Instrumental Values. The same format used to present the Terminal Values is followed here. In analyzing the results of the data displayed in the tables of the Instrumental Values, the null hypotheses of no significant difference cannot be rejected in thirteen of the eighteen values. There was no statistical significant difference found in either the main effects or the interactions between the football players and nonfootball players values. The category means comparison 6.64 - 6.66 as illustrated in Table 40 denotes that the contrast between the football players and the nonfootball players was closely similar in the way they rated the value Ambitious. Inspection of Table 41 clearly signifies that the two groups of students do not differ statis­ tically i,n their ratings of the value Ambitious. Since there was no statistical significant difference found 151 TABLE 40 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF -CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Instrumental Values Ambitious Football players Nonfootball players FR 7.41 (17) SO 7.38 (24) JR 6.17 (23) SR 5.08 (13) 5.62 (26) 8.08 (24) 5.70 (20) 7.35 (17) 6.33 7.73 5. 95 6.37 TABLE , 64 D* , 66 41 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE AMBITIOUS Source Type of student Sum of Degrees i of Squares Freedom .074 1 Mean Square .074 .955 27.92 1.199 .312 1.141 .334 83.75 Type X Year 79.68 3 26.56 3632.04 156 23.28 Total 3795.49 163 23. 29 Error Significance Level p < .003 Year of student 3 f 152 in either the main effects or the interactions the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for this value. In the comparison of category means as pointed out in Table 42 there is an unobservable statistical difference in the rating of the value Broadminded. The difference is shown in the analysis in Table 43. The results in Table 43 show that the football players and nonfootball players do differ by year of student on the value Broadminded. Whether the respondents in the two groups of students were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors were significant at the level of .004. This would suggest that the two groups by year of students perceived the value Broadminded differently to the extent where the null hypothesis can be rejected. ■ The graph in Figure 10 illustrates the cell mean differences in the way football players and nonfoot­ ball players rated the value Broadminded. The graph shows that nonfootball players at the freshmen and sophomore years placed more emphasis on the value Broadminded than did football players. The importance of this value was reversed at the junior and senior years when football players perceived the value Broadminded to be slightly more important to them than nonfootball players. An examination of Table 44 indicates a similarity 153 TABLE 42 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Broadminded ... . Football players FR 11.47 (17) SO 10.58 (24) JR 7.48 (23) SR 6.38 (13) 9.14 Nonfootball players 9. 73 (26) 7.67 (24) 8.20 (20) 6.47 (17) 8.17 10.42 9.13 7.81 6.43 TABLE 43 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE BROADMINDED Sum of Degrees of Source Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 49.15 1 49.15 2.06 Year of student 333.40 3 111.13 4.65 004 1.25 293 Type X Year Error Total 89.68 3 29.89 3724.77 156 23.88 4186.31 163 25.68 1. 53 INSTRUMENTAL VALUE-BROADMINDED 13 12 11 10 9 154 8 7 b 5 4 FOOTBALL PLAYERS --NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS ___ 3 1 FRESHMEN -■!■■■■■ ■ J , SOPHMORES Figure 10. JUNIORS Broadminded , SENIORS NP ^ 155 TABLE 44 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Capable Football players FR 11.82 (17) SO 9.29 (24) JR 9.39 (23) SR 10.69 (13) Nonfootball players 8.62 (26) 9.54 (24) 9.25 (20) 8.12 (17) 9.88 9.42 9.33 9.23 TABLE ,45 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE CAPABLE Source Type of student Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f 2.81 63.101 1 63.101 14.59 3 4.86 Significance Level p < .095 Y ghit of student Type X Year Error Total 92.49 3 30.83 3503.30 156 22.46 3668.95 163 22.51 .217 1.37 .885 .253 156 in the category mean between football players and nonfootball players in their rating of the value Capable. This similarity was found in Table 45 which shows a relationship between the two groups of students because there was no statistical significant differ­ ences found at the level of significance. The null hypothesis of no significant difference between the football players and nonfootball players cannot be rejected for the value of Capable. It was found, as exemplified in Table 46, that the category means of football players and nonfootball players showed a significant difference on the value Cheerful. As pointed out in Table 47 the null hypothe­ sis of no significant difference can be rejected. There was a statistically significant difference which occurred at the (p <.032) level by the type of student. This suggests that whether the student was a football player or nonfootball player would make a difference in the way the value was rated. A graph will be pre­ sented in Figure 11 to help illustrate the differences between the two groups of students. The graph illustrated in Figure 11 shows nonfoot­ ball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior levels had a significantly higher regard for the value Cheerful than did the football players. The results in Table 48 clearly show a significant 157 TABLE A6 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Cheerful Football players Nonfootball players FR 12. 53 (17) SO 12.67 (24) JR 13.17 (23) SR 9.85 (13) 12.31 12.23 (26) 11. 33 (24) 9.40 (2 0 ) 9.53 (17) 10*80 12. 35 1 2 .00 11.42 9.67 TABLE 47 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE CHEERFUL Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 94.59 1 94.59 4.71 .032 Year of student 145.89 3 48.63 2.42 .068 80.76 3 26.92 1.34 .263 Type X Year Error Total 3133.55 156 20.087 3452.98 163 21.18 INSTRUMENTAL VALUE-CHEERFUL 13 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 FOOTBALL PLAYERS A NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS 3 FRESHMEN S0PHM0RES Figure 11. JUNIORS Cheerful SENIORS 159 difference in the scores of the category means between the football players and nonfootball players for the value Clean. Table 49 shows the results of the analy­ sis of the value Clean. The hypothesis of no signifi­ cant difference can be rejected since there was a highly significant difference at the significance level of .002 by the type of student. Whether the respondents were football players or nonfootball players made a difference in the way they perceived this value on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. A comparison of cell means shown in the graph of Figure 12 illustrates the difference in mean scores of football players and nonfootball players. It shows that football players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior years perceive the value Clean to be more important to them than the nonfootball players do. This difference is highlighted signifi­ cantly at the freshmen, sophomore, and senior levels. As presented in Table 50, the outcome of the category means concerning the value Courageous reveal that football players and nonfootball players had similar perceptions about this value. The analysis in Table 51 show no statistical significant differences between the two groups of students in the way they rated this value. cannot be rejected. Therefore, the null hypothesis r 160 TABLE 48 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Clean Football players Nonfootball players FR 9.47 (17) SO 9.54 (24) JR 13.48 (23) SR 8*0° (13) 13.58 (26) 11.83 (24) 13.70 (20) 11.82 d7) 11.95 10.69 13.58 10.17 TABLE 44 i U ‘44 -in 7 Q 1 2 ’78 49 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE CLEAN Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 249.10 1 249.10 9.67 .002 Year of student 300.09 3 100.03 3.88 .010 95.47 3 31.82 1.24 .299 4018.28 156 25. 76 4637.51 163 28.45 Type X Year Error Total FOOTBALL PLAYERS NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS FRESHMEN SOPHMORES JUNIORS Figure 12. Clean SENIORS 162 TABLE 50 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Courageous Football players FR 8.41 (17) SO 9.13 (24) JR 9.61 (23) SR 10.31 (13) Nonfootball players 9.15 (26) 9.63 (24) 9.00 (20) 10.24 (17) 8.8 6 9.38 9.33 10. 27 TABLE 9.31 9.46 51 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE COURAGEOUS Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 1.07 1 1.07 .048 .827 Year of student 35.48 3 11.83 .530 .663 Type X Year 11.59 3 3.86 .173 .915 3483.06 156 22.33 3531.02 163 21.66 Error Total 163 The comparison of category means shown in Table 52 indicates that no statistical significant differences exist in the ratings of the value Forgiving between the football players and the nonfootball players. Table 53 shows the result of the F test for the value Forgiving. An examination of this table points out that there were no statistical differences found in either the main effects on the interaction between the two groups of students. This evidence clearly suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Table 54 indicates that there was a close relation­ ship in the ratings of the value Helpful between the football players and nonfootball players. This relationship was shown in the category means. As illustrated in Table 55, the null hypothesis of no statistical significant difference cannot be rejected since there were no statistical differences found on the value between the two groups of students. The null hypothesis of no significant differences can be rejected for the value Honest. An inspection of the category means in Table 56 show a significant difference in the way football players and nonfootball players rated this value. An examination of Table 57 indicates a statistically significant difference happened at the (p <.038) level by the type of student. This level is significant to cause the null hypothesis 164 TABLE 52 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Forgiving Football players Nonfootball players FR 10.18 (17) SO 11.17 (24) JR 10.17 (23) SR 8.69 (13) 10.23 (26) 10.79 (24) 9.40 (2 0 ) 11.35 (17) 10.21 10.98 9.81 10.20 TABLE 10.23 10.41 53 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE FORGIVING Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 1.35 1 1.35 .055 .815 Year of student 32.84 3 10.95 .447 .720 Type X Year 58.924 3 19.64 .802 .495 3821.13 156 24.49 Total 3914.22 163 24.01 Error 165 TABLE 54 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Helpful Football players Nonfootball players FR 10.06 (17) SO 8.54 (24) JR 11.39 (23) SR 10,92 (13) 10.38 (26) 9.25 (24) 11.25 (20) 10.59 (17) 10.26 8.90 11.33 10. 73 iq io 31 TABLE 55 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE HELPFUL Source Type of student Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square 1.54 1 Year of student 144.88 3 Type X Year 6.62 3 2.21 3933.82 156 25.22 Total 4086.65 163 25.07 Error 1.54 f .061 48.295 1.92 .087 Significance Leve1 p < .805 .129 .967 166 TABLE 56 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Honest Football players Nonfootball players (24) JR 6.43 (23) (13) 4.92 (26) 4.21 (24) 5.30 (20) (17) 5.09 5.54 5. 91 FR 5.35 (17) SO 6.88 TABLE SR f- 6.00 6>26 4 72 5.13 57 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE HONEST Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Leve1 p < Type of student 88.71 1 8 8 .71 4.387 .038 Year of student 1 0 .26 3 3.42 .169 .917 Type X Year 29. 53 3 9.84 .487 .692 3154.40 156 20.22 3290.51 163 20.19 Error Total 167 to be rejected. To help highlight differences between the two groups of students on the value Honest, a graph of cell means will be displayed in Figure 13. The graph in Figure 13 shows results of rating the value Honest between football players and nonfoot­ ball players. Nonfootball players at each of the undergraduate academic levels placed more importance on the value than did the football players. As shown in Table 58, the null hypothesis of no significant difference on the value Imaginative between football players and nonfootball players cannot be rejected. There is a highly significant relation­ ship, as illustrated by comparing the category means. Table 59 also indicates that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the value Imaginative at the .05 sig­ nificance level. The comparison of category means given in Table 60 for the value Independent clearly shows identical scores between the football players and nonfootball players. This would suggest, as denoted in the analysis in Table 61, that the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the two groups of students cannot be rejected. Investigation of Table 62 reveals that there was a resemblance in the category means of the football players and nonfootball players on the value INSTRUMENTAL VALUE-HONEST 13 12 11 10 9 168 8 7 6 5 FOOTBALL PLAYERS A NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS ___ 3 FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure 13. JUNIORS Honest SENIORS 169 TABLE 58 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Imaginative Football players Nonfootball players FR 12.94 (17) SO 11.04 (24) JR 11.52 (23) SR 12.38 (13) 11.85 (26) 10.33 (24) 11.80 (2 0 ) 11.71 (17) 12.28 10.69 11.65 12.00 11.83 11.39 TABLE 59 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE IMAGINATIVE Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 11.76 1 11. 76 .450 .504 Year of student 6 8 .54 3 22.85 .874 .456 Type X Year 10.81 3 3.60 .138 .937 4080.16 156 26.16 4167.44 163 25.57 Error Total 170 TABLE 60 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Independent (17) SO 6.83 (24) JR 9.78 (23) SR 9.31 (13) 8.65 (26) 8.25 (24) 8.90 (2 0 ) 7.59 (17) 8.40 7.54 9.37 8.33 FR Football players Nonfootball players 8.00 8.39 8.39 TABLE 61 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE INDEPENDENT Source Type of student Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom .064 1 Mean Square .064 Year of student 76.18 3 25.39 Type X Year 58.53 3 19.51 3602.32 156 23.09 Total 3737.02 163 22.93 Error f .003 1.10 .845 Significance Level p < .958 .351 .471 171 TABLE 62 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Intellectual Football players FR 10.18 (17) SO 8.75 (24) JR 9.65 (23) SR 11.38 (13) Nonfootball players 9.96 (26) 10.92 (24) 9.90 (2 0 ) 9*88 U7) 10.05 9.83 9.77 10. 53 20 * TABLE 63 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE INTELLECTUAL Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 5.86 1 5.86 .224 .637 Year of student 11.07 3 3.69 .141 .935 Type X Year 68.23 3 22.74 .870 .458 Error 4079.62 156 26.15 Tota 4166.00 163 25.56 172 Intellectual. Table 63 shows that there was no statis­ tical significant difference shown in the analysis of the F test. These results point out that the null hypothesis of no significant difference cannot be rejected for the value Intellectual. Observation of the comparisons of the category means, as illustrated in Table 6k concerning the value Logical, shows a close relationship between the foot­ ball players and nonfootball players in the ratings of this value. Table 65 reveals that the null hypothe­ sis of no statistical significant difference cannot be rejected since there were no statistical differ­ ences shown in either the main effects or the inter­ action. Table 66 reveals that there was a similarity in the rating of category means on the value Loving between the football players and the nonfootball players. An inspection of Table 67 indicates that there was no statistical significant 'difference at the .05 level. These data would suggest that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the value Loving. Inspection of the category means in Table 68 shows some disparity in the rating of the value Obedient between the football players and the nonfoot­ ball players. The analysis in Table 69 highlights this difference by denoting a statistical significant 173 TABLE 64 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Logical Football players Nonfootball players FR 11.82 (17) 10.54 (26) 11.05 SO 10.96 (24) 11.54 (24) JR 8.78 (23) 9.25 (20) 11.25 TABLE SR 10.23 (13) 10.59 (17) 9.00 10.38 10. 53 10.43 65 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE LOGICAL Source Type of student Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom .050 1 Mean Square .050 Year of student 135.53 3 45.18 Type X Year 24.29 3 8. 1 0 3375.94 156 21.64 Total 3536.70 163 21. 70 Error f .002 2.09 .374 Significance Level p < .962 .104 .772 174 TABLE 66 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Loving (17) SO 7.50 (24) (23) SR 9.38 (13) 5.81 (26) 7.75 (24) 7.60 (2 0 ) 7.53 (17) 6.28 7.63 7.40 8.33 FR Football players Nonfootball players 7.00 JR 7.2 2 7.62 7.09 TABLE 67 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE LOVING Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square Type of student 8.79 1 8 .79 Year of student 79.28 3 26.43 Type X Year 33.50 3 11.17 3716.56 156 23.82 3840.88 163 23. 56 Error Total f .369 1.11 .469 Significance Level p < .544 .•347 .705 175 TABLE 68 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Obedient Football players FR 11. 53 (17) SO 12.37 (24) JR 11.48 (23) SR 12.23 (13) Nonfootball players 12.62 (26) 13.96 (24) 13.40 (20) 15.65 (17) 12.19 13.17 12.37 14.17 TABLE 11.90 13.76 69 ANALYSIS OF 1VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE OBEDIENT Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 142.75 1 142.75 6 .92 .009 Year of student 86.46 3 28.82 1.40 .246 Type X Year 24.94 3 8.31 3217.70 156 20.63 3470.80 163 21.29 Error Total .403 .751 176 difference at the (p <.009) level by the type of student. This analysis suggests that whether the students were football players or nonfootball players would make a significant difference in how they rated the value. These data would cause the null hypothesis of no signifi­ cant difference to be rejected. A graph of cell means displaying the differences is found in Figure 14. The graph displayed in Figure 14 shows the foot­ ball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior levels perceived the value Obedient to be more important to them than did the nonfootball players. The outcome of the comparisons of the category means in Table 70 for the value Polite indicates general agreement in the way the football players and nonfoot­ ball players rated the value 10.38 - 10.53. Table 70 shows no statistical significant difference at the ,05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the value Polite. Table 72 discloses that there was a likeness in the category means between football players and nonfootball players on the value Responsible. This likeness is illustrated in Table 73 which shows that there was no statistical significant differences in the interaction or the main effects. The null hypothesis of no significant differences cannot be rejected for the value Self Controlled. INSTRUMENTAL VALUE-OBEDIENT FOOTBALL PLAYERS NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS FRESHMEN SOPHMORES Figure JUNIORS Obedient SENIORS 178 TABLE 70 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Polite Football players Nonfootball players FR 7.82 (17) SO 10.33 (24) JR 9.48 (23) SR 9.00 (13) 9.30 9.58 (26) 9.58 (24) 12.85 (20) 10.65 (17) 10. 54 8.88 9. 96 11.05 9. 93 TABLE 71 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE POLITE Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square f Significance Level p < Type of student 81.17 1 81.17 3.65 .058 Year of student 118.81 3 39.60 1.78 .154 98. 78 3 32.93 1.48 .223 3474.16 156 22. 27 3754.70 163 23.04 Type X Year Error Total 179 TABLE 72 ANOVA TEST'FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS Responsible Football players FR 6 .71 (17) SO 8.67 (24) JR 7.04 (23) SR 5.31 (13) Nonfootball players 5.92 (26) 6.96 (24) 6.75 (20) 6.00 (17) 6.23 7.81 6.91 5.70 7.18 6.41 TABLE 73 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE RESPONSIBLE Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square Type of student 17.52 1 17.52 Year of student 93.16 3 31.05 Type X Year 28.25 3 9.42 3129.14 156 20.06 3274.65 163 20.09 Error Total f .873 1. 55 .469 Significance Level p < .351 .204 .704 180 Table 74 shows no statistical difference in the cate­ gory means. An observation of Table 75 reveals that there was no statistical difference in either the main effects or the interaction. Results of the Instrumental"Values The purpose of the study pertaining to the instru­ mental values was to analyze the relationships between football players and nonfootball players by the way they rated the eighteen values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. The purpose was carried out through a one-way analysis of variance. The null hypothesis of no significant difference was rejected at the statistical significant level of .05 for five of eighteen values on the instrumental scale. Significant differences were found to exist between football players and nonfootball players on the values Broadminded (p <.004) by year of student, Cheerful (p <.032) by type of student, Clean (p <.002) by type of student and (p <.010) by year of student, Hon e s t , (p <.038) by type of student and Obedient (p <.00 9) by the type of student. Each of the five values was presented in graphic form to help compare differences between the football players and the nonfootball players. The graphs showed interesting results in that there was an alternate 181 TABLE 74 ANOVA TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CELL MEANS BY YEAR OF STUDENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL *PLAYERS Self Controlled Football players Nonfootball players FR 8.24 (17) SO 9.25 (24) 11.31 (26) 9.04 (24) 10.09 9.15 JR 8.35 (23) SR 7.31 (13) 9.15 (20) o 10.65 (17) 8.72 aj in nfi iU,U0 9.20 TABLE 75 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE WITH COMPUTATIONS ON THE INSTRUMENTAL VALUE SELF CONTROL Source Sum of Degrees of Squares Freedom Mean Square Type of student 96.09 1 96.09 Year of student 30.60 3 10.20 90.49 3 30.16 4438.48 156 28.45 4667.95 163 28.64 Type X Year Error Total f Significance Level p < 3. 38 .068 .359 1.06 .783 .368 182 rating pattern on the value Broadminded. Football players showed more emphasis at the junior and senior years while nonfootball players emphasized it more at the freshmen and sophomore years. Football players rated the values Clean and Obedient more importantly than did the nonfootball players. Nonfootball players placed more significant emphasis on the values Cheerful and Honest than did the football players. The hypothe­ sis of no significant differences was rejected at the .05 significant level for these values. The hypothesis of no significant difference of mean ratings of the instrumental values between foot­ ball players and nonfootball players cannot be rejected for thirteen of the values at the (p <.05) level. A close examination of these thirteen values revealed that there was no statistical differences in the ratings between the two groups of students. There was no statistical differences found in either the main effects or the interactions of the values Ambitious, Capable, Courageous, Forgiving, Helpful, Imaginative, Inde­ pendent , Intellectual, Logical, Loving, Polite, Respon­ sible . and Self Controlled. The five values which showed significant differ­ ences and their major findings will be discussed in Chapter V. 183 Entire Sample OneWay Analysis This section will show the results of the analysis of data pertaining to the mean, ranking, frequencies and standard deviation for each of the terminal and instrumental values. It will provide comparisons of the means rankings of the football players and nonfootball players of the values on the terminal and instrumental scales. There will be no test of significance shown between the two groups of students, their frequencies, means or in the way they ranked the values. The writer's primary objective in displaying these data is to give a profile of the football players and nonfootball players based on their ranking system. The tables appear in three parts. First, each of the terminal and instrumental values will be shown with their frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the total sample population. Second, the means and rankings of the terminal and instrumental values will be shown for football players and nonfootball players on the total populations. Third, the means, rankings and frequency tables will be reported sepa­ rately for football players and nonfootball players. In analyzing the data, it is important to remem­ ber as previously stated in this chapter that low 184 numbers indicate the most important value while high numbers indicate the least important. Inspection should first be made of the total sample. This makes it convenient to interpret data on the two such groups. Table 76 shows data on the entire sample and are reported in terms of frequencies, means, and standard deviations. As illustrated in Table 77, the most important data continues to be the means and ranks of the entire sample on the terminal and instrumental values. An examination of this table shows how the entire sample ranked the thirty-six values. The analysis will con­ tinue by shifting to the same data broken down into the two groups of students, football players and non-' football players. Table 78 shows the category means and ranks of football players and nonfootball players. An examina­ tion of this table generally reveals statistical simi­ larities and differences in the means and ranks of the two groups of students. Table 79 reveals the frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations for football players in contrast to nonfootball players. The frequency distributions show how each group of students rated each of the thirty-six values. TABLE 76 Entire Sample--One May Analysis--Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations for Terminal Values for Football Players and Nonfootball Players (N=100) 1 6 8 10 7 8 5 9 11 5 9 14 14 14 8 10 5 8 3 12 3 12 12 9 7 19 3 9 15 12 6 12 5 6 11 5 T6~~ 5 8 14 3 9 6 4 6 17 11 14 8 12 2 10 4 12 7 19 12 11 9 7 b 6 19 9 9 7 6 15 9 8 13 6 9 11 / 8 5 12 Frequencies 9 10 11 12 10 14 9 6 4 15 11 10 12 8 7 13 6 3 8 8 8 11 11 5 10 11 6 6 14 5 5 4 11 26 4 7 14 15 10 9 10 11 8 16 7 7 9 9 7 9 13 12 8 6 12 10 7 10 11 5 12 6 5 14 11 13 6 12 5 12 9 9 11 3 7 9 12 12 13 8 9 6 8 7 7 9 8 8 14 6 5 4 9 13 6 15 10 10 15 10 8 4 9 5 7 8 13 15 9 7 9 9 8 6 16 5 4 15 12 11 12 10 3 12 11 8 10 9 14 6 8 6 5 9 7 8 11 23 5 5 13 5 10 14 8 11 7 10 12 8 7 9 13 10 14 10 10 3 3 8 9 12 8 6 7 16 19 6 ■10 1 7 9 14 10 14 5 6 6 7 13 4 9 13 12 10 14 7 11 15 7 6 4 9 9 15 16 15 13 18 4 3 8 9 2 3 7 13 16 7 10 15 17 13 6 8 6~ 6 8 14 10 15 7 7 3 6 9 3 5 1 7 8 11 5 7 11 13 9 18 16 9 5 15 7 8 10 13 8 10 12 13 —IX 6 0 7 11 8 8 2 6 8 12 14 7 14 8 9 7 9 5” 11 9 16 16 11 15 4 4 5 10 13 7 9 10 9 13 5 7 4 11 9 13 14 5 16 6 7 1? 4 8 7 5 14 11 23 22 16 17 4 2 5 6 1 1 8 7 3 3 17 35 6 18 12 9 1 2 17 19 4 3 3 3 5 3 9 3 13 6 8 12 16 17 11 6 7 15 8 15 3 3 19 22 3 6 10 10 8 15 2 2 12 15 9 11 l 3 12 9 18 3 6 Total Mean S.D. 167 167 7.86 9.09 5.00 4.94 8.00 5.04 5 167 9 167 10.26 5.17 4.or 23 167 13.55 11 167 11.26 5.09 7.61 4.46 3 167 3 167 8.25 4.96 1 167 6.15 3.98 4 167 8.76 5.29 4.42 2 167" 8.51 3.89 25 167 13.91 6 167 10.73 4.36 167 10.08 6.82 37 7.47 4.32' 2 167 16? 12.58 '4.32 19 7.84 “ 4.20 1 167 4 167 8.36 4.58. 6.56 4.S3 2 167 5.7)6 4 167 8.59 9.41 2 167 4.75 4.57 13 167 11.49 26 167 11.78 5. 34 167 9.31 5 4. 66 167 10.31 4.90 9 6 167 "1'0".T7— 5.00 5.44 4.47 0 167 5.04 15 167 11.61 8 4.84 167 5.04 10 167 9.94 6 '~T5T 10.47 4.65 6 167 7.40 4.85 167 lf.92- 4.59 35 4.78 3 1.67 10.02 4 6.77 167 4.45 7 167 9.30 5.34 185 2 3 4 5 A Comfortable Life 17 15 13 10 13 An Exciting Life 5 11 12 13 11 A Sense of Accomplishment 12 15 17 12 9 A World at Peace 6 8 8 8 9 1 I 2 3 2 A World of Beautv 2 4 11 7 8 Equality 10 18 9 12 10 Family Security 18 9 10 7 12 Freedom 21 12 20 17 12 Happiness Inner Harmony 11 19 10 12 6 Mature Love 3 12 9 13 17 National Security 0 1 2 3 1 Pleasure 3 4 3 3 9 Salvation 36 6 5 4 3 10 14 13 11 16 Self-Respect Social Recognition 2 2 2 3 3 True Friendship 6 13 11 11 15 Uisdom 10 7 8 17 10 Ambitious 2l 22 20 11 10 Broadminded 10 15 9 13 12 7 7 10 8 6 Capable Cheerful 2 2 8 4 7 Clean 6 6 5 4 6 Courageous 2 8 9 10 9 Forgiving 4 4 11 7 8 Helpful 7 4 6 12 12 Honest 42 23 9 12 12 4 4 6 4 11 Imaginative Independent 15 6 5 14 16 Intellectual 7 6 10 7 8 Logical 5 5 7 8 8 Loving 14 18 17 12 5 2 2 2 4 4 Obedient Polite 2 7 11 10 10 Responsible 12 20 15 17 14 Sell Controlled lb 12 b 9 8 186 TABLE 77 Entire Sample--One Way Analysis--Means and Ranks for Terminal and Instrumental Values (N=100) TERMINAL VALUES INSTRUMENTAL VALUES Total Total Mean Mean (M=100) Rank fN=100>Rank A Comfortable Life 7.86 5 An Exciting Life 9. 09 11 A Sense of Accomplishment 8 .00 6 A World at Peace 10.26 13 A World of Beauty 13.55 Equality Ambitious 6.56 2 Broadminded 8.59 6 Capable 9.41 9 Cheerful 11.49 15 17 Clean 11.78 17 11.26 15 Courageous 9.31 8 Family Security 7.61 3 Forgiving 10.31 13 Freedom 8.25 7 Helpful 10.27 12 Happiness 6.15 1 Honest 5.44 1 Inner Harmony 8.76 10 Imaginative 11.61 16 Mature Love 8.51 9 Independent 8.42 5 National Security 13.91 18 Intellectual 9.99 10 Pleasure 10.73 14 Logical 10.47 14 Salvation 10.08 12 Loving 7.40 4 7.47 2 Obedient 12. 92 18 12.58 16 Polite 10.02 11 True Friendship '7.84 4 Responsible 6 .77 3 Wisdom 8.36 8 Self Controlled 9.30 7 Self-Respect Social Recognition 187 TABLE 78 Ca t e g o r y Samples--One Way A n a l y s i s - T e r m i n a l Values, Means, a nd Ranks for F o otball Players and N o n f o o t b a l l Players (N=50) Values A Comf o r t a b l e Life A n E x c i t i n g Life A Sense of A c c o m ­ plishment A W o r l d at Peace A W o r l d of Beauty Eq u a l i t y F a m i l y Security F r e edom Happiness Inner Harmony M a t u r e Love N a t ional Security Pleasure Sa l v a t i o n Self Respect Social R e c o g n i t i o n T r u e Friendship Wisdom Football players Rank Mean (N= 5 0 ) N onfootball players Rank Mean (N-50) 7.11 9.93 3 14 8.47 8.36 10 9 8.A3 9.06 12.18 9.86 6.77 8.21 6.63 9.70 9.45 13.44 11.18 9.04 7.58 12.53 8.95 8.01 7 10 16 13 2 6 1 12 11 18 15 9 4 17 8 5 . 7.63 11.36 13.71 12.53 8.30 8.35 5.76 7.90 7.59 14.30 10.41 11.06 7. 28 12.58 6.79 8. 73 5 14 17 15 7 8 1 6 4 18 12 13 3 16 2 11 C a t e g o r y Samples One Wa y Analysis-In strumental Values, Means and Ranks for Football Players a n d N o n f o o t b a l l Players Foot b a l l Players N onfootball Players Values Mean Rank Mean Rank __________________ (N-50)_____________ (N=50)___________ ___ A m b itious Broadminded C apable Cheerful Clean Co u rageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imagi n a t i v e Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Resp o n s i b l e Self Con t r o l l e d 6.45 9.04 9.95 12.23 10.70 9.15 10.20 10.23 6.21 11.84 8.45 9.78 10.41 7.74 12.01 9.45 7.15 8.48 2 7 11 18 15 8 12 13 1 16 5 10 14 4 17 9 3 6 6.71 8.19 9.01 10.77 12.76 9.48 10.41 10.28 4. 71 11.47 8.44 10.20 10.55 7.03 13.71 10.47 6.45 9.99 3 5 7 15 17 8 12 11 1 16 6 10 14 4 18 13 2 9 TABLE 79 Entire Sample— One Way Analysis--Frequency Distributions, Means and Standard Deviations for Football Players and Nonfootball Players (N=50) A Comfortable Life Football players Nonfootball players An Exciting Life Football players Nonfootball players A Sense of Accom­ plishment Football players Nonfootball players A World at Peace Football players Nonfootball players A World of Beauty Football players Nonfootball players Frequencies 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 8 4 5 4 2 3 9 3 4 2 5 2 3 2 2 3 1 6 9 5 6 5 5 6 4 4 7 3 3 6 1 5 7 4 4 3 6 3 4 4 5 7 2 1 8 3 1 3 3 6 1 6 7 5 1 4 4 3 5 3 7 3 6 4 1 2 1 0 3 3 3 5 3 2 4 5 11 3 6 7 2 2 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 0 2 2 10 4 11 6 5 3 1 10 2 5 6 9 5 9 6 5 8 3 3 2 4 5 8 6 7 7 5 5 7 4 3 5 4 4 3 2 4 6 4 8 6 8 Total Mean S.D.. 1 2 80 86 7.11 8.47 4.88 5.01 8 0 3 3 80 86 9.93 8.36 5.31 4.48 4 3 3 2 4 1 80 86 8.43 7.63 5.24 4.87 6 9 5 9 4 7 2 7 80 86 9.06 11.36 4.94 5.18 7 9 ; 8 11 12 10 12 15 10 80 86 11.46 13.71 4.44 3.62 5 7 5 8 8 10 3 13 7 10 4 7 80 86 9.86 12.53 5.29 4.58 6 6 1 4 1 3 1 3 2 2 0 2 2 1 80 86 6.77 8.30 4.37 4.40 5 6 7 5 3 4 4 4 2 7 2 3 3 3 2 1 80 86 8.21 8.35 4.86 5.05 2 6 3 7 2 3 3 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 80 86 6.63 5.76 3.97 3.96 3 3 5 3 6 6 7 4 6 5 6 1 8 5 3 4 3 5 2 2 80 86 9.70 7.90 4.95 5.50 3 2 6 8 4 4 3 6 7 2 12 4 5 2 1 2 3 0 1 1 80 86 9.45 7.59 4.66 4.02 1 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 11 8 4 7 6 4 6 6 7 3 5 4 4 3 2 6 4 2 3 5 7 5 8 3 7 5 5 1 4 3 9 5 5 10 7 10 7 6 6 4 5 2 6 7 2 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 8 1 6 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 i 7 4 Equality 1 4 7 6 5 Football players Nonfootball players 1 0 4 1 3 Family Security 8 11 2 5 5 Football players Nonfootball players 2 7 7 7 5 Freedom 7 6 5 3 5 Football players Nonfootball players 11 2 5 4 7 Happiness Football players 5 4 12 7 a Nonfootball players 15 8 8 10 4 Inner Harmony 4 4 3 9 1 Football players Nonfootball players 7 15 7 3 5 Mature Love 1 7 2 6 5 Football players Nonfootball players 2 5 7 7 12 TABLE 79 -Continued 1 Rational Security Football players U Honfootball players 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 a F geqionC llS T 2 ' 13 14 15 16 17 IB Total Hcan S -D - 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 3 2 0 2 4 1 2 2 1 5 5 4 7 7 7 6 8 2 5 10 9 8 13 22 11 13 80 86 13.44 14.30 4.15 3.60 Pleasure Football players 2 Honfootball players 1 2 2 1 1 0 3 2 7 3 5 5 5 8 3 12 14 3 2 1 7 4 2 7 7 7 10 7 6 9 6 3 3 4 2 80 86 11.18 10.47 4.37 4.28 Salvation Football players 22 Nonfootball plaversl7 3 3 2 3 4 0 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 5 3 0 5 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 6 2 3 9 4 5 12 25 80 86 9.04 11.06 6.69 6.87 Self Respect Football players 6 Honfootball players 4 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 10 4 8 6 6 3 11 9 6 4 5 4 3 5 4 2 4 4 2 3 4 1 0 1 1 2 0 80 86 7.58 7.28 4.65 3.95 Social Recognition Football players 2 Nonfootball players 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 3 7 4 5 9 4 2 6 4 7 8 6 2 8 8 7 9 8 9 9 10 9 80 86 12.53 12.58 4.59 4.07 True Friendship Football players J 2 Honfootball players 3 11 5 6 2 9 9 6 6 6 B 11 5 5 2 8 3 3 15 8 3 2 2 5 5 2 2 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 80 86 8.95 6.79 4.44 3.71 Wisdom Football players B Honfootball players 2 3 5 7 9 6 4 4 8 5 7 8 8 6 2 7 8 3 2 5 8 3 6 1 5 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 80 86 8.01 8.73 4.76 4.40 Ambitious Football players 13 10 11 Nonfootball players 8 11 9 4 7 5 5 3 6 3 8 4 3 3 4 4 6 3 2 4 6 1 4 0 1 4 3 4 1 1 2 2 0 SO 86 6,45 6.79 5.20 4.48 Broadminded football players 3 10 Nonfootball players 7 5 1 8 5 8 7 5 3 4 4 4 5 4 2 7 4 6 10 4 4 4 2 3 5 3 5 6 3 2 5 4 2 2 80 86 9.04 8.19 5.09 5.06 Capable Football players 2 Nonfootball players 4 1 6 6 4 3 5 5 1 10 9 3 4 3 4 3 6 7 8 5 6 1 6 8 7 3 4 5 6 10 3 3 3 2 0 80 86 9.95 9.01 4.83 4.59 Cheerful — Foot Hall players 1 Honfootball players 1 2 2 0 6 1 4 2 11 6 6 4 6 9 12 4 4 4 Clean — Football players 6 Honfootball players 0 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 3 4 2 2 6 4 2 6 2 1 7 10 5 1 7 Courageous Football players 1 Honfootball players 1 4 3 7 3 1 5 4 Forgiving Football players 2 Honfootball players 2 1 3 4 5 3 8 3 3 6 4 4 5 1 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 3 7 7 2 0 2 1 5 4 2 7 4 8 6 11 11 5 5 7 7 2 5 2 5 7 5 6 5 1 6 5 8 9 5 8 3 3 2 2 5 6 7 4 2 4 4 4 6 3 13 8 8 5 5 8 6 8 9 3 3 4 3 7 BO 86 12.23 10.77 4.43 4.63 13 13 80 86 10.70 12.76 5.84 4.67 2 80 9.15 86____ 9.48 4.90 4.47 80 86 4.68 5.15 3 3 5 10 4 5 10.20 10.47 TABLE 79 -Continued 1 2 3 4 b 6 7 F§eqiOttCi i 8, 12 13 3 1 3 3 5 7 5 7 1 5 4 5 3 2 2 3 4 6 6 5 Honest Football players 15 9 Nonfootball players 27 14 8 1 4 6 3 9 8 3 5 2 2 4 4 3 0 3 Imaginative Football players I Nonfootball plavers 3 0 4 2 4 2 6 4 2 3 4 2 9 5 4 4 Independent Football players 10 Nonfootball players 5 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 12 3 3 7 B 5 B 5 8 Intellectual Football players 3 Nonfootball plavers 4 3 3 7 3 3 4 3 5 5 6 4 5 1 5 9 3 7 7 Logical 2 Football players Nonfootball plavers 3 2 3 5 2 3 5 3 5 3 2 4 4 2 3 4 7 Loving 7 8 6 Football players Nonfootball players 7 10 11 5 7 3 2 8 8 7 6 4 5 Obedient 2 Football players Nonfootball players 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 3 1 4 I 3 3 Polite 2 Football players Nonfootball players 0 6 1 7 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 7 7 7 10 9 5 5 4 4 4 Helpful Football players 4 Nonfootball plavers 3 Responsible Football players Nonfootbal plavers 6 8 6 12 Self Controlled 10 Football players Nonfootball plavers 5 9 3 1 5 2 8' 14 "15 16 17 T g — ToCal Hean S- D- 10 3 9 7 5 10 5 3 1 5 80 86 10.23 10.28 5.02 5.02 5 1 3 4 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 80 86 6.21 4.71 4.74 4.13 3 6 3 8 4 4 5 3 8 11 11 11 8 7 80 86 11.84 11.47 4.77 5.29 4 4 0 2 1 5 4 4 1 2 6 0 5 3 80 86 8.45 8.44 5.33 4.38 3 3 3 4 8 4 6 8 3 4 2 8 6 4 4 6 80 86 9.78 10.20 4.99 5.14 5 4 7 15 4 7 7 3 5 1 8 10 5 0 8 4 2 80 86 10.41 10.55 4.53 4.81 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 6 4 3 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 80 86 7.74 7.03 4.95 4.75 7 4 1 2 2 5 5 4 9 5 5 6 3 6 10 6 5 7 6 9 11 23 80 86 12.01 13.79 4.73 4.32 3 6 3 4 7 2 2 8 8 6 3 2 7 9 3 8 5 10 4 5 7 3 1 2 80 8b 9.45 10.47 5.06 4.43 6 8 4 7 4 8 5 7 5 2 5 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 1 80 86 7.15 6.45 4.70 4.20 3 2 3 4 6 7 3 5 7 6 3 6 2 2 4 6 6 7 3 4 6 5 1 B 4 3 80 8b 8.48 9.99 5.47 5.12 191 Spearman Rho Correlation C o e f f i c i en t s As Indicated in the Analysis of Procedures in this chapter, Table 80 displays the correlation coefficients for entire samples on terminal values and Table 81 illustrates the correlations for the instrumental values. The reliability coefficients range from a high of .46 to a low of .00 on the two scales. The reader should be reminded that correlations can be helpful in quantifying relationships between two variables but they do not validate causal factors. TABLE 80 SPEARMAN RHO CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NONFOOTBALL PLAYERS ON TERMINAL VALUES (ENTIRE SAMPLE N « 100) 1.00 37. An Exciting Life .33 1.00 38. A Sense of Accccplishnent .0B .15 1.00 39. A World of Peace -.09 -.11 -.09 1.00 40. A World of Beauty -.09 -.01 -.03 41. Equality .01 -.13 -.16 42. Fanilv Security .07 -.13 -.13 .05 .16 1.00 .17 -.21 .11 1.00 .22 .31 -.12 1.00 .14 .07 -.02 -.25 -.12 .25 -.02 -.26 1.00 43. Inner Harmony -.30 -.21 -.05 -.16 46. Mature Love -.10 -.08 -.11 -.19 -.03 -.27 -.03 -.20 47. National Security -.00 -.22 -.16 -.01 -.12 .21 -.23 -.33 -.16 50. Self Respect -.06 -.14 .13 .09 .01 -.22 -.02 .11 -.30 -.11 52. True Friendship -.12 -.10 -.02 -.22 -.08 53. Wisdom -.38 -.26 -.02 -.10 .10 .14 1.00 .21 -.10 .02 -.17 -.31 -.25 .02 -.00 -.23 .01 .09 1.00 .02 -.09 .20 -.13 -.13 -.02 -.02 -.30 -.22 -.13 .12 -.28 -.25 -.32 .02 1.00 .15 -.00 -.03 -.12 -.06 .25 -.09 -.25 -.22 -.19 -.11 -.13 49. Salvation .04 1.00 .03 -.16 1.00 .00 .02 -.07 1.00 .07 -.18 -.02 -.07 .22 -.15 .14 1.00 .01 -.12 .22 .15 .01 .21 -.14 .08 -.03 .14 .01 -.04 -.05 -.23 .05 .11 1.00 .13 -.08 .18 1.00 f iu U-l o TJ a S1 O o £ ii tn < 0 ■ Ha £ < < & —i 1— ^ I & at n M I I I A rH l U a 4J Self Respect S 1 4— 1 a ■H O & True Friendship I An Exciting Life A Comfortable Life' -u c Freedom 51. Social Recognition -.04 -.17 -.00 Fanily Security 48. Pleasure .09 -.10 Salvation 44. Happiness -.13 .46 Pleasure 43. Fi-eedan -.17 -.24 .16 1.00 Inner Harmony 36. A Ccnfortable Life 1 I 193 TA1LE f l l SFEJULHAN ft HO COftJtZlATlQN C O C m C ID T T S r? ft T O T M L l PLATERS AND KWrOOTftALL F LAYERS OH IH S TtlKE H TA L VALUES (ENTIRE SAKFLE R - 100 ) $6, Aabltloul - hardworkim. aeDltina 1.0C $7. iTOtdalndid * oetn-nlnded - .03 1.0( 31. Cipibli - competent, effective .14 .o: 1.00 39. Cheerful * ll|htheertrd. torful .0: .14 .0 I.00 -.02 -.11 -.0 .09 l.oa ■fto -.01 .1 ,03 -.23 1.0C -.17 -.01 -.7 -.00 .00 -.01 I.M .13 .03 -.02 ,11 l.OC -M -.03 -.11 .11 ■i' 1.00 .0 -.06 -.16 .01 -.11 w - .22 1.00 -.01 ,12 -, 31 3 -.00 .07 -.02 -.31 -.11 -.14 .06 .07 1.00 -.13 -.21 -.19 .08 -.12 .30 $0. Clean - neat, tidy 61. C4uri|toiu* tiindlh| kb t o t vour belief* 62, forgiving * willing to uardon other* 63. Helpful - M r b l m tor -.07 -.14 .0 64. Honeet - alncira* truthful -.21 .0! -.1 63. Imaginative * daring, creative -.02 66. Independent • eelfreliant. .17 -.10 .0 - .13 67. Intellectual - IntelliHDt. reflective .03 .13 -♦0 -.04 -.03 -.02 -.0 -.33 -.16 6i. logical * corn latent, rational -.$9 69. Loving * affectionate, t«nder -.26 -.13 70, Obedient - ductful, reawctfgl -.06 -i?’ -.11 71, Polite - courtaoua, welt-uannered -.17 -.16 -.16 .06 .10 72. Reaponeible * dependable. reliable - .04 -A} - .04 -.16 -.06 73. Self-controlled * raatralned, aalfdlectpllned -.10 -.06 -.14 -.23 -.07 i* c ?„ Vft -4 b Cb 2: * -i 'e c • & i 3 S ut 1 -.12 5 -i u ■* to *4 V U C m u m - .06 m -.11 .11 .02 -.0? -.04 -.14 -.03 -.03 l.oa -.03 .03 .06 -.02 -.10 -.21 -.03 -IS -.03 .00 1.00 .03 -.09 .03 -,17 -.22 -.09 .02 .20 .16 1.00 -.06 - ,07 -.12 .04 -.27 rl* -.10 .06 .0? -.02 .06 1.00 -,12 -.02 -.03 -.06 -.22 -.06 -.16 ,17 -,li .07 *.00 .17 u o ei ■ *3 **3 c* b h *4 ■ mu m e • ■ a m. - h ■ * S-I 5 1 h ■ S 1.00 -.10 bK D I ■3 —c4 a ■ S •V 1.00 tj ■ ■ u 1 b ■ a. 0 b it ■ *64 M 5 S 12 se. ss • 1 M 3 C* S w *4 > ■ m 3 h a £ I m « ■ b Xb St u u9 £o ?£ 3£ w— s; 1 i * b • b U M C h ■3 1 -+ ■ t *3 *4 Cb 4* ■ u e & £ 1 4* w* ■ 1 c - ■* b Cw u ■ *4 b * 1 *t4*4 • ■■ * *4 c *3 a ■ Cb • 10 He * * ■ -4 U ■ 4♦b UlM m —C h 1u u ■ ■ U n b ■ 13 e ■ *> e e s * —« -e4 i V *•4 •H ■ ■ ■ —u4 ■* *4 -c4 » a 3 " 3 *4 +J U ■ & • b ** 3 b U P 1 4J a « i Q 1.00 4* S£ ■ a. b4— * U M • • —• c m « -4 ■ •■ b ■■ H S3 09 u6 1 ■ u H «O. Cbb e T* ib e J3 ■ S Cb ■ £ 1H-. e■ * • H s R e ■ m V«I CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter summarizes the study's purpose, back­ ground, reviews the findings, offers general conclusions and implications for further research. Summary • Purpose and Background The main purpose of this study was to determine whether or not football players and nonfootball players perceived the terminal and instrumental values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument differently as indicated by the way they ranked them. In preparation for the study, the author conducted a review of the literature to determine which values football coaches believed were inherent in the game at the intercollegiate level. Another purpose of the review was to determine which of these values were absorbed by the participants who played the game. The review showed there was much confusion among coaches and others on the definition of & value. Also, there was a division between coaches, football players and critics about the general value of football and about 194 195 whether the sport should be a part of an educational institution. Moreover, the review showed that the values identified by coaches have undergone several changes to generally reflect the broad social changes which have taken place in America. The traditional moralistic perspective in which a coach's control was absolute has yielded to a contemporary perspective in which humanistic qualities and football players’ partici­ pation in decision making were emphasized; from informal play for fun to highly organized competitive play in which winning at all cost is emphasized; and from the importance of character building to entertainment value for the audience. The survey instrument used in this research, called the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument, contained two sets of eighteen values each on the terminal and instru­ mental scales. The respondents participating in the study were requested to rank the values in order of importance to them from 1 to 18 with the lowest number being the most important to the respondents. It was believed this ranking was designed to help each respon­ dent examine and prioritize his personal value system in relationship to the values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. Also, it enabled the writer to compare the ranking of these values between the football players and nonfootball players. 196 The study included two null hypotheses to help in the analysis of data. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses to determine whether there were statistical differences of significance in the way football players and non­ football players perceived the values on the terminal and instrumental scales of the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. The writer was only interested in finding out in this study if differences existed between the two groups of students and not the cause of any difference, if any. The statistical significance level of .05 was used to test the hypotheses. Findings Terminal Values As has been indicated in Chapter IV the analysis of variance revealed evidence that the null hypothesis was to be rejected on nine or half of the eighteen terminal values. Statistically significant differences were found in the way football players and nonfootball players ranked these nine values which follow with their level of significance: A Comfortable Life .045 by type of student and .010 by type of student times the year (Table 5); An Exciting Life .026 by type of student and .018 by type times year (Table 7); A World At Peace .002 by type of student (Table 11); 197 Equality .001 by type of student (Table 15); Family Security .007 by type of student (Table 17); Happiness .038 by academic year of student (Table 21); Inner Harmony .011 by type of student (Table 23); Mature Love .005 by type of student (Table 25); and True Friendship .001 by type of student (Table 37). These data show a statistical difference of significance occurred by the type of student between football players and nonfootball players in each of the values except in Happiness where the difference occurred in the interaction involving type of student by the year of student. These findings relative to the type of student were significant to help respond to the null hypotheses of no significant difference between the two groups of students in their mean ranks of terminal values. Further interpretations of these findings are found in the Conclusions. Additional insight into the statistical differences found between football players and nonfootball players were shown in the graph of cell means. Figure 1 dis­ played the graph of cell means for A Comfortable L i f e . It showed a significant relationship was found between football players and nonfootball players. The football players placed more emphasis on A Comfortable Life at the freshman, sophomore, and junior levels than did nonfootball players. At the senior level nonfootball 198 players perceived A Comfortable Life to be more impor­ tant than did the football players. Figure 2 presented a graph on the value An Exciting L i f e . It revealed freshmen football players ranked the value significantly more important to them than did any other academic level of students involved in the study. The perceptions changed at the sophomore, junior and senior years where the nonfootball players ranked the value significantly higher than did the football players. The results of Figure 3 showed the football players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic levels were more significantly influenced by the value A World of Peace than were the nonfootball players. An examination of Figure 4 revealed football players at each of the four undergraduate academic levels perceived the value Equality significantly more important to them than did nonfootball players. Figure 5 displayed the cell mean ratings of the value Family Security between the football players and the nonfootball players. It showed football players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior years consistently rated the value significantly higher than nonfootball players did at each of these academic levels. Figure 6 presented alternate ratings by the football 199 and nonfootball players on the value Happiness. Foot­ ball players at the freshmen and junior levels responded significantly more favorably in their rating of the value than did the nonfootball players. the sophomore While at and senior levels, nonfootball players rated the value significantly higher than the football p layers. Figure 7 showed that nonfootball players at each of the four undergraduate academic levels perceived the value Inner Harmony significantly more important to them than did the football players. The graph in Figure 8 illustrated that nonfootball players were more significantly persuaded by the value Mature Love than were the football players. This significance was evident in each of the four under­ graduate academic levels involving the two groups of students. An inspection of Figure 9 displayed that nonfootball players rated the value True Friendship significantly more important to them than football players at each of the four undergraduate academic levels. In contrast to the above findings of differences there was a positive relationship in the way football players and nonfootball players perceived the other nine values on the terminal scale. The null hypotheses was accepted since there was no statistical difference 200 of significance found at the .05 level in the way the two groups of students rated the following v a l u e s : A Sense of Accomplishment (Table 6 ); A World of Beauty (Table 8 ); Freedom (Table 12); National Security (Table 18); Pleasure (Table 20); Salvation (Table 22); Self Respect (Table 24); Social Recognition (Table 26), and Wisdom (Table 39). The findings associated with these nine values would suggest that football players and nonfootball players had similar perceptions about the relative worth of these values. Instrumental Values A similar pattern was found in the instrumental values as was found in the terminal values. The analysis of variance data revealed a highly statistical signifi­ cant difference occurred between the football players and the nonfootball players on five instrumental values. These values and their level of significance were: Broadminded .004 by the academic year of student (Table 43); Cheerful .032 by type of student (Table 47); Clean .002 by type of student and .010 by the academic year of student (Table 49); Honest .038 by type of student (Table 57) and Obedient .009 by type of student (Table 69). The null hypotheses of no significant difference involving the mean ranks of these five instrumental values was rejected at the (p <.0 5) level. 201 To help obtain a clearer picture concerning the differences between football players and nonfootball players in the way they rated the five instrumental values, graphs of cell means were displayed. Inspec­ tion of the graph in Figure 10 revealed that nonfootball players at the freshmen and sophomore years perceived the value Broadminded to be more significant to them than did the football players. The perceptions had reversed themselves at the junior and senior years when the football players placed more emphasis on the value Broadminded than did the junior and senior nonfootball players. Based on the literature involving social critics one might expect nonfootball players to score significantly higher at every academic class over the football players on the value Broadminded. This, however, did not prove to be correct. The results of the graph in Figure 11 for the value Cheerful illustrated that nonfootball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic years rated this value significantly more important than did foot­ ball players. The ratings of football players, as shown in the graph of Figure 12, highlighted how they perceived the value Clean more importantly than did the nonfootball players at each of the four undergraduate academic levels. Figure 13 displayed the differences between football players and nonfootball players on 202 the value Honest. It showed that nonfootball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic years rated this value significantly more importantly than did the football players. Figure 14 revealed that nonfootball players at the four undergraduate academic levels placed more emphasis on the value True Friendship than did the football players. The hypothesis of no significant differences was accepted for the other thirteen values on the Instrumental Scale. The analysis of data showed that there was no statistical difference between the mean ratings of football players and nonfootball players on the thirteen values. On the basis of the statis­ tical evidence presented there appears to be no sig­ nificant differences in the way football players and nonfootball players perceived the importance of the following values: Ambitious (Table 41); Capable (Table 45); Courageous Helpful (Table 51 ) j Forgiving (Table 53); (Table 55); Imaginative (Table 59); Independent (Table 61); Intellectual (Table 63); Logical Loving (Table 67); Polite (Table 65); (Table 71); Responsible (Table 73), and Self Controlled (Table 75). The writer believes he has shown through the data presented that football players and nonfootball players at Michigan State University do share statis­ tically different perceptions about the relative 203 importance of nine out of eighteen values on the termi­ nal scale. The data also revealed that football players and nonfootball players statistically share similar perceptions in regard to the general worth of nine out of eighteen values on the terminal scale. More­ over, football players and nonfootball players showed significantly diverse feelings in their mean ranks of five instrumental values. However, there were no statistical differences in the mean ranks of thirteen values on the instrumental scale. These data disclosed in a valid manner that while football players share similar perceptions with nonfootball players about some values on the Terminal and Instrumental scales at the .05 level, they also have significant differences about others. General Conclusions The purpose of this study was to determine if there were differences in the perceptions of football players and nonfootball players at MSU by the way they ranked the eighteen values on the terminal scale and the eighteen values on the instrumental scale of the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. 204 Terminal Values Hypothesis 1 indicated that there is no significant differences between football players and nonfootball players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of Terminal Values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. It was found in the study that this hypothesis had to be rejected at the .05 level on nine out of eighteen values on the terminal scale for the following values. 1. Football players rated the value A Comfortable Life significantly more important than nonfootball players at the freshmen, sophomore and junior years. Nonfootball layers rated the value more important at the senior level. This statistical difference occurred in the interaction at the significant level of .01 by type of student times year. The implication of these data suggest that football players at MSU might consider intercollegiate football as an important incentive to reach a career in pro­ fessional football where A Comfortable Life is perceived. This level of motivation is maintained by the football players until their senior year. They then realize that their chances of being drafted into professional football is substantially slim to none. 2. Football players at the freshmen academic level rated the value An Exciting Life statistically 205 more prominent than did the nonfootball players. The emphasis was reversed by the nonfootball players at the sophomore, junior and senior academic years when they placed more importance on this value than did the football players. The statistical difference occurred at the significant level of .026 by the type of student. The data would suggest that the alternate rating pattern found between football players and nonfootball players on this value do not provide any conclusive evidence to offer any tentative conclusions. 3. Football players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior years rated the value A World of Peace significantly more important than did nonfootball players. This difference occurred by the type of student at the .002 level. These suprising findings do not correspond with data in the review of literature which revealed that traditional coaches considered intercollegiate football as a fortress against radical elements including war. Football players, thus, were found to rate the value A World at Peace remarkably more conservative than nonfootball players. 4. Football players rated the value Equality significantly more important than did nonfootball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic years. This significance occurred at the .001 level by the type of student. A speculative 206 explanation might be that since football provides to its participants a fair and equal opportunity to participate, football players by virtue of their member­ ship on an interracial team engender a comradeship which has an orientation toward equality. 5. Football players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic years disclosed through their mean rank that they were more influenced by the value Family Security than were the nonfootball players. This statistical significant difference occurred by the type of student at the .007 level. The results of the data would indicate that most collegiate football players accord very high status to professional football and perceive it as a means to try to earn funds to "take care of loved ones." This position is generally supported by former colle­ giate and professional football players in the litera­ ture review. 6. Football players and nonfootball players manifested significantly diversed ratings on the value Happiness described by Rokeach as "Contentedness." Football players at the freshmen and junior academic years were more persuaded by the value than were non­ football players. The significant difference occurred at level .038 by the year of student. However, non­ football players at the sophomore and senior academic 207 years perceived the value more important to them than football players. The results distinguished the differences between the two groups of students by academic year rather than by type of student. It is not possible, without more available data, to specu­ late why the difference occurred. 7. Nonfootball players at the freshmen, sopho­ more, junior and senior academic levels perceived the value Inner Harmony to have significantly more consequence than did the football players. This level of significance occurred at .011 by the type of student. The major implication resulting from this value defined by Rokeach as "freedom from inner conflict" is that the essence of competition is conflict. The game of football is a dominant force for instilling compe­ titiveness in its participants. This position is confirmed in the literature by some former football players. They absorbed the competitiveness as .players but later experienced another kind of conflict within themselves when they could not transfer this same level of competitiveness to other occupations. 8. Nonfootball players rated the value Mature Love significantly more important than did football players. Nonfootball players at the freshmen, sopho­ more, junior and senior years placed a greater emphasis on the value. The difference occurred at the significant 208 level of .005 by the type of student. This analysis would imply that nonfootball players had a greater orientation for developing a Mature Love relationship than did the football players. 9. Nonfootball players were found to rate the value True Friendship significantly more important than did the football players. This data shows that nonfootball players are more favorably disposed toward True Friendship than football players. It was found that the null hypothesis could not be rejected on nine of the eighteen values on the terminal value scale. These findings in the study showed that the football players and nonfootball players mean ranked half the values similar and half the values dissimilar. The null hypothesis that the two groups of students at MSU do not differ statistically in their rating of eighteen values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument is not consistently supported in this study. Instrumental Values Hypothesis 2 indicated that there is no significant difference between football players and nonfootball players at Michigan State University as measured by their mean rankings of Instrumental Values on the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument. It was found in 209 the investigation that this hypothesis had to be rejected for the following values: 1. Nonfootball players at the freshman and sopho­ more years perceived the value Broadminded significantly more important to them at these academic levels than did the football players. Football players at the junior and senior years reversed the pattern by placing more emphasis on the value than the nonfootball This could suggest players. that nonfootball players at MSU are more influenced by the concept of Broadminded at the first two years of their education while football players became more persuaded by the value at the junior and senior years. These unexpected findings do not support the assertions by some former collegiate football players in the literature review when they indicated that football caused participants to restrict their intellectual capabilities. 2. Nonfootball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic years considered the worth of the value Cheerful, defined by Rokeach as "light­ hearted, joyful," significantly more important to them than did the football players. This significance occurred at the .032 level by the type of student. These data would suggest that nonfootball players were more favorably disposed toward this value than were the football players. A speculative perspective 210 might be that football players were less inclined to perceive their role model image as being cheerful when they are expected by coaches and the public to be aggressive and strong. 3. Football players were found to rate the value Clean significantly more important than nonfootball players at the freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior academic years. The statistical significant difference occurred at the .002 level by the type of student. Football players were more favorably disposed toward the value Clean indicated by their ratings while non­ football players were less favorably disposed toward the value. One tentative explanation for this en­ lightened data is that the value Clean is considered a middle class value emphasized heavily among low economic people in dress and appearance for self esteem. 4. Nonfootball players at the freshmen, sopho­ more, junior and senior academic years rated the value Honest significantly more important to them than did the football players. The statistical significance occurred at level .038 by the type of student. The results of these data are striking and support the contentions of some social critics who claim football does not teach young men character but reveal it. 5. Football players at the freshmen, sophomore, 211 junior and senior academic years perceived the value Obedient of much more consequence than did the non­ football players. This level of significance occurred at level .009 by the type of student. These findings would suggest that football players were more influenced by the value than were the non­ football players. They also support the assertions of coaches that football serves as a guideline for the conduct of players toward coaches, rules and authority. The null hypothesis of no significant differences between football players and nonfootball players on the Instrumental values was not rejected on thirteen of eighteen values. While there were five statistical significant differences found between the group of students, the thirteen relationships where no differ­ ences were found would tend to suggest that the percep­ tions of the football players and nonfootball players were more similar than dissimilar on the Instrumental Va l u e s . Implications for Further Research Based on the research associated with this study, additional research is needed in the following areas: 1. Is the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument valid for athletics? 212 2. Where there are differences on the terminal and instrumental values, what could these be attribu­ ted to in the world of the athlete: a) his academic experience b) his athletic expectations and his experi­ ences which do not measure up to his expectations c) 3. the effect his coach has on him When football players tranfer to a different institution is it because of conflict in values between them and the coach? 4. Where there are differences it would be inter­ esting to delve in depth as to what effect, if any, social background, economic class, aspirations, and expectations serve to shape and cause metamorphosis in college. APPENDICES APPENDIX A The Questionnaire and Rokeach Value Survey Instrument The Questionnaire and Rokeach Value Survey Instrument General Biographical Information Ignore this Column KEYPUNCHING ONLY Identification VI .(1-3) V 2_ .(4-5) V3_ .(6-7) XXX (1 - 500) What is your age? _______________ What is your major area of study? What is your racial/ethnic origin? (Circle one) 1 = Native Indian 2 = Black 3 = White 4 = Oriental 5 = Hispanic 6 = Other V4 (8) V5 (9) V6 (10 ) V7 (11 ) V8 (12) Circle one number in each set: How many brothers or sisters do you have? 1 2 3 4 5 = = = = = None One Two Three Four or more Which of the following describes you the best? Only child First born child Second born child Third born child Fourth or later born child 1 2 3 4 5 I am: 1 2 3 4 = = = = Married or engaged Going steady Dating or playing the field Not currently dating How much formal education does your FATHER have? 1 2 3 4 5 = = = = = Some high school or less Graduated from high school Some college Graduated from college Attended graduate or pro­ fessional school. 213 214 Ignore this Column, KEYPUNCHING ONLY 5. How much formal education does your MOTHER have? 1 2 3 4 5 6. Some high school or less Graduated from high school Some college Graduated from college Attended graduate or pro­ fessional school My G.P.A. 1 2 3 4 5 7. = = = = = V9______ (13) = = = = =3 Lower 2.0 2.5 3.0 .5- is: V10_____ (14) than 2. 0 2.49 2.99 3.49 4.0 Your sex is: Vll_____ (15) 1 = Male 2 = Female 8. Special athletic awards in high school. received V12_____ (16) 1 = Yes 2 = No 9. Special academic awards in high school. received V13_____ (17) 1 = Yes 2 = No 10. Special athletic awards in college. received V14_____ (18) 1 = Yes 2 = No 11. Special academic awards in college. received V15_____ (19) 1 = Yes 2 = No 12. Sports in high school. 1 - Ye s 2 = No V16_____ (20) 215 Ignore this Column KEYPUNCHING ONLY Years Letter Winner Sport______ Participated Yes____ No Track___________________________________ V17 (21) V18 (22) V19 (23) V20 (24) V21 (25) V22 (26) V23_____ (27) V24 (28) V25_____ (29) V26 (30) V27_____ (31) V28 (32) V29_____ (33) V30______(34) Other__________________ V31_____ (35) Football Basketball Baseball Wrestling Soccer Lacrosse 13. What is your position on the football team? 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 19 20 21 22 23 24 = = = = = = 6 7 8 14. Offensive Split End____________ V32_____ (36) Offensive Left Tackle_________ V33_____ (37) Offensive Left Guard Center Offensive Right Guard Offensive Right Tackle Offensive Tight End Quarterback Offensive Halfback Offensive Fullback Offensive Flanker Defensive Left End Defensive Left Tackle Defensive Right Tackle Defensive Right End Defensive Outside Linebacker Defensive Middle Linebacker Defensive Outside (w) Linebacker Defensive Left Cornerbacker Defensive Strong Safety Defensive Free Safety Defensive Right Cornerbacker Place Kicker Punter Number of years of collegiate varsity football:__________________ V34______(39) (Circle one) 1 2 3 4 216 Ignore this Column KEYPUNCHING ONLY 15. Years of high school varisty football: (Circle one) 16. Circle one.: 1 1 2 3 A 5 2 3 V35_____ (AO) A Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Fifth Year Yr._____ (Al) Ignore this Column KEYPUNCHING ONLY Instructions Below is a list of 18 values listed in alphabetical order. Your task is to rank them in order of their impor­ tance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life. Write your number on the left hand side of the page. Study the list carefully and pick out the one value which is the most important for you. Rank it number 1. Then pick out the value which is second most important for you. Rank it number 2. Then do the same for each of the remaining values. The value which is least important is ranked number 18. ■Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to change your answers. The end result should truly show how you really feel. A COMFORTABLE LIFE a prosperous life V36 (42-43) AN EXCITING LIFE a stimulating, active life V37 (44-45) A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT lasting contribution V38 (46-47) A WORLD AT PEACE free of war and conflict V39 (48-49) A WORLD OF BEAUTY beauty of nature and the arts V40 (50-51) EQUALITY - equal opportunity for all brotherhood V41 (52-53) FAMILY SECURITYtaking care of loved ones V42 (54-55) FREEDOM independence, free choice V43 (56-57) 217 218 Ignore this Column KEYPUNCHING ONLY HAPPINESS contentedness V44_____ (58-59) INNER HARMONY freedom from inner conflict V45_____ (60-61) MATURE LOVE "sexual and spiritual intimacy V46_____ (62-63) NATIONAL SECURITY "protection from attack V47_____ (64-65) PLEASURE an enjoyable, leisurely life V48_____ (66-67) SALVATION "saved, eternal life V49_____ (68-69) SELF-RESPECT self esteem V50_____ (70-71) SOCIAL RECOGNITION "respect, admiration V51_____ (72-73) TRUE FRIENDSHIP "close companionship V52_____ (74-75) WISDOM a mature understanding of life V53_____(76-77) When you have finished, go to the next page. Ignore this Colum KEYPUNCHING ONLY Below is another list of 18 values. Rank them in order of importance, the same as before. ID______ (1-3) C2______ (4) AMBITIOUS hard-working, aspiring V56_____ (5-6) BROADMINDED Open minded V57_____ (7-8) CAPABLE competent, effective V58_____ (9-10) CHEERFUL lighthearted, joyful V59_____ (11-12) CLEAN neat, tidy V60_____ (13-14) COURAGEOUS standing up for your beliefs V61_____ (15-16) FORGIVING willing to pardon others V62_____ (17-18) HELPFUL working for welfare of others V63_____ (19-20) HONEST sincere, truthful V64_____ (21-22) IMAGINATIVE daring, creative V65_____ (23-24) INDEPENDENT self-reliant, self-sufficient V 66 _____ (25-26) INTELLECTUAL intelligent, reflective V67_____ (27-28) LOGICAL consistent, rational V 68 _____ (29-30) LOVING affectionate, tender V69_____ (31-32) OBEDIENT dutiful, respectful V70_____ (33-34) POLITE courteous, well-mannered V71___ __(35-36) 219 220 Ignore this Column KEYPUNCHING ONLY RESPONSIBLE dependable, reliable_______________V72_____ (37-38) SELF-CONTROLLED restrained, self-disciplined ©1967 by Milton Rokeach V73_____ (39-40) APPENDIX B Data Request Letter to the Office of the Registrar and Approval Memo MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E A S T L A N S I N G MICHIGAN L/£ O a R T M E N T OF * 517/ 3SS-S71Q April 20, 1981 iN T E R C O L L e tS lA T E A T H L E T IC S Mrs. Phyllis Wilkie Assistant Registrar 224 Administration Bldg. Campus Dear Mrs. Wilkie: We would like to order a data printout consisting of a random sample of four hundred undergraduate students enrolled at Hichigan State University, Spring term, 1981. Specifically, the printout should contain the names, local addresses, telephone numbers, academic majors and classifications of the follow­ ing groups of students at Michigan State University: 1. 200 male music majors, but excluding varsity football players. These students should be broken down as: 50 freshmen; 50 sophomores? 50 juniors; and 50 seniors. 2. 200 male undergraduate students, but excltiding varsity football pJayers and music majors. These students should be broken down as: 50 freshmen; 50 sophomores, 50 juniorsi and 50 seniors. Clarence Underwood, Jr. V / Assistant Director of Athletics Douglas W. Weaver Director of Athletics CU/vjk l-'sKiON fsifiLDMafcjs=:c , M C U tr: j o A ^ r m - j l u e 221 O p p y r v n l y ln o lU j ’. icjn MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR EAST LA M IN G • MICHIGAN • ALSU April 22, 1981 TO: Director, Data Processing FROM: JfF Rex Kerr, Assistant Registrar‘ s SUBJECT: Release of Registrar's Data The confidential student information described below is released to the requestor by the Office of the Registrar in compliance with Section 99.31 of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (F.L. 93-380, Section 513), as amended (P.L. 93-568, Section 2) and Section 3, paragraph B, (1) of the Michigan State University Guidelines Governing Privacy and Release of Student Records. Hereafter, the requestor is solely responsible for the maintenance of the confidentiality of said student information as established in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Michigan State University Guidelines Governing Privacy and Release of Student Records. FOR: Mr. Clarence Underwood, Jr. Assistant Director of Athletics 303 Jenison Field house DUE DATE: REQUEST: TELEPHONE: ACCOUNT f: 5-2204 21-1781 April 29, 1981 Provide data printouts as follows: One printout of all undergraduate (classes 1 through 4) male (sex code 1 or J) Music majors (coded E8 in curriculum) currently enrolled (Spring 1981) on the East Lansing campus. Exclude varsity football players (students coded 04 in snort column). One printout of a random sampling of 200 male (sex code 1 or J) undergraduate students (classes 1 through 4) currently enrolled on the East Lansing campus (Spring 1981) 'to include 50 freshmen, 50 sophomores, 50 juniors and 50 seniors. Exclude varsity football players (coded 04 in sport column) and Music majors (coded E8 in curriculum. Printouts should include student name, local address telephone number, major and class. (over) Please return completed project to Data Processing Coordination, Office of the Registrar Copy to Requestor F o r R e g is tr a r 'a U se Job N u m b e r ______________ F o r ; _____________ Date Returned to D.P. Coordination _______ D a ta P r o c e s s in g U se; ProjecL C o d e : _____________________ Date R e c e i v e d : _____________________ Pick up Signature Date_________ Returned to Data Processing for delivery - D a t e __________________ 222 Time_ 223 Request for: Hr. Clarence Underwood, Jr. Assistant Director of Athletics Page 2 Also provide one set of local address Bailing labels for these same selected students. Lists and labels should be run separately for each group of students and should be run in alpha order by residence hall for students living on campus and alpha order by zip code for students living off campus. T h ia re q u e s t R e s e a rc h ■I h as b ee n I n v o lv in g a p p ro v e d Hum an b y S u b je c ts . th e U n iv e r s ity C o m m itte e o n APPENDIX C Cover-letter; Letter to UCRIHS and Letter of Approval from UCRIHS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY fcASl I.AMSING M iC M il jW J .-IHHL'J ■ S17 3SSS-l-»7ln Way i, 1981 Dear Student: The Department of Intercollegiate Athletics is sponsoring a study on the perceptions of football players as compared with the perceptions of a sample of the undergraduate students at Michigan State University. Please complete the attached questionnaire, piece it in the enclosed return envelope and drop it in the campus mail box on your way to class The resuits of the study will be used by staff members in the Depart­ ment of Intercollegiate Athletics to better understand which percep­ tions motivate students to participate in intereoiiegiate football, four participation is Very important because this letter is not being sent to everyone, hut oniy to a random sample of students. Therefore, a high rate of participation is essential. Please be assured that your responses will be kept confidential. After the data are analyzed, the questionnaire will be destroyed and your anonymity wiii he guaranteed. Jt wiii take you no ionyer than 20 minutes to complete the question­ naire. four cooperation will be greatly appreciated in this import­ ant study. Assistant Director of Athletics Director of Athletics CU/vjk Snclosures 224 225 March 8, 1981 Richard L. Featherstone, Professor Administration And Higher Education 424 Erickson CAMPUS UCRIHS Institutional Research CAMPUS Dear Members of UCRIHS: As chairman of Clarence Underwood's doctoral committee, I have reviewed the attached dissertation proposal by the title of: An Investigation Into the Values of Football Players and Non-Football Players at-Michigan State' University as Determined by the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument This proposal has been approved by me. Sincerely. Rtchatd-'X. Featherstone, Professor Administration and Higher Education 226 M I C H I G A N STA TE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING • M ICHIGAN • IBdlT I'M V C R ilT V COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH I N T U IT I N '; H U M A N SUBJECTS tU C K IIIS ) M S A D M IN IS T R A T IO N U f l l l)IN C April ( T I 'J J S S - .'I f l . ' 7, 1981 Hr. Clarence Underwood, Jr. Assistant Director of Athletics 303 Jenison Fieldhouse Dear Hr. Underwood: Subject: Proposal Entitled, “An Investigation Into the Values of Football Players and Hon-Football Players at HSU ___________ as Determined by the Rokeach Value Survey Instrument11 The a b o v e referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS. We are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects a pp e a r to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on April 6, 1981_______ . Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions foi ob t a i n i n g appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Richard L. Featherstone If we can be of any APPENDIX D Questionnaire Return Rates Numbers of Questionnaires Returned Each Day Football Players Number Date General Students Number Date May 6 14 15 18 22 May 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 26 28 29 69 03 02 04 02 Total 80 02 03 01 26 10 09 05 04 04 02 01 05 03 01 02 Total 227 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Amdur, Neil. The Fifth D o w n . .Geoghegan” T97T! ; New York- Bible, Dana X. Championship Football. Prentice Hall, 1947. New lv. Boros, Oscar Krisen. Mental Measurement Yearbook. 6th ed. Highland Park, N . J . : Gryphon Press, 1965. Butt, Dorcas Susan, Psychology of Sport, New Van Nostrand ReinhoId' C o . , 1976. York: Camp, Walter, and Deland, Lorin P. Football. Mass.: Riverside Press, 1895. Cambridge, Caldwell, Charles, Jr. Modern Single Wing Football. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1951^ Caldwell, Charles. Philadelphia: Modern Football for the Spectator. LippTncott~ 195T. Dewey, John. Theory of Valuation. Foundations of the Unity of Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939. D o b b , Bobby. Bobby Dobb on Football. Prentice-Hall, 1954'! New York: Eitzen, Stanley D. Sports in Contemporary Society. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980. Engle, Rip. Championship Football. N.J.: Prentice Hall7 "1962“ Englewood Cliffs, Evans, J. Robert. Blowing the Whistle on Intercollegiate Sports. Chicago: Nelson-Hall C o . , 1974. Flewelling, Ralph Tyler. The Thing That Matters M o s t . New Y o r k : The Ronald Press, 1946. Graham, Otto. 1954. Grange, Red. 1953. T-Quarterback. New York: The Red Grange Story. Prentice Hall, New York: Putnam, Gruber, Frederick C. Aspects of Values. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959. 228 229 Haughton, Percy. Football and How to Watch It. Boston: Little, Brown and C o . , 1924, Heisman, John W. Principles of Football. M o . , Sports Publishing Bureau, 1904. St. Louis, Izenberry, Jerry. How Many Miles to Camelot? Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. New York: Jones, Howard L. How to Coach and Play Football. City: Clio Press, 1923. Iowa Landers, Daniel M. Social Problems in Athletics. U rbana: University of Illinois Press, 1"976. Klein, Dane. The Game of Their L i ves. New American Library, 1977. Leahy, Frank. Notre Dame Football: New York: Pr ent ice -Hall, Martin, Ben. Flexible T. Offense. N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1953. New York: The T-Formation. Englewood Cliffs, Munn, Clarence "Biggie". Michigan State Multiple Offense. New York: Prentice-Hall“, 1953. National Collegiate Athletics Association, Shawnee Mission, Kansas: NCAA, 1980. Nelson, David. Football Principles and P l a y . Ronald PresTJ 1962. New York: Pepper, Stephen C. The Sources of V a lue. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1958. Raison, John and White, Mike. Coaching Today's Athlete. Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press-Book, 1971. Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1970. Rooney, John F. The Recruiting G a m e . versity Press"! 1980. Roper, William. Football: Today and York: Duffield and C o . , 1928. Shaw, Gary. Meat on the H o o f . lishing Co “ 1972. San Lincoln: Un i ­ Tomorrow. New New York: Dell Pu b ­ 230 Sills, David L. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: McMillan Co., 1968. Tatum, Jack. They Call Me Assassin. Books, 1980. Tunis, John. The American W a y . Sloan and Pearce, 1957. New York: New York: Avon Duell, Underwood, John. The Death of An American G a m e . Bos­ ton: Little, Brown and Co., 1979. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Modern Library, New York: Random House, 193^".' Periodicals Alley, Louis. "Athletics in Education: The Double Edged Sword," Phi Delta K a p p a n , 56, 1974. Biddulph, Lowell G. "Athletic Achievement and the Personal and Social Adjustment of High School Boys," The Research Quarterly, 25, 1954. Blackburn, Robert T. and Nyikas, Michael S. "College Football and Mr. Chips: All in the Family," Phi Delta Ka p p a n , 56, October 1974. Booth, E. G . , Jr. "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the MMPI: A Rebuttal," The Research Quarterly, 32, 1960. Campbell, David N. "On Being Number One. Competition in Education," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, October, 1974. Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching. "The Study of American College Athletics," New York: The Merrymount Press, 1927. "Challenge Begins-After Game Ends," The New York T i m e s , 28 October 1980, p. 30. Crase, Darrell. "The Continuing Crises in Athletics," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, October, 1974. Davis, Howard and Baskett, Glen D. "Do Athletes and Non-Athletes Have Different Values," Athletic Administration, 13, 1979, 231 Ford, Gerald R. "In Defense of the Competitive Edge," Sports Illustrated, July 18, 1974, pp. 17-23. Foy, Zed L . , "School Music from the High School Princi­ pal's Viewpoint," Music Educator's National Conference, Chicago"! 1935 . Gilbert, Bill. "What Counselors Need to Know About College and Pro Sports," Phi Delta Kappan, 56 October, 1974. Harden, Edgar L. "What College Presidents Say About Athletics," Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 31, March, 1960. Harrold, Roger D. and Lowe, Benjamin. "Intercollegiate Athletics in the Contemporary Student Value System," Journal of College Student Personnel, July, 1973. K n i k e r , Charles R . , "The Values of Athletics in Schools: A Continuing Debate," Phi Delta Kappan, 56, October, 1974. Kroll, Walter, and Peterson, Kay H. "Study of Value Tests and Collegiate Football Teams," The Research Quarterly, 30, July, 1974. Malmisur, Michael C, "Ego Development Stages of a Sample of College Football Players," The Research Quarterly, 47, 1976. Sage, George H. "American Values and Sport: Formation of Beaucratic Personality,'' Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 43, October 1978, p p . 10-12.