Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations Within Parenting and Coaching Styles

Transcription

1 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal Volume 2 Issue 1 Article Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations Within Parenting and Coaching Styles Cortney Wilkerson University of Northern Colorado, wilk1313@bears.unco.edu Eldon Hall University of Northern Colorado, hall1899@bears.unco.edu James Gould University of Northern Colorado, james.gould@unco.edu Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Education Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Wilkerson, Cortney; Hall, Eldon; and Gould, James (2014) "Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations Within Parenting and Coaching Styles," Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal. It has been accepted for inclusion in Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal by an authorized administrator of Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal.

2 Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations Within Parenting and Coaching Styles Keywords Motivation, Success, Parenting Style, Coaching Style This research article is available in Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal:

3 Wilkerson et al.: Athlete Motivation and Success Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations within Parenting and Coaching Styles From ancient times to the first Olympics to the modern day, athletes have been motivated by honor derived from competition (Jezek, 2013). For university students, motivations to compete may include pure love of the sport or to simply pay for school, and success is often measured by winning records, improvement in abilities, and competing to one s full potential (Smoll, Cumming, & Smith, 2011). Successful student athletes are motivated by their coaches, parents, and their own selves. According to Cramer & Jowett (2010), young athletes are most motivated by their coaches and parents. How coaches motivate is often dependent on the athlete s perception of their relationship with their coach and this perception can affect a young athlete s motivation to compete. Recent studies have examined motivations for exercise among college students which include, general health, maintain fitness, stress reduction, enjoyment pleasure, and feel good/better research (Ebben & Brudzynski, 2008). Studies assessing motives for exercise among college students identified competence (Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, & Sheldon, 1997), fitness, and situational body dissatisfaction (Smith, Handley, & Eldredge, 1998) among others, but student athlete motivations seem to be less addressed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess student athlete motivation and success from the perspectives of parenting and coaching styles. Parenting Styles The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) involves four parent types based on the amount of care and protection shown the child. The four parenting styles are: optimal parenting, affectionless control, affectionate constraint, and neglectful parenting (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). Optimal parenting individuals demonstrate high care and low protection by way of being affectionate, engaged, set limits, reinforce rules, and empower a child s decision making. This style of optimal parenting is described as demanding and responsive and often parents in this style have high involvement in a child s participation (Stattin, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2000). The affectionless control parent demonstrates high protection and low care and is often emotionally aloof, bossy, uses physical punishment or verbal insults, and dismisses a child s feelings. This parent is considered authoritarian and is often characterized as being strict and discouraging of open communication between the child and parent. Another primary difference between the optimal parent and affectionless control parent is the optimal parent relationship is child centered whereas the affectionless control relationship is adult centered (Stattin, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2000). The affectionate constraint parent has high care and high protection and is affectionate, overbearing, and controlling. The neglectful parenting dimension is indicated by both low care and low protection and these parents are emotionally Published by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal,

4 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3 removed or indifferent, uninvolved, do not discipline, and are inconsistent. Given these four parenting styles, it was an aim of this study to assess athlete success relative to the parenting styles. Coaching Styles In order to distinguish coaching styles, the amount of freedom and structure provided by coaches are the most important criteria to be considered (Callej, 2001). An autocratic coach is a coach that provides low freedom/high structure and is a do as I say type of coach. A democratic coach is a coach demonstrating high freedom/low structure and allows athletes to be involved in decision making. A laissez faire coach provides high freedom/low structure and allows the group to do much of what they want with little direction from the coach (Callej, 2001). A fourth coaching style, low freedom/low structure, was not supported in research. According to Ferguson (2008), athletes need balanced amounts of freedom and structure, but providing neither would not be deemed effective coaching. Purpose The purpose of this research was to investigate how parenting and coaching styles relate to student athlete motivation and success. The following questions guided this study: R1: What are the primary motivations for competing? R2: Are there differences in motivations to compete across family income levels? R3: Are there differences between male and female athletes across motivations to compete scores? R4: What correlates the most with success among the parenting, coaching, and motivation variables? R5: Are there differences in motivations to compete across coaching styles? R6: Are there differences in motivations to compete across parenting styles? Methods Participants A non-probability target sample was conducted by ing the survey link from Qualtrics.com to club-sport s officers, varsity athletes, and messaged through Facebook.com and Twitter.com. Paper copy questionnaires were completed by athletes during an athletic study hall and by the varsity Track and Field Team during a team dinner. The survey was conducted between March 13, 2014 and April 9, In all, 161 athletes participated in the survey; however 3 athletes failed to complete the survey in its entirety and were eliminated from analysis. The remaining athletes (n=158) athletes were analyzed in this study. 2

5 Wilkerson et al.: Athlete Motivation and Success Respondents in this study were 42% male and 58% female of which 27.8% were Freshman, 24.7% Sophomores, 13.3% Juniors, 13.3% Seniors, 11.4% 5 th yr. Seniors, and 9.5% Graduate Students. The level of sport included 79.1% Intercollegiate, 10.8% Club, 1.9% Intramural, 5.7% Unaffiliated with UNC, and 2.5% selected other. Of the 2.5%, two wrote High School was the highest level they participated, one is a post-collegiate athlete, and one person did not specify. 57% of respondents were athletes who received athletic financial aid (scholarship/books) while 42.4% did not receive athletic aid. Twenty six different sports were indicated by respondents of which the majority was from Track and Field (43.0%), Football (8.9%), and Basketball (5.7%). Measures A 40-item questionnaire was used to assess parenting styles, coaching styles, motivations to compete, and demographics. The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) was adapted using eight items to measure the four parenting styles on a four point Likert scale (anchored by like my parents, unlike my parents ) to describe care and protection. Nine questions were also adapted and developed from the PBI to assess the amount of protection that the athlete felt their parents showed towards them. For coaching styles (Callej, 2001), there were six items on five point scales used to assess the athlete s structure or freedom provided by their coach. Three items assessed the coach-athlete relationship, as well as three questions indicating the success of the athlete under the coach. The three questions relating to success reflect the athlete s improvement under their coach, their team s winning record, and if the athlete competed to their fullest potential under the coach. An athlete s motivation to compete was measured by six rank order items that included: to pay for school, to fulfill parent s wishes, to achieve own goals, to stay in shape, or to fulfill social needs. The last seven questions were demographics that included sport, gender, year in school, family income, and family structure variables. Procedures In order to assess the sample s motivation for competing, the mean scores of the athlete s motivations were indicated by a graph for visual comparison of the six different motivations. Mean motivation scores by family income levels were indicated by a graph to answer the second research question. Differences between male and female athletes across motivations to compete scores were determined by conducting an independent samples t-test. Multiple Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to assess correlates of success with continuous variables indicating parenting types (care and protection), coaching types (freedom and structure), and the six motivations to compete. For research questions five and six, mean motivation scores were indicated by graphs Published by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal,

6 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3 categorized by the four parenting styles and another figure by the four coaching styles to asses differences across types. Results To answer the first research question, respondents were asked to rank the top three motivations for competing in their respective sports. Visual inspection of rank scores showed that athletes ranked love for the sport (M=2.53) the top motivation for competing. Athletes then ranked achieve own goals, and to stay in shape second (M=2.05 respectively). To fulfill social needs (M=1.45) was lowest ranked. See Figure 1 for ranked motivations to compete. In order to answer the second research question, the top three sport motivations were compared across levels of family income. Means scores indicated that athletes whose parents estimated income was between $20,000- $40,000 were most motivated to participate for the need to pay for school (M=2.6). Athletes whose parents estimated income was in the $40,000-$60,000 level ranked to fulfill parent s wishes (M=3.0) as the most important. Athletes across the levels of family income ranked love for the sport as one of their top two motivations. See Figure 2 for ranked motivations to compete by levels of family income. For the third research question, a t-test was conducted to assess mean differences between male and female athletes across the motivations for competing. Means testing of these groups revealed that two out of the six motivations were significantly different at the p<.05 level. The largest difference in the motivation mean scores was in to fulfill parent s wishes but love of the sport was only slightly lower in female athletes. See Table 1 for mean comparisons between male and female motivations to compete. In order to assess the relationship between success and coaching styles, parenting styles, and motivation to compete, multiple Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed. See Table 2 for correlates of success. The correlation matrix revealed that love for the sport had a weak positive correlation with success at the.01 level whereas to pay for school had a moderate negative correlation with success at the.01 level. Both coach freedom and coach structure scores had moderate positive correlations with success at the.01 level. To answer the fifth research question, scores for the top three motivations to compete were assessed across the four coaching types discerned by the freedom and structure item scores. Inspection of mean scores revealed that that athletes who s coach was high freedom/low structure ranked to pay for school (M=2.6) as their highest motivation. Low freedom/low structure athletes ranked to fulfill social needs (M=3.0) the highest, and both high freedom/high structure and low freedom/high structure athletes ranked love for the sport (M=2.61 & 2.52 respectively) as their top motivation. See Figure 3 for ranked motivations to compete by coaching types. 4

7 Wilkerson et al.: Athlete Motivation and Success In order to answer the sixth and final research question, scores for the top three motivations to compete were assessed across the four parenting types as discerned by care and protection item scores. Generally high scores for love for the sport were found across all parenting types. A difference in to fulfill social needs was observed between the low care/low protection (M=2.21) and high care/high protection (M=1.34) parenting types. Athletes of high protection parents were also more motivated to compete to pay for school than athletes of low protection parents. See Figure 4 for ranked motivations to compete by parenting types. Conclusions The purpose of this research was to investigate how parenting and coaching styles relate to student athlete motivation and success. The primary motivation to compete for the entire sample was love for the sport, which supported previous research (Kilpatrick, Hebert, & Batholomew, 2005) that found enjoyment of the sport to be closely related to participation. When motivations were analyzed by family income levels and parenting styles, love for the sport consistently ranked among the top two motivators. For the family income level of $20,000-$40,000, the highest motivation to compete was to pay for school. This finding seems logical if athletes with parents that have low salaries and little disposable income are required to find alternative ways to pay for school and student living. For the $40,000-$60,000 income level, the primary motivation to compete was to fulfill parent s wishes. This may indicate that parents of this income level are more involved in the athlete s career or reflect differences in values about the student s athletic career. Means testing between male and female athletes revealed differences in love for the sport and to fulfill parent s wishes, of which males scored higher for both. This appears to be an indication that males were slightly more motivated by enjoyment (Kilpatrick, Hebert, & Batholomew, 2005) and love of the sport than females in this study. Inspection of the mean scores in Table 1 indicate that fulfilling a parent s wishes is second most important to males and least important to females. This may suggest that males are more motivated by their parents to compete than females or that males might be perceived or treated differently by parents when competing in sports. For the correlates of success, the matrix revealed significant relationships with love for the sport and parenting care, but the strength of the correlations were weaker than those of coaching freedom and coaching structure. This seems logical since many coaches have more direct influence than parents on an athlete's training and can implement day-to-day practice plans and competition strategies. While coaches vary in style, our research showed that those providing sufficient coaching structure are likely to have more success with individual athletes and as a team. Published by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal,

8 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3 Motivation mean scores by coaching and parenting styles revealed that high freedom/high structure and low freedom/high structure coaching styles are most associated with competition for the love of the sport. Low freedom/low structure coaching was associated with athletes motivated by social reasons and less so by their love of the sport. For the motivations by parenting types, the majority of the differences were minute excepting to fulfill social needs and to pay for school among low protection parents. The largest difference in the motivation of fulfilling social needs was between athletes with parents at the extremes, high protection and care relative to low protection and care. This study also found that athletes of high protection parents are more motivated to compete to pay for school than athletes of low protection parents. 6

9 Wilkerson et al.: Athlete Motivation and Success Published by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal,

10 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art

11 Wilkerson et al.: Athlete Motivation and Success Table 1 Mean Comparisons Between Male and Female Motivation for Competing Male Female Measure Mean SD Mean SD t df p- value Motivation Love for Sport To pay for School To fulfill parent s wishes To achieve own goals To stay in shape To fulfill social needs Published by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal,

12 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3 Table 2 Correlates of success Factors M (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Coach Type (1)Coach Freedom (2)Coach Structure ** 1 Parent Type (3)Parent Care (4)Parent Protection ** 1 Motivation (5)Love for the sport * (6)To pay for school ** 1 (7)To fulfill parent s wishes * (8)To achieve own goals ** -.430** (9)To stay in shape ** ** 1 (10)To fulfill social needs ** c Success (11)Improvement *.312** ** -.329** (12)Winning Record **.282**.195* * -.372** ** 1 (13)Potential ** * -.334** **.387** 1 (14)Total Success **.357**.205** ** -.441** **.882**.616** 1 Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). c Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. 10

13 Wilkerson et al.: Athlete Motivation and Success References Callej, L. (2001). Coaching Styles. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from Brian Mac Sports Coach: Cramer, D., & Jowett, S. (2010). The prediction of young athletes' physical self from perception of relationships with parents and coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(2), Ebben, W., & Brudzynski, L. (2008). Motivations and Barriers to Experise Among College Students. Journal of Exercise Physiology online, 11(5), Ferguson, J. (2008, September 22). Elegant Code>> Leadership and Self Examination: The 3 Coaching Styles. Retrieved from Elegant Code: coaching-styles/ Jezek, G. (2013). What is Sport. Retrieved from History of Sports: Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Batholomew, J. (2005). College Students' Motivation for Physical Activity: Differentiating Men's and Women's Motives for Sport Participation and Exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Intrinsic Motivation and Exercise Adherence. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 28, Smith, B., Handley, P., & Eldredge, D. (1998). Sex differences in exercise motivation and body-image satisfaction among college students. Percept Moter Skills, 86, Smoll, F. L., Cumming, S. P., & Smith, R. E. (2011). Enhancing Coach-Parent Relationships in Youth Sports: Increasing Harmony and Minimizing Hassle. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), Published by Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal,

14 Skyline - The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3 Stattin, K., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents' achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23(2),