UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Team selection transition processes in competitive sport McEwen, Carolyn Elizabeth 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2016_february_mcewen_carolyn.pdf [ 1007.29kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0221255.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0221255-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0221255-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0221255-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0221255-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0221255-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0221255-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0221255-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0221255.ris

Full Text

TEAM SELECTION TRANSITION PROCESSES IN COMPETITIVE SPORTbyCAROLYN ELIZABETH MCEWENB.A. (Hons.), Wilfrid Laurier University, 2008M.Sc., Wilfrid Laurier University, 2010A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES(Kinesiology)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Vancouver)December 2015© Carolyn Elizabeth McEwen, 2015iiAbstractTeam selection processes are an inherent part of high performance sport and may impactathletes’ sport engagement and psychological adjustment (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). Thepurpose of this program of research was to advance understanding of high performancedevelopmental and elite athletes’ experiences with significant team selection processes. Twoprospective-longitudinal studies were conducted to achieve this objective. The first studyexamined how elite athletes negotiated the 2012 Olympic team selection process from anInterpretative Phenomenological Analysis perspective (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). Threeprimary themes emerged from analysis of the interviews including the Olympic goal, navigatingthe Olympic team selection process, and moving on from the Olympics. Results suggested thatparticipants organized their athletic and vocational endeavours around their goal of beingselected to compete in the Olympic Games, demonstrating significant investment and sacrifice.To cope with non-selection, athletes reappraised where the 2012 Olympic Games fit within theirathletic careers, engaged in new and meaningful athletic, social, and vocational goals, andemphasized the prominence of social and vocational identities unrelated to sport. Study twoexamined how stress and adaptational processes were impacted by the 2013 Canada SummerGames (CSG) selection process. Multilevel modeling was employed to investigate changes incognitive appraisals, emotions, coping, sport engagement, athletic goal progress, and lifesatisfaction in relation to athletes’ CSG selection status. Findings suggested that the CSG tryouthad a meaningful impact on athletes as evidenced by changes in emotions, cognitive appraisals,and athletic goal progress in relation to their selection status. However, the CSG selectionprocess did not affect athletes’ sport engagement or life satisfaction. Collectively, results fromboth studies indicated that athletes reappraised selection processes over time and varied in theiriiiemotional responses to team tryouts, highlighting the importance of investigating intrapersonalchange and interpersonal differences associated with team selection events. Findings alsosuggested that the stage of sport career influenced the meaning athletes attached to specificselection processes and the degree to which these events influenced their life as a whole.ivPrefaceStudy one (outlined in Chapter 2) was conducted at the University of British Columbia.This study was associated with a Faculty of Education Social Sciences and Humanities Seedgrant held by Dr. Peter Crocker.  A version of this manuscript has been submitted forpublication.  Dr. Peter Crocker, Dr. Laura Hurd Clarke, and Dr. Kimberley Dawson are co-authors on this manuscript.  The co-authors assisted in manuscript preparation.  I was involved inall phases of this study including constructing the research question, study design, participantrecruitment, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation.  Ethical approval for thisstudy was granted by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board(Olympic Transition Study; H11-01961).Study two (outlined in Chapter 3) was conducted at the University of British Columbia.A version of this work will be submitted for publication.  Dr. Peter Crocker, Dr. Laura HurdClarke, and Dr. Kimberley Dawson are co-authors on this manuscript.  The co-authors aided inmanuscript preparation.  In addition, Dr. Peter Crocker helped guide the data analysis and Dr.Ilhyeok Park (Seoul National University) provided comments on data interpretation.  I wasresponsible for developing the research question, participant recruitment, data collection,analysis, and interpretation, and manuscript preparation.  Ethical approval for this study wasgranted by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (CanadaSummer Games Hopefuls; H13-00006)vTable of ContentsAbstract ........................................................................................................................................... iiPreface ........................................................................................................................................... ivTable of Contents............................................................................................................................ vList of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xiAcknowledgements....................................................................................................................... xiiChapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 11.2 Literature Review.................................................................................................................. 31.2.1 Athletic career transitions and change events. ............................................................... 31.2.1.1 Human Adaptation to a Transition model (HATM). .............................................. 41.2.1.2 Scheme of Change for Sport Psychology Practice model (SCSPP). ...................... 51.2.2 Situating team selection processes................................................................................. 81.2.2.1 Team selection processes as a source of stress. .................................................... 101.2.2.2. Stress and coping processes. ................................................................................ 111.2.2.3. Relevant research in stress and coping. ............................................................... 151.2.3 Athletes’ affect trajectories and team selection. .......................................................... 171.2.4 Athletic identity. .......................................................................................................... 181.2.5 Stage of athletic career................................................................................................. 191.2.6 Prospective-longitudinal research design. ................................................................... 21vi1.3 General Overview of Purpose and Objectives .................................................................... 221.4 Approach to Program of Research...................................................................................... 23Chapter 2: Study One.................................................................................................................... 262.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 262.2 Method ................................................................................................................................ 302.2.1 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. ................................................................. 302.2.2 Participants................................................................................................................... 312.2.3 Procedures.................................................................................................................... 322.2.3.1 Data analysis. ........................................................................................................ 332.2.3.2 Credibility. ............................................................................................................ 342.3 Findings............................................................................................................................... 352.3.1 Commitment to the Olympic goal................................................................................ 352.3.2 Navigating the Olympic team selection process. ......................................................... 392.3.3 Moving on from the Olympics..................................................................................... 432.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 512.5 Bridging Summary.............................................................................................................. 58Chapter 3: Study Two ................................................................................................................... 593.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 593.1.1 Cognitive appraisals..................................................................................................... 593.1.2 Coping.......................................................................................................................... 61vii3.1.3 Emotion........................................................................................................................ 613.1.4 Quality of athletic engagement and life satisfaction.................................................... 633.1.5 The Canada Summer Games........................................................................................ 643.1.6 Purpose and hypotheses. .............................................................................................. 653.2 Method ................................................................................................................................ 673.2.1 Participants................................................................................................................... 673.2.2 Measures. ..................................................................................................................... 683.2.2.1 Demographic information. .................................................................................... 683.2.2.2 Cognitive appraisal. .............................................................................................. 683.2.2.3 Emotions. .............................................................................................................. 693.2.2.4 Coping................................................................................................................... 693.2.2.5 Athletic goal progress. .......................................................................................... 703.2.2.6 Athletic identity. ................................................................................................... 713.2.2.7 Sport commitment................................................................................................. 713.2.2.8 Life satisfaction..................................................................................................... 713.2.3 Procedures.................................................................................................................... 723.2.3.1 Data analysis. ........................................................................................................ 733.2.3.1.1 Data screening................................................................................................ 733.2.3.1.2 Multilevel models.. ........................................................................................ 733.3 Results................................................................................................................................. 76viii3.3.1 Preliminary analyses. ................................................................................................... 763.3.2 Multilevel model results. ............................................................................................. 763.3.2.1 Cognitive appraisals.............................................................................................. 773.3.2.1.1 Threat appraisals. ........................................................................................... 773.3.2.1.2 Challenge appraisals. ..................................................................................... 783.3.2.1.3 Centrality appraisals....................................................................................... 793.3.2.1.4 Control appraisals. ......................................................................................... 793.3.2.2 Emotions. .............................................................................................................. 813.3.2.2.1 Dejection and happiness. ............................................................................... 813.3.2.2.2 Anger.............................................................................................................. 823.3.2.3 Coping................................................................................................................... 833.3.2.4 Athletic goal progress, quality of athletic engagement, and life satisfaction. ...... 833.3.2.4.1 Athletic goal progress. ................................................................................... 843.3.2.4.2 Quality of athletic engagement. ..................................................................... 853.3.2.4.3 Life satisfaction.............................................................................................. 863.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 863.4.1 Cognitive appraisals and emotions. ............................................................................. 873.4.2 Coping.......................................................................................................................... 893.4.3 Quality of athletic engagement and life satisfaction.................................................... 903.4.4 Practical implications................................................................................................... 91ix3.4.5 Strengths and future directions. ................................................................................... 92Chapter 4: General Discussion ................................................................................................... 1014.1 Stage of Athletic Career.................................................................................................... 1024.1.1 Previous team selection experience. .......................................................................... 1034.1.2 Significance of and investment in team selection processes. .................................... 1044.2 Goal Adjustment ............................................................................................................... 1064.3 Engagement in Life Domains Outside of Sport ................................................................ 1084.4 Implications for Sport Practitioners, Coaches, and Administrators.................................. 1104.5 Implications of Study Designs .......................................................................................... 1114.6 Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research........................................................... 1124.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 113References................................................................................................................................... 115Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 134Appendix A: Consent Form for Study One ............................................................................ 135Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire for Study One ...................................................... 139Appendix C: First Interview Schedule for Study One ............................................................ 142Appendix D: Second Interview Schedule for Study One ....................................................... 146Appendix E: Third Interview Schedule for Study One........................................................... 150Appendix F: Consent Form for Study Two ............................................................................ 154Appendix G: Athlete Information Letter for Study Two ........................................................ 157xAppendix H: Demographic Questionnaire for Study Two Time One .................................... 159Appendix I: Demographic Questionnaire for Study Two Time Two and Three .................... 164Appendix J: Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM) for Study Two Time One ............................. 166Appendix K: Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM) for Study Two Time Two and Three .......... 168Appendix L: Sport Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ) for Study Two Time One, Two and Three................................................................................................................................................. 170Appendix M: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS) for Study Two Time One.... 172Appendix N: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS) for Study Two Time One andTwo ......................................................................................................................................... 175Appendix O: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS) for Study Two Time One, Two,and Three ................................................................................................................................ 178Appendix P: Athletic Goal Progress for Study Two Time One.............................................. 181Appendix Q: Athletic Goal Progress for Study Two Time One and Two.............................. 182Appendix R: Athletic Goal Progress for Study Two Time One, Two, and Three.................. 183Appendix S: Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) for Study Two Time One, Two,and Three ................................................................................................................................ 184Appendix T: Sport Commitment Measure for Study Two Time One, Two, and Three......... 185Appendix U: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) for Study Two Time One, Two, and Three................................................................................................................................................. 186xiList of TablesTable 2.1 Participant Demographics………………………………………………. 56Table 3.1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alphas………………….. 94Table 3.2 Intraclass Correlations for Cognitive Appraisals, Emotions, Coping,Athletic Goal Progress, Quality of Athletic Engagement, and LifeSatisfaction……………………………………………………………….. 96Table 3.3 Multilevel Coefficients for Cognitive Appraisals………………………… 97Table 3.4 Multilevel Coefficients for Emotions…………………………………….. 98Table 3.5 Multilevel Coefficients for Coping………………………………………. 99Table 3.6 Multilevel Coefficients for Athletic Goal Progress, Quality of AthleticEngagement, and Life Satisfaction………………………………………. 100xiiAcknowledgementsFirst, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Peter Crocker for his encouragement andsupport both personally and professionally throughout my doctoral program. I am grateful forhis ability to provide an environment that encouraged the development of different perspectivesand the autonomy to develop and pursue my own research program. I would also like to thankmy committee members Drs. Kimberley Dawson and Laura Hurd Clarke. I have worked withDr. Dawson from the beginning of my research journey as she stimulated my interest in research,assisted me in navigating career pathways, and has enthusiastically supported my research ideas.Dr. Hurd Clarke has guided me through the doctoral process with encouragement, empathy, andthoughtful and thorough feedback.I would like to thank all of the athletes who partook in my studies for their time andwillingness to share their experiences. Thank you also to the University of British Columbia fortheir financial support.I am forever grateful to all of my friends in all areas of my life for being there during thechallenging and exciting times. To the past and present members of the ESP lab (Amber, Katie,Katherine, Ben, Sarah K, Sara B, Coralie, Louisa, Erica, Dani, and So-Yeon) thank you formaking my time at UBC so enjoyable, for always cheering for me professionally and personally,and for making Fridays the most fun day of the weak. A special thank you to Katherine, Katie,and Amber for being a sounding board for my ideas. I will forever appreciate my family’sunconditional support, love, and belief in my abilities. To Erica, thank you for being on thisadventure with me and for being by my side through the good, bad, and ugly – words cannotexpress my gratitude.1Chapter 1: Introduction1.1 IntroductionAn athletic career is often conceptualized as a miniature lifespan starting from the pointof initiation of sport participation through to retirement (Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007).Within a sport career, athletes progress through a series of stages and transitions that correspondto their personal and athletic development (Bloom, 1985; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004). As aresult, researchers within sport psychology have focused on understanding the factors thatinfluence important transitions throughout and at the end of the athletic career (e.g., Erpič,Wylleman, & Zupančup, 2004; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). Within this body of literature, atransition is defined as “an event or non-event [that] results in a change in assumptions aboutoneself and the world and thus requires a corresponding change in one’s behavior andrelationships” (Schlossberg, 1981, p. 5). For example, moving to a higher or lower competitionlevel, changing training locations or coaches, a new team, an injury, or retirement from sporthave been identified as events that may result in an athletic transition. Non-events are alsoincluded in the definition of a transition to capture subtle changes that may influence the athleticexperience such as a loss of sport aspirations or not being selected to a team (Alfermann &Stambulova, 2007). Transitions can be classified as normative, relatively predictable transitionssuch as moving from junior to senior level of competition or beginning of sport specialization, ornon-normative, unpredictable transitions such as a season ending injury or a sudden change incoach/team (Stambulova, Alfermann, Statler, & Cȏté, 2009). That said, the athletic careertransition literature goes beyond treating transitions simply as (non)events, but ratherconceptualizes them as a process (e.g., Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova, 2000) wherepre- and post-transition environments and demands, coping processes, factors influencing2coping, outcomes, and consequences of a transition are emphasized (Schlossberg, 1981;Stambulova, 2003; Taylor & Ogilvie, 1994).During a transition, athletes can experience a disruption in their athletic status quo due tochanges in their athletic experience (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). These changes may occur atthe self-identity level (e.g., sport commitment, athletic identity), physiological level (e.g., agingprocesses, injury), technical or technological level (e.g., a technique change), performance level(e.g., continuous failure or success, competing in a different category), organizational level (e.g.,changes in funding, team), or at a personal level (e.g., changes in motivation), all of which canhave cognitive, emotional, behavioural, physiological, and relational implications (Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a). Subsequently, athletic career development through the successfulnavigation of change processes inherent in sport is important not only for the quality of athleticengagement, but also for an athlete’s overall wellbeing (Blinde & Stratta, 1992; Lavallee &Robinson, 2007; Park, Lavallee, & Tod, 2013; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova,Stephan, & Japhag, 2007; Warriner & Lavallee, 2008; Wippert & Wippert, 2010).Team selection processes are commonly cited as a source of stress by athletes (Hanton,Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005; Pearson & Petitpas; 1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001) and can haveimplications for their athletic careers such as retirement from sport or the gaining of recognitionand resources (e.g., monetary support; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). Despite leading toimportant change processes within and/or outside of the athletic domain, how athletes experiencesignificant selection processes is not well understood. The aim of this dissertation was thereforeto advance understanding of how athletes experience significant team selection processes.31.2 Literature Review1.2.1 Athletic career transitions and change events.Traditionally, researchers have examined normative sport transitions (Wylleman,Alfermann, & Lavallee, 2004) and have primarily focused on issues surrounding athleticretirement (e.g., Sinclair & Orlick, 1993; Warriner & Lavallee, 2008; Wippert & Wippert, 2010).However, there has recently been a push to better understand a wide variety of factors that causechange within an athletic career (Bruner, Munroe-Chandler, & Spink, 2008; Debois, Ledon, &Wylleman, 2015; Finn & McKenna, 2010; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova et al.,2009). Sport transitions are considered to be multi-dimensional in nature and constructs thathave been of common interest to researchers have included athletic identity (Park, Tod, &Lavallee, 2012), time passed after retirement, coping strategies (Lally, 2007), voluntariness oftransition decision (Blinde & Stratta, 1992), injuries (Werthner & Orlick, 1986), career andpersonal development (Chow, 2001), sport career achievement (Sinclair & Orlick, 1993),financial status (Lotysz & Short, 2004), self-perceptions, control of life (Kerr & Dacyshyn,2000), disengagement or drop-out (Koukouris, 1991), athlete-coach relationships (Lavallee &Robinson, 2007), changes in lifestyle and daily routines (Stephan, Bilard, Ninot, & Delignières,2003), balance between sport and other life activities, pre-retirement planning (Warriner &Lavallee, 2008), psychosocial support (Lavallee, Gordon, & Grove, 1997), sources of stress,emotions, and personal characteristics (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a).The selection of the aforementioned constructs by researchers has been guided by modelsof change (see Bloom, 1985; Côté, 1999; Salmela, 1994; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a;Schlossberg, 1981; Stambulova, 1994, 2003; Taylor & Ogilvie, 1994; Wylleman & Lavallee,2004) as a means to assess the determinants and outcomes of successful or unsuccessful4transitions. One of the most commonly used models (see Stambulova & Ryba, 2014) in theliterature (e.g., Baillie & Danish, 1992; Pummell, Hardwood, & Lavallee, 2008; Sinclair &Orlick, 1994) has been the Human Adaptation to a Transition Model (HATM; Schlossberg,1981) which has its roots in counselling psychology. More recently, Samuel and Tenenbaum(2011a) have proposed a Scheme of Change for Sport Psychology (SCSPP) Practice, which isspecific to the context of sport. These two models will be described in more detail below.1.2.1.1 Human Adaptation to a Transition model (HATM). Schlossberg (1981)proposed that the success of an individual’s sport transition (resulting in either growth ordeterioration) can be determined by an individual’s ability to cope with the transition and ismediated by three factors: 1) individual characteristics; 2) support systems in the pre and posttransition environments; and 3) individual perceptions of how transitional factors interact.Individual characteristics include internal factors such as psychosocial competence, sex, age andlife stage, state of health, socioeconomic status, value orientation, and previous experience with atransition of a similar nature. Characteristics of pre-transition and post-transition environmentscomprise internal support systems (e.g., intimate relationships, family unit, and friend networks),institutional support, and the physical setting. Lastly, an individual’s perception of the transitionis influenced by role gain or loss, positive or negative emotions towards the transition, the timingof the event (e.g., normative or non-normative), whether the onset of the transition is gradual orsudden, degree of stress, and if the duration of the transition is permanent, temporary, oruncertain.All three factors (individual characteristics, perception of the transition, and pre- andpost-transition environments) interact with each other and influence an individual’s ability tocope or adapt to the new situation. An individual’s ability to adapt is dependent on a perceived5and/or actual balance between barriers to transitioning successfully and the resources available tothe individual to overcome difficulties. This ratio between resources and deficits is viewed asdynamic, allowing for fluctuations to occur as an individual’s situation changes (Schlossberg,1981). Schlossberg (1981) also proposed that transitions could be assessed by the differencebetween the pre-transition and post-transition environments. However, this difference is onlysignificant as much as it affects an individual’s assumptions about themselves, the world, andtheir social relationships (Schlossberg, 1981).1.2.1.2 Scheme of Change for Sport Psychology Practice model (SCSPP). The SCSPPbuilds on the HATM model and the coping with stressful life events literature (Beehr &McGrath, 1996; McGrath & Beehr, 1990; Schlossberg, 1981). This model considers the natureof change-events, athletes’ perceptions of the events, environmental characteristics, the athletes’characteristics, and the athletes’ reactions to events as factors that could potentially affect thechange process (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) argued thatwhen an athlete experiences a disruption in his or her athletic status quo (e.g., injury,performance deterioration, conflict with coach, de-selection), he or she may choose to eitherignore the change or react to it by creating intra- and/or inter-personal change. Change mayoccur at a single or multiple levels of an athlete’s experience including cognitive, emotional,behavioural, physiological, and relational. Furthermore, changes may occur in other dimensionsof the athlete’s life (e.g., start of a new academic program) that may impact him or her at thepersonal level, thus influencing how they engage in sport.The model implies that when an athlete experiences a change-event (e.g., selectionprocess), his or her athletic status quo is disrupted. Through a three-stage process of events anddecisions, the individual either experiences change or no change at a particular level of athletic6engagement. The first two stages are emphasized here as they have more relevance to thecurrent dissertation. In the first stage, the sport environment is stable and unthreatening to theathlete and is associated with meaningful and successful athletic engagement, positive affect, andsport-related decision-making focused towards maintaining this state (Samuel & Tenenbaum,2011a). However, as athletic careers are dynamic, instability will eventually occur either as aresult of a change in the environment (e.g., new team), a planned transition (e.g., moving fromjunior to senior level of competition), or an intrapersonal change (e.g., injury, reducedmotivation, prolonged lack of success). This may be a distinct event or a longitudinal process.Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) also contended that when a change event occurs, it hasthe potential to create emotional and cognitive instability, which they associate with stage two ofthe SCSPP model. Negative change events (e.g., non-selection from a team) are anticipated tobe related to negative affect, while positive change-events (e.g., winning a championship) maybe related to positive emotions and increased motivation or, depending on the athlete’sperception, may require considerable coping (e.g., increased public status due to an unexpectedsuccess). In the SCSPP, when an athlete experiences a change event they will appraise the newsituation, existing coping resources, and potential solutions. Based on this appraisal, Samuel andTenenbaum (2011a) predict that the athlete will make one of four strategic decisions to deal withthe change event: 1) denial; 2) turning to significant others for support (e.g., friends, parents); 3)making the necessary changes independently; 4) seeking assistance from either a sportpsychologist or mental care professional. Avoidance coping (decision one) is hypothesized to beassociated with continued emotional instability, unless the event ends positively without the needfor the athlete to use active coping. Alternatively, if the athlete decides to take an activeapproach and addresses the change-event (decisions two to four), they will either make a7decision to change (exploring possibilities for implementing change) or a decision to avoidchange (associated with emotional instability).Furthermore, Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) proposed six factors that moderatestrategic decision making: 1) significance of the change or situation (includes emotional severity,temporal nature, perceived control, with athletic identity impacting the significance andemotional severity of the event; Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993); 2) influence of significantothers; 3) past experience in similar situations; 4) availability of external guidance (professionaland nonprofessional resources that may assist the athlete to address the transition); 5) personalcharacteristics (coping skills and resources, competitive level, gender, and type of sport); and 6)motivational factors (intensity, ego-orientation vs. task-orientation; Duda, 1989, intrinsic vs.extrinsic motivation; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Even if an athlete makes a decision to cope with thesituation, they may not in fact implement the necessary change (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a).Stage three of the SCSPP model predicts that the athlete will return to emotional stabilityand will experience a reduction in negative affect and concerns if the individual is able to assumefeelings of control over the event by engaging in effective change processes, making a decisionto change, and by having the opportunity to implement change (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a).In contrast to the HATM (Schlossberg, 1981), return to emotional stability does not imply thatthe athlete has grown or learned from the process, but rather that they are ready to continue intheir athletic development (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). In the SCSPP model, there are threesuggested moderating factors that influence whether an individual will experience a successfulchange process in stage three. First is the application of therapeutic processes independently orwith professional assistance. The authors strongly emphasize components of the transtheoreticalmodel (e.g., conscious raising, catharsis, stimulus control) that would assist an athlete with8effective change (Prochaska, 1979). The second moderator is the individual’s capacity forchange and is considered to be multi-dimensional in the SCSPP model, consisting of motivationfor change, expectancy of therapy, and coping style (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). Existingpsychological support is the third moderating factor of an athlete’s decision to change andprimarily describes the therapeutic alliance between the athlete and consultant (Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a).1.2.2 Situating team selection processes.As previously identified, team selection processes can be significant change events forathletes. Munroe, Albinson, and Hall (1999) distinguished between non-selection and de-selection when an athlete is excluded from being a part of a team. Non-selection refers to whenan athlete is not selected to a specific team and has never been a member of that team (Munroe etal., 1999). In contrast, athletes who are de-selected were once members of the team (Taylor &Ogilvie, 1994). However, the distinction between non-selection and de-selection can beconvoluted as athletes’ careers are not linear (Debois, Ledon, Argiolas, & Rosnet, 2012) andboth terms are often used interchangeably in the extant literature (e.g., Pearson & Petitpas, 1990;Stambulova, Stambulov, & Johnson, 2012; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams, & Philippaerts, 2008).For the purpose of this dissertation an athlete who did not meet the requirements for selection toan event was considered to have non-selected status.Team selection processes are inevitable in high performance sport pathways. Successfulselection to representative teams often provides athletes with opportunities to compete at ahigher level and a gateway to achieving their athletic career goals (Stambulova et al., 2012;Woodman & Hardy, 2001). For some athletes, being selected to a specific event or teamrepresents the pinnacle of their career regardless of competition outcomes (Woodman & Hardy,92001). As a result, team selection processes may change the athletic experience and lead to adisruption in an athlete’s sport status quo (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). In some instances, theresult of a selection process may also contribute to an athlete transitioning (e.g., experiencing ahigher level of competition) and/or disengaging from sport (Brown & Potrac, 2009; Debois et al.,2015; Hallinan & Snyder, 1987; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990; Taylor & Ogilvie, 1994). Forexample, de-selection has been frequently described as a non-event that leads to a retirementtransition (e.g., Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007; Brown & Potrac, 2009; Ogilvie & Taylor,1993; Webb, Nasco, Riley, & Headrick, 1998; Wylleman & Reints, 2010) as well as a changeevent (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a, 2011b). Previous authors have argued that retirement dueto de-selection can be difficult because the transition process is forced and unexpected(Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007; Brown & Potrac, 2009; Halliman & Snyder, 1987). Whilethese findings demonstrate the consequences of retirement due to de-selection, the accounts arelimited in that they are retrospective and athletes have simply cited de-selection as a cause oftheir retirement. Thus, they do not consider the athletes’ experiences with the selection process,only the outcome.Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011b) surveyed 338 varsity high school, university, college,professional, and international players and found that 20 percent of their sample reported de-selection at some point in their careers. Furthermore, 43 percent of elite professional andinternational athletes were de-selected during their career. This study did not include statisticsfor the percentage of athletes who were not selected to a representative team, which would likelyhave increased the proportion of athletes who experienced an unsuccessful team selection.Selection processes are therefore a significant change event that many athletes experience duringtheir participation in sport. That said, with a few exceptions (Gaudreau, Amiot, & Vallerand,102009; Grove, Fish, & Eklund, 2004; Munroe et al., 1999), researchers have yet to consider whatimpact de-selection and non-selection have on athletes beyond their correlation with forcedretirement.Selection processes may also require athletes to cope with change if they are selected to ateam. For example, athletes may have to adjust to new sport environments (e.g., coaches,teammates) or cope with competing at a higher level. Alternatively, even if athletes are selectedto a major competition, mismanagement of a stressful selection process can have negativeconsequences for elite athletes (e.g., unsatisfactory performance at the actual competition;Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Since selection processes hold significant meaning for athletes,more research is required to understand how athletes experience and cope with selectionprocesses and what impact these processes have on athletes and their career in sport.1.2.2.1 Team selection processes as a source of stress. Stress has been conceptualized as“the quality of experience, produced through a person-environment transaction, that, througheither over arousal or under-arousal results in psychological or physiological distress” (Aldwin,2007, p. 24). Elite athletes have consistently identified team selection processes as a significantsource of stress (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu, & Neil, 2012; Fletcher,Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012; Fletcher & Hanton, 2003; Greenleaf, Gould, & Dieffenbach, 2001;Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Recently, Arnold, Fletcher, and Daniels (2015) examined howorganizational stress experiences related to selection processes differed based on demographicfactors. Their findings suggested that females and team sport athletes experienced team selectionrelated stress more frequently, intensely, and longer than male and individual sport athletes.Furthermore, athletes competing at county or club levels experienced organizational relatedstress associated with selection processes less frequently and intensely when compared to11university level athletes and less intensely when contrasted with athletes competing at national orinternational levels.Sources of stress associated with team selection processes have predominantly beenconceptualized as organizational (Arnold et al., 2015; Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009; Hanton et al.,2005). Organizational stress is “an ongoing transaction between an individual and theenvironmental demands associated primarily and directly with the organization within which heor she is operating” (Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu, 2006, p. 329). That said, for many athletes itis likely that performance in competition will influence their selection outcome. Competitivestressors have been described as “the environmental demands associated primarily and directlywith competitive performance” (Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006, p. 3). As a result, bothorganizational and competition stress processes need to be addressed. While athletes often reportthat selection processes are stressful experiences, researchers have neglected to discuss changesin coping, appraisals, stressors, and emotion that co-occur as part of the stress process (Lazarus,1991) in relation to team selection.1.2.2.2. Stress and coping processes. Coping processes are central to understandingstressful change events in sport (Alfermann, Stambulova, & Zemaityte, 2004; Finn & McKenna,2010; Lally, 2007; Sinclair & Orlick, 1993; Stambulova et al., 2007; Stier, 2007). Within themainstream theories reviewed earlier, effective coping is viewed as the key to successfultransitions and dealing with athletic career disruptions (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a;Stambulova, 2003; Schlossberg, 1981). Investigation in transition coping has generally followedthe perspective of the HATM. Thus, coping has been treated as a dynamic balance between allinternal and external resources and barriers to overcoming transition demands. Empiricalresearch has reflected this perspective on coping by primarily examining coping barriers,12resources, and strategies used by athletes during the transition period. For example, athleteshave engaged in denial, venting of emotions, seeking social support (Grove, Lavallee, & Gordon,1997), alcohol use (Koukouis, 1991), keeping busy, training/exercise, finding a new focus(Sinclair & Orlick, 1993), and proactive diminishment of athletic identity (Lally, 2007) to dealwith transition demands. While understanding athletes’ use of coping strategies is important,this research does not capture current theorizing on stress processes within sport (e.g., Lazarus,2006).One framework that may assist in advancing our understanding of the stress processduring team selection is the cognitive-motivational-relational (CMR) theory of emotion(Lazarus, 1999). While the CMR has been the predominant framework guiding researchers whoexamine stress and coping processes within sport (Crocker, Kowalski, & Graham, 1998;Gaudreau, Nicholls, & Levy, 2010; Nicholls, 2010; Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Richards, 2011),there has been limited application of this theory in the transition and change event literature(Giacobbi et al., 2004). In the CMR framework, psychological stress and emotions are a resultof person-environment relationships, which may change due to time or circumstances, and canbe a source of benefit or harm (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, 1987). To negotiate stressors, athletesare required to cope. Coping is conceptualized as a “process of constantly changing cognitiveand behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands or conflicts appraisedas taxing or exceeding one’s resources” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Furthermore, in theCMR, coping processes involve the interaction between stressors, emotions, appraisals, andcoping.Appraisals encompass how individuals interpret a particular situation. Lazarusdistinguished between co-occurring primary and secondary appraisals, which influence the13intensity and type of stress and emotional reactions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primaryappraisals are concerned with the personal relevance of the stressor to the athlete’s goals, worldviews, values, situational objectives, and well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 2000).Primary appraisals can be categorized as harm/loss, threat, challenge, and beneficial (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1999), with goal relevance, goal congruence, and type of egoinvolvement impacting the intensity, valence, and type of resulting emotion experienced(Lazarus, 1991, 2000). Athletes engage in harm/loss appraisals when they evaluate and interpretprevious experiences (e.g., non-selection to a team) as detrimental. Threat appraisals assess thepotential harm or loss to the individual, whereas challenge appraisals are associated withbeneficial outcomes for the individual (e.g., an opportunity to compete in a high level event).Lastly, a benefit appraisal occurs when an athlete perceives they have gained something orgrown in the situation (e.g., gained status within a sport organization). Secondary appraisalsinvolve the athletes’ perceptions of available coping options and focus on perceptions of control(Zakowski, Hall, Klein, & Baum, 2001). Assessments are made of who is responsible for thestress, whether or not they can successfully cope with the stressor, and future expectations aboutthe stressor (Lazarus, 2000). It is important to note that the appraisal process is not linear andreappraisal will follow an earlier appraisal when new information becomes available (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). How an athlete appraises a selection process will likely determine engagementin coping efforts (Aldwin, 1994).Coping responses are typically categorized into higher order dimensions. A commonlyused classification is problem and emotion focused coping (see Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). Problem focused coping targets the reason an athlete is experiencing stress bymanaging and altering the cause of the stressor. For example, an athlete may increase their effort14prior to a selection process by spending more time training as a result of feeling underprepared.In contrast, emotion focused coping is aimed at regulating emotional responses originating fromthe situation. For instance, an athlete may use relaxation techniques to reduce anxiety prior toengaging in the selection process. Gaudreau and Blondin (2002, 2004b, 2008) have alsoproposed a coping function classification that consists of task, disengagement, and distractioncoping orientations. For example, if an athlete’s coping efforts target a stressful situation (e.g.,cognitive reappraisal) directly, they are engaged in task oriented coping, as opposed todistraction oriented coping techniques where the athlete focuses their attention away from thesource of stress and onto other stimuli (e.g., mental distraction). Lastly, athletes may disengagefrom the situation either physically or mentally (Gaudreau et al., 2010). A limitation to thecoping function approach is that specific coping strategies can be categorized under more thanone dimension, depending on the individual and situation encountered (Compas, Worsham, Ey,& Howell, 1996).The last major component of the CMR framework is emotions. Lazarus (2006) arguedthat the meaning we attribute to continuing and changing relationships with others and thephysical environment will shape our emotions. Furthermore, he viewed emotion as the centralpart of the coping process (Lazarus, 2006). Theoretically, coping has an impact on emotion andemotion can, through appraisals, impact coping (Lazarus, 1999). While coping has traditionallybeen associated with negative emotions, it may occur in relation to any type of emotion(Richards, 2012). Finally, the transactional nature of the CMR framework is important tohighlight as it emphasizes that individuals can perceive the same situation differently (Richards,2012). This is particularly important when studying sport selection processes, as individualathletes will differ in their perceptions. As a result, athletes will engage in different coping15efforts depending on their appraisal of the selection process, and will also have differentemotional experiences. In summary, the use of the CMR framework has potential to develop ourunderstanding of how athletes experience and deal with stressful team selection processes.1.2.2.3. Relevant research in stress and coping. Research on stress and coping in thebroader transition literature does not reflect the complexities outlined in the CMR framework.For example, discussion of appraisals has been limited to whether the individual perceived the(non)event as positive or negative (Schlossberg, 1981). Consequently, perceptions of thetransition and other primary and secondary cognitive appraisals have not been integrated orrelated specifically to the coping process. As a result, research within athletic transitions has notacknowledged the interrelationship between coping, appraisal, and emotions and has typicallytreated them as discrete concepts (see Alfermann et al., 2004; Stambulova et al., 2007).There has also been a dearth of literature exploring stress and coping over the course ofselection processes. Munroe and colleague’s (1999) study is a notable exception as it providespreliminary insight into athletes’ experiences with non-selection. Twelve first year universitystudents who tried out but were not selected to a varsity team were interviewed twice. Theinterviews occurred one and four weeks after the tryout. Participants had positive expectationsfor making the team prior to selection, however after their tryouts had negative expectations asthey perceived their skills to be poorer than those of other athletes. Participants also provided amix of controllable and uncontrollable reasons for why they did not make the team. While thesethemes of control and expectation were described, they were not explicitly discussed in terms ofappraisals. In addition, participant reactions after non-selection, including emotions (e.g.,disappointment, relief), were presented. The experience of positive or negative affect at bothtime points appeared to be specific to the individual. Also, participants engaged in16“deglamorization” of sport and seeking out alternative activities as strategies to cope with non-selection (Munroe et al., 1999). Although components of the stress process were identified, therewas no integration of these related concepts within this study.While selection processes have been identified as a source of stress by many athletes(Fletcher & Hanton, 2003; Hanton et al., 2005; Woodman & Hardy, 2001), our understanding ofthese experiences remains in the preliminary stages. Therefore, it is valuable to examine keyfindings within the broader sport psychology stress and coping literature that may assist infurthering our understanding. First, exploration of the goodness-of-fit approach (Folkman, 1984,1992) to coping effectiveness has not been explored within sport transitions, beyond beingtheoretically proposed by Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) in the SCSPP framework. Thegoodness-of-fit approach stresses the importance of the coping response fitting the appraisedsituation. It is hypothesized that effective coping will occur when problem-oriented coping isapplied to controllable situations and when emotion-oriented coping is utilized in uncontrollablesituations (Richards, 2012). Evidence has been found to support the goodness-of-fit approach(Anshel, 1996; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Haney & Long, 1995; Kim & Duda, 2003) and it istherefore worth exploring the relationship between appraisals and coping function, in addition tohow these relationships change over time as a result of team selection processes.Furthermore, several studies in sport have suggested that coping changes over differentphases of a competition (e.g., Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004a; Gaudreau, Lapierre, & Blondin,2001). That said, athletes can significantly differ from each other in the amount and the directionin which coping utilization changes (Gaudreau & Miranda, 2010). Individual differences in theuse of coping strategies over the course of a selection process have yet to be explored. However,one outcome of coping that has been of interest to sport researchers is satisfaction (e.g.,17performance satisfaction, life satisfaction; Gaudreau & Antl, 2008; Nicholls, Polman, Levy,2012). Gaudreau and Antl (2008) found that both relationships between task and disengagementorientations to coping and changes in life satisfaction were mediated by goal attainment. Inaddition, distraction and disengagement oriented coping has been negatively linked toperformance satisfaction, while task-oriented coping has been positively associated withperformance satisfaction (Nicholls et al., 2012). However, it is not yet clear how engaging incoping in response to stressful team selection processes influences athletes’ affective outcomes.1.2.3 Athletes’ affect trajectories and team selection.While affective outcomes have not yet been related to coping, Gaudreau and colleagues(2009) have examined how affect changes as a result of selection status. They examinedlongitudinal trajectories of positive and negative affect over the course of an athletic season.Participants were adolescent hockey players who at the beginning of the season were attemptingto make one of the three elite leagues in Quebec. Team selection at the beginning of the seasonacted as a time-varying covariate within the study. Similar affective trajectories were groupedtogether with findings indicating that athletes who were selected to teams and started withmoderate levels of positive affect were able to maintain medium levels of affect throughout theseason. In contrast, athletes who started with medium levels of positive affect and were notselected experienced a significant decrease in positive affect after the selection process. It wasalso noted that all participants continued playing in their sport at a high level and thus effects ofnon-selection on positive affect may have been buffered. In addition, the courses of negativeaffect trajectories were also deflected by team selection. Athletes who started with high levels ofnegative affect but were selected to the team experienced a significant decrease in negativeaffect, whereas non-selected athletes maintained high levels of negative affect (Gaudreau et al.,182009). One of the strengths of this study was that it examined not only group level effects, butalso individual differences in trajectories, reflecting current theorizing suggesting that affectivestates will change differently depending on the individual (Lazarus, 1999). Furthermore, theprospective-longitudinal design allowed the researchers to capture change in affect thatcoincided with selection processes. Gaudreau et al. (2009) suggested that coping is likely relatedto affective trajectories in team selection processes, which further highlights the need to capturethe multi-dimensional nature of the stress process in relation to team tryouts.1.2.4 Athletic identity.Athletic identity is the “degree to which an athlete identifies with the athlete role”(Brewer et al., 1993, p. 24) and is one of the most frequently studied variables in relation to sporttransitions (e.g., Brown & Potrac, 2009; Lally, 2007; Lavallee et al., 1997; Lavallee & Robinson,2007; Warriner & Lavallee, 2008). Athletic identity is usually framed within the multi-dimensional construct of self-concept (Brewer et al., 1993). It has been argued that a strong,exclusive athletic identity can have a positive impact on developing a salient sense of self andathletic performance, as an athlete must often focus solely on their sport to the exclusion of otheractivities to meet training and competition demands (Werthner & Orlick, 1986). In contrast,research on retirement from sport has found that a strong athletic identity is associated with alower quality of transition and a longer adjustment period after retirement (Grove, Lavallee, &Gordon, 1997; Park et al., 2013).Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a, 2011b) proposed that the degree to which an athleteidentifies with the athletic role will influence stress processes associated with change events.They suggested that athletic identity will be positively associated with significance appraisalsand intensity of emotional responses to team selection processes that could significantly impact19the athlete’s status in sport. Researchers have found preliminary evidence to support theseassertions (Brown & Potrac, 2009; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b). Brown and Potrac (2009)suggested that elite adolescent soccer players experienced emotional distress when they had astrong athletic identity and were de-selected from receiving a professional contract. Samuel andTenenbaum (2011b) found that athletic identity was positively associated with current athletes’appraisals of the significance of change events.Researchers have also suggested that athletes will decrease their athletic identity toprotect their self-concept when experiencing difficult situations in sport (Brewer, Selby, Under,& Petitpas, 1999; Grove et al., 2004). In a study conducted by Grove and colleagues (2004), 47adolescent state all-star hopefuls completed three observations of athletic identity. The firstmeasure was completed one week before the final selections, the second occurred immediatelyafter participants were notified of their selection status, and the final observation was two weeksafter the selected team was announced. The findings suggested that athletes who were notselected significantly reduced how much they identified with the athletic role after the team wasannounced, while selected individual’s athletic identity remained stable. Taken together, theseresults suggest that it is important to further examine aspects of athletes’ identities over time asthey may impact team selection related stress processes.1.2.5 Stage of athletic career.Team selection processes have been discussed within the sport expertise developmentliterature (e.g., Baker, Bagats, Büsh, Strauss, & Schorer, 2012; Stambulova, 2000; Vaeyens etal., 2008). Researchers in talent development have used stage based models (Bloom, 1985; Cȏté,1999; Salmela, 1994; Stambulova, 1994; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004) to describe how athletestypically progress through an athletic career and how they simultaneously develop in other life20domains (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004). At the beginning of an athlete’s career, there is a strongargument against the implementation of selection processes. A primary focus on sportperformance outcomes at an early age and consequently early de-selection hinders thedevelopment of a larger pool of talent. Participation and learning should therefore beemphasized during the early stages of an athletic career (Vaeyens et al., 2008).At the same time, as athletes progress through various stages of development(particularly towards higher competitive levels) selection processes become inevitable.Stambulova (2000) has suggested that pressure of selection to important competitions during thetransition to high-achievement and adult sport may lead to transitional problems. In addition,Gaudreau et al. (2009) proposed that age could play a role in how athletes deal with non-selection. Arnold and colleagues (2015) found preliminary evidence that performance level wasrelated to team selection organizational stressors. Their findings indicated that athletesparticipating at the county or club level identified team selection stressors less frequently and tobe less intense than athletes at regional or university levels. In addition, national or internationalathletes reported more intense team selection stress experiences than club or county levelathletes. In accordance with these propositions and findings, it is important to consider stage ofathletic career when examining athletes’ team selection process experiences. For example, twoathletes are vying for a position on the Olympic team. One is in their late teens and coming outof the junior ranks, and the other is a veteran in their late twenties. While both are elite athletes,it is likely that they will attach different meaning to the selection process. The younger athletemay perceive the selection process as an opportunity to gain experience and recognition, whereasit might be the last chance for the older athlete to make the Olympic team. Ultimately, themeanings attached to the selection process will shape the athletes’ experiences.211.2.6 Prospective-longitudinal research design.There is consensus among researchers that change events are a process (Alftermann &Stambulova, 2007; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova et al., 2009), implying that therewill be change over time within the athlete as they adjust to their new situation. Althoughchange events are theoretically treated as a process, the majority of research designs employed tostudy these processes have not captured change over time. For example, retrospective and cross-sectional designs have been employed to assess the quality of transitions (see Debois et al., 2015;Finn & McKenna, 2010; Park et al., 2012; Sinclair & Orlick, 1993; Stambulova et al., 2012).Cross-sectional designs have offered a snapshot of the relationship among the measuredvariables at a particular time point, thus implying that the variables measured were consistentover time (Crocker, Mosewich, Kowalski, & Besenski, 2010). Consequently, researchersexamining change events have called for longitudinal research (Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007;Park et al., 2013; Stambulova & Ryba, 2014) as cross-sectional studies have been incongruentwith conceptualizations of career transitions, change events, and associated stress and copingprocesses (Lazarus, 1999).Prospective designs are preferred to retrospective designs (see Grove et al., 2004),although they are rarely used to study change events. All prominent models that examine changein sport emphasize the importance of athletes’ perceptions of the pre-change environment,expectations for the change, or future career goals. However, with a few notable exceptions(e.g., Baruch-Runyon, VanZandt, & Elliot, 2009; Lally, 2007; MacNamara & Collins, 2010;Torregrosa, Ramis, Pallarés, Azόcar, & Selva, 2015), studies have been conductedpredominantly retrospectively (e.g., Adams, Coffee, & Lavallee, 2015; Brown & Potrac, 2009;Clowes, Lindsay, Fawcett, & Knowles, 2015; Pummell et al., 2008; Stephan et al, 2003;22Warriner & Lavallee, 2008). Retrospective data can be problematic as findings may beconfounded by distortions in memory and recall bias (Alftermann & Stambulova, 2007; Kerr &Dacyshyn, 2000; Lavallee & Robinson, 2007).Both studies within this dissertation employed prospective-longitudinal designs. Notonly did this theoretically align with the extant literature, but it also allowed for exploration ofhow much individuals changed, when change occurred, and how athletes differed in the selectionprocesses. Data were collected at pre, post, and follow-up time points in relation to the selectionprocess which enhanced our understanding of psychological change occurring within athletes(Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007).1.3 General Overview of Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of this dissertation was to advance understanding of high performancedevelopmental and elite athletes’ experiences with significant team selection processes. Twoprospective-longitudinal studies were conducted to achieve this goal. The objective of study onewas to examine elite athletes’ experiences with an Olympic team selection process. Thispopulation of athletes was important to study as they have been found to often plan their athleticcareers and subsequently their social and professional lives around having the opportunity toparticipate in the Olympic Games (Debois et al., 2015; Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002; Ryan,2015). The study was guided by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith &Osborn, 2003; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) and focused on elite athletes’ experiences of anOlympic team selection process, resources athletes used to cope with an Olympic team selectionprocess, and adaptation to different roles after athletes’ selection status was known. The purposeof study two was to examine changes in athletes’ cognitive appraisals, emotions, coping, athleticgoal progress, life satisfaction, and quality of athletic engagement over the course of the 201323Canada Summer Games team selection process. In addition, changes within and differencesbetween athletes based on selection status in relation to these components of the stress processwere examined. This study furthered our understanding of the association between beingselected or not selected to a high performance development event and athletes’ stress experiencesin sport.1.4 Approach to Program of ResearchThis dissertation program of research combined both qualitative (study one) andquantitative (study two) research methods in a mixed methods design. Mixed methods is anapproach to answering complex research problems that require data beyond what qualitative andquantitative methods can singularly provide (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Qualitative andquantitative approaches to research have different strengths that often address the other’slimitations. Advantages to qualitative approaches to research include (but not limited to) a)having data that are based on participants’ own perceptions of their meaning; b) providingdetailed accounts of complex phenomena; c) the researcher being able to gain insight into howparticipants understand and describe their personal experiences with phenomena; d) the contextsin which the phenomena occur can be considered; e) a single case can be used to provide readerswith a vivid description of the phenomena (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Quantitativeapproaches have many strengths including (but not limited to) a) the ability to test and validateexisting theories with regards to how and why phenomena occur; b) being able to generalizefindings to a broader population with large random samples; c) it being often argued that theresults are, for the most part, independent of the researcher (e.g., effect sizes); and d) allowingthe researcher to study large populations (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). By combining the24strengths of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in a complimentary manner, researchersmay be able to obtain a more complete picture of the phenomenon in question (Jick, 1979).When combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, there is often concern over theopposing philosophical assumptions of the methodologies employed (Sparkes, 2015). Theseapproaches are often associated with underlying differences in ontology (e.g., a singular realityversus multiple realities), epistemology (e.g., the researcher as objective versus co-constructingfindings with the participants), and methodology (e.g., nomothetic versus idiographic; Whaley &Krane, 2011). In this dissertation, I followed the perspective of Cresswell and Plano Clark(2011) in which multiple worldviews can exist within a mixed methods program of research.From this perspective, the worldviews are related to the type of research designs employed indifferent phases of the program of research as opposed how the researcher attempts to know theworld. This approach is particularly suited to a sequential study design where one portion of themixed methods occurs after the other and the researcher’s worldview shifts between the twophases of the dissertation (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011).In the first study examining athletes’ experiences with an Olympic team selectionprocess, I adopted an interpretative worldview. As such, I assumed a relativist ontologyacknowledging the multiple realities of the participants’ experiences, a subjective epistemologyas I focused on the co-construction between the participant and myself of the meaning theathletes’ attributed to their experiences, and an idiographic methodology which emphasized theparticular. Furthermore, study one followed the theoretical assumptions of phenomenology,idiography, and hermeneutics in accordance with the underlying assumptions of IPA (Smith &Osborn, 2003; Smith et al., 2009). For the second study, a post-positivist worldview wasassumed as the study was guided deductively by theory, hypotheses were made to test25assumptions of these theories, and variables were empirically measured and observed within thecontext of the CSG team selection process. Therefore, I employed a critical realist ontology, anobjective epistemology, and a quantitative methodology.26Chapter 2: Study One2.1 IntroductionTeam selection processes are an inevitable part of elite sport. The outcome of theseselection processes can have career implications for athletes such as gaining recognition andresources (e.g., Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a), opportunities to compete at a higher level,achieving sport career goals (Stambulova, Stambulov, & Johnson, 2012; Woodman & Hardy,2001), and athletic retirement (Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007; Ogilvie & Taylor, 1993; Webb,Nasco, Riley, & Headrick, 1998). Consequently, team selection processes hold significantmeaning and are a central source of stress for many athletes (Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan,2005; Pearson & Petitpas, 1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Although they lead to importantchange processes within and/or outside the athletic domain, selection processes for highperformance sporting events have been under researched. The goal of this study was to addressthis aforementioned gap by examining athletes’ experiences with an Olympic team selectionprocess.Researchers have suggested that team selection is a salient organizational stressor forathletes (Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2013; Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu, Neil, 2012; Fletcher,Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012). Organizational stress has been defined as “an ongoing transactionbetween an individual and the environmental demands associated primarily and directly with theorganization within which he or she is operating” (Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu, 2006, p. 329).Athletes have identified perceived unfairness in selection processes, ambiguous or inappropriateselection criteria, inappropriate selectors, lack of selection opportunities, prolonged selectionprocess, selection uncertainty, not being selected for a team, late selection, failure of coaches todeal with selection controversy, and being selected beyond one’s capabilities as stimuli for27experiencing organizational stress (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu et al.,2012; Fletcher, Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012; Fletcher & Hanton, 2003; Greenleaf, Gould, &Dieffenbach, 2001; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). In addition, while stress related to selectionprocesses has typically been classified as organizational (see Arnold & Fletcher, 2012), manyathletes will simultaneously experience competitive and organizational stress as their competitiveperformance will dictate their selection status (Hanton et al., 2005; Mellalieu, Neil, Hanton, &Fletcher, 2009; Neil, Hanton, Mellalieu, & Fletcher, 2011). Thus, it is important to address bothorganizational and competition stress processes.Athletes have reported a range of cognitive and emotional responses to team selectionprocesses, including resentment when the selection process was perceived to be unfair, negativeemotions towards their sport participation when they felt they did not have control over theselection process, as well as relief, anxiety, and general dissatisfaction (Fletcher, Hanton, &Wagstaff, 2012; Munroe, Albinson, & Hall, 1999). Gaudreau, Amiot, and Vallerand (2009) havealso found that selection status influenced the season-long affect trajectories of elite amateurhockey players, specifically those who had moderate levels of positive affect and those who hadhigh levels of negative affect at the beginning of the season. Other athletes have responded byreappraising the selection process as a challenge and have used a negative outcome as motivationto achieve their goals (Fletcher, Hanton, & Wagstaff, 2012; Hanton, Wagstaff, & Fletcher,2012). Finally, how athletes respond to and cope with selection processes will affect their abilityto adapt to new sport environments (Crocker, Tamminen, & Gaudreau, 2015; Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a). That said, it is unclear how engaging in coping in response to stressfulteam selection processes influences athletes’ experiences in high performance sport.28Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a, 2011b) have proposed that an individual’s athleticidentity plays a key role when a stressful change event is experienced. Athletic identity is the“degree to which an athlete identifies with the athlete role” (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder,1993, p. 24). Change events have the potential to threaten an athlete’s status in sport (e.g., de-selection or non-selection); athletes with a strong athletic identity will appraise the event as moresignificant and therefore have a more intense emotional reaction to the event than athletes whoidentify with the athletic role to a lesser extent (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a, 2011b).  A studyof currently competing athletes found that a strong and exclusive athletic identity was positivelycorrelated with appraisals of the significance of change events (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b).Specific to selection processes, Brown and Potrac (2009) also found that when elite adolescentsoccer players identified strongly with the athletic role, they experienced significant emotionaldistress upon de-selection from receiving a professional contract.Other researchers have suggested that individuals will reduce their athletic identity inresponse to personal loss in the sport context as a self-protection mechanism (Brewer, Selby,Under, & Petitpas, 1999; Grove, Fish, & Eklund, 2004).  For example, athletes who weredissatisfied with their sport performance throughout a season tended to identify less with theathletic role (Brewer et al., 1999).  A similar pattern was found in a study examining 47adolescents who were attempting to be selected to a state all-star team.  Results suggested thatathletes who were not selected had a significant decrease in athletic identity after the selectionprocess, whereas selected athletes’ athletic identities remained consistent over time (Grove et al.,2004).  In sum, these findings suggest that athletic identity plays an important role in howathletes appraise and cope with selection processes.  Further research is required to extend these29findings by exploring how athletic and other identities change over time and influence copingprocesses during team selection.Collectively, researchers have provided preliminary insight into how athletes respond toand cope with stressful selection processes. It is important to understand how athletesexperience coping processes as effective coping is viewed as the key to successfully dealing withathletic career disruptions (e.g., non-selection; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova,2003). However, researchers have yet to consider the complexity of coping processes in relationto team selection, including interactions between stressors, emotions, appraisals, goals, identity,and coping (Lazarus, 1991, 2000).Olympic team selection processes provide an ideal context to examine coping processeswithin elite sport. The Summer Olympic Games are a unique worldwide event occurring everyfour years and for many athletes they represent the pinnacle of sport achievement (Gould &Maynard, 2009; Serpa, 2009; Stambulova et al., 2012). Elite athletes often plan their careersaround the Olympic Games, sacrificing other life and social goals (Debois, Ledon, & Wylleman,2015; Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002; Ryan, 2015). For these athletes, being selected or notselected to the Olympic Games may have consequences for their athletic careers, performance(Greenleaf et al., 2001), and psychosocial functioning. The purpose of this study was toprospectively examine how elite athletes perceived and experienced an Olympic team selectionprocess. The questions that guided the research were: 1) How do elite athletes experience anOlympic team selection process?; 2) What resources do elite athletes use to cope with anOlympic team selection process?; and 3) How do elite athletes adapt to different roles after theirselection status is known?302.2 Method2.2.1 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith & Osborn, 2003; Smith,Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) approach was adopted to examine athletes’ experiences of Olympicteam selection processes. IPA is concerned with how individuals make sense of major lifeevents (Smith et al., 2009), which made it a suitable approach to understanding athletes’experiences of the Olympic Games selection process. Underpinning IPA are three theoreticalfoundations, namely: 1) phenomenology; 2) hermeneutics; and 3) idiography (Smith et al.,2009).IPA is phenomenological in nature because the researcher is concerned with theparticipants’ lived experiences and perceptions of an event, as opposed to an objective account(Smith et al., 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2003). The term “experience” within an IPA context refersto “a lived process, an unfurling of perspectives and meanings, which are unique to the person’sembodied and situated relationship to the world” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 21). Consequently, whenattempting to understand the meaning participants ascribe to their experiences, researchers areengaging in interpretation which, in turn, invokes a discussion of hermeneutics (Smith et al.,2009). Hermeneutics refers to the theory of interpretation. In IPA, a double hermeneutic isemployed in which interpretation is a two phase process (Smith & Osborn, 2003): the researcheris attempting to make sense of the participant (second order sense-making) trying to make senseof their experience (first order sense-making). Lastly, in IPA, an idiographic approach focuseson the perspective of specific people in a particular context in relation to an event or process(Smith et al., 2009). Thus, idiographic underpinnings are evident in IPA research; small samplesizes are generally employed as single cases take on significant importance (Smith et al., 2009).312.2.2 Participants.Ethical approval was obtained from the researcher’s University Behavioural ResearchEthics board. Participants were recruited by distributing information about the study throughgatekeepers (e.g., coaches and sport administrators) and posters in physiotherapy clinics andsport training facilities frequented by high performance athletes.Participants were purposefully sampled (Patton, 2002) in order to obtain a homogenoussample for which the research question was meaningful (Brocki & Wearden, 2006; Smith et al.,2009). Thus, the criteria for selection were: 1) participants must have been international caliberCanadian athletes and 2) participants were attempting to qualify for the 2012 London OlympicSummer Games. Seven participants who met these criteria were recruited for the study (seeTable 2.1 for demographic information).Participants ranged in age between 19 and 32 (average = 24.3) years old and the averageage that the athletes began training in the event they were attempting to qualify for the Olympicswas 14.3. All recruited participants competed in individual sports that had defined standards forOlympic qualification. To meet these criteria, six participants were required to achieve a specifictime in their event within a predetermined time frame and finish top three at the CanadianOlympic trials. This standard was set by the athletes’ Canadian National Sport Organization.The remaining athlete was required to achieve a specific world ranking. The athlete’s worldranking was determined by accumulation of points based on placement at predeterminedcompetitions. This standard was imposed by the athlete’s International Sport Federation. Oneparticipant was selected to and did compete in the 2012 Olympic Games, while the other sixparticipants were not able to obtain the established standards.322.2.3 Procedures.Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and were invited to take part in aseries of three in-depth semi-structured interviews. The first interview (average length = 1.5hours; range = 55 minutes to 2 hours) took place during or prior to the participants’ Olympicselection processes between April and June 2012. The second interview (average length = 1.75hours; range = 50 minutes to 2.30 hours) occurred between June and July 2012 after the athleteshad knowledge of their Olympic team selection status, but prior to the Olympic Games. Thethird interview (average length = 1.75 hours; range = 1.15 to 2.50 hours) occurred one to eightmonths after the Olympic Games between September 2012 and April 2013. Six of theparticipants completed all three interviews and one athlete only completed the first and thirdinterview due to training commitments in preparation for the London Olympics. Interviews wereconducted in person (11 interviews; average length = 2 hours) or over the telephone (9interviews; average length = 1.5 hours) to accommodate the participants’ training andcompetition demands. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants when reporting the findings tomaintain their anonymity.In depth semi-structured interviews are considered an advantageous means of collectingdata in IPA studies, as rapport may be built and participants are provided with time to think andbe heard (Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005; Smith et al., 2009). Semi-structured interviewsallowed the first author to ask about topics pertaining to the research questions and for theunprompted discussion of experiences that held significant meaning to the participants (Bryman,2004; Smith et al., 2009). Thus, the interview schedule was designed to examine elite athletes’experiences with the Olympic team selection process and how their perceptions of the Olympicteam selection process impacted their athletic career. Consistent with IPA, the primary research33questions were exploratory in nature, although the topics presented within the interview guidesengaged with previous theory and existing literature on significant change events and transitionswithin sport. Participants were asked questions about 1) perceptions of the selection process; 2)sources of stress; 3) coping strategies and resources; 4) adaptation to new roles; 5) future athleticand life plans; and 6) the impact of being either selected or non-selected to the Olympic team.Participants were encouraged to deviate from the interview questions and highlight experiencesthat had significant meaning to them (Bryman, 2004). Probes were used to examine continuityin participants’ responses and change over time, as well as to ask participants to clarify and/orelaborate ideas and examples (Keats, 2000).For the purpose of this study, a qualitative longitudinal design was appropriate foranswering the research questions because it allowed the researcher to gain a sense of continuitywithin participants’ experiences (Smith, 1999). The longitudinal design also assisted theresearcher in building rapport with participants, and allowed for reflection and the opportunity tofollow up with participants for clarification or elaboration on their thoughts. Furthermore,researchers have argued that change-events (Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007; Stambulova,Alfermann, Statler, & Cȏté, 2009) as well as coping (Lazarus, 1999) are dynamic processes andthus examining changes within these processes required a longitudinal study design to addressthe research questions. Interviewing the athletes prior to and during their selection process alsoallowed for the researcher to explore the participants’ expectations prospectively rather than justrelying on retrospective accounts.2.2.3.1 Data analysis. This study used Smith et al.’s (2009) framework for IPA dataanalysis, which takes into account the idiographic nature of IPA. The analysis began with areading of each transcript while listening to the audio-recording. Transcripts were re-read34multiple times to assist with the first author’s immersion in the data. Recollections of theinterview and observations about the transcript were recorded. A process of initial inductivenoting occurred where semantic content and language were explored by noting points of interest.Next, each individual transcript was examined for emergent themes and the researcher’s initialnotes were incorporated. Themes reflected the researcher’s interpretation of the participant’swords and thoughts and the data continued to be reorganized as new themes emerged.Connections among the themes were then examined (Smith et al., 2009).After these stages were completed separately for each participant, patterns wereexamined across participants. This process was iterative in nature which involved moving backand forth between the interpretations and the participants’ transcripts, checking them against theactual words of the participants (Smith & Osborn, 2003).2.2.3.2 Credibility. Indicators of quality within an IPA study have been discussed inseveral texts (Chamberlain, 2011; Smith, 2011a; Smith, 2011b; Smith et al., 2009). Inaccordance with these authors’ suggestions, the credibility and quality of the current IPA studywas addressed in the following ways; namely: 1) Sensitivity to context was demonstratedthrough knowledge of the extant literature on athletic career development, sport transitions, andcoping processes within sport, by choosing IPA as an appropriate methodology to explore howathletes’ experience an Olympic team selection process, by focusing on the particular ofparticipants’ experiences from an idiographic perspective, and by providing a large number ofverbatim extracts from participants to support researcher interpretations and thus giving theparticipant a voice and permitting the reader to check interpretations; 2) Commitment washighlighted through the extent to which the interviews were centered around the participants andwithin the detail of the analysis pertaining to each case; 3) Rigour or thoroughness of the study35was established by selecting participants that had homogenous characteristics and matched theresearch question, by the quality of the interviews, and the comprehensiveness of the dataanalysis which was conducted thoroughly and systematically with the engagement of idiographicand interpretative components of IPA; 4) Extracts from the participants’ transcripts were selectedto demonstrate convergence and divergence to incorporate variability in participant experiences;5) Analysis provided an interpretative component and went beyond the basic description of thethemes; and 6) The study remained consistent with the principles of IPA (phenomenology,idiography, and hermeneutics throughout; Smith, 2011a; Smith, 2011b; Smith et al., 2009;Yardley, 2000).2.3 FindingsThree key themes emerged from the participants’ accounts including 1) Commitment tothe Olympic goal; 2) Navigating the Olympic team selection process; and 3) Moving on from theOlympics. Each of the themes will be described in the following sections.2.3.1 Commitment to the Olympic goal.In this section, I describe participants’ commitment to the Olympic goal as evidenced bythe prioritization of sport and delay of social and vocational goals. I then discuss how attainingor reinforcing an Olympian identity allowed participants to validate sacrifices they had made inthe pursuit of the Olympic goal.Participants perceived the Olympic Games as the premier competition in their respectivesports and assigned preeminent status to the event. As Michael explained after the 2012Olympic Games “lots of people go to the World Championships but the Olympics are muchmore impressive because it is every four years.”36During the selection process, all athletes indicated that their primary goal for the 2012season was to qualify for the summer Olympic Games. Anna, who had previously competed inan Olympic Games, explained her commitment to the 2012 Olympic goal and the sacrifices shewas willing to make to compete in London:I am really committed this year to spend a significant chunk of time in [city] training. Iam getting away from all of the distractions that I put on my plate at home…I am notworried about how much money I spend. I am going to do what it takes. If it means thatI have to go away for four weeks…it’s going to cost a lot of money then well [my partnerand I] will make money at some point and get my life paid off.Similar to Anna, all participants increased their investment in their athletic development in theyear preceding the Olympics to position themselves to achieve team selection.The prioritization of sport resulted in participants delaying social and career goals toprovide themselves with the best opportunity to make the Olympic team. The specific sacrificesathletes made in pursuit of their Olympic goal were unique to the individual and were influencedby their life stage. For the youngest participants, James and Mark, this meant spending less timewith friends outside of sport and reducing their university course load. Mark explained in thelead up to selection events that he “took the year off school to help give me that best opportunitypossible to get there [2012 Olympics]. Went and trained in [country] with arguably one of thebest [his sport] countries in the world.” Based on Mark’s account, it was interpreted that heexperienced tension over taking a year off school during the Olympic team selection process. Heacknowledged that taking time off of school was a “tough decision” and one of the biggestchallenges he had faced that season because he was close to the people with whom he went toschool. Despite missing social connections, Mark felt that taking time off school and focusing37on his sport meant that he had no regrets when he subsequently did not qualify for the Olympicteam:When I took this year off school and I ended up putting all my eggs in this basket. It wasso that I wouldn’t have any regrets. You know if I had not done this and gone to schooland not made it then I’d kind of be “oh what if I had taken a year off school could I havemade it?” Because I did everything I could have done to give myself the opportunity tomake it, I don’t have any regrets, which is a really good way to do it.The athletes who were in their mid-twenties to early thirties perceived that they were postponinga combination of the following: investing in their careers, starting graduate school, romanticrelationships, starting a family, and financial security. For example, Anna described how hertraining leading up to the Olympic selection process had influenced various domains of her life:I am not really enjoying [her job]. Even though I have done that job for a few years andnot full time, but still I have had enough of a glimpse of it and I would like to have kidsand I would like to have just a good family life…I [compete] for the love of the sport butat some point I do need to start paying my way and not being a continual deficit to thefamily.Despite having deferred other life goals, all of the participants were unfazed by their sacrifices asevidenced by the casual tones with which they described their choices. Furthermore, participantsperceived the delay of vocational and social goals to be normal and expected within their sportculture.The participants’ concentration on sport leading up to the 2012 Olympic Games was alsoreflected in how they discussed their athletic roles. Specifically, participants believed that if theywere able to attain their goals and compete in the 2012 Olympics then they would “become an38Olympian” or reinforce their Olympian status depending on their competitive history. This wasin line with the participants’ view of the Olympian identity as being different from and moreprestigious than that of elite athlete. Additionally, participants perceived that being an Olympianwas an aspirational identity that athletes, stakeholders in sport, and sport outsiders privileged andequated with athletic success. As James explained prior to the selection process, “I have alwaysseen athletes who are not Olympians as not exactly being real athletes…it’s a way of identifyingyourself as a serious, serious athlete as opposed to somebody who just sort of does it quasi-recreationally.”Attainment, or in the cases of Steven and Anna reinforcement, of the Olympian identitywas a means of validating their athletic career and the concomitant sacrifices they had made inother life domains. Indeed, Anna contended the following:This is really what I have been training for, for four years, eight years really, since I madethe [Olympic] team. It will be a real sense of relief…I think I will feel really proud ofmyself that I stuck with it for so long despite the ups and downs and that my husbanddidn’t let me quit when I wanted to two years ago, because he said I wasn’t done yet andI think he and my coach will be really happy and I will feel really grateful to them forsticking by me.Similarly, Michael noted that becoming an Olympian would validate his pursuit of an athleticcareer: “if you [compete] in the Olympics it’s this thing of being an Olympian that you don’t getfrom anything else…It’s for everything that I have given up to have it…it’s validation of thatchoice.”392.3.2 Navigating the Olympic team selection process.Prior to or during the Olympic selection process all seven participants perceived that theywere capable of being selected to the Olympic team. Despite five athletes having to achieve apersonal best at a sanctioned competition, participants expressed confidence in their ability tomeet the required eligibility standards for selection. As James described prior to the selectionprocess:It’s just I know that pace wise I can. I am super confident I can do [the] standard justbased on the [distance] that I did this weekend. I am pretty sure I could obliterate [the]standard based on just the pace I was keeping up this weekend.Michael also indicated leading up to the selection process that “it’s faster than I have ever[competed] before, [but] I think it’s within my ability level.” The majority of participantsscheduled their physical preparation (e.g., rest, recovery, conditioning, training phases etc.) andcompetition schedule around being able to attain these standards. One exception was Tim, whoachieved the qualifying standard months prior to the London Olympics and subsequently shiftedhis goals and training to achieve a personal best at the 2012 Olympics.One explanation for why participants were confident in their ability to be selected for theOlympic team was the degree of control they felt over the selection process. James, Michael,Mark, Lisa, and Tim, who had never competed in the Olympic Games before, perceived theselection criteria to be straightforward and objective. Thus, these participants had a sense ofself-determination over whether they achieved selection, as articulated by Michael who stated:I mean it’s very clearly delineated what you have to do to make the Olympics for Canada.I think there would be far more stress if you were kind of on the bubble. I mean you40didn’t really know what you were going to have to do to qualify but it’s pretty simple. Imean you [achieve] a time and beat the people, and you get to go.In their accounts after not making the Olympic team, James, Michael, Mark, and Lisamaintained that the qualification process had been objective, which they defined in terms of clearexpectations or standards that were communicated to them well in advance of the selectionprocess. Following not being selected, James reflected:I think it’s a pretty solid selection process. I mean before I thought it would be easier butnow I know that maybe the standard that I needed wasn’t as easy as I thought it was. Theselection process is what it is and I guess I have to work with that.Lisa also indicated “it’s pretty clear across the board…everybody’s known about this for years,the selection standards were made years ago…people who are whining maybe they don’tunderstand it?” Yet, after the Olympics these same participants began to discuss ways in whichthey would modify the selection process to provide more athletes with an opportunity to competein the Olympics. Mark recounted after the selection process:You can agree with [the standards] or you cannot agree with [the standards] but you cansee why they did it…I think the biggest problem with our selection criteria and our trialsis, is that people aren’t willing to speak up until something happens… there was a bit of acommunication issue on [national sport organization] part insofar as, yeah, they didn’treally justify why their rules were what they were. You know at the end of the day theirrules are their rules and if you have a problem with them then you should be getting themfixed before they become inconvenient to you.The tension in participants’ accounts was interpreted as athletes wanting to take responsibilityfor their non-selection status. Even though athletes began to critically examine how the Olympic41selection standards were constructed, they prioritized the maintenance of self-determination as itmeant that they would have control over future selection processes.In contrast, for Anna and Steven, external factors (e.g., competition conditions)influenced the selection process from the beginning. They perceived complexities in the waythat the selection criteria were developed and applied within their sports. Anna provided insightbefore the Olympic qualification process on the selection criteria:There are so many variables and going on such a strict [standard] and not looking at thecontext of how well you [compete] and the fact that we [compete] the earlyseason...under these kind of contrived [competition conditions] and then you get to theOlympics or nationals or rounds...and being really strong tactically [is what is important].It is like two different ways to [compete] that can have completely different results.Similarly, Steven added:In terms of the selection process it is more or less fair…there is one issue though wherethe points for one of the biggest meets for athletes in the [name of continent] werereduced to [number] points. It should have been a [number] point competition. Now thatwas an oversight on the international federation’s part. They won’t acknowledge thatever because of all of the trouble they have had with the Beijing Games.Anna and Steven’s awareness of the intricacies of an Olympic team selection process wasattributed to the depth of their experience at a high performance sport level.Participants identified potential barriers to qualifying for the London Olympic Gamesthat were sources of stress. The athletes perceived becoming injured, poor competitionconditions when attempting to make standards, lack of opportunities to make standards, and poorrelationships with sport governing bodies as primary sources of stress related to the selection42process. Acquiring a serious injury was cited by six of the athletes prior to the selection processas a barrier to meeting the required standards. To minimize the risk of an injury, participantsactively engaged in physical treatment with physiotherapists and massage therapists. However,the possibility of a new injury and overcoming existing injuries were perceived to be centralsources of stress that would limit their performance. James stated prior to the selection process“the fear of injury is always there and it has never been there in the past.” The participants'amplified fear of injury leading up to the qualification process was interpreted as a product of theOlympic Games occurring every four years. Thus, participants perceived that an injury wouldrisk their chances to compete in a rare Olympic opportunity.Five of the participants reported experiencing stress related to competition conditionsprior to and during the days that they were attempting to make the Olympic standard. Theseparticipants had limited opportunity to make the Olympic standard due to a lack of sanctionedcompetitions and the number of competitions they could physically endure during the qualifyingperiod. Athletes perceived that poor competition conditions such as wind, rain, heat, inadequaterace pacers, or their competitors’ lack of ability on these competition days, would hinder theirlimited opportunity to attain specific time standards. Anna explained prior to her qualificationevents that "there will be a [pacer] in the [competition] who is in charge of dictating the pace. Ifthey don’t do a proper job...it messes up your whole time." Mark described the limitedopportunities to compete and the impact of poor competition conditions:If you really want a good competition and a good chance, you got to go overseas…it’s ahard process to plan stuff knowing that the closest that you are going to get a good[competition] is in Europe or Asia. So that is definitely a challenge…I had a[competition] in February where we thought everything was going to be great…we43thought it would be a good opportunity and the [competition] started at 6pm and it was 38degrees…so stuff like that you know that you are just like “okay well I can’t qualifytoday.”Steven, who was one of the most internationally experienced athletes in this study,perceived that his relationship with his national sport governing body was a barrier to hisselection. He had a history of conflict with the members of the sport organization.Consequently, he did not feel supported in his efforts to qualify for the Olympic team. Heexperienced intense stress when having to interact with representatives of the sport governingbody and thus he felt he was not able to perform to his potential during the qualification period.Steven explained prior to his qualification events:I want to do this. I want to be at my best and I am putting the leg work in to do that, butit kills me having to even talk to these people, because I don’t respect them…and youneed that support from your [national team] coach, but things have broken down sodeeply that it pulls away entirely from the performance.2.3.3 Moving on from the Olympics.Six participants responded in a variety of ways to not meeting the 2012 Olympicqualifying standard. The four participants who perceived that they were young internationalathletes reappraised the significance of the 2012 Olympic Games within the context of their sportcareers. As previously discussed, participants put social and career goals on hold to providethemselves with the best opportunity to qualify for the 2012 Olympic team. However, after theywere not selected these four participants downplayed the importance of the qualification processdespite previously planning their lives around trying to compete at the 2012 Olympic games. Forexample, James stated:44Even if I did get the [standard] I probably wouldn’t have been mature enough in order tocompete at the Olympics…chances are if I had gone, I would have just gone andembarrassed myself. So really, in some ways I’m thankful I didn’t get that standard.And like 2016, at that point if I keep up with training and everything goes as projectedthen I’ll be so much better and so much more ready to compete there.After not qualifying for the 2012 Olympics, James and the other three young internationalcompetitors reappraised the 2012 Olympic selection process as a stepping stone to success forthe 2016 Olympic Games. I interpreted this reappraisal of where the 2012 Olympic Games fitwithin these four athletes’ careers as a means of coping with the disappointment of not makingthe Olympic team.For Anna and Steven, who had previously competed in an Olympic Games, not meetingthe qualifying standard in 2012 was met with a mix of disappointment, frustration, and relief.For example, Steven articulated that he experienced conflicting emotions in response to notqualifying. He felt “destroyed” that he was not able to achieve the goal that he had pursued formany years and yet he was also relieved that he no longer had to cope with an adverse trainingenvironment:I’ve been so unhappy in the sport for the last while that as much as I would give anythingto have been in London…the stress that I’ve been under for the last couple years and hownegative it’s been, I was also quite relieved knowing that it was the last time that I wasgoing to have to spend time with my coaches and to have to deal with my [sportorganization]…I was relieved but in the bigger picture obviously feeling pretty destroyedon the inside.45The qualification process was a source of organizational stress for Steven as he felt that he hadno option but to engage in "toxic" interpersonal relationships with members of his sportorganization to achieve his goal. Upon not meeting the qualification standard Stevenimmediately disengaged from these relationships which alleviated a primary source of dailystress.Similar to Steven, Anna also expressed disappointment that she had not made the 2012Olympic team:I am disappointed that it didn’t work out and I might be a little disappointed in myselfthat I didn’t make it happen…I always thought that I was doing the best that I could doand I had to be happy with the outcome and I have to keep going back to theprocess…and that it is the outcome that I was disappointed in, it was not the process.Anna also experienced frustration towards external factors which she perceived had interferedwith her selection. For Anna that meant not having the opportunity to compete in events thatwould optimize her ability to perform the standard. Anna had this to say after the qualificationperiod: “I wouldn’t direct my frustration as much to [sport organization] as the situation with mymanager and the circumstances of not getting into [events].” Anna coped with her inability toqualify by attributing her non-selection to her manager’s failure to gain her entry into specificcompetitions. In contrast to the four younger athletes who did not qualify, Anna and Steven'ssense of disappointment was intensified and they did not devalue the opportunity to compete inthe 2012 Olympic Games, as they both recognized it had likely been their last opportunity toreturn to the Olympic stage.All athletes who were not selected to the 2012 Olympic team readjusted their goals tocope with not competing in London. These athletes were able to disengage with their 201246Olympic goal as the selection process unfolded and it became clear to them that they would notmeet the standard. To cope with not meeting the standard, four athletes disengaged entirely frompreviously held sporting goals. After not meeting the standard, Mark explained how disengagingwith performance goals in the event he had attempted to qualify in helped him cope with non-selection:The idea of doing another [event competed in during selection process] was reallydaunting because I was like what if I go and do a really good one?...Probably going tohate myself, so I just needed something different to focus on…if my mindset stayedfocused on [event competed in during selection process] I don’t think I could do that…forthe next year at least I’d be saying “oh I can do that now, why couldn’t I’ve done that sixmonths ago?” It has helped me focus on the future instead of reflecting on the past.For these four athletes, disengagement from goals created distance from both the Olympics and agoal that they had failed to achieve.After the Olympics all participants engaged in new athletic goals. For James and Lisa,this meant engaging in new goals related to the event in which they had competed in during theOlympic selection process. For example, Lisa wished to obtain a personal best at the worldchampionships, set a new Canadian record, and medal at an international competition. Jameswanted to compete well internationally and qualify for the next World championships. Michaeland Mark decided to pursue their sport careers in different events as they perceived this affordedthem better opportunities to make the 2016 Olympic team. Michael explained his decision tochange events in this way:It is a new challenge…I did the math…you know the math from [other competitors]...andit says that I should be pretty good at that event and if I can stay healthy I should be able47to make [standard]. They said I could win a medal [in the new event], like theimplication is once you get good enough…I think I can actually get to the start line in Rio[in the new event].Mark also described after not qualifying how engaging with a goal in a new event helped himshift his focus away from the 2012 Olympics and direct his attention towards what he wanted toachieve in the future:The biggest thing was creating a new goal right away. I had to have something. I hadn’tthought at all after London. So it was really important to get a goal down right away. Ineeded something in place to keep going, otherwise I wasn’t going to be able to keepgoing. I just basically threw down “make Worlds in the [new event]” and that was sort ofmy goal. That is what I am of focusing on now and now I am kind of like it’s a goodgoal, its working! I’m on my way.For Mark, Michael, James, and Lisa, engaging in new goals allowed them to conceptualize theOlympic selection process as a step towards their future sport goals.Engaging in new sport goals assisted Anna, Steven, and Tim in moving on from their2012 Olympic goal. Anna made the decision to retire from her sport after the 2012 Olympicteam selection process was complete; however she felt that she was not done competing at a highlevel. Refocusing on a new sport after her retirement helped to ease this transition. Engagingwith goals in her new sport allowed Anna to maintain a semblance of her former athletic lifewhich included training, competing, and social networks. Anna explained after the qualificationperiod:I love competing and I love testing and pushing my body to see how far it will go andhow fast it will go…I think I still have a lot of unfulfilled potential that maybe has not48manifested itself in [my event] in the last few years but I still think I have the ability andthe drive to be really good at other things, but like I said I’d approach it with morebalance. In terms of [the new sport], I love the challenge of maybe picking up new skillsbecause I’ve been doing the same thing for basically 15 years.After not making the qualification standard, Steven opted to take a break from his primary sport,and three months after the Olympics he had yet to decide whether he would return. During thistime he engaged with new goals in a different sport with the intention of competing at a highlevel, which appeared to allow him to regain a sense of excitement and optimism about sport.Lastly, after competing in the 2012 Olympic Games, Tim engaged in new sport goals whichhelped him to remain motivated and progressing towards the 2016 Olympics in Rio. Timexplained eight months after the Olympics:We have sort of planned [the 2012 Olympics] was step one of two… then there are racesthat get you to the next one so whether I try to aim for a medal at the PanAm games andWorlds and try to be top 8 there, so that by the time you get to Rio you’re in the mix.By contextualizing his first Olympic experience within the broader scope of his athletic career,Tim was able to overcome the letdown after the London Olympics and focus on his future goals.In addition to participants engaging in new sport goals, during the second and thirdinterviews all participants prioritized pursuing goals in other life domains. Participants’ goalsincluded going back to or increasing the amount of time invested in school, starting a new job,reconnecting with family and friends, and investing in romantic relationships. The prioritizationof social and vocational goals contrasted with the period before or during the 2012 Olympicselection process where participants’ accounts emphasized the Olympic goal. Engaging in socialand vocational goals that had been put on hold during the Olympic qualification process49provided a distraction for the athletes as they concentrated on other life domains. Annaexplained how her priorities had shifted after not meeting the qualification standard:I have started going back to school for education but also I have been interviewing for ajob that I really want. If I get the job I am going to drop out of school but if I don’t getthe job I will be in school so basically I am focusing more on career…I would like tohave kids in the next year or two. So those types of priorities that I have put on the backburner for years are going to be more in the forefront and if I can do [new sport] it isgoing to have to fit around my other life goals.Tim also placed importance on goals outside of sport to buffer the effects of “coming down”after competing at the 2012 Olympic Games. He stated after the Olympic Games:Ideally you want to start school right after [the Olympics]…I mean people commonly saythat there is kind of a downward feeling after the Olympics so having something that isthere to keep you motivated is good. So that is why I said “ok 2012 September I need tobe back in school.”Thus, engaging with goals outside of sport was a means to cope with the disappointment of notmaking the Olympic team and, in the case of Tim, the conclusion of the 2012 Olympic Games.Social and vocational identities were central in the participants’ accounts after theOlympic qualification process when they were engaging in non-athletic goals. Participantsbelieved that they were “more than just an athlete” prior to the selection process; however non-athletic identities came to the forefront after the Olympics. For example, James indicated “I seemyself more as a student…athletics are just something exciting that I do on the side and helpswith my resume.” In addition, after the Olympic Games, Anna emphasized social roles whilediminishing the role of sport in her life: “I am going to be a good teacher, parent…a good50daughter, sister, and friend and wife and all of those things that are really important to me…morethan any kind of personal glory that I could have achieved through [sport].” The combination ofathletes fostering multiple identities outside of sport and engaging in meaningful goals in theselife domains mitigated the impact of not competing or “coming down” from competing in the2012 Olympic Games.All of the athletes believed they were progressing towards a sport, vocational, and/orsocial goal at the time of the final interview. The five athletes who were early in their highperformance international careers perceived that they had progressed in their athletic goalsregardless of whether or not they competed in the 2012 Olympic Games. Despite four of theseathletes not meeting the qualifying standard, they believed that their performance in the Olympicqualifying events advanced them towards their new goals by gaining experience, meeting shortterm goals, increasing their funding, and being “noticed” by their national sport organization.Lisa stated after the Olympic Games that:I accomplished the personal goals I wanted in that season and it’s putting me in a reallygreat position for next season…there’s a lot of stuff going on and I think it will be a biggiant step forward for me.These four participants were optimistic about their sport futures and perceived that they weremaking progress towards their ultimate goal of successfully competing in the 2016 Olympics.Comparatively, Steven and Anna, who were later in their athletic careers, did not perceive thatthey were progressing towards their sport career goals. However, they felt that they wereprogressing towards their goals in other life domains (e.g., building a career, finishing school),which gave them a sense of satisfaction.512.4 DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of elite athletes engaging in anOlympic team selection process. Athletes delayed social and vocational goals leading up to the2012 Olympics to achieve their primary goal of making the Olympic team. Becoming anOlympian or reinforcing their Olympian status, which was perceived as a privileged and distinctidentity, would validate the sacrifices they had made for their sport career. Participants wereconfident in their abilities to make the Olympic team; however, perceptions of control over theselection process varied based on the stage of their athletic career. To cope with non-selection,they engaged in a process of reappraisal and goal adjustment while emphasizing the importanceof non-athletic identities.Athletes’ appraisals varied over the course of the Olympic selection process. Forexample, before and during the selection process all athletes indicated that making the 2012Olympic team was their primary goal and thus they all put considerable resources into achievingthat goal. Yet, upon non-selection, the four youngest athletes reappraised the significance ofcompeting at the 2012 Olympic Games within the context of their athletic careers. Evidence ofreappraisal throughout the selection process is consistent with current stress and copingperspectives (see Lazarus, 1991, 1999). These suggest that the appraisal process of a selectionevent is dynamic; reappraisal will follow an earlier appraisal when new information becomesavailable (e.g., selection status; Hanton et al., 2012; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Yet, the twoparticipants who had previously competed in an Olympic games and were later in their career didnot reappraise the significance of the selection process. The significance of the selection processlikely remained salient for these two participants as it was their last opportunity to attempt tocompete in the Olympics. Consistent with Lazarus’s (1999) argument that future expectancies52are a key secondary appraisal factor that influences coping and emotion, this finding suggeststhat future career expectancies will impact whether or not athletes engage in reappraisalprocesses.Regardless of their appraisal of the selection process, all athletes engaged in goalreadjustment. By the final interview, participants had focused on new meaningful goals in sportand other life domains. This finding is consistent with research that has suggested that theprocess of goal readjustment is adaptive when a goal, such as competing in the Olympics, isunattainable (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, & Schulz, 2003a; Wrosch, Scheier, & Miller, 2013).Specifically, athletes emphasized the importance of social and vocational goals following non-selection or after having competed in the Olympic Games. In this way, they attempted todistance themselves from their previous sporting goals to cope with the end of an Olympic cycle.These findings extend the current sport literature by suggesting that goal adjustment, in particularengagement in new meaningful sport, social, and/or vocational goals, may assist athletes inovercoming a difficult sporting experience.Participants provided further evidence of distancing themselves from their athletic rolefollowing non-selection and competing in the Olympic Games. Athletes primarily focused ontheir athletic role prior to knowing their selection status; however their focus shifted toemphasizing social and vocational roles after the Olympics. This finding provides preliminarysupport for research that has suggested that athletes may reduce their athletic identity after non-selection or poor performance as a means of self-protection (Brewer et al., 1999; Grove et al.,2004). However, due to the methodological constraints of the present study it cannot be claimedthat athletes reduced their athletic identity in response to non-selection; rather other social andvocational roles became more central to their accounts after non-selection. That said, the53findings from this study would suggest that a shift in identity centrality coincided withtransference in the importance of goals to those roles which were at the forefront for the athletes.Furthermore, this process was facilitated by athletes identifying with roles outside of sport priorto and during the selection process.Athletes experienced both competition as well as organizational stress during theOlympic team selection process, which is consistent with current literature on stress experiencesin sport (e.g., Arnold et al., 2013; Crocker et al., 2015; Fletcher et al., 2012; Mellalieu et al.,2009). The present findings expand the extant sport literature by suggesting that the degree offamiliarity an athlete has with high performance selection processes will impact the number ofcompetitive and organizational sources of stress he or she expects and experiences. For example,athletes new to the Olympic selection process perceived a high degree of control over theirperformances and outcomes, whereas those who were late in their careers perceived morebarriers to and complications with the selection process. In addition, once the younger athletesgained experience with an Olympic selection process they began to explore the associatedcomplexities. Yet, these athletes who would be experiencing future Olympic selection processesworked to maintain a sense of self-determination over the selection outcome.The findings from the present study have implications for future research examiningselection processes in sport. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Gaudreau et al., 2009; Grove etal., 2004), the majority of existing research that considers selection processes has been conductedwith retrospective and cross-sectional designs (e.g., Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b; Hanton et al.,2005). These designs do not allow for examination of changes that may occur within theselection process and may be susceptible to distortions in memory and recall bias (Alfermann &Stambulova, 2007). A strength of this study was the prospective longitudinal approach to54understanding psychological change occurring in athletes during an Olympic selection process.Indeed, this study reveals that the athletes experienced changes in identity, appraisals, and goalswhich provided further evidence for the necessity to use longitudinal designs when studyingselection processes. Furthermore, the findings suggest that it is important to consider athletes’experiences with a selection process from a holistic perspective by taking into account lifedomains outside of sport and how they interact to influence identity, adaptation, and copingprocesses.It is important for practitioners to be mindful that selection processes are meaningfulevents for athletes which cause stress. Since non-selection may cause changes in athletes’ sport,social, and vocational lives and trigger strong emotion responses, they may require resourcesfollowing non-selection to a major event such as the Olympics despite not competing.Practitioners should also encourage athletes to diversify their identities and goals prior toselection events as it is likely easier for them to move on from the event by engaging in newmeaningful goals in other life domains. This would be a proactive strategy to cope with non-selection or ‘coming down’ after a significant event, and would allow athletes to experience asense of goal progress.Future research should address selection processes in athletes who participate ininterdependent sports. It is likely that these selection processes may not have as clearly definedstandards and thus their experiences may differ (Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2015).Researchers should also explore changes in and the relationship between cognitive appraisal,goal adjustment, and identity in a larger sample to determine if these findings generalize to otherelite athletes. Additionally, future research is needed to understand how the Olympian identity is55constructed, how and why it is perceived to be distinct and prestigious, and its social andpersonal implications.56Table 2.1Participant DemographicsCharacteristicParticipant(N = 7)Cultural OriginCanadian 5English 2Italian 1Spanish 1Mexican 1Marital StatusSingle/Never married 6Married/Common Law 1Level of EducationSome University 2University degree 3Some graduate 1Graduate degree 1IncomeUnder $15 000 1$15 000-$30 000 4$31 000-$50 000 1Over $75 000 1Years of Previous International Competition Experience1 14 211 312 157CharacteristicParticipant(N = 7)Years on Senior National Team3-6 47-10 211-14 1Previous Olympics Attempted to Qualify for0 41 3Number of Olympics Previously Competed in0 51 2Note. Participants were permitted to indicate as many cultural origins that they identified with.582.5 Bridging SummaryThe qualitative inquiry used in study one allowed for an in-depth exploration of Olympichopefuls’ experience with the Olympic team selection process. This approach had severaladvantages including a) being able to gain insight into how participants described and madesense of their personal experiences with the selection process; b) consideration of the context inwhich the phenomena occurred; and c) using an idiographic approach that allowed for in-depthdescription of individual experiences (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The findings from studyone suggested that athletes experienced changes in identity, appraisals, emotions, and goals inrelation to the 2012 Olympic Games selection process.The purpose of study two was to examine if components of the stress process changed inrelation to the CSG tryout as well as the relationship between selection status and intrapersonaland interpersonal differences in stress processes. Thus, study two was designed to build offstudy one’s findings by examining whether the changes in the components of the stress processthat were identified in the first study could be generalized to a more diverse sample and adifferent team selection context. Sampling athletes with varied sport backgrounds has recentlybeen advocated for to be able generalize findings to a broader population when examiningdifferences in their stress experiences (Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2015). In study two, overone hundred competitive development athletes who varied in their sport types (e.g., individual,team) and who were required to meet a variety of selection criteria were sampled in relation tothe 2013 Canada Summer Games team selection process. Changes in athletes’ stress processesand differences between athletes were quantified to examine general patterns in the data.59Chapter 3: Study Two3.1 IntroductionTeam selection processes are stressful sport experiences for many athletes (Arnold &Fletcher, 2012; Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2015; Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005) andmay impact the quality of athletes’ sport engagement and affective experiences (Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a; Gaudreau, Amiot, & Vallerand, 2009).  Although athletes have consistentlycited factors (e.g., unfair selection procedures) related to team selection as a source ofcompetitive and organizational stress (see Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Fletcher, Hanton, &Wagstaff, 2012; Greenleaf, Gould, & Dieffenbach, 2001; Hanton et al., 2005; Mellalieu, Neil,Hanton, & Fletcher, 2009; Woodman & Hardy, 2001), we know very little about how athletes’stress experiences differ and change as a result of being selected or not selected to a team(Arnold & Fletcher, 2012). Being selected or not selected for a major sporting event is likely tohave a major impact on a developmental athlete’s life. The present study examined changes inspecific stress and adaptational processes including cognitive appraisals, emotions, coping, sportengagement, athletic goal progress, and life satisfaction in relation to the selection process for theCanada Summer Games (CSG).3.1.1 Cognitive appraisals.Sport researchers have frequently employed Lazarus’ (Lazarus, 1991, 1999) cognitive-motivational-relational framework (CMR) to explore stress processes in sport (see Crocker,Tamminen, & Gaudreau, 2015; Nicholls & Polman, 2007).  The CMR posits that psychologicalstress and emotion are a result of dynamic person-environment relationships (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). From this perspective, a key component in the stress process is how an athleteinterprets or appraises a situation, such as a team selection process.  Appraisals can be classified60into co-occurring primary and secondary appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primaryappraisal is when athletes evaluate the personal relevance of the stressor in relation to their goals,world views, values, situational objectives, and well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus,2000).  Of particular relevance to sport team selection processes are threat, challenge, andcentrality primary appraisals. Athletes will appraise a selection process as threatening if theybelieve it to have potential harm or loss (e.g., losing social status if not selected).  In contrast,athletes will evaluate a selection process as a challenge if they perceive the outcome to beassociated with benefits (e.g., an opportunity to compete at the Canada Summer Games).Athletes will also interpret the importance of the selection process in relation to their well-being.Secondary appraisals are related to athletes’ perceptions of control and availability of copingoptions.Researchers have suggested that athletes may appraise the same selection processdifferently (Munroe, Albinson, & Hall, 1999) and reappraise the selection process when newinformation becomes available (Fletcher et al., 2012; Hanton, Wagstaff, & Fletcher, 2012;Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).  For example, first year athletes who were not selected for theiruniversity team identified a mixture of controllable and uncontrollable reasons for not makingthe team (Munroe et al., 1999).  Moreover, Hanton and colleagues (2012) found that an athletewho had perceived a selection process as unfair later reappraised their non-selection as achallenge to make the team in the future. Recently there has been a call to further understandappraisal processes in relation to stressful team selection events (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012;Fletcher et al., 2012; Gaudreau et al., 2009).  Furthermore, researchers have yet to uselongitudinal designs that capture both interpersonal differences and intrapersonal change in61appraisals over a selection event and thus reflect the dynamic nature of the appraisal process(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).3.1.2 Coping.Athletes’ appraisals of a selection process should also influence their engagement incoping (Aldwin, 1994; Lazarus, 1999).  Coping is a central component to managing stressfulchange events in sport (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Lazarus, 1999, 2000) and has beendefined as “all effortful cognitions and behaviours an athlete employs to manage constantlychanging perceived important adaptation challenges” (Crocker, Tamminen, & Gaudreau, 2015,p. 30). Although there are many ways to classify coping, task-oriented coping involves usingcoping efforts to directly target a stressful situation, whereas disengagement-oriented copinginvolves mentally and/or physically disengaging from a stressful situation (Gaudreau & Blondin,2002, 2004b, 2008). Research has demonstrated that there are intrapersonal changes andinterpersonal differences in athletes’ use of task- and disengagement-oriented coping across andwithin sport competitions (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004a; Gaudreau, Nicholls, & Levy, 2010;Louvet, Gaudreau, Menaut, Genty, & Deneuve, 2007).  Despite team selection processes havingbeen identified as a stressful sport experience (e.g., Arnold et al., 2015), researchers have yet toexamine athletes’ use of coping efforts, how these efforts change over time, and differencesbetween athletes in these efforts in relation to the outcome of team selection processes.3.1.3 Emotion.Emotion experience is also central to understanding stress processes in sport (Lazarus,2000).  Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) posited that negative change events (e.g., non-selection)would be associated with negative affect, while positive change events (e.g., selection to a team)would be related to positive affect in athletes. These hypotheses were partially supported by62Gaudreau and colleagues (2009) in a study of elite adolescent hockey players who wereattempting to make the top amateur hockey teams in their province.  Positive and negative affectwere observed during team training camps (team selection period), after athletes became awareof their selection status, and two months after the completion of the team selection period. Thisresearch reported that only two of the six types of affect trajectories were influenced by selectionstatus.  Specifically, athletes who started the season with medium positive affect experienced asignificant decline in positive affect after non-selection.  Furthermore, athletes who had highnegative affect at the first time point and were not selected had a significant increase in negativeaffect, whereas selected athletes’ negative affect decreased after the selection process.  Takentogether, these findings suggested that not all athletes were equally impacted by non-selection(Gaudreau et al., 2009).  However, Gaudreau and colleagues (2009) examined general positiveand negative affect and did not explore specific emotions related to the selection process.Theorists have called for the examination of discrete emotion states as opposed to generalpositive or negative emotions (see Lazarus, 2000) in relation to sport events (Jones, Lange, Bray,Uphill, & Catlin, 2005).  Specifically, the emotions of anger, dejection, and happiness may be ofparticular relevance to selection processes.  Lazarus (1999) suggested anger would beexperienced when an event was perceived as a demeaning offense towards the individual, whichmight increase in non-selected athletes after learning that they did not meet the team’s standards.Happiness and dejection are emotions related to the athlete’s goal progress, which is pertinentwhen examining how the outcome of a team selection process affects athletes.  Specifically,athletes will experience happiness when they perceive that they are “making reasonable progresstowards the realization of a goal” (Lazarus, 1999, p. 96) and dejection when they believe thatthey are not “making sufficient progress to achieve a meaningful goal, or following actual or63perceived failure to achieve a meaningful goal” (Jones et al., 2005, p. 411).  The frequency,intensity, and duration with which athletes experience dejection and anger in sport has beenpositively correlated with stress related to team selection processes, although happiness showedno significant association (Arnold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2013).  These findings are limited in thatthey are based on cross-sectional methods and were unrelated to the outcome of a specificselection event.  Further research is required to determine how athletes respond to being selectedor not selected to a significant selection event.3.1.4 Quality of athletic engagement and life satisfaction.An athlete’s ability to adapt to the outcome of a stressful selection process may impacthis or her quality of sport engagement (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a).  For example, researchsuggests that athletes will reduce how much they identify with the athletic role after anunsuccessful selection process to protect their self-concept (Grove, Fish, & Eklund, 2004).Strong athletic identity (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993) has also been associated withemotional distress and appraisals of significance in the context of selection processes (Brown &Potrac, 2009; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011b). However, athletic identity has only been examinedin relation to team selection outcomes at a group level and thus additional research is required toexplore intrapersonal changes.  In addition to the quality of athletic engagement, the outcome ofa selection process could also impact other dimensions of an athlete’s life (Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a) resulting in a perturbation in life satisfaction.  In a sample of athletes, task-and disengagement-oriented coping have both been associated with changes in life satisfactionwith goal attainment mediating the relationships (Gaudreau & Antl, 2008).  Further explorationof how the outcome of a team selection process is related to changes in athletes’ use of coping,perceptions of sport goal progress, and life satisfaction is warranted.64Team selection processes have been consistently identified by athletes as a source ofstress that could impact the quality of their athletic engagement (Grove et al., 2004; Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a) and affective experiences (Gaudreau et al., 2009).  Despite these findings,we know very little about how athletes’ stress experiences change in relation to the outcome of asignificant selection process.  Furthermore, researchers have primarily used cross-sectionaland/or retrospective designs to study selection processes (e.g., Arnold et al., 2015; Brown &Potrac, 2009).  These study designs are theoretically incongruent with current stress and copingperspectives (Lazarus, 1999) which treat stress processes as dynamic and changing. As a result,sport stress and coping researchers have advocated for research designs that can captureinterpersonal as well intrapersonal effects (Crocker, Mosewich, Kowalski, & Besenski, 2010).The present study sought to address these gaps in the literature by examining components of thestress process over time in relation to an important team selection event and by using multilevelmodeling to explore patterns of intrapersonal change and interpersonal differences in theseprocesses.3.1.5 The Canada Summer Games.The Canada Summer Games (CSG) is a multisport development event that occurs everyfour years. It receives significant government funding and media attention within Canada.Athletes are selected to represent their home province at the games and many are considered tobe the best junior athletes in Canada.  The junior period has been identified as a critical period inathletic development where talented athletes often transition out of sport (Stambulova et al.,2009).  Indeed, the CSG selection process may represent a critical event that could affect thequality of sport engagement in talented development athletes.  Consequently, the CSG tryouts65provided a context to explore stress processes over time in relation to the outcome of asignificant selection process.3.1.6 Purpose and hypotheses.The purpose of this study was to examine: a) if cognitive appraisals, emotions, coping,athletic goal progress, life satisfaction, and quality of athletic engagement changed over thecourse of the CSG selection process; b) the relationship between selection status andintrapersonal change in stress processes; and c) the association between selection status anddifferences in athletes’ stress processes after they became aware of their selection status.  Toaddress these aims, a three-wave prospective longitudinal design was employed where variableswere measured prior to final selection events and one and five weeks after athletes’ becameaware of their selection status.Non-selected athletes were anticipated to perceive the selection outcome as a harm orloss, with threat appraisals expected to increase in these athletes. Non-selected status scores onthreat appraisal were hypothesized to be higher at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels.Challenge appraisals were expected to decrease in non-selected athletes, as it was expected thatthey would perceive less opportunity for future gains from the selection process. Thus, non-selected status was hypothesized to have lower challenge appraisal scores at both theintrapersonal and interpersonal levels.  Centrality appraisals for non-selected athletes wereexpected to decline as it was anticipated they would distance themselves from failing to make theteam and reappraise the selection process as having less of an effect on their well-being. Non-selected status would score lower on centrality appraisals at both the intrapersonal andinterpersonal levels.  For control appraisals, it was hypothesized that selected status scores would66be higher than non-selected scores at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels, as it wasanticipated that non-selected athletes would perceive less control over the selection outcome.As disengagement-oriented coping is commonly associated with lower control and higherthreat appraisals (see Nicholls, Polman, & Levy, 2012), athletes were anticipated to use moredisengagement-oriented coping strategies when they had non-selected status at both theintrapersonal and interpersonal levels. In contrast, it was hypothesized that athletes with non-selected status at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels would engage in less task-oriented coping as these strategies are typically related to higher control and challenge appraisals(see Nicholls et al., 2012).  It was also expected that there would be significant proportions ofvariance at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels of task- and disengagement-coping(Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004a; Gaudreau et al., 2010; Louvet et al., 2007).Theorists have suggested that positive change-events will be associated with positiveemotions and negative change-events will be related to negative emotions (Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a).  As such, athletes who were not selected were expected to experience anincrease in anger in relation to the CSG tryouts after non-selection, as it was anticipated that theywould be more likely to perceive a personal offense against them.  This would result in notselected status having higher anger scores compared to selected status at both the intrapersonaland interpersonal levels. Non-selected athletes were expected to experience an increase indejection and a decrease in happiness in relation to the CSG tryouts after not being selected, asthey likely had not progressed towards their selection goals.  This would result in non-selectedstatus having higher dejection scores and lower happiness scores compared to selected status atboth the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels.67It was anticipated that when athletes had selected status they would score higher on sportgoal progress than non-selected status at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels.Indicators of athletic engagement (athletic identity and sport commitment) were expected todecrease for non-selected athletes after they became aware of their selection status (Grove et al.,2004).  This would result in non-selected status having lower athletic identity and sportcommitment scores compared to selected status at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels.No specific hypotheses were made for the relation between life satisfaction and selection status.3.2 Method3.2.1 Participants.One hundred seventy-eight Canadian athletes who attempted to represent their provinceor territory [Ontario (17.4%), Saskatchewan (15.7%), British Columbia (13.5%), Prince EdwardIsland (11.8%), Alberta (11.7%), Manitoba (10.7%), New Brunswick (7.3%), Nova Scotia(6.2%), Newfoundland and Labrador (5.1%), Northwest Territories (0.6%)] at the 2013 CanadaSummer Games (CGS) participated in the first phase of the study.  Athletes [Caucasian (96.2%),Aboriginal (1.3%), Black (1.3%), Chinese (.6%) Southeast Asian (.6%)] were 56.1% female andranged in age between 14-22 years old (Mage = 17.88 years, SD = 1.89) upon completion of thefirst questionnaire.  Athletes from a variety of sports were attempting to make their provincialCSG team in athletics (25.3%), baseball (9.0%), basketball (1.7%), beach volleyball (.6%), canoekayak (5.1%), cycling (3.4%), diving (2.2%), fencing (2.2%), golf (2.8%), indoor volleyball(7.9%), rowing (10.7%), mountain biking (1.7%), sailing (3.9%), soccer (3.9%), softball (8.4%),swimming (.6%), triathlon (6.2%), and wrestling (4.5%).  The majority of participants had nottried out for (n = 34 previously tried out; n = 144 first time trying out) or competed in a previousCSG (n = 22 had competed; n = 156 had not competed).  Selection status was obtained for 13768(nselected = 102; nnot selected = 35) participants who completed questionnaires at the second and/orthird time point (ntime1 = 178 participants; ntime2 = 115 participants; ntime3 = 101 participants).3.2.2 Measures.3.2.2.1 Demographic information. Demographic information collected at the first timepoint included the date, date(s) of CSG tryouts, date of birth, email addresses (to contactparticipants at subsequent time points), gender, ethnic origin, CSG sport and event(s), provinceor territory representing, history of previous CSG tryouts and participation, and when the athletesbecame aware of their CSG selection status.  Demographic information collected at the secondand third time points, to match participants to their initial survey, included date of birth, emailaddresses, gender, CSG sport and event(s), and province or territory.  In addition, athletes’ CSGteam selection status was obtained.3.2.2.2 Cognitive appraisal. The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM; Peacock & Wong,1990) examined athletes’ appraisals of the CSG selection process.  Five subscales of the SAM,consisting of 20-items, captured dimensions of primary and secondary appraisals.  Two subscalesmeasured relational meaning, threat (e.g., “Will the outcome of this situation be negative?”) andchallenge (e.g., “How eager am I to tackle this problem?”).  In addition, the centrality subscale(e.g., “How much will I be affected by the outcome of this situation?”) indicated the extent towhich athletes perceived the CSG tryouts to be an important event for their well-being.  Thesecondary appraisal dimensions were comprised of controllable-by-self (control; e.g., “Do I havethe ability to do well in this situation?”) and uncontrollable-by-anyone (uncontrollable; e.g., “Isthis a totally hopeless situation?”) subscales.  All subscales consisted of four items and wererated on a 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely) scale.  Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the SAM havebeen reported to range from .74 to .90 (Peacock & Wong, 1990).69Participants were asked to respond to the SAM based on their thoughts about the CSGtryouts at the time of questionnaire completion.  Items on the SAM were originally worded foranticipatory stress (Peacock & Wong, 1990) and thus items were adapted at the second and thirdtime points to reflect a past tense sentence structure (e.g., “How eager am I to tackle thisproblem?” was adapted to “How eager was I to tackle this problem?” at the second and thirdsurvey).  This adaptation reflected the timing of when the participants completed the differentsurveys in relation to their selection process.3.2.2.3 Emotions. Anger (four items), dejection (five items), and happiness (four items)were measured using the Sport Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ; Jones, Lange, Bray, Uphill, &Catlin, 2005).  For each item, participants were asked to rate how they felt “right now, at thismoment, in relation to trying out for the Canada Summer Games” on a 5-point Likert-type scalethat ranged from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Extremely).  Jones et al., (2005) found acceptable reliability(Cronbach’s alpha = .81-.90), model fit, and criterion validity for the SEQ.3.2.2.4 Coping. Task-oriented (23 items) and disengagement-oriented (eight items)coping were measured with the English version of the Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport(CICS; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002).  Eight subscales were used to represent different copingstrategies.  Participants were asked to respond to items on a scale from 1 (does not correspond atall) to 5 (corresponds very strongly).  Subscales were categorized into a hierarchical structurethat included the two dimensions of task-oriented and disengagement-oriented coping (Gaudreau& Antl, 2008; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004; 2008).  Task-oriented coping included thought control(four items; e.g., “I tried to get rid of my doubts by thinking positively”), mental imagery (fouritems; e.g., “I visualized that I was in total control of the situation”), relaxation (four items; e.g.,“I tried to relax my body”), effort expenditure (three items; e.g., “I gave a relentless effort”),70logical analysis (four items; e.g., “I analyzed the demands of the tryout”), and seeking support(four items; e.g., “I asked other athletes for advice”) subscales.  The disengagement/resignation(four items; e.g., “I let myself feel hopeless and discouraged”) and venting of emotion (fouritems; e.g., “I expressed my frustrations”) subscales were categorized under disengagement-oriented coping.  Adequate reliability for the CICS has been demonstrated with Cronbach’s alphacoefficients ranging from .67 and .87 in both the subscale and higher order models (Gaudreau &Blondin, 2002; Gaudreau et al., 2010; Nicholls et al., 2012).The CICS was designed to assess temporal phases within a sport competition as well asacross sport situations (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002).  In this study, the CICS was adapted todirect athletes to respond in relation to the CSG tryout as opposed to a sport competition.  TheCICS at the first time point reflected coping strategies athletes employed leading up to the CSGtryouts.  At the second time point, athletes were asked the extent to which they used copingstrategies to deal with the outcome of the CSG tryouts, and at the third time point, athletesreported on the strategies they had used to cope with the outcome of the CSG tryouts within thelast week.3.2.2.5 Athletic goal progress. Athletic goal progress was measured at all three timepoints using a questionnaire created by Dugas, Gaudreau, and Carraro (2012).  The instrumentconsisted of five items (e.g., “you came closer to reaching your athletic goals”) with responsesranging from 1 (Not at all) to 9 (Totally).  Dugas and colleagues (2012) provided evidence thatthe scale had adequate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .98) and factorial validity.  The stems wereadapted to reflect when the athletes completed the questionnaire in relation to the CSG selectionprocess (time one: “Leading up to the Canada Summer Games Tryouts”; time two: “Based on the71outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts”; and time three: “Since the Canada SummerGames Tryouts”).3.2.2.6 Athletic identity. The extent to which participants identified with the role of anathlete was measured at all three time points using the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale(AIMS; Brewer & Cornelius, 2001).  The AIMS consisted of seven-items (e.g., “Sport is themost important part of my life”), which had been shortened from its original version (Brewer etal., 1993).  Participants indicated the extent of their agreement with the items on a scale rangingfrom 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).  The AIMS has demonstrated adequatereliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .81; Brewer & Cornelius, 2001).3.2.2.7 Sport commitment. Sport commitment reflects athletes’ desire and resolve tocontinue athletic participation (Scanlan, Simons, Carpenter, Schmidt, & Keeler, 1993).  Sportcommitment was assessed using a four-item (e.g., How dedicated are you to playing yoursport?”) five point Likert-type subscale from an instrument that was developed to assessdifferent components of the Sport Commitment Model (Scanlan et al., 1993).  At all three timepoints, participants were asked to rate their commitment to the CSG sport in which they had triedout.  Previous research has shown that the sport commitment subscale has demonstrated adequatereliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .89) and factor validity (Scanlan et al., 1993).3.2.2.8 Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Pavot & Diener,1993) measured participants’ evaluations of their life as a whole.  The SWLS consisted of five-items (e.g., “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”) on a Likert-type scale with itemresponses ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The SWLS has demonstratedadequate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .79 - .89) over the course of several studies (Pavot &72Diener, 1993) and it has been previously used in sport contexts (e.g., Gaudreau & Antl, 2008).The SWLS was administered at all three time points.3.2.3 Procedures.Ethical approval was obtained from the researchers’ University Behavioural ResearchEthics board.  Approximately 400 gatekeepers (e.g., coaches and administrators withinprovincial sport organizations whose contact information was found on provincial sportorganization websites) were contacted via email and/or by telephone.  Gatekeepers who agreedto assist with the study distributed the study information to CSG hopefuls, which included a linkto the first online survey.  Athletes were also recruited through posters placed in athletic facilitiesand physiotherapy clinics.Participation entailed the completion of three online-surveys which included thepreviously described measures.  Online surveys were used to maximize representation of CSGhopefuls from across Canada.  Participants completed the first questionnaire package prior totheir final selection event. They received the link to the second online questionnaire within aweek of gaining knowledge of their 2013 CSG selection status.  As a result, athletes completedthe second questionnaire approximately one to three weeks after they became aware of theirselection status. The timing of when the athletes would receive knowledge of their selectionstatus was triangulated for accuracy by using participants’ reported selection dates from the firstdemographic questionnaire, information from coaches and sport administrators, and selectiondates published on websites.  The third questionnaire package was provided to participants onemonth following the completion of the second time point questionnaire.733.2.3.1 Data analysis.3.2.3.1.1 Data screening. Data were screened for missing responses at the item level foreach time point.  Less than 5% of the data were missing at the item level and medianreplacement was used when participants had 50% or more item responses on a subscale(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).  Missing responses at the occasion level within participants (e.g., aparticipant missing data at time two) were estimated with full information maximum likelihood(Baraldi & Enders, 2010) in the multilevel model analyses described below.  To be able toconduct these analyses, however, all data were required for predictors. Thus, only participantswhose selection statuses (selected or not selected) were reported at either time two or three wereincluded in the multilevel analyses.  As a result, the final sample included 137 participants (nfemale = 78; n male = 59).Data normality were examined through a combination of histograms, box plots, normalQ-Q plots, skewness, kurtosis, Komogorov-Smirnov normality tests, and investigating outliers(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).  Scores on measures that departed from normality weretransformed and normality was re-examined.  None of the transformed variables demonstratedsignificant improvements in their distribution and thus the data were left untransformed.Cronbach’s alphas and descriptive statistics were computed for each subscale.3.2.3.1.2 Multilevel models. Multilevel models were analyzed using Hierarchical LinearModeling 7 (HLM; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2013) to examine the effect of selectionstatus on threat, challenge, centrality, control, and uncontrollable appraisals, dejection, anger,happiness, task- and disengagement-oriented coping, goal progress, athletic identity, sportcommitment, and life satisfaction.  Multilevel modeling offered several advantages including: a)using all available data to handle missing observations at the intrapersonal level (e.g.,74participants could be included if they completed time one and reported selection status at eithertime two and/or three); b) exploration of intrapersonal change and interpersonal differences; c)linear growth rate and intercept were calculated for each participant; d) time and intercepts weremodeled at the intrapersonal level as random or fixed effects; e) intraclass correlations werecalculated; and f) no assumptions made of data being collected at the same time, sphericity, anddata being missing completely at random (Hox, 2010; McCoach & Kaniskan, 2010; Quené &Van den Bergh, 2004).  Multilevel analyses closely followed the procedures suggested byMcCoach and Kaniskan (2010) for modeling an event (e.g., selection versus non-selection) as atime-varying covariate.  All models were estimated using full information maximum likelihoodto determine: a) the proportion of variance that was distributed at the intrapersonal andinterpersonal levels on each variable; b) if athletes scores on the dependent variables changedover the course of a selection process; c) the relationship between intrapersonal differences in thedependent variables and selection status; and d) if selection status explained interpersonaldifferences in the dependent variables after athletes became aware of whether they were selectedto the CSG or not.Unconditional means models were first estimated for each variable to determine thedistribution of variance that could be attributed to intrapersonal and interpersonal levels bycalculating intraclass correlations (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).  Next, the full model was built totest the hypotheses.  Time was entered into the model at level one and coded such that theintercept was at time two (time one = -1; time two = 0; time three = 1).  Coding for the interceptat time two allowed for exploration of differences in athletes’ responses after becoming aware oftheir selection status, which was of primary interest in this study.  The intercept and lineargrowth were both estimated as random effects, which allowed each athlete to have a unique75intercept and rate of growth (Hox, 2010; McCoach & Kaniskan, 2010). Selection status wasentered into the models as a time-varying covariate (TVC) to examine the relationship betweenselection status and intrapersonal differences in the dependent variables.  To capture this effect,the athletes who were selected (time one = 0; time two = 1; time three = 1) and not selected (timeone = 0; time two = 0; time three = 0) were coded such that all participants had a status of beingnot selected at time one and time two and three represented change or no change in theirselection status.  Similar TVC coding schemes have been used in previous research (Gaudreau etal., 2009; McCoach & Kaniskan, 2010).  Based on preliminary examinations of the data (e.g.,individual trajectories, means, differences in model fit) selection status was treated as a persistenteffect.  It was not possible to estimate the TVC as a random effect since there were only threeobservations per person in the study (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).  Thus, the TVC was estimated asa fixed effect.  To explore interpersonal variability in the dependent variables one week afterathletes became aware of whether they were selected or not, selection status was entered as apredictor of the intercept.  Selection status was dummy coded (not selected = 0; selected = 1) andentered into the model at level two.The full model was estimated using the following equation:Level-1 ModelDependent Variableti = π0i + π1i*(TIMEti) + π2i*(TVCti) + etiLevel-2 Modelπ0i = β00 + β01*(Selection Statusi) + r0iπ1i = β10 + r1iπ2i = β20The subscript i represented the individual and t signified time.  Also, i specified that the modelestimated a unique intercept and growth curve for each athlete in the study.  The coefficients π0i,76π1i, and π2i in the level one model represented an individual’s intercept, linear growth rate, and anindividual’s i selection status at time t.  The coefficient eti denoted the residual of an athlete i’sdependent variable score at time t from their predicted score (level one variance).  At level two,β00 was the intercept, which indicated the average score on the dependent variable for non-selected athletes at time two controlling for all other variables in the model.  The effect ofinterpersonal selection status was represented by the coefficient β01, which indicated thedifferential in the average score of the dependent variable at time two between selected and non-selected athletes controlling for all other variables in the model.  The coefficient β10 representedthe average change rate of the dependent variable after controlling for all other variables in themodel.  Intrapersonal selection status was indicated by the coefficient β20 and was the differentialin the dependent variable between selected status and not selected status controlling for all othervariables in the model.  The random effects in the model were denoted by the coefficients r0i andr1i and indicated the deviation across athletes at time two and the linear growth rate aftercontrolling for all other variables in the model.3.3 Results3.3.1 Preliminary analyses.Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for study variables are reported inTable 3.1.3.3.2 Multilevel model results.Intraclass correlations (ICC) were computed for each variable to determine the proportionof intrapersonal and interpersonal variance (see Table 3.2).  For emotions, analyses indicated that59%, 57%, and 55% of the variability in athletes’ feelings of dejection, anger, and happinesswere associated with interpersonal variance, whereas 41%, 43%, and 45% were attributed to77intrapersonal variance.  Analyses for appraisals indicated that 54%, 59%, 62%, 61%, and 51% ofthe variability in athletes’ threat, challenge, centrality, control, and uncontrollable appraisalswere related to interpersonal variance, while 46%, 41%, 38%, 39%, and 49% were associatedwith intrapersonal variance.  For coping, 62% and 67% of the variability in athletes’ task- anddisengagement-oriented coping was attributed to interpersonal variance, while 38% and 33% wasrelated to intrapersonal variance.  Lastly, 48%, 69%, 65%, and 74% of the variance in athletes’perceptions of sport goal progress, life satisfaction, athletic identity, and sport commitment wasassociated with interpersonal differences, as opposed to 52%, 31%, 35%, and 26% attributed tointrapersonal variance.  All models suggested that selection status could explain variance atintrapersonal and interpersonal levels.3.3.2.1 Cognitive appraisals. Coefficients for all cognitive appraisal multilevel modelscan be found in Table 3.3.3.3.2.1.1 Threat appraisals. Results suggested that on average, athletes’ threat appraisalsdid not significantly change over the course of the study (β10 = .03, p > .05).  On average therewas not a significant difference in intrapersonal threat appraisals between the statuses of selectedand not selected (β20 = -.15, p > .05).  Time and intrapersonal selection status accounted for 28%of the variance at level one.At level two, non-selected athletes’ average scores of threat appraisal one week afterbecoming aware of their non-selection was significantly different than zero (β00 = 2.33, p <.001).  Selection status did significantly predict differences in inter-athlete scores of threatappraisal at time two (β01 = -.50, p < .01) with selected athletes on average scoring lower onthreat appraisal with a predicted value of 1.83.  This effect explained an additional 9% of thevariance at level two.  The variance components for both the intercept and slope were significant78(p < .001) suggesting that there remained unexplained variance as to why athletes differed inthreat appraisals at time two and in their growth curves after selection status was controlled.The findings only partially supported hypotheses made about athletes’ threat appraisals.Level one results did not support hypotheses as, on average, athletes’ appraisals of harm or lossassociated with the CSG tryout remained stable throughout the study and intrapersonaldifferences in selection status did not significantly explain their appraisals.  These findingsindicated that on average athletes did not reappraise the degree to which the CSG tryout wasthreatening after becoming aware of their selection status.  However, athletes who were notselected did appraise the CSG selection process to be more threatening than selected athletes,which supported the level two hypothesis.3.3.2.1.2 Challenge appraisals. On average, athletes’ challenge appraisals significantlydecreased between two consecutive observations when controlling for selection status (β10 = -.31,p < .001).  There was a significant effect of selection status on intrapersonal perceptions ofchallenge appraisals (β20 = .25, p < .05).  This effect specified that on average when athletes hada selected status, they scored higher on challenge appraisals than not selected status.  Time andintrapersonal selection status accounted for 25% of the level one variance in challengeappraisals.At level two, selection status did not predict interpersonal differences in athletes’challenge appraisal scores one week after the CSG team was determined (β01 = .21, p > .05)when the rest of the variables in the model were controlled.  The addition of selection status atlevel two only explained 2.6% of the variance.  The average challenge appraisal score forathletes who were not selected was 3.32 and was significantly different than zero (β00 = 3.32, p <.001).  Significant variance components for the intercept and linear slope (p < .05) suggested79there remained unexplained deviation across athletes on these effects after controlling forselection status.The findings only partially supported challenge appraisal hypotheses.  Level one findingssupported hypotheses as, on average, athletes’ appraisals of challenge in relation to the CSGselection process decreased during the study and intrapersonal differences in selection status didsignificantly explain their appraisals.  These findings indicated that on average athletesreappraised the challenge associated with the CSG tryout to be less after becoming aware of theirselection status and this effect was stronger for non-selected athletes.  Conversely, aftercontrolling for intrapersonal differences in selection status, selected and non-selected athletes didnot differ in challenge appraisals one week after learning their selection status, which did notsupport the level two hypothesis.3.3.2.1.3 Centrality appraisals. The average centrality appraisals score for not selectedathletes at time two was significantly different than zero (β00 = 2.96, p < .001) and there wassignificant unexplained variance (p < .05) in athletes’ scores after controlling for selection status.Contrary to expectations, selection status did not have a significant effect on athletes’ centralityappraisals at the intra- or interpersonal levels.  In addition, on average, athletes’ centralityappraisals remained stable throughout the three time points as the linear slope was notsignificant.  Time and intrapersonal selection status explained 17% of the variance at level one,whereas the addition of selection status at level two only accounted for 1% of the variance.3.3.2.1.4 Control appraisals. Two models assessed athletes’ interpretations of theamount of control they had over the outcome of the selection process.  On average, athletesperceived that they had significantly less control over the selection process as the studyprogressed when selection status was controlled (β10 Control Appraisal = -.20, p < .001).  However, on80average, athletes’ appraisals that the selection process was uncontrollable did not significantlyincrease (β10 Uncontrollable Appraisal = .10, p > .05).  Intrapersonal selection status was significant forboth control (β20 = .22, p < .05) and uncontrollable (β20 = -.21, p < .001) appraisals, indicatingthat when athletes had selected status they scored higher in control appraisals and lower inuncontrollable appraisals than not selected status.  Time and intrapersonal selection statusaccounted for 9% and 12% of the variance in the control and uncontrollable appraisal models.At level two, not selected athletes’ scores on control (β00 = 3.54, p < .001) anduncontrollable (β00 = 1.98, p < .001) appraisals one week after becoming aware of their selectionstatus were significantly different than zero.  Furthermore, selected athletes’ predicted averagecontrol appraisal score of 3.95 was significantly higher (β01 = .41, p < .01) and the uncontrollableappraisal score of 1.65 was significantly lower (β01 = -.33, p < .05) than non-selected athletes attime two.  These effects explained an additional 7% in the control appraisal model and 6% in theuncontrollable appraisal model at level two.  The variance components for linear slope of timewere non-significant in both models suggesting that the rate of change over time was uniformamongst athletes when selection status was controlled.  Variance components for both interceptsindicated that there was significant variance (p < .05) to still be explained in the models for whyathletes varied on control and uncontrollable appraisals at time two after controlling for selectionstatus and time.All control appraisal hypotheses were supported.  The data revealed that when athletesgained selected status they perceived having more control over the CSG tryout.  Selected athletesalso had higher perceptions of control over the CSG selection process after becoming aware oftheir selection status compared to non-selected athletes.  Lastly, athletes’ appraisals of control81decreased over the course of the study, suggesting that on average athletes reappraised theamount of control they had over the CSG tryout.3.3.2.2 Emotions. Coefficients for all emotion multilevel analyses are displayed in Table3.4.3.3.2.2.1 Dejection and happiness. The findings indicated that on average, athletes’emotion states of dejection significantly increased (β10 = .23, p < .001) and emotion states ofhappiness significantly decreased (β10 = -.39, p < .001) over the course of the study whencontrolling for selection status.  Intrapersonal selection status had a significant effect on bothdejection (β20 = -.40, p < .001) and happiness (β20 = 1.07, p < .001), suggesting that on averagewhen athletes had selected status, they scored significantly lower on dejection and significantlyhigher on happiness than not selected status.  Time and intrapersonal selection status accountedfor 9% and 37% of the variance in dejection and happiness at level one.The average dejection and happiness scores for non-selected athletes at time two were1.05 and 1.28 respectively and were significantly different than zero (p < .001).  Selection statusalso significantly explained interpersonal variance in dejection (β01 = -.57, p < .001) andhappiness (β01 = .64, p < .001) emotion states one week after they became aware of whether theywould be on the CSG team or not.  Thus, the average predicted dejection score for selectedathletes of .48 was significantly lower than non-selected athletes, while the average predictedhappiness score for selected athletes of 1.92 was significantly higher than non-selected athletes attime two.  The addition of selection status at level two explained 21% and 11% of the variance indejection and happiness at this level.  There remained significant deviation across athletes indejection and happiness scores at time two (p < .001) after controlling for time and selection82status.  In addition, after controlling for selection status, there was significant variability inathletes’ rate of change in happiness (p < .01) but not dejection (p > .05).Results for both dejection and happiness supported intrapersonal and interpersonalhypotheses.  On average, athletes’ feelings of dejection increased and feelings of happinessdecreased after the CSG tryouts and this effect was stronger for non-selected athletes. Therefore,athletes whose status remained not selected experienced significantly higher feelings of dejectionand lower feelings of happiness than athletes who gained selected status after the CSG tryout.Furthermore, selected athletes reported experiencing significantly higher feelings of happinessand lower feelings of dejection compared to non-selected athletes after the CSG team had beenannounced.3.3.2.2.2 Anger. Selection status did not have a significant effect on anger at either theintrapersonal (β20 = -.13, p > .05) or interpersonal levels (β01 = -.26, p > .05).  Moreover, onaverage, athletes’ emotion states of anger in relation to the CSG tryouts did not significantlychange over time when selection status was controlled (β10 = .03, p >.05).  Non-selected athletes’average anger score at time two of .65 was significantly different than zero (p < .001) and therewas significant variance to still be explained in the model for why athletes varied on anger afterthey became aware of their selection status when time and selection status were controlled.  Timeand intrapersonal selection status explained 65% of the variance at level one, whereas theaddition of selection status at level two only accounted for 3% of the variance.  Athletes’experiences of anger did not support the hypotheses. The findings indicated that athletes’feelings of anger associated with the CSG tryout did not change over the course of the study andwere not associated with selection status.833.3.2.3 Coping. All multilevel coefficients for task- and disengagement-oriented copingare in Table 3.5. The findings indicated that selection status did not have a significant effect onathletes use of task- and disengagement-oriented coping at both the intrapersonal (β20 Task-oriented =.01, p > .05; β20 Disengagement-oriented = -.13, p > .05) and interpersonal (β01 Task-oriented = .12, p > .05;β01Disengagement oriented = -.13, p > .05) athlete levels.  On average, athletes’ use of task-orientedcoping did significantly decrease over time after controlling for selection status (β10 = -.13, p<.05), but use of disengagement-oriented coping remained stable (β10 = .05, p >.05).  Non-selected athletes average score of task-oriented coping was 3.09 (p < .001), whereasdisengagement-oriented coping was 1.83 (p < .001).  Time and intrapersonal selection statusexplained 30% and 35% of the variance at level one in task-and disengagement-oriented coping,whereas the addition of selection status at level two only accounted for 1% of the variance inboth models.  Variance components for both task- and disengagement-oriented coping weresignificant, indicating that there was unexplained variance in why athletes differed on theintercept and changes in the use of coping.Only the findings from task-oriented coping partially supported the hypotheses.  Task-oriented coping was expected to be lower for non-selected status, however all athletes decreasedin their use of task-oriented coping strategies. Overall, the results indicated that selection statuswas not associated with the existent interpersonal differences in athletes’ use of task- anddisengagement-oriented coping.3.3.2.4 Athletic goal progress, quality of athletic engagement, and life satisfaction. Fullresults for athletic goal progress, athletic identity, sport commitment, and life satisfaction can befound in Table 3.6.843.3.2.4.1 Athletic goal progress. The findings suggested that on average, participants’perceptions of athletic goal progress decreased during the study (β10 = -.42, p <.001) aftercontrolling for selection status.  The effect for intrapersonal selection status was significant (β20 =.54, p < .05), which specified that on average when athletes had a selected status they scoredhigher on perceptions of progressing towards their goals than not selected status.  Time andintrapersonal selection status accounted for 9% of the variance at level one in goal progress.Selection status did not explain significant interpersonal variance in athletic goal progressat time two after controlling for intrapersonal selection status (β01 = .36, p > .05).  This effectonly explained an additional 2% of the variance at level two.  The average athletic goal progressscore for non-selected athletes was 5.86, which was significantly different than zero (p < .001).Examination of the variance components revealed that there remained unexplained interpersonalvariance in athletes’ scores of athletic goal progress at time two (p < .001). The variancecomponent for time was not significant, which indicated that after controlling for selection statusathletes’ rate of change in athletic goal progress did not significantly differ.The data only partially supported hypotheses for athletic goal progress.  Level onehypotheses were supported as, on average, athletes’ perceptions of sport goal progress decreasedafter they became aware of their selection status and this effect was stronger for non-selectedathletes.  This meant that athletes whose status remained not selected had significantly lowerperceptions of sport goal progress than athletes who gained selected status after the CSG tryout.In contrast, after controlling for intrapersonal differences in selection status, selected and non-selected athletes did not differ in perceptions of athletic goal progress one week after learningtheir selection status, which did not support the level two hypothesis.853.3.2.4.2 Quality of athletic engagement. Athletic identity and sport commitment weremeasured as indicators of how much athletes’ engaged with their sport throughout the study.  Onaverage, neither athletic identity (β10 = -.09, p >.05) nor sport commitment (β10 = -.05, p >.05)significantly changed after controlling for selection status.  In addition, selection status did notexplain significant proportions of intrapersonal athlete variance in either athletic identity (β20 =.08, p > .05) or sport commitment (β20 = .05, p > .05).  Time and selection status accounted for26% and 2% of the variance in athletic identity and sport commitment at level one.Selection status did significantly predict inter participant differences in athletic identityone week after selection, with selected participants identifying with the athletic role less (β01 = -.29, p < .05) than non-selected athletes whose average at time two was 5.92 (p < .001).  Althoughthis effect was significant it only explained an additional 2% of the level two variance in athleticidentity.  The effect of selection status on interpersonal differences in sport commitment was notsignificant and accounted for less than 1% of the level two variance in the model.  Thereremained significant variance to be explained in both models for why athletes varied on athleticidentity (p < .001) and sport commitment (p < .001) at time two after controlling for time andselection status, as well as in rate of change in athletic identity (p < .001).Results for athletic identity and sport commitment were incongruent with hypotheses.On average, the degree to which participants identified with the athletic role remained consistentthroughout the study and intrapersonal differences in selection status did not significantly explainvariance in athletic identity.  These findings suggested that on average athletes’ identity did notchange as a function of their selection status.  However, athletes who were not selected tended toidentify more with the athletic role than selected athletes.  Furthermore, athletes’ commitment totheir CSG tryout sport did not change throughout the study and was not significantly associated86with selection status.  As a result, while athletes differed in their commitment to their sport, theCSG selection process did not influence this commitment.3.3.2.4.3 Life satisfaction. On average, athletes’ life satisfaction remained stable overtime (β10 = .48, p >.05) and selection status did not significantly explain variance at theintrapersonal (β20 = .22, p > .05) or interpersonal levels (β01 = 1.45, p > .05).  The average lifesatisfaction score of a non-selected athlete at time two was 27.56 which was significantlydifferent than zero (p < .001) and had significant unexplained variance for why athletes deviatedon life satisfaction at time two when time and selection status were controlled. Time andintrapersonal selection status accounted for 6% of the variance at level one, whereas the additionof selection status at level two only explained 2% of the variance in life satisfaction. Thefindings indicated that, on average, life satisfaction did not change over the course of the studyand was not significantly associated with selection status.  Consequently, while athletes differedin their life satisfaction, the CSG selection process did not affect their quality of life as a whole.3.4 DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the Canada Summer Gamesselection process on athletes’ sport engagement and psychological adjustment. Multilevelmodeling was used to investigate the effect of the CSG selection process on changes in athletes’cognitive appraisals, emotions, coping, athletic goal progress, quality of sport engagement, andlife satisfaction. Changes in cognitive appraisals, emotions, and sport goal progress suggestedthat the CSG selection process had a meaningful impact on athletes (Samuel & Tenenbaum,2011a).  The association between selection status and components of the stress process was alsoexamined at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels.  Results suggested that while athletes’cognitive appraisals, emotions, and sport goal progress were related to their selection status, the87CSG selection process did not affect their sport engagement and life satisfaction.  The findingshighlighted the importance of investigating intrapersonal change and interpersonal athletedifferences in relation to selection events.3.4.1 Cognitive appraisals and emotions.The CSG team tryout was a stressful selection process for many athletes as evidenced bychanges in emotions and appraisals. Specifically, athletes who had non-selected status perceivedthat they had less control over the selection process, found it to be more threatening, andexperienced higher feelings of dejection and less feelings of happiness. Athletes’ appraisals ofthe CSG selection process partially supported previous work that suggested that appraisals of aselection event will differ between athletes and change over time (Fletcher et al., 2012; Hanton etal., 2012; Munroe et al., 1999).  In line with these studies, intraclass correlations indicated thatthere were significant proportions of intrapersonal and interpersonal variance in appraisals.Furthermore, selection status was related to intrapersonal differences in challenge and controlappraisals providing evidence that athletes engaged in reappraisal processes after learning of theoutcome of their CSG tryout.  These findings are consistent with current conceptualizations ofthe stress process, which suggest that reappraisal will occur after new information becomesavailable (e.g., selection status; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1999).  Significant randomeffects for appraisals supported propositions that athletes will appraise the same selection processdifferently (Richards, 2012; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). However, selection status onlypredicted significant amounts of interpersonal variance in threat and control appraisals, whichindicated that the outcome of the CSG selection process did not explain differences in athletes’challenge and centrality appraisals after the team was announced.  Taken together, these findingsemphasized the importance of modeling both intrapersonal and interpersonal appraisal selection88effects.  For example, selection status was only associated with intrapersonal changes in someappraisals (e.g., challenge), interpersonal differences in others (e.g., threat), and not significantlyassociated with centrality appraisals.  Differences in appraisal processes of the CSG tryoutshighlight the need to capture the multi-dimensional nature of primary and secondary appraisals(Lazarus, 1999) as opposed to simply investigating positive and negative appraisals of selectionevents (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Schlossberg, 1981).Athletes who were not selected reported experiencing less happiness and more dejectionafter becoming aware of their selection status, which was congruent with hypotheses.  Happinessand dejection emotion states are related to athletes’ perceptions of goal progress and failure toachieve a meaningful goal (Jones et al., 2005; Lazarus, 1999).  Non-selected athletes’perceptions of sport goal progress also decreased after not being selected to the CSG team andthus findings related to happiness and dejection were unsurprising.  Contrary to hypotheses,athletes varied significantly in their experiences of anger, although these experiences were notrelated to the outcome of the selection process.  One explanation for these results is that athleteswho were not selected perceived that they were responsible for their non-selection and thus didnot believe that an offense had been committed against them.  Differences in athletes’ reportedexperiences of anger and dejection throughout the study highlight the importance of examiningdiscrete emotions (Lazarus, 1999) in relation to specific selection events.  By examining discreteemotions as opposed to grouping them into positive and negative affect (Gaudreau et al., 2009;Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a), a differentiation could be made between athletes takingresponsibility for non-selection, while still feeling like they were not progressing towards theirgoal.  This study extended Gaudreau and colleagues’ (2009) findings by examining discrete89emotions in relation to a selection event and Arnold and colleagues’ (2013) findings by exploringintrapersonal change and interpersonal differences in those emotions.3.4.2 Coping.In line with previous work that has examined coping over time (Gaudreau et al., 2010;Louvet et al., 2009), there was significant interpersonal and intrapersonal variance in task- anddisengagement-oriented coping.  These findings are conceptually in line with currentperspectives of coping as a dynamic process (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).  On average athletes’use of task-oriented coping strategies significantly declined over the course of the study, whichwas consistent with hypotheses for athletes with non-selected status.  Unexpectedly, athletes’ useof disengagement-oriented coping did not significantly increase when they had non-selectedstatus.  These findings suggested that athletes were still using similar amounts of disengagementstrategies to cope with the outcome of the selection process as they were prior to the CSGtryouts.  Athletes may have used less task-oriented coping after the CSG team was determined asthey could no longer directly target the outcome of the tryouts and thus continued usingdisengagement coping strategies to manage the selection outcome.  Furthermore, selection statuswas not related to coping, indicating that the outcome of the selection process created demandsfor both selected and non-selected athletes.  Athletes who were selected may have had to adjustto a new team, expectations, and competition and training demands, whereas non-selectedathletes may have had to cope with disappointment and lack of goal progress.  Additionalresearch examining other stress components, such as appraisals, in relation to the use of copingstrategies would be useful in explaining intrapersonal and interpersonal coping varianceassociated with selection processes (Aldwin, 1994; Richards, 2012).903.4.3 Quality of athletic engagement and life satisfaction.Despite selection status being associated with intrapersonal and interpersonal differencesin athletes’ emotions and appraisals, it appeared to have little impact on participants sportengagement.  Contrary to hypotheses and previous research (Grove et al., 2004), non-selectedathletes’ identification with the athletic role did not significantly decrease after the CSG tryout.Although non-selected athletes had significantly higher athletic identity than selected athletes,this effect was small explaining only an additional two percent of interpersonal variance.  Oneexplanation for these contradictory findings is when athletic identity was observed in relation tothe team tryout.  Grove and colleagues (2004) measured athletic identity one week prior totryouts, immediately and two weeks after athletes were aware of their selection status.  In thepresent study, measurement of athletic identity may not have been in close enough proximity tothe selection process and thus fluctuations in athletic identity were not captured.  Selection statuswas also not related to athletes’ sport commitment nor did it significantly change throughout thestudy.  Taken together with athletic identity, the timing of the CSG tryout in relation to athletes’regular seasons may also explain minimal changes in their sport engagement.  For most athletes,the CSG tryouts were in the middle of their regular season and thus likely represented one event,albeit unique, within the context of their yearly cycle.  Having the opportunity to participate insport and commitment to other teams or events likely buffered the effects of non-selectedathletes’ disengagement from sport after not being selected to the CSG team (Gaudreau et al.,2009).Furthermore, Arnold and Fletcher (2012) have argued that some organizational stressorsare peripheral whereas others permeate an athlete’s sport experience.  Although selection statuswas related to athletes’ experiences of the stress process (e.g., emotions and appraisals)91associated with the CSG tryouts, the findings would suggest that the CSG tryout did notpermeate their sport experiences.  Thus, as most participants’ quality of athletic engagementremained high after the CSG selection tryout despite their selection status, it was unsurprisingthat athletes’ attitude toward the quality of their life as a whole remained unchanged (Samuel &Tenenbaum, 2011a).  However, it is likely that specific team selection processes will have aunique influence on the degree to which they permeate an athletes’ sport experience. It istherefore important to further examine individual selection events within the context of anathletes’ career.3.4.4 Practical implications.Understanding athletes’ trajectories of the stress process and their relation to selectionstatus has several implications for practitioners and coaches.  First, athletes who are not selectedto a team may experience periods of heighted dejection, lowered happiness, and decreasedperceptions of goal progress.  Coaches and/or practitioners may be able to buffer these negativesport experiences by being mindful of how they communicate the selection outcome to athletes,by providing feedback on performance, and by assisting athletes in adjusting sport related goals.Second, coaches and sport administrators should set clearly defined selection criteria well inadvance of team selections to enhance athletes’ appraisals of control over their tryout experience,regardless of their selection status.  Third, a positive selection outcome may still require athletesto cope with new social, training, or competition demands and thus practitioners should be awarethat all athletes may need assistance in developing effective coping strategies to manage theoutcome of a selection process.  Fourth, athletes’ involvement in other teams or training at thetime of the selection process may mitigate the effects of non-selection on their overall sport92experience.  Having diverse sport goals that encompass more than participating on one specificteam may assist athletes in moving on from an unsuccessful team selection.3.4.5 Strengths and future directions.Researchers have advocated for study designs that capture the dynamic nature of stressprocesses (Crocker et al., 2015; Lazarus, 1999).  A strength of the present study was itsprospective-longitudinal design and the use of multilevel modeling to capture intrapersonalchange and interpersonal differences in the stress process as they related to the CSG tryout.  Allestimated intraclass correlations of study variables further highlighted the need to examineselection processes at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels (Hox, 2010).  By estimating randomeffects for the intercept and linear slope, it was determined that for many components of thestress process there was significant variance yet to be explained after accounting for selectionstatus.A limitation of the present study is that participants were from a convenience sample.While significant effort was made to incorporate a representative sample of Canada SummerGames hopefuls, the study information was primarily distributed to athletes on short or long listscreated by coaches and sport administrators. As a result, the participant recruitment materialmay have been disproportionately sent to athletes who were eventually selected to the team andthus findings may not be representative of the experiences of all Canada Summer Gameshopefuls. Another limitation was that components of the stress process, such as coping,appraisals, goals, and emotions, were treated as discrete concepts. The moderate sample sizeprevented the examination of the relationships between growth curves as large sample sizes areneeded to model this complexity. To further explain variance in the study variables at both theinterpersonal and intrapersonal levels, future research should aim to recruit large samples to93explore interrelationships between components of the stress process (Lazarus, 1999) in relationto meaningful selection events.94Table 3.1Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s AlphasTime 1 Time 2 Time 3Variable Range α Group M SD α M SD α M SDThreat Appraisal 1-5 .73 Selected 1.81 .70 .64 1.68 .59 .72 1.75 .69Not Selected 2.23 .92 2.50 .87 2.31 1.00Challenge Appraisal 1-5 .82 Selected 3.88 .82 .82 3.67 .94 .78 3.73 .87Not Selected 3.86 .79 2.97 .81 2.88 .79Centrality Appraisal 1-5 .76 Selected 3.16 .97 .76 3.12 .88 .80 3.24 .89Not Selected 3.10 .89 2.81 .86 2.85 1.00Control Appraisal 1-5 .82 Selected 4.16 .75 .82 4.13 .78 .76 4.09 .65Not Selected 3.86 .72 3.39 .72 3.38 .63UncontrollableAppraisal 1-5 .55 Selected 1.56 .58 .63 1.47 .49 .73 1.55 .59Not Selected 1.85 .73 2.02 .91 2.13 .99Dejection 0-4 .89 Selected .25 .45 .93 .14 .40 .91 .20 .50Not Selected .61 .91 1.43 1.00 1.32 .91Anger 0-4 .87 Selected .35 .59 .83 .23 .46 .86 .33 .59Not Selected .59 .93 .85 .86 .56 .86Happiness 0-4 .89 Selected 2.31 .97 .95 2.83 .92 .95 2.86 .93Not Selected 2.05 1.05 .77 .87 .75 .8995Time 1 Time 2 Time 3Variable Range α Group M SD α M SD α M SDTask Coping 1-5 .81 Selected 3.35 .64 .84 3.20 .73 .83 3.23 .68Not Selected 3.34 .62 3.01 .52 2.82 .57Disengagement Coping 1-5 .59 Selected 1.66 .65 .70 1.58 .61 .65 1.63 .68Not Selected 1.73 .66 1.86 .82 1.96 .89Goal Progress 1-9 .97 Selected 6.68 1.53 .98 6.68 1.81 .96 6.56 1.50Not Selected 6.69 1.22 5.03 2.02 5.49 1.91Athletic Identity 1-7 .60 Selected 5.74 .90 .55 5.75 .84 .72 5.68 .93Not Selected 6.01 .62 5.92 .85 5.84 .89Sport Commitment 1-5 .88 Selected 4.66 .59 .84 4.64 .55 .86 4.63 .55Not Selected 4.68 .50 4.59 .58 4.48 .71Life Satisfaction 5-35 .82 Selected 28.51 4.18 .91 29.06 4.21 .86 29.25 4.24Not Selected 27.14 5.87 27.04 7.05 27.25 5.65Note. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas were estimated using participants’ observed scores at each time point.96Table 3.2Intraclass Correlations for Cognitive Appraisals, Emotions, Coping, Athletic Goal Progress, Quality of Athletic Engagement, and LifeSatisfactionVariable ICCThreat Appraisal .54Challenge Appraisal .59Centrality Appraisal .62Control Appraisal .61Uncontrollable Appraisal .51Dejection .59Anger .57Happiness .55Task-oriented Coping .62Disengagement-oriented Coping .67Athletic Goal Progress .48Athletic Identity .65Sport Commitment .74Life Satisfaction .69Note. ICC = intraclass correlation97Table 3.3Multilevel Coefficients for Cognitive AppraisalsParameter Threat Challenge Centrality Control UncontrollableCoefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)Fixed Effects β00 2.33*** (.12) 3.32*** (.11) 2.96*** (.13) 3.54*** (.09) 1.98*** (.12)β01 -.50** (.15) .21 (.15) .14 (.17) .41** (.13) -.33* (.13)β10 .03 (.06) -.31*** (.06) -.04 (.06) -.20*** (.04) .10 (.06)β20 -.15 (.10) .25* (.11) .03 (.11) .22* (.09) -.21*** (.09)VarianceComponentseij .20 (.03) .25 (.04) .27 (.04) .21 (.03) .19 (.03)r0i .29*** (.05) .50*** (.08) .55*** (.08) .33*** (.05) .20*** (.04)r1i .08*** (.03) .03* (.03) .06* (.03) .0003 (.02) .02 (.02)Note. SE = Standard error; Threat = threat appraisal; Challenge = challenge appraisal; Centrality = centrality appraisal; Control =control appraisal; Uncontrollable = uncontrollable appraisal; β00 = the average score on the dependent variable for non-selectedathletes at time two controlling for all other variables in the model; β01 = the effect of interpersonal selection status or the differentialin the average score of the dependent variable at time two between selected and non-selected athletes controlling for all other variablesin the model; β10 = the average change rate of the dependent variable after controlling for all other variables in the model; β20 = theeffect of intrapersonal selection status or the differential in the dependent variable between selected status and not selected statuscontrolling for all other variables in the model; r0i = the deviation across athletes at time two controlling for all other variables in themodel; r1i = the deviation across athletes in linear growth rate after controlling for all other variables in the model. * p < .05. ** p <.01. *** p < .001.98Table 3.4Multilevel Coefficients for EmotionsParameter Dejection Anger HappinessCoefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)Fixed Effects β00 1.05*** (.13) .65*** (.13) 1.28*** (.14)β01 -.57*** (.14) -.26 (.15) .64*** (.18)β10 .23*** (.06) .03 (.05) -.39*** (.07)β20 -.40*** (.09) -.13 (.09) 1.07*** (.14)VarianceComponentseij .20 (.03) .15 (.02) .39 (.05)r0i .19*** (.03) .24*** (.04) .50*** (.08)r1i .002 (.02) .04*** (.02) .09** (.05)Note. SE = Standard error; β00 = the average score on the dependent variable for non-selected athletes at time two controlling for allother variables in the model; β01 = the effect of interpersonal selection status or the differential in the average score of the dependentvariable at time two between selected and non-selected athletes controlling for all other variables in the model; β10 = the averagechange rate of the dependent variable after controlling for all other variables in the model; β20 = the effect of intrapersonal selectionstatus or the differential in the dependent variable between selected status and not selected status controlling for all other variables inthe model; r0i = the deviation across athletes at time two controlling for all other variables in the model; r1i = the deviation acrossathletes in linear growth rate after controlling for all other variables in the model. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.99Table 3.5Multilevel Coefficients for CopingParameter Task DisengagementCoefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)Fixed Effects β00 3.09*** (.08) 1.83*** (.11)β01 .12 (.11) -.13 (.12)β10 -.13** (.05) .05 (.04)β20 .01 (.08) -.13 (.07)VarianceComponentseij .12 (.02) .10 (.01)r0i .30*** (.04) .32*** (.05)r1i .03*** (.02) .05*** (.02)Note. SE = Standard error; Task = task-oriented coping; Disengagement = disengagement-oriented coping; β00 = the average score onthe dependent variable for non-selected athletes at time two controlling for all other variables in the model; β01 = the effect ofinterpersonal selection status or the differential in the average score of the dependent variable at time two between selected and non-selected athletes controlling for all other variables in the model; β10 = the average change rate of the dependent variable aftercontrolling for all other variables in the model; β20 = the effect of intrapersonal selection status or the differential in the dependentvariable between selected status and not selected status controlling for all other variables in the model; r0i = the deviation acrossathletes at time two controlling for all other variables in the model; r1i = the deviation across athletes in linear growth rate aftercontrolling for all other variables in the model. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.100Table 3.6Multilevel Coefficients for Athletic Goal Progress, Quality of Athletic Engagement, and Life SatisfactionParameter Life Satisfaction Athletic Goal Progress Athletic Identity Sport CommitmentCoefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)Fixed Effects β00 27.56*** (.92) 5.86*** (.23) 5.92*** (.11) 4.60*** (.09)β01 1.45 (1.07) .36 (.26) -.29* (.14) .01 (.10)β10 .48 (.29) -.42*** (.13) -.09 (.05) -.05 (.03)β20 .22 (.53) .54* (.25) .08 (.10) .05 (.06)VarianceComponentseij 6.38 (.90) 1.42 (.20) .20 (.03) .08 (.01)r0i 15.30*** (2.27) 1.43*** (.26) .54*** (.08) .24*** (.03)r1i .03 (.66) .04 (.15) .07*** (.03) .001 (.01)Note. SE = Standard error; β00 = the average score on the dependent variable for non-selected athletes at time two controlling for allother variables in the model; β01 = the effect of interpersonal selection status or the differential in the average score of the dependentvariable at time two between selected and non-selected athletes controlling for all other variables in the model; β10 = the averagechange rate of the dependent variable after controlling for all other variables in the model; β20 = the effect of intrapersonal selectionstatus or the differential in the dependent variable between selected status and not selected status controlling for all other variables inthe model; r0i = the deviation across athletes at time two controlling for all other variables in the model; r1i = the deviation acrossathletes in linear growth rate after controlling for all other variables in the model. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.101Chapter 4: General DiscussionTeam selection processes are an inherent part of elite sport and associated developmentalpathways. They can impact athletic engagement (Grove et al., 2004; Samuel & Tenenbaum,2011a) and are a commonly cited source of stress for competitive athletes (Arnold et al., 2013;Arnold et al., 2015; Fletcher et al., 2012). Despite having the potential to influence athletes’careers and often being identified as stressful negative sport events, we know very little abouthow athletes experience specific team selection processes. The present dissertation made severalcontributions in addressing this gap in the literature.Two studies were conducted to advance understanding of how athletes experiencesignificant team selection processes. The purpose of study one was to explore how elite athletesperceived and experienced an Olympic team selection process, what resources they used to copewith an Olympic team selection process, and how they adapted to different roles after they wereaware of their selection status. Study two built upon findings from study one by examiningchanges in stress and identity processes. The aim of study two was to explore the associationbetween Canada Summer Games (CSG) selection status and intrapersonal and interpersonaldifferences in cognitive appraisals, emotions, coping, athletic goal progress, life satisfaction, andquality of athletic engagement. The findings from both studies provided support for a) the needto study appraisals from a multi-dimensional perspective; and b) the case that athletes willreappraise a selection process over time when new information becomes available (Lazarus,1999). Athletes also had varying emotional responses to selection processes and engaging ingoal adjustment processes may assist them in adapting to non-selection. Furthermore, the stageof an athletes’ career may influence the meaning attached to a specific selection process and, in102turn, affect the degree to which athletes’ experiences change at psychological, social, vocational,and athletic levels (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004) as a result of selection or non-selection.The present dissertation contributed to advancing knowledge of athletes’ experienceswith team selection processes and, more broadly, change-events. The prospective-longitudinalstudy designs used in this program of research were theoretically congruent withconceptualizations of change-events and stress processes (Lazarus, 1999; Samuel & Tenenbaum,2011a; Schlossberg, 1981) and allowed for both intrapersonal change and interpersonaldifferences to be examined. Taken together, findings from study one and two developed ourunderstanding of a) athletes’ cognitive appraisal and reappraisal processes associated with teamselection; b) athletes’ emotion responses to team selection outcomes; c) athletes’ coping effortsin relation to selection outcomes; d) how athletes situated an Olympic team selection processwithin the context of their respective sport careers; e) athletes’ perceptions of goal progress inrelation to selection status; f) goal adjustment as an adaptational process following non-selectionor competing in the Olympic Games; g) the shift or maintenance of athletes’ identities ; and h)the degree to which the outcome of different selection events permeated athletes’ lives andinfluenced psychological change. In the following sections, key points from this program ofresearch and how they relate to future work on team selection processes are discussed. Topicsinclude stage of athletic career, goal adjustment, engagement in life domains outside of sport,implications of study designs, implications for sport practitioners, coaches, and administrators,and approach to mixed methods research.4.1 Stage of Athletic CareerThe stage of an athletes’ career will affect how they experience significant change eventsand transitions (Arnold et al., 2015; Debois, Ledon, & Wylleman, 2015; Gaudreau et al., 2009;103Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a; Stambulova, 2000). Researchers have demonstrated that eliteperformers encountered more organizational stressors (including team selection processes) thannon-elite performers (Fletcher, Hanton, Mellalieu, & Neil, 2012). Furthermore, Arnold andcolleagues (2015) found differences in athletes’ reports of team selection stressor frequency,intensity, and duration in relation to performance level. It is therefore important to considerstage of athletic career when studying selection processes. The two studies within thisdissertation included samples of athletes who were at different stages in their careers. In studyone elite international caliber athletes who were attempting to make the 2012 Olympic team wererecruited, whereas in study two development athletes who were in high performance careerpathways partook in the study. The findings in this dissertation will be discussed in relation toprevious team selection experience and the significance of and investment in team selectionprocesses.4.1.1 Previous team selection experience.Researchers have proposed that past experiences in similar situations will influence howathletes perceive and respond to change events (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a, 2011b;Schlossberg, 1981). The findings from study one supported this claim. Athletes who hadprevious experience trying out for an Olympic team perceived that external factors (e.g.,competition conditions) would influence their 2012 selection process more than first timeOlympic hopefuls. After they had experienced an Olympic selection process, the first timeOlympic hopefuls began to critically examine how the Olympic selection standards wereconstructed. These findings suggest that as athletes accumulate experiences with particular typesof team selection processes it may influence their control appraisals and perceptions of fairnessof the selection process. In turn, control appraisals and perceptions of fairness significantly104impact athletes’ experiences of stress in relation to team selection processes (Fletcher, Hanton, &Wagstaff, 2012).Although previous CSG selection was not explicitly examined in relation to the stressprocess in the second study, the majority of participants did not have any previous experiencewith the CSG tryout. While the selected status was related to higher scores of intrapersonal andinterpersonal control appraisals, upon examination of the mean values both non-selected andselected athletes scored towards the upper limit on control appraisals and near the lower limit foruncontrollable appraisals. These findings suggest that, on average, athletes appraised that theyhad control over the selection process. In line with study one, when athletes first came in contactwith a specific selection process they tended to have high control appraisals at the elite anddevelopmental level. Further research is required to corroborate the effect of prior experienceson athletes’ appraisals of specific selection events.4.1.2 Significance of and investment in team selection processes.Selection processes may disrupt athletes’ sport experiences (Samuel & Tenenbaum,2011a). Samuel and Tenenbaum (2011a) contended that athletes could experience simultaneouschange at many different levels of their sport experience. Athletes in study one and two reportedexperiencing changes in cognition, coping, and emotions that were associated with the respectiveselection processes. However, there were differences between the two studies in reportedchanges in athletic engagement. It is likely that these differences can partially be explained bythe stage of the participants’ athletic career and the meaning they ascribed to the events forwhich they were trying out.Participants in study one were athletes in the mastery stage of their sport careers(Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004) and had put social and vocational goals on hold for the105opportunity to be successful in an Olympic team selection process. They perceived competing atthe Olympic Games to be the pinnacle of their sport and arranged their yearly training andcompetition schedules around peaking for the selection process. Thus, the Olympic teamselection process was central to participants’ sport experiences (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012). Uponnon-selection participants’ athletic engagement significantly changed. One athlete transitionedinto retirement from international competition, another athlete took a break from competing andwas undecided on his athletic future, and two athletes pursued goals in different events withintheir sports. As a result, non-selection to an Olympic team had prompted significant change inhow athletes were engaging with their respective sports. In contrast, the participants in studytwo were talented development athletes (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004) who were trying out toparticipate in the CSG. Competing in the CSG may have represented a seasonal goal orhighlight for some development athletes; however, most participants would not have structuredtheir entire yearly competition and training schedule around participation. It is likely that mostathletes perceived the CSG as a peripheral event (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012) in their athleticcareer trajectory as they also had other club, regional, and provincial team commitments. Thismay explain why most athletes did not report changes in indicators of athletic engagementregardless of their selection status (Gaudreau et al., 2009). It is also possible that the more globalself-identity measures of sport commitment and athletic identity did not capture changes thatoccurred in different levels of the athletes’ sport experiences (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a).It is also important to examine the meaning that athletes attribute to specific teamselection processes in the context of their athletic careers. The findings in study one suggestedthat future expectancy appraisals (Lazarus, 1999) of athletes’ sport careers influenced whetherthey reappraised the significance of the 2012 Olympic team selection process. Athletes who106believed that they had future opportunities to achieve their athletic goals (e.g., competing in theOlympic Games) reappraised the selection process to be less important in the context of theirsport career trajectory after not being selected. Conversely, athletes who believed it was theirlast opportunity to compete in the Olympic Games did not downplay the significance of the 2012Olympic team selection process within the context of their athletic careers after not beingselected. These findings indicate that the athlete’s stage of athletic career is tied to future careerexpectancy appraisals which will influence his or her team selection stress related experiences(Lazarus, 1999).While performance level has been found to be associated with athletes’ stress experiences(Arnold et al., 2015), the findings in study one highlight the need to examine athletes’ futurecareer expectancies in addition to stage of athletic career. Arnold and colleagues (2015)categorized national and international level athletes together when examining differences inathletes reported frequency, intensity, and duration of team selection related stressors based onperformance level. However, the findings from study one would suggest that athletes who werebroadly categorized as international would have different future career expectancies based ontheir stage of athletic career and would, therefore, differ in their appraisals of selection processes.4.2 Goal AdjustmentSport psychology researchers have emphasized the importance of goal attainment, as ithas been found to be associated with increased positive emotion states, lower negative emotionstates, and enhanced psychological well-being (Amiot, Gaudreau, & Blanchard, 2004; Gaudreau& Blondin, 2004b; Smith, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2007). Although persistence in pursuing goals isimportant, there are circumstances where it may not be adaptive (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Shulz,& Carver, 2003b). Goal adjustment theory proposes that disengaging from goals might be more107adaptive in situations where a goal is unattainable. Capacities to disengage from unattainablegoals would allow an individual to avoid accumulated experiences of failure (Nesse, 2000) andconsequently alleviate psychological distress (Wrosch, Scheier, & Miller, 2013; Wrosch et al.,2003a). The second component of goal adjustment theory is goal reengagement. The capacity toreengage in goals involves identification, commitment to, and pursuit of new goals when facedwith goals that are unattainable (Wrosch et al., 2003b). Empirical research has suggested thatgoal adjustment capacities have been associated with subjective well-being, psychological stress,and physical health (Wrosch et al., 2013)Team selection processes are contexts where non-selected athletes may no longer be ableto engage in behaviour that would assist them in achieving their goals (Wrosch et al., 2013).Therefore, it may be adaptive for athletes to engage in goal adjustment processes before and/orfollowing an unsuccessful selection event. Elite athletes’ goal adjustment was evident in studyone when it became clear to them that they would not be able to make the 2012 Olympic teamstandard in their respective sports. These athletes described engaging in and pursuing newathletic, vocational, and/or social goals to assist them in moving on from the Olympic selectionprocess. These findings suggest that through goal adjustment processes athletes may engage innew and meaningful athletic, social, and/or vocational goals to overcome difficult sportingexperiences.Researchers may consider two approaches to further explore the role of goal adjustmentin athletes’ adaption to significant change events or transitions. The first approach is to examinespecific goal adjustment processes in relation to particular events or transitions. Researchersshould use methods that take into consideration the idiographic nature of goals (Sheldon &Elliot, 1999) and that are able to capture the goal adjustment process (e.g., longitudinal designs).108Currently, there is no quantitative instrument that captures the goal adjustment process and thusresearchers may consider qualitative methods or quantitative inventories that capture change inathletes’ goals. Findings from this line of inquiry may enhance our understanding of when andhow athletes decide to disengage with unattainable goals and factors that influence goalengagement (e.g., identifying with other domains outside of sport). Secondly, using existingmeasures (Wrosch et al., 2003b), researchers could capture relationships between generalcapacities for goal adjustment and indicators of adaptation following significant change events ortransitions. This investigative approach may further our understanding of which athletes are atrisk of experiencing serious psychological distress when encountering a change event ortransition. In summary, it is important for researchers to address a) both goal adjustmentcapacities and processes when studying change events and transitions; b) the relation betweengoal adjustment and indicators of adaptation to change events and transitions; and c) to usemethods that capture goal engagement in domains outside of sport.4.3 Engagement in Life Domains Outside of SportElite athletes who did not meet the qualifying standards for the 2012 Olympic Gamesdistanced themselves from the athletic role as social and vocational roles became central to theiraccounts. It is likely that participants’ investment in roles outside of sport prior to the selectionprocess allowed them to engage with other identities with ease after non-selection as they werealready developed. The association between sport participants’ tendencies to have a strongexclusive athletic identity and difficulties adjusting to significant change events has been welldocumented within the literature (see Park et al., 2013). Consistent with previous research,having multiple personal identities (see Gaudreau et al., 2009; Torregrosa, Ramis, Pallarés,Azόcar, & Selva, 2015) allowed participants to adapt to the outcome of a significant team109selection process within sport. The findings from study one extended this literature bysuggesting having multiple personal identities assisted athletes in adjusting their goals post-Olympic (non)selection.Researchers have recently expressed an increased interest in athletes’ dual careerdevelopment (see Baron-Thiene & Alfermann, 2015; Gledhill & Harwood, 2015; Ryan, 2015;Tshube & Feltz, 2015 ) and studying athletes’ experiences from a holistic perspective (Wylleman& Lavallee, 2004; Wylleman, Reints, & De Knop, 2013). Dual career refers to when an athleteis heavily invested in both sport and work or education (Stambulova & Wylleman, 2014).Athletes’ development of dual careers has been found to create role conflict, enhance careerdevelopment in domains outside of sport (Gledhill & Harwood, 2015), facilitate performance(Carless & Douglas, 2013; Lally, 2007), reduce sport dropout, and aid in adaptation duringsignificant transitions or change events (Debois et al., 2015; Gaudreau et al., 2009; Larsen,Alfermann, Henrikson, & Christensen, 2013; Ryan, 2015; Stambulova, Franck, & Weibull,2012). The findings from study one suggested that athletes suspended investment in social andvocational goals prior to the Olympic selection process to give them the best opportunity forsuccess. To move on from non-selection or competing in the Olympic Games it was adaptive forathletes to engage with existing identities outside of sport. Thus, it may be adaptive for athletesto decrease investment in education or work approaching a major sport event in their athleticcareer provided they still strongly identify with roles outside of sport and have the skills andsupport to reengage with their vocation upon non-selection or completion of the event.Wylleman and Lavallee (2004) go beyond arguing for consideration of dual careers whenstudying change events and advocate for consideration of athletes from a holistic perspective thatconsiders multiple facets such as psychological, athletic, psycho-social, and vocational levels.110The Olympic team selection process (study one) engulfed not only athletes’ sport (Arnold &Fletcher, 2012) and vocational experiences but it also had implications for their socialrelationships. These findings are consistent with previous research which has suggested thatchange may occur in multiple domains when an athlete encounters a transition (Debois et al.,2015; Wylleman, Reints, & Van Aken, 2012). While study one explored the selection processfrom a holistic perspective, study two did not consider changes in other life domains outside ofsport beyond life satisfaction. Although there were psychological and emotional changes inresponse to the CSG selection outcome it appeared that they did not affect global attitudes of lifesatisfaction. However, life satisfaction is a global measure and thus did not provide enoughinformation to assess changes in or buffering effects of engagement in other life domains.Researchers should further explore the effects of selection process outcomes on various lifedomains.4.4 Implications for Sport Practitioners, Coaches, and Administrators.The above discussion also highlights the need for athletes to engage in diverse goals anddevelop identities in different life domains. However, research has suggested that athletes oftenperceive that they are not supported in exploring identities outside of sport (Ryan, 2015).Practitioners, coaches, and sport administrators play a significant role in fostering a culture thatencourages personal development in non-sport contexts (Pink, Saunders, & Stynes, 2015; Ryan,2015). These key stakeholders should attend to the athletes’ overall wellbeing by supporting thedevelopment of other identities and the engagement in goals in other life domains. This may actas a proactive strategy, assisting athletes in adapting to important selection process outcomes.Practitioners, coaches, and sport administrators should not only consider the stage ofathletes’ careers but also their future expectancies in relation to their sport. Thus, athletes’111perceptions of where a team selection process fits within their career needs to be considered onan individual basis by maintaining open communication with athletes prior to, during, and afterselection processes. Although there may not always be changes in athletes’ sport engagement,team selection processes may cause athletes to have negative emotion experiences. Therefore,coaches should be conscientious of how they deliver news of athletes’ selection statuses. Lastly,practitioners and coaches should be aware that athletes may have to cope with new demandsassociated with a successful selection process (Wylleman et al., 2012) and may requireassistance in this adaptation process.Game Plan is a holistic wellness program that seeks to assist Canadian national teamathletes through career management, networking, partnering with academic institutions toprovide flexible education for athletes, skill development (e.g., brand and financialmanagement), and raising awareness of health related services (Canadian Olympic Committee,2015). The Game Plan program and associated resources may be integral to fostering identitiesand goals in multiple life domains, thus helping athletes cope with selection processes. GamePlan administrators and stakeholders should be aware that athletes may need assistance as theyexperience perturbations to the athletic status quo when experiencing selection processes.Practitioners should not make assumptions of the needs of athletes as this experience will varyamongst individuals. That said, both athletes who are selected as well as not selected athletesmay require resources to cope with selection outcomes.4.5 Implications of Study DesignsBoth studies supported the assertion that team tryouts need to be studied as a process(Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007; Lazarus, 1999; Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a). For example,the findings suggested that there were changes in appraisals, emotion, coping, and goals in both112Olympic and CSG hopefuls. These effects were captured through longitudinal designs.Furthermore, the prospective nature of the studies allowed for examination of both pre- and post-selection psychological processes, emotions, and behaviours which is consistent with currenttheoretical conceptualizations of change events in sport (Samuel & Tenenbaum, 2011a;Schlossberg, 1981). Lastly, both studies demonstrated that there were intrapersonal changes andinterpersonal differences in relation to the selection processes, further highlighting the necessityof employing quantitative or qualitative methods that capture both between and within athleteeffects.Future research is needed to determine the optimal proximity to the selection event tocapture psychological change. For example, it is plausible that no change in athletic identity wasobserved in study two because the second measurement occurred approximately a week afterathletes became aware of their selection status. An additional time point may be useful indetermining the persistence of effects related to the selection process on an athlete’s career.Specific to study two, adding another time point would allow researchers to explore additionalrandom effects. Finally, future research should consider shared variance between athletes whoare trying out for the same team as they may have similar experiences. By modeling this sharedvariance (e.g., three level multilevel models) researchers can examine factors such as coachinfluence on perceptions of team selection outcomes.4.6 Combining Qualitative and Quantitative ResearchIt has been suggested that researchers need to be forthcoming and aware of what is beingmixed and when, within the different phases of mixed methods research (Cresswell & PlanoClark, 2011; Sparkes, 2015). In this dissertation, the two strands interacted at two points. First,preliminary observations stemming from the semi-structured interviews in the first study guided113the research questions and use of theory in the second study. For example, it was noted after thefirst two interviews that participants were shifting identities, appraisals, and goals in response tonot meeting standards to compete in the Olympic Games. These preliminary findings led to theresearch questions and subsequent systematic testing of whether selection status was related tochanges in athletes’ stress processes (e.g., identity, appraisals, goal progress) prior to and afterthe CSG tryout and if athletes differed in these stress processes after the CSG team had beenannounced. Measuring and systematically studying components of the stress process allowed forexamination of whether findings in the first qualitative study could be generalized to a largerpopulation of athletes. Secondly, the findings of the two studies were integrated during thegeneral discussion and interpretation section of the dissertation with a focus on stress processes,stage of athletic career, and athletic career change events.4.7 ConclusionThe findings presented in this dissertation provided evidence that team selectionprocesses are meaningful sport experiences that may impact multiple facets of athletes’ lives.Team tryouts have the potential to influence athletes’ affective experiences, psychologicaladjustment, goals, sport engagement, and identities. These processes may be dependent onathletes’ stage of sport career which will influence the meaning they attach to specific selectionevents. Since team tryouts are significant stress experiences, goal adjustment may be apromising coping strategy to adapt to non-selection and coming down after competing in a majorevent. It is important for researchers to adopt study designs, such as the prospective-longitudinalones employed in this dissertation, that allow them to capture intrapersonal and interpersonaldifferences in perceptions, affect, and behaviour associated with team selection processes.Practitioners, coaches, and sport administrators should create sporting environments where114athletes feel supported in identity exploration and development as having non-sport related goalsand identities may assist them in adapting to (un)successful team selection processes. Insummary, team selection processes may cause significant change and transition experiences inmultiple domains of athletes’ lives.115ReferencesAdams, C., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2015). Athletes’ perceptions about the availability ofsocial support during within-career transitions. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 11,37-48.Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping and development: An integrated perspective. New York:Guildford Press.Aldwin, C. M. (2007). Stress, coping and development: An integrative perspective (2nd ed.). NewYork: Guilford Press.Alfermann, D., & Stambulova, N. (2007). Career transitions and career termination. In G.Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 712-733). NewYork: Wiley.Alfermann, D., Stambulova, N., & Zemaityte, A. (2004). Reactions to sport career termination:A cross-national comparison of German, Lithuanian, and Russian athletes. Psychology ofSport and Exercise, 5, 61-75.Amiot, C. E., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C. M. (2004). Self-determination, coping, and goalattainment in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 396-411.Anshel, M. H. (1996). Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of SocialPsychology, 136, 311-324.Anshel, M. H., & Kassidis, A. N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisals as predictors ofcoping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function of gender and skill.British Journal of Psychology, 88, 263-276.116Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of theorganizational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 34, 397-429.Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2013). Development and validation of the organizationalstressor indicator for sport performers (OSI-SP). Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 35, 180-196.Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2015). Demographic differences in sport performers’experiences of organizational stressors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science inSports. doi: 10.1111/sms.12439.Baraldi, A. N., & Enders, C. K. (2010). An introduction to modern missing data analyses.Journal of School Psychology, 48, 5-37.Baron-Thiene, A., & Alfermann, D. (2015). Personal characteristics as predictors for dual careerdropout versus continuation – A prospective study of adolescent athletes from Germanelite sport schools. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 42-49.Baillie, P. H. F., & Danish, S. J. (1992). Understanding the career transition of athletes. TheSport Psychologist, 6, 77-98.Baker, J., Bagats, S., Büsch, D., Strauss, B., & Schorer, J. (2012). Training differences andselection in a talent identification system. Talent Development & Excellence, 4, 23-32.Baruch-Runyon, A., VanZandt, Z., & Elliott, S. A. (2009). Forging connections: Aninvestigation of new students’ perspectives of their transition to the university. NationalAcademic Advising Association Journal, 29, 31-42.117Beehr, T. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1996). The methodology of research on coping: Conceptual,strategic, and operational-level issues. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook ofcoping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 65-82). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Blinde, E. M. , & Stratta, T. M. (1992). The ‘sport career death’ of college athletes: Involuntaryand unanticipated sports exits. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15, 3-20.Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.Brewer, B. W., & Cornelius, A. E. (2001). Norms and factorial invariance of the AthleticIdentity Measurement Scale. Academic Athletic Journal, 15, 103-113.Brewer, B. W., Selby, C. L., Under, D. E., & Petitpas, A. J. (1999). Distancing oneself from apoor season: Divestment of athletic identity. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss:International Perspectives on Stress & Coping, 4,149-162.Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’ muscles orAchilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237-254.Brocki, J. M., & Wearden, A. J. (2006). A critical evaluation of the use of interpretativephenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 21, 87 -108.Brown, G., & Potrac, P. (2009). ‘You’ve not made the grade, son’: De-selection and identitydisruption in elite level youth football. Soccer & Society, 10, 143-159.Bruner, M. W., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., & Spink, K. S. (2008). Entry into elite sport: Apreliminary investigation into the transition experiences of rookie athletes. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 20, 236-252. doi: 10.1080/10413200701867745Bryman, A. (2004). Interviewing in qualitative research. In R. Bryman (Ed.), Social researchmethods (2nd ed) (pp. 318-344). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.118Canadian Olympic Committee. (2015). Game plan/Plan de match. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mygameplan.caCarless, D., & Douglas, K. (2013). “In the boat” but “selling myself short”: Stories, narratives,and identity development in elite sport. The Sport Psychologist, 27, 27-39.Chamberlain, K. (2011). Troubling methodology. Health Psychology Review, 5, 48-54.Chow, B. C. (2001). Moving on? Elite Hong Kong female athletes and retirement fromcompetitive sport. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 1, 47-81.Clowes, H., Lindsay, P., Fawcett, L., & Knowles, Z. (2015). Experiences of the pre- and post-retirement period of female elite artistic gymnasts: An exploratory study. Sport &Exercise Psychology Review, 11, 4-21.Compas, B. E., Worsham, N., Ey, S., & Howell, D. C. (1996). When mom or dad has cancer: II.Coping, cognitive appraisals, and psychological distress in children of cancer patients.Health Psychology, 56, 405-411.Cȏté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The SportPsychologist, 13, 395-417.Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K. C., & Graham, T. R. (1998). Measurement of coping strategiesin sport. In J. L. Duda (ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.149-161). Morgantown, W.V.: Fitness Information Technology.Crocker, P. R. E., Mosewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., & Besenski, L. J. (2010). Coping:Research design and analysis issues. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory,methods, and related constructs (pp. 53-76). New York: Nova.119Crocker, P. R. E., Tamminen, K. A., & Gaudreau, P. (2015). Coping in sport. In S. Mellalieu &S. Hanton (Eds.), Contemporary advances in sport psychology (pp. 28-67). New York:Routledge.Debois, N., Ledon, A., Argiolas, C., & Rosnet, E. (2012). A lifespan perspective on transitionsduring a top sports career: A case of an elite female fencer. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 13, 660-668.Debois, N., Ledon, A., & Wylleman, P. (2015). A lifespan perspective on the dual career of elitemale athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 15-26.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needsand the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.Duda, J. L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose ofsport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 318-335.Dugas, M., Gaudreau, P., & Carraro, N. (2012). Implementation planning and progress onphysical activity goals. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 77-85.Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athleticperformance: Perceptions of world and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 14, 154-171.Erpič, S. C., Wylleman, P., & Zupančič, M. (2004). The effect of athletic and non-athleticfactors on the sports career termination process. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5,45-59. doi: 10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00046-8Finn, J., & McKenna, J. (2010). Coping with academy-to-first-team transitions in elite Englishmale team sports: The coaches’ perspective. International Journal of Sports Science &Coaching, 5, 257-279.120Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2003). Sources of organizational stress in elite sports performers. TheSport Psychologist, 17, 175-195.Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An organizational stress review: Conceptualand theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.),Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321-373). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S. D., & Neil, R. (2012). A conceptual framework oforganizational stressors in sport performers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Sciencein Sports, 22, 545-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01242.x.Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2012). Performers’ responses to stressorsencountered in sport organisations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 349-358.Fletcher, D., Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its emergence,application and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 427-434.Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (ed.), Personal coping:Theory, research and application (pp. 31-46). Wesport, Conn.: Praeger.Gaudreau, P., Amiot, C. E., & Vallerand, R. J. (2009). Trajectories of affective states inadolescent hockey players: Turning point and motivational antecedents. DevelopmentalPsychology, 45, 307-319.Gaudreau, P., & Antl, S. (2008). Athletes’ broad dimensions of perfectionism: Examiningchange in life-satisfaction and the mediating role of motivation and coping. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 356-382.121Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J. P. (2002). Development of a questionnaire for the assessment ofcoping strategies employed by athletes in competitive sport settings. Psychology of Sportand Exercise, 3, 1-34.Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J. P. (2004a). Different athletes cope differently during a sportcompetition: A cluster analysis of coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,1865-1877.Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J. P. (2004b). Differential associations of dispositional optimism andpessimism with coping, goal attainment, and emotional adjustment during sportcompetition. International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 245-269.Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J. P. (2008). Athletes’ broad dimensions of dispositionalperfectionism: Examining changes in life satisfaction and the mediating role of sportrelated motivation and coping. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 356-382.Gaudreau, P., Lapierre, A. M., & Blondin, J. P. (2001). Coping at three phases of competition:Comparison between pre-competitive, competitive, and post-competitive utilization ofthe same strategy. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 369-385.Gaudreau, P., & Miranda, D. (2010). Coping across time, situations, and contexts: A conceptualand methodological overview of its stability, consistency, and change. In A. R. Nicholls(ed.), Coping in sport (pp. 15-32). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Gaudreau, P., Nicholls, A., & Levy, A. R. (2010). The ups and downs of coping and sportachievement: An episodic process analysis of within-person associations. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 298-311.122Giacobbi, P. R., Lynn, T. K., Wetherington, J. M., Jenkins, J., Bodendorf, M., & Langley, B.(2004). Stress and coping during the transition to university for first-year female athletes.The Sport Psychologist, 18, 1-20.Gledhill, A., & Harwood, C. (2015). A holistic perspective on career development in UK femalesoccer players: A negative case analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 65-77.Gould, D., & Maynard, I. (2009). Psychological preparation for the Olympic Games. Journal ofSport Sciences, 27, 1393-1408.Greenleaf, C., Gould, D., & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic performance:Interviews with Atlanta and Negano US Olympians. Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 13, 154-184.Grove, R. J., Fish, M., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). Changes in athletic identity following teamselection: Self-protection versus self-enhancement. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,16, 75-81.Grove, J. R., Lavallee, D., & Gordon, S. (1997). Coping with retirement from sport: Theinfluence of athletic identity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 191-203.Hallinan, C. J., & Snyder, E. E. (1987). Forced disengagement and the collegiate athlete. ArenaReview, 11, 28-34.Haney, C. J., & Long, B. C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A path analysis of self-efficacy,control and performance in sport competitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,1726-1746.Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite sport performers: A comparativestudy of competitive and organizational stressors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 1129 -1141.123Hanton, S., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Fletcher, D. (2012). Cognitive appraisals of stressorsencountered in sport organizations. International Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 10, 276-289.Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd Ed.). New York:Routledge.Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigmwhose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.Jones, M. V., Lane, A. M., Bray, S. R., Uphill, M., & Catlin, J. (2005). Development andvalidation of the Sport Emotion Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,27, 407-431.Keats, D. M. (2000). Interviewing: A practical guide for students and professionals.Buckingham: Open University Press.Kerr, G., & Dacyshyn, A. (2000). The retirement experiences of elite, female gymnasts.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 115-133.Kim, M. S., & Duda, J. L. (2003). The coping process: Cognitive appraisals of stress, copingstrategies, and coping effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 406-425.Koukouris, K. (1991). Quantitative aspects of the disengagement process of advanced and eliteGreek male athletes from organized competitive sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14,227-246.Lally, P. (2007). Identity and athletic retirement: A prospective study. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 8, 85-99.124Larsen, C. H., Alfermann, D., Henrikson, K., & Christensen, M. K. (2013). Successful talentdevelopment in soccer: The characteristics of the environment. Sport, Exercise, &Performance Psychology, 2, 190-206.Lavallee, D., Gordon, S., & Grove, J. R. (1997). Retirement from sport and the loss of athleticidentity. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 2, 129-147.Lavallee, D., & Robinson, H. K. (2007). In pursuit of an identity: A qualitative exploration ofretirement from women’s artistic gymnastics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 119-141.Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.American Psychologist, 46, 819-834.Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion. In Y. L. Hanin(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 39-63). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person-centeredconceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74, 9-46.Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions andcoping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141-169.Louvet, B., Gaudreau, P., Menaut, A., Genty, J., & Denevue, P. (2007). Longitudinal patterns ofstability and change in coping across three competitions: A latent class growth analysis.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 100-117.Lotysz, G. J., & Short, S. E. (2004). ‘What ever happened to…’ The effects of career terminationfrom the National Football League. Athletic Insight, 6, 47-66.125MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2010). The role of psychological characteristics in managingthe transition to university. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 353-362. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.003McGrath, J. E., & Beehr, T. A. (1990). Time and the stress process: Some temporal issues in theconceptualization and measurement of stress. Stress Medicine, 6, 93-104.McCoach, D. B., & Kaniskan, B. (2010). Using time-varying covariates in multilevel growthmodels. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00017.Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2006). A competitive anxiety review: Recentdirections in sport psychology research. In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literaturereviews in sport psychology (pp. 1-45). Nova Science.Mellialieu, S. D., Neil, R., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2009). Competition stress in sportperformers: Stressors experienced in the competition environment. Journal of SportsScience, 27, 729-744.Munroe, K. J., Albinson, J. G., & Hall, C. R. (1999). The effects of non-selection on first yearfemale varsity athletes. Avante, 5, 68-81.Neil, R., Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S. D., & Fletcher, D. (2011). Competition stress and emotions insport performers: The role of further appraisals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12,460-470.Nesse, R. M. (2000). Is depression an adaptation? Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 14-20.Nicholls, A. R. (2010). Coping in sport. New York: Nova Science.Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2007). Coping in sport: A systematic review. Journal ofSports Sciences, 25, 11-31.126Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., & Levy, A. R. (2012). A path analysis of stress appraisals,emotions, coping, and performance satisfaction among athletes. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 13, 263-270.Ogilvie, B., & Taylor, J. (1993). Career termination issues among elite athletes. In R. N. Singer,M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.761-775). New York: Macmillan.Park, S., Lavallee, D., & Tod, D. (2013). Athletes’ career transition of sport: A systematicreview. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 22-53.Park, S., Tod, D., & Lavallee, D. (2012). Exploring the retirement from sport decision-makingprocess based on the transtheoretical model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 444-453.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:Sage.Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. PsychologicalAssessment, 5, 164-172.Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1990). The stress appraisal measure (SAM): Amultidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6, 227-236.Pearson, R. E., & Petitpas, A. J. (1990). Transitions of athletes: Developmental and preventativeperspectives. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 7-10.Pink, M., Saunders, J., & Stynes, J. (2015). Reconciling the maintenance of on-field success withoff-field player development: A case study of a club culture within an Australian FootballLeague. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 98-108.127Prochaska, J. O. (1979). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis. Homewood, IL:Dorsey Press.Pummell, B., Hardwood, C., & Lavallee, D. (2008). Jumping to the next level: A qualitativeexamination of within-career transition in adolescent event riders. Psychology of Sportand Exercise, 9, 427-447.Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modelling of data from repeatedmeasures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communications, 43, 103-121. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004.Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and dataanalysis methods (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S, & Congdon, R. (2013). HLM 7.01 for Windows [Computersoftware]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experience: An introduction toInterpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The Psychologist, 18, 20-23.Richards, H. (2011). Coping and mental toughness. In D. Collins, A. Button, & H. Richards(eds), Performance psychology: A practitioner’s guide. London: Elsevier.Richards, H. (2012). Coping processes in sport. In J. Thatcher, M. J. Jones, & D. Lavallee (eds),Coping and emotion in sport (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Ryan, C. (2015). Factors impacting carded athlete’s readiness for dual careers. Psychology ofSport and Exercise, 21, 91-97.Salmela, J. H. (1994). Stages and transitions across sports careers. In D. Hackfort (Ed.), Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sports (pp. 11-28). Frankfurt: Lang.128Samuel, R. D., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011a). The role of change in athletes’ careers: A scheme ofchange for sport psychology practice. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 233-252.Samuel, R. D., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011b). How do athletes perceive and respond to change-events: An exploratory measurement tool. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 392-406.Scanlan, T. K., Simons, J. P., Carpenter, P. J., Schmidt, G. W., & Keeler, B. (1993). The sportcommitment model: Measurement development for the youth-sport domain. Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 16-38.Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model of analyzing human adaptation to transition. TheCounselling Psychologist, 9, 2-18.Serpa, S. (2009). Olympic Games and sport psychology. In T. M. Hung, R. Lidor, & D. Hackfort(Eds.), Psychology of sport excellence (pp. 33-43). West Virginia: Fitness InformationTechnology.Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,482-497.Sinclair, D. A., & Orlick, T. (1993). Positive transitions from high-performance sport. The SportPsychologist, 7, 138-150.Sinclair, D. A. & Orlick, T. (1994). The effects of transition on high performance sport. In D.Hackfort (Ed.), Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sports (pp. 29-55).Frankfurt: Lang.129Smith, A., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2007). Goal striving, goal attainment, and well-being:Adapting and testing the self-concordance model in sport. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 29, 763-782.Smith, J. A. (1999). Identity development during the transition to motherhood: An interpretativephenomenological analysis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17, 281-300.Smith, J. A. (2011a). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis.Health Psychology Review, 5, 9-27.Smith, J. A. (2011b). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis: Areply to the commentaries and further development of criteria. Health PsychologyReview, 5, 55-61.Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:Theory, method and research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51-80).London: Sage.Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling.London: Sage.Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology:Critical reflections on five points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16,49-59.Stambulova, N. B. (1994). Developmental sports career investigations in Russia: A post-perestroika analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 221-237.130Stambulova, N. B. (2000). Athlete’s crises: A developmental perspective. International Journalof Sport Psychology, 31, 584-601.Stambulova, N. (2003). Symptoms of a crisis-transition: A grounded theory study. In N.Hassmén (Ed.), SIPF Yearbook 2003 (pp. 97-109). Örebro: Örebro University Press.Stambulova, N., Alfermann, D., Statler, T., & Cȏté, J. (2009). ISSP position stand: Careerdevelopment and transitions of athletes. International Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 7, 395-412.Stambulova, N., Franck, A., & Weibull, F. (2012). Assessment of transition from junior to seniorsports in Swedish athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10,1-17.Stambulova, N. B., & Ryba, T. V. (2014). A critical review of career research and assistancethrough the cultural lens: Towards cultural praxis of athletes’ careers. InternationalReview of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 1-17.Stambulova, N., Stambulov, A., & Johnson, U. (2012). ‘Believe in yourself, channel energy, andplay your trumps’: Olympic preparation in complex coordination sports. Psychology ofSport and Exercise, 13, 679-686.Stambulova, N., Stephan, Y., & Japhag, U. (2007). Athletic retirement: A cross-nationalcomparison of elite French and Swedish athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8,101-118.Stambulova, N., & Wylleman, P. (2014). Athletes’ career development and transitions. In A.Papaioannou, & D. Hackfort (Eds.), Routledge companion to sport and exercisepsychology (pp. 605-621). London/NewYork: Routledge.131Stephan, Y., Bilard, J., Nynot, G., & Delionières, D. (2003). Repercussions of transition out ofelite sport on subjective well-being: A one-year study. Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 15, 354-371.Stier, J. (2007). Game, name and fame – afterwards, will I still be the same? A sociological studyof career, role exit and identity. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 42, 99-111.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 ed.). Boston: PearsonEducation.Taylor, J., & Ogilvie, B. (1994). A conceptual model of adaptation to retirement amongathletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 1-20.Torregrosa, M., Ramis, Y., Pallarés, S., Azόcar, F., & Selva, C. (2015). Olympic athletes back toretirement: A qualitative longitudinal study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 50-56.Tshube, T., & Feltz, D. L. (2015). The relationship between dual-career and post-sport careertransition among elite athletes in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 109-114.Vaeyens, R., & Lenoir, M., Williams, A. M., & Philippaerts, R. M. (2008). Talent identificationand development programmes in sport: Current models and future directions. SportsMedicine, 38, 703-714.Warriner, K., & Lavallee, D. (2008). The retirement experiences of elite female gymnasts: Selfidentity and the physical self. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 301-317.Webb, W. M., Nasco, S. A., Riley, S., & Headrick, B. (1998). Athletic identity and reactions toretirement from sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 338-362.132Werthner, P., & Orlick, T. (1986). Retirement experiences of successful Olympic athletes.International Journal of Sport Psychology, 17, 337-363.Whaley, D. E. & Krane, V. (2011). Now that we all agree, let’s talk epistemology: Acommentary on the invited articles. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health,3, 394-403.Wippert, P., & Wippert, J. (2010). The effects of involuntary athletic career termination onpsychological distress. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 133-149.Wrosch, C., & Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Schulz, R. (2003a). The importance of goaldisengagement in adaptive self-regulation: When giving up is beneficial. Self andIdentity, 2, 1-20.Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003b). Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjectivewell-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494-1508. doi:10.1177/0146167203256921.Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal adjustment capacities, subjective well-being, and physical health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 847-860.Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2001). A case study of organizational stress in elite sport. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 13, 207-238.Wylleman, P., Alfermann, D., & Lavallee, D. (2004). Career transitions in sport: Europeanperspectives. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 7-20.Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced byathletes. In M. Weiss (Ed.). Developmental sport psychology (pp. 503-524).Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.133Wylleman, P., & Reints, A. (2010). A lifespan perspective on the career of talented and eliteathletes: Perspectives on high-intensity sports. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine andScience in Sports, 20, 88-84.Wylleman, P., Reints, A., & De Knop, P. (2013). A developmental and holistic perspective onthe athletic career. In L. Wei (Ed.), Abstracts of the ISSP 13th World Congress of SportPsychology (p. 2). Beijing: ISSP – Beijing Sport University.Wylleman, P., & Reints, A., Van Aken, S. (2012). Athletes’ perceptions of multilevel changesrelated to competing at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 13, 687-692.Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology & Health, 15, 215-228.Zakowski, S. G., Hall, M. H., Klein, L. C. & Baum, A. (2001). Appraisal control, coping, andstress in a community sample: A test of the Goodness-of-Fit hypothesis. Annals ofBehavioral Medicine, 23, 158-165.134Appendices135Appendix A: Consent Form for Study OneSport and Exercise Psychology LabSchool of Kinesiology210 War Memorial Gym6081 University BoulevardVancouver, BC V6T 1Z1Sport transitions following the selection to or de-selection from the Olympic teamCONSENT FORMPeter Crocker, PhD (Principal Investigator) Carolyn McEwen, MScSchool of Kinesiology School of KinesiologyUniversity of British Columbia University of British ColumbiaContact Number: 604-822-5580 Contact Number: 519-841-pcrocker@interchange.ubc.ca cmcewen@interchange.ubc.caKimberley Dawson, PhDDepartment of Kinesiology and Physical EducationWilfrid Laurier UniversityContact Number: 519-884-0710 ext. 4155kdawson@wlu.caPurpose of the Project:You are invited to take part in a research study entitled: “Sport transitionsfollowing the selection to or de-selection from the Olympic team”. An athletictransition can occur within an athlete’s career or upon career termination as theathlete moves out of competitively engaging in their sport. One event that mayimpact an athlete’s decision to transition is either being selected to or de-selected from the Olympic team. The purpose of this research is to examineelite athletes’ perceptions of the Olympic team selection process, its impact onthe athletes’ careers, and any subsequent transitions that may occur.Participation:If you agree to participate you will be invited to take part in three one-on-oneinterviews. The first will occur during or prior to the Olympic selection process.The second interview will occur after you have knowledge of whether you wereselected to the Olympic team, but prior to the Games. The third interview willoccur up to three months after the Olympic Games. The location of these136interviews will be at a place that is convenient to you (e.g., UBC campus) andwill last approximately 1 to 2 hours. If a convenient location cannot be foundyou have the option of participating in the interview over the phone. If thereare issues you do not wish to talk about, you do not have to discuss them andyou will not be pressured to talk about that issue by the interviewer. Also, if youwish to withdraw from the study, you may do so at any time without having togive any reason for doing so. Withdrawing from the study will not result in anynegative consequences for you. The interview will be tape-recorded andtranscribed (written out word for word) in order to analyze the information youprovide. You will have the opportunity to look over the transcripts (typed copy ofthe interview) and change, add, or delete any comments as you see fit. If youchose to look over your transcripts, this meeting will last approximately 30minutes.Potential Risks:This study will not subject you to any physical risk. You can refuse to answer anyquestion during the interview and doing so will result in no penalty to you oranyone else. Although we do not expect any psychological risk, if we feelparticipation is placing you under undo stress we will discontinue yourinvolvement in the study, again resulting in no penalty. Any data collected priorto this point will be omitted from the study and destroyed. In the event that youwould like to further discuss your feelings regarding the topics discussed in theinterviews, Family Services of Greater Vancouver (counselling services 604-874-2938) can be of assistance.Potential BenefitsThere are no guaranteed benefits if you agree to participate in this study.Although no benefits of participation in the study can be guaranteed, there isthe potential for participation to help increase understanding of how eliteathletes experience the selection process for the Olympic Games andsubsequently how the selection process impacts their future athletic careers.Results from the study could inform future interventions and provide guidancefor sport organizations in allocating resources that would benefit elite athletesthroughout and after the Olympic selection process.If you would like to know about the results of the study, feel free to contactCarolyn McEwen (cmcewen@interchange.ubc.ca or (519) 841-2558). ASummary of the results and copies of any resulting publications will be provided.Furthermore, you will receive $20 for each interview that you complete.137Confidentiality:The researchers will strive to keep any information you provide within thisinterview anonymous. Personal information that can identify you such as sportorganization and real name will be removed from any reports that may resultfrom this research. You will be identified by a pseudonym (a fake name) in thetranscripts and the consent form with your name on it will be stored separatelyfrom your transcript. However, although all identifying information will beremoved, there is still a chance that you could be identified based on what youhave said. If you feel uncomfortable with any part of the discussion, you canindicate to the interviewer that you do not want that part of the discussionincluded in the data to be analyzed. You also have the chance to review yourtranscript and make any changes to the document at that time.Your confidentiality will be upheld in the highest regard possible. We will makesure that audio-recordings are not overheard and that transcripts are not readby anyone other than the researchers involved with this study. All interviewtranscripts will be kept in a locked cabinet in the office of the principalinvestigator and no one other than the researchers associated with this study willhave access to this information. It is important that you are aware that there arecertain types of information that the researcher may be obliged to report torelevant authorities if it comes up during the interview (e.g., child or elder abuse,intent to do harm to oneself or others).Contact Information about the Study:Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary and you may withdrawfrom the study at any time without having to give any reason for doing so andwithout experiencing any negative consequences. If you have any questions orwant further information about the study please contact Dr. Peter Crockerand/or Carolyn McEwen at the contact information provided at the beginningof this form.Contact for Concerns about the Rights of Research Subjects:If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research subject,you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office ofResearch Services at 604-822-8581 or if long distance e-mail to RSIL@ors.ubc.ca.Consent:I consent to take part in this study titled ‘Sport transitions following theselection to or de-selection from the Olympic team’. The study has beenexplained to me and I understand what is involved.138I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that Imay withdraw from the study without having to give any reason for doing soand without experiencing any negative consequences. I understand that if Ido not wish to answer any question or discuss any topic that is raised, I mayrefuse to answer and the interviewer will go onto the next question. If Iwithdraw from the study, the information I have supplied (tapes, notes) will bedestroyed.I am willing to take part in the three interviews and understand that each willlast approximately 1 to 2 hours, and I am happy for the conversations to betape-recorded.I understand that quotations from my interview may be used in publicationsto support conclusions.I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. I alsounderstand that any identifying characteristics will be removed from theinformation I supply so that my anonymity is protected.By signing this form you have consented to participate in this study.Name of Participant (printed): _______________________________________________Signature of Participant: _____________________________________________________Date: ______________________________________________________________________139Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire for Study OneDemographic questionnaireThe following questionnaire will ask for some background information and will be used for researchpurposes only. Accurate information is greatly appreciated, however questions may be left un-answeredif you do not feel comfortable providing certain information.If you would like to create your own pseudonym (for confidentiality purposes), please include it here:_______________________________________________________________________Date of Birth (MM/DD/YYYY):Place of Birth:How would you describe your cultural origin?(Canadian, French, English, Chinese, First Nations, Italian, German, Scottish, Irish, EastIndian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Filipino, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese,Lebanese, Chilean, Somali etc.)First language:For the following questions, please circle the most appropriate answer:What is your current Marital Status?Married/Common Law Widowed Separated/Divorced Single/Never Married140What is your highest level of education completed?Some High School High School University/College GraduateCompleted Diploma Degree DegreeWhat is your average household income (yearly)?Under $15 000 - $30 000 $31 000 - $50 000 $51 000 – $75 000 +$75 000$15 000At what age did you start participating in your sport?What is the highest level you have competed at?How long have you competed at this level?How many years have you been competing nationally?How many international events have you been selected to and competed in representing Canada?What are your results nationally/internationally over the past four years? Please provide competitionname and year (please continue on next page if necessary).141How many years have you been a member of the senior national team?Have you ever been a carded athlete?How long were you carded for?Are you currently a carded athlete?Have you ever lost your carding status?How many previous Olympic Games have you attempted to qualify for?How many previous Olympic Games have you competed in?If you would like to provide any further information regarding yourself, please do so below:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________142Appendix C: First Interview Schedule for Study OneInterview Guide: Elite athletesFirst Time PointThe following questions represent an overarching agenda for the first interview withparticipants. The questions will be pursued flexibly and may be altered and added to over timeas different themes and patterns emerge in the data.1. Can you tell me a bit about yourself?Probes:a. Is there anything you would like to ask me before we begin?2. Can you tell me about your previous athletic experience?Probes:a. What are some of your athletic successes?b. What setbacks have you previously experienced in sport?3. Can you tell me about your goals for the upcoming season?Probes:a. What are some obstacles or challenges that may prevent you from achieving yourgoals?b. What will help you attain these goals?c. Do you believe you will be able to attain your goals?4. How would you evaluate your current sport performance?Probes:a. Are you where you want to be at this point in the season?b. What are some challenges you have experienced this season?5. Tell me about your qualification process for the Olympic team.Probes:143a. What has to happen for you to be selected to the Olympic team?b. How do you feel about this process?c. What has been your experience thus far trying to qualify for the Olympics?d. What are some challenges with the process?e. How long have you had the goal of qualifying for the Olympics?f. How do you anticipate the selection process unfolding?6. How confident are you in your ability to make the Olympic standard required to beselected to the Olympic team?Probes:a. How confident are you that you will be selected to go to London to compete ifyou make the Olympic standard?b. What has affected your confidence?7. What do you anticipate your reaction to be if you were:Probes:a. Selected to the Olympic team?b. De-selected from the Olympic team?c. Do you anticipate the selection or de-selection to the Olympic team impactingyour future athletic career?8. When do you experience stress in relation to your sport?Probes:a. What is currently causing you stress in relation to your sport?b. What is stressful about the selection process?i. Where is the stress coming from?c. What factors do you anticipate causing you stress during the selection process?d. What factors do you anticipate causing you stress after the selection process?e. Describe for me any situations in which you commonly feel stress.f. Is this season more stressful than your previous seasons?g. Are other factors or situations in your life causing you stress currently?h. Do you anticipate other factors or situations in your life to cause you stress?9. Tell me how you commonly react to things that are causing you stress?Probes:144a. What do you do to relieve the stress?b. How do you cope with stressful athletic situations?i. Does it depend on the situation?c. How are you coping with the selection process?10. Please describe for me your support network.Probes:a. Who supports you athletically?  Who supports you in other areas of your life?i. Coaches?ii. Support staff?iii. Peers?iv. Parents?v. Teammates?vi. Sport organization?b. What types of support do they offer you?c. In what situations do they offer you support?11. How do you financially support your athletic career?Probes:a. Does your financial situation have any impact on your athletic career?b. What impact does your athletic performance have on your financial situation?12. Tell me about your current training environment.Probesa. How has your training environment influenced you?b. What is your role on your team or in your training environment?c. Tell me about your relationship with your coach.d. How has your coach impacted you?e. Tell me about your relationship with support staff (e.g. physio, trainers, etc.)f. Tell me about your relationships with people affiliated with your sportorganization.g. Tell me about your relationships with your teammates.13. What are your future plans for your athletic career beyond the Olympics?Probes:145a. Will you continue to train after the Olympics?14. What other activities are you currently engaged in other than sport?Probes:a. Are you currently working?  Going to school?b. How do these activities impact your life as a whole?c. How do these activities impact your training?d. How do these activities impact your sport performance?15. What are your plans for the future outside of sport?16. Is there anything that we have not discussed regarding your experience with the Olympicteam selection process that you think is important?Probes:a. Is there anything we have not discussed about your athletic experience that youthink is important?146Appendix D: Second Interview Schedule for Study OneInterview Guide: Elite athletesSecond Time PointThe following questions represent an overarching agenda for the second interview withparticipants. The questions will be pursued flexibly and may be altered and added to over timeas different themes and patterns emerge in the data.1. How has your season been going?Probes:a. How did you perform in your Olympic qualifying events?b. Were you satisfied with your performances in competition?c. Did you experience any challenges or setbacks?2. How would you evaluate your current sport performance?Probes:a. Are you where you wanted to be at this point in the season?b. What is your current status in your sport?3. Can you please tell me about your qualification process for the Olympic team?Probes:a. What was your experience when trying to qualify for the Olympics?b. Did the selection process unfold how you anticipated it to?c. What are your thoughts about this process?d. Has your feelings about the qualification process changed since you started it?e. What were some challenges with the process?f. Has being selected/de-selected changed how you feel about yourself as a person?i. As an athlete?ii. If so how?iii. If not why not?4. What was your reaction to being selected (or de-selected) to the Olympic team?147Probes:a. How did being selected (or de-selected) to the Olympic team make you feel?b. Has being selected (or de-selected) changed your perspective on:i. Your sport?ii. The selection process?5. Have your goals changed since being selected (or de-selected) from the Olympic team?If so, how?Probes:a. Have you met your goals?b. Did anything stand in your way of achieving your goals?c. What assisted you in achieving your goals?d. Do you have any new goals for your athletic performance?6. When do you experience stress in relation to your sport?Probes:a. What was stressful about the selection process?i. Where was the stress coming from?b. What is currently causing you stress in relation to your sport?c. What factors do you anticipate causing you stress in the future in relation to yoursport?d. Describe for me any situations in which you commonly feel stress.e. Are there other factors or situations in your life that caused you stress during thetransition process (if not continuing in sport)?  Now?7. Can you tell me how you commonly reacted to things that were causing you stress duringthe selection process?Probes:a. What did you do to relieve the stress?b. How did you cope with stressful athletic situations?i. Did it depend on the situation?c. How did you cope with the selection process?d. How did you cope with the news of being selected (or de-selected) to the Olympicteam?1488. Please describe for me your support network during the selection process.Probes:a. Has it changed at all since we last spoke?b. Has it changed as a result of being selected (or de-selected) from the Olympicteam?c. Did you feel supported through the selection process?d. Who supported you?i. Who is currently supporting you?ii. Who supports you in other areas of your life?1. Coaches?2. Support staff?3. Peers?4. Parents?5. Teammates?6. Sport organization?e. What types of support did they offer you?f. In what situations did they offer you support?9. Has your financial situation changed as a result of being selected (or de-selected) to theOlympic team?Probes:a. Do you anticipate your financial support changing?b. How will your financial situation affect your training and your athletic career?10. Has your training environment changed as a result of being selected (de-selected) to theOlympic team?Probes:a. Has your role on your team or in your training environment changed as a result ofbeing selected (de-selected) to the Olympic team?b. Can you tell me about your relationship with your coach?c. How did your coach impact you during the selection process?d. Can you tell me about your relationship with support staff (e.g. physio, trainers,etc.)?e. Can you tell me about your relationships with people affiliated with your sportorganization?149f. Can you tell me about your relationships with your teammates?11. What are your future plans for your athletic career beyond the Olympics?Probes:a. Will you continue to train after the Olympics?b. Have your plans changed as a result of the Olympic selection process?12. What other activities are you currently engaged in other than sport?Probes:a. Are you currently working?  Going to school?b. How do these activities impact your life as a whole?c. How do these activities impact your training and sport performance?d. Have they changed since being selected (or de-selected) to the Olympic team?13. What are your plans for the future outside of sport?Probes:a. Do you feel supported in those plans?14. Is there anything that we have not discussed regarding your experience with the Olympicteam selection process and how it has impacted you that you think is important?Probes:a. Is there anything we have not discussed about your athletic experience that youthink is important?150Appendix E: Third Interview Schedule for Study OneInterview Guide: Elite athletesThird Time PointThe following questions represent an overarching agenda for the third interview withparticipants. The questions will be pursued flexibly and may be altered and added to over timeas different themes and patterns emerge in the data.1. How has your season been going?Probes:a. What was your Olympic experience like?b. What was your experience competing (not competing) in the Olympics?c. How did the Olympics impact your life?d. What is your current status in your sport?2. What are your future plans for your participation in sport?Probes:a. Did the Olympics change your plans for your future in sport?b. Did being selected (or de-selected) impact your decision to continue (discontinue)your participation in sport?c. Did the selection process impact your future athletic plans?3. How do you currently feel about being selected (or de-selected from) to compete in theOlympics?Probes:a. Has being selected (or de-selected) changed your perspective on:i. Your sport?ii. The selection process?b. Has being selected/de-selected changed how you feel about yourself as a person?i. As an athlete?ii. If so how?iii. If not why not?1514. Have your current goals for your sport changed as a result of being selected (or de-selected) to the Olympic team?Probes:a. If so, how?5. What has your transition (if not continuing) experience been like thus far?Probes:a. How has your transition impacted your life?b. What has it been like not participating in elite level sport?6. What is your experience participating in your sport (if continuing) after the Olympics?Probes:a. What challenges have you faced?b. Has your motivation to compete remained the same post Olympics?7. What stressors do you experience in relation to your sport?Probes:a. What is currently causing you stress in relation to your sport?b. Describe for me any situations in which you commonly feel stress.c. Are there other factors or situations in your life that have caused you stress duringthis transition process?8. How do you cope with things that cause you stress?Probes:a. What do you currently do to cope with stressful situations in your sport?i. Does it depend on the situation?b. How did you cope with being selected (or de-selected) to the Olympic team?c. How have you coped with the Olympics being over?9. Please describe for me your support network.Probes:152a. Has it changed since we last spoke?b. Has it changed as a result of being selected (or de-selected) from the Olympicteam?c. Did you feel supported through the selection process?d. Who supported you?i. Who is currently supporting you?ii. Who supports you in other areas of your life?1. Coaches?2. Support staff?3. Peers?4. Parents?5. Teammates?6. Sport organization?e. What types of support did they offer you?f. In what situations did they offer you support?10. Has your financial situation changed as a result of being selected (or de-selected) to theOlympic team?Probes:a. Has your financial situation changed since the Olympics?b. Do you anticipate your financial support changing?11. Has your training environment changed since the Olympics?Probes:a. Has your role on your team or in your training environment changed since theOlympics?b. Can you tell me about your relationship with your coach?c. What role has your coach played since the Olympics?d. Has your relationship changed with support staff (e.g. physio, trainers etc.)?e. Has your relationship with people affiliated with your sport organizationchanged?f. Has your relationship with your teammates changed?12. What other activities are you currently engaged in other than sport?Probes:a. Are you currently working?  Going to school?153b. How do these activities impact your life as a whole?c. How do these activities impact your training and sport performance?d. Have they changed since the Olympics?13. What are your plans for the future outside of sport?Probes:a. Do you feel supported in those plans?14. Is there anything that we have not discussed regarding your experience with the Olympicteam selection process and how it has impacted you that you think is important?Probes:a. Is there anything we have not discussed about your athletic experience that youthink is important?154Appendix F: Consent Form for Study TwoTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASchool of KinesiologySport and Exercise Psychology Lab210-6081 University Blvd., Vancouver, BCINFORMED CONSENTPrinciple Investigator:Peter Crocker, PhD Carolyn McEwen, MScSchool of Kinesiology School of KinesiologyUniversity of British Columbia University of British ColumbiaContact Number: 604-822-5580 Contact Number: 519-841-2558peter.crocker@ubc.ca carolyn.mcewen@alumni.ubc.caWhy are we doing this study?You are invited to take part in a research study entitled: “Canada Summer Games Hopefuls: AStudy of How Athletes Experience the Selection Process.” The purpose of this research is toexamine how competitive athletes experience an important selection process. How athletes dealwith selection processes may influence the way they approach their participation in sport. It isimportant to study significant selection processes so we can understand how to promote positivesport experiences and to assist in the continued development of competitive athletes.What is involved in this study?Interested athletes who will be trying out for the Canada Summer Games and are 15 years andolder will be invited to take part in the study. You will be asked to complete three surveys. Thefirst will be before your Canada Summer Games tryouts. The second will be within a week ofyou being aware of whether you have made the team and the third a month after the second.Each survey will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete and will be completed online.You will be asked about your perceptions of the selection process, perceptions of yourself, howyou are dealing (coping) with the selection process, your emotions, and about your goals in sport.You do not have to answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering. If you wish towithdraw from the study, you may do so at any time without having to give any reason for doingso with no negative consequences.Are there any risks in this study?We do not think there are any risks involved in this study. You can refuse to answer any questionand doing so will result in no penalty. You can stop answering the survey at any time, againresulting in no penalty. To withdraw from this study, please contact the researcher: CarolynMcEwen (519-841-2558; carolyn.mcewen@alumni.ubc.ca). Any data collected prior towithdrawal will be omitted from the study and destroyed. In the event that you would like tofurther discuss feelings regarding the topics in the surveys, you may wish to contact FamilyServices of Greater Vancouver (Counselling Services: 604-874-2938). If you are from anotherpart of Canada they can assist in directing you to services in your region.155What are the benefits of this study?There are no explicit or guaranteed benefits to participating in this study. However, someathletes may enjoy the opportunity to reflect on their Canada Summer Games tryout. Theinformation we collect for this study will help in the future to design programs and sport tryoutsthat benefit sport administrators, coaches, and athletes.All participants' email addresses will be placed into a random draw after submitting the time 1questionnaire for a chance to win 1 of 5 SportChek gift cards valued at $100 each or 1 of 10iTunes gift cards valued at $50 each. An additional entry into the draw will be made for eachparticipant that submits time 2 and time 3 questionnaires. For example, if a participant submitsall three questionnaires, their name will be entered 3 times into the draw. A participant can onlywin 1 prize. Participants will still be eligible to win the prize if they withdraw from the studyearly or submit incomplete questionnaires. Participants chance to win is not contingent on fullcompletion of the questionnaires.If you would like to know about the results of the study, feel free to contact Carolyn McEwen(carolyn.mcewen@alumni.ubc.ca). A summary of the results and copies of any resultingpublication will be provided upon request.How will your privacy and confidentiality be maintained?Information gathered will be used for research purposes only and participants will not bematched to individual responses. All data will be collected online and will be stored usingEdudata Canada, a University of British Columbia-based company that provides online datacollection services (http://www.edudata.ca). Edudata provides a secure facility for storingpersonal information, and complies with British Columbia’s Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act. Participants will not be identified in any reports of the completedstudy. Results of this study will be analyzed in group form and will be used in the presentation ofacademic presentations and publications. Once questionnaires are completed, they will beidentified by code number only and will be securely stored for a minimum of five years asrequired by the University of British Columbia guidelines. You do not waive any legal rights byconsenting to participate in this study.Who can you contact if you have questions about the study?If you have any questions or want more information about the study please contact theinvestigators with the contact information provided at the beginning of this page.Who can you contact if you have concerns about the study?If you have any concerns about your rights as a research subject and/or your experiences whileparticipating in this study, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBCOffice of Research Services at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or calltoll free 1-877-822-8598.ATHLETE CONSENT: PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY156 You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, youmay choose to pull out of the study at any time without giving a reason and without anynegative impact on your selection to the Canada Summer Games team. You may wish to discuss this study with your parents before deciding to participate,however the decision is entirely up to you and your responses will be confidential. By submitting the first questionnaire, you are consenting to participate in this study.Please keep a copy of this consent form for your records.157Appendix G: Athlete Information Letter for Study TwoATHLETE INFORMATION LETTERDear Athlete,My name is Carolyn McEwen and I am a PhD student conducting research at theUniversity of British Columbia. I would like to invite you to participate in a study entitled“Canada Summer Games Hopefuls: A Study of how Athletes Experience the Selection Process.”If you are aged 15 and older and are trying out for the Canada Summer Games we are interestedin learning about you and your experience with the tryout.The purpose of this research is to examine how competitive athletes experience animportant selection process.  How athletes deal with selection processes may influence the waythey approach their participation in sport.  It is important to study significant selection processesso we can understand how to promote positive sport experiences and to assist in the continueddevelopment of competitive athletes.This study involves completing three online questionnaires about your perceptions of thetryouts, how you cope with the tryouts, your athletic and life satisfaction, your goals and sportcommitment, and how you see yourself as an athlete.  The first questionnaire you will completewill be before your Canada Summer Games tryout.  The second and third questionnaires you willcomplete one and five weeks after you are aware of whether you are selected to compete at theCanada Summer Games.  Each questionnaire takes approximately 15-20 minutes and all surveyswill be completed prior to the Canada Summer Games.  Regardless of whether you are selectedto compete at the Canada Summer Games or not, we interested in hearing from you!Athletes who decide to participate will be placed into a random draw after submitting thetime 1 questionnaire for a chance to WIN 1 of 5 SportChek gift cards valued at $100 each or1 of 10 iTunes gift cards valued at $50 each. An additional entry into the draw will be made foreach participant that submits time 2 and time 3 questionnaires.Please note there is no obligation for you to participate in this study.  Your involvementwould be much appreciated, but is completely voluntary.  Your participation status and allinformation will remain confidential.  In addition, your participation decision will NOT affectyour standing during the Canada Summer Games tryout.  Furthermore, while a coach orgatekeeper to your sport organization may have assisted in contacting potential participants, theywill not be informed of your participation decision.If you would like to participate in the study please follow the link below (you may haveto copy and paste the link into your web browser):https://survey.edudata.ca/es/czQ0OQ/YzQ0OA/OR if you have any questions please contact Carolyn McEwen(carolyn.mcewen@alumni.ubc.ca).158Sincerely,Carolyn McEwen, MScSchool of KinesiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaContact Number: 519-841-2558carolyn.mcewen@alumni.ubc.ca159Appendix H: Demographic Questionnaire for Study Two Time OneDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRESection 1: This first part of the questionnaire is designed to describe the people participating in this study. All information received is held in confidence.Today’s Date:Date(s) of Canada Summer Games tryout(s) _____________________________________________Date of Birth: _______________________________________Email address: (this is required in order to contact you at subsequent time points and to match responses from each time point)Primary: ________________________________________________________________Secondary: ______________________________________________________________Please check one of the following…1. What is your gender? Male  Female2. How would you describe your ethnic origin? Aboriginal  White  Asian  Filipino Black  Arab  West Asian  Chinese Japanese  Korean  SoutheastAsian  South Asian160 Other (please specify): __________________________3. First Language: __________________________In reference to your first language, please check your ability to: Read  Write  Speak  Understand4.  Secondary Language (if applicable): _________________________In reference to your secondary language please check your ability to: Read  Write  Speak  Understand5. What is your highest level of education? (circle one)Some HighSchoolHighSchoolSome Collegeor UniversityCompletedCollege orUniversityOtherEducationCertificatePost-universitydegree(e.g. doctor,lawyer, dentist)Don’tknow6. What is your parent(s)’ highest level of education? (circle one)Some HighSchoolHighSchoolSome Collegeor UniversityCompletedCollege orUniversityOtherEducationCertificatePost-universitydegree(e.g. doctor,lawyer, dentist)Don’tknow7. Canada Summer Games sport: _______________________________________________7. a) Event(s) (if applicable): ______________________________________1618. Province or Territory representing: _______________________________9. Have you tried out for a previous Canada Summer Games team? Yes  No10. Have you been selected to represent your province/territory for a previous Canada Summer Games? Yes  No11.  Have you competed in a previous Canada Summer Games? Yes  No16212. Please indicate for all the levels of sport you have previously competed in a) the league and/or event associated with this level (e.g.Ontario Summer Games); b) if you were required to be selected to compete in this league or event:Level League or EventSelectionRequired(yes or no)High SchoolRepresented your high school at competitionsRecreationalCompeted in intramurals or in a recreational leagueClubCompeted against athletes from your city/town orneighboring cities/townsUniversity/College VarsityRepresented your university or college varsity teamProvincialCompeted against athletes from  your province/territoryNationalCompeting against athletes from across the countryNational ChampionshipE.g. Represented your province at a Junior NationalChampionshipInternationalCompeted against athletes from a country other than CanadaInternational ChampionshipE.g. Represented Canada at a Junior World Championship13. How many times have you NOT been selected to a team or league that you have tried out for? Never  1 or 2  3 or 4  5 or 6  7 or more16314. When will you know if you are selected to compete in the Canada Summer Games?Date: ______________________________________________ I don’t know164Appendix I: Demographic Questionnaire for Study Two Time Two and ThreeCANADA SUMMER GAMES QUESTIONNAIREDemographic InformationDate of Birth: _______________________________________Email address: (this is required in order to contact you at subsequent time points and to match responses from each time point)Primary: ________________________________________________________________Secondary: ______________________________________________________________Please check one of the following…1. What is your gender? Male  Female2. Canada Summer Games sport: _______________________________________________2. a) Event(s) (if applicable): ______________________________________3. Province or Territory representing: _______________________________4. Were you selected to compete in the 2013 Canada Summer Games? (Please circle)a) Yes, I am going to compete in the Canada Summer Gamesb) No, I was not selected to compete in the Canada Summer Gamesc) I am an alternate to compete in the Canada Summer Gamesd) Other. Please specify ______________________________________________________________________1655. Are you still participating in the sport in which you attended a Canada Summer Games tryout? (Please circle)a) Not at allb) I am participating lessc) I am participating the same amountd) I am participating morePlease provide a brief explanation for your answer:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________166Appendix J: Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM) for Study Two Time OneStress Appraisal Measure(Peacock & Wong, 1990)This questionnaire is concerned with your thoughts about the Canada Summer Games Team Tryouts.  There are no right or wronganswers.  Please respond according to how you view the Canada Summer Games Team Tryouts right NOW. Please answer ALLquestions.  Answer each question by CIRCLING the appropriate number corresponding to the following scale.1Not AtAll2Slightly3Moderately4Considerably5Extremely1. Is this a totally hopeless situation? 1 2 3 4 52. Does this situation create tension in me? 1 2 3 4 53. Is the outcome of this situation uncontrollable by anyone? 1 2 3 4 54. Is there someone or some agency I can turn to for help if I need it? 1 2 3 4 55. Does this situation make me feel anxious? 1 2 3 4 56. Does this situation have important consequences for me? 1 2 3 4 57. Is this going to have a positive impact on me? 1 2 3 4 58. How eager am I to tackle this problem? 1 2 3 4 59. How much will I be affected by the outcome of this situation? 1 2 3 4 510. To what extent can I become a stronger person because of this problem? 1 2 3 4 511. Will the outcome of this situation be negative? 1 2 3 4 512. Do I have the ability to do well in this situation? 1 2 3 4 513. Does this situation have serious implications for me? 1 2 3 4 514. Do I have what it takes to do well in this situation? 1 2 3 4 515. Is there help available to me for dealing with this problem? 1 2 3 4 516. Does this situation tax or exceed my coping resources? 1 2 3 4 51671Not AtAll2Slightly3Moderately4Considerably5Extremely17. Are there sufficient resources available to help me in dealing with thissituation? 1 2 3 4 518. Is it beyond anyone's power to do anything about this situation? 1 2 3 4 519. To what extent am I excited thinking about the outcome of this situation? 1 2 3 4 520. How threatening is this situation? 1 2 3 4 521. Is the problem unresolvable by anyone? 1 2 3 4 522. Will I be able to overcome the problem? 1 2 3 4 523. Is there anyone who can help me to manage this problem? 1 2 3 4 524. To what extent do I perceive this situation as stressful? 1 2 3 4 525. Do I have the skills necessary to achieve a successful outcome to thissituation? 1 2 3 4 526. To what extent does this event require coping efforts on my part? 1 2 3 4 527. Does this situation have long-term consequences for me? 1 2 3 4 528. Is this going to have a negative impact on me? 1 2 3 4 5168Appendix K: Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM) for Study Two Time Two and ThreeStress Appraisal Measure (SAM)(Peacock & Wong, 1990)This questionnaire is concerned with your thoughts about the Canada Summer Games Team Tryouts.  There are no right or wronganswers.  Please respond according to how you view the Canada Summer Games Team Tryouts right NOW. Please answer ALLquestions.  Answer each question by CIRCLING the appropriate number corresponding to the following scale.1Not At All2Slightly3Moderately4Considerably5Extremely1. Was this a totally hopeless situation? 1 2 3 4 52. Did this situation create tension in me? 1 2 3 4 53. Was the outcome of this situation uncontrollable by anyone? 1 2 3 4 54. Was there someone or some agency I could turn to for help if I needed it? 1 2 3 4 55. Did this situation make me feel anxious? 1 2 3 4 56. Did this situation have important consequences for me? 1 2 3 4 57. Did this have a positive impact on me? 1 2 3 4 58. How eager was I to tackle this problem? 1 2 3 4 59. How much was I affected by the outcome of this situation? 1 2 3 4 510. To what extent have I become a stronger person because of this problem? 1 2 3 4 511. Was the outcome of this situation negative? 1 2 3 4 512. Did I have the ability to do well in this situation? 1 2 3 4 513. Did this situation have serious implications for me? 1 2 3 4 514. Did I have what it took to do well in this situation? 1 2 3 4 515. Was there help available to me for dealing with this problem? 1 2 3 4 516. Did this situation tax or exceed my coping resources? 1 2 3 4 51691Not At All2Slightly3Moderately4Considerably5Extremely17. Were there sufficient resources available to help me in dealing with thissituation? 1 2 3 4 518. Was it beyond anyone's power to do anything about this situation? 1 2 3 4 519. To what extent was I excited about the outcome of this situation? 1 2 3 4 520. How threatening was this situation? 1 2 3 4 521. Was the problem unresolvable by anyone? 1 2 3 4 522. Was I able to overcome the problem? 1 2 3 4 523. Was there anyone who could help me to manage this problem? 1 2 3 4 524. To what extent did I perceive this situation as stressful? 1 2 3 4 525. Did I have the skills necessary to achieve a successful outcome to thissituation? 1 2 3 4 526. To what extent did this event require coping efforts on my part? 1 2 3 4 527. Did this situation have long-term consequences for me? 1 2 3 4 528. Did this have a negative impact on me? 1 2 3 4 5170Appendix L: Sport Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ) for Study Two Time One, Two and ThreeSport Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ)(Jones, Lange, Bray, Uphill, & Catlin, 2005)Below you will find a list of words that describe a range of feelings that sport performers may experience.  Please read each onecarefully and indicate on the scale next to each item how you feel right now, at this moment, in relation to trying out for the CanadaSummer Games.  There are no right or wrong answers.  Do not spend too much time on any one item, but choose the answer whichbest describes your feelings right now in relation to trying out for the Canada Summer Games.Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit ExtremelyUneasy 0 1 2 3 4Upset 0 1 2 3 4Exhilarated 0 1 2 3 4Irritated 0 1 2 3 4Pleased 0 1 2 3 4Tense 0 1 2 3 4Sad 0 1 2 3 4Excited 0 1 2 3 4Furious 0 1 2 3 4Joyful 0 1 2 3 4Nervous 0 1 2 3 4Unhappy 0 1 2 3 4Enthusiastic 0 1 2 3 4Annoyed 0 1 2 3 4Cheerful 0 1 2 3 4171Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit ExtremelyApprehensive 0 1 2 3 4Disappointed 0 1 2 3 4Angry 0 1 2 3 4Energetic 0 1 2 3 4Happy 0 1 2 3 4Anxious 0 1 2 3 4Dejected 0 1 2 3 4172Appendix M: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS) for Study Two Time OneCoping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS)(Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002)Each of the items represents things that athletes can do or think about leading up to the Canada Summer Games Tryouts.  For eachitem, you must indicate the extent to which it corresponds to what you did leading up to the Canada Summer Games Tryouts.  Circlethe answer that best corresponds to what you have done leading up to the Canada Summer Games Tryouts.  There are no right orwrong answers.  We are interested in what YOU actually did or thought leading up to the Canada Summer Games Tryouts.1 Does not correspond at all to what I did or thought2 Corresponds a little to what I did or thought3 Corresponds moderately to what I did or thought4 Corresponds strongly to what I did or thought5 Corresponds very strongly to what I did or what I thoughtNot at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly1.  I visualized that I was in total control of the situation 1 2 3 4 52.  I used swear-words loudly or in my head in order to expel my anger 1 2 3 4 53.  I distanced myself from other athletes 1 2 3 4 54. I committed myself by giving a consistent effort 1 2 3 4 55. I occupied my mind in order to think about other things than the tryouts 1 2 3 4 56. I tried not to be intimidated by other athletes 1 2 3 4 57. I asked someone for advice concerning my mental preparation 1 2 3 4 58. I tried to relax my body 1 2 3 4 5173Not at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly9. I analyzed my past performances 1 2 3 4 510. I lost all hope of attaining my goal 1 2 3 4 511. I mentally rehearsed the execution of my movements 1 2 3 4 512. I got angry 1 2 3 4 513. I retreated to a place where it was easy to think 1 2 3 4 514. I gave a relentless effort 1 2 3 4 515. I thought about my favourite activity in order not to think about the tryouts 1 2 3 4 516. I tried to get rid of my doubts by thinking positively 1 2 3 4 517. I asked other athletes for advice 1 2 3 4 518. I tried to reduce the tension in my muscles 1 2 3 4 519. I analyzed the weaknesses of my opponents 1 2 3 4 520. I let myself feel hopeless and discouraged 1 2 3 4 521. I visualized myself doing a good performance 1 2 3 4 522. I expressed my discontent 1 2 3 4 523. I kept all people at a distance 1 2 3 4 524. I gave my best effort 1 2 3 4 525. I entertained myself in order not to think about the tryouts 1 2 3 4 526. I replaced my negative thoughts by positive ones 1 2 3 4 527. I talked to a trustworthy person 1 2 3 4 528. I did some relaxation exercises 1 2 3 4 5174Not at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly29. I thought about possible solutions in order to manage the situation 1 2 3 4 530. I wished that the tryouts would end immediately 1 2 3 4 531. I visualized my all-time best performance 1 2 3 4 532. I expressed my frustrations 1 2 3 4 533. I searched for calmness and quietness 1 2 3 4 534. I tried not to think about my mistakes 1 2 3 4 535. I talked to someone who is able to motivate me 1 2 3 4 536. I relaxed my muscles 1 2 3 4 537. I analyzed the demands of the tryouts 1 2 3 4 538. I stopped believing in my ability to attain my goal 1 2 3 4 539. I thought about my family, my friends, or others to distract myself 1 2 3 4 5175Appendix N: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS) for Study Two Time One and TwoCoping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS)(Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002)Each of the items represents things that athletes can do or think about based on the outcome (e.g. making the team versus not makingthe team) of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts. For each item, you must indicate the extent to which it corresponds to what youdid based on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts. Circle the answer that best corresponds to what you have donebased on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in what YOUactually did or thought based on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts.1 Does not correspond at all to what I did or thought2 Corresponds a little to what I did or thought3 Corresponds moderately to what I did or thought4 Corresponds strongly to what I did or thought5 Corresponds very strongly to what I did or what I thoughtNot at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly1. I visualized that I was in total control of the situation 1 2 3 4 52. I used swear-words loudly or in my head in order to expel my anger 1 2 3 4 53. I distanced myself from other athletes 1 2 3 4 54. I committed myself by giving a consistent effort 1 2 3 4 55. I occupied my mind in order to think about other things than the tryouts 1 2 3 4 56. I tried not to be intimidated by other athletes 1 2 3 4 5176Not at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly7. I asked someone for advice concerning my mental preparation 1 2 3 4 58. I tried to relax my body 1 2 3 4 59. I analyzed my past performances 1 2 3 4 510. I lost all hope of attaining my goal 1 2 3 4 511. I mentally rehearsed the execution of my movements 1 2 3 4 512. I got angry 1 2 3 4 513. I retreated to a place where it was easy to think 1 2 3 4 514. I gave a relentless effort 1 2 3 4 515. I thought about my favourite activity in order not to think about the tryouts 1 2 3 4 516. I tried to get rid of my doubts by thinking positively 1 2 3 4 517. I asked other athletes for advice 1 2 3 4 518. I tried to reduce the tension in my muscles 1 2 3 4 519. I analyzed the weaknesses of my opponents 1 2 3 4 520. I let myself feel hopeless and discouraged 1 2 3 4 521. I visualized myself doing a good performance 1 2 3 4 522. I expressed my discontent 1 2 3 4 523. I kept all people at a distance 1 2 3 4 524. I gave my best effort 1 2 3 4 525. I entertained myself in order not to think about the tryouts 1 2 3 4 526. I replaced my negative thoughts by positive ones 1 2 3 4 5177Not at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly27. I talked to a trustworthy person 1 2 3 4 528. I did some relaxation exercises 1 2 3 4 529. I thought about possible solutions in order to manage the situation 1 2 3 4 530. I wished that the tryouts would end immediately 1 2 3 4 531. I visualized my all-time best performance 1 2 3 4 532. I expressed my frustrations 1 2 3 4 533. I searched for calmness and quietness 1 2 3 4 534. I tried not to think about my mistakes 1 2 3 4 535. I talked to someone who is able to motivate me 1 2 3 4 536. I relaxed my muscles 1 2 3 4 537. I analyzed the demands of the tryouts 1 2 3 4 538. I stopped believing in my ability to attain my goal 1 2 3 4 539. I thought about my family, my friends, or others to distract myself 1 2 3 4 5178Appendix O: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS) for Study Two Time One, Two, and ThreeCoping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS)(Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002)Each of the items represents things that athletes can do or think about based on the outcome (e.g. making the team versus not makingthe team) of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts. For each item, you must indicate the extent to which it corresponds to what youdid based on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts during the last week. Circle the answer that best corresponds towhat you have done based on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts during the last week. There are no right or wronganswers. We are interested in what YOU actually did or thought based on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryoutsduring the last week.1 Does not correspond at all to what I did or thought2 Corresponds a little to what I did or thought3 Corresponds moderately to what I did or thought4 Corresponds strongly to what I did or thought5 Corresponds very strongly to what I did or what I thoughtNot at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly1. I visualized that I was in total control of the situation 1 2 3 4 52. I used swear-words loudly or in my head in order to expel my anger 1 2 3 4 53. I distanced myself from other athletes 1 2 3 4 54. I committed myself by giving a consistent effort 1 2 3 4 55. I occupied my mind in order to think about other things than the tryouts 1 2 3 4 56. I tried not to be intimidated by other athletes 1 2 3 4 5179Not at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly7. I asked someone for advice concerning my mental preparation 1 2 3 4 58. I tried to relax my body 1 2 3 4 59. I analyzed my past performances 1 2 3 4 510. I lost all hope of attaining my goal 1 2 3 4 511. I mentally rehearsed the execution of my movements 1 2 3 4 512. I got angry 1 2 3 4 513. I retreated to a place where it was easy to think 1 2 3 4 514. I gave a relentless effort 1 2 3 4 515. I thought about my favourite activity in order not to think about the tryouts 1 2 3 4 516. I tried to get rid of my doubts by thinking positively 1 2 3 4 517. I asked other athletes for advice 1 2 3 4 518. I tried to reduce the tension in my muscles 1 2 3 4 519. I analyzed the weaknesses of my opponents 1 2 3 4 520. I let myself feel hopeless and discouraged 1 2 3 4 521. I visualized myself doing a good performance 1 2 3 4 522. I expressed my discontent 1 2 3 4 523. I kept all people at a distance 1 2 3 4 524. I gave my best effort 1 2 3 4 525. I entertained myself in order not to think about the tryouts 1 2 3 4 526. I replaced my negative thoughts by positive ones 1 2 3 4 527. I talked to a trustworthy person 1 2 3 4 5180Not at all A little Moderately Strongly Verystrongly28. I did some relaxation exercises 1 2 3 4 529. I thought about possible solutions in order to manage the situation 1 2 3 4 530. I wished that the tryouts would end immediately 1 2 3 4 531. I visualized my all-time best performance 1 2 3 4 532. I expressed my frustrations 1 2 3 4 533. I searched for calmness and quietness 1 2 3 4 534. I tried not to think about my mistakes 1 2 3 4 535. I talked to someone who is able to motivate me 1 2 3 4 536. I relaxed my muscles 1 2 3 4 537. I analyzed the demands of the tryouts 1 2 3 4 538. I stopped believing in my ability to attain my goal 1 2 3 4 539. I thought about my family, my friends, or others to distract myself 1 2 3 4 5181Appendix P: Athletic Goal Progress for Study Two Time OneAthletic Goal Progress Scale(Dugas, Gaudreau, & Carraro, 2012)This scale consists of a number of statements about your athletic goals.  Read each item and then circle the appropriate answer next tothat statement.Leading up to the Canada Summer Games Tryouts, please circle the number that represents the extent to which:Not at all Very VeryslightlyVeryslightly Slightly Moderately StronglyVeryStronglyVery VeryStrongly Totally1...you progressed towards yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 92…you moved forward in pursuit ofyour athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93…you came closer to reaching yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 94…you made progress towards therealization of your athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95…you advanced towards yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9182Appendix Q: Athletic Goal Progress for Study Two Time One and TwoAthletic Goal Progress Scale(Dugas, Gaudreau, & Carraro, 2012)This scale consists of a number of statements about your athletic goals. Read each item and then circle the appropriate answer next tothat statement.Based on the outcome of the Canada Summer Games Tryouts, please circle the number that represents the extent to which:Not at all Very VeryslightlyVeryslightly Slightly Moderately StronglyVeryStronglyVery VeryStrongly Totally1...you progressed towards yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 92…you moved forward in pursuit ofyour athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93…you came closer to reaching yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 94…you made progress towards therealization of your athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95…you advanced towards yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9183Appendix R: Athletic Goal Progress for Study Two Time One, Two, and ThreeAthletic Goal Progress Scale(Dugas, Gaudreau, & Carraro, 2012)This scale consists of a number of statements about your athletic goals. Read each item and then circle the appropriate answer next tothat statement.Since the Canada Summer Games Tryouts, please circle the number that represents the extent to which:Not at all Very VeryslightlyVeryslightly Slightly Moderately StronglyVeryStronglyVery VeryStrongly Totally1...you progressed towards yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 92…you moved forward in pursuit ofyour athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93…you came closer to reaching yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 94…you made progress towards therealization of your athletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95…you advanced towards yourathletic goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9184Appendix S: Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) for Study Two Time One, Two, and ThreeAthletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS)(Brewer & Cornelius, 2001)StronglyDisagreeStronglyAgree1. I consider myself an athlete. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. I have many goals related to sport. 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Most of my friends are athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Sport is the most important part of my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. I spend more time thinking about sport than anything else. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sport. 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not competein sport. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7185Appendix T: Sport Commitment Measure for Study Two Time One, Two, and ThreeSport Commitment Measure(Scanlan, Simons, Carpenter, Schmidt, & Keeler, 1993)The following questions ask about your commitment to your sport. “Your sport” refers to the sport you tried out for to compete inthe Canada Summer Games.Not atall/NothingVeryMuch1. How dedicated are you to playing your sport? 1 2 3 4 5Nothing A Lot2. What would you be willing to do to keep playing yoursport? 1 2 3 4 5Not atall/NothingVeryMuch3. How hard would it be for you to quit your sport? 1 2 3 4 54. How determined are you to keep playing your sport? 1 2 3 4 5186Appendix U: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) for Study Two Time One, Two, and ThreeSatisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)(Pavot & Diener, 1993)Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each itemby circling the appropriate number. Please be open and honest in your responding.StronglyDisagree DisagreeSlightlyDisagreeNeitherAgreenorDisagreeSlightlyAgree AgreeStronglyAgree1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. I am satisfied with my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. So far I have gotten the important things I want inlife. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. If I could live my life over, I would change almostnothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0221255/manifest

Comment

Related Items