"Education, Faculty of"@en . "Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Murray, Neil Henry"@en . "2011-06-10T20:13:30Z"@en . "1968"@en . "Master of Human Kinetics - MHK"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "The personality characteristics of three different groups of athletes at the University of British Columbia were investigated to determine:\r\n1. If significant differences existed among the personalities of the three different groups.\r\n2. If there were significant differences in personality between the total number of athletes tested and the college norms.\r\n3. If one group of athletes differed from the norm more than the other groups.\r\nCattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to forty-five subjects competing in intercollegiate athletics at the University of British Columbia. Fifteen of the subjects participated in basketball, fifteen in football, and fifteen in hockey.\r\nResults derived by the method of an analysis of variance and \u00E2\u0080\u009Ct\" tests indicated that:\r\n1. The hockey group scored significantly higher than the football group on the personality factor, radicalism.\r\n2. The total number of athletes tested scored significantly lower on the factors, shrewdness and apprehensiveness, and significantly higher on the factor, Intelligence, in comparison with established college norms. 3. The hockey group scored higher than the college norms on three personality factors, namely, intelligence, tough-mindedness and radicalism."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/35387?expand=metadata"@en . "THE PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE GROUPS OF ATHLETES by NEIL HENRY MURRAY B.P.E., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION i n the Department of Physical Education and Recreation We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Ap r i l , 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and S t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h.iis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada / ABSTRACT The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia were investigated to determine: 1. - I f s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed among the pers o n a l i t i e s of the three d i f f e r e n t groups. 2. If there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n personality between the t o t a l number of athletes tested and the college norms. 3\u00C2\u00AB I f one group of athletes d i f f e r e d from the norm more than the other groups. C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to f o r t y - f i v e subjects competing i n i n t e r -c o l l e g i a t e a t h l e t i c s at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. F i f t e e n of the subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n basketball, f i f t e e n i n f o o t b a l l , and f i f t e e n l n hockey. Results derived by the method of an analysis of variance and H t \" tests indicated that: 1. The hockey group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the f o o t b a l l group on the personality f a c t o r , radicalism. 2. The t o t a l number of athletes tested scored s i g n i f i -cantly lower on the factors, shrewdness and apprehensiveness, and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the factor, Intelligence, In comparison with established college norms. The hockey group scored higher than the college norma on three personality f a c t o r s , namely, i n t e l -ligence, tough-mindedness and radicalism. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Study 1 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem 1 Limitations 2 Def i n i t i o n s 2 Personality 2 Athlete 3 College norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 A Comparison of the Personalities of the Athlete and Non-Athlete 5 A Comparison of the Pers o n a l i t i e s of Different Groups of Athletes 8 I I I . METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Subjects . . 16 The Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 METHOD OF ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of Athletes . 17 Personality of the Athletes Compared to College Norms 20 CHAPTER PAGE Personality Differences Between Each Group of Athletes and College Norms . . 22 IV. RESULTS 24 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS . . . 25 Three Groups Compared 25 Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms . . . . . . 25 Three Groups Compared Independently to College Norms . 29 Basketball group 29 F o o t b a l l group 32 Hockey group 32 V . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 42 Summary . . . . 42 Conclusions 43 BIBLIOGRAPHY >+7 APPENDIX A. RAW SCORES . . 52 APPENDIX B. TEST INSTRUCTIONS 55 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. C a t t e l l 1 s Interpretation of the Sixteen Personality Factors 18 I I . Three Groups,Compared 26 I I I . Duncan's Multiple Range Test on Factor \"Qi\" . . . 27 IV. Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms . . . . . 30 V. Basketball Group Compared to College Norms . . . 33 VI. Football Group Compared to College Norms . . . . 35 VII. Hockey Group Compared to College Norms 38 VIII. Raw Scores of Basketball Group 52 IX. Raw Scores of Football Group 53 X. Raw Scores of Hockey Group 5^ LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Three Groups Compared 28 2. Total Number of Athletes Tested Compared to College Norms . . 31 3. Basketball Group Compared to College Norms . . . . . 3^ 4. Football Group Compared to College Norms . . . . . . 36 5. Hockey Group Compared to College Norms . 39 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the per-so n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The three groups were basketball players, f o o t b a l l players and hockey players. I t was hypothesized that there would be a s i g n i f i -cant difference i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among these three groups when examined by C a t t e l l 1 s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Form A) . 1 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem There i s , at present, great i n t e r e s t i n the study of the personality of ath l e t e s . While many studies have examined the personality of athletes as compared to non-athletes and, to a l e s s e r extent, the personality of various groups of athletes, not one study could be found that compared the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of basketball, foot-b a l l and hockey players. These three groups constitute the major sports programme of u n i v e r s i t i e s across Canada. More pre c i s e l y , then, there were three aspects of t h i s research: 1. To gather evidence which eith e r supported or 2 contradicted the p o s i t i o n .that s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed between the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of the three groups of at h l e t e s . 2. To determine whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences i n personality between the t o t a l number of athletes tested and the college norms. 3\u00C2\u00AB To determine which, i f any, of the groups of athletes d i f f e r e d most from the college norms esta-blished by C a t t e l l . Limitations The subjects participated f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia at the i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l , and therefore were a s p e c i a l segment of the population. For t h i s reason, and because of the small number i n each group (15). generalizations were severely r e s t r i c t e d . The r e s u l t s were only s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group and generalizations cannot be made to include a l l a t h l e t e s . Generalizations were further r e s t r i c t e d because, i n t h i s study, Canadian athletes were compared to American college norms. Furthermore, since the subjects were not tested beforehand, the study was purely d e s c r i p t i v e i n nature. It was not possible to determine whether or not the sport i n f l u -enced each individual's personality or that c e r t a i n person-ality chaiacteristics compelled people to choose specific sports. D e f i n i t i o n s Personality. The terms personality and personality characteristics were used interchangeably. They referred to 3 a l l the main nonphyslcal dimensions along which people can d i f f e r , according to basic a n a l y t i c a l research. 2 These dimensions, according to C a t t e l l , are sixteen i n number and w i l l be described i n Chapter 3 . Athlete. The term athlete i n t h i s study referred to those indiv i d u a l s playing e i t h e r basketball, f o o t b a l l or hockey at the i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. F i f t e e n athletes were taken from each sport. For f o o t b a l l and hockey, the athletes were v a r s i t y players, but f o r basketball, due to the small number on the v a r s i t y team ( 1 0 ) , the remaining f i v e were taken from the junior v a r s i t y team. College norms. The college norms were established by C a t t e l l , 3 using 1,105 males with an average age of twenty-one. These norms were used f o r comparisons. 4 BJEFERENCES 1 C a t t e l l , R.B., Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1 Q 62. 2 C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, N.W., Handbook f o r the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1957* 1-3 C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Supplement of Norms f o r Forms A and B of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1962, 19. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE As previously mentioned, research has dealt with comparing the personality of the athlete and the non-athlete, and the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of various groups of at h l e t e s . A few of these studies have included basketball and f o o t b a l l players, but none of the studies included hockey players. Furthermore, not one study could be found that compared the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of basketball, f o o t b a l l and hockey players. For these reasons, t h i s review of l i t e r a t u r e was divided into two main categories. The f i r s t compared the per s o n a l i t i e s of the athlete and the non-athlete while the second compared the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of various groups of ath l e t e s . A Comparison of the Pers o n a l i t i e s of the Athlete and Non- Athlete Studies i n t h i s area were pri m a r i l y concerned with i n t e l l i g e n c e and related achievement, s p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s and general personal and s o c i a l adjustment. In a study by H.S. Slusher,! selected high school athletes were compared with non-athletes from the same popu-l a t i o n f o r differences l n selected p r o f i l e scales, as indicated by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 6 (M.M.P.I.) and i n t e l l i g e n c e quotients. Femininity and i n t e l -ligence were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n a l l a t h l e t i c groups when compared to non-athletic groups. The t r a i t , hypochondriasis, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower f o r a l l athletes. In contrast, a study by H.C. Ray 2 indicated that the athlete used h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e more e f f e c t i v e l y . His r e s u l t s showed that the athlete's grades i n school were eight percent better than the grades of non-athletes with a higher i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient. Also, the non-athlete with a comparable i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient had an academic average eleven percent below the athlete's and f a i l e d four times more often than the a t h l e t e . Instead of using p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a t h l e t i c s , Weber^ used physical f i t n e s s and found that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical f i t n e s s and grade point averages. The c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n was .41, which i s at the one percent l e v e l of confidence. This f i n d i n g indicated that good physical f i t n e s s , as measured, tended to accompany achievement of academic success during the year. Weber also f a i l e d to f i n d any r e l a t i o n s h i p between being p h y s i c a l l y f i t and having stable personality t r a i t s , as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Tillman^ also studied the r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical f i t n e s s and selected personality t r a i t s . He used a battery of three personality inventories and a physical f i t -ness t e s t . The subjects who f i n i s h e d In the upper f i f t e e n percent on the test were compared with the subjects who were 7 i n the lower f i f t e e n percent. The p h y s i c a l l y f i t group, i n contrast to Weber,5 scored higher i n dominance, extroversion, s o c i a l orientation, i n t e r e s t i n people and i n t e r a c t i o n with people. Also using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and i t s v a r i a t i o n s , Booth*s^ r e s u l t s indicated that the non-athlete scored higher on the dominance v a r i a b l e s . College athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i n d i v i d u a l sports scored higher on the depression variable than any of the groups studied. A study by Sperling,? using four d i f f e r e n t person-a l i t y t e s t s , indicated that there were s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e differences i n personality patterns of v a r s i t y and intramural athletes as distinguished from those of the non-athletic group. The athletes were r e l i a b l y superior i n personality adjustment scores, ascendance, and extroversion. The study also indicated that the athletes were more s i g n i f i c a n t l y motivated by a desire f o r power and, to a l e s s e r extent, by a s o c i a l love f o r people. Biddulph,8 using the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, the Henman Nelson Intelligence Test, and two subjective r a t i n g scales with groups of high school boys, indicated that the.superior a t h l e t i c groups showed a higher degree of personal adjustment than the low ranking groups. The d i f -ference between the means was s i g n i f i c a n t at the one percent l e v e l of confidence. Werner and Gotthell? administered C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen 8 Personality Factor Questionnaire to three hundred and forty' athletes and one hundred and sixteen non-athletes at the United States M i l i t a r y Academy. The test was administered at the beginning and at the end of a college career that entailed four years of compulsory a t h l e t i c s . No evidence was found to support the view that college a t h l e t i c s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u -enced personality structures. V A Comparison of the Personalities of Various Groups of Athletes The basis f o r comparing the pe r s o n a l i t i e s of athletes were twofold: 1. the sport i n which the athlete p a r t i c i p a t e d , 2. the degree of success the athlete experienced i n that sport. Several studies that were conducted indicated that personality differences do exist among athl e t e s . Vasquez^-O found swimmers to be highly integrated, while track runners were found to be poorly integrated. S l u s h e r , ^ using the Minnesota Multiphasic Person-a l i t y Inventory, showed that the basketball group was the most deviate of a l l groups studied. They displayed an over concern with physical symptoms and r e l a t i v e lack of repres-sion. The f o o t b a l l group was characterized by a strong neurotic p r o f i l e . The r e s u l t s indicated the use of physical symptoms as a means of solving d i f f i c u l t c o n f l i c t s under str e s s . 9 Also, a battery of four d i f f e r e n t personality tests administered to s i x groups of athletes by L.F. Flanagan 1 2 indicated fencers to be more ascendant and feminine than other groups, e s p e c i a l l y basketball players. Badminton players appeared to be more extroverted than v o l l e y b a l l players who, i n turn, were more unstable emotionally than basketball players. F.M. Henry 13 administered a personality schedule to student p i l o t s , track athletes, Physical Education majors and weight-trainers. Findings indicated that the weight-trainers were more neurotic, l e s s ascendant, more extroverted and hypochondriac than Physical Education majors. There were also three other studies that were con-cerned with weight-trainers. J.B. Thune-1-^ and R.G. Harlow 15 compared weight-trainers to other, non-weight-training a t h l e t e s . The r e s u l t s indicated that the weight-trainer lacked self-confidence, f e l t more masculine than other men, had consequent feelings of r e j e c t i o n and f e l t an i n a b i l i t y to cope with h i s environment. A study by K. Leithwood 1^ was conducted on f o r t y -f i v e d i f f e r e n t weight-trainers. C a t t e l l 1 s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to the f o r t y - f i v e subjects. F i f t e e n of these subjects trained as a conditioning a c t i v i t y f o r another sport, f i f t e e n trained to improve t h e i r physiques and f i f t e e n trained to increase t h e i r strength f o r w e i g h t - l i f t i n g competitions. Results indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n personality 10 t r a i t s among the three groups and thus that weight-trainers are a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group. C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was also used by W. K r o l l 1 ? to determine the personality of ninety-four wrestlers. When compared to the norms f o r the general population, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t departure from average on Factor I, in d i c a t i n g tough mindedness, s e l f -r eliance and masculinity. No evidence of a neurotic p r o f i l e was found i n the res u l t s obtained from the wrestlers. Studies were also conducted that were primarily i ft concerned with the t r a i t of \"aggression.\" Husman x o admini-stered three projective tests to a group of boxers, wrestlers, and cross-country runners. Results, s i g n i f i c a n t at the f i v e percent l e v e l of confidence indicated: 1. boxers had les s o v e r a l l i n t e n s i t y of aggression than wrestlers, cross-country runners and the control group; 2 . boxers were more l i k e l y than the other groups to d i r e c t aggression inward; 3\u00C2\u00AB cross-country runners were more outwardly aggres-sive and had more ego defense than boxers. Johnson and Danie l l ? added to these findings by measuring the effects of wrestling upon the personality dynamics using the \"House-Tree-Person\" projective t e s t . Before the wrestling meet the subjects indicated high anxiety, aggression and increased neurotic tendencies, a l l of which f e l l below normal or disappeared a f t e r the meet. 11 The p e r s o n a l i t i e s of outstanding athletes were analyzed on both a team and i n d i v i d u a l basis. H. S e i s t 2 ^ tested seventy-seven outstanding sports champions. The p r e v a i l i n g types showed high psychological s t a b i l i t y and resistance, a \"tough\" a t t i t u d e , a need to achieve and some obsessive-compulsive tendencies. The C a t t e l l Sixteen Personality Factor Question-naire administered to f i v e c o l l e g i a t e f o o t b a l l teams by W. K r o l l and H. P e t e r s o n 2 1 showed that the winning team scored lowest on s o c i a l factors (love of people, kindness, sympathy and unselfishness). Athletes on scholarships scored lowest of a l l on these factors which were considered by the authors to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of sportsmanship. La Place and Johnson also conducted studies on t h i s need to achieve by the champion. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and a biographical data sheet developed by the author, La P l a c e , 2 2 were applied to a group of profes-si o n a l baseball players. The purpose was to determine whether s p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s , are associated with success i n professional baseball. Results indicated that the major league players were better able than minor league players to: 1. apply t h e i r strong \"drive\" towards a d e f i n i t e objective by exercising s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e ; 2. adjust to occupations requiring s o c i a l contact and getting along with people; 3. exercise i n i t i a t i v e . Johnson*s 23 findings, vising the Rorschach and 12 House-Tree-Person projective tests on twelve national cham-pion athletes, were even more d i r e c t l y associated with the need to achieve. The in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the responses indicated that the group possessed extreme aggression, emotions lacking s t r i c t control, high and generalized anxiety, a high l e v e l of i n t e l l e c t u a l a s p i r a t i o n and excep-t i o n a l feelings of self-assurance. The evidence suggested that i n these subjects, being a champion was a matter of psychological necessity. In contrast, W. L. L a c k l e 2 ^ used a competitive a t t i t u d e scale of twenty-two items and tested two hundred and twenty-eight subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s i x d i f f e r e n t college sports. The subjects were average college athletes and no differences l n att i t u d e toward winning were found among the par t i c i p a n t s . Summary A comparison of the athlete and the non-athlete indicated that there was no measurable difference between the two groups as f a r as i n t e l l i g e n c e was concerned. However, evidence suggested that there were differences i n general adjustment and c e r t a i n personality t r a i t s . The athlete seemed better to adjust himself to varying circumstances and i n several studies he scored higher on t r a i t s of extroversion and dominance. Athletes also d i f f e r e d to some extent on the basis of the sport they played. There were also great differences 13 between successful and less successful a t h l e t e s . For the champion, winning has become a psychological necessity. 14 REFERENCES 1 Slusher, H.S., \"Personality and Intelligence Characteris-t i c s of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. 2 Ray, H.C., \"Inter-relationship of Physical and Mental A b i l i t i e s and Achievements of High School Boys,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1940. 3 Weber, J.R., \"Relationships of Physical Fitness to Success i n College and to Personality,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1953. 4 Tillman, K., \"Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality T r a i t s , \" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. 5 Weber, J.R., l o c . c l t . 6 Booth, E.G., J r . , \"Personality T r a i t s of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I.,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1958.' 7 Sperling, A.P., \"The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement i n Physical Education A c t i v i t i e s , \" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1942. 8 Biddulph, L.G., \" A t h l e t i c Achievement and the Personal and S o c i a l Adjustment of High School Boys,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1954. 9 Werner, A.C, and Gotthell, E., \"Personality Development and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n College A t h l e t i c s , \" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., March, 1966~I 10 Vasquez, V.C, \"The Personality of Athletes,\" Pslcoteonia. May, 1945. 11 Slusher, H.S., l o c . c l t . 12 Flanagan, L., \"A Study of Personality T r a i t s of Different Physical A c t i v i t y Groups,\" The ..Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1951. 13 Henry, F.M., \"Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students,\" Psychological B u l l e t i n , 38:8, 1941, p. 745. 15 14 Thune, J.B., \"Personality of We i g h t l i f t e r s , \" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1949. 15 Harlow, R.G., \"Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique,\" The Journal of Personality, 1 9 5 1 , 19, PP. 3 2 1 - 3 2 3 . 16 Lelthwood, K., \"Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Weight-Trainers,\" Master Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I 9 6 7 . 17 K r o l l , W., \"Personality Characteristics of Wrestlers,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., July, 1 9 6 6 . 18 Husman, B.F., \"Aggression i n Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1 9 5 5 . 19 Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C., \"Effects of a Combative Sport Upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1965. 20 S e i s t , H., \"Die psychische Egenart der Spitzensportler,\" Z. Dlagnost. Psychol.. 1 9 5 4 , 1, pp. 1 2 7 -1 3 7 . 2 1 K r o l l , W., and Peterson, H.H., \"Personality Factor P r o f i l e s of Collegiate Football Teams,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1 9 6 5 . 22 La Place, J ., \"Personality and Its Relationship to Success i n Professional Baseball,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1 9 4 9 . 23 Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C., l o c . c i t . 24 Lackie, W.L., \"Expressed Attitudes of Various Groups of Athletes Toward A t h l e t i c Competition,\" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 1964. CHAPTER I I I METHODS AND PROCEDURES The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three groups of athletes were examined i n order to determine: 1. If one group of athletes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n personality on the basis of the sport i n which they par t i c i p a t e d * 2. I f the t o t a l number of athletes tested d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n personality from college norms; 3. If one group of the athletes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from college norms more than the other groups. Subjects A l l subjects were male athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e a t h l e t i c s f o r the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The athletes participated i n basketball, f o o t b a l l and Ice hockey, and t h i s was the basis f o r categorizing the athletes into three groups. There were a t o t a l of f i f t e e n athletes chosen from each sport. The subjects were chosen from the v a r s i t y team f o r f o o t b a l l and hockey. However, due to the small number on the v a r s i t y basketball team (10), the remaining f i v e players were taken from the junior v a r s i t y team. The Test The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each subject 17 were determined by administering \" C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Person-a l i t y Factor Questionnaire (Form A),\" which included measures fo r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shown on Table I. The test was administered s i n g l y . Simple and clear instructions are printed f o r the examinee on the cover page of the tes t booklet. Although the test can be v i r t u a l l y self-administering, an attempt was made to es t a b l i s h rapport with the examinees. Further, the instructions were r e i n -forced by o r a l l y r e i t e r a t i n g the importance of the examinee being frank and honest. To help ensure t h i s honesty, the subjects were not required to reveal t h e i r names. The tests were handscored and the raw data prepared f o r s t a t i s t i c a l analysis at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's Computer Centre. METHOD OF ANALYSIS The test r e s u l t s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y arranged so as to make the three comparisons of personality implied i n the statement of the problem. Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of Athletes This i s accomplished by using an analysis of variance on each of the sixteen personality f a c t o r s . 1 Where a variance r a t i o (F) was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the one percent l e v e l of confidence the three groups were re-analyzed i n d i v i d u a l l y on that f a c t o r using Duncan's Multiple Bange Test. This determined which two of the three groups d i f f e r e d the most.2 18 TABLE I CATTELL *S INTERPRETATION OF THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTORS Low Score Description Personality Factors High Scores Description Aloof, cold (Schizothymia) A Warm, sociable (Cyclothymia) D u l l , low capacity (Low \"g\") B Bright, i n t e l l i g e n t (High \"g\") Emotional, unstable (Low ego strength) C Mature, calm (High ego strength) Submissive, mild (Submi sslveness) E Dominant, aggressive (Dominance) Glum, s i l e n t (Desurgenoy) F Enthusiastic, t a l k a t i v e (Surgency) Casual, undependable (Low super ego strength) G Conscientious, persistent (High super ego strength) Timid, shy (Threctia) H Adventurous, \"th1ck skinned\" (Parmla) Tough, r e a l i s t i c (Harria) I Sensitive, effeminate (premsla) T r u s t f u l , adaptable (Inner relaxation) L Suspecting, jealous (Protension) Conventional, p r a c t i c a l (Praxernla) M Bohemian, unconcerned (Alaxia) Simple, awkward (Naivete) N Sophisticated, polished (Shrewdness) Confident, unshakeable (Confidence) 0 Insecure, anxious (Timidity) Conservative, accepting (Conservatism) Qi Experimenting, c r i t i c a l (Radicalism) Dependent, imitat ive (Group dependence) Q2 S e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , resourceful ( S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y ) Lax, unsure (Low integration) Q 3 Controlled, exact (Self sentiment control) Phlegmatic, composed (Low ergic tension) Tense, exciteable (High ergic tension) 19 The following steps were included f o r each f a c t o r . 1. A correction term (C) was calculated for each factor: c = I ^ 2 where the sum of the scores of the 60 subjects f o r one fa c t o r N= the t o t a l number of subjects. 2. The t o t a l sum of squares around the general mean f o r each fa c t o r f o r the three groups was calculated: S S T = \u00C2\u00A3 * 2 - C where\u00C2\u00A3.>^2 = the sum of the squares of the raw scores i n the three groups. 3. The sum of the squares among the means of the three groups was calculated: SSM.S - + iqpi \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i ^ i i - 0 where (\u00C2\u00A3/l) 2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group A. (i->s2)2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group B. (\u00C2\u00A3^3)2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group C. Nl = the number of scores i n Group A. N 2 = the number of scores i n Group B. N3 = the number of scores i n Group C. 4. The sum of the squares within Groups A, B, and C were calculated: SStf = SSrjj - SS]fli s 20 5\u00C2\u00BB The variance from each sum of squares was calculated: a) Variance among the means of the Groups = SSM\u00C2\u00BBs of where S SM ' S = sum of squares among the means of Groups A, B and C df = ( K - l ) degrees of freedom where K i s the number of Groups. b) Variance within the Groups = _\u00C2\u00A3T df where SSj = sum of squares within the Groups df = (N - K) degrees of freedom where N i s the t o t a l number of scores. 6. The variance r a t i o was determined: p = variance among the means ~ variance within the groups ?. For factors with s i g n i f i c a n t variance r a t i o s , Duncan's Multiple Range Test was applied. The means of each group, the standard error of each mean and the degrees of freedom on which t h i s standard error was based were necessary. This data was d i r e c t l y applied to Multiple Range Tables to determine which two of the three groups d i f f e r e d most. Personality of the Athletes Compared to College Norms The three groups of athletes were considered as one. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the difference between the combined means of the athletes and the mean of the college norms f o r each of the sixteen factors was determined by the use of the M t \" test 21 using the following procedures:3 1. The mean score f o r each f a c t o r l n each group was calculated: M = T 2 . The standard deviation f o r each f a c t o r l n each \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 group was calculated: SD = 3\u00C2\u00BB The combined means of the three groups f o r each fa c t o r was calculated: M comb = NiMj + N 2M 2 + N3M3 Nl + N2 + N3 4. The combined standard deviations of the three groups f o r each f a c t o r was calculated: comb = Ni(c5j2 + dl2) + N2(CT22 + d 2 2 ) + N 3 ( c ^ 2 + d3 2) wherecTl = SD of Group A a~z = SD of Group B "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0077109"@en . "eng"@en . "Physical Education"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "The personality characteristics of three groups of athletes"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/35387"@en .