Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process Neu, Lois 1993

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0095.pdf [ 1.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077136.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077136-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077136-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077136-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077136-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077136-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077136-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077136-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077136.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OF ATHLETE SATISFACTION WITH THESPORT TEAM SELECTION PROCESSbyLois NeuB. P. E., University of Calgary, 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Human KineticsWe accept this thesis as conformingTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADecember 1993®Lois Neu, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_________________________Department of______________7L’m47 7LtdThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE.6 (2/88)ABSTRACTAthletes frequently express concerns regarding the team selectionprocess. Previously, few studies in the Sport Psychology literature haveaddressed variables associated with the team selection process, andspecifically, there is no theoretical framework which identifies the relationshipbetween athlete satisfaction and the team selection process. The currentresearch investigates several variables (task type, team size, criteria, selectionmethod, perceived control, self-esteem, motivation, performance, life-satisfaction, age and gender of the athlete, and preferred decision-making styleof the leader) which may influence athlete satisfaction with the team selectionprocess. Investigating the team selection process might provide information forthe improvement of current selection procedures, and such changes may resultin a greater amount of athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process,as well as, satisfaction with sport in general.Male and female athlete volunteers (208) who had experienced a BritishColumbia provincial team selection process within the last two years, completedthe Causal Dimension Scale, Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale,Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, the Sport Orientation Questionnaire, and ademographic questionnaire (The Personal Information Questionnaire).Automatic Interaction Detection (AID) analysis was used to analyze thedata. The variables of performance outcome, motivation, perceived controI, selfesteem, knowledge of criteria, decision making style, perception of performance,and age, influenced athlete satisfaction with the team selection process.Performance outcome accounted for 17.5% of the total variance found inan athlete’s satisfaction with the selection process. Athletes selected to the teamIIwere more satisfied than those who were not selected. Surprisingly,performance outcome affected male satisfaction more than female satisfaction,selection method affected female satisfaction but not male satisfaction, andlocus of control affected male satisfaction but not female satisfaction.Furthermore, performance satisfaction influenced female satisfaction with thesport team selection process, but did not affect male satisfaction, and self-esteem affected male satisfaction more than female satisfaction.Results suggested that athlete satisfaction with selection processes mightbe enhanced if, sport organizations consider certain variables (performance,self-esteem, motivation, and perceived control) when developing team selectionprocesses, and if athletes consider the same variables to develop psychologicalmethods of coping with not being selected. Satisfying selection procedures mayresult in greater athlete commitment to sport and an improvement inperformance through increased efforts.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiList of Tables viList of Figures viiAcknowledgements viiiChapter 1 Introduction 1Chapter 2 Literature Review 5Organization Characteristics 7Athlete Characteristics 14Leader Charactertistics 23Chapter 3 Methodology 26Subjects 26Independent Variables 26Dependent Variable 37Measurements 37Procedure 38Data Analyses 40Chapter 4 Results 42Descriptive Statistics 42Psychometric Properties of Measurement Scales 44Automatic Interaction Detection (AID) Analysis 47VTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)Chapter 5 Discussion 55Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions 71References 79Appendix A - Questionnaire Materials 85Appendix B - Ethical Review Certificate and Documents 93Appendix C- Independent Variable List 97Appendix D - Psychometric Properties of Measurement Scales: Results 99Appendix E - Distribution of Dependent Variable 108viLIST OF TABLESTable 1 Demographic Characteristics of Subjects 27Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilitiesof Variables 43Table 3 Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire and The Causal Dimension Scale 45Table 4 Percentage of Variance Accounted for by PredictorVariables in AID Analysis 54vuLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Classification of Task Type- Variability 9Figure 2 Classification of Task Type - Variability as a Continuum 10Figure 3 Classification of Task Type - Dependence 29Figure 4 Classification of Team Size 30Figure 5 Classification of Selection Methods 33Figure 6 Structure of the Relationship between Selected VariablesAnd Athlete Satisfaction with the Sport Team SelectionProcess 49Figure 6.1 Structure of the Relationship between Selected VariablesAnd Athlete Satisfaction with the Sport Team SelectionProcess: Continued 50Figure 7 Structure of the Relationship between Selected Variablesand Male Satisfaction with the Sport Team SelectionProcess 52Figure 8 Structure of the Relationship between Selected Variablesand Female Satisfaction with the Sport Team SelectionProcess 53VIIIAcknowledgmentsThank you to Dr. Sharon Whittaker-Bleuler for her countless hours ofassistance, thoroughness in editing, and patience during the development of thisthesis. Dr. Bleuler’s support and guidance as the Chairperson of my thesiscommittee was sincerely and greatly appreciated.I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Schutz for spending many of hisvaluable hours assisting me with the data analyses. His ability to explain themost complicated concepts, with simple terms, added to the enjoyment of thisresearch project.A sincere thank you to Dr. Susan Butt, Department of Psychology, foragreeing to be a member of my thesis committee. Dr. Butt’s keen interest in theproject reinforced the importance of this study and motivated me to continue.Thank you to all of the sport organizations and provincial coaches whograciously offered their time and assistance in this project.I would like to thank my family and close friends for their moral supportthroughout the “thesis months”. Thanks to my parents who called just at theright time, and to all the friends who encouraged me to maintain a healthy andbalanced lifestyle. Finally, special thanks to Steve for his understanding andconstant motivation over the past year.1Chapter 1INTRODUCTIONSelection to sport teams is an important process in an athlete’s quest forexcellence, as one’s personal fulfillment and competitive future in sport, restsupon being chosen. Being selected to sport teams provides an athlete with theopportunity to demonstrate and to improve his/her skills, and to excel at highlycompetitive levels of sport. The sport team selection process is common to allsports, at all skill levels, for all ages and genders, and is an integral part of anathlete’s experience with sport.Conceptually, the development and administration of good sport teamselection procedures is important, as efficient sport organizations might becharacterized by successful teams and satisfied members. Satisfaction is animportant aspect of an athlete’s involvement with sport. In casual conversations,athletes frequently express concerns regarding the sport team selection process,and/or with competitive sport in general. Literature in work and life satisfactionsuggests (Cohen-Mansfield, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990; Schmitt & Pulakos,1985) that dissatisfying experiences may result in such actions as withdrawal,negative feelings about the specific organization, decreased motivation toachieve excellence, a feeling of helplessness, and lowered self-confidence.Involvement in sport, as well as motivation and confidence, may depend onsatisfaction with processes such as sport team selection.Although the sport team selection process is a part of many athletes’ lives,there have been few studies in the Sport Psychology literature which address theissues associated with this process. The limited amount of team selectionresearch that exists only refers to selection criteria of specific sports at nationaland international levels (Malhotra, Gupta & Khanna, 1985; Smith, 1991), and/or2selection of teams in physical education classes (Evans, 1986, 1988). There isno literature or theoretical framework which identifies variables associatedspecifically with the sport team selection process.In addition, research which investigates variables associated with anath!ete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process, is also lacking. Thepresent exploratory study describes several variables thought to be associatedwith the sport team selection process and investigates the effect of thosevariables on athlete satisfaction.A greater understanding of variables, believed to affect an athlete’ssatisfaction with the sport team selection process, could provide informationuseful in a refinement of existing team selection procedures. Sport organizationsmight be able to design selection processes so that greater athlete satisfaction isexperienced. Furthermore, knowledge of variables which affect athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process may lead to psychologicalinterventions which assist athletes in coping with not being selected. Policychanges and psychological interventions may result in greater athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process, as well as, satisfaction withcompetitive sport in general.A pilot study examined British Columbia provincial sport organizations,and their provincial team selection processes (Neu, 1991). That pilot study aswell as a review of literature in the areas of Organizational Psychology, Sportand Exercise Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology, IndividualDifferences, Group Processes, Leadership, and Communication, revealed threecategories of variables that could affect an athlete’s satisfaction with the sportteam selection process - Organization, Athlete, and Leader Characteristics.Some of the variables identified by the literature which may affect athletesatisfaction with the selection process are; a) organization characteristics - task3type, team size, criteria, selection method, b) athlete characteristics - perceivedcontrol, motivation, self-esteem, performance, life satisfaction, age and genderof the athlete; and c) leader characteristics - decision-making style. Organizationcharacteristics relate to policies and procedures adopted by the organization.Athlete characteristics refer to characteristics of the athletes involved with a sportteam selection process. Leader characteristics describe the attributes of theperson(s) directly responsible for the selection decisions.Based upon the literature review and the pilot study (Neu, 1991), severalvariables that might effect an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess were selected. In the literature, the selected variables have beenassociated with satisfaction in sport settings or with regard to processes similarto team selection (ie. employee selection). The variables of age and genderwere selected for the present exploratory study because the subject sampleused included female and male athletes ranging from 12 to 35 years of age. Thesport team selection process involves athletes of all ages and of both genders.Age and gender were included as variables in the present study because theeffects of age and gender on satisfaction have not been investigated.The variables investigated in this exploratory study were task type, teamsize, criteria, selection method, perceived control, self-esteem, motivation,performance, life satisfaction, age and gender of the athlete, and decisionmaking style of the leader(s) who are directly responsible for the selectiondecision.PurposeThe present research is an exploratory study designed to investigate theinfluence of task type, team size, criteria, selection method, perceived control,self-esteem, motivation, performance, life-satisfaction, athlete age and gender,4and decision making style of the leader(s), upon an athlete’s satisfaction with thesport team selection process.5Chapter 2LITERATURE REVIEWResearch that addresses the sport team selection process is sparse. Theliterature that was found, described the actual requirements for selection(Maihotra, Gupta & Khanna, 1985; Smith, 1992) or discussed issues related tothe selection of teams in physical education classes (Evans, 1986, 1988). Therehas been no theoretical framework proposed and few research articles thatstudy potential variables associated with sport team selection processes,particularly those affecting athlete satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess.However, two studies (Cohen, 1992; Weiss & Friedrich, 1986) werefound, to be related to the present study. The first study (Weiss & Friedrich,1986) was based on Chelladurai and Carron’s (1978) Multidimensional Model ofLeadership. The Multidimensional Model of Leadership (Chelladurai & Carron,1978) contends that outcomes of athletic performance and athlete satisfactionare explained by the interaction of leader behaviors and a number of antecedentvariables such as situational characteristics, leader characteristics, and groupmember characteristics. Weiss and Friedrich (1986) examined the relationshipof leader behavior, coach attributes, and institutional variables, to teamperformance and athlete satisfaction. They found that size of school, coachattributes, and leader behaviors were predictive of athlete satisfaction.Specifically, they found that coaches who used a democratic decision makingstyle, and coaches with better win/loss records produced more satisfied athletes.6The other study which is closely related to issues addressed in thepresent study, is Janine Cohen’s (1992) article. Cohen’s (1992) article describesactual consequences and dissatisfying experiences which resulted fromparticular sport team selection processes. Cohen writes “inadequate guidelineson selection criteria may see athletes who miss out on team places, takingselectors to court in future” (Cohen, 1992, p. 33). She mentions severalincidents of questionable selection results and suggests that suchdissatisfactions experienced by athletes could be prevented by improving teamselection processes.Research in the areas of Organizational Psychology, Personality andSocial Psychology, Individual Differences, Group Processes, Leadership andCommunication was reviewed. Literature associated with satisfaction was foundin areas such as job satisfaction (Gellatly, Paunonen, Meyer, Jackson & Goffin,1991; Schmitt & Pulakos, 1985), subordinate satisfaction with leadership(Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Dwyer & Fisher, 1990; Kushell & Newton, 1986;Schliesman, 1987; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986), group member satisfaction(Perrewe, Nelson & Maroney, 1990), task satisfaction (Basow, Smither, Rupert &Collins, 1989; Harrison, Lewis & Straka, 1984), life satisfaction (Pulakos &Schmitt, 1983, Schmitt & Pulakos,1985) and performance satisfaction (Burke,Hunt & Bickford, 1985; Kimiecik, Allison, & Duda, 1968; Martens, 1970).A number of variables were identified that might influence athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process. The variables were chosenbecause of their relationship to the satisfaction of individuals in sport relatedstudies and/or satisfaction of individuals involved with a process similar to thesport team selection process. As this was an exploratory study, the variables oftask type, team size, criteria, selection method, perceived control, self-esteem,7motivation, performance perception, life-satisfaction, age and gender of theathlete, and decision making style of the leader(s), were selected for this study.The following literature review describes relationships between athletesatisfaction and the chosen variables. The relationship between each variableand athlete satisfaction is discussed relative to the sport team selection processunder the categories of Organization, Athlete, and Leader Characteristics.Organization CharacteristicsCharacteristics of an organization affect an individual’s perception ofhis/her experience with that organization. Organization characteristics whichmay affect an individual’s satisfaction with a selection process have beenidentified in the literature. Task type, team size, selection criteria, and theselection method(s) implemented by the organization are four organizationcharacteristics that have been associated with satisfaction. Task type, teamsize, selection criteria and selection method are also organization characteristicsassociated with a sport team selection process.Task Type. Task type refers to characteristics of the activity.Chelladural (1984) describes task type using the concepts of dependence (teamvs individual) and variability (open vs closed tasks). “Dependence is the extentto which the successful performance of a task requires interaction with othertasks in the team, and where the unit’s success is based on the coordination ofthese tasks” (Chelladural, 1984, p. 29). Variability in a sport task describeswhether or not the task involves a form of behavior in a relatively stable, staticand unchanging environment (closed), or “an “open” form of behavior whereskills are used to respond to objects that move in space and requirespatial/temporal adjustment on the part of the performer” (Chelladurai, 1984, p.29). Tasks which involve opponents, and/or objects that move in space, are8classified as highly variable. Volleyball is considered to be a highly dependentand highly variable task type. A task which is characterized by low dependence,and low variability, would be an individual swimming event. The swimmer is notdependent on anyone else to perform, and he/she faces few or no environmentalchanges while performing the task. However, a swimming relay event might beconsidered a dependent, low variable task type. The more an individualdepends on other athletes to perform the skills involved in his/her sport, themore dependent that sport task is. If the task is vulnerable to changingenvironmental conditions which directly influence an athlete’s performance on atask, the task is described as a variable task.Gentile, Higgins, Miller and Rosen (1975) suggested four types ofcategories which defined the degrees of variability associated with various sporttasks. The categories describe “two types of variations from one response to thenext, change or no change, and two types of environmental conditions duringexecution of the movement; stationary, and in motion” (Magill, 1989, p. 13).Gentile et al’s (1975) 2 x 2 representation of the four-category classificationsystem for variability is presented in Figure 1, and a configuration of theclassification on a continuum is presented in Figure 2.Attributes of dependence and variability have been related to preferredleadership, formal structures, personality of athletes, and cohesion in sport(Chelladurai, 1984; Gill & Martens, 1977; Harrison, Lewis & Straka, 1984;Kumar, Pathak & Thakur, 1985). Gill and Martens (1977) investigated theinfluence of task type and success-failure on individual performance,satisfaction, state anxiety, and causal attributions in a team competition situation.Their study was done because researchers had not been able to identify theeffect of competition on both performance and satisfaction. They were alsointerested in the manner in which task type would affect performance. Subjects9Cl)C00C00(‘54-.CciEC0>Cw>.(‘5C04-’(‘54-’Response-to-Response VariabilityNo Change ChangeFigure 1. Classification of Task Type- Variability as presented by Gentile, Higgins,Miller and Rosen (1975). (In Magill, R.A., 1989, p.14.)Category 1 Category 3The object of the response The object of the responseremains stationary, and remains stationary, andthere is no change in the response requirementsresponse requirements change from one responsefrom one response to the next. to the next.Category 2 Category 4The object of the response The object of the responseis in motion, and is in motion, and thethere is no change inresponse requirementsthe response require-change from one responsements from oneto the next.response to the next.C00C10Closed Skills Open SkillsStationary Stationary In Motion In MotionNo Change Change No change Change(Category 1) (Category 2) (Category 3) (Category 4)Batting a ball from Batting a ball from Batting a ball Batting a balla batting tee; same a batting tee; differ- from a pitching thrown by a liveheight each time ent heights each time machine; same pitcher; speed,speed and location location, andeach time. type of pitchmay change eachtimeFigure 2. Classification of Task Type - Variability as a Continuum as presentedby Gentile, Higgins, Miller and Rosen (1975). (In Magill, R.A., 1989, p.15)11for their study were males and females in grades five and six. Each subject waspaired with another subject of the same grade and gender, and assigned toeither a conjunctive or disjunctive scoring system, and to one of three success-failure conditions. Satisfaction with both team performance and attribution wasassessed. It was shown that if the task demonstrates low dependence, anathlete’s satisfaction with his/her performance on the task, will be greater than ifthe performance of the task is highly dependent upon others (Gill & Martens,1977). Similarly, if the task displayed a low variability, the athlete would be moresatisfied, than if the task was highly variable.If an athlete performs a highly dependent task during team selection,he/she is likely to experience a low sense of control while performing the task. Alow sense of control may cause a decrease in motivation, persistence, andsatisfaction when the athlete subsequently attempts to perform similar tasks.Perceived control, and it’s effect on an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport teamselection process, is discussed in this literature review under the category ofAthlete Characteristics.Team Size. Another organizational variable associated withathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process, is the number ofathletes participating in the selection process. This variable is called team size.In the present study, team size is expressed as a ratio, and refers to the numberof athletes in the selection pool divided by the number of athletes who areselected. For example, if the number of athletes trying out for 5 availablepositions is 20, the team size ratio would be 4 (20/5=4).A group of athletes participating in the same selection process, may beclassified as a team, because, in most cases, they are performing the sametasks to accomplish the same goal. However, it is important to note that thegroups of athletes participating in a sport team selection process do not12necessarily possess the characteristics of a team, as they do not always worktogether during a selection process (ie. individual events), to accomplish thesame goal.Nevertheless, Melnick (1981) noted that team size can impact uponsatisfaction of a team member in areas such as team sports. Other studies(Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer, 1990; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986; Widmeyer,Brawley & Carron, 1990) have shown that participants of larger teamsexperience less satisfaction because: a) the coach devotes more time to theorganization and less to the individuals, b) it is harder to reach consensus, c)individual contributions seem less important, and d) weak affectional ties existbetween team members. Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1990) conducted twostudies to examine the impact of group size on satisfaction in an exercisesetting, using archival data from 47 exercise classes varying in size from 5 to 46members. They found a negative relationship between satisfaction and groupsize. Positive perceptions of the experience decreased systematically as classsize increased. Therefore, the size of the group participating in the selectionprocess may affect a participant’s satisfaction with that process. If team sizedoes affect satisfaction, it might be predicted that the larger the team size, theless satisfied the athlete will be with the sport team selection process. Forexample, an athlete who is one of a pool of eight members, being selected fortwo positions, may display greater satisfaction than an athlete who is one of apool of fifty, being selected for the same two positions.Criteria. The criteria used to select team members, are most oftendetermined by the organization and/or the coaching staff. A criterion is astandard - an index against which other indices may be compared andevaluated, It is a measure of success and defines a desired end product.13Selection criteria have been described as critical to any selection process(Herriot, 1989; Schmitt & Noe, 1986). Criteria for provincial sport team selectionmay be objective, subjective, or any combination of the two. Preliminaryinquiries into team selection procedures (Neu, 1991) suggested greater athletesatisfaction with objective, than with subjective criteria. During informalmeetings, members of sport organizations frequently stated that athletesexpressed feelings of greater control and fewer frustrations when objective teamselection criteria were used.Knowledge of the criteria is important. Cohen (1992) indicated thatdissatisfactions with selection decisions often resulted from themiscommunication or discrepancies relating to selection criteria. An athlete whois knowledgeable about the specific requirements for selection may be moresatisfied with the selection process, than an athlete who is unsure of theselection criteria. Whereas criteria are the requirements for selection, selectionmethods are the means by which the selection criteria are assessed.Selection Method. According to Herriot (1989) and Muchinsky(1986), methods of selection vary from interviews between an employer andemployee, to rigorous and lengthy procedures and tests performed by a potentialcandidate. Muchinsky (1986) and Herriot (1989) have also suggested that thelevel of satisfaction experienced by the job candidate may vary with eachselection method. This suggests that certain selection methods may be moresatisfying to the job candidate than other selection methods. Therefore, it ispossible that the type of selection method used to select a sport team maycontribute to the degree of satisfaction experienced by the athlete who isparticipating in the sport team selection process.14Selection methods are most often determined by the organization and it’sleaders, and each method of selection is characterized by some form ofevaluation. Four categories of selection methods used by British Columbiaprovincial sport organizations, chosen for the current research, were based oninformation obtained in the pilot study (Neu, 1991). They are: 1) Formal Ranking(A)- Head to Head results, 2) Formal Ranking (B)- judged competitions, 3)Informal Ranking, - subjective judgments, and 4) Standards (time trials). Eachmethod has advantages and disadvantages for obtaining the fairestchoice/selection. Different selection methods may result in varying degrees ofathlete satisfaction with the selection process.Athlete CharacteristicsThe literature suggests that characteristics of an individual may also affectthe satisfaction that the individual experiences with the sport team selectionprocess. Perceived control, self-esteem, motivation, performance, lifesatisfaction, and, age and gender of the athlete were variables investigated inthis study. As described in the following section, these variables were selectedfor the present research because of their previous associations with satisfactionin the literature.Perceived Control. Perceived Control is an athlete characteristicwhich appears to interact with organization variables. Perceived control relatesto one’s locus of control, one’s attributional style, and one’s perceived controlover a process (Folkman, 1984).Locus of control is the belief that outcomes are contingent uponbehaviors. Rotter (1966) describes an internal locus of control to be the beliefthat reinforcement is dependent upon one’s own behavior, and an external locusof control as the belief that the reinforcement depends upon luck, chance, fate,15or other persons. The greater the expectancy that one’s behavior will producethe desired reinforcement, the more likely that one’s locus of control will be moreinternal than external.Causal attribution is an individual’s assessment of his/her control of asituation. Weiner’s (1974) Causal Attribution Model includes three dimensions -the internal-external locus of control dimension (Rotter, 1966), a stable-unstabledimension, and the concept of controllability. When an individual assesseshis/her control of a situation, the causality, stability, and controllability of thesituation, determines the overall feeling of control.McAuley and Duncan (1989) manipulated future expectancies forperformance and actual outcome in competitive motor tasks, and then assessedthe causal attributions for, and affective reactions to, the outcome. Individualsdemonstrating an internal locus of control experienced greater satisfaction withan unstable, controllable situation, than with a situation which was stable andless controllable.If an athlete feels in control of the selection process, he/she may exertmore effort during that process (Burke, Hunt & Bickford, 1985). If a lack ofcontrol is experienced, an individual who demonstrates an internal locus ofcontrol may not exert extra effort to achieve a position on the team, since he/shebelieves that the outcome is not influenced by his/her behavior. Burke et al(1985) found that satisfaction with performance predicted an internalization ofcausality.Rudisill (1988) related control to perceived competence. Her studyattempted to determine if causal dimension orientations would influencecognitive and behavioral patterns of adults with high, average, or low perceivedcompetence. She also hoped to determine if expectations, persistence,performance, and causal dimensions could be altered. Ninety male and female16college-age students completed a perceived competence scale, and Russell’s(1982) Causal Dimension Scale, in response to receiving failure feedback.Rudisill (1988) demonstrated that people with high perceived competence weremore likely to make internal, controllable, and unstable attributions resulting inhigher expectations for success, longer persistence, and better performance.She also found that perceived competence is a more stable variable for adultsthan for children. Specifically, “children were willing to accept the dimensionalorientations and disregard their feelings of competence when told they couldimprove, whereas the adults were not” (Rudisill, 1988, p. 193). This suggeststhat adults might have been demonstrating a more global and stable sense ofself-confidence, and not perceived competence in the task. In this case, theassessed “perceived competence” may be more correctly described as self-esteem. This assumption is supported by Weiner’s (1985) predictions that one’sself-esteem and/or perceived competence interacts with the attributionalprocess. Cognitive Consistency Theory (Aronson, 1968) and Weiner’s (1985)Causal Attribution Model suggest that internal, stable causal attributions forability and effort were a function of an interaction between self-esteem andperformance satisfaction.Burke, Hunt and Bickford’s (1985) study, Aronson’s (1968) CognitiveConsistency Theory and Weiner’s (1985) Causal Attribution model all suggestthat satisfaction is a multifaceted concept which is linked to severalcharacteristics of an individual.Self-Esteem. Self-Esteem is defined as one’s global feelings ofself-worth or worthlessness. Self-esteem may affect the attribution of one’sperformance outcomes during a process such as selection and therefore, mayindirectly affect an athlete’s satisfaction with the team selection process.17Weiss, McAuley, Ebbeck and Weise (1990) explored the relationshipbetween children’s self-esteem and attributions for performance in both physicaland social achievement domains. During a seven week sport program, childrenranging in age from 8-13 years completed a series of questionnaires. Amultivariate analysis procedure revealed a significant relationship between self-esteem and causal attributions in both physical and social achievement withinchildren’s sport. Internal, unstable, and controllable attributions were morecharacteristic of children with a higher self-esteem than they were with childrendemonstrating a lower self-esteem. This internal, unstable, and controllableattribution resulted in greater effort towards achieving a defined goal (Weiss etal, 1990).Burke, Hunt and Bickford (1985) integrated concepts of self-theories, suchas cognitive consistency and self-esteem, with causal attribution. Theyattempted to clarify the effects of self-esteem on performance satisfaction inrelation to academic performance. Burke et al (1985) found that low self-esteemwas more highly correlated with internal attributions for dissatisfying outcomesthan high self-esteem. Attributing satisfying outcomes to a personallycontrollable source may be an adaptive response which protects one’s self-concept and results in greater satisfaction.Self-esteem has been chosen for investigation in this study because of it’srelationship with attribution, satisfaction and motivation.Motivation. Motivation deficits occur when an individual fails toproduce behaviors that can influence the outcome of an event. LearnedHelplessness (Seligman, 1975) is a “state of depression” and lethargycharacterized by a lack of motivation when attempting to control one’senvironment. This decrease in motivation occurs when a person interpretshis/her behavior as independent of reinforcements. The interpretation that18behavior is independent of reinforcements, might occur during a sport teamselection process. If a sport team selection process is perceived asuncontrollable, the athlete may experience learned helplessness and lackmotivation to achieve during a subsequent selection process. This lack ofmotivation or feeling of helplessness may also contribute to the level ofsatisfaction experienced by the athlete.Jenkins (1987) discovered that motivational differences result in variousresponses to the same situation. Individuals may choose or abandon a specificcareer for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons include workingconditions, satisfaction, and the individuals’ motives and values. Jenkins (1987)measured achievement motivation in 117 female college seniors and evaluatedthem again 14 years later. She found that career-involved women who hadbeen highly achievement-motivated in college, valued status mobility andworking with people and reported job satisfaction from competition with astandard of excellence. However, women in various career situations differed inthe relations between their achievement motivation in college and their later workvalues, job perceptions, and sources of satisfaction. If an individual decides thatthe satisfaction he/she will obtain from a particular experience is low, it mayaffect his/her motive to participate. Therefore, satisfaction may affect motives. Itis conceivable, that an athlete may choose to withdraw from competitive sportbecause of a negative experience with a sport team selection process.The literature suggests a relationship between an athlete’s motivation andsatisfaction in general (Jenkins, 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990). The concept ofmotivation assessed in this study is a multidimensional, sport-specific measureof individual differences in sport achievement situations (Gill & Deeter, 1988).The three separate and unrelated subscales of competitiveness, win, and goalorientation comprise Gill and Deeter’s (1988) multidimensional concept of19motivation. Specifically, the athlete’s achievement orientation, competitiveness,and sport orientation were assessed. General achievement orientation isdescribed as a “capacity to experience pride in accomplishment or a dispositionto strive for success across varied achievement situations and standards” (Gill &Deeter, 1988, p. 191). Orientation to goal achievement describes an athlete’schoice to compete. Whether the athlete competes for reasons of achievement,goal attainment, or for reasons of affiliation, or social interaction, “reflectpersonality and individual differences in achievement motivation, and morespecifically, in competitiveness”. (Gill & Deeter, 1988, p. 191). Competitivenessis defined as the desire to participate and strive for success in sport competition.Individual differences in competitiveness are obvious when one compares thechild in physical education class who is eager to enter all competitive challenges,with the child who dreads the same challenges. Generally, sport orientationrefers to an individual’s motivation to be involved with sport and to succeed insport. The motivational aspects of achievement orientation, competitiveness,and sport orientation, were chosen for investigation because all threeorientations might be associated with an athlete’s involvement with a sport teamselection process.Achievement orientation, competitiveness and sport orientation may affectan athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process. The greater themotivation to succeed, the more likely it is that dissatisfaction will result if theindividual is not successful.Performance. Research supports a positive relationship betweensuccess and satisfaction (Gill & Martens, 1977; McCaughan & Mckinley, 1981).Success depends on performance, and one’s perception of success may dependon the perception of one’s performance. Goals are often set by the athlete toachieve a high standard of performance. One goal of an athlete during a20selection process is to be selected. However, an athlete may also have a goal ofperforming to the best of his/her ability.Therefore, a person’s motivation may hinge on his/her goal(s).McCaughan and Mckinley (1981) administered a questionnaire to female highschool students participating in a motor task, to assess the effects ofsuccess/failure and extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. They found asignificant change in intrinsic motivation due to effects of success and failure, butnot as a result of a tangible reward. In other words, with perceived success,tangible rewards were not necessary to increase intrinsic motivation. Groupsreceiving success feedback were more satisfied with the task, and persistedlonger at the task than those groups receiving failure feedback. McCaughan andMcKinley (1981) stated that success provides salient competence informationand increases intrinsic motivation by causing one’s locus of control to shiftinternally.Perceived success may affect a person’s future motivation, and motivationhas been associated with attributional processes. Attribution has beenassociated with self-esteem, and high self-esteem has been shown to correlatewith high satisfaction. Therefore, perception of performance is important whenconsidering a person’s motivation, goal achievement, success, and satisfaction.Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) asserts that performance is amultiplicative function of a) Expectancy - belief that effort will lead toperformance, b) Instrumentality - belief that performance leads to reward, and c)Valence - perceived value of reward or performance outcome. Locke andLatham (1990) showed that a perception of good performance leads tosatisfaction and increased commitment. If satisfaction promotes commitment,satisfied people will likely remain with the organization, accept new challengesand in turn, show high levels of performance. Furthermore, positive perceptions21of performance can increase perceived competence and elevate one’s self-esteem. It is possible that an athlete who believes that he/she has performedwell, will be more satisfied with the sport team selection process than an athletewho perceives his/her performance as poor. One’s perception of performancemay be associated with perceived control and attributional style. Perception ofperformance is an important variable to consider when investigating athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process.Life Satisfaction. Another variable which may relate to athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process is life satisfaction. Lifesatisfaction is described as a global sense of satisfaction with life in general(Schmitt & Pulakos, 1985). This global life satisfaction may affect one’ssatisfaction with a specific process such as team selection. Pulakos and Schmitt(1983) have shown that “job satisfaction can be predicted with pre-employmentexpectations concerning the degree to which one believes favorable outcomeswill be obtainable from work.” (p. 156). Schmitt and Pulakos (1985) assessedthe usefulness of life satisfaction in the prediction of subsequent job satisfaction.Schmitt and Pulakos (1985) hypothesized that life satisfaction predictedsubsequent job satisfaction. Six sample groups were used, all of whom wereexperiencing some change in their work role. Their study measured jobsatisfaction and life satisfaction. The results (Schmitt & Pulakos, 1985) showedthat life satisfaction may be a relatively stable aspect of individuals which is afunction of particular personality characteristics and/or an inclination towardsinterpreting various situations in a favorable manner. This suggests that anincrease in life satisfaction leads to greater feelings of satisfaction in a variety ofsituations. Subsequently, a person’s life satisfaction may be associated with thesatisfaction that he/she experiences with a sport team selection process.22Interestingly, Schmitt and Pulakos (1985) also noted that if the job designis changed to increase an employee’s satisfaction, a certain portion of the jobsatisfaction variance is independent of any efforts to make that job morerewarding, challenging, or intrinsically motivating. Therefore, the amount ofsatisfaction an athlete experiences with a sport team selection process, maysignificantly and independently, depend on the athlete’s general life satisfaction.In other words, even if a selection process was manipulated to be potentiallymore satisfying for athletes, the athlete’s satisfaction with the process is largely afactor of his/her life satisfaction, and may not be easily changed.Age and Gender The literature review did not produce any informationregarding age and gender differences in relation to an athlete’s satisfaction withthe sport team selection process. Generally, studies used only one gender,and/or subjects of similar age. Studies tended to use either adults or children,and selected either males or females but not both. Individuals of all agesparticipate in sport. The ages of athletes involved with the sport team selectionprocess varies considerably when compared to the ages of adults in the workplace.There have been no studies which have investigated the variablesassociated with athlete satisfaction with the team selection process. Therefore,the the relationship between gender and satisfaction in a sport environment isnot known. Athletes may possess characteristics that are unique to certain agesand/or genders. For example, Rosenberg (1968) suggested that the averageadolescent had a lower self-esteem than the average adult.Age and gender may be factors related to satisfaction with the sport teamselection process. The variables of age and gender were included in this studybecause the literature regarding the relationship between satisfaction and anathlete’s age and/or gender is not conclusive. The athlete characteristics of23perceived control, motivation, self-esteem, performance, life satisfaction, andathlete age and gender, were variables investigated in this study.Leader CharacteristicsAn individuals’ satisfaction with an organization, and it’s policies andprocedures, may be influenced by the people who occupy leader roles in theorganization. Similarly, an athlete’s satisfaction with a team selection processmay be influenced by individuals who make the selection decisions. Individualsin leader roles within organizations include presidents, managers, supervisors,and member representatives. Leader roles associated with the sport teamselection process include head coaches, assistant coaches, selection committeemembers, technical advisors, and judges. Dimensions of leader behavior insports were discussed by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980). One characteristic of aleader is decision-making style.Decision Making Style. An important characteristic of anindividual occupying a leader role, is decision making style. For the purposes ofthis study, two decision-making styles were described and assessed. Anautocratic decision making style was described as a leader-dominated,authoritarian style. A democratic decision-making style was described as a stylecharacterized by group discussions, consensus, and voting. Allowingsubordinates to participate in the decision making process, may increasesubordinates’ perceived successes, and enhance group cohesion in grouprelated activities (Dobbins, 1986). Athletes may perceive greater successes andfeel a greater cohesiveness with other members involved in the sport teamselection process, if they are able to participate in the decision-makingprocesses associated with team selection.24Harrison, Lewis and Straka (1984) suggested that supervisors caninfluence employees’ satisfaction and performance by considering a person’slocus of control when assigning an undesirable task (as defined by theemployee) to that worker. An undesirable task, in their study, referred to a taskthat was necessary for the operation of the company, but was deemedundesirable by the employee. They hypothesized that under conditions offreedom of choice, a person characterized by an internal locus of control willexperience more satisfaction with an undesirable task, than a person with anexternal locus of control. In other words, although the task was undesirable, theemployees chose to perform it. Harrison et al (1984) tested their hypothesis with46 male and female college students. A 2 (Choice) X 2 (Locus of control)factorial design experiment was used. Results showed that “externals”experienced greater satisfaction when simply told what to do, whereas,“internals” were more satisfied when given the illusion of choice. This might be aconsideration when deciding how to inform the athletes of the selection criteria.Allowing athletes to offer input into the establishment of selection criteria, mayresult in greater athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process.Although this may be inappropriate in some cases, decision-making styleremains an important consideration when discussing athlete satisfaction with thesport team selection process.Chapter SummarySatisfaction is an important aspect of an athlete’s experience with sport.An athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process may influencehis/her future in sport.The review of literature indicated that many variables may affect anathlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process. The number of25variables associated with satisfaction is extremely large. However, this was anexploratory study and a limited number of variables were selected. Informationgathered from the literature review and the pilot study suggested that certainvariables may be more closely associated with athlete satisfaction relative tosport and/or athlete satisfaction with a process such as the sport team selectionprocess. The variables of task type, team size, criteria, selection method,perceived control, self-esteem, motivation, performance, life-satisfaction anddecision-making style were chosen for investigation in this exploratory study.Specifically, this literature review suggests that an athlete will experiencegreater satisfaction with the sport team selection process if he/she encounters alow dependent, low variable task, a smaller team size, knowledge of theselection criteria, and a low degree of subjective criteria. Furthermore, thereview also suggests that individual differences in personality characteristics andperceptions of control contribute to the differences in satisfaction experienced byathletes involved with sport team selection processes. Finally, the review ofliterature noted that preferred decision-making style of the leader(s) is also animportant factor related to an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess.The present investigation of athlete satisfaction with the sport teamselection process may provide information which will encourage futureexamination of athlete satisfaction in general, as well as, of athlete satisfactionwith organizational procedures within sport.26Chapter 3METHODOLOGYSubjectsSubjects were volunteer male and female British Columbia provincial levelathletes who had experienced a provincial team selection process within the last2 years. Two hundred and eight athletes (M=1 14; F=94), ranging in age from 11to 38 years, and representing the sports of Badminton, Squash, Tennis, FigureSkating, Gymnastics, Diving, Karate, Volleyball, Field Hockey, Basketball,Baseball, Cycling, Track & Field, and Swimming, participated in this study. Table1 provides demographic data on the subject population.VariablesThe independent variables in this study were task type, team size,selection criteria, selection method, perceived control, self-esteem, motivation,performance, life-satisfaction, age and gender of the athlete, and decisionmaking style of the leader. Athlete satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess was the dependent variable.Operational Definitions of Independent VariablesTask Type. Task type refers to the variability and dependence of thetask. Variability describes whether or not the task requires a behavior which isrelatively stable, static and unchanging, or one that requires spatial/temporal27Table 1Demographic Characteristics of SubiectsCharacteristics N Percent ofTotal SampleGender: Male 114 54.8Female 94 45.2Age: <l5years 28 15.516-18 years 74 35.519-21 years 63 29.5>22years 43 19.5Sport: Badminton, 38 18.4Squash &TennisFigure 44 22.1Skating,Gymnastics,Diving &KarateField Hockey, 87 41.0Volleyball,Basketball &BaseballCycling, 39 18.5Swimming &Track & Field28adjustment to the changing conditions of the environment in which the task isbeing performed. Classification of sports for Task type - Variability wasdescribed in Figure 1 (page 8) and Figure 2 (page 9).Dependence is defined as the extent to which successful performance ofa task requires interaction with other tasks or team members. If the task was anindividual task, it was considered independent. When more than one individualcontributes to the execution of the sport skill, the task is considered dependent.Sports such as figure skating, track & field, and swimming were coded accordingto the event participated in. For example, if a figure skater was a member of apairs team, the task was considered to be dependent. However, if the figureskater competed in the singles event, the task was considered to beindependent. Classification of sports and events for Task type - Dependence isfound in Figure 3.Team Size. Team size is a ratio that represents the number of athletes inthe selection pool divided by the number of athletes actually selected. Forexample, if five athletes were selected from a group of twenty athletes, the teamsize would be four (20/5 = 4). Information regarding the classification systemused for team size was provided by the provincial sport organization and/orprovincial coach. The individual providing this information indicated; a) howmany athletes were in the selection pool, and b) how many athletes wereselected to the provincial team. Gender differences in team size were noted.The classification of sports in relation to team size is found in Figure 4.Criteria. Selection criteria are the recommended skills and attributes, thatan athlete must possess, to qualify for selection to a team. Three aspects ofcriteria were investigated in the present study. The first was an athlete’s29Individual (1) Team (2) Pairs (3) Relay (4)Figure Skating- Volleyball Figure Skating- Track & FieldSingles Field Hockey Dance & Free Pairs SwimmingSwimming Basketball Badminton & Tennis CyclingCycling Baseball Doubles & MixedTrack & Field Karate (kata)Karate (kumite)GymnasticsTennis, Badminton,Squash - singlesFigure 3. Classification of Task Type- Dependence30Sport Team SizeMale -- FemaleBadminton 10 15Squash 10 6Tennis 6 8Figure Skating 2 5Gymnastics 5 5Diving 3 3Karate-Kumite 3 3-Kata 3 3Volleyball * 4Field Hockey * 4Basketball 6 6Baseball 5 *Cycling 4 2Track& Field 15 10Swimming 12 12Note. Subjects of the gender indicated by a * were not available.Figure 4. Classification of Team Size31knowledge of the criteria. This was assessed with the single direct question -“Do you know what the criteria are for selection to the provincial team of yoursport?’, and was answered yes or no. The second aspect of criteria investigatedwas the athlete’s perception of the degree to which the criteria were subjective orobjective. Thirdly, the study investigated the provincial sport organization and/orcoach’s perception of the degree to which the criteria were subjective orobjective. Perceptions of criteria were rated using a five-point Likert-type scale.Selection Method. The selection method refers to the means by whichthe selection decision is made. Four categories of sport team selection methodsbecame evident from the initial contact with the provincial sport organizationand/or provincial coach, and as a result of Neu’s preliminary study (1991). Thefour types of selection methods used by the sports involved in this study were:1) Formal Ranking (A), 2) Formal Ranking (B), 3) Informal Ranking, and 4)Standards.Formal Ranking (A) describes a selection method which uses Head toHead results. Individuals compete against each other over a designated periodof time and their results determine a provincial ranking for each athlete. FormalRanking (B) represents judged competition. The most qualified athletes or pairsof athletes in this ranking system, are determined by sanctioned judges at predetermined competitive events. Informal Ranking describes a method ofselection which chooses athletes from established zones within the province ofBritish Columbia. Each zone had a representative or coach who wasresponsible for informally ranking the athletes in his/her zone. The athletes whowere ranked the highest in their zone were then chosen for a development campor province wide selection opportunity. Athletes from the provincial zones, whowere ranked highly, attended the selection camp and were then ranked again bya selection committee. The selection committee generally consisted of coaches32and technical directors. Athletes were chosen to represent the provincial team,based on the selection committee’s ranking. The fourth type of selection methodused was defined as Standards. Standards are the objective requirements ofthe athletes necessary to make the team, and are determined by the NationalSport Governing body. Examples of sports using this type of selection methodwere swimming and cycling time trials, as well as, distances in track & fieldjumping events. A classification of the selection methods used by the sports inthis study is provided in Figure 5.Perceived Control. Perceived control was operationally defined in thisstudy as one’s perceived control over the process of selection. Perceivedcontrol was assessed as both a personality variable (locus of control) and as asituational variable (attributional style). Two measures (Rotter’s Internal ExternalLocus of Control Scale, 1986; Russell’s Causal Dimension Scale, 1982) wereused to assess an athlete’s perceived control.Rotter’s Internal External Locus of Control Scale (1986)Rotter’s (1986) Internal External Locus of Control Scale assesses whetheran individual displays an internal locus of control (referring to the belief thatreinforcements from the environment are contingent upon one’s own behavior),or an external locus of control (refers to the conviction that reinforcements arenot contingent upon one’s actions but upon luck, chance, fate, or powerfulothers). Rotter (1966) states that item analysis and factor analysis showed“reasonably high” internal consistency for an additive scale, but values were notindicated. Lumpkin (1988) reported a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability of .71 -.77 forthe original form of the Internal External Locus of Control Scale. Rotter’s InternalExternal Locus of Control scale has been recently used in sport related33Formal Ranking A Formal Ranking B Informal Ranking StandardsBadminton Figure Skating Volleyball CyclingSquash Gymnastics Field Hockey SwimmingTennis Diving Basketball Track & FieldKarate BaseballFigure 5. Classification of Selection Methods34studies (Crews, Shirreffs, Thomas, Krahenbuhl & Helfrich, 1986; Kumar, Pathak& Thakur, 1985; See & Czerlinsky, 1990).Russell’s Causal Dimension Scale (1982)The 9-item Causal Dimension Scale, the most commonly used measureof causal attribution, has three subscales designed to measure locus ofcausality, stability, and controllability. Each subscale has three items. Subjectsare asked to list the cause or causes of their performance outcome (in this case,why they were or were not selected), and complete the Causal Dimension Scaleitems referring to these reasons. All three subscales were claimed to be reliableand valid by Russell (1982), and Mark, Mutrie, Brooks and Harris (1984).McAuley and Cross (1983) showed the internal reliability of the three scales asranging from .52 (control), to .88 (stability), with locus of causality being .76.Recent usage of the Causal Dimension Scale in sport related studies, includesstudies by Furst (1989), Grove, Hanrahan and Mclnman (1991), and McAuleyand Duncan, (1989).Rotter’s Internal External Locus of Control Scale (1986) measures thepersonality dimension of Locus of Control whereas Russell’s (1982) CausalDimension Scale is a measure of causal attribution. These two measures werechosen to provide a more complete assessment of perceived control as definedfor the purposes of this study.Self-Esteem. Self-Esteem was defined as one’s global feelings of selfworth or worthlessness. The measurement used to assess self-esteem wasRosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Revised - 1989).Rosenbera’s Self-Esteem Scale (1989)Several measures of self-esteem are found in the literature, a number ofwhich are multidimensional and lengthy. A commonly used measure of selfesteem is Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. Consisting of 10 statements35about self, subjects indicate strong agreement, agreement, disagreement orstrong disagreement with each statement. Rosenberg reported a test-retestreliability of .85 (Rosenberg, 1989). Rosenberg’s scale was chosen for use inthe present study because it has been revised, is a shorter measure of self-esteem and is frequently used in recent literature relating to sport (Mahoney,1989; Melnick & Mookerjee, 1991).Motivation. Motivation was operationally defined in this study as amultidimensional, sport-specific measure of individual differences in sportachievement situations. It was assessed using Gill and Deeter’s (1988) SportOrientation Questionnaire.Gill and Deeter’s Sport Orientation Questionnaire (1988)The Sport Orientation Questionnaire (SOQ) was developed by Gill andDeeter (1988), as a multidimensional, sport-specific measure of individualdifferences in sport achievement orientation. It specifically measurescompetitiveness, win, and goal orientation, It has reported intraclass reliabilitiesof .84-.94 and test-retest reliabilities ranging from .73-.89 (Gill & Deeter, 1988).In Gill and Deeter’s (1988) study, the Sport Orientation Questionnairedemonstrated high construct validity by consistently differentiating students incompetitive classes and noncompetitive classes. The Sport OrientationQuestionnaire is a popular and recently used measure of participant motivationin a sport environment (Gill & Dzewaltowski, 1988; Kang, Gill, Acevdo & Deeter,1990; Martin & Gill, 1991).Performance. Performance was operationally defined as the result of theathletic effort put forth by the athlete during the selection process. Severalassessments of performance were included in the current study; 1) actualperformance outcome - was the athlete selected to the provincial team? If so,when?, 2) the athlete’s perception of his/her performance during the most recent36selection process: a) in relation to his/her own ability, and b) relative to theperformance of other athletes involved with the same selection process, and, 3)athlete satisfaction with his/her performance was also measured. Allassessments of performance were included in the Personal InformationQuestionnaire (See Appendix A).Life Satisfaction. Life Satisfaction was defined as a global sense ofsatisfaction with life in general (Schmitt & Pulakos, 1985). Previously, lifesatisfaction has been measured with the Life Satisfaction Index (Steinkamp &Kelly, 1985), and/or additional items created by the researcher (Schmitt &Pulakos, 1985) to assess satisfaction with family and leisure activities. The LifeSatisfaction Index was not chosen because the researcher decided it was toodetailed and lengthy for the purposes of the present study. Since life satisfactionwas defined by Schmitt and Pulakos (1983) as a “global sense of satisfactionwith life in general”, it was assessed in the present study with a single directquestion (“Circle the number below which best describes how satisfied you arewith life in general?”), and the response was indicated on a 5-point Likert typescale.Preferred Decision Making Style. Preferred decision making style wasdescribed as the decision making style which the athlete preferred the person(s)responsible for the selection decision to use. For the purposes of this study, theathletes chose between; a) an autocratic style (“coach or committee decideswithout consulting the athletes”), b) a democratic style (“athlete involvement withdecisions is allowed”), or c) other (subject specified any other style he/shepreferred over an autocratic or democratic style).37Definition of Dependent VariableAthlete Satisfaction. The dependent variable of athlete satisfaction withthe sport team selection process was assessed with the single direct question“How satisfied are you with the most recent selection process?”. Responseswere measured using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 =Totally Unsatisfied,2=Somewhat Unsatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Somewhat Satisfied, 5=Total lySatisfied).Several studies (Burke, Hunt & Bickford, 1985; Chelladurai, 1984; Dwyer& Fisher, 1990; Harrison, Lewis, & Straka, 1984; Kimiecik, Allison & Duda, 1968;Kushell & Newton, 1986; Perrewe, Nelson, & Maroney, 1990; Schleisman, 1987)have measured athlete satisfaction, subordinate satisfaction, and performancesatisfaction with similar single item questions. Other studies (Basow, Smither,Rupert, & Collins, 1989; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986) have remodelled the JobDescriptive Index (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969) and the Index of OrganizationalReactions (Smith, 1976) (two popular measures of job satisfaction) for theirresearch.MeasurementsThe measurements used in this study were The Personal InformationQuestionnaire, Russell’s Causal Dimension Scale, Rotter’s Internal ExternalLocus of Control Scale, Gill and Deeter’s Sport Orientation Questionnaire, andRosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. A complete copy of all the questionnairematerials is provided in Appendix A.Personal Information QuestionnaireThe Personal Information Questionnaire was developed by the author forthe purposes of this study (See Appendix A). It is a one-page collection ofquestions which assesses age and gender of the athlete, number of years the38athlete has been involved with the provincial level team selection process, tasktype, criteria, performance, preferred decision-making style of the leader, lifesatisfaction, and the dependent variable of athlete satisfaction with the sportteam selection process.The Personal Information Questionnaire was piloted for clarity andrelevance on athletes who had experienced a provincial team selection processbut were not subjects in the present study (N=1 0). No changes were made tothe Personal Information Questionnaire following the pilot.ProcedureProvincial sport organizations, and/or provincial coaches were contactedin person by the researcher. Initial contact occurred over the telephone. Ameeting was arranged with the director of the sport organization and/orprovincial coach. No details of the study were provided over the phone, exceptthe title, purpose of the research, and estimated length of the proposed meeting.During the personal meetings, a detailed explanation of the study was providedby the researcher. Requirements of the organization and the athletes werediscussed. The purpose of the personal meeting was to inform the sportorganization of the study, to obtain information regarding team size, selectionmethod, and training locations, and finally, to obtain permission to contact theathletes. A written description of both the purpose and procedures of the studywas provided to the member of the organization or coach. A copy of thequestionnaire materials was also given to that individual. A “Letter ofPermission” (see Appendix B) was given to the individual(s) to sign, indicatinghis/her permission for the researcher to contact the athletes for participation inthe study. The “Letters of Permission” were returned to the researcher by mail,fax, or hand delivery.39Once written permission was received, the researcher introduced thestudy to potential subjects during athlete training situations. Details of thetraining (where and when) were provided by the sport organization oncepermission had been granted.An explanation of the study, it’s purpose and procedures, was verballygiven to the athletes at training facilities. The training facilities varied accordingto the sports and athletes. Following the verbal explanation, athletes whoqualified as subjects were encouraged to volunteer to participate in the study.The volunteer subjects were provided with a one-page explanation of the study(see Appendix A), the six-pages of questionnaire materials, and a pen. Subjectscompleted the questionnaire materials at the training facility, and returned themto the researcher. The questionnaires took twenty minutes (maximum) tocomplete. To maintain subject confidentiality, the questionnaires were coded bynumber, and subjects had the opportunity to withdraw from the study at anytime,with no consequences to themselves or to their athletic careers. The coacheswere not present when the athletes completed the questionnaires, and thus didnot know which athletes had volunteered.The previous procedures had one exception. If the volunteer subjectswere under the legal age of 18 years, a “parent/guardian consent form” (seeAppendix B) was requested with the completed questionnaire materials. Inthese cases, the subjects were instructed to return the questionnaires andparent/guardian consent forms to the researcher, by mail. These subjects wereprovided with a self-addressed envelope for their convenience. Other than theprevious exceptions, all questionnaires were collected from the subjects at thetraining facility.40The athletes were not contacted again. A summary of the results wasrequested by many organizations and/or coaches, and will be provided uponcompletion of the study.Data AnalysisDescriptive Statistics. Means, standard deviations, minimum andmaximum values, and distributions (%), for all variables, were calculated usingSYSTAT. Missing data (unanswered questions) was eliminated from theanalysis of the descriptive statistics and therefore, did not affect the means andstandard deviations of the variables. One subject’s response indicated that heanswered the questions without care and honesty, and his data was removedprior to the analysis.Structural Reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed withthe LISREL IV program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984) using maximum likelihoodestimates. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the structuralreliability of the 9-item 3 factor structure of The Causal Dimension Scale(Russell, 1982) and the 25-item 3 factor structure of the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire (Gill & Deeter, 1988). Confirmatory factor analysis indicatedwhether scale items loaded on the factors as predicted. This analysis wasperformed prior to forming and using subscale scores for further analysis. Scaleitems that were not answered were eliminated (pairwise deletion methods wereused to calculate all correlations) and did not affect the results of theconfirmatory factor analysis.Internal Consistency. Internal consistency measures (Cronbach’sAlpha) for the Internal External Locus of Control Scale, The Sport OrientationQuestionnaire, The Causal Dimension Scale, and Rosenberg’s Self-EsteemScale, were calculated using the RELIABILITY (SCALE) command of the41SPSS:X program. This analysis was necessary to test the internal consistencyof the single factor scales - Internal External Locus of Control Scale, andRosenberg’s Self Esteem Scale, and to provide additional support for theConfirmatory Factor Analysis performed on the Sport Orientation Questionnaireand the Causal Dimension Scale. The number of valid observations for thisanalysis were N=1 90 for the Internal External Locus of Control Scale, N=1 99 forRosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, N=200 for the Sport Orientation Questionnaireand N=200 for the Causal Dimension Scale.AID Analysis. Automatic Interaction Detection (AID) analysis wasperformed using the OSIRIS IV statistical package (Survey Research CentreComputer Support Group, 1981), in which AID analysis is labeled “Searching forStructure” and identified as program “Search”. AID analysis searches among aset of nominal and ordinal scaled predictor variables for those predictors whichmost increase the researcher’s ability to account for the greatest variance in aninterval scaled dependent variable. The technique divides the sample, through aseries of binary splits, into a mutually exclusive series of subgroups. AIDanalysis divides the sample provided a) the independent variable accounts for atleast 1 % of the variance in the dependent variable, b) the difference in meansbetween the two groups is twice it’s standard error, and c) the minimum numberof observations in each group is 10. The dependent variable for this study isathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process. See Appendix C forthe independent variable list.42Chapter 4RESULTSDescriptive StatisticsFifteen sport organizations were asked to participate in the present study.One sport organization withdrew because it’s provincial level athletes wereunavailable for questioning during the data collection period. Of the athletesapproached, approximately 65% volunteered.Means, standard deviations, ranges, and reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha)of the variables are reported in Table 2.The subjects, consisting of 54.8% males and 45.2% females,demonstrated a mean age of 19.4 years, and an average of 4 years involvementwith the sport team selection process at the provincial level. Seventy-fivepercent of the subjects were selected to a provincial team within the last twoyears, and only 14% of the subjects had never been selected to a provincialteam.Initial analysis of the data indicated that 58.2% of the subjects consideredthemselves to be satisfied (36.8% indicated “somewhat satisfied” and 21.4%indicated “totally satisfied”) with the sport team selection process (this year), withmean ratings of satisfaction for the group being 3.6 (SD=1 .1), on a 5-point Likerttype scale (1=totally unsatisfied to 5=totally satisfied). The mean satisfactionrating of the present study (M=3.6) is low relative to Dwyer and Fisher’s (1990)mean satisfaction with leadership rating of 4.2 (n=1 57), Schleisman’s (1987)mean satisfaction with general leadership rating of 4.0 (n=40), and Chelladurai’s(1984) mean satisfaction with general leadership rating of 4.2 (n=57), all of whichused similar single item measures of43Table 2Means. Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alnha of VrikIVariable Range M SD aAge (years) 1 1 -38 19.4 4.5 --Gender (1=male; 2=female)--- 1.5 .5 --Years involved with selection process 1-15 4.0 2.7 --Selected within the last two years a 1.3 .4 --TaskTypeDependenceb•-- 1.4 .5 --Task Type Variability C--- 3.0 1.4 --Selection Method d--- 2.6 1.0 --Knowledge of Criteria e--- 1.3 .4 --Preferred Decision Making Style--- 1.5 .7 --Perception of Performance * 1-5 3.4 1.0 --Satisfaction with Performance * 1-5 3.5 1.1 --Life Satisfaction * 1-5 4.1 .8 --Satisfaction with the Selection Process * 1-5 3.6 1.1 --Team Size Ratio--- 6.7 3.7 --Locus of Control 1 4-21 13.6 3.6 .65Causal Dimension Scale 2Causality 4-15 11.2 2.5 .58Controllability 3-15 11.1 2.5 .54Stability 4-15 7.3 2.7 .62Sport Orientation Questionnaire 3Competitiveness 13-47 19.6 5.8 .84Goal Orientation 6-22 8.6 2.9 .79Win Orientation 6-25 13.5 4.5 .79Self-Esteem 10-29 16.3 4.2 .82Note. N=208. Dashes indicate not applicable. alselected; 2=not selected. 01=team;2=individual; 3=pairs; 4=relay. Clclosed; 2Stationary with change; 3=ln motion with nochange; 4=Open. dlFormal Ranking (A); 2=Formal Ranking (B); 3=lnformal Ranking;4=Standards. elyes; 2=No. 1=Autocratic; 2=Democratic; 3=Other. Likert scale - 1=Totallyunsatisfied; 2=Somewhat unsatisfied; 3=Neutral; 4=Somewhat satisfied; 5=Totally satisfied.1The Iowerthe score the more externalthe locus of control. 2High scores on the threesubscales indicate that the cause is perceived as internal, stable, and controllable. 3High scoresindicate high levels of the characteristic. 4Low scores indicate a higherself-esteem.44satisfaction. Distribution of the dependent variable (athlete satisfaction with thesport team selection process) is found in Appendix E, Figure E-1.)Psychometric Properties of Measurement ScalesStructural Reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), performedon the data, tested the structural reliability of The Causal Dimension Scale andthe Sport Orientation Questionnaire. Table 3 reports the goodness of fit indices(GFI) resulting from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis. A measurement model isconsidered a good fit with the data if the goodness of fit index is .85 or greater.CFA on the structure of the Sport Orientation Questionnaire revealed anoverall goodness of fit index of .78. This is low, but not excessively so.Joreskog (1969) suggests that the ratio between the chi-square and its degreesof freedom is a better means of evaluating how well a model fits the data. Theratio (0) of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom suggested is 2:1. Usingthis guideline, the three-factor structure of the Sport Orientation Questionnaireappears to be somewhat questionable, with a Q ratio of 2.5. The goodness of fitindex for the structure of the Causal Dimension Scale was .92, suggesting agood fit of the model to the data (Q is somewhat inflated because of the smalldegrees of freedom).Maximum likelihood estimates determined the factor loadings for eachscale. This analysis indicates whether or not each item loads on the factorspredicted by the measurement model. Table D-1 and Table D-2 (see AppendixD) report the LISREL Estimates (factor loadings) for the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire and The Causal Dimension Scale. Both scales indicate adequatefactor loadings, although the large number (5) of items with loadings less than.50 on the SOQ - Competition scale, and one low loading on 2 of the CDS scalessuggests that further psychometric analyses of these scales may be warranted.45Table 3Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Sport Orientation Questionnaire and The CausalDimension ScaleScale df x2 0 GFIa RMSRSport Orientation Questionnaire 272 694.9 2.5 .78 .10Causal Dimension Scale 24 82.5 3.4 .92 .08aGoodnessoffit Index, Root Mean Square Residual statistics from LISREL IV46All loadings were significant (z>2.O) and, in general, it was concluded that thehypothesized scale-scores could be used in further analyses.Although factors should correlate, highly elevated factor intercorrelationssuggest that the factors are not independent, and may measure the sameconstruct. Table D-3 (see Appendix D) displays the factor intercorrelations forthe Sport Orientation Questionnaire. The correlations between goal orientationand competitiveness (r=.552) and win orientation and competitiveness (r=.501)are substantial but not highly elevated, demonstrating that goal orientation andwin orientation measure different constructs within the scale. However, thecorrelation between goal orientation and win orientation was very low (r=.018),suggesting that goal orientation and win orientation are totally unrelatedconstructs. Similarly, factor intercorrelations for the Causal Dimension Scale aredisplayed in Appendix D, Table D-4. These correlations suggest that the factoritems of controllability and causality (r=.742) may measure the same construct.Furthermore, stability correlates extremely low with both causality (r=.065) andcontrollability (.179), and appears to be unrelated to the other two constructs.Internal Consistency. Alpha coefficients were computed to determinethe reliability of The Internal External Locus of Control Scale, Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, the three Sport Orientation scales and three Causal Dimensionscales.The analysis indicated a rather low Cronbach’s Alpha of .65 for TheInternal External Locus of Control Scale, and unacceptably low (r<.20) item-totalcorrelations for a number of items (3,4,7,20,21 ,26,29). This analysis suggeststhat the Internal External Locus of Control Scale did not have enough power topredict locus of control of the current population.A Cronbach’s alpha of .82 was reported for Rosenberg’s Self-EsteemScale, and all item-total correlations were r=.38 or greater (see Appendix D,47Table D-6). Therefore, Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale provides an adequateassessment of self-esteem, for the population used in this study.Levels of internal consistency for The Causal Dimension Scale rangedfrom .54 (Controllability), through .58 (Causality), to .62 (Stability). Consideringthat each subscale consists of only three items, and based on the results of theitem analysis (see Appendix D, Table D-7), it appears that The CausalDimension Scale adequately assesses the dimensions of locus of causality,stability, and controllability, of the population used in this study.The levels of internal consistency for The Sport Orientation Questionnairerange from .79 (Goal Orientation), .79 (Win Orientation), to .84(Competitiveness). These results (see Appendix D, Table D-8) indicate that theSport Orientation Questionnaire adequately assesses the constructs of goalorientation, win orientation, and competitiveness.Automatic Interaction Detection (Al D) AnalysisAutomation Interaction Detection (AID) analysis determined whichpredictor (independent) variables accounted for the greatest variance in thedependent variable of athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process.The AID analyses that were performed included 22 variables. The first analysisused the entire subject population. A second analysis, with a predefined split ongender, was also performed.For all AID analyses, groups are split to maximize the difference in meansof the dependent variable, until one of the following criteria is met; a new groupwould have less than 10 cases in it, or the split would result in a differencebetween means of the newly formed groups that accounted for less than 1 % ofthe total variance in the dependent measure.48Analysis #1 The 22 predictor variables used resulted indichotomous splits being obtained for 10 of the predictor variables - the tenvariables accounted for 17.5% to 3.0% of the variance in athlete satisfaction withthe sport team selection process and resulted in a significant difference betweenthe split groups. Results of the first AID analysis are reported in Figure 6 andFigure 6.1.The total group consisted of 183 cases (25 cases rejected for missingdata). The variable ‘selected’ (question #5 on the Personal InformationQuestionnaire: Have you been selected for a provincial team within the last twoyears?) created the first split and accounted for 17.5% of the total variance foundin the dependent variable of athlete satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess. Dividing the total group on this variable maximized the difference inmeans between the two groups; athletes selected and athletes not selected.The athletes selected were more satisfied with the selection process (M=3.7)than the athletes not selected (M=3.0), as indicated by a 5-point Like rt-type scale(1 =total ly unsatisfied, 2=somewhat unsatisfied, 3=neutral, 4=somewhat satisfied,5=totally satisfied).To summarize the results of this analysis, several variables were found toinfluence an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process. Thevariables that accounted for the most variance in the dependent variable ofathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process were selection to theteam, goal orientation, controllability, knowledge of criteria, team size, selfesteem, decision making style, perception of performance, and age.Furthermore, although gender did not account for the variance found in anathlete’s satisfaction with the team selection process, certain variables werefound to affect each gender’s satisfaction differently. Possible suggestions forFigure6.Structureof theRelationshipbetweenSelectedVariablesandAthleteSatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcess.GoalOrientationSatisfactionX=3.9/IAboveAvePerceptionofPerformanceSatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcess_________________________//n=11X=3.7Uncontrollablen=23Sed/X=3.3ControllabilityAutocraticn=12X=2.8N40DecisionMakingX=3.OStyleControllableNo\n=17X=2.6Democratic&otherFigure6.1.StructureoftheRelationshipbetweenSelectedVariablesandAthleteSatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcess(Continued).C51future research and reasons for these results are discussed in Chapter 5 of thisthesisAnalysis #2. A second AID analysis, with a predefined split ongender, was performed. This analysis determined which variables, specific togender, accounted for the most variance in the dependent variable of athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process. Results of this analysis arereported in Figure 7 and Figure 8.Males. The variable ‘selected’ accounted for 17.6% of variancefound in the dependent variable of a male athlete’s satisfaction with the sportteam selection process. The variables that accounted for the most variance in amale athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process are performanceoutcome, motivation (goal orientation and competitiveness), perceived control(controllability, causality, and locus of control), and self-esteem.Females. The variable that accounted for the most variance in afemale athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process wasmotivation (goal orientation). Other variables that accounted for some of thevariance in the dependent variable of a female athlete’s satisfaction with thesport team selection process were perceived control (causality), method ofselection, satisfaction with performance, self-esteem, and motivation (winorientation).Table 4 reports the percentage of variance accounted for by eachvariable, for both the entire subject population, and for males and femalesseparately.Figure7.Structureof theRelationshipbetweenSelectedVariablesandMaleSatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcess.ControllabilitySatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcessSelectedGoalOrientationPerformanceSatisfactionSelectionMethodWinOrientationX=4.4Self-EsteemFigure8.Structureof theRelationshipbetweenSelectedVariablesandFemaleSatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcess./N=27X=4.23&4N=16Low/N=40X=4.OInternalCausalityN=61 X=3.9VeryLowNN=82SatisfactionwiththeSportTeamSelectionProcessN=11X=3.9HighN=13X=3.61&2N=1OX=3.8VeryHighN=21 X=3.6ExternalN=11X=3.6SatisfiedN=21 X=3.1Med-High/ NN=11X=3.4AvetoLowN=1OX=2.6Unsatisfied54Table 4Percentage of Variance Accounted for by Predictor Variables in AID Analysis% of Total VarianceVariable Total Males FemalesPopulationPerformance Outcome 17.5 17.5Goal Orientation 15.3 6.8 8.2Controllability 9.7 4.0 --Knowledge of Criteria 3.5 --Decision Making Style 3.7 --Self-Esteem 7.1 4.9 1.8Team Size 4.5Perception of Performance 5.0Age 3.0Causality 3.3 1.2 2.8Competitiveness 5.0Selection Method 3.2Satisfaction with Performance 5.6Win orientation 1 .0Locus of Control 2.355Chapter 5DISCUSSIONThe purpose of the present research was to explore the influence of tasktype, team size, criteria, selection method, perceived control, self-esteem,motivation, performance, life-satisfaction, athlete age and gender, and decisionmaking style of the leader(s), upon an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport teamselection process.Certain independent variables (team size, criteria, selection method,performance, motivation, perceived control, self-esteem, age, and decisionmaking style) selected for the present study, had a greater effect on thedependent variable of athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process,than the effects found for other selected independent variables (task type,gender, and life satisfaction).The effects of each variable will be discussed in the order that theyappear in the literature review. Gender differences will be discussed with thevariables rather than under a separate catagory of gender.Task TypeGill and Marten’s (1977) study predicted relationships between task typesand satisfaction, but task type did not affect athlete satisfaction with the sportteam selection process in the current study. Task type may not have affectedathlete satisfaction in the present study because the subject sample wasobtained from a very diverse group of sports and therefore, task types variedgreatly within the subject sample. Furthermore, Gill and Martens’ (1977) studyinvestigated fifth and sixth grade boys and girls, whereas the present study usedathletes ranging in age from 12 to 38 yrs. The difference between the present56study’s subject sample and that used by Gill and Martens (1977) may havecontributed to the difference in results. The results of the present study suggestthat an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process was affectedmore by variables other than task type.Team SizeThe results of the present study indicated that the larger the team size,the more satisfied the athletes were with the sport team selection process. Thisresult did not support the research discussed in the literature review.Specifically, Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1990) found that the larger theteam size, the less satisfaction was experienced by the members of the group.This may have occurred for two reasons. First, the definition of team sizeprovided in the literature review was compared to, and described as, a conceptsimilar to group size. Groups were described as individuals working together toaccomplish the same goal. As indicated in the literature review, groups ofathletes involved with certain selection methods may not work together towardsthe same goal and therefore may not possess the characteristics of a group.Research such as Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer’s (1990) study discusses therelationship of member satisfaction to group size. The results of the presentstudy may differ from those of Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1990) as groupsize appears to be a different concept than an athlete’s participation in a teamselection process. Therefore, group size as it is described by other researchersmay not be directly related to an athlete’s association with a sport team selectionprocess.Furthermore, the present study found that athletes who were associatedwith a large team size and who were satisfied with the sport team selectionprocess, attributed the selection outcome to external causes and perceived the57selection process as uncontrollable. This suggests that athlete satisfaction isaffected by attribution, and that there may be a relationship between attributionand team size. Therefore, an athlete who attributes the outcome of selection tointernal causes and perceives the selection process as controllable, should showgreater satisfaction with the sport team selection process, if he/she is associatedwith a small team size.CriteriaCohen’s (1992) article discussed knowledge of criteria as a foundationalaspect of protecting athlete’s rights. Peter Collins, a Melbourne lawyer anduniversity lecturer, quoted in the article; ‘where selectors enjoy wide, unfettereddiscretion, the risk of bias in team selection has been increased.’ ‘The problemis that people like Darren Hill don’t know what they have got to do to getselected’ (Cohen, 1992, p. 33).Knowledge of criteria was a significant predictor (explaining 3.5% of thevariance found) of athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process.This supports Schmitt and Noe’s (1986) and Herriot’s (1989) research. BothSchmitt and Noe (1986) and Herriot (1989) noted that job applicants were moresatisfied with the employee selection process if they knew what the selectioncriteria were. Similarly, athletes in the present study who knew what theselection criteria were, showed greater satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess, than those who did not know the criteria for selection.The small amount of variance (3.5%) explained by criteria is not surprisingsince 73% of the subjects knew what the criteria for selection were. Results ofthe present study showed that athletes who know what the selection criteria arewill be more satisfied with the sport team selection process than athletes who donot know the selection criteria.58Selection MethodSelection method accounted for 3.2% of the variance found in femalesatisfaction with the sport team selection process but did not affect malesatisfaction. Specifically, female athletes involved with the selection methods ofInformal Ranking and Standards showed greater satisfaction with the selectionprocess, than females who experienced the selection methods of FormalRanking A and Formal Ranking B. Schmitt and Noe (1986) noted that selectionmethods characterized by subjective criteria and greater variability in structure,would be associated with a greater sense of dissatisfaction among applicants.Since the selection methods of Informal Ranking and Standards are quitedifferent structurally, the degree of variability in structure and the amount ofsubjective criteria appear to have no influence on an athlete’s satisfaction withthe selection process.It was expected that athletes with low goal orientation and externalattributions would experience satisfaction with the Informal Ranking selectionmethod because they perceive the selection method as uncontrollable.However, athletes experiencing the most satisfaction with the sport teamselection process attributed the selection outcome to internal causes. Perhaps,female athletes attributing the selection outcome to internal causes had agreater perception of control over the selection methods of Informal Ranking andStandards, than female athletes who attributed the selection outcome to externalcauses. Female athletes who perceived the Informal Ranking selection methodas controllable were more satisfied with the selection process than those whoperceived it as uncontrollable.59No literature was found which supported, explained, or contradicted thedifferent effects of selection method on female and male satisfaction with thesport team selection process.Perceived ControlCausal attribution accounted for 13.0% of the variance found in anathlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process. Generally, athleteswho perceived the sport team selection process as uncontrollable, showedgreater satisfaction with the sport team selection process, than athletes whoperceived the process of sport team selection as controllable. The causalattribution dimension of causality also accounted for differences in athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process. Athletes who perceived thecauses of the selection outcome as external, were more satisfied with theselection process, than athletes who perceived the causes of the selectionoutcome as internal.McAuley and Duncan’s (1989) study found that individuals with an internallocus of control, experienced greater satisfaction with a situation perceived asunstable and controllable. The results of the present study support McAuley andDuncan’s (1989) findings. Individuals who attributed the selection process toexternal causes and perceived the process as uncontrollable showed greatersatisfaction with the sport team selection process than those who perceived theprocess as controllable and attributed the causes to internal factors. Therefore,it was concluded that a person’s causal attribution would affect his/hersatisfaction with the sport team selection process.Locus of control did not predict athlete satisfaction in general, butaccounted for 2.3% of the variance found in male satisfaction with the sport teamselection process. Based on the results of the item and internal consistency60analyses performed on the data, the previous result may have occurred becausethe Internal External Locus of Control Scale was not a reliable predictor of locusof control of the population used in this study. A different locus of controlmeasure may have provided greater support for Rudisill’s (1988) study andBurke, Hunt and Bickford’s (1985) study, which both indicated an associationbetween an internal locus of control and greater satisfaction with sport relatedsituations.Self-EsteemSelf-esteem accounted for 7.1% of the total variance found in an athlete’ssatisfaction with the sport team selection process and was associated withcausal attribution of the selection outcome. This supports Weiner’s (1985) studyand Weiss, McAuley, Ebbeck and Weise’s (1990) study, which found that self-esteem affected causal attribution. Generally, athletes with high self-esteem,who perceived the selection process as controllable, showed greater satisfactionwith the sport team selection process, than athletes with low self-esteem, whoalso perceived the selection process as controllable.However, the results of the present study showed that females with lowgoal orientation, internal causal attribution, and low self-esteem, experiencedmore satisfaction with the sport team selection process, than did females withlow goal orientation, internal causal attribution, and high self-esteem. This resultcontradicts Burke, Hunt and Bickford’s (1985) findings that high self-esteemcorrelates positively with high satisfaction. The contradiction in results betweenthe present study and Burke, Hunt and Bickford’s (1985) study may be explainedby considering that previous splits on selection method, causality and goalorientation, may have affected the results on the self-esteem variable.Furthermore, although females with high self-esteem showed less satisfaction61than females with low self-esteem, the mean satisfaction for the high self-esteemfemales was still relatively high (M=3.9 on a 5-point Likert-type scale).Therefore, females with high self-esteem were satisfied with the sport teamselection process, and Burke, Hunt and Bickford’s (1985) results weresupported.Self-esteem accounted for 4.9% of the variance found in male satisfactionwith the sport team selection process. Interestingly, self-esteem accounted forless variance (1.8%) in female satisfaction. (The difference in means of thesatisfied males and relatively unsatisfied males is larger than the difference inmeans between the satisfied females and relatively unsatisfied females.) Thisdifference suggests that self-esteem affects male satisfaction more than femalesatisfaction. Although females appeared more concerned with their self-concept,as confirmed by the importance placed on their performance, male self-esteemmay be fragile because of the importance placed on performance outcome.Male self-esteem appears directly related to achievement, whereas female self-esteem may be more affected by perceptions of performance and satisfactionwith performance. Based on the previous assumptions, males who consistentlyfail to achieve their goals might have lower self-esteem than females who alsofail to achieve their goals.Also, self-esteem correlated with age (r=-.25, p<.OO1). A low score onRosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale indicates high self-esteem. The previouscorrelation describes a relationship between low self-esteem and youngersubjects. Results of the present study showed that athletes under the age ofeighteen had lower self-esteem than athletes older than eighteen years of age.Rosenberg (1989) suggests that individuals 15 to 18 years of age are concernedwith their self-image. Adolescence is a time of major decisions, heightenedawareness of self-image and a period of unusual ambiguity. “These62observations highlight the point that the adolescent is pregnant with potentialitiesbut is largely lacking in fulfillment” (Rosenberg, 1989, p. 5). The lack offulfillment proposed by Rosenberg (1989) explains the low self-esteem scoresdemonstrated by the younger athletes in the present study. However, age doesnot explain the different effects of self-esteem on male and female athletes.Thus, the results of this study suggest that self-esteem is more closely related togender than to age.MotivationMotivation accounted for a large percentage of the total variance found inan athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process, and genderdifferences were found. Specifically, goal orientation accounted for 15.3% of thevariance found in an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process.Goal orientation and competitiveness accounted for 11.8% of the variance foundin male satisfaction, whereas goal orientation only, accounted for 8.2% of thevariance found in female satisfaction with the sport team selection process.Athletes with low goal orientation showed greater satisfaction with thesport team selection process than athletes with high goal orientation. Goalorientation affected female satisfaction, but both competitiveness and goalorientation predicted male satisfaction. Highly competitive males were lesssatisfied with the sport team selection process than males who were not highlycompetitive.Locke and Latham’s (1990) study showed that satisfaction ratings aresignificantly lower for individuals with high goals (in general) than for those withlow goals. The results of the present study support Locke and Latham’s (1990)study, and suggest that higher goals mean higher standards for achieving selfsatisfaction. An athlete who is highly goal oriented has to accomplish more to63feel that he/she has performed successfully. These results suggest that highlycompetitive individuals with high goal orientation will rarely experience totalsatisfaction with an achievement oriented process such as team selection,regardless of the selection process’ characteristics.PerformanceThe variable that had the greatest effect on athlete satisfaction with thesport team selection process was performance. Athletes, and particularly males,selected to the provincial team, showed greater satisfaction with the sport teamselection process than the athletes not selected. Performance outcomeaccounted for 17.5% of the total variance found in the dependent variable ofathlete satisfaction with the selection process. This result supports McCaughanand Mckinley (1981) who found a positive relationship between success andsatisfaction.Performance satisfaction did not influence athlete satisfaction with thesport team selection process for the entire subject sample. Once again, genderdifferences were found, as female athletes were satisfied with the selectionprocess if satisfied with their performance, whereas, male athletes were satisfiedwith the selection process if they were selected to the team. Female satisfactionwith performance accounted for 5.6% of the variance found in a female athlete’ssatisfaction with the sport team selection process. However, male satisfactionwith the sport team selection process was not affected by male athletes’performance satisfaction. This result supports Basow, Smither, Rupert andCollins (1989) study that showed gender differences in an individual’ssatisfaction with a task and subsequent evaluation of performance. Basow et al(1989) found that females rated their performance according to informationrelated to their satisfaction with performance. In contrast, male performance64ratings were not affected by their task satisfaction. This suggests that femaleswho are dissatisfied with their performances during a selection process will ratesubsequent performance lower than females who are satisfied with theirperformances during a selection process. Perhaps, females who feeldissatisfied with their performances and who consequently evaluate subsequentperformance as poor, may develop low expectations for future performance.These low expectations may lead to poor performance during subsequent sportteam selection opportunities.The results regarding performance outcome and performance satisfactionsuggest that the satisfaction with the performance is more important for femalesthan the outcome of the performance. Females, satisfied with theirperformances will be satisfied with the process of team selection, whereas malesare satisfied if they are successful during a selection process. Considering thesegender differences, sport team selection processes should be designeddifferently for males and females, to enhance athlete satisfaction. For example,male selection processes might include more opportunities to succeed, whereasfemale selection processes may focus on opportunities to perform. Furthermore,male athletes should consider the results of the present study to developmethods of coping with not being selected, so that their satisfaction might beenhanced when faced with unsuccessful outcomes.The results of the present study may also suggest a high self-esteem formales and low goal orientation for females. Perhaps, males confirm their selfconcepts through approval from others, whereas females confirm their selfconcepts by personal satisfaction with performance. Therefore, it appears thatmales have higher goal orientations than females.Finally, athletes in general, with above average perceptions of (their own)performances, showed satisfaction (M=3.9 on a 5-point Likert-type scale) with65the sport team selection process. The results of the present study supportLocke and Latham’s (1990) suggestion that personal perception of performancerelates to satisfaction.Life satisfactionSurprisingly, life satisfaction did not account for a significant amount of thevariance found in an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process,and it did not influence male or female satisfaction separately. This result did notsupport Schmitt and Pulakos’ (1985) study which found that life satisfaction maybe a relatively stable aspect of individuals which is a function of particularpersonality characteristics and/or an inclination towards interpreting varioussituations in a favorable manner. They suggest that an individual who is moresatisfied with a process such as team selection should display a high lifesatisfaction. This was not found. However, life satisfaction did correlate (r=.32,p<.OOl) with performance satisfaction, which accounted for 5.6% of the variancefound in female satisfaction with the sport team selection process.The difference in results between Schmitt and Pulakos’ (1985) study andthe present research may be explained by taking a closer look at the definition oflife satisfaction. Perhaps, life satisfaction relates to satisfaction with personalattributes and skills, rather than satisfaction with situations or experiences. Theresults of the present study suggest that life satisfaction should be re-defined asa global satisfaction with one’s self rather than one’s life. Therefore, lifesatisfaction may be more accurately described as “self-satisfaction”, as itappears to indicate satisfaction with personal accomplishments rather than lifeexperiences.Another explanation for the differences found between Schmitt andPulakos’ (1985) study and the present research, may be the nature of the66measurement used to assess life satisfaction. The present study utlized a singleitem measure of life satisfaction whereas Schmitt and Pulakos (1985) used amultidimensional measure of life satisfaction.AgeSubjects under the age of eighteen were more satisfied (M=3.9) with thesport team selection process than subjects over the age of eighteen (M=3.3).No literature was found which supported or contradicted this result. Forexample, no study was found which investigated age differences relative to anathlete’s satisfaction with a sport team selection process. An explanation of theresults might be related to the assumption that subjects under eighteen have notexperienced as many selection processes as the subjects over eighteen.Perhaps, the older subjects were less satisfied with the selection processbecause they were comparing it to other (more satisfying) experiences they havehad. In addition, it is possible that the older subjects placed more importance onthe present selection process and therefore were more critical of the process.Decision Making StyleDecision making style accounted for 3.7% of the total variance found in anathlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process. Athletes whopreferred an autocratic decision making style were more satisfied with the sportteam selection process than athletes who preferred a democratic (or other) styleof decision making.Harrison, Lewis and Straka (1984) described a relationship between thepreference for an autocratic decision making style, an external locus of control,and external, uncontrollable causal attributions. In the present study, athleteswho had a preference for an autocratic decision making style were more67satisfied with the process of team selection if they perceived the process ascontrollable. Perhaps athletes who perceived the process of selection ascontrollable and preferred an autocratic decision making style, were moresatisfied with the sport team selection process because the autocratic decisionmaking style created less variability in the selection process. A perception of lowvariability may have resulted in a greater perception of control. A democraticdecision making style may have been perceived as producing more variabilitywithin the sport team selection process, resulting in a greater perception ofuncontrollability by the athletes.Chapter SummaryIt was found that certain variables affect an athlete’s satisfaction with thesport team selection process more than others. The variables of performance,motivation, perceived control, self-esteem, decision making style, team size,knowledge of criteria, performance perception, and age, influenced athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process more than other variables.Furthermore, it was also found that gender did not predict athlete satisfactionwith the sport team selection process, but interestingly, male and female athletesatisfaction was influenced by different variables.Task type did not affect athlete satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess. Therefore, the nature of the sport did not determine athlete satisfactionwith the sport team selection process. Team size affected athlete satisfaction,as the larger the team size (> 5), the more satisfied the athletes were with thesport team selection process. This result suggests that groups of athletesparticipating in team selection processes are not similar to those defined in theGroup Literature.68Female athletes associated with the selection method of Standards weresatisfied with the sport team selection process. However, it was found thatfemale athletes involved with the selection method of Informal Ranking were alsosatisfied with the sport team selection process. Additional results suggest that afemale athlete’s perception of control over a particular type of selection method,affected her satisfaction more than the particular characteristics of the selectionmethod.Surprisingly, life satisfaction did not predict athlete satisfaction with thesport team selection process, but was found to highly correlate with performancesatisfaction. Performance satisfaction influenced female satisfaction with thesport team selection process, but not male satisfaction. Female athletes whowere satisfied with their performances were more satisfied with the sport teamselection process, than female athletes who were not satisfied with theirperformances.Locus of control did not affect athlete satisfaction as expected. This likelyoccured because the Internal External Locus of Control Scale was not a reliablepredictor of locus of control with the subject population used in the present study.Other measures of Locus of Control may provide different results.It was concluded from the results of the present study that athletesselected to the team will be more satisfied with the sport team selection processthan athletes who are not selected. Athletes who know what the selectioncriteria are will show greater satisfaction with the sport team selection processthan those who do not know the criteria for selection.Motivation affects athlete satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess, as athletes with high goal orientation were less satisfied with the sportteam selection process than athletes with low goal orientation. Female69satisfaction was determined by goal orientation, whereas male satisfaction wasaffected by goal orientation and competitiveness.Causal attribution predicted athlete satisfaction with the sport teamselection process. Athletes who attributed the selection outcome to external anduncontrollable causes, were more satisfied with the sport team selection processthan those who attributed the outcome to internal and controllable causes.Females who attributed the selection outcome to external causes may haveexperienced greater satisfaction with the sport team selection process becausethey felt the outcome was not dependent on their personal performance. Thus, itwas believed that the selection outcome did not reflect their ability and thereforedid not affect their self-concept. This type of attribution protects self-concept andresults in greater satisfaction.Interestingly, self-esteem accounted for more variance in malesatisfaction with the sport team selection process, than female satisfaction.Successful males (ie. selected) with high self-esteem were more satisfied withthe selection process than successful females with high self-esteem. The resultssuggest that males confirm their self-concepts through success, whereasfemales confirm their self-concepts through personal satisfaction withperformance.Finally, athletes who preferred an autocratic decision making style weremore satisfied with the sport team selection process than those who preferred ademocratic (or other) decision making style. It was shown that causalattributions may affect an athlete’s preference for decision making style. Thisshould be considered if the sport organization attempts to enhance athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process by manipulating the decisionmaking style of the leader(s) responsible for the selection decisions.70Generally, it was found that certain variables do influence athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process more than others. If sportorganizations consider those variables when developing their selectionprocedures, athletes might be more satisfied with sport team selectionprocesses, as well as, with sport in general. Finally, athletes may use theinformation provided in the present study to better understand theirdissatisfaction with the sport team selection process, and to develop methods ofcoping with dissatisfying experiences in sport and life in general.71Chapter 6SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONSAlthough the sport team selection process is a part of many athletes’ lives,there have been few studies in the Sport Psychology literature that address theissues associated with the sport team selection process and in regard tosatisfaction. In casual conversations, athletes frequently express concernsregarding the sport team selection process, and/or sport in general. Literaturesuggests (Cohen-Mansfield, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990; Schmitt & Pulakos,1985) that dissatisfying experiences in work and life may result in such actionsas withdrawal, negative feelings about the specific organization, decreasedmotivation to achieve excellence, a feeling of helplessness, and lowered self-confidence. No theoretical framework exists which investigates variables relatedto athlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process.A literature review revealed variables within three categories (organizationcharacteristics, athlete characteristics, and leader characteristics) that couldaffect an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process. Thepresent study tested selected variables that were thought to be related to athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process.The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of task type, teamsize, criteria, selection method, perceived control, self-esteem, motivation,performance, life-satisfaction, athlete age and gender, and decision making styleof the leader(s)], upon an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess.Subjects in the study were volunteer male and female British Columbiaprovincial level athletes, who had experienced a provincial team selectionprocess within the last 2 years. Two hundred and eight athletes (M=1 14; F=94),72representing the sports of Badminton, Squash, Tennis, Figure Skating,Gymnastics, Diving, Karate, Volleyball, Field Hockey, Basketball, Baseball,Cycling, Track & Field and Swimming, participated in this study.The volunteer subjects completed six pages of questionnaire materialswhich included the Personal Information Questionnaire, the Internal ExternalLocus of Control Scale, The Causal Dimension Scale, the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. The questionnaires tooktwenty minutes (maximum) to complete.Pearson correlations and Automatic Interaction Detection (AID) analysiswere performed on the data. AID analysis searched among the independentvariables to determine which variables accounted for the greatest amount of thevariance found in an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process.Initial analysis of the data indicated that 58.2% of the subjects weresatisfied (36.8% indicated “somewhat satisfied” and 21.4% indicated “totallysatisfied” on a 5 point Likert-type scale) with the sport team selection process.The variables that accounted for the most variance in the dependent variable ofathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process were performance,motivation, perceived control, selection criteria, team size, self esteem, decisionmaking style and age.Gender differences were also found. The variables that accounted for thevariance in a male athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection processwere performance outcome (17.5%), goal orientation (6.8%), controllability(4.0%), self esteem (4.9%), competitiveness (5.0%), locus of control (2.3%), andcausality (1.2%). The variables that accounted for the variance in a femaleathlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selection process were goal orientation(8.2%), causality (2.8%), method of selection (3.2%), satisfaction withperformance (5.6%), self-esteem (1.8%), and win orientation (1.0%).73The results showed that certain variables affected athlete satisfaction withthe sport team selection process more than others. Previous studies on criteria(Herriot, 1989), perceived control (McAuley & Duncan, 1989; Weiner, 1985), self-esteem (Burke, Hunt & Bickford, 1985; Weiss, McAuley, Ebbeck & Weise, 1990),motivation (Locke & Latham, 1990), and performance (McCaughan & McKinley,1981) were supported by the results of the present research.Herriot (1989) suggested that the selection criteria was a critical aspect ofany selection process. The results showed that athletes displayed moresatisfaction with the sport team selection process if they knew what the selectioncriteria were. As suggested by McAuley and Duncan (1989), individuals whoattributed the selection process to external causes and perceived the process ofselection as uncontrollable, showed greater satisfaction with the sport teamselection process, than those who perceived the process as controllable andwho attributed the causes to internal factors. The results of this study showedthat athletes with high self-esteem, who perceived the selection process ascontrollable, showed greater satisfaction with the sport team selection processthan athletes with low self-esteem who also perceived the process ascontrollable. Weiss, McAuley, Ebbeck and Weise (1990) also found that self-esteem affected causal attribution. Satisfaction ratings were lower for athleteswith high goal orientation than for athletes with low goal orientation. Thissupports Locke and Latham’s (1990) study. McCaughan and McKinley’s (1981)study was also supported by the results of the present research. Athletesshowed greater satisfaction with the sport team selection process if they wereselected to the provincial team. Furthermore, athletes who were satisfied withtheir performance were more satisfied with the sport team selection process.This result supports Locke and Latham’s (1990) study suggesting that perceptionof performance relates to satisfaction.74Studies that were not supported by the results of the present study wereGill and Martens (1977) and Schmitt and Pulakos (1985). Gill and Martens(1977) found that low dependent tasks produced greater athlete satisfaction withperformance than highly dependent tasks. The results of the present researchfound that task type did not affect athlete satisfaction with the sport teamselection process. It was suggested that the variability among the task typesinvestigated in the present study may have been responsible for the difference inresults between Gill and Martens (1977) study and the present research.Specifically, the types of tasks investigated in the present study were diverse inrelation to the task types explored by Gill and Martens (1977).Schmitt and Pulakos (1985) suggested that life satisfaction wasassociated with feelings of satisfaction in a variety of situations. Although lifesatisfaction correlated significantly with performance satisfaction, it did not affectathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process. The results of thepresent study suggest that life satisfaction may be relative to self-satisfaction butnot to satisfaction with situations and/or experiences.It was shown by the present research that team size, selection criteria,performance, motivation, perceived control, self-esteem, age and gender, anddecision making style affect an athlete’s satisfaction with the sport team selectionprocess.Delimitation of the ResearchThe subject population did not include all athletes, in all sports, at alllevels of competition. The study applies to all British Columbia provincial levelathletes who had experienced a provincial team selection process within the lasttwo years.75Thousands of athletes have experienced selection processes in varioussports. Approaching every athlete who had ever experienced a sport teamselection process was unrealistic for the purposes of this research project. Thedelimitation to include athletes who had experienced a provincialteam selectionprocess within the last two years, established a criteria for participation in thepresent study, and provided information regarding competitive and organizedsport.The maximum number of years an athlete was required to recall his/herexperience with the sport team selection process was two. This delimitationprovided information regarding sport team selection processes used recently.Access to every provincial sport organization in Canada was financiallyimpossible. British Columbia was selected as the province of study for thepresent research. Similarly, fourteen sports (Badminton, Tennis, Squash, FigureSkating, Diving, Gymnastics, Karate, Volleyball, Basketball, Field Hockey,Baseball, Cycling, Swimming and Track & Field) were selected for the presentstudy, based on cooperation from the provincial sport governing body andavailability to provincial level athletes.Limitations of the Research1. The personality measurements selected for use in the presentstudy were the Internal External Locus of Control Scale, Rosenberg’s SelfEsteem Scale, The Causal Dimension Scale and the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire.2. Independent variables selected for investigation in this study weretask type, team size, selection criteria, selection method, perceived control, selfesteem, motivation, performance, life-satisfaction, athlete age and gender, andpreferred decision making style.76Generalizations based on the results of the present study are limited forthe following reasons. Several personality variables were investigated. Suchvariables may be assessed using a number of different measurement scales. Allavailable measurement scales for each variable, were not used in the presentstudy. Therefore, the results of the present research are limited to the particularassessment of each variable. Furthermore, the variables selected for thepresent research did not include every variable that may have an effect onathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection process. Other variables thataffect athlete satisfaction may exist, suggesting that further research beconducted.Studies which continue to examine athlete satisfaction with the sport teamselection process are encouraged. Such studies might limit the subjectpopulation to athletes who compete at Olympic and International levels. Athleteswith low goal orientation who displayed uncontrollable and external causalattributions were more satisfied with the sport team selection process thanathletes who had high goal orientation and displayed internal, controllable causalattributions. This result suggests that athletes who set lower goals and believethe process of selection to be out of their control will be more satisfied with thesport team selection process than athletes who set higher goals and perceivethe process to be controllable. Athletes at the Olympic and International levelsof sport might display higher goal orientation than those at the provincial level.The results of the present study suggest that athletes with high goal orientationand internal attributions will rarely experience the level of satisfaction that isexperienced by athletes with low goal orientation and external attributions.Therefore, an investigation of athletes at Olympic and International levels, withhigh goal orientation and internal attributions, is suggested.77Research of gender differences regarding athlete satisfaction with thesport team selection process is strongly encouraged. The present study foundthat male and female satisfaction with the selection process is dependent upondifferent variables. It appears that additional variables may affect femalesatisfaction with the sport team selection process. Future research shouldconsider investigating variables not mentioned in the present study.The results of the present study showed that a male athlete’s satisfactionwith the sport team selection process was highly dependent upon hisperformance outcome, whereas a female’s satisfaction with the sport teamselection process was more affected by her satisfaction with performance.Gender differences were also found relating to motivation and self-esteem.Differences in self-esteem related to performance and satisfaction maycontribute to research related to performance enhancement for athletes as wellas individuals involved with the performing arts. Studying the gender differencesof the motivational dimensions (competitiveness, goal and win orientation)assessed by Gill and Deeter’s (1988) Sport Orientation Questionnaire issuggested. A study investigating the gender differences found by the presentresearch may provide information useful in suggesting different selectionmethods for male and female athletes. Finally, knowledge of these genderdifferences may be useful in relation to teaching, coaching and performanceenhancement.Other suggested areas for future research include psychologicalinterventions to improve satisfaction, reconstruction and testing of specificselection processes to determine if satisfaction can be increased bymanipulating certain variables, and perhaps, development of a comprehensivetheory of satisfaction.78In conclusion, several variables affect an athlete’s satisfaction with thesport team selection process. Considering variables associated with athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process may encourage sportorganizations to develop selection procedures which provide an opportunity forathlete satisfaction. Athletes may also benefit from the results of the presentstudy by considering which variables might affect their satisfaction and bydeveloping methods of coping with dissatisfying experiences in sport and life.Based on the literature, developing satisfying selection procedures may result incontinued commitment to sport and improved performance through increasedmotivation.79ReferencesAronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems.In R.P. Abelson, E. E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M.J.Rosenberg, & P.H. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Theories of CognitiveConsistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.Basow, S.A., Smither, J.W., Rupert, L., & Collins, H. (1989). The effect ofsatisfaction and gender on self-evaluations of task performance.Sex Roles, 2Q(7,8), 41 3-427.Burke, J.P., Hunt, J.P., & Bickford, R.L. (1985). Causal internalization ofacademic performance as a function of self-esteem and performancesatisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, i(3), 321 -329.Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1990) The impact of group sizein an exercise setting. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, j, 376-387.Chelladurai, P.(1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions ofleadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journalof Sport Psychology. , 27-41.Chelladurai, P. & Carron, A.V. (1978). Leadership. Ottawa: CanadianAssociation of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports:Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology. 2, 34-45.Cohen, J. (1992). Sue for gold: inadequate guidelines on selection criteria maysee athletes who miss out on team places taking selectors to court in future.Bulletin (Sydney, Aust.),July 28, 32-34.Cohen-Mansfield, J. (1990) Perceived control, reinforcement, satisfaction,and depression in community elderly. The Journal of applied Gerontology,(4), 492-503.Crews, D.J., Shirreffs, J.H., Thomas, G., Krahenbuhl, G.S., & Helfrich, H.M. (1986).Psychological and physiological attributes associated with performance ofselected players of the Ladies Professional Golf Association tour.Perceptual and Motor Skills, (1), 235-238.Dobbins, G.H. & Zaccaro, J.J. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leaderbehavior on subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organizational Studiesjj..(3),203-219.80Dwyer, J.J. & Fischer, D.G. (1990). Wrestlers’ perception of coaches’ leadershipas predictors of satisfaction with leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills,Zi, 511-517.Evans, J. (1986). Gender differences in children games: A look at the teamselection process. CAPHER Journal. Sept-Oct., 4-9.Evans, J. (1988). Team selection in Physical Education. The ACHPER NationalJournal, March, 12-14.Folkman, S. (1984) Personal control and stress and coping processes: Atheoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,4(4), 839-852.Furst, D.M. (1989). Attributional consistency and subjective perceptions ofsuccess. Perceptual and Motor Skills, (2), 529-530.Gellatly, l.R., Paunonen, S.V., Meyer, J.P., Jackson, D.N., & Goffin, R.D. (1991).Personality, vocational interest, and cognitive predictors of managerial jobperformance and satisfaction. Personality Individual Differences, J2(3), 221-231.Gentile, A.M., Higgins, J.R., Miller, E.A., & Rosen, B.M. (1975). The structureof motor tasks. Movement, 2, 11-28.Gill, D.L., & Deeter, T.E. (1988). Development of the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 5(3),191-202.Gill, D.L., & Dzewaltowski, D.A. (1988). Competitive orientations amongintercollegiate athletes: Is winning the only thing? Sport Psychologist.2(3), 21 2-221.Gill, D.L. & Martens, R. (1977). The role of task type and success-failure in group competition. International Journal of SportPsychology,(3), 160-177.Grove, J.R., Hanrahan S.J. & Mclnman, A. (1991). Success/failure bias inattributions across involvement categories in sport. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin. .12(1), 93-97.Harrison, W., Lewis, G, & Straka, T. (1984). Locus of control, choice, andsatisfaction with an assigned task. Journal of Research in Personality.j, 342-351.81Herriot, P. (1989). Assessment and selection in organizations: Methods andpractice for recruitment and appraisal. Baffins Lane, Chichester: John Wiley& Sons Ltd.Jenkins, S.R. (1987). Need for achievement and women’s careers over 14years: Evidence for occupational structure effects. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 53(5), 922-932.Joreskog, K.G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximumliklihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, .4, 183-202.Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1984). Lisrel VI: Analysis of linear structuralrelationships by the method of maximum liklihood. Mooresville, lnd.: ScientificSoftware.Kang, L., Gill, D.L., Acevdo, E.O., & Deeter, T.E. (1990). Competitiveorientations among athletes and nonathletes in Taiwan. InternationalJournal of Sport Psychology, 2.1(2), 146-1 57.Kimiecik, J.C., Allison, M.T. & Duda, J.L. (1968). Performance satisfaction,perceived competence and game outcome: The competitive experienceof boys’ club youth. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1Z 255-268.Kumar, A., Pathak, N. & Thakur, G.P. (1985). Death anxiety and locus of controlin individual, team, and non-athletes. International Journal of SportPsychology,.i(4), 280-288.Kushell, E. & Newton, R. (1986). Gender, leadership style, and subordinatesatisfaction: An experiment. Sex Roles, .14(3,4), 203-209.Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Lightat the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), 240-246.Lumpkin, J.R. (1988). Establishing the validity of an abbreviated locus of controlscale: Is a brief Levenson’s scale any better? Psychological Reports, , 51 9-523.Magill, R.A. (1989). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (3rd ed.).Dupuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Mahoney, M.J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance inolympic weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22(1), 1-12.Maihotra, M.S., Gupta, R.K., & Khanna, G.L. (1985). Selection criteria for competitiveroad cyclists - A physiological approach. Snipes Journal (Patiala, lndia),(4),20-29.82Mark, M.M., Mutrie, N., Brooks, D.R., & Harris, D.V. (1984). Causal Attributionsof Winners and Losers in Individual Competitive Sports: Toward a Reformulationof the Self-Serving Bias. Journal of Sport Psychology,., 184-196.Martens, R. (1970). Influence of participation motivation on success andsatisfaction in team performance. The Research Quarterly,...4.i(4),510-518.Martens, R. (1987). Coaches guide to sport psychology. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.Martin, J.J. & Gill, D.L. (1991). The relationships among competitive orientation,sport-confidence, self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. J, 149-1 59.McAuley, E. & Duncan, T.E. (1989). Causal attributions and affective reactionsto disconfirming outcomes in motor performance. Journal of Sport& Exercise Psychology, ii 187-200.McAuley, E. & Cross, J.B. (1983). Perceptions of causality in sport: Anapplication of the Causal Dimension Scale. Journal of SportPsychology,, 72-76.McCaughan, L.R. & McKinlay, S. (1981). Effects of success/failure andextrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation using a competitive motortask. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 52(2), 208-21 5.Melnick, M.J., & Mookerjee, 5. (1991). Effects of advanced weight trainingon body-cathexis and self-esteem. Perceptual and Motor Skills,72(3, Pt 2), 1335-1345.Muchinsky, P.M. (1986). Personnel selection methods. In Cooper, C.L. &Robertson, I., International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Chapter 2. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Neu, L. (1991). [Team selection: An investigation] Unpublished paper.Perrewe, P.L., Nelson, J.M., & Maroney, P.F. (1990). The impact of type Abehavior and personal control on perceptions of anxiety, conflict andsatisfaction among members of a decision making group. Journal ofSocial Behavior and Personality. (3), 123-135.Pulakos, E.D. & Schmitt, N. (1983). A longitudinal study of valence modelpredictions of job satisfaction of new employees. Journal of AppliedPsychology. 68, 307-312.83Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. (revisededition) Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut.Rotter, J.B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus externalcontrol of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,..Q, (Whole No 609).Rudisill, M.E. (1988). The influence of causal dimension orientations andperceived competence on adult’s expectations, persistence,performance, and the selection of causal dimensions. InternationalJournal of Sport Psychology. jj 184-198.Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individualsperceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6),1137-1145.Schliesman, E.S. (1987) Relationship between the congruence of preferredand actual leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership.Journal of Sport Behavior,j(3), 157-1 66.Schmitt, N., & Noe, R.A. (1986) Personnel selection and equal employmentopportunity. In Cooper, C.L. & Robertson, I., International Review of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Chapter 3. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Schmitt, N., & Pulakos, E.D. (1985). Predicting job satisfaction from LifeSatisfaction: Is there a general satisfaction factor? InternationalJournal of Psychology,..2, 155-1 67.See, J.D., & Czerlinsky, T. (1990). Effects of progressive relaxation versusbiofeedback-assisted relaxation with college students. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, ai(6), 548-554.Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression. development, and death.San Francisco: Freeman.Smith, C. (1991). 1992 Olympic Selection Criteria. Athletics. Sept. 4-8; 10;12.Smith, F.S. (1976). The Index of Organizational Reactions (bR). JSAS.Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. (Ms. No. 1265).Smith, P.C. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement.Chicago: Rand McNally.Steinkamp, M.W. & Kelly, J.R. (1985). Relationships among motivational orientation,level of leisure activity, and life satisfaction in older men and women. The Journalof Psychology, .jj.(6), 509-520.84Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.:General Learning Press.Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.Psychological Review, , 548-573.Weiss, M.R., & Freidrichs, W.D. (1986) The influence of leader behaviors,coach attributes, and institutional variables on performance and satisfactionof collegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, , 322-346.Weiss, M.R., McAuley, E., Ebbeck, V. & Wiese, D.M. (1990). Self-esteemand causal attributions for children’s physical and social competencein sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,.12.L 21-36.Widmeyer, W.N., Brawley, L.R., & Carron, A.V.(1 990) The effects of group sizein sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. .12, 177-1 90.Appendix AQuestionnaire Materials8586An investigation of Athlete Satisfaction with the Sport Team Selection ProcessInvestigators: Lois Neu, M.P.E. Graduate Student 266-8442Dr. S. Bleuler (Faculty Advisor) 822-4267The purpose of this study is to investigate selected variables, within thecategories of Organization, Athlete, and Leader characteristics, and to discoverwhich of these variables have an influence on athlete satisfaction with the sportteam selection process. By understanding the variables associated with athletesatisfaction with the sport team selection process, information may be providedto sport governing bodies, which could give them an opportunity to generate themost satisfying team selection procedures for their athletes.By participating in this study, you, as an athlete, may have an impact on thedevelopment of future team selection processes. Your opinions and perceptionsof the team selection process are valuable and important when considering thefuture of competitive sport. The researcher (Lois Neu) has introduced herself toyou during your training. She has described the qualifications necessary toparticipate, and has briefly described the study. If you are interested inparticipating with the study, and are a qualified subject, please continue readingfor a more detailed explanation.Subjects who agree to participate will be asked to complete the six-pagequestionnaire (see attached), on only one occasion. Following completion of thequestionnaire, you the subject will not be contacted again. The six-pagequestionnaire includes a Personal Information Questionnaire, The CausalDimension Scale, The Sport Orientation Questionnaire, Rotter’s Internal-ExternalLocus of Control Scale, and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. The entire six-pagequestionnaire will take 20 minutes (maximum) to complete.You (the subject) have the right to choose not to participate in this study, and towithdraw at any time during the study, with absolutely no consequences toyourself, or to your competitive sport career. It is assumed that if you choose tocomplete the questionnaire, you have given your informed consent and havewillingly participated in this study.In order to keep your identity completely confidential, DO NOT INDICATE YOURNAME anywhere on the questionnaire. The questionnaires will be coded bynumber to ensure subject confidentiality.Having read the information above, please answer the following questions. Thereis no right or wrong answers, simply answer as honestly and as accurately asyou can.Thank you in advance for participating in this study.87Personal Information Questionnaire Code: No. —1) Age:2) Sex: Male Female______3) Sport________________Event____________4) Number of years you have been Involved with the provincial team selection process._____5) Have you been selected for the provincial team within the last two years?YESNO_ If Yes please indicate: This year_, Last year,Both_____6) Have you ever been selected for a provincial team?Ycs__No_7) Do you know what the criteria are for selection to the provincial team of your sport?Yes___ No___8) if “yes”, please circle the number (below) which best describes your perception of the degree towhich the criteria arc objective (measureable) vs subjective (judmental).Totally Mostly Half Objective & Mostly TotallyObjective Objective Half Subjective Subjective Subjective1 2 49) Using the scale below, How do you feel you performed, during the most recent selection process,compared to:A) Your own ability and previous performances______B) Other athletes involved with the same selection process_______Very Poor Below Average Average Good Very Good1 2 3 410) With a check, indicate which decision making style you would prefer the person responsible forthe selection decision (i.e. coach, committee member), to use?a) Autocratic (i.e., Coach(s) and/or committee decides withoutconsulting athletes)____b) Democratic (Athletes are involved with decisions)__c) Other____ Describe:.11) Circle the number below which best describes how satisfied you are with your performanceduring the most recent selection process?Totally Somewhat Neutral Somewhat TotallyUnsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied SatisfiedI 4 3 4. 512) Circle the number below which best describes how satisfied you are with life in general.Totally Somewhat Neutral Somewhat TotallyUnsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied SatisfiedI 3 4 . 513) Using a number from the scale below, Indicate in the space provided:a) HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WiTH THE PROVINCIAL TEAM SELECTION PROCESS,THIS YEAR? , b) PREVIOUS YEARS? (if applicable)____Totally Somewhat Neutral Somewhat TotallyUnsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied SatisfiedI 4 -14) Are there any specific reason(s) for your previous answer? If Yes, please explain.88The Causal Dimension ScaleInstructions: Think about the reason(s) why you did or did not make the provincialteam. The items below describe your impressions or opinions of the cause(s) of youroutcome. Circle one number only for each of the following scales.1) is the cause(s) something that:Reflects an aspect 5 4 3 2 1 Reflects anof yourself aspect of thesituation2) Is the cause(s):Controllable by 5 4 3 2 1 Uncontrollyou or other• able by youpeople or other people3) Is the cause(s) something that is:Permanent 5 4 3 2 1 Temporary4) is the cause(s) something:Intended by you 5 4 3 2 1 Unintendedor other people by or otherpeople5) Is the cause(s) something that is:Outside of you 1 2 3 4 5 Inside ofyou6) Is the cause(s) something that is:Variable over 1 2 3 4 5 Stable overtime time7) Is the cause(s):Something about 5 4 3 2 1 Somethingyou about others8) Is the cause(s) something that is:Changeable 1 2 3 4 5 Unchangeable9) is the cause(s) something for which:Nooneis 1 2 3 4 5 Someoneisresponsible responsibleTaken from Russell, D. (1982) Journal of Penonality and Social Psychology, 42(6),1137-1145.89Sport Orientation QuestionnaireThe following statements describe reactions to sport situations. We want to knowhow you usually feel about sports and competition. Read each statement and circlethe letter that indicates how much you agree or disagree with each statement on thescale: A, B, C, D, or E. There are no right or wrong answers, simply answer as youhonestly fed. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Remember,choose the letter which describes how you usually feel about sports and competition.Slightly StronglyDisagree Disagree1. I am a determined competitor2. Winning is important3. 1am a competitive person4. I set goals for myself when I compete5. I try my hardest to win6. Scoring more points than my opponent isvery important to me.7. I look forward to competing8. I am most competitive when I try to achievepersonal goals.9. 1 enjoy competing against others.10. Ihatetolose11. Ithriveonconipetftioo.12. Itrybardestwhenlbaveaspedalgoal13. My goal is to be the best athlete possible14. The only time I am satisfied is when I win.15. 1 want to be successful in sports.16. Performing to the best of my abilityis very important to me.17. I work hard to be successful in sports.18. Losing upsets mc.19. The best test of my ability is competingagainst others:20. Reaching personal performance goals Isvery important to me.21. I look forward to the opportunity to test myskills In competition.22. I have the most fun when I win.23. Iperfonu my best when I am competingagainst an opponent24. Thebestwaytodeterminemyabilityistosetagoalandtryandreachlt25. 1 want to be the best every time I compete.A B .C D £A B C D EA B C D EA B C D £A B C D £A B C D £A B C D £A B C DA B C DA B C DA B C DA B C DA B C DA B C DA B C DA B C D £A B C D EA B C D EA B C D £A B C D £C D £C D CC D CA B C D CA B C D CTaken from: Gill, D.L and Deeter, T.E.(1988), Development of the Sport OrientationQuestionnaire, Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, 59(3), 191-202.Strongly SlightlyAgree AgreeNeitherAgree norDisagreeCCCC££CCA BA B.A B90Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control ScaleCircle (a) or (b) to indicate which of the statements you are most in agreement with in each of the 29choices.1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents arc too easy with them.2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to bad luck.b. People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take enough interestIn politics.b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.4. a. In the long tim people get the respect they deserve in this world.b. Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard hetries.5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students in nonsense.b. Most students don’t realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidentalhappenings.6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of theiropportunities.7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you.b. People who can’t get others to like them don’t understand how to get along with others.8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality.b. It is one’s experiences in life which determine what one Is like.9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.b. Trstingtofatehancverturnedoutaswellformcasmakingadecisiontotakeadefinite course of action.10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as anunfair test.b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is reallyuseless.11. a. Bccominga success isamatterof hard work, luckhas liuleornothingtodowith ILb. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.b. This world is tim by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can doaboutit13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.b. ltisnotalwayswisetoplantoofaralieadbecausemanythingsturnouttobeamaderof good or bad fortune anyhow.9114. a. There are certain people who are just no good.b. There is some good in everybody.15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.b. Many time we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right placefirst.b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to dowith it.17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neitherunderstand, nor control.b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control worldevents.18. a. Most people don’t realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidentalhappenings.b. There really is no such thing as “luck”.19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.b. It is usually best to cover up one’s mistakes.20. a. It is hard to know whether or.not a person really likes you.b. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are.21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.23. a. Sometimes I can’t understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.b. There isa direct connection between bow hard I study and the grades I get.24. a. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.b. A good leader makes It clear to everybody what their jobs are.25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.b. it is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.26. a. People are lonely because they don’t try to be friendly.b. There’s not much use in trying too hard to please people, If they like you, they like you.27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.28. a. Whathappenstomeismyown doing.b. Sometimes I fed that I don’t have enough control over the direction my life is taking.29. a. Most of the time I can’t understand why politicians behave the way they do.b. Inthelongninthepeopteareresponsible(orbadgovenimentonanationalaswdlasona local level.92Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem ScaleInstructions: Please respond to the following statements by indicating which of thefour adjectives (1-4) best describes how you feel about each statement.I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.I_____StronglyAgree2 Agree3 Disagree4 Strongly DisagreeI feel that I have a number of good qualities.I Agree2 Agree3 Disagree4 DisagreeAll in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.I Agree2 Agree3____Disagree4StrDisagreeI am able to do things as well as most other people.1t lAgree2 Agree3 Disagree4rDisagreeI feel I do not have much to be proud of.1 Agree2 Agree3 Disagree4 DisagreeI take * positive attitude toward myselL1__on yAgree2 Agree3 Disagree4 Strongly DisagreeOn the whole, I am satisfied with myself.1SAgree2 Agree3 Disagree4 Strongly DisagreeI wish I could have more respect for myselLIt lAgree2 Agree3 Disagree4 Strongly DisagreeI certainly feel useless at times.I Strongly Agree2_Agree3 Disagree4 Strongly DisagreeAt times I think I am no good at all.I_____StronglyAgree2 Agree3 Disagree4 Strongly DisagreeAppendix BEthical Review Certificate and Documents93_______The University of British Columbia 94Office of Research ServicesBehavioural Sciences Screening Committee forResearch Involving Human SubjectsCertificate of ApprovalpRINCIPAL tVESTIGATOR DEPARTMENTNUUSWhittaker-Bleuler, S.A. Phys Ed & Recreation B93-0213INSITTU11ON(S) WHERE RESEARCH WiLL BE CARRIED OUTUBC CampusCO.WIVESflGATORS:Neu, L., Phys Ed & RecreationSPONSORING AGENCIESAn investigation ofathlete satisfaction with the sport team selection processAPPROVAL DATE TERM (YEARS) AMENDEDMAY 519Ji I IThe protocol describing the above-named project has been reviewed by theCommittee and the experimental procedures were found to be acceptable on ethicalgrounds for research involving human subjects.Dr. K. Corteen or . . D.SpratleyDr. I. Franks, Associate Chairs r Director, Research ServicesThis Certificate of Approval is valid for three years provided there is no change in theexperimental proceduresTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASchool of Physical Education and Recreation210, War Memorial Gym6081 University Boulevard______Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T IZITel: (604) 822-3838 Fax: (604) 822-6842Parent/Guardian ConsentI (please PRINT)__________________________theparent’guardian of (please PRINT)_______________________consent/do not consent to allowing him/her to participate in the project titled“An Investigation with Athlete Satisfaction with the Sport Team SelectionProcess”. I understand that the individual identity of the child will beprotected and that he/she may withdraw at any time without any effect uponpresent or future sport involvement.Athlete’s Signature____ ___ __ ______Parent’s Signature_______Date__ _ ____Please place a tick in the box provided if you received both theexplanation of the research and the consent form.96THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASchool of Human Kinelics210. War Memorial Gym6081 University Boulevard________Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T IZITel: (604) 822-3838 Fax: (604) 822-6842Organization andlor Coach Letter of PermissionI,(print) as an Executive member, andlor a Provincialcoach of the Provincial Sport Organization for the sportof_____________________ having been provided with a detailed writtendescription of the study titled “An Investigation of Athlete Satisfaction withthe Sport Team Selection Process”, and with a copy of the questionnairematerials, hereby grant Lois Neu (Master of Physical Education student atthe University of British Columbia) my permission to approach provinciallevel athletes involved with the above mentioned sport. I am aware that theathlete’s identity will be kept completely confidential and access to the datais limited to the researcher (Lois Neu) and her Committee members.Signature:___________________________Executive member of the Provincial DateSport Organization and/or ProvincialCoachAppendix CIndependent Variable List9798Independent Variable ListVariable Tve of Variable RanQe of ScoresAge (years) Nominal —Gender (Male=1, Female2) Ordinal I ,2Sport (*A) Ordinal 1-14Event (*B) Ordinal 1-4# of years participating ina provincial teamselection process NominalSelection onto the provincial team within last 2 years- Yes=1/No=2 Ordinal 1,2This year=lIlast year=2lboth=3 1,2,3- Ever? yes=1, no=2 1,2Knowledge of Criteria(yeslIno2) Ordinal 1,2Perception of objective versussubjective criteria Ordinal 1-5Perception of personal performanceCompared to own ability Ordinal 1-5Compared to others Ordinal 1-5Satisfaction with performance Ordinal 1-5Perferred Decision-making Style Ordinal 1,2,3Autocratic=1, Democratic=2, other=3Satisfaction with Life Ordinal 1-5Satisfaction with the Sport TeamSelection Process Ordinal 1-5Causal Dimension Scale Ordinal (1-5)Locus of Causality 3-15Stability 3-15Controllability 3-15Sport Orientation Questionnaire Ordinal (1-5)Competitiveness i a.6Goal Orientation 6-30Win Orientation 6-30Self-esteem Ordinal (1-4)Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale -10 items 10-40Internal versus External Locus of Control29 item scale Nominal 1-2329 items! 6 fillers- Fourteen Sports will be investigated and coded as: I =Badminton,2=Squash, 3Tennis, 4Figure Skating, 5Gymnastics, 6=Diving, 7=Karate,8=Volleyball, 9=Field Hockey, 10= Basketball, I 1=Baseball, 12=Cydllng,I 3=Alpine Skiing, I 4=Swimming.- Events will be coded as: I =individual, 2=team, 3=pairs, 4=relay.Appendix DPsychometric Properties of Measurement ScalesResults99100Table D-1LISREL Estimates (Maximum Liklihood) for Sport Orientation QuestionnaireCompetitiveness Win Orientation Goal OrientationItem 1 0.498Item 3 0.649Item 5 0.549Item 7 0.702Item 9 0.684Item 11 0.741Item 13 0.412Item 15 0.390Item 17 0.509Item 19 0.437Item 21 0.657Item 23 0.463Item 25 0.425Item 2 0.560Item 6 0.482Item 10 0.814Item 14 0.629Item 18 0.691Item 22 0.611Item 4 0.640Item 8 0.625Item 12 0.651Item 16 0.474Item 20 0.775Item 24 0.576Table D-2LISREL Estimates (Maximum Liklihood for Caut Dimension ScaleCausality Stability ControllabilityItem 1 0.592Item 5 0.524Item 7 0.572Item 3 0.621Item 6 0.397Item 8 0.837Item 2 0.527Item 4 0.649Item 9 0.411101102Table 0-3Factor Intercorrelations (PHI Matrix) for the Sport Orientation QuestionnaireFactor Competitiveness Goal Orientation Win OrientationCompetitiveness 1.000Goal Orientation .552 1.000Win Orientation .501 0.018 1.000103Table D-4Factor Intercorrelations (PHI Matrix) for Causal Dimension ScaleFactor Causality Stability ControllabilityCausality I .000Stability 0.065 1.000Controllability 0.742 0.179 1.000104Table D-5Item Analysis of The Internal External Locus of Control ScaleItem Corrected ItemTotal Correlation2 .19973 .15864 .15565 .19636 .24697 .05989 .270310 .215511 .226412 .297013 .301615 .347716 .301617 .333718 .382020 -.019421 -.041522 .349123 .203125 .355826 .184628 .370829 .1383Note: Item 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, & 27 are filler Items.105Table D-6Item Analysis of the Self Esteem ScaleItem Corrected Item-Total Correlation1 .44892 .52553 .58734 .48285 .42616 .65727 .63288 .50769 .385010 .5475106Table D-7Item Analysis of The Causal Dimension ScaleItem IItem 5Item 7Item 3Item 6Item 8Item 2Item 4Item 90.36410.40980.40620.42450.30510.56790.31050.41120.3519Causality Stability ControllabilityAlpha 0.58 0.62 0.54107Table D-8Item Analysis of The Snort Orientation QuestionnaireCompetitiveness Win Orientation Goal Orientationitem 1 0.4244Item 3 0.5665Item 5 0.5238item 7 0.6200Item 9 0.6239Item 11 0.6375Item 13 0.3946item 15 0.3679Item 17 0.4471Item 19 0.4142Item 21 0.5842Item 23 0.4669Item 25 0.4120Item 2 0.4936Item 6 0.4186Item 10 0.6941Item 14 0.5709Item 18 0.5896item 22 0.5314Item 4 0.5202Item 8 0.5479item 12 0.5962Item 16 0.3795Item 20 0.6912item 24 0.51 42Alpha .84 .79 ..79Appendix EDistribution of Dependent Variable108109C,)C-,Co-I01..a)-CEzTotallyUrsatisfiedDegree of SatisfactionFigure E-1. Distribution of the Dependent Variable80706050403020100Somewhat NeutralUnsatisfiedSomewhat TotallySatisfied Satisfied

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.831.1-0077136/manifest

Comment

Related Items