The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The personality characteristics of three groups of athletes Murray, Neil Henry 1968

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A7_5 M87.pdf [ 3.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077109.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077109-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077109-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077109-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077109-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077109-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077109-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077109-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077109.ris

Full Text

THE PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE GROUPS OF ATHLETES by NEIL HENRY MURRAY B.P.E., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION i n the Department of Physical Education and Recreation We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Ap r i l , 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and S t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h.iis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada / ABSTRACT The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia were investigated to determine: 1. - I f s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed among the pers o n a l i t i e s of the three d i f f e r e n t groups. 2. If there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n personality between the t o t a l number of athletes tested and the college norms. 3« I f one group of athletes d i f f e r e d from the norm more than the other groups. C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to f o r t y - f i v e subjects competing i n i n t e r -c o l l e g i a t e a t h l e t i c s at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. F i f t e e n of the subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n basketball, f i f t e e n i n f o o t b a l l , and f i f t e e n l n hockey. Results derived by the method of an analysis of variance and H t " tests indicated that: 1. The hockey group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the f o o t b a l l group on the personality f a c t o r , radicalism. 2. The t o t a l number of athletes tested scored s i g n i f i -cantly lower on the factors, shrewdness and apprehensiveness, and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the factor, Intelligence, In comparison with established college norms. The hockey group scored higher than the college norma on three personality f a c t o r s , namely, i n t e l -ligence, tough-mindedness and radicalism. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Study 1 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem 1 Limitations 2 Def i n i t i o n s 2 Personality 2 Athlete 3 College norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 A Comparison of the Personalities of the Athlete and Non-Athlete 5 A Comparison of the Pers o n a l i t i e s of Different Groups of Athletes 8 I I I . METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Subjects . . 16 The Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 METHOD OF ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of Athletes . 17 Personality of the Athletes Compared to College Norms 20 CHAPTER PAGE Personality Differences Between Each Group of Athletes and College Norms . . 22 IV. RESULTS 24 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS . . . 25 Three Groups Compared 25 Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms . . . . . . 25 Three Groups Compared Independently to College Norms . 29 Basketball group 29 F o o t b a l l group 32 Hockey group 32 V . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 42 Summary . . . . 42 Conclusions 43 BIBLIOGRAPHY >+7 APPENDIX A. RAW SCORES . . 52 APPENDIX B. TEST INSTRUCTIONS 55 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. C a t t e l l 1 s Interpretation of the Sixteen Personality Factors 18 I I . Three Groups,Compared 26 I I I . Duncan's Multiple Range Test on Factor "Qi" . . . 27 IV. Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms . . . . . 30 V. Basketball Group Compared to College Norms . . . 33 VI. Football Group Compared to College Norms . . . . 35 VII. Hockey Group Compared to College Norms 38 VIII. Raw Scores of Basketball Group 52 IX. Raw Scores of Football Group 53 X. Raw Scores of Hockey Group 5^ LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Three Groups Compared 28 2. Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms . . 31 3. Basketball Group Compared to College Norms . . . . . 3^ 4. Football Group Compared to College Norms . . . . . . 36 5. Hockey Group Compared to College Norms . 39 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the per-so n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The three groups were basketball players, f o o t b a l l players and hockey players. I t was hypothesized that there would be a s i g n i f i -cant difference i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among these three groups when examined by C a t t e l l 1 s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Form A) . 1 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem There i s , at present, great i n t e r e s t i n the study of the personality of ath l e t e s . While many studies have examined the personality of athletes as compared to non-athletes and, to a l e s s e r extent, the personality of various groups of athletes, not one study could be found that compared the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of basketball, foot-b a l l and hockey players. These three groups constitute the major sports programme of u n i v e r s i t i e s across Canada. More pre c i s e l y , then, there were three aspects of t h i s research: 1. To gather evidence which eith e r supported or 2 contradicted the p o s i t i o n .that s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed between the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of the three groups of at h l e t e s . 2. To determine whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences i n personality between the t o t a l number of athletes tested and the college norms. 3« To determine which, i f any, of the groups of athletes d i f f e r e d most from the college norms esta-blished by C a t t e l l . Limitations The subjects participated f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia at the i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l , and therefore were a s p e c i a l segment of the population. For t h i s reason, and because of the small number i n each group (15). generalizations were severely r e s t r i c t e d . The r e s u l t s were only s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group and generalizations cannot be made to include a l l a t h l e t e s . Generalizations were further r e s t r i c t e d because, i n t h i s study, Canadian athletes were compared to American college norms. Furthermore, since the subjects were not tested beforehand, the study was purely d e s c r i p t i v e i n nature. It was not possible to determine whether or not the sport i n f l u -enced each individual's personality or that c e r t a i n person-ality chaiacteristics compelled people to choose specific sports. D e f i n i t i o n s Personality. The terms personality and personality characteristics were used interchangeably. They referred to 3 a l l the main nonphyslcal dimensions along which people can d i f f e r , according to basic a n a l y t i c a l research. 2 These dimensions, according to C a t t e l l , are sixteen i n number and w i l l be described i n Chapter 3 . Athlete. The term athlete i n t h i s study referred to those indiv i d u a l s playing e i t h e r basketball, f o o t b a l l or hockey at the i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. F i f t e e n athletes were taken from each sport. For f o o t b a l l and hockey, the athletes were v a r s i t y players, but f o r basketball, due to the small number on the v a r s i t y team ( 1 0 ) , the remaining f i v e were taken from the junior v a r s i t y team. College norms. The college norms were established by C a t t e l l , 3 using 1,105 males with an average age of twenty-one. These norms were used f o r comparisons. 4 BJEFERENCES 1 C a t t e l l , R.B., Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1 Q 62. 2 C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, N.W., Handbook f o r the Sixteen  Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1957* 1-3 C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Supplement of Norms f o r Forms A and B of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1962, 19. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE As previously mentioned, research has dealt with comparing the personality of the athlete and the non-athlete, and the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of various groups of at h l e t e s . A few of these studies have included basketball and f o o t b a l l players, but none of the studies included hockey players. Furthermore, not one study could be found that compared the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of basketball, f o o t b a l l and hockey players. For these reasons, t h i s review of l i t e r a t u r e was divided into two main categories. The f i r s t compared the per s o n a l i t i e s of the athlete and the non-athlete while the second compared the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of various groups of ath l e t e s . A Comparison of the Pers o n a l i t i e s of the Athlete and Non- Athlete Studies i n t h i s area were pri m a r i l y concerned with i n t e l l i g e n c e and related achievement, s p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s and general personal and s o c i a l adjustment. In a study by H.S. Slusher,! selected high school athletes were compared with non-athletes from the same popu-l a t i o n f o r differences l n selected p r o f i l e scales, as indicated by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 6 (M.M.P.I.) and i n t e l l i g e n c e quotients. Femininity and i n t e l -ligence were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n a l l a t h l e t i c groups when compared to non-athletic groups. The t r a i t , hypochondriasis, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower f o r a l l athletes. In contrast, a study by H.C. Ray 2 indicated that the athlete used h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e more e f f e c t i v e l y . His r e s u l t s showed that the athlete's grades i n school were eight percent better than the grades of non-athletes with a higher i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient. Also, the non-athlete with a comparable i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient had an academic average eleven percent below the athlete's and f a i l e d four times more often than the a t h l e t e . Instead of using p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a t h l e t i c s , Weber^ used physical f i t n e s s and found that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical f i t n e s s and grade point averages. The c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n was .41, which i s at the one percent l e v e l of confidence. This f i n d i n g indicated that good physical f i t n e s s , as measured, tended to accompany achievement of academic success during the year. Weber also f a i l e d to f i n d any r e l a t i o n s h i p between being p h y s i c a l l y f i t and having stable personality t r a i t s , as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Tillman^ also studied the r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical f i t n e s s and selected personality t r a i t s . He used a battery of three personality inventories and a physical f i t -ness t e s t . The subjects who f i n i s h e d In the upper f i f t e e n percent on the test were compared with the subjects who were 7 i n the lower f i f t e e n percent. The p h y s i c a l l y f i t group, i n contrast to Weber,5 scored higher i n dominance, extroversion, s o c i a l orientation, i n t e r e s t i n people and i n t e r a c t i o n with people. Also using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and i t s v a r i a t i o n s , Booth*s^ r e s u l t s indicated that the non-athlete scored higher on the dominance v a r i a b l e s . College athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i n d i v i d u a l sports scored higher on the depression variable than any of the groups studied. A study by Sperling,? using four d i f f e r e n t person-a l i t y t e s t s , indicated that there were s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e differences i n personality patterns of v a r s i t y and intramural athletes as distinguished from those of the non-athletic group. The athletes were r e l i a b l y superior i n personality adjustment scores, ascendance, and extroversion. The study also indicated that the athletes were more s i g n i f i c a n t l y motivated by a desire f o r power and, to a l e s s e r extent, by a s o c i a l love f o r people. Biddulph,8 using the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, the Henman Nelson Intelligence Test, and two subjective r a t i n g scales with groups of high school boys, indicated that the.superior a t h l e t i c groups showed a higher degree of personal adjustment than the low ranking groups. The d i f -ference between the means was s i g n i f i c a n t at the one percent l e v e l of confidence. Werner and Gotthell? administered C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen 8 Personality Factor Questionnaire to three hundred and forty' athletes and one hundred and sixteen non-athletes at the United States M i l i t a r y Academy. The test was administered at the beginning and at the end of a college career that entailed four years of compulsory a t h l e t i c s . No evidence was found to support the view that college a t h l e t i c s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u -enced personality structures. V A Comparison of the Personalities of Various Groups of  Athletes The basis f o r comparing the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of athletes were twofold: 1. the sport i n which the athlete p a r t i c i p a t e d , 2. the degree of success the athlete experienced i n that sport. Several studies that were conducted indicated that personality differences do exist among athl e t e s . Vasquez^-O found swimmers to be highly integrated, while track runners were found to be poorly integrated. S l u s h e r , ^ using the Minnesota Multiphasic Person-a l i t y Inventory, showed that the basketball group was the most deviate of a l l groups studied. They displayed an over concern with physical symptoms and r e l a t i v e lack of repres-sion. The f o o t b a l l group was characterized by a strong neurotic p r o f i l e . The r e s u l t s indicated the use of physical symptoms as a means of solving d i f f i c u l t c o n f l i c t s under str e s s . 9 Also, a battery of four d i f f e r e n t personality tests administered to s i x groups of athletes by L.F. Flanagan 1 2 indicated fencers to be more ascendant and feminine than other groups, e s p e c i a l l y basketball players. Badminton players appeared to be more extroverted than v o l l e y b a l l players who, i n turn, were more unstable emotionally than basketball players. F.M. Henry 13 administered a personality schedule to student p i l o t s , track athletes, Physical Education majors and weight-trainers. Findings indicated that the weight-trainers were more neurotic, l e s s ascendant, more extroverted and hypochondriac than Physical Education majors. There were also three other studies that were con-cerned with weight-trainers. J.B. Thune-1-^ and R.G. Harlow 15 compared weight-trainers to other, non-weight-training a t h l e t e s . The r e s u l t s indicated that the weight-trainer lacked self-confidence, f e l t more masculine than other men, had consequent feelings of r e j e c t i o n and f e l t an i n a b i l i t y to cope with h i s environment. A study by K. Leithwood 1^ was conducted on f o r t y -f i v e d i f f e r e n t weight-trainers. C a t t e l l 1 s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to the f o r t y - f i v e subjects. F i f t e e n of these subjects trained as a conditioning a c t i v i t y f o r another sport, f i f t e e n trained to improve t h e i r physiques and f i f t e e n trained to increase t h e i r strength f o r w e i g h t - l i f t i n g competitions. Results indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n personality 10 t r a i t s among the three groups and thus that weight-trainers are a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group. C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was also used by W. K r o l l 1 ? to determine the personality of ninety-four wrestlers. When compared to the norms f o r the general population, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t departure from average on Factor I, in d i c a t i n g tough mindedness, s e l f -r eliance and masculinity. No evidence of a neurotic p r o f i l e was found i n the res u l t s obtained from the wrestlers. Studies were also conducted that were primarily i ft concerned with the t r a i t of "aggression." Husman x o admini-stered three projective tests to a group of boxers, wrestlers, and cross-country runners. Results, s i g n i f i c a n t at the f i v e percent l e v e l of confidence indicated: 1. boxers had les s o v e r a l l i n t e n s i t y of aggression than wrestlers, cross-country runners and the control group; 2 . boxers were more l i k e l y than the other groups to d i r e c t aggression inward; 3« cross-country runners were more outwardly aggres-sive and had more ego defense than boxers. Johnson and Danie l l ? added to these findings by measuring the effects of wrestling upon the personality dynamics using the "House-Tree-Person" projective t e s t . Before the wrestling meet the subjects indicated high anxiety, aggression and increased neurotic tendencies, a l l of which f e l l below normal or disappeared a f t e r the meet. 11 The p e r s o n a l i t i e s of outstanding athletes were analyzed on both a team and i n d i v i d u a l basis. H. S e i s t 2 ^ tested seventy-seven outstanding sports champions. The p r e v a i l i n g types showed high psychological s t a b i l i t y and resistance, a "tough" a t t i t u d e , a need to achieve and some obsessive-compulsive tendencies. The C a t t e l l Sixteen Personality Factor Question-naire administered to f i v e c o l l e g i a t e f o o t b a l l teams by W. K r o l l and H. P e t e r s o n 2 1 showed that the winning team scored lowest on s o c i a l factors (love of people, kindness, sympathy and unselfishness). Athletes on scholarships scored lowest of a l l on these factors which were considered by the authors to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of sportsmanship. La Place and Johnson also conducted studies on t h i s need to achieve by the champion. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and a biographical data sheet developed by the author, La P l a c e , 2 2 were applied to a group of profes-si o n a l baseball players. The purpose was to determine whether s p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s , are associated with success i n professional baseball. Results indicated that the major league players were better able than minor league players to: 1. apply t h e i r strong "drive" towards a d e f i n i t e objective by exercising s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e ; 2. adjust to occupations requiring s o c i a l contact and getting along with people; 3. exercise i n i t i a t i v e . Johnson*s 23 findings, vising the Rorschach and 12 House-Tree-Person projective tests on twelve national cham-pion athletes, were even more d i r e c t l y associated with the need to achieve. The in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the responses indicated that the group possessed extreme aggression, emotions lacking s t r i c t control, high and generalized anxiety, a high l e v e l of i n t e l l e c t u a l a s p i r a t i o n and excep-t i o n a l feelings of self-assurance. The evidence suggested that i n these subjects, being a champion was a matter of psychological necessity. In contrast, W. L. L a c k l e 2 ^ used a competitive a t t i t u d e scale of twenty-two items and tested two hundred and twenty-eight subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s i x d i f f e r e n t college sports. The subjects were average college athletes and no differences l n att i t u d e toward winning were found among the par t i c i p a n t s . Summary A comparison of the athlete and the non-athlete indicated that there was no measurable difference between the two groups as f a r as i n t e l l i g e n c e was concerned. However, evidence suggested that there were differences i n general adjustment and c e r t a i n personality t r a i t s . The athlete seemed better to adjust himself to varying circumstances and i n several studies he scored higher on t r a i t s of extroversion and dominance. Athletes also d i f f e r e d to some extent on the basis of the sport they played. There were also great differences 13 between successful and less successful a t h l e t e s . For the champion, winning has become a psychological necessity. 14 REFERENCES 1 Slusher, H.S., "Personality and Intelligence Characteris-t i c s of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes," The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. 2 Ray, H.C., "Inter-relationship of Physical and Mental A b i l i t i e s and Achievements of High School Boys," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1940. 3 Weber, J.R., "Relationships of Physical Fitness to Success i n College and to Personality," The Research Quarterly  of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1953. 4 Tillman, K., "Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality T r a i t s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. 5 Weber, J.R., l o c . c l t . 6 Booth, E.G., J r . , "Personality T r a i t s of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1958.' 7 Sperling, A.P., "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement i n Physical Education A c t i v i t i e s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1942. 8 Biddulph, L.G., " A t h l e t i c Achievement and the Personal and S o c i a l Adjustment of High School Boys," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1954. 9 Werner, A.C, and Gotthell, E., "Personality Development and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n College A t h l e t i c s , " The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1966~I 10 Vasquez, V.C, "The Personality of Athletes," Pslcoteonia. May, 1945. 11 Slusher, H.S., l o c . c l t . 12 Flanagan, L., "A Study of Personality T r a i t s of Different Physical A c t i v i t y Groups," The ..Research Quarterly  of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1951. 13 Henry, F.M., "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 38:8, 1941, p. 745. 15 14 Thune, J.B., "Personality of We i g h t l i f t e r s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1949. 15 Harlow, R.G., "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," The Journal of Personality, 1 9 5 1 , 19, PP. 3 2 1 - 3 2 3 . 16 Lelthwood, K., "Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Weight-Trainers," Master Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I 9 6 7 . 17 K r o l l , W., "Personality Characteristics of Wrestlers," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., July, 1 9 6 6 . 18 Husman, B.F., "Aggression i n Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1 9 5 5 . 19 Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C., "Effects of a Combative Sport Upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1965. 20 S e i s t , H., "Die psychische Egenart der Spitzensportler," Z. Dlagnost. Psychol.. 1 9 5 4 , 1, pp. 1 2 7 -1 3 7 . 2 1 K r o l l , W., and Peterson, H.H., "Personality Factor P r o f i l e s of Collegiate Football Teams," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1 9 6 5 . 22 La Place, J ., "Personality and Its Relationship to Success i n Professional Baseball," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1 9 4 9 . 23 Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C., l o c . c i t . 24 Lackie, W.L., "Expressed Attitudes of Various Groups of Athletes Toward A t h l e t i c Competition," The Research Quarterly  of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. CHAPTER I I I METHODS AND PROCEDURES The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three groups of athletes were examined i n order to determine: 1. If one group of athletes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n personality on the basis of the sport i n which they par t i c i p a t e d * 2. I f the t o t a l number of athletes tested d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n personality from college norms; 3. If one group of the athletes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from college norms more than the other groups. Subjects A l l subjects were male athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e a t h l e t i c s f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The athletes participated i n basketball, f o o t b a l l and Ice hockey, and t h i s was the basis f o r categorizing the athletes into three groups. There were a t o t a l of f i f t e e n athletes chosen from each sport. The subjects were chosen from the v a r s i t y team f o r f o o t b a l l and hockey. However, due to the small number on the v a r s i t y basketball team (10), the remaining f i v e players were taken from the junior v a r s i t y team. The Test The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each subject 17 were determined by administering " C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Person-a l i t y Factor Questionnaire (Form A)," which included measures fo r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shown on Table I. The test was administered s i n g l y . Simple and clear instructions are printed f o r the examinee on the cover page of the tes t booklet. Although the test can be v i r t u a l l y self-administering, an attempt was made to es t a b l i s h rapport with the examinees. Further, the instructions were r e i n -forced by o r a l l y r e i t e r a t i n g the importance of the examinee being frank and honest. To help ensure t h i s honesty, the subjects were not required to reveal t h e i r names. The tests were handscored and the raw data prepared f o r s t a t i s t i c a l analysis at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's Computer Centre. METHOD OF ANALYSIS The test r e s u l t s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y arranged so as to make the three comparisons of personality implied i n the statement of the problem. Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of Athletes This i s accomplished by using an analysis of variance on each of the sixteen personality f a c t o r s . 1 Where a variance r a t i o (F) was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the one percent l e v e l of confidence the three groups were re-analyzed i n d i v i d u a l l y on that f a c t o r using Duncan's Multiple Bange Test. This determined which two of the three groups d i f f e r e d the most.2 18 TABLE I CATTELL *S INTERPRETATION OF THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTORS Low Score Description Personality Factors High Scores Description Aloof, cold (Schizothymia) A Warm, sociable (Cyclothymia) D u l l , low capacity (Low "g") B Bright, i n t e l l i g e n t (High "g") Emotional, unstable (Low ego strength) C Mature, calm (High ego strength) Submissive, mild (Submi sslveness) E Dominant, aggressive (Dominance) Glum, s i l e n t (Desurgenoy) F Enthusiastic, t a l k a t i v e (Surgency) Casual, undependable (Low super ego strength) G Conscientious, persistent (High super ego strength) Timid, shy (Threctia) H Adventurous, "th1ck skinned" (Parmla) Tough, r e a l i s t i c (Harria) I Sensitive, effeminate (premsla) T r u s t f u l , adaptable (Inner relaxation) L Suspecting, jealous (Protension) Conventional, p r a c t i c a l (Praxernla) M Bohemian, unconcerned (Alaxia) Simple, awkward (Naivete) N Sophisticated, polished (Shrewdness) Confident, unshakeable (Confidence) 0 Insecure, anxious (Timidity) Conservative, accepting (Conservatism) Qi Experimenting, c r i t i c a l (Radicalism) Dependent, imitat ive (Group dependence) Q2 S e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , resourceful ( S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y ) Lax, unsure (Low integration) Q 3 Controlled, exact (Self sentiment control) Phlegmatic, composed (Low ergic tension) Tense, exciteable (High ergic tension) 19 The following steps were included f o r each f a c t o r . 1. A correction term (C) was calculated for each factor: c = I ^ 2 where the sum of the scores of the 60 subjects f o r one fa c t o r N= the t o t a l number of subjects. 2. The t o t a l sum of squares around the general mean f o r each fa c t o r f o r the three groups was calculated: S S T = £ * 2 - C where£.>^2 = the sum of the squares of the raw scores i n the three groups. 3. The sum of the squares among the means of the three groups was calculated: SSM.S - + iqpi • i ^ i i - 0 where (£/l) 2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group A. (i->s2)2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group B. (£^3)2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group C. Nl = the number of scores i n Group A. N 2 = the number of scores i n Group B. N3 = the number of scores i n Group C. 4. The sum of the squares within Groups A, B, and C were calculated: SStf = SSrjj - SS]fli s 20 5» The variance from each sum of squares was calculated: a) Variance among the means of the Groups = SSM»s of where S SM ' S = sum of squares among the means of Groups A, B and C df = ( K - l ) degrees of freedom where K i s the number of Groups. b) Variance within the Groups = _£T df where SSj = sum of squares within the Groups df = (N - K) degrees of freedom where N i s the t o t a l number of scores. 6. The variance r a t i o was determined: p = variance among the means ~ variance within the groups ?. For factors with s i g n i f i c a n t variance r a t i o s , Duncan's Multiple Range Test was applied. The means of each group, the standard error of each mean and the degrees of freedom on which t h i s standard error was based were necessary. This data was d i r e c t l y applied to Multiple Range Tables to determine which two of the three groups d i f f e r e d most. Personality of the Athletes Compared to College Norms The three groups of athletes were considered as one. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the difference between the combined means of the athletes and the mean of the college norms f o r each of the sixteen factors was determined by the use of the M t " test 21 using the following procedures:3 1. The mean score f o r each f a c t o r l n each group was calculated: M = T 2 . The standard deviation f o r each f a c t o r l n each • group was calculated: SD = 3» The combined means of the three groups f o r each fa c t o r was calculated: M comb = NiMj + N 2M 2 + N3M3 Nl + N2 + N3 4. The combined standard deviations of the three groups f o r each f a c t o r was calculated: comb = Ni(c5j2 + dl2) + N2(CT22 + d 2 2 ) + N 3 ( c ^ 2 + d3 2) wherecTl = SD of Group A a~z = SD of Group B <T"3 = SD of Group C d i = (M -M comb) d2 = (M -M comb) d3 = (M -M comb) 5. The standard error of the difference between the means of the athletes (M comb) and the means of the college norms was determined f o r each factor: whereC l 2 = SD of the athletes 22 (X 2 2 = SD of the college norms N]_ = number of athletes N 2 = number i n college norms 6. The " t " r a t i o was then computed f o r each fa c t o r : where D = the obtained difference between the mean of the athletes and the mean of the college norms. G~ D = the standard error of the difference between Mi and M2« Personality Differences Between Each Group of Athletes and  College Norms The same method was used as employed i n the comparison of the t o t a l number of athletes tested to the college norms. Here, however, each group was compared separately to the norms.4 23 REFERENCES 1 Garrett, H.E., S t a t i s t i c s In Psychology and Education, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965. 2 Duncan, D.B., Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests, Biometrics Volume II , 1955. pp. 1-40. 3 C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Handbook f o r the Sixteen  Personality Factor Questionnaire, I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality •and A b i l i t y Testing, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , 1957. PP. 11-19. 4 Garrett, H.E., S t a t i s t i c s l n Psychology and Education, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Three d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes were evaluated on sixteen personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The athletes p a r t i -cipated i n basketball, f o o t b a l l and hockey at the i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. This was the basis f o r categorizing the athletes into three groups. The p e r s o n a l i t i e s of the athletes were examined i n three ways. F i r s t , the relationships between the three groups were examined. Second, the t o t a l number of athletes tested were compared to college norms, and t h i r d , each group was separately compared to the college norms. The r e s u l t s of these analyses are interpreted below, recorded i n Tables II to VII and i l l u s t r a t e d graphi-c a l l y i n Figures 1 to 5 . Each Table contains s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s of one of the investigations and corresponds with one of the f i v e Figures. These Figures, with the exception of Figure 1, represent personality p r o f i l e s of the three groups r e l a t i v e to college norms. The construction of the p r o f i l e s u t i l i z e d C a t t e l l ' s Sten Scale.^ This standard score system, which i s based on a ten point scale, was devised i n such a way that the mean of each personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r the college norms was exactly steh 5«5' C a t t e l l reported that 25 scores more diverse than one sten from t h i s mean were s i g n i -f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the one percent l e v e l of confidence from the college norms on that p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r . INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS .Three Groups Compared Table II indicates that an analysis of variance of the sixteen f a c t o r scores f o r the three groups found a s i g n i -f i c a n t difference at the one percent l e v e l f o r f a c t o r "Oj.."2 The mean score of the hockey group (11.80) as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1 d i f f e r e d from the mean scores of the basketball and f o o t b a l l groups which were 10 .13 and 9*20, respectively. Using Duncan's Multiple Range Test, Table III further Indicates that the hockey and f o o t b a l l groups d i f -fered s i g n i f i c a n t l y at the one percent l e v e l from one another on that f a c t o r . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between either the hockey and basketball groups or the basketball and f o o t b a l l groups. Since the mean score of the hockey group i s towards the high end of the scale, the hockey players tended to be more r a d i c a l , that i s , c r i t i c a l , l i b e r a l , a n a l y t i c and free thinking, than d i d the f o o t b a l l group (9 .2) whose temperaments were more conservative. Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms Table IV and Figure 2 indicate that the athletes, 26 TABLE II THREE GROUPS COMPARED. Source of Sum of Signif 1-Factor V a r i a t i o n DF Squares Mean Square F cance Groups 2 0.80445 E 01 0.40222 E 01 .40 — A Error 42 0.41920 E 03 0.99810 E 01 Total 44 0.42724 E 03 0 .84448 E 00 0.42224 E 00 .17 B 0.10613 E 03 0.25270 E 01 0.10698 E 03 0.11267 E 0.22533 E 02 02 1.11 C 0.42467 E 03 0.10111 E 02 0.44720 E 03 0*.28888E 0.57776E 00 00 .02 E 0.64507E 03 0.15359E 02 0.64564E 03 O.38578 E 02 0.19289 E 02 2.19 F 0.37067 E 03 0.88254E 01 0.40924 E 03 0.28311E 02 0.14156 E 02 1.17 6 0.50893E 03 0.12117E 02 0.53724E 03 0.39644E 02 0.19822E 02 .67 H 0.12396E 04 0.29514E 02 0.12792E 04 0.67778E 02 0.33889 E 02 2.62 I 0.54267E 03 0.12921E 02 0.61044E 03 0.25600E 02 0.12800 E 02 .99 L 0.54320E 03 0.12933 E 02 0.56880E 03 0.21645E 02 0.10822E 02 .95 M. 0.47747E 03 0.11368E 02 0.49911E 03 0.31116E 00 0.15558E 00 .02 N 0.26813E 03 0.68341E 01 0.26844E 03 0.15244E 02 0.76222E 01 • 79 0 0.40733E 03 0.96984E 01 0.42258E 03 0.52044E 02 0.26022E 02 5.4o .01 Ql 0.20253E 03 0.48222E 01 0.25458E 03 0.74444 E 02 0.37222E 02 3.16 Q2 0.49413 E 03 0.11765E 02 0.56858 E 03 0.29600E 0.59200 E 02 02 2.87 — -<*3 0.43280 E 03 0.10305E 02 0.49200 E 03 0.19244E 02 0.96222E 01 .49 '-—: 04 0.81987 E 03 0.19521E 02 0.83911E 03 27 TABLE III DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST ON FACTOR Qi Groups Mean Difference Shortest Significant Range Significance Hockey-Football 2.60 2.00 Hockey-Basketball 1.67 1.95 — Basketball-Football • 93 1.95 — CD CO u o o CQ (tf 19.00 18.00 17.00 16.00 15.00 14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 — B a s k e t c a l l — F o o t b a l l — Hockey A B C E F G H I L M Bf 0 Fa c t o r s FIGURE 1 THREE GROUPS OXMPARED Ql Q 2 Q3 % ro 00 29 c o l l e c t i v e l y , d i f f e r e d at the one percent l e v e l of confidence from the college norms on three personality f a c t o r s . These three factors were B, N and 0. Factor H B H ^ measures the general l e v e l of i n t e l l i -gence of the athletes tested. A high score indicates a high l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e while a low score indicates the oppo-s i t e . The mean score of the athletes (9*58) was s i g n i f i -cantly higher than the mean score taken from the college norms (7.72). Factor "N"^ e s s e n t i a l l y measures what C a t t e l l labels the subjects' l e v e l of shrewdness. The mean score of the athletes (9.88) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the mean score taken from the college norms (11.07). According to C a t t e l l , i t would seem from t h i s that as a group the athletes were more fo r t h r i g h t and s o c i a l l y clumsy as compared to college norms. Likewise, the mean score of the athletes (9.17) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the mean score taken from the college norms (10.65) on f a c t o r " 0 . " ^ This difference i n d i -cates that the athletes were more confident and self-assured as compared with the more apprehensive and depressed college norms. Thus, r e l a t i v e to college norms, the athletes as a group were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e l l i g e n t , f o r t h r i g h t and se l f - c o n f i d e n t . Three Groups Compared Independently to College Norms  Basketball group. Table V shows that the 30 TABLE IV TOTAL NUMBER OF ATHLETES'TESTED COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS Athletes * College Norms + Significance l e v e l of Factor M (comb) S.D. (comb) Mean S.D. S.E.]} " t M confidence A 9.71 3.12 9.80 3.43 .53 .17 mm mm B 9-58 1.56 7.72 1.80 .27 6.82 1# C 16.2 3.19 15.50 3.69 .56 1.25 E 15.08 3.83 13.94 3.92 .58 1.93 F 17.29 3.04 15.73 4.40 .66 2.35 G 11.71 3.49 12.73 3.60 .54 1.86 H 11.71 5.39 13.01 5.24 .79 I . 6 3 _ — I 8.11 3.72 8.79 3.49 .54 1.27 L 8.60 3.59 9.47 3.13 .48 1.81 M 11.55 3.37 11.68 3.41 .54 .24 N 9.88 2.47 11.07 2.63 .40 2.96 1% 0 9.17 3.09 10.65 3.90 • 59 2.50 1% 01 10.38 2.40 9. 64 2.75 .42 1.77 02 10.18 3.59 9.97 3.50 .53 .39 --03 10.00 3.34 10.14 3.07 • 35 .29 04 11.44 4.36 12.01 4.81 .74 .77 mmmm *N= 45 + N= 1105 i Ql Q 2 Q 3 Q4 Personality Factors A B C 13 F G H I L M N 0 Mean College Norms 9 . 8 0 7 . 7 2 1 5 . 5 0 1 3 . 9 4 1 5 . 7 3 1 2 . 7 3 1 3 . 0 1 8 . 7 9 9 . 4 7 1 1 . 6 8 1 1 . 0 7 1 0 . 6 5 9 . 6 5 9 . 9 7 10.14 1 2 . 0 1 Scores of Total Number of Athletes Tested ' 9 . 7 1 9 . 5 8 1 6 . 2 15.08 1 7 . 2 9 1 1 . 7 1 1 1 . 7 1 8 . 1 1 8 . 6 0 11 .55 9 . 8 8 9 .17 10.38 10.18 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 4 4 P r o f i l e s . • B E F G H M N 0 Ql Q 2 Q3 Q4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FIGURE 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF ATHLETES TESTED COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS H 32 basketball group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the college norms on personality f a c t o r "B.11 Factor "B," as already mentioned, measures the subjects 1 general l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e . A mean score of 9.60 as compared to 7-72 f o r the college norms indicates a higher l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e f o r the basketball group. Football group. Table VI and Figure 4 indicate that, on fa c t o r "B," the mean score of the f o o t b a l l group (9*73) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the mean score taken from the college norms (7.72). Therefore the f o o t b a l l group, l i k e the basketball group, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e l l i g e n t i n comparison to the norms. Hockey group. Table VII and Figure 5 indicate that the hockey group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y at the one percent l e v e l from the college norms on three personality factors, namely, B, I and Qi» ' As previously stated, f a c t o r "B" measures the subjects' general l e v e l of Int e l l i g e n c e . Like the basketball and f o o t b a l l groups, the hockey group's mean (9.40) was s i g -n i f i c a n t l y higher than the college norms' mean (7«72). A high score on fac t o r " i " D indicates tender-mindedness and dependency as opposed to tough-mindedness and s e l f - r e l i a n c e . The mean score of the hockey group (6.66) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the mean score taken from the college norms (8.79) . This indicates that the hockey group demon-strated a more tough-minded and s e l f - r e l i a n t a t t i t u d e . 33 TABLE V BASKETBALL GROUP COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS Basketball Group * College Norms + Factor ,Mean S.D. Mean S.D. S.E.D " t " level of confidence A 9.86 2.38 9.80 3.43 .85 .07 mm mm B 9.60 1.68 7.72 1.80 .46 4.02 C 15-73 3.53 15.50 3.69 .96 .24 E 15-2 3.46 13.94 3.92 1.02 1.23 F 18.4 2.84 15.73 4.40 1.14 2.34 G 11.4 2.87 12.73 3.60 .94 1.42 H 11.93 5.64 13.01 5.24 1.36 .79 I 9.66 2.79 8.79 3.49 • 90 .96 L 9.66 2.43 9.47 3.13 .54 .24 — M 11.13 3.24 11.68 3.41 .90 .61 _ _ N 9.86 2.13 11.07 2.63 .68 1.76 0 8.73 3.51 10.65 3.90 1.01 1.89 Qi 10.13 1.84 9.64 2.75 .71 .69 — _ . 02 8.40 3.01 9.97 3.50 .90 1.72 Q3 8.53 2.85 10.14 3.07 .80 2.01 - - • 04 10.66 4.25 12.01 4.81 1.26 1.07 mrnmm *N= 15 + N= 1105 Personality Factors A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Q x Q 2 Q3 Qlf Mean College Norms 9 . 8 0 7 . 7 2 1 5 . 5 0 1 3 . 9 4 1 5 . 7 3 1 2 . 7 3 1 3 . 0 1 8 . 7 9 9 . 4 7 1 1 . 6 8 1 1 . 0 7 IO .65 9 . 6 5 9 . 9 7 10.14 1 2 . 0 1 Scores of Basketball Group 9 . 8 6 9 . 6 0 1 5 . 7 3 1 5 . 2 18 .4 1 1 . 4 1 1 . 9 3 9 . 6 6 9 . 6 6 1 1 . 1 3 9 . 8 6 8 . 7 3 1 0 . 1 3 8.40 8 . 5 3 1 0 . 6 6 P r o f i l e s B E F H M N 0 Ql Q 2 Q3 Q4 10 9 8 7 6 5 '4 3 2 1 FIGURE 3 BASKETBALL GROUP COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS 35 TABLE VI FOOTBALL GROUP COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS Football Group * College Norms + Factor Mean S.D. Mean S.D. S.E.j) ' l e v e l of confidence A 9.13 2.99 9.80 3.43 .90 .74 B 9.73 1.86 7.72 1.80 .46 4 . 3 0 C 1,5.66 2.63 15.50 3.69 .94 .17 E 14.93 3.71 13.94 3.92 1.03 .97 _ _ F 17-33 2.87 15.73 4.40 1.01 1.40 — G 10.93 3.76 12.73 3.60 .94 1.91 --H 10.46 4.48 13.01 5 .24 1.36 1.87 1 8 .00 3.62 8.79 3.49 .90 .87 - -L 8.06 3.82 9.47 3.13 .82 1.71 --M 12.53 3.54 11.68 3.41 .89 .96 N 10.00 2.69 11.07 2.63 .68 1.56 — — 0 10.00 2.32 IO.65 3.90 1.00 .64 --Ql 9.20 2.24 9.64 2.75 .72 .61 Q2 10.73 3.45 9.97 3.50 .92 .83 — Q3 10.13 3.70 10.14 3.07 1.25 .008 --04 12.26 4.57 12.01 4 .81 1.20 .20 — — *N= 15 + N= 1105 Personality Factors A B C E F G H I L M N O Q ^ Q 2 Q3 Qj^  Mean College Norms 9.80 7.72 15.50' 13.94 15.73 12.73 13.01 8.79 9.47 11.68 11.07 10.65 9.65 9.97 10.14 12 .01 Scores of Football Group 9.13 9.73 15.66 14.93 17.33 10.93 10.46 8 .00 8.06 12.53 10.00 10.00 9.20 10.73 10.13 12.26 P r o f i l e s B C E F G H M N 0 Q x Q 2 Or 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FIGURE 4 FOOTBALL GROUP COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS Q4 Os 37 Table VII also Indicates that the hockey group d i f -fered s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the college norms on f a c t o r " Q i . M This i s the same fact o r on which the hockey and f o o t b a l l groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y when examined by Duncan*s Multiple Range Test. The mean score of the hockey group (11.80) on t h i s f a c t o r was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the mean score taken from the college norms', (9»65). Therefore, i n comparison, the hockey group tended to be more r a d i c a l , that i s , experimental, l i b e r a l and free thinking. To r e i t e r a t e , the hockey group when compared to the college norms was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e l l i g e n t , tough-minded and r a d i c a l . While many l i m i t a t i o n s of personality tests? have been recognized, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, nevertheless, indicated the following: 1. The athletes tested d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one another on one personality f a c t o r on the basis of the sport i n which they p a r t i c i p a t e d . An analysis of variance on sixteen personality factors yielded an n P w r a t i o s i g n i f i c a n t at the one percent l e v e l on the f a c t o r , radicalism. Duncan*s Multiple Range Test showed that the hockey group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i -cantly from the f o o t b a l l group on t h i s f a c t o r . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences found between hockey and basketball or basketball and f o o t b a l l . 2. The athletes tested scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on three personality factors than did the students 38 TABLE V I I HOCKEY GROUP COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS Hockey Group * College Norms + level of Factor Mean S.D. Mean S.D. S.E.Q «t H confidence A 10.13 3-90 9.80 3.43 .89 • 37 B 9.40 1.12 7.72 1.80 .46 3.60 C 17.20 3.29 15.50 3.69 .96 1.77 E 15.13 4.50 13.94 3.92 1.02 1.16 _ _ F 16.13 3.18 15.73 4.40 1.15 •35 --G 12.80 3.72 12.73 3.60 1.00 .07 H 12.73 6.05 13.01 5.24 1.40 .20 _ _ 1 6.66 4.22 8.79 3.49 • 91 2.33 L 8.06 4.26 9.47 3.13 .82 1.71 M 11.00 3.31 11.68 3.41 .89 .76 _ _ N 9.80 2.70 11.07 2.63 .68 1.85 0 8.80 3.36 10.65 3.90 1.01 1.82 Ql 11.80 2.45 9.64 2.75 .71 3.02 Q2 11.40 3.77 9.97 3.50 .91 1.57 — Q3 11.33 3.01 • 10.14 3.07 .79 1.49 11.40 4.42 12.01 4.81 1.26 .48 * N = + N = 15 1105 Personality Factors A . B C E F G H I L M N 0 Q]_ Q 2 Q3 Q4 Mean College Norms 9 . 8 0 7 . 7 2 ' 1 5 . 5 0 1 3 . 9 4 1 5 . 7 3 1 2 . 7 3 1 3 . 0 1 8 . 7 9 9 . 4 7 1 1 . 6 8 1 1 . 0 7 IO . 6 5 9 . 6 5 9 - 9 7 10.14 1 2 . 0 1 Scores of Hockey Group _ 1 0 . 1 3 9.40 1 7 . 2 0 1 5 . 1 3 1 6 . 1 3 12.80 1 2 . 7 3 6 . 6 6 8 . 0 6 1 1 . 0 0 9 .80 8 . 8 0 11.80 11.40 1 1 . 3 3 11.40 P r o f i l e s • B E F G H M N 0 Q x Q 2 Q3 Qiv FIGURE 5 HOCKEY GROUP COMPARED TO COLLEGE NORMS 40 used to esta b l i s h college norms. These factors were i n t e l l i g e n c e , shrewdness and self-confidence. Each group of athletes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l n personality from the college norms on at lea s t one f a c t o r . The basketball and f o o t b a l l groups d i f f e r e d favourably i n i n t e l l i g e n c e while the hockey group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e l l i g e n t , tough-minded and r a d i c a l . 41 REFERENCES 1 C a t t e l l , R.B., Eber, H.W., Supplement of Norms f o r Forms  A and B of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , U.S.A., 1962, p. 19. 2 C a t t e l l , R.B., Eber, H.W., Handbook f o r the Sixteen  Personality Factor Questionnaire, I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , U.S.A., 1957. p. 18. 3 Ibid., p. 11. 4 Ibid., p. 17. 5 Ibid., p. 17. 6 Ibid., p. 15. 7 E l l i s , A., "The V a l i d i t y of Personality Questionnaires, M  Psychological B u l l e t i n , V ol. 43, No. 5, September 1946, pp. 385-440. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Related l i t e r a t u r e i n t h i s f i e l d has supported the views that the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of athletes d i f f e r e d from the per s o n a l i t i e s of non-athletes and that the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of athletes themselves d i f f e r e d to some degree on the basis of success and a b i l i t y . Although several studiesl»2,3»4 were also found that compared the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of various groups of athletes, not one study could be found that compared the per s o n a l i t i e s of athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n basketball, foot-b a l l and hockey. ' These three sports were selected because they are considered the major sports i n U n i v e r s i t i e s across Canada. This study defined the term, "athlete," to mean those i n d i v i d u a l s competing i n one of the above mentioned sports at the i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The problem was threefold: 1. To determine i f s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed between the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the three groups of athl e t e s . 2. To determine If there were s i g n i f i c a n t personality differences between the t o t a l number of athletes tested and the college norms. 43 3« To determine which, i f any, of the groups d i f f e r e d the most from the college norms. In order to evaluate the personality characteris-t i c s , C a t t e l l 1 s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to f o r t y - f i v e subjects which included f i f t e e n athletes i n each of the three groups. Conclusions Despite acknowledged test r e s t r i c t i o n s and the small sample s i z e , the r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n warranted the following conclusions: 1. The hockey group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the f o o t b a l l group on one personality factor, namely, radicalism. 2. Personality differences d i d e x i s t between the athletes tested and the college norms. The athletes were more i n t e l l i g e n t , f o r t h r i g h t and s e l f - c o n f i d e n t . 3* The hockey group d i f f e r e d more from the college norms than d i d e i t h e r of the other two groups i n three personality f a c t o r s . The hockey group was more i n t e l l i g e n t , tough-minded and r a d i c a l . The f i r s t conclusion, i n d i c a t i n g that the hockey group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r a d i c a l than the f o o t b a l l group, lends support to the view that athletes do d i f f e r from one another on the basis of the sport i n which they p a r t i c i p a t e d . The f a c t that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences 44 found, between the t o t a l number of athletes tested and established college norms, the second conclusion supports the concensus of the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed which states that athletes and non-athletes d i f f e r i n personality. However, i t must be pointed out that It i s impossible to. determine whether p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a t h l e t i c s develops c e r t a i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or whether c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s compel people to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a t h l e t i c s . Possibly a combination of both i s the best answer, with the exception of I n t e l l i g e n c e . The i n t e l l i g e n c e of athletes has always been a con-t r o v e r s i a l t o p i c . The athletes i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study were compared to established college norms and consequently no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were expected. However, contrary to the findings of Slusher,^ the athletes tested demonstrated a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e than d i d the students who established the college norms. Nevertheless, as previously stated l n the Limita-tions, generalizations from t h i s r e s u l t were severely r e s t r i c t e d since the college norms were American while the athletes were Canadian. The athletes i n t h i s study also d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i -cantly from the college norms on shrewdness and s e l f -confidence. The athletes tended to be more f o r t h r i g h t and self-confident i n comparison with the college norms. While t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n d i f f e r s from the findings of Booth,^ who does not mention these factors, i t seems 45 consistent with the findings of Tillman,'' Sperling** and Biddulph.9 a l l of whom showed better adjustment f o r the a t h l e t e s . The r e s u l t that the hockey group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e l l i g e n t , tough-minded and r a d i c a l i n comparison with the college norms also supports the view that the personali-t i e s of athletes and non-athletes d i f f e r . In summation, i t does seem r e l a t i v e l y c e r t a i n that there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n personality between the athletes tested and the college norms and to a l e s s e r degree, differences between the three groups of a t h l e t e s . However, there are four related problems f o r which l i t t l e objective evidence i s a v a i l a b l e : 1. Does a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t y i n general lead to the development of s p e c i f i c personality characteris-t i c s ? 2. Do s p e c i f i c sports a f f e c t personality character-i s t i c s d i f f e r e n t l y ? 3» Are these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s o c i a l l y desirable? 4. What teaching methods are most e f f e c t i v e f o r promoting these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Research d i r e c t l y related to these problems would d e f i n i t e l y a i d Physical Educators In c l a r i f y i n g t h e i r objectives. 46 REFERENCES 1 Vasquez, V.C, "The Personality of Athletes," Pslcotecnla, May, 1945. 2 Slusher, H.S., "Personality and Intelligence Character-i s t i c s of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. 3 Flanagan, L., "A Study of Personality T r a i t s of Di f f e r e n t Physical A c t i v i t y Groups," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1951. 4 Henry, F.M., "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 38:8, 1941, p. 745. 5 Slusher, H.S., "Personality and Intelligence Character-i s t i c s of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. 6 Booth, E.G., J r . , "Personality T r a i t s of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1958. 7 Tillman, K., "Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality T r a i t s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. 8 Sperling, A.P., "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement i n Physical Education A c t i v i t i e s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1942. 9 Biddulph, L.G., " A t h l e t i c Achievement and the Personal and S o c i a l Adjustment of High School Boys," The Research  Quarterly of the•A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1954. BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l p o r t , G.W. "What i s Personality?" Contributions to Psychology: Readings, Edited by Robert L. Wrenn, Univer-s i t y of Arizona, Wadsworth Pub. Co. Inc., Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a , 1966, pp. 76-78. Biddulph, L.G. " A t h l e t i c Achievement and the Personal and S o c i a l Adjustment of High School Boys." The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1954". Booth, E.G., J r . "Personality T r a i t s of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I." The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1958. C a t t e l l , R.B. Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and  Factual Study. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1959* C a t t e l l , R.B. Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1962. C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W. Handbook f o r the Sixteen Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1957. C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W. Supplement of Norms f o r Forms  A and B of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1962. C a t t e l l , R.B. The S c i e n t i f i c Analysis of Personality. Penguin Books Inc.: Baltimore, 1965* Duncan, D.B. Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests. Biometrics Volume II, 1955• PP. 1-40. Flanagan, L. "A Study of Personality T r a i t s of Different Physical A c t i v i t y Groups." The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1951. Garret, H.E. S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and Education. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1966. Harlow, R.G. "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Develop-ment of Physique." The Journal of Personality, 1951* 19. pp. 312-323. Henry, F.M. "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students." Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 38:8, 1941, p. 745. Husman, B.F. "Aggression i n Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques." The R e s e a r c h Quarterly of t h e  A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1955. Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C. "Effects of a Combative Sport Upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Pro jective-Test. 1 1 The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1965. K r o l l , W. "Personality Characteristics of Wrestlers." The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., July, 1966. K r o l l , W., and Peterson, H.H. "Personality Factor P r o f l i e s of Collegiate Football Teams." The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, I965. Lackie, W.L. "Expressed Attitudes of Various Groups of Athletes Toward A t h l e t i c Competition." The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. La Place, J . "Personality and Its Relationship to Success i n Professional Baseball." The Research Quarterly of the A.A..H.P.E.R. , October, 194~9T ' Leithwood, K. "Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Weight-Trainers." Master Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 196T^  Mussen, P.H., Conger, J. J . , and Kagan, J . Child Development  and Personality. Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Cranston, and London, 1963. Ray, H.C. "Inter-relationships of Physical and Mental A b i l i t i e s and Achievements of High School Boys." The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1940. S e i s t , H. "Die psychische Egenart der Spitzensportler." Z. Dlagnost. Psychol., 1954, 1, pp. 127-137. Slusher, H.S. "Personality and Intelligence Characteristics of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes." The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. Sperling, A.P. "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement i n Physical Education A c t i v i -t i e s . " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1942. Thune, J.B. "Personality of Weig h t l i f t e r s . " The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 194"$T Tillman, K. "Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality T r a i t s . " The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1965. Vasquez, V.C. "The Personality of A t h l e t i c s . " Psicotecnla, May, 1945. Weber, J.R. "Relationships of Physical Fitness to Success i n College and to Personality." The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1953. Werner, A.C.,- and Gott h e i l , E. "Personality Development and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n College A t h l e t i c s . " The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1966. Whiting, H.T., and Stermbrldge, D.E. "Personality and the Persistent Non-Swimmer." The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1965. APPENDIX APPENDIX A TABLE VIII RAW SCORES OF BASKETBALL GROUP Personality Factors A B C E F G H I L M N O Ql Q2 0? 04 1 6 8 16 15 18 14 20 8 10 14 10 7 11 14 12 7 2 • 9 11 10 14 14 8 3 10 9 10 14 10 8 11 6 14 3 8 10 8 19 15 10 11 12 11 9 11 17 10 7 7 17 4 10 9 20 18 17 16 11 7 10 6 8 9 8 13 10 15 5 11 11 16 17 18 11 7 13 15 13 9 5 12 10 6 9 6 11 11 15 16 21 11 20 10 9 5 9 8 12 8 9 7 7 10 7 16 10 19 12 9 7 10 8 8 7 9 7 4 12 8 8 10 16 15 18 8 9 15 11 10 11 7 11 5 7 6 9 9 7 11 16 23 8 14 12 12 14 5 9 13 7 7 14 10 7 13 17 18 21 16 9 7 9 11 10 6 9 9 9 8 11 13 9 19 13 13 16 13 10 5 14 11 5 11 9 14 7 12 8 11 20 6 22 11 8 4 6 17 11 8 12 11 10 8 13 15 8 18 19 18 11 24 11 10 13 11 12 7 7 8 11 14 11 10 18 16 19 9 8 9 7 11 12 6 11 4 13 6 15 12 9 16 16 20 10 13 10 11 12 8 15 8 4 6 19 TABLE IX RAW SCORES OF FOOTBALL GROUP Persona l i ty Factors A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Ql Q2 Q3 04 1 3 11 15 15 21 6 14 8 11 12 14 10 11 11 10 18 2 8 11 17 10 16 11 10 12 8 6 6 12 5 4 8 18 3 . 4 9 l l 10 14 11 5 8 3 17 15 9 8 14 8 11 4 12 8 18 12 15 10 4 12 2 13 6 6 8 8 14 12 5 12 8 15 20 18 18 19 7 9 15 8 7 11 14 15 7 6 10 12 16 14 14 15 7 6 5 8 11 10 10 8 9 13 7 7 10 15 21 17 11 9 2 8 17 11 12 12 11 8 14 8 10 5 13 17 22 10 12 10 10 18 11 11 12 13 14 11 9 12 10 12 11 20 9 5 5 5 11 10 11 8 9 5 10 10 9 11 20 15 22 5 15 2 12 14 12 12 7 5 6 10 11 6 10 18 12 16 10 7 6 9 11 7 9 7 16 15 6 12 9 10 16 18 13 18 14 8 10 14 8 7 7 13 12 6 13 12 12 20 18 8 13 8 5 9 12 1.0 11 14 14 10 14 12 11 14 12 18 9 15 11 7 14 9 9 9 11 10 17 15 11 8 15 19 17 13 8 15 17 9 10 15 12 10 4 21 TABLE X RAW SCORES OF HOCKEY GROUP Personality Factors A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Q x Q 2 Q3 Qij, 1 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 9 1 9 1 5 1 7 14 14 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 8 2 9 1 0 14 8 1 2 1 0 5 5 4 l l 8 8 1 2 1 2 1 1 9 3 2 1 1 14 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 7 1 1 0 1 3 1 3 8 14 9 1 5 4 4 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 9 2 1 14 8 8 7 1 3 1 1 9 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 3 5 9 1 0 2 0 1 9 2 0 14 1 3 3 1 6 1 5 1 1 1 5 8 8 14 1 5 6 1 3 1 0 1 7 14 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 0 7 1 1 6 6 1 0 4 8 1 3 7 8 9 1 5 1 0 1 7 1 7 5 1 3 4 1 1 8 1 2 14 1 5 9 14 8 5 9 1 3 9 14 1 3 7 2 1 2 14 5 1 3 14 1 2 6 1 9 9 1 0 7 2 1 1 9 14 1 5 1 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 14 5 14 1 6 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 9 1 5 1 9 1 7 8 1 3 14 1 3 14 1 3 9 1 3 1 0 9 1 5 1 1 1 0 8 1 7 1 6 1 2 14 6 3 5 5 1 0 1 0 8 1 7 1 5 9 12 8 1 0 1 7 1 6 1 5 14 6 2 6 4 1 0 1 1 8 1 5 1 5 9 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 3 1 8 1 6 4 7 1 1 8 8 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 1 14 1 7 8 1 7 1 0 18 6 2 1 7 5 1 0 8 4 1 3 7 9 7 1 5 1 7 9 2 0 1 0 1 8 6 2 1 7 1 8 9 3 1 1 7 9 5 APPENDIX B TEST INSTRUCTIONS WHAT TO DO: Inside t h i s booklet are some questions to see what attitudes and interests you have. There are no "right and "wrong" answers because everyone has the r i g h t to his own views. To be able to get the best advice from your r e s u l t s , you w i l l want to answer them exactly and t r u l y . I f a separate "Answer Sheet" has not been given to you, turn t h i s booklet over and tear off the Answer Sheet on the back page. Write your name and other p a r t i c u l a r s at the top of the Answer Sheet. F i r s t , you should answer the four sample questions below so that you can see whether you need to ask anything before s t a r t i n g . Although you are to read the questions i n t h i s booklet, you must record your answers on the answer sheet (alongside the same number as i n the booklet). There are three possible answers to each question. Read the follox?ing examples and mark your answers at the top of your answer sheet where i t says "Examples." Put a mark, x, l n the left-hand box i f your answer choice i s the "a" answer, i n the middle box i f your answer choice i s the "b" answer, and i n the right-hand box i f you choose the "c" answer. EXAMPLES: 1. I l i k e to watch team games, (a) yes, (b) occasionally, (c) no. 2. I prefer people who: (a) are reserved, (b) (are) i n between, (c) make friends quickly. 3. Money cannot bring happiness, (a) yes (true), (b) i n between, (c) no ( f a l s e ) . 4. Woman i s to c h i l d as cat i s to: (a) k i t t e n , (b) dog, (c) boy. In the l a s t example there i s a r i g h t a nswer—kitten. But • there are very few such reasoning items among the questions Ask now i f anything i s not c l e a r . The examiner w i l l t e l l you i n a moment to turn the page and s t a r t . TEST INSTRUCTIONS (Contd.) When you answer, keep these four points i n mind: 1. You are asked not to spend time pondering. Give the f i r s t , natural answer as i t comes to you. Of course, the questions are too short to give you a l l the p a r t i -culars you would sometimes l i k e to have. For instance, the above question asks you about "team games" and you might be fonder of f o o t b a l l than basketball. But you are to reply "for the average game," or to s t r i k e an average i n situations of the kind stated. Give the best answer you can at a rate not slower than f i v e or s i x a minute. You should f i n i s h i n a l i t t l e more than half an hour. 2. Try not to f a l l back on the middle, "uncertain" answers except when the answer at either end i s r e a l l y impos-s i b l e f o r you—perhaps once every two or three questions. 3. Be sure not to skip anything, but answer every ques-t i o n , somehow. Some may not apply to you very well, but give your best guess. Some may seem personal; but remember that the answer sheets are kept c o n f i d e n t i a l and cannot be scored without a sp e c i a l s t e n c i l key. Answers to p a r t i c u l a r questions are not inspected. 4. Answer as honestly as possible what i s true of you. Do not merely mark what seems "the r i g h t thing to say" to impress the examiner. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077109/manifest

Comment

Related Items