University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A structural model of the determinants, personal and situational influences, and the consequences of athlete dissatisfaction

(USC Thesis Other)

A structural model of the determinants, personal and situational influences, and the consequences of athlete dissatisfaction

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO U SERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A STRUCTURAL MODEL OF THE DETERMINANTS,
PERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES, AND
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ATFILETE DISSATISFACTION
by
Michael Rudie Voight
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EXERCISE SCIENCE)
May, 2000
Copyright 2000 Michael R. Voight
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3018042
Copyright 2000 by
Voight, Michael Rudie
All rights reserved.
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3018042
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK -
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
.........................M ike_V oi^ht^
under the direction of hi a Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date . .. ^anua? iX ^ooo
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
a
--------
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
II
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to all those who believed in me and my scholarly pursuits,
beginning with God, the Almighty Father for his enduring love and guidance. Special
dedications go out to my loving wife, Jenny, who is as big a part of this
accomplishment as I am; my parents and families in Mass. and Florida, and the
multitude of people I am honored to call my friends; my esteemed qualifying
committee and especially my dissertation committee. I extend another special
dedication to my bro, Johnny, for realizing my “Ph.D.” potential well before I did!
Finally, I also dedicate this work to the students, athletes, coaches, and teams which I
will hope to work with in the nearest future - my door will always be open.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Culminating my four and a half year graduate school adventure with this
voluminous dissertation brings me to reflect upon the many people who have helped
bring this dream to fruition. To start, I would like to extend my wholehearted
appreciation to my advisor, mentor, colleague, and friend, Dr. John Callaghan. You
provided me the opportunity to not only learn from you but work alongside you in
your teaching, research, and applied endeavors. I will be forever grateful for the time,
patience, expertise, and friendship you have given me. This “adventure” could not
have been started or finished without my best friend and soulmate, my wife Jenny.
What else can I say but, “WE did it!” Ail along the way I received so much
encouragement from my parents (an unending supply of support) Mary and Rudie, and
family: Johnny, Mary, Eileen, and Cathy, and their families, as well as from my
extended family and my longtime crew of friends. Hearty thanks also go out to my
second family, the Ervins: Dick and Bonnie, Russ, Rick, Linda and Leslie, along with
their supportive families and friends. I could not have accomplished this dissertation
without the valuable assistance o f my dissertation committee: Dr. John Callaghan, Dr.
Bob Girandola, and Dr. Dennis Hocevar. Without these scholars, completion of this
work would not have been possible. I am also indebted to the many soccer coaches
and players who assisted by completing the lengthy survey questionnaires. None of
this could have been possible without the love and guidance o f our Lord.
Thank you!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . iii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . viii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . ix
Abstract . . . . . . . . . x
CHAPTERS
I. THE PR O B L E M .......................................................................................................... I
Introduction . . . . . . . . 1
The Problem Situation . . . . . . 9
Purpose & Importance of Situation . . 12
Research Questions . . . . . 13
Definition o f Terms . . . . . . . 14
Research Hypotheses . . . . . 17
Delimitations . . . . . . . .20
Limitations . . . . . . . .20
Organization of the Remainder of the Proposal . 21
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . 22
Introduction . . . . . . . .22
Determinants o f Job Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction . . . 24
Why Job Satisfaction? . . . . .24
Measurement of Job Satisfaction . . . . 2 6
Environmental Determinants o f Job Satisfaction 29
Personal Determinants of Job Satisfaction 33
Theoretical Approaches 37
Lawler’s Facet Satisfaction Model . . . . 3 9
Locke & Latham’s High Performance Cycle . 41
Consequences o f Job Dissatisfaction . . . . .46
Consequential Outcomes of Dissatisfaction . . . 47
Empirical Research on the Consequences of Dissatisfaction 51
Theoretical Approaches . . . . . .53
Rosse & Miller Model . . . . .54
Henne & Locke Model . . . . .56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Behavioral Alternatives . . 57
Psychological Alternatives . . . . 59
Fisher & Locke Model . . . 61
Summation of Theoretical Approaches . . . 62
Interventions/Strategies . . . . . . 64
Determinants o f Sport Satisfaction . . . . . 69
Why Sport Satisfaction? . . . . . 69
Sport Satisfaction Research . 71
Measuring Sport Satisfaction . . 75
Consequences of Athlete Dissatisfaction . . . . 80
Anecdotal Evidence . . 81
Case Study Evidence . . . . . . 82
Exploratory Study on Consequences of Dissatisfaction 84
Review of Research: Exogenous & Latent Variables . 87
Gender Differences . . . . . . 87
Ability Level . . . . . . . 90
Motives for Participation . . . . . 94
Leadership: Coaching Behaviors . . . . 98
Mediational Model - CBAS . . . . 99
Multidimensional Model - LSS 101
Personal Goal Orientation . . 109
Situational Goal Orientation . 113
IE. M E T H O D O L O G Y ...................................................................................... 117
Design . . . . . . 1 1 7
Subjects . 1 1 7
Instrumentation . . 1 1 8
Estimation of Player Ability . 119
Motives for Collegiate Athletic Participation 119
Leadership Scale for Sports . 1 2 0
Task & Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire . 123
Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire 123
Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire . 1 2 4
Competitive Experience Questionnaire . 126
Field Procedures & Data Collection . . . 1 2 8
Operationalization . . . . 1 2 9
Data Analyses . . . . . . . 130
IV. R E S U L T S .................................................................................................134
Scale Analyses . . . . . . . 135
Internal Consistency . 135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VI
Factor Analyses . . . . . . 136
Descriptive-Correlational Analyses . . . 1 3 9
Subscale-Questionnaire Item Descriptives . 139
Correlational Analysis . . 1 4 1
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Questionnaires 145
Exploratory Factor Analysis o f Study Model . 147
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Study Model . 149
Assessment of Measurement Model . . . 1 5 0
Structural Equation Modeling o f Study Model 154
Assessment of Structural Model: Convergence & Effects 154
Assessment of Structural Model: Model Fit . . 157
Assessment of Hypotheses . . 1 5 9
Hypothesis 1 159
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . 160
Hypothesis 3 . . 1 6 2
Hypothesis 4 . . . 162
Hypothesis 5 . 163
Hypothesis 6 164
Hypothesis 7 . . . 1 6 5
V. D IS C U S S IO N ........................................................................................167
Discussion Introduction . . 1 6 7
Sport Dissatisfaction Model . . 1 6 7
Task/Ego Orientation & Athlete Dissatisfaction 170
Performance/Mastery Climate & Athlete Dissatisfaction 171
Coaching Behavior Discrepancy & Athlete Dissatisfaction . 173
Intrinsic/Social Motives, Discrepancy, & Additional Constructs 175
Gender, Motives, & Athlete Dissatisfaction . 179
Ability, Discrepancy, & Athlete Dissatisfaction . 181
Conclusions . . . 1 8 5
Applicability of the Sport Dissatisfaction Model 186
Intrapersonal Variables & Athlete Dissatisfaction 189
Situational Factors & Athlete Dissatisfaction 190
Individual Difference Variables: Gender & Ability . 191
Implications . . 1 9 1
Implications for Selected Populations . 195
Implications for Athletes 195
Implications for Support Staff 198
Implications for Coaches . 2 0 1
Implications for Athletic Administrators 207
Interventions . . . 2 1 0
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
APPENDICES
Appendix A. TABLES 1 - 14: . . . . . 238
Table 1. Scale Reliability Estimates. . 239
Table 2. Pattern Matrix o f Principal Component Analysis . 240
Table 3. Summary o f Questionnaire Descriptives . . 245
Table 4. Summary o f Descriptives and T Tests 249
Table 5. Summary o f Consequential Alternatives . 250
Table 6. Summary o f Zero-Order Correlations . 251
Table 7. Summary o f CFA on MCAP, ASQ, & CEQ 253
Table 8. Pattern Matrix of Results from EFA. 254
Table 9. Summary o f Factor Correlations . 255
Table 10. Summary o f Nonstandardized Factor Loadings . 256
Table 11. Summary of Standardized Factor Loadings 257
Table 12. Summary o f Loadings in Structural Model 258
Table 13. Summary o f Equations in Structural Model 259
Table 14. Summary of Constructs in Structural Model 260
Appendix B. FIGURES 1 -10: . . . 2 6 1
Figure 1. Proposed Study Model . . . . 262
Figure 2. Lawler’s Model o f Determinants of Satisfaction . 263
Figure 3. Locke & Latham’s High Performance Cycle 264
Figure 4. Rosse & Miller Model . . . . 265
Figure 5. Henne & Locke Model . . . . 266
Figure 6. Fischer & Locke Choice Model 267
Figure 7. Revised Study Model based on EFA & CFA . 268
Figure 8. CFA Model: Structural Coefficients . 269
Figure 9. Structural Model: Structural Coefficients . 270
Figure 10. Structural Model: Constructs Coefficients 271
Appendix C. Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ) . . 273
Appendix D. Scoring Key for ASQ . . . . . 276
Appendix E. Competitive Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) 278
Appendix F. Scoring Key for CEQ . . . . . 282
Appendix G. Motives for Collegiate Athletic Participation (MCAP) 284
Appendix H. Scoring Key for MCAP . . . . 286
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
v iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Scale Reliability Estimates . . . . . . 239
Table 2. Pattern Matrix of the Principal Components Analysis of Seven Scale 240
Table 3. Summary o f Questionnaire Subscale and Item Descriptives . 245
Table 4. Summary of Subscale Descriptives and T Tests 249
Table 5. Summary of Consequential Alternative Subscales and Gender 250
Table 6. Summary of Zero-Order Correlations . 251
Table 7. Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on MCAP, ASQ, and CEQ 253
Table 8. Pattern Matrix of the results from the Exploratory Factor Analysis
ofModel . . . . . . . . 254
Table 9. Summary of Factor Correlations in the Measurement Model 255
Table 10. Summary of Factor Loadings in Measurement Model 256
Table 11. Summary of Standardized Measurement Equations in Measurement
Model . . . . . . . . 257
Table 12. Summary of Factor Loadings in Structural Model 258
Table 13. Summary of Standardized Measurement Equations in Structural Model 259
Table 14. Summary of Standardized Construct Equations in Structural Model 260
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proposed Study Model . . . . . . 262
Figure 2. Lawler’s Model (1992) of the Determinants of Satisfaction 263
Figure 3. Locke and Latham’s (1990) High Performance Cycle . . 264
Figure 4. Rosse and Miller (1984) Model . . . . . 265
Figure 5. Henne and Locke (1985) Model . . . . . 266
Figure 6. Fischer and Locke (1992) Choice Model of Behavioral Responses 267
Figure 7. Revised Study Model based on EFA and CFA of Instruments 268
Figure 8. CFA Measurement Model: Standardized Structural Coefficients . 269
Figure 9. Structural Model: Standardized Structural Coefficients . 270
Figure 10. Structural Model: Standardized Construct Coefficients . 271
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X
ABSTRACT
The causes and consequences o f job satisfaction-dissatisfaction have been popular
topics for research in the field of industrial organizational psychology. Although the
causes of satisfaction in sport has been addressed by a few researchers, there has been
no empirical attention given to what occurs when an athlete is not satisfied. However,
anecdotal evidence indicates that collegiate athletes who are dissatisfied are more
likely to transfer, quit, stage player mutinies, assist in getting the head coach fired, and
physical violence. The purpose o f the present study was to test a sport specific model
on integrating personal and situational variables, determinant factors of
dissatisfaction, and consequential action alternatives. Questionnaires were
administered to 369 male and female college soccer players from over 29 different
Division I universities from various regions. Structural equation modeling results
demonstrated that the proposed model adequately fit the sample data (chi sq/df=
2.97), although it is far from being exact. As predicted, numerous significant direct
effects were indicated which linked personal and situational variables to both
determinant factors and adaptive/maladaptive consequential alternatives. For
example, discrepancy in coaching behaviors lead to dissatisfaction with coaches,
which then lead to the use o f maladaptive alternatives, which represent negative
influences on the athletes’ behavioral, psychological, and emotional well being. In
addition, motives for participation and ego goal orientation lead to adaptive
consequential alternatives. Based upon the significant direct and indirect effects,
implications for dissatisfied athletes, their coaches, support staff, and athletic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
XI
administrators are presented. Additionally, intervention strategies designed to address
the identification and remediation of athlete dissatisfaction experiences are presented.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER I.
THE PROBLEM
Introduction:
The construct of satisfaction has been a popular topic for multidisciplinary
research. The fields of psychology and industrial organizational psychology have
provided the majority of the research efforts investigating the construct, yet recently
this concept of satisfaction has begun to be of great interest to sport researchers.
In general terms, satisfaction has been defined as a psychological feeling of
contentedness due to the belief of receiving enough o f the desired object (Maslow,
1970). Researchers interested in the psychological components of satisfaction have
investigated specific elements such as global and life satisfaction (Campbell,
Converse, & Rogers, 1976; Lance, Lautenschlager, Cloan, & Varca, 1989; Schmitt &
Pulakos, 1985), career satisfaction (Akindutire, 1994; Zunker, 1990), and leisure
satisfaction (Hupp, 1991; Kurtz & Propst, 1991). Life satisfaction has been defined as
a general index of an individual’s affective response to his/her situation, and research
investigating this construct has attempted to identify potential antecedents of life
satisfaction (Varca, Shaffer, & Saunders, 1984). In addition, numerous theories of life
(global) satisfaction have been posited, some claiming that life satisfaction is a
consequence of satisfaction with specific life domains, whereby others claim that life
satisfaction determines satisfaction with specific life facets (Andrews & Withey,
1974; Liang, 1984; Near, 1984). Diener (1984) presented a model which suggested
that life satisfaction be considered as both a determinant and a resultant of the specific
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
2
facets of life, bringing together the previously stated theories. Diener’s approach has
received the strongest empirical support (Lance et al., 1989).
Career satisfaction pertains to attaining a satisfactory experience in any
occupational endeavor (Akindutire, 1993), a construct similar to that o f job
satisfaction. Leisure satisfaction concerns the affective response to activities of
leisure, and numerous dimensions of leisure satisfaction have been identified;
intimacy, relaxation, achievement, and power (Pierce, 1980). Survey questionnaires
have been developed with which to measure leisure satisfaction to evaluate organized
leisure programs’ effectiveness, leisure service delivery, participation rates of both
organized and free-time leisure activities, and the prediction of leisure program
satisfaction (Farley, 1987; Ragheb, 1980).
The industrial organizational psychology (I/O) field has provided an immense
amount o f research articles regarding job satisfaction (Lawler, 1971, 1994; Locke,
1969; Locke, 1976; Locke & Latham, 1990; Wanous, Reichers & Hudy, 1997). The
industrial organizational field, according to Schultz (1982), is primarily concerned
with the “application of methods, facts and principles o f the science o f human
behavior to people at work”(p. 7). Additionally, Saal and Knight (1988) posited a two
way understanding o f the I/O psychology field: (I) I/O psychology is the study of
actions, cognitions and emotions of employees as they attempt to adjust to their
workplace surroundings; and then (2) using the information to maximize not only the
economic but the psychological well being of all employees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Saal and Knight (1988) also reported that the field of I/O experienced great
diversity and specialization over the years, and numerous subspecialties currently
exist in the field (see Muchinsky, 1983 and Schultz, 1982, for more information).
Lawson and Shea (1998) stated that organizational psychologists adopt either
microlevel (individual motivation), mesolevel (enhancing team performance), or
macrolevel (organizational culture) approaches in studying-researching organizations.
Specific areas of study and research regarding job satisfaction in the I/O field
include:
(1) operational definitions of the general construct and specific facets of job
satisfaction; (2) empirical research on the antecedents and consequences of job
satisfaction & dissatisfaction; (3) theoretical paradigms conceptualizing the
determinant-consequential action relationship o f job satisfaction-dissatisfaction; and
(4) the effectiveness o f intervention practices utilized by organizations and its effects
on job satisfaction-dissatisfaction of employees. Initial investigation begins with the
operational definition o f the construct o f facet job satisfaction, which has been
referred to as the affective reactions to the specific aspects of the job, whereby general
job satisfaction pertains to a individual’s affective reaction to the total work role
(Lawler, 1994).
Secondly, the many determinants investigated in the I/O literature included
subordinants’ personality characteristics (Saiyadain, 1985), perceived job attributes
(Orpen, 1985), pay (Heneman & Schwab, 1985), ability (Sackett, Gruys & Ellingson,
1998), leader behavior (Danserau, Braen & Haga, 1975; Gran, Novak &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Sommerkamp, 1982; Schriesman, Hinkin & Tetrault, 1991), work climate (Kozlowski
& Doherty, 1989) and psychological climate (Brown & Leigh, 1996). The numerous
consequences of job dissatisfaction cited in the research include productivity
(Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985), counter-productive behavior and drug use
(Mangione & Quinn, 1975), absenteeism (Terborg, Lee, Smith, Davis & Turbin, 1982)
and lateness (Koslowsky, Sagie, Krause, & Singer, 1997), turnover (Arnold &
Feldman, 1982), life satisfaction (Schmitt & Pulakos, 1985) and job loss (Olson-
Buchanan, 1996; Prussia, Kinicki, & Bracker, 1993).
Despite the wealth o f research investigating potential mediating variables and
outcomes o f dissatisfaction, no significant relationships have been consistently
indicated between satisfaction and job performance (Locke, 1984). This brings to
question why then has there been so much attention given to job satisfaction if it does
not have a direct influence on productivity-performance? According to Lawler (1994),
despite there not being an empirically coherent relationship between satisfaction and
performance, job satisfaction/dissatisfaction is one measure of the quality of life in the
workplace and is worth understanding. Lawler continued by stating that the “reason
for studying satisfaction is likely to be an increasingly prominent one as we begin to
worry more about the effects working in organizations has on people, and as our
humanitarian concern for the kind o f psychological experiences people have during
their lives increase (p. 80)”.
Out of the I/O research came numerous theories of job satisfaction, the third
dimension o f the analysis of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Lawler (1994) reported
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
that two o f the stronger theoretical explanations of satisfaction consist of the Equity
Theory and Discrepancy Theory, both of which could be applied to the study of the
determinants of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Simply stated, Adams (1963) explained
that equity theory describes satisfaction as being determined by a person’s perceived
ratio of what they receive from the job relative to what they put into the job. Locke
(1969) explained that with the discrepancy theory, satisfaction is determined by the
difference between what an individual wants and what they perceive they receive; the
more their wants exceed what they receive, the greater the dissatisfaction.
Lawler (1994) presented a more recent model of the determinants of facet job
satisfaction which incorporated the aforementioned theories, but included some
additional concepts. The model indicated numerous variables which can influence
employee’s perceptions of their facet satisfaction, including their perceived job inputs
(skills/abilities), perceptions of the job demands (greater the demands, the greater the
reward perception), and the influence of how other employees’ inputs and outcomes
compare with their own. Lawler posited that a person will be satisfied in their job if
there is an agreement between their perceptions of their outcome level with their
perceptions of what their outcome level should be. However, a person will be
dissatisfied if they perceive their outcome level to be lower than where they think it
should be.
Another recent theory on job satisfaction was devised by Locke and Latham
(1990), which is actually a compilation of numerous other theories, including equity,
expectancy, goal setting and social cognitive theories. This model, called the high
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
performance cycle, begins with the setting of difficult performance goals combined
with high perceptions of expectancy/self efficacy, which are predicted to help one
perform at a high level, thus, leading one to rewards, and increased feelings of
satisfaction and commitment to future goals, repeating the cycle (Locke and Latham,
1990). Additionally, the model is based upon the assumption that satisfaction
promotes commitment and that satisfied employees, more so than their dissatisfied
counterparts, will not only remain working with the organization but be more willing
to accept new challenges.
Another major focus of the job satisfaction research has been the study o f the
effects of satisfaction/dissatisfaction on specific actions, such as productivity, and the
exploration of the choice processes in responding to job dissatisfaction (Fisher &
Locke, 1992). Henne and Locke (1985) presented one of the first theoretical models
on the choice processes and the resultant consequences o f job dissatisfaction.
According to the authors, the important assumption of the model is that job
dissatisfaction does not have any direct or inevitable consequences, instead it is
considered to be an emotional state. The action taken by the employee in response to
this emotional state of dissatisfaction is reported to be dependent upon the cognitive
processing of the individual, which in turn, could lead to behavioral and/or
psychological responses (Henne & Locke, 1985). It is also predicted that as a result of
the action or psychological adjustment chosen, employees may experience effects on
their life satisfaction or on their mental and physical health.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Fisher and Locke (1992) elaborated on this model by incorporating additional
variables, such as dispositional characteristics, situational influences (group norms),
personal values, and a more in-depth analysis of the choice process. Fisher and
Locke’s choice model begins with the employee making an appraisal o f the job
situation, and depending upon the appraisal, feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction
are the result Prior levels o f satisfaction and one’s past experience in the organization
appear to be influencing factors in the type of action alternative chosen. Once
appraised, action alternatives are then evaluated in terms o f consequential
expectations, and then acted upon.
Finally, the fourth major area of the job satisfaction research is in the area of
intervention. The I/O literature has presented extensive research on the efficacy of
psychologically based interventions in improving not only performance/productivity
but the satisfaction o f employees (Katzell, Thompson, & Guzzo, 1992). For example,
Katzell and Guzzo (1983) indicated in their review o f 207 psychological intervention
studies that 87% of the studies revealed positive affects on raising productivity and
job satisfaction due to the interventions. Thus, it appears that interventions which are
designed to effect job performance can often effect job satisfaction, yet some research
has indicated the effects may likely be unequal (see Latham & Yukl, 1976).
Job related intervention programs typically consist of operational changes to the
work itself or changes made in management practices, such as pay structures,
recruitment and selection, training, supervision and work schedule (Katzell et al.,
1992; Katzell & Guzzo, 1983; Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie & Muldrow, 1979). Other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
job related psychologically based intervention programs cited in the research include
goal setting programs, contingent feedback and incentives (Latham & Yukl, 1976;
Locke & Latham, 1990; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing & Ekeburg, 1988).
In an attempt to parallel and apply these four major areas of job satisfaction
research to another setting, that of sport, and specifically collegiate athletics,
Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) suggested considering athletes as employees since
they are an essential human resource and responsible for generating a substantial
portion of the athletic department5 revenues through their athletic participation. In
addition, the authors stated that athlete satisfaction should be considered as a primary
outcome o f athletic organizations and valued for its own sake.
In general, much of the research on athlete satisfaction has been conducted to
assess personal, team, task and social factors believed to affect member satisfaction
via a unidimensional approach (single item questionnaires). Examples of selected
facets of athlete satisfaction found in this research consisted of team performance and
overall sport involvement (Chelladurai, 1984), athletic participation and life
satisfaction (Varca, Shaffer, & Saunders, 1984), task orientation on
satisfaction/interest with sport (Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1996), and perceived
coaching behavior on team and individual satisfaction (Schriesman, 1987; Voight,
Callaghan, & Bottom, 1999; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). The studies which
incorporated coaching behaviors as dependent variables utilized Chelladurai5 s
multidimensional model as a framework.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Additionally, these coaching behavior studies also used various measures of
satisfaction, from a general form of satisfaction (Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986),
satisfaction with the coach (Chelladurai, 1978; Voight, Callaghan, & Bottom, 1999),
satisfaction with team performance (Chelladurai, 1989), satisfaction with personal
performance (Chelladurai, 1984) and satisfaction with overall sport involvement
(Chelladurai, 1984; Voight, Callaghan, & Bottom, 1999). These measures, however,
were in the form of unidimensional (single) items. Despite yielding interesting results,
the use of single item, unidimensional or snapshot methodologies are problematic due
to measurement issues, lack o f theoretical direction, and the explanation of these
approaches. Thus, researchers have considered the concept o f satisfaction as being
multifaceted, in that athletes could be differentially satisfied with various aspects of
sport participation outcomes, leader behaviors, team or individual performance, and
team climate (Chelladurai, 1988).
The Problem Situation
With this shift in focus came the development of a comprehensive classification of
the facets of athlete satisfaction and a multidimensional scale to measure these facets
of sport satisfaction (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998).
First, a comprehensive classification o f the facets of athlete satisfaction was
developed by Riemer and Chelladurai (1998), which represents the first attempt at
categorizing the various facets o f athlete satisfaction. A facet is classified by the
following criteria: whether it is (a) task or social related; (b) is an outcome or a
process; and (c) whether it affects the individual or the team. Specific examples of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
each facet categorization are as follows: social facets include social support,
belongingness, and friendship; outcome facets include performance, goal attainment,
and performance improvement; process facets include training, competitive tactics,
team effort, and feedback/recognition (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998).
Another major development in the research o f sport satisfaction was the
development of a comprehensive measurement scale. Riemer and Chelladurai (1998)
developed the first psychometrically sound, multidimensional scale to measure the
facets o f sport satisfaction. The researchers reported that this multidimensional scale
can serve numerous purposes: (1) if athlete satisfaction is considered as a primary
outcome and valued, athlete satisfaction can be directly measured; (2) this scale can
be used by athletic department officials in evaluating their coaches effectiveness and
in evaluating specific programs and additional personnel; (3) researchers can utilize
the scale in model validation efforts, such as the current study, or in evaluating an
interventions effectiveness.
These recent developments, including a comprehensive definition, classification
scheme, and a multidimensional measurement tool have all helped to advance the
understanding o f the construct of satisfaction in the sport domain, yet there are some
additional processes underlying athlete satisfaction which has yet to be explored.
While research on the causes o f satisfaction have been valuable to our understanding
of the construct, there has been no research efforts dedicated to the consequences of
sport dissatisfaction. Until this particular aspect is explored, the satisfaction research
literature in sport is limited and incomplete. As has been presented earlier, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
industrial organizational field has given much more research attention to the
investigation of the consequences o f job dissatisfaction, listing several consequential
actions, such as turnover, striking, absenteeism, protests, substance abuse and illegal
acts and finally less effort toward the job (Fisher & Locke, 1992).
In the same way the industrial organizational research was applied to the athletic
setting to investigate the potential determinants and outcome processes involving
satisfaction (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997), the same methodology is required to
examine the consequences o f athlete dissatisfaction. Anecdotal evidence, in the form
of popular press, has indicated that collegiate athletes who are dissatisfied are more
likely to transfer, put forth less effort, file grievances, quit the team and/or sport, use
drugs, show premeditated insubordination, lead/instigate player mutiny, legal action,
assist the administration in getting the head coach fired, and even demonstrate
physical violence toward the coach (Arey, 1998; Associated Press, 1999a, 1999b;
Dixon, 1998; Drape, 1998; Finger, 1998; Hochgesang, 1997; “Gauchos”, 1998;
“Knight’s Time”, 1997; Payne, 1996; Pyle, 1999; Robinson, 1998; Seminoff, 1999;
Sheldon, 1997; Wertheim, 1999). In order to support the propositions made by the
anecdotal evidence, while also extending the limited research on satisfaction in sport,
in addition to shedding a more critical light onto the collegiate student athlete
experience, there needs to be a systematic effort to conceptualize and empirically
investigate the processes involving the determinants and consequence of athlete
dissatisfaction. Specifically, factors such as athletes’ perceptions of the causes of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
dissatisfaction, how these athletes respond to their perceptions o f dissatisfaction, and
the consequential actions are in need o f scrutiny by researchers.
Purpose and Importance of the Study
The primary purpose o f this study is to extend and apply the theoretical and
empirical research on dissatisfaction from the industrial organizational literature into
the sport context. Specifically, a modified version of both the Fisher and Locke (1992)
and Henne and Locke (1985) job dissatisfaction models is proposed which attempts to
integrate the determinants of satisfaction/dissatisfaction and the consequential action
alternatives into a sport specific model. The proposed model also consists of
antecedent personal variables (personal motives for participation and goal
orientation), and situational variables (motivational climate and leader behaviors).
This study attempts to determine the direct and indirect effects between the
antecedent conditions, the causes of dissatisfaction and the consequential alternatives
by using structural equation modeling (Figure 1).
Missing from the sport satisfaction research literature is the analysis of what
happens to athletes when they are not satisfied with particular aspects o f their athletic
experience. This study represents the first attempt to relate the research conducted on
job dissatisfaction to the athletic setting. Investigating the determinants and
consequences of dissatisfaction o f collegiate athletes will provide valuable
information to all those involved in collegiate athletics. In particular, athletic
administrators can utilize this information to measure the effectiveness of the athletic
program and the leadership practices of their coaches. Coaches can utilize this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
information so they will have a more informed idea of the antecedent factors which
could play a role in their athletes’ satisfaction, and the potential consequences o f
dissatisfaction. Coaches and academic counselors can utilize this information to
possibly predict athlete dissatisfaction based upon affective, cognitive or behavioral
indicators, and intervene immediately.
Research Questions
Based upon the previously stated purposes, this study seeks to answer the following
questions:
1. What are the primary motives athletes typically cite for their participation in
collegiate sport?
2. To what extent and in what ways do athletes’ intrapersonal factors, such as
achievement goal orientations, influence the emotional state of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction?
3. To what extent and in what ways do situational factors, such as coaches’
leadership practices and the motivational climates of the teams, influence the
emotional state of satisfaction-dissatisfaction?
4. What patterns exist, if any, between the antecedent factors
(intrapersonal/situational factors) and the consequential actions (behavioral,
psychological, withdrawal or emotional) chosen by athletes who are dissatisfied?
5. What relationships, if any, are indicated between the determinants and
consequences o f athlete dissatisfaction as a function o f current ability level?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
6. What relationships, if any, are indicated between the determinants and
consequences of athlete dissatisfaction as a function of gender.
7. What is the most cited reason for dissatisfaction?
8. Is global dissatisfaction a better predictor of maladaptive consequential actions
when compared to the four specific facets of athlete dissatisfaction (performance,
leadership, teammates, or administration) ?
Definition of Terms
The following selected terms have been used in this proposal and are provided here
as conceptual definitions within the framework of the satisfaction/dissatisfaction
theories from the organizational psychology and sport contexts. The next chapter of
this proposal will further elaborate on these concepts.
Sport satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to Chelladurai and Riemer (1997),
athlete satisfaction refers to the positive affective state resulting from a complex
appraisal of the process and outcomes associated with the athletic experience.
Dissatisfaction can be considered as a negative affective state as a result of the same
appraisal process. The level o f satisfaction/dissatisfaction reflects the athlete’s
appraisal of the extent to which the athletic experience meets one’s personal
standards.
Personal goal orientation. Nicholls (1984, 1989) contends that the major goal of
achievement behavior is to demonstrate competence through two independent goal
perspectives, a task and an ego orientation. Those individuals who possess a strong
task orientation are characterized by demonstrating learning or task mastery, strong
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
work ethic, optimal persistence and performance, while perceptions of ability are self
referenced; ego oriented individuals are characterized by an over concern in
demonstrating ability compared with others and an emphasis placed on demonstrating
superior competence (Nicholls, 1984).
Situational goal orientation. Research has demonstrated that athletes can perceive
the goal perspective that predominates on their respective sport teams, either mastery
or performance oriented (Nicholls, 1989; Seifriz, Duda & Chi, 1993). Perceptions of a
mastery climate are associated with greater effort and enjoyment, lower performance
worry and an emphasis on learning, improvement and development. In contrast,
perceptions of a performance climate are associated with competition among
teammates, outcome oriented, less satisfaction with being a part of the team, and the
belief that ability lead to success (Kavussani & Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Treasure,
1995).
Motives for participation. According to Maehr and Braskamp (1986), the reasons
why individuals decide to participate in achievement activities constitutes an integral
determinant of the subjective meaning o f that activity. The participation motivation
literature has focused on the major motives cited by athletes for engaging in sport.
This work has indicated that primary motives include skill development, fun,
affiliation, recognition, status and competition (Gill, Gross & Huddleston, 1983;
Gould, Feltz & Weiss, 1985; Klint & Weiss, 1986). White and Duda (1991) reported
with their sample of high school, intercollegiate and recreational athletes that those
athletes who were more ego oriented tended to participate in sport for competition and
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
recognition (extrinsic factors), whereby task oriented athletes placed more importance
on skill development and fitness (intrinsic factors). Thus, an athlete’s motives for
participation relates to intrinsic or extrinsic motivational orientations.
Coaching behaviors. According to Chelladurai (1978) sport leader effectiveness is
dependent upon situational characteristics of the organization and the personal
attributes o f the leader and participants. Additionally, when a leader’s behaviors are
appropriate for the situation and matches the preferences o f their players, a positive
outcome will result, namely, optimal performance and satisfaction (Chelladurai, 1978,
1990). Leader behaviors, in terms of athlete’s preferences for specific behaviors,
athlete’s perceptions o f their coach’s behaviors, and coaches self assessment can be
measured via a survey instrument (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978).
Determinants o f satisfaction/dissatisfaction. In the industrial organizational
literature, Lawler (1990) developed a model which indicated the important influences
on perceptions of satisfaction/dissatisfaction including perceived inputs
(skills/ability), perceptions o f the task demands (greater demands equates with a
greater reward perception) and the influence o f how other employees’ inputs and
outcomes compare with their own. To address specific facets of satisfaction as they
apply to sport, Riemer and Chelladurai (1997) developed a classification of relevant
facets of sport satisfaction which are grouped into four major categories: individual
versus team task outcomes; individual versus team processes; individual versus team
social processes; and individual versus team outcomes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Consequences o f satisfaction/dissatisfaction. According to Henne and Locke
(1985), satisfaction and dissatisfaction are psychological states which allow for varied
action alternatives which could include both mental and physical actions. Henne and
Locke’s model on the consequences o f job dissatisfaction lists numerous behavioral
alternatives including decreased performance, protests and withdrawal practices.
Psychological alternatives included changing perceptions and values, changing one’s
reactions via defense mechanisms and toleration. The alternatives an individual will
choose depends a great deal on the values and aspirations the individual brings with
them to the situation (Henne & Locke, 1985). In an exploratory analysis of athlete
dissatisfaction, Voight and Callaghan (1998) reported that the consequential actions
sometimes utilized by dissatisfied athletes can be either adaptive or maladaptive in
nature.
Research Hypotheses
Within the context o f the purposes set forth and the proposed model of sport
dissatisfaction, the following research hypotheses will be tested by structural equation
modeling.
Hypothesis 1
Athletes with a dominant task goal orientation will report either:
a.) higher perceptions o f satisfaction with their athletic experience OR
b.) if dissatisfied, will report utilizing significantly more adaptive
consequential actions in response to their dissatisfaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conversely, those athletes with a dominant ego goal orientation will report
significantly higher dissatisfaction scores with their athletic experience, and also
report using significantly more maladaptive consequential actions.
Hypothesis 2
Those athletes who perceive their team to be high in mastery orientation will report
either:
a.) significantly higher perceptions of satisfaction with their athletic
experience OR
b.) if dissatisfied, will report utilizing significantly more adaptive
consequential actions in response to their dissatisfaction.
Conversely, those athletes who perceive their team to be more performance
oriented will report significantly higher dissatisfaction scores and also report using
significantly more maladaptive consequential actions.
Hypothesis 3
Athletes who show a high discrepancy score between their preferences and
perceptions of their coaches* behaviors will have significantly higher perceptions of
dissatisfaction than those v/ho have lower discrepancy scores.
Hypothesis 4
Perceived motivational climate will be a stronger predictor than personal goal
orientation of: a.) athletes’ perceptions of high dissatisfaction; and b.) increased usage
of adaptive and maladaptive consequential actions.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypothesis 5
Athletes’ motives for participation in collegiate athletics which are more
intrinsically motivated will be negatively related to coaching behavior discrepancy
scores (intrinsically motivated motives will relate to low discrepancy scores for
coaching behaviors), whereby those athletes’ who are more extrinsically motivated
will relate to high discrepancy scores. Athletes’ motives for participation will
significantly relate to their personal goal orientation.
Hypothesis 6
Male athletes will cite participation motives which are more extrinsically oriented;
will perceive a dominant ego/performance goal orientation (personal and situational);
will have significantly higher perceptions of dissatisfaction; and utilize significantly
more maladaptive consequential actions, as compared to female athletes. Conversely,
female athletes cite more intrinsic motives; will have a dominant task/mastery goal
orientation; and will have significantly higher perceptions of satisfaction or lower
levels of dissatisfaction. Those female athletes who are dissatisfied will use
significantly more adaptive consequential actions.
Hypothesis 7
The mediating influence o f ability (performance) level is unknown at this time due
to the paucity of evidence regarding this topic. Thus, no hypotheses for the influence
of performance on the satisfaction - dissatisfaction relationship was posited.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study were:
1. Questionnaire administration was standardized by including a very detailed
instructional sheet to the coaching staffs, which included: (1) coaching staff member
was instructed to read the instructional sheet to the study participants, and (2)
recommend that the athletes read the front cover of the questionnaire packets which
lists the purposes of the study, what each questionnaire is measuring, instructions on
completing the questionnaires, and a statement of confidentiality.
2. Participants were instructed (written and verbal instructions) that their
participation in the study was voluntary, and they could discontinue their participation
at any time without punishment.
3. Participants were also instructed that only their jersey numbers would be needed
on the questionnaires and used for research purposes only (to code the ability level
given for each athlete by the coach), thus, guaranteeing anonymity and confidentiality
of the responses. It was also reported that the jersey numbers and school name would
not be used in any written report o f the results.
Limitations
The limitations of the study were:
1. The study sample was limited to Division I collegiate soccer student athletes.
2. It is acknowledged that athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction/dissatisfaction may
be influenced by more than the measured personal, situational and determinant
factors.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1
3. Only those participants who completed surveys without missing data are
included in the final data analyses.
4. Only the dissatisfied athletes’ responses (N=274) were analyzed via
confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The athletes who were
found to be satisfied with all facets o f their student-athlete experience (N=95) were
not analyzed past the descriptive and correlational analyses.
5. Only the athletes’ perceptions regarding the dissatisfaction experiences were
utilized in this present study; the coaches perceptions regarding athlete dissatisfaction
were not utilized.
Organization of the Remainder of the Proposal
Chapter II consists of a selected review of literature which provides a theoretical
framework for this study by further describing the exogenous and latent variables o f
study via theory and empirical research. Specifically, the interrelationships among
gender, ability, motives, personal and situational motivation, leadership behavior,
causes of satisfaction-dissatisfaction, consequential actions as a result of
dissatisfaction, and the efficacy of intervention programs are reviewed. Chapter III
details the methods and procedures involved in this study, with particular attention
given to the proposed model. Chapter IV summarizes the findings of this study within
the framework of the research hypotheses posited in Chapter I. Finally, Chapter V
consists of a discussion of the major results o f this study. Implications are made, as
are recommendations for future research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2
CHAPTER H.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction:
This study is about athletes’ perceptions of their student athlete experience, in
terms of intrapersonal factors (motives and goal orientation), situational factors
(motivational climate and the discrepancy between preferences/perceptions of
coaching behaviors), perceived causes of satisfaction/dissatisfaction (facets), and the
consequential actions chosen by dissatisfied athletes. There are a number of theories
developed to critically analyze each o f the aforementioned areas in both the workforce
and sport settings. For example, in the sport research literature, one topic which has
been heavily researched is that of achievement motivation, with numerous theories
being posited and tested, some of which are pertinent to this present study:
participation motivation (Gill, Gross & Huddleston, 1988; Gould, Feltz, & Weiss,
1985; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986), cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Fortier, Vallerand, Briere, & Provencher, 1995; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson,
Briere, & Blais, 1995), goal orientation theory (Duda, 1987; Nicholls, 1984, 1989),
and motivational climate (Ames, 1992; Seifriz, Duda & Chi, 1993; Theeboom,
Deknop, & Weiss, 1995).
Research in sport has also been conducted to examine the impact o f
leader/coaching behaviors on the outcomes of sport participation for youth athletes,
specifically with the athletes’ performance and their perceptions of satisfaction. Since
the research on sport satisfaction is a relatively new endeavor, with only one notable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
theory of facet satisfaction reported (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997; Riemer &
Chelladurai, 1998), theories from the I/O research (e.g., determinant, consequential
and intervention theories) will be utilized as a framework o f the satisfaction-
dissatisfaction paradigm to be applied from the job setting to that o f sport.
The format of the review is segmented into numerous sections, beginning with a
discussion of the I/O job satisfaction literature, specifically with the theories and
empirical research on the determinants of job satisfaction-dissatisfaction. Next, in-
depth review of the theories and empirical research on the consequences of job
satisfaction-dissatisfaction will be presented. Another important issue investigated by
I/O researchers is the effect o f intervention programs on job satisfaction-
dissatisfaction. This intervention research will be reviewed. The empirical work
conducted thus far on sport satisfaction will then be presented, including a discussion
of the anecdotal reports on the consequential actions of dissatisfied athletes and
preliminary analysis of dissatisfaction in sport.
The final sections include reviews of the individual and situational variables under
investigation in the present study. Individual variables under study consist of athletes’
gender, ability level, participation motivation, and personal goal orientation. The
situational variables consist o f the evaluation of coachingbehaviors and the perceived
motivational climate of the respective teams.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Determinants of Job Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
Whv job satisfaction?
Most of the earlier research on job satisfaction was driven by the belief that
satisfied or happy workers made more productive workers. Due to this belief,
organizations measured job satisfaction because o f its presumed relationship with cost
reduction, increased productivity, and reduced absences (Smith, 1992). According to
Smith (1992), interest in the construct began to wane, however, once management
began to discover that organizational studies failed to show a consistent relationship
between satisfaction and job performance. Vroom (1964) reviewed over 20 studies
and reported a median correlation of .14 between satisfaction and performance. Over
two decades later, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) conducted a meta-analysis on a
collection of 74 studies (studies from 1950-1983) and revealed a low correlation of
.17. These works indicate that these two variables are only slightly related.
There has also been a substantial amount of research concerned with the reverse
link, that satisfaction is a function of performance. This research supports the belief
that workers will become satisfied after performing well, rather then vice versa
(Bullock, 1984; Saal & Knight, 1988). For example, Bagozzi (1984) examined the
performance-satisfaction relationship via structural equation modeling and indicated
that performance had a direct effect on satisfaction, and an increase in satisfaction did
not lead to an increase in productivity.
Another alternative view of the causal sequencing is that rewards can effect both
productivity and satisfaction, in that optimal performance leads to rewards which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
leads to satisfaction (Henne & Locke, 1985; Lawler & Porter, 1967). Saal and Knight
(1988) noted that research has indicated that if rewards are contingent upon
performance so that the top performers receive greater rewards than poorer
performers, the satisfaction-productivity correlation would be positive, whereby lower
rewards would mean a negative correlation. Lawler and Porter (1967) even posited a
model which showed that satisfaction is dependent upon the amount o f rewards
employees receive and the amount they feel they should receive. Despite over 30 years
of research and debate regarding the elusive satisfaction-performance relationship,
Lawler (1994) reported “..in retrospect, it is hard to understand why the belief that
high satisfaction causes high performance was so widely accepted. There is nothing in
the literature on motivation that suggests this causal relationship” (p. 109).
Despite there being little evidence supporting the notion that “happy workers are
more productive workers”, organizations should reconsider the economic and
humanistic value of satisfaction, and seek to better understand its components (Smith,
1992; Henne & Locke, 1985). Continued recognition must be given to the importance
of the affective and behavioral reactions people experience at work, since it has been
reported that the quality of one’s experience at work has profound effects on an
employee’s life and on society as a whole (Lawler, 1994). Cranny, Smith, and Stone
(1992) indicated that jobs characterized by high satisfaction can translate into a better
quality of life, more job stability, greater cooperativeness, and potentially better
health. Spector (1997) highlighted additional perspectives on the importance of
studying job satisfaction, namely, the humanitarian versus the utilitarian perspectives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6
Spector indicated that the humanitarian perspective focuses on the employee as the
prime beneficiary, in that people deserve to be treated with respect and the level o f job
satisfaction reflects this treatment. In addition, the humanitarian perspective includes
the belief that job satisfaction is also an indicator o f emotional/psychological
wellbeing. Conversely, the utilitarian perspective describes job satisfaction as a
reflection of organizational functioning, in that employee behaviors and feelings can
affect the organization. Despite these perspectives differing on who the prime
beneficiary should be (employee versus the organization), they both exemplify the
importance in studying and improving job satisfaction.
Measuring job satisfaction:
The first step to improve job satisfaction is to determine its causes and correlates.
In doing so, change agents, such as supervisors, human resource specialists,
researchers and employees, can use this information to change the job situation to
improve job satisfaction while also gaining an understanding of the effects of job
satisfaction on certain outcomes (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). One o f the more
popular, time/cost effective methods of assessing job satisfaction is through the use of
survey questionnaires, especially those scales which have been psychometrically
analyzed for adequate reliability and validity (Spector, 1997). There are numerous job
satisfaction scales which have been used extensively in the job satisfaction literature
which will be reviewed here.
Well used job satisfaction scales were designed to measure either global or facet
job satisfaction. Global job satisfaction can be considered as a constellation of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
attitudes about various aspects of the job, whereby facet satisfaction is specific to the
part o f the job which produces satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Spector, 1997).
Accordingly, the global approach is utilized to determine the overall attitude of the
job situation by an employee, whereby the facet approach is concerned with any
aspect o f the job, thus, providing a more complete picture of an employee’s job
satisfaction. In addition, the facet approach is valuable for organizations wanting to
identify areas of dissatisfaction which can potentially be improved.
Two o f the more popular global or general job satisfaction scales utilized by
researchers are the Job in General Scale (JIG; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, &
Paul, 1989), and the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Satisfaction
Subscale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). The JIG (Ironson et al.,
1989), an 18 item inventory, was designed to assess overall job satisfaction by asking
respondents to reply to a short phrase or adjective (e.g., is your job undesirable, better
than most, or acceptable?). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire
(Camman, et al., 1979) is a short scale consisting of a 3 item satisfaction subscale,
which when totaled, produces a general job satisfaction score. Adequate reliability
and validity evidence has been indicated for these general scales o f job satisfaction
(Spector, 1987,1997).
The four most utilized facet satisfaction scales, beginning with the most popular,
are the Job Description Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969), the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), the Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1985), and the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The JDI (Smith et al., 1969) was designed to assess five
of the most frequently assessed facets: work, pay, promotion, supervision and
coworkers. Cook, Hepworth, Wall, and Warr (1981) indicated in their review that
over 100 studies have been conducted utilizing the JDI. The MSQ (Weiss et al., 1967)
covers over 20 different facets with two forms, a long and a short version. The
specific listing of facets include working conditions, advancement, moral values,
independence, ability utilization and security. Spector’s (1985) JSS assesses 9 facets
of job satisfaction, from pay to contingent rewards, to communication. A total score
(global) can be computed by combining all of the items. Finally, the JDS (Hackman &
Oldham, 1975) measures the effect of job characteristics on employees, one o f these
effects being job satisfaction. More information on job characteristics will be
provided later in this review.
As is indicative from the brief review o f the more popular survey instruments,
there are numerous facets of job satisfaction which can be measured and found to
have an effect on employee’s perceptions o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction, and it is
important that organizations and employees realize it (Bullock, 1984). In addition,
these scales have helped to identify areas in need of change, then used to evaluate the
success of interventions designed to improve upon these targeted areas. It is believed
that these interventions will effect the broader areas o f employee satisfaction, namely,
satisfaction o f job facets, satisfaction with the job in general, and eventually,
satisfaction with life (Smith, 1992).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Job satisfaction survey questionnaires, like those detailed earlier, have been
utilized in literally hundreds of studies in the hope o f helping researchers determine
not only the causes and correlates of job satisfaction, but aid in the prediction o f job
satisfaction. Knowing what variables relate to job satisfaction can allow researchers
and change agents to make predictions about what types of people will be more or less
satisfied, as well as the effect of particular working conditions or characteristics on an
employee’s level of satisfaction (Saal & Knight, 1988). The causes or antecedents of
satisfaction have been broadly classified into two categories: job environment and
individual factors (Spector, 1997).
The job environment, and the facets involved with the job itself (e.g., nature o f the
job, rewards, coworkers), are important influences o f employee satisfaction, while
individual factors, such as personality and prior experiences, often combine together
to influence job satisfaction. Job satisfaction should not be considered as a result o f
the person or the job alone, but as a combination o f the person in relation to the job.
For example, if the person appraised the job as fulfilling, satisfaction will result, yet if
the job is perceived as interfering one’s values/aspirations, dissatisfaction will result
(Locke & Latham, 1990).
Environmental determinants o f job satisfaction:
Beginning with the job environment category, much research has been conducted
to examine the effect o f work characteristics on employee attitudes, most notably with
job satisfaction. Numerous environmental antecedents have been posited which
influence employee job satisfaction: job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976),
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
organizational constraints (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992), leader behavior (Danserau,
Braen, & Haga, 1975; Gran, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Schriesman, Hinkin, &
Tetrault, 1991), pay (Heneman & Schwab, 1985), role variables (Katz & Kahn, 1978;
Spector, 1997), and job stressors (e.g., workload and work schedules) (Jex & Beehr,
1991; Spector, 1997).
Hackman and Oldham (1976) posited that when employees find their work to be
meaningful, based upon five core characteristics, they will like their jobs more, be
more satisfied and motivated to perform their jobs well. The five core characteristics
which could be applied to any job are skill variety, task identity and significance,
autonomy and job feedback (Spector, 1997). Hackman and Oldham (1976) proposed
that a motivation potential score (MPS) for any job can be mathematically determined
(via a standardized questionnaire), with the higher MPS score indicating a more
motivating and satisfying job, especially for those people who prefer a challenge and
will be happy with complex jobs. Campion (1988) added additional job characteristics
beyond the five mentioned by Hackman and Olham, such as the physical features of
the job, which include perceptual-motor (physical requirements) and mechanistic
features (appropriate tools). Numerous studies have found significant correlations
between job characteristics and job satisfaction, including a meta-analysis of almost
200 studies, which indicated a strong relationship between these variables (Fried &
Ferris, 1987).
There are certain aspects o f the job which can interfere with job performance,
commonly referred to as organizational constraints (Spector, 1997). Peters and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
O’Connor (1980) revealed that employees who perceive high incidences o f these
constraints tend to have higher levels of dissatisfaction. These authors classified eight
specific areas o f organizational constraints, including job related information,
tools/equipment, budgetary support, task preparation, and time availability. The
largest source of organizational constraints reported by research was with the
supervisors (O’Connor, Peters, Rudolf, & Pooyan, 1982).
Leader behaviors and satisfaction have been variables long investigated in the
organizational psychology literature. Lawler (1994) reviewed earlier work conducted
on the amount o f consideration exemplified by supervisors and subsequent employee
satisfaction; to note, a considerate supervisor is one who is concerned about
subordinants’s needs. Lawler stated that considerate behavior was not only associated
with high satisfaction, but also associated with lower grievance rates and high
initiation. Additionally, the review also included evidence which revealed that
employee satisfaction was higher when employees were allowed to participate in
decision making, described as power equalization, which also lead to lower
absenteeism and turnover. The most commonly used measure of leader behavior is the
Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire (LRPQ; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, &
Huber, 1984). The dimensions assessed by the LRPQ are reward behavior (contingent
versus non-contingent) and punishment behavior (contingent versus non-contingent).
This instrument showed relatively good discriminant validity (Schriesheim, Hinkin, &
Tetrault, 1991).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another environmental variable which would be assumed to have an impact on
satisfaction is pay. The research linking pay and satisfaction has indicated a small
correlation, suggesting that pay is not a very strong predictor o f job satisfaction
(Spector, 1985). It appears that pay satisfaction (facet satisfaction with pay) is a
multidimensional construct, consisting of pair fairness, pay level, benefits, raises and
structures of pay (Heneman & Schwab, 1985; Spector, 1997). Additionally, pay
fairness is very important to employees in that they are more concerned about what
people in the same job earn than what others earn in other jobs. The Pay Satisfaction
Questionnaire (PSQ; Heneman & Schwab, 1985) is used to assess the effect of the 4
dimensions (pay level, benefits, raises and structure) on pay satisfaction.
The roles assigned to employees by organizations have been hypothesized as being
a potential source of job dissatisfaction, especially when there exists ambiguity or
conflict with these assigned roles. According to Spector (1997), role ambiguity is
defined as the degree of certainty an employee perceives about his/her role, whereby
conflict exists when people experience incompatible demands; both are believed to be
important influences on job satisfaction. A meta-analysis revealed strong correlations
between global job satisfaction for role ambiguity and conflict, -.30 and -.31
respectively. (Jackson & Schuler, 1985).
Finally, job stressor variables, including workload and work schedules have been
linked to job satisfaction. Job stressors are defined as those conditions or events at
work which require an adaptive response, one of those responses being job
dissatisfaction (Spector, 1997). A specific job stressor, workload, is defined as the
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demands placed on the employee in either qualitative (level o f difficulty) or
quantitative (amount o f work) ways, correlate with job dissatisfaction (Jex & Beehr,
1991; Spector, 1997). Another job stressor, work schedules, has been categorized into
four types: work schedules, consisting o f flexible schedules, long shifts, night shifts
and part-time work. Research has indicated that job satisfaction was higher with
flexible work schedules than with fixed work schedules (Ralston, 1989).
Personal determinants o f job satisfaction:
Another major classification of job satisfaction determinants consist of individual
or personal antecedents, including personality characteristics (Saiyadain, 1985),
psychological work climate (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989),
demographic characteristics (Saal & Knight, 1988), and personal ability (Sackett,
Gruys, & Ellington, 1998). Studies in the organizational research literature has
provided evidence that personality is an influencing factor in job satisfaction. Spector
(1997) reviewed this research and reported that job satisfaction was remarkably stable
across assessment periods, even with those employees who changed job type or
employers, which led researchers to speculate that some people may be predisposed to
like their jobs while others are not (Schneider & Dachler, 1978; Staw & Ross, 1985).
Studies have been conducted to determine if this is so via studies on particular
personality traits, such as locus of control and negative affectivity.
Locus of control refers to how people attribute the cause or control o f events in
either an internal (to themselves) or external (external environment) manner (Rotter,
1966). It has been linked to organizational behaviors and emotions such as motivation,
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effort, performance and satisfaction. The locus of control-satisfaction hypothesis
posits that internals tend to be more satisfied than externals, partly due to three
reasons: (1) internals take action more frequently than externals, thus the dissatisfied
internal is more likely to quit the job, leaving fewer dissatisfied internals; (2) internals
may perform better and receive subsequent rewards, thus, increasing satisfaction; and
(3) internals advance more quickly and receive more raises due to their performance,
thus, increasing satisfaction (Spector, 1982).
Negative affectivity is another personality variable hypothesized to be linked to job
satisfaction. Negative affectivity is characterized by a tendency to focus on the
negative aspects o f self, of others, and of the world in general, which reflects a
predisposition o f low self esteem and negative emotionality, both of which correlate
negatively with job satisfaction (Parkes, 1990). It is believed that high negative
affectivity people experience higher levels of negative emotions and thus they would
experience the job in universally negative ways, resulting in low job satisfaction
(Moyle, 1995; Spector, 1997; Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger, 1986).
Another line o f satisfaction research has compared job satisfaction ratings for
different subsamples based upon demographic characteristics, such as gender and
race. Saal and Knight (1988) cited a longitudinal study by Weaver (1980) which
revealed that overall, different types of people appeared to have about the same level
of job satisfaction. Interestingly, overall differences between males and females on
job satisfaction were inconsistent and weak, supporting subsequent research
(Greenhaus, Parasuiamen & Wormley, 1990; Murray & Atkinson, 1981; Saiyadain,
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1985). Another result from this study indicated that although white employees tended
to report higher levels o f satisfaction than African American employees, the size of
the differences were weak, and both groups o f employees appeared to derive
satisfaction from similar aspects o f their jobs.
An additional individual attribute considered as an important variable in job
satisfaction research is psychological climate, which refers to how organizational
environments are perceived and interpreted by the employees (James & James, 1989).
Brown and Leigh (1996) operationalized psychological climate as multidimensional,
consisting of numerous dimensions: flexibility, role clarity, self expression, and
adequacy of recognition. Each o f these dimensions are indicators of how
psychologically safe and meaningful the organizational climate is perceived to be by
its employees. James and James (1992) tested a hierarchical model o f satisfaction and
psychological climate, indicating the presence of general factors for both
psychological climate and satisfaction, which accounted for a substantial portion of
the variance (in a study conducted on a sample of over 600 employees).
Finally, personal ability has been credited as being an important influence on
performance and job satisfaction-dissatisfaction. Ability has long been considered as
an important determinant of performance across a variety o f jobs (Sackett, Gruys, &
Ellingson, 1998). The importance of the ability of the worker was also exemplified in
a model on the determinants o f facet satisfaction; which indicated that the skills or
abilities the employees bring to the job influences their perceptions of satisfaction
(Lawler, 1994). Lawler’s model showed that those who have higher perceived inputs
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(skills, abilities and training) will be more dissatisfied with selected facets due to their
heightened perceptions of what their outcomes should be. If these employees do not
receive more outcomes, dissatisfaction will occur. Those with low perceived inputs
who do not have the same high outcome expectancies, are predicted to be more
satisfied with their current outcome level because they feel their outcome either fits or
is higher than deserved. However, little empirical research (especially current
research) has been conducted to test the propositions extended by Lawler’s model, and
more research is needed.
This section on the determinants o f job satisfaction detailed two major
classifications, the job environment and personal variables. As was indicated, both
approaches present viable research evidence about their relative importance in
explaining organizational behavior, contributing to the ongoing debate regarding
which one is a more salient predictor of behavior. More recently, however,
researchers are looking at the interaction between job and personal factors, since both
the characteristics o f the individual and the organization are likely to predict
employees’ behaviors at work; this line of research is termed the interactionist
perspective or person-envirotunent fit (P-E fit) (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990; Spector,
1997). According to these researchers, the interaction of these two sets o f variables
will explain greater variance then each variable separately analyzed. Recently, the P-E
fit variable has been utilized as a potential predictor of job satisfaction (Dawis, 1992).
Caldwell and O’Reilly (1990) assessed the P-E fit in seven samples representing a
variety of organizations and jobs, and results indicated that overall person-
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
environment fit was strongly related to a number of outcomes, most notably job
satisfaction. This result means that those employees who were most satisfied were
those whose occupation was compatible with their traits and skills. Dawis (1992)
posited that P-E fit contributed not only to the perceptions of job satisfaction, but to
the direction, energization, and sustainment of work behavior, which represent the
three key aspects of work motivation.
As this section has indicated, numerous antecedents of job satisfaction have been
identified and empirically investigated, leaving those interested with a great deal of
evidence about what factors relate to satisfaction, but what is not known about job
satisfaction is the causal basis for these relationships (Lawler, 1994). The majority of
the research on job satisfaction has been atheoretical and not guided by specific
theory, despite there being numerous theories in the research appropriate for the
construct of job satisfaction. Such theories have been classified into process and
content theories. Process theories attempt to specify the types of variables considered
to influence job dissatisfaction, such as values and expectancies; content theories
attempt to identify the specific antecedents with job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). A
brief review of these theories will be the topic o f this next section.
Theoretical Approaches:
Earlier theoretical approaches (process theories) worth addressing here consist of
the Discrepancy Theory, Equity Theory, and Two Factor Theory. Researchers who
operate under the discrepancy approach believes that satisfaction is determined by the
difference between what an individual wants and what they perceive they receive - the
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
more their wants exceed what they receive, the greater the dissatisfaction (Lawler,
1994). Locke (1969) emphasized that the perceived discrepancy is more salient than
the actual discrepancy. In addition, satisfaction is determined simply by what the
employee wants versus what one perceives is being offered, not what the employee
feels they should receive or what employees expect to receive. Many of the
discrepancy theorists believe that total job satisfaction is associated with the sum of
the discrepancies which exist per job facet, thus, higher discrepancy with pay will
effect satisfaction, as will a high discrepancy for adequate supervision (Lawler, 1994).
The theory fails to adequately address two major issues: (1) what occurs when
employees believe they are receiving more outcomes than they should receive/want to
receive, and (2) theory fails to address how people decide what their outcomes should
be (Lawler, 1994).
Equity theory addresses these issues, among others. Adams (1963) posited that
satisfaction is determined by an employee’s perceived input-outcome balance,
meaning that when a person receives an appropriate reward from the job relative to
what is put into the job, equity is perceived which results in satisfaction with the job.
Yet an under-reward or over-reward can lead to job dissatisfaction. In addition, equity
theory posits that people evaluate their fairness and equity of their input-outcome
balance by comparing it with their perception of their co-workers. For example, if
employees perceive that a certain coworker is being over-rewarded (little input yet
maximal outcomes), they may begin to perceive an inequity in their input-outcome
balance, thus, effecting their satisfaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The next approach, the two factor theory (developed by Herzberg), was an
important theory' in earlier research because it included the role o f the organizational
context, not just the individual, and that satisfaction and dissatisfaction did not exist
on a continuum but rather as two independent variables, so an individual could be
satisfied with certain facets yet dissatisfied with others (Lawler, 1994; Lawson &
Shen, 1998). According to the theory, people have two basic needs: (1) hygiene needs,
which are external to the job, are influenced by the psychological and physical
conditions o f the workplace, and (2) motivator needs, which are similar to the higher
order needs of Maslow’s need hierarchy (Saal & Knight, 1988). The most interesting
aspects of the two factor theory included the propositions that employees could be
very satisfied and very dissatisfied at the same time, and secondly, that factors such as
better working conditions cannot increase satisfaction but only lessen the amount of
dissatisfaction experienced (Lawler, 1994). Despite there being little empirical
support for these three process theories on job satisfaction, the emerging perspectives
do incorporate some of the finer points of these earlier theories. The emerging
perspectives which represent the newest phase of satisfaction research/theory
development include content theories posited by Lawler (facet satisfaction model) and
Locke and Latham (high performance cycle).
Lawler’s Facet Satisfaction Model
Lawler’s facet satisfaction model (1973, 1994) was designed to illustrate the
processes by which facet satisfaction is determined (see Figure 2). Saal and Knight
(1988) labeled this model as a comparison theory, a comparison between what
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
employees believe they should receive (job outcomes) and their perceptions o f the
outcomes that are actually received. This facet model reflects the cognitive view that
people consider their perceptions of reality to be more salient than reality itself. The
model indicated numerous variables which can influence employees’ perceptions of
their facet satisfaction, including their perceived job inputs (skills, abilities),
perceptions o f the job demands (greater the demands, the greater the reward
perception), and the influences o f how other employees’ inputs and outcomes
compare with their own. Perceptions of actual outcomes are believed to be influenced
by the outcomes themselves (e.g., pay, recognition, promotion), in addition to
perceptions of the outcomes o f referent others (Lawler, 1973).
Lawler (1994) posited that a person will be satisfied with their job if there is an
agreement between their perceptions o f their outcome level with their perceptions o f
what the outcome level should be. However, a person will be dissatisfied if they
perceive their outcome level to be lower than where they think it should be. Lawler
listed additional propositions from the model: (1) those with high perceived inputs
will be more dissatisfied with a job facet than those with lower perceived inputs; (2)
those who perceive their job as demanding will be more dissatisfied than those who
perceive the job as under-demanding; (3) those who receive a low outcome level will
be more dissatisfied than those who receive a high outcome; and (4) the more
outcomes an employee perceives others receive, the greater the dissatisfaction. In
addition, if a person perceives that he/she is receiving more than is deserved, feelings
of inequity, discomfort, and possibly guilt will result.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
As with equity theory, this issue of feeling overpaid is not adequately addressed in
Lawler’s facet model. Another reported problem with the facet model is the
assumption that all employees use rational cognitive processes, such as weighing their
own inputs/outcomes versus that of others, and utilizing this information to guide
subsequent attitudes and behaviors; it seems a little unrealistic to believe that many
people are this rational in their cognitive processes (Saal & Knight, 1988). A final
shortcoming of the model is that it has not been adequately supported by research.
Locke & Latham’s High Performance Cycle
As has been indicated by the numerous theoretical approaches presented here, the
development o f work attitudes is influenced by a wide variety of personal and
situational variables, too many for a single theory to adequately address and explain,
thus, some combination of approaches may ultimately provide the best understanding
of job satisfaction (Saal & Knight, 1988). Locke and Latham (1990a) posited an
integrated model they believe can explain broad fundamentals regarding work
motivation and job satisfaction, and key interrelationships between these two broad
concepts. Locke and Latham’s theory is a compilation of numerous theories, including
equity, expectancy, goal setting and social cognitive theories. This model, presented in
Figure 3, is presented in terms of single, interrelated sequence of events, termed the
high performance cycle. The sequential stages begin with the demands being made of
the employees in the form of specific, difficult goals, which is predicted to be a
precursor for heightened levels of work motivation, satisfaction and commitment, as
predicated by the goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990a). Briefly, goal setting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
theory posits that performance is a positive function o f goal difficulty, and numerous
research have repeatedly shown that people who attain specific and challenging goals
perform better on tasks when compared to those who try to attain moderate, easy or
do-your-best goals (Locke & Latham, 1990b).
Locke and Latham (1990a) detailed that challenging goals are usually designed in
terms o f specific standards or levels of performance production, yet alternate forms of
challenges provided for the employees include the amount o f work, frequency of
certain work related behavior, deadlines or a budget to be attained. In addition, the
demands may come from authority figures, subordinates or peers, or even self set
goals. Challenging goals have been found to be related not only to performance but
high ratings of self efficacy, a concept in social cognitive theory, which has been
defined as a person’s judgements of how well he/she can execute the action(s)
required by the particular situation or task (Bandura, 1982; Locke & Latham, 1990c).
Since being confronted by a challenge does not necessarily guarantee maximal
performance, Locke and Latham (1990a) included in their theoretical model numerous
moderators which are predicted to affect the strength o f the relationship between goals
and actions, which include goal commitment, feedback, ability, task complexity, and
situational constraints. According to goal setting research, when the individual has
high ability, is committed to attaining the challenging goals, and feedback (knowledge
of results/performance) is provided, the individual will achieve the task/goal and will
be more satisfied (Locke, 1982; Locke & Latham, 1990a). The next segment of the
high performance cycle details the mediating mechanisms by which goals affect
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance. The mediating mechanisms cited in this model, effort, persistence,
direction and strategies, are often referred to as universal task strategies which
correspond to the aspects of motivated action: direction (choice), duration and
intensity (Locke & Latham, 1990a; Wood & Locke, 1986).
These mediating mechanisms affect performance and satisfaction in numerous
ways. Challenging goals and high self efficacy are predicted to lead individuals to
persist longer and work harder at tasks than those low in both goals and self efficacy
because they are convinced that they can succeed and are not satisfied until they get
close to or reach their goals (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984; Locke & Latham,
1990c). Moreover, it has been indicated that goals affect performance indirectly
through strategies developed by the individual to aid in attaining their goals (Locke &
Latham, 1990a; Wood & Bandura, 1989). To progress to the next sequential step, the
authors noted that “to the degree that the demands are challenging, the facilitating
moderators are present, and the mediators are operative, task performance will be high
on whatever dimensions the goal specifies as important” (p. 13). Objective outcome
measures utilized to index performance can include units o f production, quality
assessments, profits, behavioral measures (e.g., employees’ behaviors toward
customers) and time (e.g., job attendance and lateness in meeting deadlines). Upon
attaining a certain level of performance, certain consequences may follow in the form
o f rewards and punishments; if the consequences correspond to what the individual
wants or values, satisfaction will result, yet if the consequences do not correspond
accordingly, dissatisfaction is produced (Locke & Latham, 1990c).
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Put another way, job satisfaction has been viewed as a result of a positive self
appraisal of the job against one’s value standards, whereby, job dissatisfaction can be
considered as a negative self appraisal because the job somehow blocks or negates
one’s values. Rewards and punishments are differentiated into self administered (self
appraisals comparing performance with internal standards or values) and those
administered by others. The later can be divided further, those that are noncontingent,
with the reward not being dependent on outcome, and contingent rewards, which are
in proportion to how well one performs (Locke & Latham, 1990c). Regarding the
earlier review of equity theory, people appraise rewards in terms of their fairness, with
inequitable rewards leading to dissatisfaction whereby equity results in satisfaction.
Locke and Latham (1990c) summarized that those employees who feel successful at
accepting their goals, are rewarded equitably for their high performance via
noncontingent rewards, will generally have greater satisfaction with their job.
However, those who feel unsuccessful in their goal pursuit, and feel the rewards are
inequitable, will generally have greater dissatisfaction with their job. Finally, the last
piece to the high performance cycle addresses the question of “what happens as a
result of the employees being satisfied or dissatisfied?” This question will be
thoroughly addressed in the following section, yet to complete the review of the high
performance cycle, a brief response to this question will be presented now.
Locke and Latham (1990b) reported that job satisfaction relates to subjective
reports o f organizational commitment, persistence with the job, and a willingness to
accept future challenges. Thus, since satisfaction promotes commitment and a
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
willingness to accept new challenges, high challenge will then produce high
performance. It can then be assumed that those employees who are dissatisfied may
have a lowered sense of organizational commitment, lower persistence with the job,
and a lack of willingness to accept future challenges, thus, potentially effecting one’s
performance. To conclude, the high performance cycle begins with the setting of
different performance goals combined with high perceptions o f expectancy/self
efficacy, which are predicted to help one perform at a high level, thus, leading one to
rewards, increased feelings o f satisfaction and a greater commitment to future goals,
thus repeating the cycle (Locke & Latham, 1990c). This model revealed that the effect
of satisfaction on performance is indirect and contingent rather then a direct one, in
that satisfaction must lead to a greater commitment to the organization and its
challenging goals first, and then high performance will be the end result However, the
role of leadership was not addressed within the high performance cycle, a
shortcoming of the model mentioned by the authors.
The earlier theoretical work, coupled with more recent efforts, such as Lawler’s
facet satisfaction model and Locke and Latham’s high performance cycle, have
provided a wealth of knowledge regarding the determinants of job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, with each theory stressing different mechanisms of action. The earlier
works focused primarily on limiting aspects of the domain, such as needs, perceived
fairness or motives. Since this specific domain of empirical inquiry is highly complex,
taking pieces from different theories in an attempt to create a coherent, integrated
model, such as Locke and Latham’s high performance cycle, seems not only
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
warranted but beneficial to a greater understanding of work motivation and
satisfaction- More research is warranted on not only this particular model, but on
those previously reviewed. Having addressed the potential antecedent factors and
mediating variables to job satisfaction-dissatisfaction, there is a need to now shed a
more critical light on the question brought up earlier, “what does occur as a result o f
the employee being satisfied or dissatisfied?” The next section will review the
empirical research and theoretical approaches dedicated to understanding the
consequences o f job satisfaction and especially dissatisfaction.
Consequences o f Job Dissatisfaction
The most difficult dilemma for industrial organizational psychology researchers
has been in determining what happens to individual employees after they have
become satisfied or dissatisfied (Locke & Latham, 1990a). The earlier research was
guided by the assumption that high satisfaction would lead to high productivity, but as
subsequent research indicated, this association has not been found to be consistent,
whereas some evidence has shown that the opposite of this assumption is more salient
(IafFaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Locke and Latham (1990a) listed two important
modifications to this simplistic assumption: (1) depending upon the choices acted
upon, satisfaction and dissatisfaction can have different consequences, and (2)
research has indicated a number of processes which intervene between the appraisal
of satisfaction-dissatisfaction and the action chosen.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Consequential Outcomes of Job Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
The industrial organizational psychology literature has revealed that dissatisfaction
can have many different consequences. Locke (1976) indicated that job
dissatisfaction/satisfaction does have effects on numerous types of outcomes,
categorized as follows: (1) effects on other attitudes, such as life satisfaction; (2)
effects on physical health; (3) effects on mental health; (4) effects on action. As Locke
(1976) explained, since a person’s job is an integral part o f one’s life, it is logical to
assume that job satisfaction-dissatisfaction would influence this person’s life
satisfaction, which refers to a person’s feelings about life. In an attempt to better
understand the association between job and life satisfaction, numerous researchers
presented hypotheses, yet only one of these hypotheses, the spillover hypothesis, has
received empirical support. The other hypotheses consist o f the compensation
hypothesis, which stated that a dissatisfied employee will compensate the
dissatisfaction in one area by cultivating satisfaction in another, and the segmentation
hypothesis which predicted that people segment their lives, making work and
nonwork separate entities (Spector, 1997).
The spillover hypothesis posited that feelings from one area of life can affect
feelings in other areas, thus, an employee who experiences dissatisfaction on the job is
likely to experience dissatisfaction with life (Spector, 1997; Weaver, 1978). Findings
from the research clearly favors this hypothesis in that they consistently indicate
moderately positive correlations between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. For
example, Lance et al. (1989) reported a correlation of .58 between job and life
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
satisfaction, while Tait, Padgett, and Baldwin (1989) revealed an average corrected
correlation of .44 in their meta-analysis between the constructs. Moreover, Judge and
Watanabe (1993) tested a causal model through structural equation modeling and
revealed not only that job and life satisfaction are both positively and reciprocally
related but the effect of life satisfaction on job satisfaction was significantly stronger
than the effect of job satisfaction on life satisfaction. Earlier research also indicated
positive correlations between job satisfaction and other “off the job” activities such as
family attitudes and individual attitudes such as self confidence, as cited in Locke
(1976).
The second category o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction outcomes consist of the effects
on physical health. In a review of the earlier research, Locke (1976) indicated that
numerous studies revealed significant correlations between job satisfaction and
physical symptoms such as fatigue, headache, and ill health. More recent correlational
studies have supported this earlier work, showing significant associations between job
satisfaction and psychosomatic/physical symptoms, such as headaches and upset
stomachs (Begley & Czajka, 1993; Lee, Ashford, & Bobko, 1990). Henne and Locke
(1985) proposed that stress from the workplace is a potential mediating variable
which linked job dissatisfaction and the physical consequences, including negative
physical effects such as ulcers, headaches, high blood pressure, and potentially,
coronary heart disease. Work related stress has not only been linked to negative
physical consequences but to negative psychological consequences as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The third category deals with the experience o f being dissatisfied with a particular
facet of one’s job representing an unpleasant state, which implies that a conflict exists
because the employee is working in a job that he/she would prefer to avoid; this
conflict suggests a plausible relationship between satisfaction and mental health
(Locke, 1976). Henne and Locke (1985) cited in their review of an earlier work by
Komhauser that “..conditions on the job affect the individual’s values and value
fulfillment, which affects his level o f satisfaction or frustration, which in turn, affects
his self concept and mental health (p. 232).” Job dissatisfaction has additionally been
linked with anxiety and depression (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992; Schaubroeck, Ganster,
& Fox, 1992). A point that must be considered is that mental health or illness may
enter the workplace by the worker in that a mentally healthy worker begins with a
more rational set o f values (than a mentally unhealthy person). Thus, a mentally
healthy person starts off with a greater chance of accomplishing the task and
reinforcing his/her personal self concept and his mental health, whereby a less
mentally healthy individual is predicted to do the opposite (Henne & Locke, 1985).
These same authors concluded that dissatisfaction is not a cause of mental illness
because of the mediating influences of numerous factors, such as the causes of
dissatisfaction and the resultant consequential actions due to the dissatisfaction
experience. These actions taken in response to the dissatisfaction experience is the
fourth outcome category to be reviewed.
Before addressing the specific findings regarding the relationship of job
satisfaction-dissatisfaction and consequential action alternatives, a brief explanation
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
must be provided to address the nature of emotions and their relationship to action.
Earlier work by Locke (1970, 1976) argued that a causal sequence exists between
emotions and actions, beginning with the situation, followed by a perception (or
cognition), then an appraisal (or value judgement), which will lead to an emotion.
Locke argued that if an individual appraises the particular situation as furthering one's
well-being based upon a value judgement, a positive emotion will result, yet if one
appraises the situation as a threat, a negative emotion will result. Furthermore, it is
believed that emotions involve action tendencies, and Locke (1970) provided a
classification of some o f these action tendencies. According to these classifications,
positive appraisals and emotions may result in a greater desire to persist and approach
the situation, whereby negative appraisals and emotions may result in the following
actions: (1) avoiding or leaving the situation altogether; (2) attempting to change the
situation via physical damage, complaining or change one’s actions; (3) attempting to
change one’s reactions to the situation; (4) tolerating the situation via postponing
actions.
Similarly, Henne and Locke (1985) argued that job satisfaction or dissatisfaction is
an emotional response to a value appraisal. For example, if the employee appraises the
job as fulfilling one’s values, the positive emotion o f satisfaction will result, yet if the
appraisal is of frustration, s/he will experience the unpleasurable emotion of
dissatisfaction. According to these authors, these emotions, however, do not
necessarily lead to a particular action, and when action is taken, it may be a very
different action from person to person.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Empirical research on the consequences of job dissatisfaction
Empirical work conducted on the consequential actions or manifestations of job
satisfaction-dissatisfaction have indicated numerous behavioral and psychological
action alternatives. Henne (1986) asked subjects to respond to an open-ended
questionnaire regarding their responses to dissatisfaction, which were then
categorized into six distinct areas: (I) avoidance (e.g., absenteeism, tardiness, and
quitting); (2) complaining; (3) formal protest (e.g., grievances, striking); (4) illegal
acts (e.g., sabotage, theft); (5) passive aggressive reactions (e.g., lowered
performance-productivity); and finally (6) substance abuse. The first category was
most frequently associated with dissatisfaction, especially with the act of quitting. The
majority of these consequential action categories have been found to be significantly
associated with job dissatisfaction.
One category not receiving consistent empirical support has been between
satisfaction and the level of performance or productivity. For more specific research
evidence of this negligible relationship, please see an earlier section of this
manuscript (p. 24). Many researchers have posited that there is no direct connection
between satisfaction and productivity, yet an alternative view which has received
support, argues that productivity is a cause o f satisfaction, not vice versa as is
popularly believed to be the case (Lawler & Porter, 1967; Locke, 1970; Locke, 1976).
Additional evidence suggests that satisfaction relates to performance in an indirect
fashion through the individual’s level of commitment, further indicating that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
satisfaction alone is not a key component to high performance, but what is critical is
satisfaction in conjunction with other factors (Locke & Latham, 1990a).
Perhaps one of the more frequently related action alternative variables to job
dissatisfaction is avoidance activities, which consist o f absenteeism, lateness, and
turnover. These variables have been the scope of numerous research studies which
showed consistent and negative correlations between job satisfaction and absenteeism,
turnover, and lateness, usually less than -.40 (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Koslowsky et
al., 1997; Terborg et al., 1992). Despite the correlation studies revealing consistent
and significant findings, the sizes are not especially high, one potential reason being
that not all employees act solely on the basis o f emotions, and other factors could
mediate, including financial needs and the availability o f other job opportunities
(Locke, 1976). Furthermore, as long as an alternative is viewed as being more
desirable, in terms o f employee’s values, s/he may seek to change jobs even when
satisfied (Flenne & Locke, 1985). Research studies in this area have only begun to
address this issue.
Another possible reaction to dissatisfaction includes attempts by employees to
protest in the hope o f changing the situation which is causing the dissatisfaction.
Employees who feel that an individual protest will achieve the desirable effect may
protest in the form o f complaining or filing a grievance to the supervisor or
management. As an interesting sidenote, recent research has indicated that grievance
filers are punished for their grievance activity in the form of lower performance
ratings, lower promotion rates, and termination (Lewin, 1987). Olson-Buchanan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
(1996) also indicated that grievance filers have significantly lower objective job
performance ratings after they filed their grievances than did employees who did not
file grievances.
For those workers who feel that an individual protest would be futile, and enough
coworkers share their feelings, a group protest may be forwarded in the form of
unionization (Henne, 1986). Research has revealed that job dissatisfaction can
significantly contribute to union activities (Allen & Keaveny, 1981). Another possible
reaction to job dissatisfaction reported by Henne (1986) includes striking against the
organization yet little research evidence exists to empirically support this proposition.
Other forms of protest behavior include illegal acts such as industrial sabotage,
stealing, and drug use at work (Henne, 1986). Mangione and Quinn (1975) found a
significant negative association between satisfaction and self reports o f counter
productive behaviors, which included the spreading of rumors, performing poorly on
purpose, the use o f drugs at work, and stealing and damaging merchandise/equipment.
Theoretical Approaches
This previous research on the types of action alternatives resulting from job
dissatisfaction has aided our understanding of the many forms o f individual
consequences, yet this atheoretical approach has failed to address how the individual
chooses to deal with or act upon their feelings of dissatisfaction.To shed a more
critical light on the underlying mechanisms involved with the choice process and
behavioral responses to job dissatisfaction, numerous theoretical models have been
designed. The two most notable approaches include the Rosse and Miller (1984) and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
the Henne and Locke (1985) models, which are similar in scope, since both explore
the choice process among expected behaviors in response to dissatisfaction. Both of
these models will be reviewed here.
Rosse and Miller Model
The Rosse and Miller (1984) model is a general approach used in predicting
absenteeism, and is referred to as a behavioral-adaptation cycle model o f individual
action. This cycle model consists of five stages, which can be seen in Figure 4. The
cycle begins with the stimulus event, which is the situation which brings about
relative dissatisfaction, which then causes the individual to consider the behavioral
alternatives (Rosse & Miller, 1984). The authors defined relative dissatisfaction as a
specific form of an intrinsic reaction consisting of cognitions and affective
components. Several factors influence this choice process, such as personal
experience with dissatisfaction, exposure to role models, and the presence of social
norms.
The range o f adaptive behaviors include withdrawal and avoidance, attempts to
change the work environment and aggressive and retaliatory responses (Rosse &
Hulin, 1985). According to these researchers, avoidance can take the form of
behavioral actions such as lateness, absence and turnover, or psychological
withdrawal strategies such as daydreaming, diversions or drug use. Moreover,
employees attempt to change the work environment via the filing of grievances and
unionisation activities. Finally, some respond to the unsatisfying work conditions by
retaliatory means, including gossip, theft, sabotage, and overt violence. Upon the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
recognition of alternative behavioral responses and evaluation of these responses,
some behavior is enacted as a result in the hope o f influencing the future occurrence
of the original stimulus event (Rosse & Miller, 1984).
Rosse and Miller (1984) predict that repetitions of the cycle are dependent upon
the nature of the stimulus event, what response alternatives were available and acted
upon, and the reaction to the resultant behavior. Furthermore, the model predicts that
successful adaptation occurs when the cycle is halted because the stimulus which is
producing the feelings o f dissatisfaction has been dealt with successfully. In other
words, whichever action has the greatest perceived utility is implemented (Rosse &
Hulin, 1985). For example, a rational employee who was warned by a supervisor for
being late, decides to schedule a meeting to discuss the problem, which ultimately
leads to more reasonable expectations from both sides. This example by Rosse and
Miller (1984) illustrates how reactive behaviors which are positive in effect should
break the predicted cycle, often in one round. Conversely, a behavior with a negative
effect, such as being absent in response to the supervisor’s warnings about tardiness,
will have negative consequences, thus, repeating the cycle.
Out of this adaptation-cycle model came numerous practical implications for
practice (Rosse & Miller, 1984): (1) this model shows that managers must look
beyond the behavioral symptoms before deciding on a course of action because o f the
numerous adaptation dynamics which lead to employees’ overt behaviors (can break
the cycle only by finding the cause of dissatisfaction); (2) managers must consider
each behavioral problem as a separate, individual case with concern given for the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
unique circumstances which led to the overt behavior; (3) it is very important to
realize the interdependence between the individual employee and his/her environment
since the overt behaviors result from the interaction of these two constructs;
furthermore, interventions must be flexible enough to consider both personal and
environmental circumstances involved with the adaptation efforts; and finally (4) easy
or superficial solutions to behavior problems are rarely going to solve the underlying
causes of these patterns o f behavior.
An apparent shortcoming o f this behavioral-adaptation cycle model is that Rosse
and Miller have argued that all forms of reactions to job dissatisfaction are classified
as representing withdrawal, since the major focus of the model is in predicting
absenteeism (Henne, 1986). Henne (1986) argued that this global classification of all
forms of reactions as withdrawal represents arbitrary labeling which dismisses the
salience of psychological reactions which may result as a consequence of
dissatisfaction. Additionally, the grouping of numerous behavioral alternatives, such
as toleration or protest, as withdrawal is illogical and contradictory.
Henne and Locke Model
The Henne and Locke (1985) model, which represents an expanded innovation of
the “recognition and alternative behavioral responses” step o f the Rosse and Miller
(1984) cycle model, is better organized to address the categories of behavior that
might be expected in response to job dissatisfaction. The model is presented in Figure
5. Similar to the Rosse and Miller model, the Henne and Locke model attempts to
address the choice process for responding to job dissatisfaction. This model suggests
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
that the various alternatives which are chosen by dissatisfied employees can be
labeled into two broad categories, action alternatives and psychological alternatives.
According to Henne and Locke (1985), the specific action alternatives include job
performance, persuasive and aggressive protest, and physical withdrawal. The
psychological alternatives consist of the changing of perceptions, the changing o f
values, changing how one reacts to dissatisfaction, and toleration. These outcomes are
predicted to be the result of a choice process which is triggered by the dissatisfaction
stimulus. It is also believed that choosing these action-psychological alternatives can
lead one to individual consequences such as positive and/or negative effects on one’s
mental and physical health or satisfaction with life in general (Henne & Locke, 1985).
The types o f action and psychological alternatives posited by the model will now be
discussed in greater detail.
Behavioral Alternatives.
The behavioral alternatives contained within this model begin with the
satisfaction-performance controversy. Mentioned in earlier sections of this review is
the research which indicates little evidence that employees’ attitudes, such as
dissatisfaction, bear any significant relationship to job performance (Bagozzi, 1984;
Bullock, 1984; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Henne and Locke (1985) do argue
that low performance can be a result of dissatisfaction, although the correlational
research indicates otherwise. Low performance should then be considered as one
action alternative that may be taken by some people in response to dissatisfaction.
Another action alternative consists o f individual and group protests. When an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
employee perceives the source of dissatisfaction as external in nature, attempts will be
made at modifying the situation so it more effectively fulfills the values most salient
to the employee. This could take the form of complaining to the supervisor, filing a
grievance, or suing the organization (Henne, 1986). However, if individual action will
not suffice in achieving change, group action could be initiated, such as a group
confrontation with management, class action suits, unionization, striking, or
counterproductive behaviors, such as sabotage, stealing or vandalism (Henne, 1986).
A final classification o f action alternatives consists of withdrawal behaviors.
Dissatisfied employees who wish to eliminate dissatisfaction attempt to do so by
simply avoiding the situation which is causing it through two forms of physical
withdrawal, absenteeism and turnover (Henne & Locke, 1985). The research has
consistently indicated significant, negative correlations between job satisfaction and
these two forms of physical withdrawal (Koslowsky et al., 1997; Terborg et al., 1992).
Research regarding withdrawal has indicated the significance of a number of
cognitive processes which can mediate the relationship between feelings and action,
which includes: searching for other jobs, the availability of other jobs, thoughts about
quitting, unemployment rates, and a cost/benefit analysis which can cause the
employee to determine whether an alternative would satisfy his/her values better than
his/her current situation (Henne, 1986). For specific research regarding these action
alternatives, please see an earlier section of this review.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Psychological Alternatives
There are various psychological reactions to dissatisfaction which have been
accounted for in the model. According to Henne (1986), since the feeling o f
dissatisfaction is dependent upon the interaction between an employee’s values and
whether the job is fulfilling these values, one way to reduce the dissatisfaction is to
change one’s perception o f the job situation. For example, an employee who feels that
s/he was ignored by a supervisor may have simply misinterpreted the situation
initially. This employee may later reinterpret the situation another way, that the
supervisor may have been rushed or stressed and thus, did not pay adequate enough
attention. This reinterpretation may cause the anger and dissatisfaction o f the
employee to dissipate (Henne & Locke, 1985).
A second psychological alternative often utilized by dissatisfied employees is the
adjustment of the employee’s values (Henne, 1986). Obviously, changing one’s values
can be a lengthy and difficult process, yet Henne believes that some individuals may
require professional assistance (e.g., psychotherapy) in order to make lasting
adjustments. Another strategy used to combat a dissatisfying situation is to try and
avoid it via the use of psychological defense mechanisms, such as repression, denial,
and drug use, which all assist to distort one’s perceptions, moods, and judgements
(Henne, 1986). Henne argued that individuals who are not mentally healthy to begin
with can be assumed to utilize mechanisms such as these in response to their
dissatisfaction. Limited research exists on the use o f drugs and defense mechanisms to
change one’s perceptions of the job situation. One study reported by Henne
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
(Mangione & Quinn, 1975) revealed a significant relationship between drug use and
satisfaction, yet only for the subgroup of men over 30 years of age. More research is
clearly needed in the area of drug use and other defense mechanisms and job
dissatisfaction.
A final alternative employees have at their disposal in dealing with a dissatisfying
situation is to simply tolerate the situation. Those who are able to tolerate their
feelings o f dissatisfaction may feel that the dissatisfaction is not that bad, or that it is
only temporary, or that they are able to achieve pleasure from other parts of their lives
(Henne, 1986; Henne & Locke, 1985). These authors reported that although toleration
may accompany some o f the previous alternatives, toleration as a viable alternative
can stand alone. For example, one who is dissatisfied yet has been able to tolerate it
for long periods may actually be satisfied and well adjusted in a general sense. Little
empirical attention has been given to this particular group o f dissatisfied employees.
Henne and Locke (1985) did not attempt to investigate the precise connections
between the variables in their model. Instead, the model represents a “heuristic”
device which aids in classifying existing research while also suggesting areas for
future research. As stated previously, a major assumption made by the authors is that
they do not see job dissatisfaction as having any direct consequences, rather, job
dissatisfaction is an emotional state, and what action is taken in response to it depends
on the cognitive processes (e.g., values and aspirations) o f the individual. Ultimately,
the chosen consequential actions may have future implications on the individual’s life
satisfaction, and mental/physical health (Henne & Locke, 1985).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Fisher and Locke Model
A third model, developed as an elaboration of the earlier models posited by Rosse
and Miller (1984), and Henne and Locke (1985), is a more recent choice process
conceptualization incorporating additional variables. This Fisher and Locke (1992)
model can be seen in Figure 6.. Similar to the earlier models, this conceptualization
begins with the perception of the job situation based upon the individual’s goals,
values, attributions (about the causes of the situation), and comparing one’s situation
with that of others (Fisher & Locke, 1992). In this model, the authors suggest that the
prior level of satisfaction is an important determinant in proceeding toward action.
For example, if an individual is more satisfied or dissatisfied then before, the
individual is likely to choose an additional behavior. Yet if an individual is
chronically dissatisfied (e.g., negative affectivity), s/he may be unlikely to react in
either destructive or remedial ways.
This model then addresses the numerous mediating variables which could play a
role in the identification and evaluation of action alternatives, such as role models,
group norms, one’s past experiences in the organization, and contract provisions.
Action alternatives are evaluated in terms of expected positive consequences and
expected negative consequences. Positive consequences consist of those actions which
help in dissipating the feelings o f dissatisfaction, while negative consequences are
those actions which could have an adverse effect, over and above the feelings of
dissatisfaction, including lessened credibility or reputation, punishment, or being
socially isolated by coworkers (Fisher & Locke, 1992). In addition, action alternatives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
are also evaluated in terms of how they compare with one’s self concept, personality
characteristics, and standards o f behavior.
Finally, it is predicted by the authors that individuals would choose the action
alternative most conducive to the “highest total expected utility” (p. 190). This model
suggests that individuals choose one action at a time, whereby if the behavior is
successful in improving the situation, subsequent actions will not be needed, yet if the
action is not successful, another action will be chosen and implemented. This is a
critical element to this model, in that it acknowledges learning from experience. This
model aiso acknowledges non-premeditated behaviors which could occur if an
opportunity to act occurs. This is noted in the model as an arrow leading from
“experienced satisfaction-dissatisfaction” directly to “action” (Figure 6).
Summation o f Theoretical Approaches
Taken in combination, these three conceptual choice models of dissatisfaction
provide a sound, theoretical direction with which to organize past research, guide
future research, and provide implications for practice (e.g., interventions).
Incorporating the stronger points of each o f these choice models lead to the following
summations:
(I) There is no evidence which supports the notion that high satisfaction leads to high
productivity. Evidence exists whereby satisfaction relates to performance in an
indirect fashion, in that performance effects satisfaction which then effects
subsequent performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
(2) Job satisfaction-dissatisfaction does have effects on numerous types o f outcomes,
including attitudes, physical and mental health, and effects on action.
(3) A causal sequence exists between emotions (e.g, dissatisfaction) and actions,
beginning with the particular situation, followed by a perception, then an appraisal,
which leads to emotions, then action alternative.
(4) The numerous behavioral and psychological action alternatives identified by the
research includes acts of avoidance, complaining and formal protests, illegal acts,
passive aggressive reactions, and substance abuse problems. Specific behavioral
alternatives consisted of job performance, persuasive and aggressive protests and
physical withdrawal. Specific psychological alternatives consisted of changing one’s
perceptions, changing one’s values, changing one’s reactions and toleration.
(5) Numerous factors have been identified which can influence the choice process,
including personal experience, social norms, cognitive processing, attributions, social
comparison, and availability o f role models.
(6) Not all forms of reactions to job satisfaction represent withdrawal practices (e.g.,
absenteeism and turnover). Numerous choice reactions, namely, psychological and
behavioral action alternatives, are dissimilar to withdrawal reactions.
(7) It is assumed that dissatisfied individuals choose one action at a time, whereby if
the behavior is successful, subsequent actions will not be needed, yet if the action is
not successful, another action will be chosen and implemented.
(8) More research is needed to investigate certain action alternatives because of a
paucity o f support, such as the use o f defense mechanisms and drug use. Additionally,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
more research is needed to investigate the specific connections between the major
variables contained within the theoretical models.
(9) Numerous implications for practice have been posited, including: (a) managers
must look beyond behavioral symptoms before deciding on a course of action due to
the many dynamics involved with the dissatisfaction-emotion-action process; (b)
superficial solutions to behavioral problems will rarely solve the underlying causes of
the pattern o f behavior, and these behaviors must be considered as separate,
individual cases.
The topic o f intervention plans or strategies which have been incorporated by
organizations will be the next major topic addressed.
Intervention Plans/Strategies
Before organizations can influence the satisfaction of their employees in the hope
of preventing the consequences o f dissatisfaction, organizations m ust be able to
clarify the factors which cause and subsequently influence job satisfaction. An earlier
section of this chapter has addressed the numerous methodologies used to assess the
determinants of satisfaction, which included: (1) use of questionnaires to assess
general or facet job satisfaction; (2) investigating the influencing variables such as
leader behaviors, job stressors, pay, job characteristics and work and nonwork factors
(please see the earlier section for more specific information, page 28); (3) reviewing
the wealth of empirical research and theoretical explanations regarding the topic of
job satisfaction in the industrial organizational literature.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Despite the evidence showing that high job satisfaction is the result, not the cause,
of high performance (if rewards are connected with performance), and that
satisfaction relates to performance in an indirect fashion, many organizations still
believe in the notion that a happy worker will be a more productive one (Iaffaldano &
Muchinsky, 1985; Locke & Latham, 1990a). Due to these beliefs, organizations often
conduct popular interventions such as job enrichment and participative decision
making in which to promote worker welfare, which then would enhance production.
More recently, however, organizations are putting forth the effort at enhancing both
worker satisfaction and performance simultaneously by utilizing either different or
similar organizational interventions for each variable (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985). Additionally, those organizations who utilize interventions aimed at
maximizing job satisfaction have employees who are more cooperative and willing to
help the organization be productive and successful (Spector, 1997).
Interventions aimed at maximizing job satisfaction and productivity generally
concern either changes to the work itself or in the human resource management
practices, such as employee compensation, hiring, and training (Katzell, Thompson, &
Guzzo, 1992). Numerous reviews have been conducted to study the effects of
psychologically and organizationally based interventions on productivity and
satisfaction. Earlier research conducted by Latham and Yukl (1976) indicated that
employees’ performance and attitudes changed following the implementation of a
goal setting intervention program. The goal setting program utilized in each o f these
studies included a participative or an assigned goal condition. Despite improvement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
occurring with both conditions, the participative groups set higher goals and attained
these goals more often than those in the assigned goal condition (Locke & Yukl, 1975,
1976).
Another review was conducted by Katzell and Guzzo (1983) o f over 207 published
field experiments geared toward improving employee productivity through numerous
psychologically based interventions. Content analysis o f the interventions revealed
over eleven different types o f interventions, which included psychological
interventions such as goal setting, appraisal and feedback, decision making
techniques, and organizational interventions including recruitment/selection, training,
financial compensation, work redesign, supervisory methods, organizational structure,
work schedules and systems redesign. It was determined that 87% of the studies
reported improvement in at least one measure of productivity, suggesting that
psychology has a lot to contribute to the improvement o f employee productivity
(Katzell & Guzzo, 1983). Additionally, these organizational and psychological
intervention programs generally had favorable affects on the quality o f work life,
especially job satisfaction. O f those studies which did assess changes in job
satisfaction, over 75% o f those reported greater job satisfaction as a result of the
intervention programs (Katzell & Guzzo, 1983).
A few years after this study was conducted, a meta-analysis was conducted by
Guzzo, Jette and Katzell (1985) on 98 experiments which revealed that the collective
effect of all intervention programs on enhancing productivity was substantial, with the
average effect size being .44. This result indicated that the eleven intervention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
programs (same listing as in the Katzell & Guzzo review) raised worker productivity
by nearly one-half a standard deviation. The authors concluded by stating that
“behavioral science techniques for increasing worker productivity are, on the whole,
effective” (p. 291). As stated previously, a specific behavioral science technique
which has been shown to influence productivity is goal setting. Goal setting theory
(Locke & Latham, 1990b) argued that task performance is directed by the goals that
individuals, groups, and organizations are committed to achieving. According to
Locke and Latham (1990c), nearly 400 experimental studies, using more than 40,000
subjects and 88 different tasks, have shown that specific, difficult goals lead to an
increase in performance more than vague, easy, “do your best” and no goals.
Interventions which include goal setting are likely to have demonstrable effects on not
only productivity but satisfaction (Katzell, Thompson, & Guzzo, 1992).
Numerous psychologically based interventions have been shown to improve
productivity or satisfaction, or both, including team building, stress management, and
leader effectiveness. Latham and Napier (1984) reported that when studies are
conducted on the efficacy of team building intervention strategies, higher attendance
rates among its employees will be found, suggesting that the enrichment program
fostered greater job satisfaction, job identity and increased attendance. These same
authors defined team building as an intervention designed to maximize employee
involvement in work related issues, solutions to these issues, and goals regarding the
implementation o f the solutions. Bullock (1984) cited a review o f 36 research studies
on team building interventions conducted with organizations which indicated that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
84% of the studies reported positive attitudinal changes (e.g., satisfaction) as a result
of the team building intervention. Bullock concluded that a primary goal o f team
building intervention programs is to increase the number of functional skills of a work
group, thus, giving the work groups more responsibility to manage their own
problems, goals, processes and outcomes.
Another intervention geared toward alleviating some of the potential harmful
consequences of job dissatisfaction, such as turnover and psychological stress, is a
stress management program. The turnover research literature has indicated that a
correlation exists between job stress and absenteeism, so rather then allowing
employees to miss work and return later to the same issues, it is recommended to
provide employees with stress management programs to help employees deal better
with their job related issues at work (Koslowski et al., 1997; Locke & Napier, 1984).
A specific stress management approach which has been found to be effective involves
numerous phases: pre-treatment assessment, learning coping skills, imaging a stressful
situation, and the practicing of coping skills (Locke & Napier, 1984).
A final intervention topic addresses the profound impact that leadership has on
their subordinates (Bullock, 1984; Schriesman & Murphy, 1976). The quality of
leader-member exchanges is considered to be one of the major influencing factors on
employee satisfaction (Graen et al., 1982). These authors detailed a leader-member
exchange training program which assisted managers in improving the quality o f their
interactions with subordinates via skills such as active listening, sharing decisions,
considering input, and collective goal setting. The primary goal of the program is to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
improve upon the level o f “reciprocal understanding” regarding job issues and
solutions to these issues. Bullock (1984) reported that research conducted on leader-
member change training revealed that the program produced significant improvement
in job satisfaction.
Determinants o f Sport Satisfaction
Why sport satisfaction?
In an attempt to parallel and apply the research on job satisfaction to another
setting, that of sport and specifically collegiate athletics, sport researchers have
suggested considering athletes as “employees” since they are an essential human
resource and responsible for generating a substantial portion o f the athletic
department’s revenues through their athletic participation. Similarly, Sperber (1990)
reported that “athletes on grants are contractual employees o f an athletic program.
They sell their talents as sports entertainers in exchange for athletic scholarships.
Athletes are like staff members whom the university hires on the basis of their skills
to do particular jobs” (p. 208). Collegiate athletics can be designated as a service
organization with a mutual benefit association (Chelladurai, 1980; Chelladurai &
Riemer, 1997).
These researchers also stated that athlete satisfaction should be considered as a
primary outcome o f organizational structures and valued for its own sake. Thus, more
attention must be given to the attitudes and affects o f this “essential human resource”.
Concern in this way for the athletes’ affective responses to their athletic involvement
represents a humanistic view which can aid in making athletic experiences more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
enjoyable and instrumental in enhancing one’s growth and development through sport.
Researchers, coaches, sport psychologists, and administrators all need to be concerned
with making the athlete’s sport experience enjoyable and satisfying for these very
same reasons (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997). For this to occur, however, a systematic
effort, consisting of defining the construct, investigating relevant facets, the
development of measurement scales, and conceptual models all must be conducted.
These areas have begun to illicit attention from researchers, and these developments
will be addressed in this section.
Since the majority of the research on satisfaction has been conducted in the
organizational psychology research, in the preliminary study o f athlete satisfaction,
Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) noted several differences between the athletic setting
and the conventional organizational context: (1) in the athletic domain an athlete’s
satisfaction lies not only in personal outcomes-processes but also in team outcomes-
processes (e.g., win national championship based on the performance of the team);
(2) the mediating influences of task related and social factors (e.g., cohesion); (3) the
distinctiveness of the athlete’s pursuit of excellence which consists o f the total
involvement of the athlete, both psychologically and physically, which is not normally
imposed on people in the workforce. In the first comprehensive definition posited in
the sport research literature, Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) considered the
differences between the two contexts and defined athlete satisfaction as a positive
affective state resulting from an evaluation o f the processes and outcomes associated
with the athletic experience. In addition, it was argued that “the level of satisfaction is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
a reflection of an athlete’s reactions to the extent that athletic experience meets one’s
personal standards, standards based upon what the athlete wants, feels entitled to,
what others get, previous experiences, and/or current expectations” (p. 135).
Sport Satisfaction Research
The study of satisfaction in the sport domain is a relatively new endeavor, yet the
construct of sport satisfaction has been utilized by numerous scholars in empirical and
theoretical investigations. Carron (1982) utilized satisfaction as a personal factor in
his cohesion model. Home and Carron (1985) stressed the importance of satisfaction
in the coach-athlete compatibility dyad.
Moreover, Schmidt and Stein (1991) utilized satisfaction as an antecedent in their
model o f sport commitment. These researchers noted that those athletes who remain
in sport for a lengthy period do so for reasons relating to enjoyment, which can be
further characterized by high satisfaction, high commitment, and high investments.
Sport enjoyment and sport satisfaction has been considered as similar variables, with
each construct being defined as positive, affective responses to the sport experience
(Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997; Duda, Fox, Biddle, & Armstrong, 1992; Duda &
Nicholls, 1992). In a more recent adaptation o f Schmidt and Stein’s commitment
model, Scanlon, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler (1993) used enjoyment-
satisfaction as an attraction variable representing a causal condition of sport
commitment, meaning that greater sport enjoyment is proposed to promote greater
sport commitment. More research is needed to clarify the causality and direction of
the relationship between satisfaction and enjoyment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Similarly, satisfaction has also been utilized as a variable in goal orientation and
perceived motivational climate research (Treasure, 1997; Treasure & Roberts, 1994;
Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993). Simply stated, goal orientation refers to two
orientations, task and ego, with task goals being characterized by a demonstration of
competence based on self referencing with a focus on skill development. Conversely,
ego orientation is characterized by those who demonstrate competence based on
outperforming others (Nicholls, 1984). More information regarding task and ego
orientation will be presented later in this review of literature. Duda, Fox, Biddle, &
Armstrong (1992) utilized satisfaction in their study and found a moderately high,
positive association between scores on the task orientation scale and the degree to
which the middle school children found sport to be satisfying (more enjoyable and
interesting). In this particular study, satisfaction was defined and measured as the
intrinsic interest and enjoyment derived from the sport experience. In contrast to this
particular usage of the satisfaction variable, Treasure and Roberts (1994) proposed
that depending upon the achievement goal adopted by athletes, the determinants of
satisfaction would vary. This proposition was supported in their study. The results
indicated that task-oriented individuals derived greater feelings of satisfaction,
meaning that these athletes were more concerned with demonstrating ability by
developing skill, whereby those who were ego oriented derived feelings of satisfaction
by demonstrating their ability by outperforming others. It was further noted that it
was quite unlikely that mastery experiences (emphasis on task orientation) would
have been sufficient to illicit satisfaction from ego involved athletes.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The situational goal orientation research, also termed perceived motivational
climate, refers to the situational influence o f the environment on the particular
achievement goal adopted. The situational influences consists of the degree to which a
mastery or performance climate is perceived. These perceptions are then assumed to
affect the achievement behavior of children in terms of adaptive or maladaptive
achievement strategies (Ames, 1992). Research in this area has also utilized
satisfaction as an importance outcome variable. Treasure (1997) indicated that
students who perceived a climate oriented toward high mastery, also reported a
positive attitude, high perceived ability, and feelings of satisfaction, whereby those
who perceived a more performance oriented climate repotted a negative attitude and
feelings of boredom, not satisfaction. Results from this study support those found in
other motivational climate investigations which indicated a negative relationship of
team-individual satisfaction with a performance oriented climate (Walling, Duda, &
Chi, 1993).
Taken into consideration the preceding studies, the majority of the research on
sport satisfaction has utilized satisfaction as an outcome variable. For example,
Chelladurai (1978) developed the multidimensional model of leadership which
incorporated satisfaction as an outcome variable, along with performance. This model
will be reviewed in detail in the section entitled “leadership”. In summary, however,
Chelladurai posited that a positive outcome, meaning high satisfaction and optimal
performance, will occur if three aspects o f leader behavior agree, namely, the
behavior required by the organization, the coaches’ actual behavior, and the coaches’
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
behavior preferred by the players. If there are discrepancies in the three aspects of
leader behavior, a negative outcome is predicted with lowered performance and lower
satisfaction. For example, athletes not getting the coaching style or behavior they
prefer will be less satisfied (or dissatisfied), with the greater the discrepancy the
greater the dissatisfaction (Chelladurai, 1984).
Another area o f leadership study which is in need o f attention is the use of
satisfaction in coach feedback research. Numerous research studies have investigated
how different types o f coaching feedback effects psychological outcomes, such as self
perceptions of ability and affective responses, such as satisfaction (Amorose & Weiss.
1998; Black & Weiss, 1992; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). Weiss and Friedrichs (1986)
reported that coaches who engaged in more frequent rewarding behaviors had athletes
who had higher levels o f satisfaction. Black and Weiss (1992) found that coaches who
were perceived as giving more frequent information-encouragement following
desirable and undesirable performances had athletes who perceived higher levels of
enjoyment. In a more recent study, Allen and Howe (1998) similarly found that more
frequent praise and information after a good performance, and frequent
encouragement and corrective information after an error, were associated with greater
satisfaction with the coach and team involvement among female adolescent field
hockey players. Despite there being numerous types o f sport studies incorporating
satisfaction as a variable, there has been little effort devoted to developing adequate
measures o f athlete satisfaction. The following section will address this pertinent
issue.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Measuring Athlete Satisfaction
The previous research literature regarding the concept of sport satisfaction was
valuable as it emphasized the concept as being a significant antecedent or outcome
variable, yet the majority of these research studies utilized the typical, single-item
measure to assess one or more facets of athlete satisfaction (Riemer & Chelladurai,
1998). For example, an earlier study examined the interaction effect of participation
motivation upon personal and team satisfaction via the single-item measure, such as
“how satisfied are you with your own overall performance this year?” and “how
satisfied are you with the overall performance of your hockey club?” (Carron, Ball, &
Chelladurai, 1977). Chelladurai (1984) measured athlete satisfaction with individual
performance, team performance, leadership, and overall involvement via a single
question on a seven point scale, from I “very dissatisfied” to 7 “very satisfied”.
Schliesman (1987) and Dwyer and Fischer (1990) followed suit by measuring
satisfaction in leadership (general) and the degree of satisfaction with five specific
leader behaviors (democratic and autocratic decisions, training and instruction, social
support and positive feedback) via single questions. Satisfaction with different aspects
of team participation which included coaching, individual and team performance,
overall involvement and interpersonal relationships were unidimensionally measured
by both Granito and Carlton (1993) and Voight, Callaghan, & Bottom (1999). Riemer
and Chelladurai (1998) argued against the use of single item measures to assess
athlete satisfaction because it is very difficult to estimate the reliability of a single
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
item measure, and that single items only measure global satisfaction without
addressing its multidimensionality.
There are numerous studies which broke from the norm and utilized a more
multidimensional approach in measuring sport satisfaction, which were cited by
Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998. The earliest of these studies was conducted by Whittal
and Orlick (1978) who utilized the Sport Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). The SSI
consisted of an 84-item scale which measured the following sport satisfaction facets:
satisfaction with performance, teammates, opposition, practice and matches, and
coach. No other reported studies since then have utilized this instrument. Weiss and
Friedrichs (1986) created the Athlete Satisfaction Scale, a modification of the
Industrial Organizational Reactions Scale (IOR) (Smith, 1976), which consisted of 28
items relevant to athlete satisfaction with six subscales: school identity, type and
amount of work, teammates, playing conditions, and supervision. Two years later,
Chelladurai, Imamura, Yamaguchi, Oinuma, & Miyauchi (1988) utilized an 18-item
satisfaction questionnaire modified from other sources which reflected the following
elements o f leadership: coaching, guidance, support, individual performance and
growth, team performance and team climate.
Riemer and Chelladurai (1998) argued that while these were good initial efforts at
investigating athlete satisfaction, it lacked comprehensiveness since they were based
upon apriori identification o f facets and not all facets o f satisfaction in athletics were
identified. Thus, to combat these methodological weaknesses and expand upon the
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
construct of satisfaction, Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) set out to conceptually derive
a set of multidimensional facets which reflect the aspects o f the athletic experience.
Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) attempted to offer more in the way of investigating
sport satisfaction as a multidimensional construct by providing a comprehensive
classification of the facets of satisfaction in athletics. The three criteria which
underlie the classification scheme are: (a) outcomes versus processes; (b) personal
versus team effects; and (c) task versus social aspects. The first criteria distinguishes
between outcomes, which refer to winning and goal attainment, from processes which
are methods used to bring about the desired outcome. The second criteria
differentiates between those outcomes-processes which the individual athlete may
seek for himself/herself versus the outcomes-processes which may be derived only
through the efforts o f the athletes’ teammates. The third criteria distinguishes between
those outcomes and processes which are purely task related versus others which are
more social in nature (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998).
Chelladurai and Riemer (1997) specified and defined several facets which relate to
each of the different categories. The organization of the facets will be presented here
in the following manner: la=individual task outcomes; lb=individual task processes;
2a=team task outcomes; 2b=team task processes; 3a=individual social outcomes;
3b=individual social processes; 4a=team social outcomes; 4b=team social processes.
In the first category, individual task outcomes versus processes (la-b), the authors
listed six different facets for team task outcomes (la): satisfaction with an individual’s
absolute performance, personal goal attainment, task contribution, performance
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
improvement, personal growth, and personal immersion (aesthetic pleasure);
individual task processes (lb) included 8 facets: satisfaction with how individual
abilities were used, training/instruction, positive feedback, recognition, and
compensation received, personal effort put forth, team contribution and family
support.
The next category contains the team task outcomes versus processes (2a-b),
with team task outcomes (2a) containing five facets: satisfaction with team growth
and maturity, team goal attainment, absolute performance, and performance
improvement. Team task processes (2b) consists of eleven facets, which include:
satisfaction with strategy selection, practice, tactics, equitable treatment, leaders’
ethics, facilities, budget and community support. Another major category, individual
social outcomes versus processes (3a-b), include three facets o f individual social
outcomes (3a): satisfaction with sense of belongingness, friendship, and social role.
Individual social processes (3 b) consists of two facets, satisfaction with social support
(interpersonal relationships) and the loyalty of the coach. Finally, the last
classification of facets are the team social outcomes versus processes (4a-b),
consisting of the one team social outcome satisfaction facet of interpersonal harmony,
which is satisfaction o f how members got along as a group. Team social processes
(4b) contain two facets, the satisfaction with the loyalty of the coach and the extent
the team was allowed to participate in decision making processes.
This classification scheme served as the conceptual foundation for the
development of a psychometrically sound scale of athlete satisfaction (Riemer &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chelladurai, 1998). This scale is the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ) which
is utilized in the present study to investigate the causes o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction.
During the item generation phase of the development of this questionnaire, numerous
facets were combined, while others were reclassified. The finished product, after scale
refinement (via CFA) and validity/reliability estimates, contains fifteen subscales
which are believed to address the most salient aspects of athletic participation:
individual and team performance, leadership, the team, the organization, and the
individual (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998). The fifteen subscale facets of sport
satisfaction measured by the ASQ are: individual and team performance, ability
utilization, strategy, personal treatment, training and instruction, group’s task and
social contribution, team ethics and integration, personal dedication, budget, medical
personnel, academic support service, and external agents.
As of yet, no empirical studies have utilized the ASQ in investigating the
determinants of sport satisfaction in a multidimensional manner. What is known about
the determinants of athlete satisfaction were derived via unidimensional, single-item
measures, with the majority of this research using satisfaction as an outcome variable
with the leadership behavior of the coach being the scope of inquiry. As Riemer and
Chelladurai have shown, there are many more facets to the construct o f sport
satisfaction than simply those relationships regarding leadership behaviors. In the
current study, only the most salient facets o f satisfaction to the athletic experience
were used, including individual/team performance (2 facets: individual and team
performance); teammates (4 facets: team task, social contribution, ethics, and team
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
integration); leadership (5 facets: ability utilization, strategy, leader-player interaction,
training and instruction, and ethics/sportsmanship); and administrative support (3
facets: budget, academic and athletic support). Thus, a modified version of the ASQ
was utilized to measure the determinant facets o f satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The
next section will review the paucity o f research regarding the consequences of sport
dissatisfaction.
Consequences of Athlete Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
Unlike the industrial organizational field which has published theories, models and
empirical research which details the consequences o f satisfaction and dissatisfaction
experienced by those in the workforce, a dearth of evidence exists on this particular
construct in the sport research. There are, however, studies which have shown that
athletes who are satisfied as opposed to being dissatisfied display a variety of
behavioral, psychological, and cognitive actions/processes: greater enjoyment and
commitment (Scanlan, Simons, Schmidt, Carpenter, & Keeler, 1991), greater
motivation for participation (Carron, Ball, & Chelladurai, 1977), an increase in task
and social cohesion (Grand & Carron, 1982), an increase in performance (Chelladurai,
1978,1980), and an increase in personal success (Roberts & Duda, 1984). As has been
indicated earlier, satisfaction is an important outcome variable which should be
valued for its own sake as a prime objective o f sport participation. Despite the
importance given to satisfaction, and the limited research investigating the positive
consequences of athlete satisfaction, it becomes apparent that more systematic
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research is needed to investigate the consequences of athlete satisfaction. This topic is
beyond the scope of this present research proposal.
Despite there being some research attention given to the consequences of sport
satisfaction, no studies have been conducted to investigate the consequential actions
and reactions to dissatisfaction experienced by athletes. There does exist, however,
anecdotal evidence in the popular press which has indicated a variety o f cognitive,
behavioral, and psychological actions displayed by dissatisfied athletes.
Anecdotal Evidence on Athlete Dissatisfaction
Examples o f the anecdotal evidence consists of: (I) legal action against a sport
federation after being dissatisfied about being left off the roster for residency camp
(Brewington, 1999; USA Today, 1999); (2) insinuations about coach indiscretions by
former basketball and football players (LA Times, 1999c; LA Times, 1999b); (3)
transferring from current athletic program due to player’s own lack o f development;
or dissatisfaction with the amount o f playing time; or unhappiness with reduced roles
and the perception that the coach “quit” on them; or a deteriorating relationship with
coach; or no longer willing to tolerate the yelling of the coach; or not being able to
adapt to the coach’s leadership style (Knight & day, 1997; LA Times, 1998; Wire
reports, 1999a); (4) quitting the team due to difficulty in dealing with the pressure of
being a student athlete, and eight women’s basketball players who quit the team due
to the coach (Associated Press, 1998; LA Times, 1999a); (5) complaining about
dissatisfaction, lack of playing time, and constant shuffling of players by the coach -
this player was eventually dismissed from this team (Sandoval, 1998); (6) verbal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
tirades directed at the coaches by disgruntled, dissatisfied athletes (Berkow, 1997); (7)
physically attacking the coach, which was the case against a California high school
basketball player who attacked his coach after being dissatisfied with being punished
(benched) (Dixon, 1998); and (8) premeditated insubordination by a group o f Idaho
basketball players who dunked during warmups, a technical foul, which resulted in the
coach being ejected before the opening tip-off, and for their actions, the players were
thrown off the team and suspended from school (LA Times, 1998); (9) lead-instigate
player mutiny or revolt (Drape, 1998; LA Times, 1997; USA Today, 1998); (10) filing
of grievances with athletic administration officials (Siminoff, 1999; Wertheim, 1999).
There does exist some additional reports of how athletes deal with their dissatisfaction
from the paucity of case study research.
Case Study Evidence
Numerous case studies have been conducted which indirectly address the
consequences of dissatisfied athletes. To begin with, case study research is an
ideographic approach which means it is a way o f embracing the uniqueness of the
individual athlete, while stressing particular hypothetical constructs which cannot be
directly measured (Vemacchia, 1977). But through case study, case reports, and case
interviews, desired theoretical elements of a construct can be investigated, such as the
appropriateness and effectiveness of performance intervention and enhancement
techniques, or how athletes’ think and behave in a variety of situations (Vemacchia,
1998). Although limited, there does exist case study reports which exemplify some
consequences of athlete dissatisfaction, including alcohol and drug use, burnout,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
withdrawal, complaining/temper tantrums, and adverse effects on motivation and self
confidence (Cohn, 1990; Rotella & Newburg, 1989; Silva, 1990; Stainback, 1997;
Yambor, 1998).
Reasons for alcohol and drug use cited by numerous samples o f athletes included
“helping them deal with the pressures o f their sport”, and attempts to cope with
threats to one’s self esteem from the athletic environment (e.g., competitive pressures,
expectations of coaches) (McGuire, 1990). Cohn (1990) used a guided interview
approach with competitive golfers to inquire about the sources and consequences o f
stress in golf. Some major sources of stress cited by the golfers included playing up to
personal standards and striving to meet other’s expectations. All of the golfers
experienced burnout due to a lack of enjoyment (a construct frequently used
synonymously with satisfaction-dissatisfaction) and too much pressure. Burnout has
been defined as an exhaustive psychophysiological response to an inability to cope
with excessive training and demands, with its consequences being reduced personal
accomplishments, loss of self esteem, and withdrawal from the stressful environment
being inevitable (Silva, 1990).
Rotella and Newburg (1989) utilized the case study interview to explore the
experiences of “benchwarmers”. One o f the benchwarmers was a college basketball
player who transferred from a Division I varsity team to a Division I junior varsity
team because of her reported dissatisfaction with her coach. A men’s Division I
college basketball player reported being dissatisfied with being redshirted and not
having a set role, yet this particular athlete persisted despite going through some very
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
difficult times. The third and final athlete, a professional soccer player, was
dissatisfied with his coaches, and dealt with his dissatisfaction by “ripping coaches
and other players, filled with sarcasm..anger, and resentment”, all the while his
attitude went from “one o f confidence and optimism to less confidence, to a neg
attitude, to blame and excuses, to thinking the coach was stupid” (p. 57). Ultimately,
this player was released, yet picked up by a different team which ended up winning
the championship with him playing a big role. Finally, Yambor (1998) cited a case
study whereby a college volleyball player was dissatisfied with her coach and how her
freshman season had gone, which assisted in lowering her motivation and self
confidence, as well as adversely affecting her academic and social life. A second case
study detailed how a junior national high jumper was dissatisfied with his previous
form and thus reacted inappropriately by his temper tantrums, sulking and swearing,
being late for practices/meetings, poor practice attitudes, plus distancing himself from
his coaches and teammates via self pitying behaviors. Utilizing another empirical
approach, the present researcher conducted an exploratory study investigating the
consequences of dissatisfaction.
Exploratory Study on the Consequences of Dissatisfaction:
In the hope of supporting the propositions made by this anecdotal evidence, while
also extending the limited research on satisfaction-dissatisfaction in sport, Voight and
Callaghan (1999) produced the first and only work which investigated the
consequential actions of dissatisfied athletes in their exploratory study with seven
college athletes. These student athletes were contacted to participate in this study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
because o f their dissatisfied experiences. They were given open-ended questionnaires
asking them to report on their perceptions of the causes o f satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, as well as how they reacted or responded to their feelings of
dissatisfaction. Results indicated that the overwhelming source of dissatisfaction
experienced by six out of the seven athletes (86%) was with their respective coaches,
with other sources being playing time, teammates, and stress regarding role conflict.
Further investigation into the factors which lead to this high percentage of athletes
being dissatisfied with their coach lead to the following results: more than half o f the
participants cited that a major reason for their dissatisfaction was due to unfair
treatment and inequity practices. Another key factor was the coach providing little
gratification and positive feedback, which was reported by nearly half of the
respondents.
The athletes then recorded the specific strategies/reactions they employed in which
to deal with their dissatisfaction. Results indicated that over half of the athletes dealt
with their dissatisfaction by continuing to work hard and sticking it out, which was
termed adaptive consequential actions, because these alternatives could lead to a
reduction or elimination of the dissatisfaction, or the realization that a state of
satisfaction is possible in the given situation (Henne & Locke, 1985). Other strategies
identified with this sample as adaptive strategies include talking with the coach,
seeking advice from significant others and transferring to another program.
The terms, adaptive and maladaptive strategies, were coined by researchers in the
goal orientation literature, who defined adaptive strategies as those which promote the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
maintenance and attainment of challenging and valued achievement goals,
characterized by exerting greater effort, self confidence, and persistence. In
comparison, maladaptive strategies are those behaviors which are counterproductive
to long term achievement, such as displaying lowered effort and persistence,
devaluing a task, and seeking easy tasks, especially in the face o f difficulty (Dweck,
1986; Krane, Greenleaf, & Snow, 1997; Lochbaum & Roberts, 1993; Treasure, 1997).
The study sample also utilized maladaptive strategies, characterized by alternatives
which could be detrimental to the organization, team or individual athlete, in terms of
decreased performance or unhealthy methods used to change the emotional reaction
(e.g., drug use). Encompassed also are more extreme forms o f behaviors, such as
sabotage or vandalism (Henne & Locke, 1985). One athlete in Voight and Callaghan’s
(1999) sample employed a maladaptive strategy in that this athlete, together with nine
of his teammates, helped to get his head coach fired through a formal petition process
and “behind the scene” meetings with administration officials. This process of
eliminating the coach through individual and team protests is a growing issue in
collegiate athletics, and should be considered as an extreme form o f maladaptive
alternatives. Since this sample only consisted o f seven athletes, much more research is
needed to further examine the processes involved with sport dissatisfaction.
This is one o f the major objectives o f this study, to conceptualize and empirically
investigate the processes involved with the determinants and consequences o f athlete
dissatisfaction. Specifically, factors such as the athletes’ dispositional and situational
attributes, motives for participation, perceived coaching behaviors, perceptions o f the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
causes of dissatisfaction, how the athlete responds to these perceptions of
dissatisfaction, and the consequences o f such actions were addressed. The next
section of this chapter provides a selected review o f the research specific to the
integral components o f the proposed measurement model, previously shown in Figure
1. Each of these exogenous and latent variables are discussed in order of presentation
in accordance with the measurement model (previously shown in Figure 1) not
addressed as yet, including gender differences, influence of ability, motives for
participation, leadership behaviors, and personal and situation goal orientation.
Review of Research: Exogenous and Latent Variables
Gender Differences
The first exogenous variable, gender, is hypothesized to relate to each of the latent
constructs. The influence of gender on perceptions of satisfaction/dissatisfaction and
the consequential actions have not yet been addressed in the sport satisfaction
research, so the results in the present investigation will be exploratory in nature.
Gender as a study variable has been given attention in the coaching behavior and goal
orientation research, thus, differences between athletes based upon gender on these
specific constructs contained in the proposed model will be discussed in the specific
review to follow.
This particular issue has been addressed in the industrial organizational research
literature. The line o f research has attempted to determine whether certain subsamples
of people tend to be more satisfied than other subsamples. Research on these
demographic characteristics typically involve comparing job satisfaction ratings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
among different races, different ages o f employees (young and old), and among
gender (Saal & Knight, 1997). Dalton and Marcis (1987) stressed the importance of
investigating gender differences in job satisfaction for two reasons: (1) if females
workers are more dissatisfied than their male counterparts, this may have a significant
adverse effect upon their long term employment and earning opportunities; and (2) if
differences exist between genders on the determinants o f job satisfaction, employers
need to be made aware of these differences so they could incorporate this information
in their planning decisions.
Research on this topic has indicated that overall differences in the job satisfaction
of women and men are small and inconsistent (Murray & Atkinson, 1981). Witt and
Nye (1992) conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate gender differences in correlation
coefficients among 30 samples of employees, totaling over 13,000 personnel. Results
indicated no practical differences in fairness perceptions and job satisfaction between
men and women. Some have posited that if any differences do exist in job attitudes,
these differences are likely to be related to differences in education, pay and tenure,
thus, if men and women are equal on these variables, gender differences in
satisfaction will not be found (Saal & Knight, 1997; Weaver, 1980). Despite there
being no documented gender differences on perceptions o f job satisfaction, some
researchers contend that differences do occur in the assessment o f specific job
characteristics (or facets), in that males’ and females’ levels o f job satisfaction could
be derived from numerous sources. For example, Murray and Atkinson (1981)
indicated that significant differences appeared on nine o f 13 job attributes, including
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluation o f physical surroundings, ratings o f co-workers, supervisors, and
recognition, all of which had higher ratings from female employees. Males tended to
rate advancement, skills, influence and freedom higher. Males and females were
similar in their rating of interestingness in their work, pay, security, and contribution.
Dalton and Marcis (1987) indicated that determinants of job satisfaction differed
among males and females. For example, having a high school diploma had a positive
influence on job satisfaction for females, yet for males it had a depressing effect on
job satisfaction. No rationale for this result was offered by the researchers. Addressing
the majority o f the studies which revealed significant gender differences in
perceptions of job satisfaction, numerous explanations have been posited which
attempt to explain the equivalent job satisfaction of women to men, despite the
nonequivalent job opportunities and pay (Greenhaus et al., 1990; Spector, 1997).
Brush, Moch, & Pooyan (1987) suggested that women may have different
expectations o f their work, thus are satisfied with less, because o f the paucity o f upper
management positions, promotion opportunities, and pay raises available for the
female workforce. Witt and Nye (1992) believe that gender differences exist in
perceptions o f equity, in that females perceive lesser rewards as being fairer then
mane would. Although these propositions are interesting, much more research is
needed to ascertain the equivalency of job satisfaction among males and females. It is
the desire of this researcher that the present investigator will advance the
understanding of gender differences on the perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction
with the sport experience, extending the research on gender differences into another
permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
context, that o f sport Another exogenous variable in the proposed measurement
model is the ability o f the sport participants.
Ability Level
In the industrial organizational literature, major reasons cited why workers produce
at differential rates include motivation and the ability o f the worker (Lawler, 1971;
Orpen, 1985). According to Lawler (1994), no matter how motivated an individual is
to perform, optimal performance is not possible if the individual lacks the necessary
ability, thus, high motivation can only make up for low ability to a limited extent. The
importance of the ability of the worker was further exemplified in a model on the
determinants o f facet satisfaction which indicated that one o f the important influences
on an employee’s perceptions of their facet satisfaction was their skills/abilities that
the employee brings to the job (Lawler, 1994). Further, the greater the individual
perceives his/her inputs to be (skills, abilities and training) the greater the perception
of what his/her outcomes should be. Lawler’s model showed that those who have
higher perceived inputs will be more dissatisfied with selected facets than people with
low perceived inputs, fn the limited research on satisfaction in the sport context,
ability has not been utilized as a variable. Thus, predictions made regarding the
influence of ability on sport satisfaction have not been posited in the proposed study.
However, attention has been given to the mediating influence of sport ability on
variables relevant to this proposal, including coaching behaviors and motivational
goal orientations.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the coaching behavior research literature, the ability of the coach and player are
considered important variables and much attention has been given to the influence of
ability on the perceptions and preferences of coaching behavior (Chelladurai, 1980;
Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978). The ability of the member (or athlete), defined as their
current competence in the performance of a task, would influence the preference for
specific coaching behavior, such as guidance, coaching, and consideration from the
leader (Chelladurai, 1984; House, 1971). For example, there is a possibility that if
athletes have the requisite ability to perform the task or are provided social support by
other environmental agents (e.g., team, captains, or external to the organization), these
athletes may not need any structure or consideration from the leader, thus, affecting
their preferences for certain behaviors (Chelladurai, 1980). This was evident by the
results from a study by Garland and Barry (1988) which indicated that athletes’
perceptions in all five leader dimensions (as measured by the Leadership Scale for
Sport-LSS) were significantly related to ability, explaining 51% of the variance.
Additionally, Chelladurai’s multidimensional model o f leadership considers athlete’s
ability as both a dependent variable and as an antecedent variable (Chelladurai, 1990).
More specific information regarding Chelladurai’s model and the LSS can be found in
the subsequent coaching review section.
Another area where ability is a critical component is in the motivational orientation
literature. According to numerous researchers, perceptions of ability have been
demonstrated as being an important determinant of satisfaction in the classroom and
sport, as well as a determinant in how one affectively and cognitively responds to
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement outcomes (Roberts & Duda, 1984; Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussani,
1996; Spink & Roberts, 1980). Results such as these are consistent with Nicholls’
theory of achievement motivation (1984, 1989), which suggests that the perception of
ability is the central mediating construct of achievement behavior and is an important
mediator to achievement striving through the use of ego and task goals (Roberts,
1992). As stated previously, individual’s perceptions of ability do differ dependent
upon the particular goal orientation adopted (Nicholls, 1989). In comparison of two
contexts, that of school and sport, it was found that in both arenas, satisfaction-
enjoyment was moderately associated with task orientation, and in sport, satisfaction
was strongly predicted by athlete’s perception of ability (Duda & Nicholls, 1992).
These researchers interpreted these results in terms of the way sport is structured for
showcasing athletic talent while limiting opportunities for less talented players, so it
should not be surprising that ability was closely related with satisfaction in sport.
Another line of research investigated the effect o f game outcome on perceived
ability and performance satisfaction. Spink and Roberts (1980) argued that the way a
person feels about his/her performance is a critical determinating factors in success-
failure experiences in sport, irregardless o f outcome, and furthermore, the degree of
satisfaction with one’s performance is a measure o f perceived success-failure. These
researchers found that when college racquetball students perceived themselves as
successful, meaning that they were satisfied winners and losers, they perceived high
degrees of playing competence. Similarly, Kimiecik, Allison, & Duda (1986) showed
with youth athletes that both winners and losers perceived high levels of
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance-satisfaction, and more importantly, athletes’ perceived ability was the
only factor significantly related to their performance satisfaction. This patterning was
similar with Spink and Roberts’ (1980) sample of college students in that high levels
of perceived ability were related to high levels o f performance-satisfaction, regardless
of outcome.
The exogenous variable of ability utilized in the present proposed study, however,
refers specifically to the perceptions of the players’ ability from an external agent
(e.g., the players’ coaches). There have been some studies which have utilized starting
status or amount o f playing time as indicators of ability as opposed to utilizing a more
comprehensive approach to judge player’s ability (Garland & Barry, 1988). The
present proposal follows the guidelines in obtaining coach evaluations (of player
ability) as the chief source o f ability as outlined by Allen and Howe (1998). Since the
influence of player ability on the perceptions o f sport satisfaction have not been
adequately researched, the results in the present study will be exploratory in nature.
The influence of ability on preferred/perceived leadership has been conducted in the
leadership research which will be reviewed in a later section. The research question
regarding ability and satisfaction will seek to determine whether there are differences
in perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction and preferences-perceptions of leader
behavior due to playing ability, which is categorized by highly skilled, moderately
skilled or lower skilled athletes.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Motives for Participation
As stated previously in the definition section, motives individuals have for
participation constitute an important determinant of the meaning of that activity
(Maehr & Braskamp, 1986). Additionally, identifying these motives provides valuable
information about the outcomes that participants seek from sport (Passer, 1982). In
general, findings for participation motives across a variety of sports (including
contact, collision, and non-contact sports, individual and team sports) are very similar,
conforming to the categories o f competence, affiliation, fitness, and fun (Weiss &
Petlichkoff, 1989). Differences in participative motives have been reported based
upon athletic maturity and goal orientations.
An early study which investigated these differences was conducted by Weiss and
Bredemeier (1983), who reported with their sample of junior to adult swimmers that
the adult swimmers rated internal motives as less salient whereby the high school and
college swimmers rated social status as a top motive for their participation. Gould,
Feltz, and Weiss (1985) reported with their sample of amateur swimmers that the
younger swimmers were more motivated by external factors (e.g., coaches, family,
status, and facilities) yet the older swimmers were more motivated by internal factors
(e.g., development of skills, fitness, and excitement-challenge). These studies
indicated individual differences in player motives due to gender and age, and that
coaches must be aware o f these differences. The Gould and colleague (1985) study
was conducted under the rubric of the athlete by situation interaction model of
motivation. This model posits that athletic motivation results from both individual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
goals and environmental factors. Optimal performance results when athletes’ motives
match an athletic environment which helps to fulfill them. It is suggested that coaches
must first be aware o f the motives athletes have for their athletic participation and
structure the athlete situation-environment to fulfill these motives. Moreover, coaches
must also recognize that athletes differ in their participation motives. The athlete by
situation interaction model is just one theoretical model linking the athletes’ motives
with subsequent motivation.
To extend this line o f reasoning, if the athlete does not receive the behavior and/or
environment desired or preferred, lowered performance and satisfaction will result.
This is the basic tenet behind Chelladurai’s multidimensional model o f leadership
(1980), whereby those athletes not receiving the coaching behaviors most salient to
them will be dissatisfied, and will also have an adverse effect on their performance.
According to Chelladurai, the coaching behaviors preferred by the players are linked
to the players’ individual characteristics, most notably their personality characteristics
such as the need for achievement or affiliation, or competence in the task. Antecedent
factors, such as the personality characteristics of the players, especially with the most
salient motives for participation, have not been adequately investigated to determine
their impact on the specific coaching behaviors preferred or perceived, and the
subsequent effects they have on performance and satisfaction. Thus, in the current
study the association between the most salient motives athletes cite for their college
athletic participation and the degree of discrepancy between the coaching behaviors
they prefer versus what they actually perceive will be exploratorily analyzed.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Integrating the participation motivation research with the goal orientation theory,
White and Duda (1991) set out to investigate the interrelationships between these two
theories with samples o f high school, recreational, and intercollegiate athletes. Results
indicated that those athletes who were more ego oriented (focused more on the
outcome and demonstrated competency by beating others) were more likely to
participate in sport for external reasons, such as competition and recognition. Those
individuals who were more task oriented (focused more on the process, and
demonstrated competency by mastery pursuits and improvement of skills) placed a
greater importance on skill development and fitness, thus denoting more intrinsic
factors. These authors reported that these findings suggest that personal goals and
participation motives are theoretically related yet should not be considered as
synonymous constructs.
Results such as this support previous theorizing conducted on this topic. Nicholls
(1989) and Dweck (1985) have previously posited that task involvement will be
positively associated with intrinsic motivation because one engages in sport for its
own sake and focuses on the process by considering the intrinsic facets of the sport
activity to be quite pertinent. Conversely, ego involvement is expected to be
negatively related to intrinsic motivation because one engages in sport as a means to
an end (superiority over others) by considering the extrinsic dimensions of the sport
activity to be more pertinent. According to Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, and Catley
(1995) predictions such as these are based upon the major assumptions outlined by the
cognitive evaluation theory o f Deci and Ryan (1985).
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In accordance with this theoretical perspective, a person’s motivation to engage in
an activity stems from the intrinsic facets o f the task when one is in a state of task
orientation, yet when ego involvement prevails, a person engages in an activity to
meet a performance standard at the expense of enjoying the task because one’s self
worth is tied to his/her performance (Ryan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 1989). Specifically, it
is assumed that differences in goal perspective influences intrinsic motivation via
individual’s perceptions o f competence or perceptions of locus o f causal mechanisms
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Since task involvement is characterized by perceptions of
ability which are based on individually referenced criteria, individuals are less likely
to perceive themselves as incapable, thus, sustaining their intrinsic motivation. Yet
individuals who are ego involved are characterized by a normatively-referenced
perception o f ability and due to their dependence on social comparison, these
individuals have a greater chance o f perceiving themselves as incompetent in sport,
thus, decreasing their intrinsic motivation. It is presumed in this present study that the
motives which are most salient to the individual (either intrinsic, extrinsic, or social)
will relate to the individual’s goal orientation in similar fashion as the preceding
studies have indicated.
Utilizing the cognitive evaluation theory as a framework, numerous studies have
been conducted which have indicated another difference variable, that of gender.
Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, and Blais (1995) with their sample of
university athletes from varied sports indicated that the female athletes scored higher
than the male athletes on two specific forms o f intrinsic motivation. Two additional
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
studies supported these results that female athletes were found to be more intrinsically
motivated than male athletes investigating elite national competitors (Chantal, Guay,
Martinova, & Vallerand, 1996), junior college and recreational athletes (Fortier,
Vallerand, Briere, & Provencher, 1995). The hypotheses presented in this present
study regarding the potential gender differences on the motives reported for collegiate
athletic participation are based upon results from the research which have utilized the
cognitive evaluation theory as its basis, as well as from the participation motivation
and goal orientation research already presented.
It is presumed in this present study proposal that the motives which are most
salient to the individual athlete, in terms of intrinsic, extrinsic, or social motives, will
relate to their particular goal orientation, and potentially the motivational climate of
the team (this will be exploratory in nature), as stated in the preceding research
studies.
Leadership: Coaching Behaviors
The topic of leadership has been investigated to determine the influence of
coaching behaviors in youth sport. Researchers have indicated the great influence
coaches have on the impact o f the sport situation on the young athletes (good and bad)
(Barrett, Smoll, & Smith, 1992; Gould & Weiss, 1987; Robinson & Carron, 1982;
Weiss & Petlichkoff, 1989). In addition, the manner in which coaches structure the
sport environment and the attitudes, values, and behaviors they exhibit can have a
profound influence on the outcomes o f sport participation for children (Smoll &
Smith, 1989). Two significant theoretical frameworks have been advanced for the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
study of leadership behaviors in sport, the mediational model o f leadership and the
multidimensional model of leadership.
Mediational Model-CBAS. The mediational model of leadership (Smith, Smoll, &
Curtis, 1978; Smoll & Smith, 1980) focuses on the measurement of observed
coaching behaviors, the assessment of player reactions, the training o f the coaches in
altering their behaviors, then the evaluation of the effects o f the training program in
terms of the psychological development of the young athletes.
To systematically observe the behaviors of the coaches, Smith, Smoll, and
colleagues constructed the coaching behavior assessment system (CBAS), which
assesses ten specific categories of coaching behaviors (broadly classified into reactive
and spontaneous behaviors) in response to desirable and undesirable performances,
including: reinforcement, mistake-contingent encouragement and technical
instruction, punishment, punitive technical instruction, and general encouragement
and instruction (Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978). Research
which has utilized the CBAS has revealed interesting results in three main areas: (1)
coach behavior and player attitudes; (2) player self esteem and coach behavior; and(3)
the effects of training coaches (Chelladurai, 1993).
The first area o f research based on the CBAS indicated that the observed
behavioral dimensions of supportiveness (high amounts of reinforcement and
instruction) and instructiveness (technical instruction and mistake contingent
instruction) were positively and significantly related to players’ attitudes toward their
coach, their sport and teammates (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978). In a similar study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
with basketball teams, it was indicated that coaching behaviors affected the players’
attitudes toward their coach and sport to a greater degree than team cohesion and
player self esteem. Surprisingly, positive reinforcement had a minimal effect on
postseason player variables, including perception o f team cohesion, evaluation o f
sport and coach, and self esteem (Smith, Zane, Smoll, & Coppel, 1983).
The second area, coach behavior and player self esteem, has utilized player self
esteem as a moderator of the relationship between coach behavior and player
attitudes, and used self esteem as an outcome measure (third area of research). Smith,
Smoll and Curtis (1978) used multiple regression analyses to show that low self
esteem players perceived the highest levels o f attraction to those coaches who were
supportive and instructive, whereby those low self esteem players who had less
supportive-instructiveness coaches expressed the lowest levels of attraction to these
coaches. Players who had moderate to high levels of self esteem were not as
influenced by their coaches’ amount o f supportiveness/instructiveness.
Using self esteem as an outcome variable, Smith, Smoll, & Curtis (1979) indicated
that those players who played for coaches who were subjected to specific training
(three hour training program) exhibited higher levels of self esteem than they had the
previous season. Those who played for the untrained coaches did not share these same
increases in self esteem. Additionally, at the conclusion of the little league season,
interviews and questionnaire assessments were conducted, which indicated that the
trained group differed from the control group in observed and perceived behaviors, in
that the trained groups’ behaviors were consistent with the training program. Another
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
major approach in the study o f leadership is the multidimensional model of
leadership.
Multidimensional Model- LSS. The second approach, which the present study
utilized as a framework, is Chelladurai’s multidimensional model of leadership. This
model suggests that the degree of congruence among the three states of leader
behavior (required, actual, and preferred behavior of the leader) determines the effect
on group performance and member satisfaction (Chelladurai, 1978, 1980). Required
leader behavior indicates the standards of behavior dictated by the organization and its
environment. Examples o f situational characteristics which could have an influence
on leader behavior include the competitive level (e.g., professional to amateur), type
of task (e.g., team versus individual sport), social norms, and cultural values
(Chelladurai, 1993).
According to Chelladurai, the leader behaviors which are preferred by the players
are linked to the players’ individual characteristics (member characteristics), most
notably personality characteristics such as need for achievement or affiliation, and
competence in the task, which all can influence players’ preferences for particular
coaching behaviors. Additionally, the situational characteristics can also have an
effect on member preferences, in that the coach and players are socialized into the
same expectations by the organization or a particular situational context. The third
leader behavior state, actual leader behavior, is not only a function of his/her
personality, ability and experience (leader characteristic), but also the situational
requirements and the preferences of the athletes. Moreover, all o f these factors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
combine to influence the actual behavior of the coach. Finally, the antecedents of
these three states of leader behavior consists of the characteristics o f the situation,
leader, and members, all three o f which were previously addressed and linked to the
three leader behavior states.
The measurement tool utilized to measure the states of leader behavior is the
leadership scale for sports (LSS), developed by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980). This
reliable, sport specific instrument consists of five types of leader behaviors, consisting
of training and instruction, social support, democratic, and autocratic decision
making, and positive feedback. The athlete completes both a preferred (what
frequency of each behavior does the athlete prefer) and a perceived version (how they
perceive their coach to behave) of the instrument to determine the differences in
preferred and perceived leadership which is termed the discrepancy score.
The research based on the multidimensional model has revealed interesting results
in two main areas: (1) studies which deal with the factors which affect the perceived
and/or preferred leader behavior (e.g., individual differences and situational
variables); and (2) those which deal with the consequences o f leadership (e.g.,
satisfaction, performance, and coach-athlete compatibility).
One individual difference variable found to be an important determining factor of
preferred leadership is gender. This variable happens to be inherent to the hypothetical
model (Figure 1) utilized in the present study. Studies conducted by Chelladurai and
Saleh (1978) and Terry (1984) both indicated that male and female athletes differed
on their preferences, in that males preferred their coaches to be more autocratic and
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
utilize more training and instruction than did female athletes. The female athletes
preferred their coaches to be more democratic and utilize a more participatory
coaching style than did male athletes. Erie’s study (cited in Chelladurai, 1993) showed
similar results with male and female intercollegiate hockey players, in that males
preferred more training and instruction, autocratic and social support, yet less
democratic behavior from their coaches than did the female players. Investigating
gender differences with perceived leadership, numerous contradictory studies were
found, yet if the level of competition is taken into account, it appears that at the top
levels, the coaches of male and female teams tend to be quite similar in their
behaviors (Chelladurai, 1993).
Another individual difference variable found to be associated with preferred
leadership is personality. A study cited by Chelladurai (1993), conducted by Erie,
found that those athletes high on task motivation preferred higher levels o f training
and instruction, whereby those high on affiliation motivation and extrinsic motivation
preferred more social support. Additionally, Chelladurai and Carron (1981) reported
that those athletes high on cognitive structure, defined as a need for more information
and structure, preferred significantly higher levels of training and instruction, and less
autocratic behavior from their coaches than those athletes lower on cognitive
structure.
A final individual difference variable, which is also utilized as an exogenous
variable in the hypothesized model (Figure 1), is the ability o f the athlete. Chelladurai
(1993) concluded from the limited research on this topic that as athletes gain
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experience and ability, it appears that they prefer their coaches to be more autocratic
and socially supportive. Specific study results indicate interesting results. Liukkon and
Salminen ‘s (1990) study, cited by Chelladurai (1993), indicated that high ability
Finnish athletes perceived their coaches to be more autocratic, rewarding, and socially
supporting and less democratic than did low ability athletes. Garland and Barry (1988)
grouped their football players on a continuum of performance from starters (high
ability) to substitutes (moderate ability) to survivors (lower ability). The higher ability
players-starters perceived their coaches to emphasize more training and instruction,
democratic behavior, socially supportive yet less autocratic, when compared to the
less able players (substitutes and survivors). Similarly, Robinson and Carron (1982)
indicated that the dropouts (less abled) in their sample perceived their coaches to be
more autocratic than the starters and survivors. It is due to these research findings that
ability is a variable utilized in the present study.
Other factors which may affect the perceptions-preferences of leader behavior
include situational variables, which include organizational goals, task type and
culture. Since the present study utilized the same sport, intercollegiate men’s and
women’s soccer, and a somewhat homogenous sample (athletes bom in the United
States), organizational and task type variables do not come into play, thus, these issues
will not be addressed here. Other individual difference variables included in this
research yet not addressed in this study include nationality-culture (Chelladurai et al.
1988; Chelladurai, Malloy, Imamura, & Yamaguchi, 1987), athletic maturity
(Chelladurai & Carron, 1983), type of sport (Chelladurai, 1984; Terry, 1984; Terry &
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Howe, 1994), and playing position (Rieraer, 1991; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995). The
next main area of leadership research deal with the consequences o f leadership
behaviors.
Under the auspices o f studying the consequences of leadership, three specific
consequences have been researched: satisfaction, performance, and coach-athlete
compatibility. In an early study on sport satisfaction, Chelladurai (1978) reported that
the congruence between preferred and perceived coaching behaviors in autocratic
behavior and positive feedback had a curvilinear affect on the satisfaction with the
coach, meaning that athletes were less satisfied when the actual behavior deviated
from the preferred behavior in either direction. A few years later, Chelladurai (1984)
indicated that training and instruction and positive feedback were the most common
dimensions of leader behavior affecting university athletes’ satisfaction, similar to the
earlier research. With this particular sample of basketball players, discrepancy scores
in all dimensions were significantly related to satisfaction with leadership. These
results indicate that the greater the perceptions of training and instruction, democratic
behavior, social support, and positive feedback, and the lower the perceptions of
autocratic behavior, relative to their preferences, the greater the satisfaction. With the
wrestlers in this sample, the greater the perceptions, relative to their preferences of
training and instruction and social support, the greater the satisfaction, yet with the
track and field athletes in the sample, training and instruction discrepancy scores were
negatively associated with satisfaction with leadership.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Home and Carron (1985) reported only three significant predictors of satisfaction
in their sample of Canadian university athletes, the discrepancy scores o f training and
instruction, social support, and positive feedback. Schliesman (1987) indicated that
general satisfaction tended to increase as the coach utilized more social support and
democratic behavior (as compared to training and instruction and positive feedback)
relative to their preferences for these behaviors. Weiss and Friedrichs (1986) found
that perceptions of all five leader behavior were significantly predictive o f team and
individual satisfaction scores. Positive feedback was the strongest predictor o f team
satisfaction. Additionally, Dwyer and Fischer (1990) indicated that the wrestlers in
their sample who were more satisfied with their coaches perceived their coach to
exhibit higher levels o f training and instruction, positive feedback, and lower levels of
autocratic behavior.
In additional leadership research, Chelladurai et al. (1988) found that the perceived
scores in all five scales of the LSS were significantly correlated with satisfaction with
leadership in samples o f Canadian and Japanese university athletes. These results
indicate that the greater the perceived score, the greater the satisfaction with
leadership. In a more recent study, Voight, Callaghan, and Bottom (1999) showed that
youth soccer athletes who perceived their coaches as utilizing higher levels o f training
and instruction, democratic behavior, and positive feedback were significantly
associated with satisfaction with leadership, with only training and instruction being
associated with satisfaction with overall sport involvement. Summarizing this wealth
of research investigating the consequences o f leadership behavior on player
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfaction reveals that coaches who utilize higher rates o f behaviors which are aimed
at improving athlete performance by facilitating strenuous training and skill/tactical
instruction (training and instruction), and the frequent use o f performance contingent
positive feedback (positive feedback), have players who are more satisfied with their
coaches, their teams, their overall sport involvement, and a greater sense of general
satisfaction. Additionally, those coaches whose behaviors were congruent with their
players’ preferences for the same specific behaviors, have more satisfied players
(Dwyer & Fischer, 1990; Chelladurai, 1984; Schriesman, 1987; Voight, Callaghan, &
Bottom, 1999; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986).
Another hypothesized consequence o f the multidimensional model of leadership is
performance. The model states that if the three aspects o f leader behavior agree, both
satisfaction and performance are said to be collectively enhanced. Unfortunately,
performance as a consequence of leadership behavior has not been adequately
researched. In the Weiss and Friedrich’s (1986) study mentioned previously, the
university basketball players’ perceptions o f their coaching behaviors were associated
with win/loss percentage, the measure o f performance. O f the five leadership
dimensions measured by the LSS, the strongest predictor (significant but negative)
was perceived social support, which indicated that higher levels of social support were
associated with lower win/loss percentage. In a study with Canadian soccer players,
Gordon (1986) found that the players from more successful teams perceived their
coaches to exhibit more social support, positive feedback, training and instruction,
and autocratic behavior than those players from less successful teams. Home and
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Carron (1985) indicated that athletes’ preferences of positive feedback positively
correlated with their perceptions o f their own performance. Although these three
studies addressed the issue of performance, they did so through indirect methods, such
as win/loss percentage and successful versus less successful teams. Moreover,
Chelladurai (1993) concluded that the differential in performance could either be a
result o f differences in coaching behaviors or whether the coaches had to adjust their
behaviors according to the performance level of their teams. More research must be
given toward this concept.
The third and final consequence o f leader behavior regards the compatibility
between coach and athlete. In the only study which investigated this particular
consequence with the LSS, Home and Carron (1985) found that the discrepancy
between athletes’ perceptions and their preferences for autocratic behavior and
positive feedback were the strongest predictors of compatible and incompatible dyads.
Athletes in the compatible dyad perceived their coaches as providing positive
feedback equal to or greater than their preferences, and autocratic behavior was
perceived to be lower than their preferences for this behavior. These authors
supported the use and application o f the LSS for studies involving coach-athlete
compatibility. In a recent study, which utilized a different questionnaire to assess
coaching behaviors, Kenowand Williams (1999) found that coach-athlete
compatibility did mediate the perceptions and recall of coaching behaviors by
athletes, supporting the results o f Home and Carron (1985). Specifically, athletes who
felt more compatible to their coach perceived the coach to be more supportive and
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rated their communicative ability more favorable. The final section o f this chapter
will review the last variables in the hypothetical model, the personal and situational
goal orientations.
Personal Goal Orientation
As detailed earlier in the definition section, the perception of ability is the central
mediating construct of achievement behavior and is an important mediator to
achievement striving in sport through the use of ego and/or task involved goals
(Nicholls, 1989; Roberts, 1992). These achievement goals define patterns o f
motivation which symbolize different ways of being attracted to, engaging in, and
reacting to achievement related activity outcomes (Ames, 1992).
Research based upon this social cognitive perspective of motivation in sport has
indicated that athlete’s goal perspectives reflect the criteria used to subjectively define
success and failure in sport, and that task orientation corresponds to adaptive
behaviors whereby ego orientation is predicted to related to maladaptive behaviors
(Duda, 1989; Dweck, 1986). An adaptive motivational pattern or task orientation is
characterized by an individual whose actions focus on developing new skills while
placing high value on effort, in addition to demonstrating ability through task mastery
based on a set o f internalized set of standards (via self referenced perception of
ability). A maladaptive motivational pattern or ego orientation is characterized by
individuals who attempt to demonstrate superior ability by outperforming others, thus,
utilizing a normative conception of ability (Ames, 1992; Duda, 1992; Jagacinski,
1992; Nicholls, 1989; Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1996).
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It has been reported that maintaining high levels o f competence is much less secure
when ego involvement prevails, because the comparative judgements about one’s
ability is compared to that o f others, which is not within one’s control (Dweck, 1986).
If high ego orientated athletes begin to question their ability, it is predicted that they
will exhibit negative, nonadaptive (or maladaptive) achievement-related behaviors. In
addition, when task and ego orientations are measured, there is a relatively modest
correlation between measures, which suggests that these two constructs are not at
opposite ends o f the same continuum, and thus, can be obtained by investigating the
differential levels of task and ego orientation (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Hoffinan &
Strickland, 1995).
Sport and education researchers utilizing the achievement goal perspective have
advocated the value of considering differences in goal orientations in the study of
cognitive, affective responses, and achievement related behaviors and experiences in
the sport arena (Duda, 1988; Duda & Horn, 1993). Numerous researchers have
revealed that different states o f task and ego involvement may affect one’s persistence
and behavioral intensity, the value given to the activity, an individual’s concentration,
attention, and competitive stress, endorsement o f sportsmanship attitudes and
perceived legitimacy of aggressiveness, perceptions o f the purposes of sport, and
learning strategies (Boyd, Callaghan, & Yin, 1991; Duda, Chi, & Newton, 1990;
Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1990; Newton & Duda, 1992; White & Duda, 1991).
Specifically, task orientation has been positively linked to: beliefs that effort and
hard work contribute to success in sport (Duda, 1989; Horn, Duda, & Miller, 1991),
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intrinsic motives for sport involvement (White & Duda, 1991), less likeliness of
endorsing unsportsmanlike play/cheating (Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991), less
competitive anxiety (Boyd, Callaghan, & Yin, 1991), and the view that athletic
involvement should foster the capacity to cooperate and strive for personal mastery
(Duda, 1989). In contrast, ego orientation corresponds with the following: a lack of
persistence with sport involvement (Duda, 1988), the likelihood of participating for
competition and recognition/status (White & Duda, 1991), believing that enhancing
social status is an important function o f sport (Roberts, Hall, Jackson, Kimiecik, &
Toneyman, 1990), a higher legitimacy rating for aggressiveness and unsportsmanlike
play-cheating (Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991; Huston & Duda, 1991), greater
competitive anxiety (Boyd, Callaghan, & Yin, 1991), and less enjoyment and
satisfaction with sport involvement (Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1987).
Numerous researchers have utilized the achievement goal perspective to
investigate the relationship between goal orientation and specific aspects of the sport
experience. Lochbaum and Roberts (1993) revealed that task and ego orientations
were related to perceptions of competition and practice strategies, and satisfaction.
Task involved athletes endorsed ‘practicing’ as being important for skill
enhancement, and satisfaction was derived from mastery attempts. On the other hand,
ego involved athletes cited ‘practice’ as being important for demonstrating superior
ability, and satisfaction was derived from both mastery pursuit and social approval.
Duda et al. (1992) also found a high, positive association between a task orientation
and sport satisfaction.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In an interesting study, Treasure and Roberts (1994) indicated that the
determinants of satisfaction would vary as a result o f the particular achievement goal
adopted. This point is o f particular importance to the present study in that goal
orientation is predicted to be an important mediating variable in exploring the
determinants of sport satisfaction-dissatisfaction. Results indicated that task oriented
individuals derived greater feelings of satisfaction, meaning that these athletes were
more concerned with demonstrating ability by developing skill, whereby those who
were more ego oriented derived feelings of satisfaction by demonstrating their ability
by outperforming others. Thus, it was quite unlikely that mastery experiences would
have been sufficient enough to illicit satisfaction from ego involved athletes. Another
study by Roberts et al. (1996) expanded upon this result from an applied perspective.
They indicated that high task oriented athletes experienced more satisfaction than low
task oriented athletes, yet those athletes high in both ego and task orientation were
found to be satisfied with their sport experience. These authors concluded that it may
be more important to enhance task orientation rather than attempting to depress ego
orientation, which will moderate the potentially debilitating effects of high ego
orientation. The next area in need of attention is goal orientation and gender
differences.
According to White and Duda (1994), numerous researchers have indicated that
gender influences the socialization process in terms of the development of
achievement goal orientations. For example, it has been reported that males tended to
be more concerned about winning and demonstrating competence than females (Duda,
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
1988; Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991). Corresponding with this past research
proposition, White and Duda (1994) revealed a main effect for gender in their study,
signifying that male athletes were higher in ego orientation than females regardless of
competitive level, which varied from youth, high school, recreational, and collegiate
levels. Similar results have been reported by Duda (1986) and Newton and Duda
(1993). It has been proposed that these male athletes are at risk to encounter
motivational difficulties when they are faced with threats to their perceived
competence via repeated experiences o f failure (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989). The
hypotheses forwarded in the present study proposal regarding the influence of gender
on goal orientations were derived from the previously stated work by Duda and
colleagues. The next logical question which needs addressing is to ascertain how an
individual becomes task or ego involved.
Situational Goal Orientation
Another avenue of research utilizing the achievement goal theory moves away
from the personal influences, determinants, and motivational consequences of
achievement goal orientations, and toward a critique of the relationship between
situational influences and achievement goal orientations. The focus o f this research
examines how the structure of the team environment influences whether a particular
goal orientation will be adopted over another and the resulting motivational patterns
(Ames, 1992b; Treasure & Roberts, 1994). It is believed that motivational climate (or
situational goal structure) is a function of the goals, evaluation and reward processes
set forth by the particular context, whether it be a class or athletic team. In addition,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
specific emphasis has been given to the motivational implications of ego-involving
versus task-involving goal structures (Ames, 1992a; Seifriz, Duda & Chi, 1992).
In the academic setting, Ames (1992b) proposed that if educators want to enhance
the quality o f student involvement in learning, developing an interest in their learning,
and to increase their confidence as a student, educators need to be able to translate a
mastery goal orientation into classroom processes. Thus, the subjective perception of
the particular environment and how the individual interprets these experiences can
influence the degree to which a mastery or task orientation is adopted, and the
possibility that the individual will develop adaptive motivational patterns (Ames,
1992a; Ames, 1992c). This initial work conducted on investigating the prevailing goal
structure that is perceived by students suggests that the motivational climate operating
in the classroom influences attributional focus and intrinsic interest (Ames, 1992;
Ames & Archer, 1988).
Research in the academic context has indicated that these students who perceive an
emphasis on mastery (task) orientation in the classroom reported using more efficient
learning strategies, preferred more challenging tasks, and believed that effort was a
salient part of success. Student who perceived a performance (ego) orientation
focused more on ability, in that they evaluated their ability negatively and attributed
failure to a lack o f ability (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Ames
(1992b), extrapolating from the classroom setting to that of sport, posited that even
the motivational patterns of elite athletes can vary over time depending upon the goal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
orientation adopted which can be influenced by the environment facilitated by the
coach.
In a study on sport team environments, Theeboom, DeKnop, and Weiss (1995)
randomly assigned young athletes to one of two programs, mastery or performance
orientated, for three weeks of sport instruction. Results indicated that children in the
mastery oriented group reported significantly higher levels o f enjoyment and exhibited
better motor skills than those in the performance group. Treasure (1997) reported that
students who perceived a climate oriented toward mastery, also reported a positive
attitude, high perceived ability, and feelings of satisfaction. Those who perceived a
more performance oriented climate reported a negative attitude and feelings of
boredom, not satisfaction.
In a recent study, Papaioannou and Kouli (1999) indicated that a task orientation
and the perception of a task-involving (mastery-oriented) climate were positive
predictors of concentration, intrinsic interest, and loss o f self-consciousness, which is
in line with research stating that a task-involving climate facilitates intrinsic interest
in sport activity (Duda, 1996). Summarizing investigations which have utilized the
perceptions that young athletes have about the motivational climate of their sport
team or physical education classes, it has been indicated that those who perceived a
mastery oriented climate reported positive attitudes, high perceptions of ability,
feelings of satisfaction, and a negative association with performance worries.
Conversely, those who perceived a performance oriented climate reported focusing
more on ability as a cause o f success, a negative attitude, feelings of boredom, and a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
negative correlation with team satisfaction (Goudas & Biddle, 1994; Seifriz, Duda, &
Chi, 1992; Treasure, 1997; Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993).
Gender has not been an important topic for motivational climate research to date.
Only one study by Kavussani & Roberts (1996) has indicated differences between
athletes based on gender. Results indicated that perceptions of a mastery climate
corresponded with perceptions of self efficacy, but only for female athletes. The
researchers suggested that the female athletes could be more receptive to motivational
climate than male athletes, in that females may need to seek environmental cues in
which to determine their self efficacy. More research is needed to clarify these
differences.
The hypotheses forwarded in this study proposal regarding the influence of
motivational climate are based upon this body of research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
CHAPTER m .
METHOD
This chapter details the design, subjects, measures, and instruments to be utilized,
as well as the field procedure and data collection.
Design
The design o f this study is nonexperimental. The proposed study design includes
measuring the following latent constructs: leadership (coaching) behaviors, personal
and situational goal orientations, motives for participation, determinants of
satisfaction-dissatisfaction, and the consequential actions o f dissatisfaction. The
remaining two variables, gender and ability, are exogenous, categorical variables. The
full model path diagram, previously shown in Figure 1, specificies the ‘causal’
relationships between and among the latent variables. Due to the use of latent
variables (not measurable or observable), a measurement model then a structural
model must be used to test the adequacy of the selected indicators as representative o f
these latent variables (Byrne, 1994).
Subjects
The target population for this study was college soccer players from the United
States. The sample consisted o f 369 male and female college student athletes from
over 29 different Division I colleges-universities from various regions. The main
researcher has numerous contacts within the coaching fraternity and made contact
with these coaches to recruit their assistance. This method accounted for about a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
quarter of the respondents, so the remaining respondents were secured by random
selection and mailing. The majority of subjects were female (N=209, 57%), yet there
were a substantial number of male players (N=160,43%). The ages ranged from 18 to
22 years.
From the total sample, 274 (74%) athletes were found to be dissatisfied with their
experience, with 95 (26%) athletes being satisfied. O f the dissatisfied athletes, 53%
(N=146) were female, 47% (N=128) were male. In addition, over 57% (N=157) of the
dissatisfied athletes were starters, with 43% (N=l 17) not being starters. Of the
satisfied athletes, 66% (N=63) were female, 34% (N=32) were male. Additionally,
over 64% (N=61) of the satisfied athletes were starters, with 36% (N=34) being
nonstarters.
To provide information regarding the type of teams that participated in this study
in terms of competitive level, the teams’ records and accomplishments are reported,
as follows: (I) 41% (N=12) of the teams had winning records, or above .500; (2) 45%
(N=13) of the teams had losing records, or below .500; (3) 14% (N=4) of the teams
had even (.500) records; (4) 35% (N=10) of the team were top 3 finishers in their
respective conferences; (5) 14% (N=4) of the teams were champions of their
respective conferences; (6) 24% (N=7) o f the teams participated in the NCAA
postseason tournament.
Instrumentation
Several measures were utilized in this study. These measures included scales
assessing player ability, motives for participation, coaching behaviors, and personal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
and situational goal orientations. Also included was a questionnaire which measures
the facets o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction, and a questionnaire devised specifically for
the present study which measures adaptive and maladaptive consequential actions due
to dissatisfaction.
Estimate o f Plaver Ability
Similar to the methodology utilized by Allen and Howe (1998), estimates o f player
ability will be obtained through evaluations from the athletes’ coaches. Coaches will
be asked to rate the ability of each of their players relative to all other players
according to a 4-point scale ranging from the “top 25% of players” (4) to the “bottom
25% of players” (I). Allen and Howe (1998) reported numerous advantages to using
coaches’ ratings of players’ ability, including that teacher ratings of actual
competence have been used with demonstrated reliability in educational research
(e.g., Weiss & Duncan, 1992), and that “coaches’ ratings were based on their
involvement with the athletes over many practices and games” (p. 286).
Motives for Collegiate Athletic Participation
To measure whether athletes’ motives are more intrinsically, extrinsically, or
socially oriented, a questionnaire was developed specifically for this study. Utilizing a
revised edition of the primary instrument used in the participation motivation
research, the Participation Motivation Inventory-PMl (Gill, Gross, and Huddleston,
1983), appeared to be an effective course o f action. Gould, Feltz, and Weiss (1985)
later revised the PMI in their study with amateur swimmers to reflect the major
motives for participation in swimming, as opposed to sports in general. Since the Gill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
120
et a1. (1983) and Gould et al. (1985) versions of the PMI were administered to youth
sport participants, modifications needed to be made to specifically address the
motives most salient to the college athlete population for the present study.
In developing a modification of the PMI, the most important motives for collegiate
athletes had to be identified, thus, open-ended questionaires were administered to
seven collegiate student athletes who gave their responses concerning the major
motives they had for collegiate athlete participation. Based upon these responses, a
modification o f the PMI questionnaire was then developed consisting o f 18 items,
with 3 separate subscales consisting of intrinsic motives, extrinsic motives and social
motives. Intrinsic motives are those characterized by skill mastery, fun-enjoyment,
personal accomplishments, and the fitness benefits. Extrinsic motives consists of
using college sport as a “stepping stone” for the professional ranks, an emphasis on
winning, recognition and honors, the road trips, and playing facilities. The third
subscale, social motives, are characterized by wanting to be with friends and/or make
new friends, the desire to be popular, and the enjoyment from being a member o f a
team. Items were preceded by the stem “why do you participate in collegiate
athletics?”, and on a 3-point scale, respondents were asked to indicate whether the
reported motive is “very important” (3), “somewhat important” (2), or “not at all
important” (1). See the Appendix for a copy of this questionnaire.
Leadership Scale for Sport
The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) was developed by Chelladurai and Saleh
(1980), which originally consisted of 40 items assigned to five categories o f leader
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
behavior one direct task factor, training and instruction; two decision style factors,
democratic and autocratic styles; and two motivational factors, social support and
positive feedback. Items of the LSS are based upon a 5-point Likert format ranging
from “never” to “always”. Internal consistency estimates range from .45 to .93, with a
mean o f .87 in an earlier article (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980), while in a more recent
study, estimates ranged from .57 to .89, with a mean of .80 for the perceived version
(Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995). The internal consistency estimates for the preferred
version ranged from .45 to .82, with a mean of .71 (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).
Subjects responded to both the preferred and perceived forms o f the LSS. In the
preference version o f the scale, the items are preceded by the stem, “I prefer my coach
to...”, and sample items read: “I prefer my coach to... see to it that athletes work to
capacity (training and instruction), plan relatively independent o f the athletes”
(autocratic), and “asks for the opinions of the athletes” (democratic). In the perceived
version, the items are preceded by the stem, “My coach...”, and sample items read:
“My coach...looks out for the personal welfare of the athletes” (social support), and
“expresses appreciation when an athlete performs well” (positive feedback). The
present study will utilize a shortened version of the LSS, similar to the methodology'
utilized by Dwyer and Fischer (1988). Adequate reliability was found for the
shortened version of the test forms on four out o f the five subscales (autocratic
behavior was less than the recommended level, r=.36).
The use of discrepancy o f difference scores has been questioned by numerous
researchers (Gardner & Neufeld, 1987; Johns, 1981). Problems associated with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 2
use of difference scores cited by these authors include reliability concerns (most of the
variance being attributable to error), restriction of the variance, and the possibility that
any relationship between the discrepancy scores and the variables is probably spurious
(Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995). Due to these problems accompanying the use of
discrepancy scores, some researchers examined the effects of athlete perceptions of
their coach’s leadership behaviors on satisfaction (Chelladurai et al., 1988;
Schliesman, 1987; Voight et al., 1999; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). Yet according to
Riemer and Chelladurai (1995) the main problem with using either preference or
perception scores to predict satisfaction is that it violates the major assumption of the
multidimensional model of leadership, which states that satisfaction will be highest
when athlete preferences are congruent with perceptions of that same behavior.
Despite the limitations presented, there exists some sound evidence about the impact
of coaching behaviors on athletes’ satisfaction (the major construct being investigated
in this study), and since another procedure has not been posited to overcome such
problems, the discrepancy score method was utilized in the proposed study.
Further clarification of the specific dimensions of the LSS is important. The
training and instruction dimension relates to the behavior of the coach aimed at
improving athletic performance by facilitating strenuous training, skill and tactical
instruction, and structuring team activities. The democratic behavior is the behavior of
the coach which allows for greater participation by the athletes in decision making.
Autocratic behavior involves the coach’s independence in decision making, stressing
personal authority. Social support is characterized by a concern for the individual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
athlete’s welfare, interpersonal relationships, and positive team atmosphere. Positive
feedback is the behavior of the coach which includes positive reinforcement which in
turn recognizes and rewards good performance (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).
Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire
The TEOSQ, developed by Duda and Nicholls (1992), was used to measure
individual differences in student’s dispositional goal orientations in the sport context.
The TEOSQ consists o f two independent subscales which measure individual
differences between task or ego orientation in competitive sport. Each of the 13 items
used the stem “I feel successful in sport when...”, and were answered on a 5-point
scale ranging from strongly disagree (I) to strongly agree (5). Sample items read: “I
feel more successful in my sport when...I do better than my friends” (ego orientation),
and “I do my very best” (task orientation). For brevity purposes, a shortened version of
the TEOSQ, consisting of 8 items, was utilized for the present study. Items which had
the higher internal consistency scores were selected based upon work by Duda and
colleagues (Duda, Olson, & Templin, 1991).
Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire
The PMCSQ, developed by Seifriz, Duda, and Chi (1992) will be used to assess
players’ perceptions o f the degree to which their teams’ motivational climates were
characterized by mastery or performance goals. The PMCSQ consists o f two scales,
the 12 item performance scale (ego involved) and the 9 item mastery scale (task
involving). The stem “On this team...” preceded each item and was based on a 5-point
scale ranging from strongly disagree (I) to strongly agree (5). Sample items read: “On
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
this team... players are punished for mistakes” (performance oriented) and “trying
hard is rewarded” (mastery oriented). A shortened version of the PMCSQ consisting
of 10 items was used in the present study, 5 items for each specific scale. Items which
had the higher internal consistency scores based on the work o f Seifriz and colleagues
(1992) were selected. Additionally, confirmatory factor analysis has been conducted
by Walling, Duda, and Chi (1993), who reported an acceptable fit for the data with the
hypothesized model.
Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire
Riemer and Chelladurai (1998) developed the first psychometrically sound scale to
measure the facets of satisfaction. The Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ)
consists of 15 dimensions with a total of 56 items. The 15 facets o f the ASQ includes
critical aspects of athletic participation, consisting of individual and team
performance, leadership, the team, the organization, and the athlete. Each of the items
used the stem “I am satisfied with...”, and answered on a 7-point scale ranging from
i
“not at all satisfied” (1) to “extremely satisfied” (7). Adequate reliability was
established for this new instrument with estimates ranging from .78 to .95 (Riemer &
Chelladurai, 1998).
For this present study, a shortened version of the ASQ was utilized which
encompasses 13 of the 15 dimensions believed to be of most importance in the college
setting, including the addition of two new items added by the present researcher. The
four major classifications which help in organizing the 13 facets consist of:
Performance, which includes the two dimensions of individual and team performance;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Leadership, which consists o f five dimensions of ability utilization (defined as
satisfaction with how one’s ability are used), strategy, personnel treatment, training
and instruction (satisfaction with how one’s physical and mental states are
developed), and ethics/sportspersonship; Teammates, which includes four dimensions
of team task (satisfaction with feedback received by teammates), team social
contribution (satisfaction with how one fits in with the rest of the team socially),
ethics, and team integration (satisfaction with extent teammates contribute and
coordinate their efforts toward task); and Administration, consisting of
administrative/academic support and funding provided to the program.
Examples of items include: “I am satisfied with...the degree to which I reached my
performance goals” (performance), “coach’s choice of strategies during games”
(leadership), “the constructive feedback I received from my teammates” (teammates),
and “the funding provided to my team” (administration). The two new items added to
the ASQ consisted of “I am satisfied with...my team’s level of fitness throughout the
competitive season” (teammate) and “the support provided to our program and coach
by the athletic administration” (administration).
Scoring for the ASQ is conducted by totaling the item scores for each of the four
categories or subscales, and totaling up all four subscale scores for an overall
satisfaction/dissatisfaction score. High scores on the subscales indicate a high level of
satisfaction on that particular subscale. Low scores indicate dissatisfaction with a
particular category.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 6
For those athletes who responded to any of the questions with a one, two, or three
(“not at all satisfied” to “slightly satisfied”) were considered as being dissatisfied with
that particular item or category. These particular athletes were asked to complete the
Competitive Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) which assesses the consequential
alternatives utilized by dissatisfied athletes as a response to their perceived
dissatisfaction. Those athletes who responded to all o f the ASQ questions with
responses of four or above, were asked to skip the CEQ, since they reported being
satisfied with the four major aspects of their collegiate athletic experience. See the
Appendix for a copy of this questionnaire.
Competitive Experience Questionnaire
To examine the consequential actions portrayed by dissatisfied athletes, a
questionnaire was developed specifically for this study via a multistage process.
Again, athletes were determined to be dissatisfied if they responded to any item on the
ASQ with a one, two, or three, indicating dissatisfaction with the particular situation
illustrated by the question. Construction of this questionnaire took numerous stages.
First, personal interviews were arranged with a small sample o f former collegiate
athletes (N=2) who were known to be dissatisfied with their experience, and who
were questioned about their specific experiences with dissatisfaction and their
consequential actions as a result of their perceptions o f dissatisfaction. The main
researcher arranged these interviews through contacts he has within the college
coaching fraternity. Based upon the interviews, open-ended questions were formulated
to survey a wider range o f athletes from different sports and different colleges-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
universities. These open-ended questionnaires were given to a second sample of
collegiate athletes (N=7) who were known to be dissatisfied with their athletic
experience to inquire about their specific motives for athletic participation, reasons
for their satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and their consequential actions portrayed as a
result o f their dissatisfaction.
On the basis of the personal interviews, the open-ended responses and the
satisfaction-dissatisfaction literature, a formal questionnaire was developed. Since the
term “dissatisfaction” certainly connotes negativism, the title o f the questionnaire was
entitled in a neutral fashion, the Competitive Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). The
researcher administered these questionnaires to another sample o f collegiate athletes
(N=30) as a pilot test. Upon receiving the completed questionnaires, modifications
were made for ambiguous and inappropriate items. The questionnaire used in the
current study consists o f 32 items, which uses the stem “To what extent...”, and were
answered on a 5-point scale ranging from “not at all” (0) to “to a great extent” (5).
The current CEQ consists of two major factors, adaptive consequential actions and
maladaptive consequential actions. Adaptive consequential actions pertain to
behavioral alternatives such as increased effort, seeking advice, or transferring, and
psychological alternatives, which consist of changing one’s perceptions or goals, the
use o f their perception o f dissatisfaction as a motivator, or by tolerating the
dissatisfaction. The second factor, maladaptive consequential actions, pertains to
behavioral, psychological, emotional alternatives, and withdrawal practices.
Behavioral alternatives refer to performance inhibition, premeditated insubordination,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
complaining, ignoring team rules, even getting the head coach fired. Psychological
alternatives include drug abuse, level of depression, and burnout. Emotional
alternatives refer to regretting one’s participation, increasing anxiety, and a decrease
inconfidence. Finally, withdrawal practices pertain to being late for practice and
matches, faking an injury to miss practice, withdrawal from social activities, and
quitting the sport See the Appendix for a copy o f this questionnaire.
Field Procedures and Data Collection
Before conducting this study, approval was sought and subsequently granted by the
University Human Subject’s Institutional Review Board. Upon the approval, contact
was made with Division I head men’s and women’s soccer coaches. Contact was
made with the head soccer coaches from random Division I colleges-universities or
with head coaches the researcher knows via previous experience as a collegiate soccer
coach. Initial contact with the head coaches was made via introductory letters which
included reply cards and self-addressed, stamped return envelopes. After a limited
time span, follow-up reminder letters were sent out. Upon return of the reply cards,
the questionnaire pamphlets were mailed to the head coaches, including a statement
of informed consent and an instructional sheet. The instructions detailed issues to
ensure uniformity o f questionnaire administrations and confidentiality, including: the
use of completed responses being used for research purposes only, their names not
being required on the form, only their uniform number, and the importance of the
coach mailing back their player evaluation forms in separate envelopes. Not only were
the instructions on completing the questionnaires listed on the cover o f the
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
questionnaire packet, but the coach was instructed to read them prior to questionnaire
administration. E t was advised that the athletes complete the questionnaire packets
after a training session, and the last athlete finished was instructed to place the
questionnaire packets in the envelope, seal it, then mail it back to the researcher.
Specifically, the questionnaire packets included the instructions and statement of
informed consent and confidentiality statement. The remainder of the packet included
the following questionnaires: (1) College Athlete Motive Questionnaire, consisting of
18 items; (2) Leadership Scale for Sports, consisting o f 20 total items for both the
preferred and perceived forms; (3) Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire,
consisting of 8 items; (4) Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire,
consisting of 10 items; (5) Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire, consisting of 25 items;
and (6) Competitive Experience Questionnaire which consists of 32 questions, for a
grand total of 113 questions. It took the athletes between 20-30 minutes to complete
the questionnaire packet. The items and scales are provided in Appendix A.
Operationalization
To summate, this study focused on the causes of athlete dissatisfaction, the
potential mediating variables, such as leadership behaviors and personal/situational
goal orientations, and the consequential actions of dissatisfaction (adaptive versus
maladaptive). The proposed model, depicted earlier in Figure 1, identified the
exogenous (independent) variables as ability and gender. The endogenous variables
(dependent) variables consisted of: coaching behavior discrepancy, personal goal
orientation, motivational climate, motives, the four determinants of satisfaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
(performance, leadership, teammates, and administration), a global construct of
satisfaction, and the three constructs which represent the consequences of satisfaction-
dissatisfaction, namely, satisfaction, adaptive consequential actions, and maladaptive
consequential actions.
Data Analyses
The data from the returned survey questionnaire was prepared for computerized
data analysis. The assumptions regarding the effects of the intrapersonal and
situational factors on the determinants and consequences o f athlete dissatisfaction
were examined with structural equation modeling (SEM). The first stage of analysis is
to analyze the measurement model via a confirmatory factor analysis, which allows
the researcher to test the linkages between the observed variables and their latent
factors (Byrne, 1994). The second stage utilizes structural equation modeling to assess
the ‘causal’ relationships in the proposed model by relating latent variables in terms
of covariances which helps to determine if it is supported by the sample data. The
prime advantages of SEM include that it deals with multiple variables (observed and
latent) simultaneously, and that it takes measurement error into account while testing
model fit (Byrne, 1994).
Prior to the CFA of the measurement model, preliminary analyses were conducted
which consisted of numerous stages: a.) internal consistency reliability of each scale;
b.) descriptive analyses for all questionnaire subscales, as well as correlational
analyses among the ten factors; c.) factor analyses on all questionnaires to ensure that
all items loaded on expected components; d.) individual confirmatory factor analyses
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
on the three newly developed questionnaires; e.) exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to
determine how the observed variables are linked to their underlying factors; f.) based
upon these results, and on theory and empirical research, the confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was conducted.
Both o f the CFA measurement model and the structural model will be depicted in
both diagrammatic and equation form, similar to the approach utilized by Lee (1997).
Figures 7-10 will represent the diagrammatic modeling, while Tables 10-14 will detail
the specific equations (e.g., measurement equations and standardized solutions). The
sample size for both model analyses consists o f 274 athletes, made up solely of
dissatisfied athletes. The 95 satisfied athletes in this study sample were not needed for
further analysis since the scope of this study were the causes and consequences of
athlete dissatisfaction.
The review o f the CFA analysis to follow will go into detail regarding the specific
steps taken to ensure that the model has the best chance at achieving model fit. Since
the structural equation modeling procedure takes similar steps in trying to establish
adequate model fit, not nearly as much detail will be provided regarding this statistical
procedure.
The CFA conducted on the model focuses primarily on the relations between the
observed variables and their underlying factors. After the model was initially
diagramed, indicating the hypothetical relations between factors and measured
variables (based upon the results from the exploratory factor analysis and empirical
research/theory), the first set of regression path equations were written. The first of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
each set of paths were fixed at 1.0, leaving the remaining parameters (factor loadings)
to be freely estimated. Performing these two specifications address the very complex
issue of statistical identification. According to Byrne (1994), identification focuses on
determining whether a unique set of parameters exists within the data. If a model is
identified, and if achieved, the model is considered identified, the parameters are
estimatible, and the model testable. The model in the present study represents an over
identified model which is quite necessary for the model to be tested. The model is
over-identified since the number of estimatible parameters are less than the number of
data points (528 data points - 121 parameters to be estimated = 407 degrees of
freedom). The next important step is to setup the input file.
The input file needs to be carefully constructed before a CFA can be conducted.
The input file begins with the title, then the specifications section is completed which
consists of identifying the data file and matrix which will be utilized for the CFA. In
this case, the raw data correlation matrix was utilized. After each variable is identified
and labeled, a series of regression equations are written. These equations detail the
paths from the measured variables to its underlying factor and measurement error
terms. Variances and covariances are written with starting values included which are
derived from the output o f a previous CFA run. Numerous tests are then identified as
part of the input file. The two most common tests include the Lagrange Multiplier
Test (LM Test) and the Wald Test (W Test). The major function of the LM Test is to
test if the fixed parameters (set at 1.00) could be better treated as being free
parameters to load on other factors. Conversely, the major function of the W Test is to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
determine whether free parameters would be better treated if they were set or fixed
(Bentler, 1995). Upon completion o f this step, the analysis is run.
Upon completion o f the analysis run, an evaluation is conducted of the output.
What is evaluated consists of: a.) making sure the measurement model converged in
less than 30 iterations. Models which do not converge indicates major problems; b.)
factor loadings should be significant and substantial; c.) factor correlations should be
less than 0.90 for discriminant validity issues; d.) model fit should be ‘adequate5 ,
although problems exist with the chi square test used to determine model fit because it
has been reported to be biased against large samples. Utilizing model fit indices can
also be used; e.) specification searches are conducted, in which the residuals (errors)
and modification indices are analyzed to examine where model fit can be improved.
Upon deciding upon which adjustment must be made, the CFA may be run again in an
attempt to improve the fit o f the model. It is important that the measurement model
adequately fits because a bad fitting measurement model can lead to biased estimates
and a bad fit of the structural model.
The input file for the analysis of the structural model is very similar to the CFA
input file, with a few important additions. The factor equations are added which link
the hypothesized relations between factors and measured variables. Also, disturbance
values are inputted into the variance section. Upon completion o f the SEM run,
similar criteria is used to evaluate the adequacy of model fit as those utilized for the
CFA run previously mentioned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
CHAPTER IV.
RESULTS
The results o f the study are divided into six sections, depicting the different stages
o f data analyses. In the first section, internal consistency reliability o f each scale was
computed via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. In addition, a factor analysis was
conducted to verify that all items of a scale loaded on a single factor. The second
section presents the descriptive analyses for all questionnaire items and measurement
scales, in addition to correlational analysis used to examine the interrelationships
among the identified factors. Third, individual confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
were conducted on all new scales to assess if they adequately measured their
underlying latent variables. These new instruments consisted of the Athlete
Satisfaction Questionnaire, developed by Riemer and Chelladurai (1995), and two
questionnaires developed for the present study, entitled Motives for College Athlete
Participation (MCAP) and the Competitive Experience Questionnaire (CEQ).
Previous research have provided evidence about the psychometric properties of the
Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire, Perceived Motivational Climate in
Sport Questionnaire, and the Leadership Scale in Sports (see Chapter 3 for more
information).
Fourth, since the links between the observed and latent variables in the proposed
model are relatively uncertain, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to
determine how the observed variables are linked to their underlying factors. Fifth,
utilizing these results, and drawing upon theory and empirical research, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses that particular
linkages between observed variables and underlying factors do exist. The CFA
represents the measurement model. The sixth and final section presents the structural
equation model, which depicts not only the linkages between the latent variables
(structural model) but also the linkages between the latent variables and their
observed measures (measurement model). Both the direct and indirect effects among
the variables are reported. The primary analytical tool used for the first two sections
was the SPSS-PC+ (1999) statistical program. The computer program utilized for
sections three through six was Bender’s (1995) Structural Equation Modeling
Program (EQS). As reported in previous research articles, EQS has several advantages
over conventional statistical analyses. For example, EQS utilized latent factors which
are less prone to measurement error, and the interrelationships between these latent
factors are allowed without the accompanying problems of multicollinearity often
found with multiple regression analyses (Bryne, 1994; Carpenter et al., 1993).
Scale Analyses
Internal Consistency Reliability
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was computed for each scale, with a coefficient alpha
greater than 0.60 indicating a reliable measure. As shown in Table 1, the scale
reliabilities were high for all scales, with the exception of the TEOSQ and PMCSQ
measures. These two instruments have been found to be have adequately reliability in
previous research literature (Duda, 1993; Walling, Duda, & Chi, 1993). Yet as is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
indicated by the current research estimates, the shortened versions o f the measures
used in the present study show a relatively low reliability.
Factor Analysis
Principal-Components Analysis with Orthosism Rotation was conducted for each
scale to verify that all items o f a particular scale loaded on a single factor. Items were
retained if the factor loading was greater than .45 on a given factor, yet lower than .40
on the other factors. As shown in Table 2, numerous scales had items which loaded on
single factors, yet several of the scales had items load on multiple factors. It are these
scale which wall now be critiqued.
The Motives for College Athlete Participation (MCAP) questionnaire was based
upon previous research work used to assess the most salient motives for athlete
participation (see Gill, Gross, & Huddleston, 1983). Numerous items from the MCAP
demanded attention as a result o f the factor analysis. For example, one o f the
questions “I participated... for the top notch facilities” loaded with other items which
represented social motives for participation. Since this loading did not make empirical
sense, this particular item was deleted from further analysis. Another item, “I
participated...for the status and recognition of being a collegiate athlete” loaded high
with other items which represented social motives. Since this motive can be seen as
being socially motivated, this loading was allowed and the item saved. A final item, “I
participatecL.to be part o f a team” loaded heavily with other items which represented
intrinsic motives. This was allowed since this item could be considered as intrinsically
motivated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
Previous research has indicated that the autocratic coaching subscale o f the
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), both the Preferred and Perceived versions, has
questionable internal consistency. Numerous researchers have reported low alpha
coefficients ('<601 for this particular dimension (Chelladurai, 1984; Chelladurai &
Saleh, 1980; Chelladurai et al., 1988; Dwyer & Fischer, 1990). The present factor
analysis supported these previous findings by indicating a weak psychometric
structure for the autocratic subscale by the way that two autocratic items loaded on
other factors. For example, for the Preferred and Perceived versions of the LSS,
numerous items loaded heavily on a factor labeled as Training and Instruction. These
results indicate that the autocratic dimension should be considered with caution due to
an unstable factor structure and low internal consistency.
Riemer and Chelladurai (1995) reported high internal consistency coefficients for
the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire 0.701. Also, a confirmatory factor analysis on
this instrument by its authors provided preliminary evidence o f the scale’s construct
validity. For the modified version of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ)
used in the present study, a factor analysis was conducted to verify that items loaded
well on each factor. As seen in Table 2, the only items which did not load on a single
factor were “Satisfaction with Performance” items two and four, which both loaded
heavily on “Satisfaction with Teammates”. This was allowed since both o f these items
dealt with the performance of the player’s teammates.
Since the Competitive Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) was specifically designed
for use in this study, and it represents the first and only questionnaire used to assess
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
the consequential action alternatives of dissatisfied athletes, an exploratory factor
analysis was indeed necessary. Eight factors with eigenvalues >1.0 were extracted
from the analysis (see Table 2). Loadings greater than 0.40 were considered
significant. Factor One was primarily concerned with adverse psychological
consequences of dissatisfaction and was labeled Maladaptive Psychological
Alternatives. All five items were retained as they all reflected this factor conceptually
well. Factor Two, labeled as Maladaptive Behavioral Alternatives toward the Coach,
reflected items which related to acts toward the coach, such as filing grievances and
helping to get their coaches fired. Factor Three, Adaptive Psychological Alternatives,
consisted of items which reflected productive ways o f thinking to deal with their
dissatisfaction experiences, such as using the dissatisfaction as a motivator or by
increasing one’s efforts. Factor Four was primarily concerned with maladaptive
withdrawal practices such as quitting the sport, withdrawal from social activities, and
transferring from the program, and was thus labeled as Maladaptive Withdrawal.
Factor Five, labeled as Maladaptive Rebellious Behavior, reflected those items which
relate to rebellious acts, such as premeditated insubordination, deliberately
performing below par, showing up late, and deliberately ignoring team rules. Factor
Six, Adaptive Behavior-Social Support, comprised items which reflected seeking
advice from significant others and confronting the source o f dissatisfaction. Factor
Seven, labeled as Maladaptive Behavioral-Performance, reflected items which
addressed decrements in performance on/off field, and overly aggressive acts on the
field. The last factor was labeled as Adaptive Emotional Alternatives, and included
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
items which addressed the emotional consequences o f dissatisfaction, such as the
toleration o f their feelings o f dissatisfaction.
Descriptive-Correlational Analyses
Subscale-Ouestionnaire Item Descriptives
As shown in Table 3, means and standard deviations were computed for all
questionnaire items and subscales. Despite the main scope o f this research
investigation being the determinants, consequences, and mediating factors of
dissatisfied athletes, the plight of satisfied athletes deserves attention, much more so
than is dedicated even with this investigation. To shed a more critical light upon the
numerous individual and situational variables impacting both satisfied and dissatisfied
athletes, descriptive analyses were conducted to compare the two groups of athletes.
Comparisons were made by conducting independent sample T Tests.
Results of the descriptive and T Tests analyses are listed in Table 4. Regarding the
types of motives athletes cited for their participation in collegiate athletics, it
appeared that the dissatisfied athletes believed that extrinsic motives were less salient
a motive for their participation as compared with the satisfied athletes. For the
evaluation of coaching behaviors, discrepancy scores were utilized. Positive
discrepancy scores indicate that the quantity o f the coaching behavior under question
is less than the players’ preferences. Discrepancy scores close to zero indicate that the
quantity of the coaching behavior under question matches the players’ preferences.
Negative discrepancy scores indicate that the player’s preferences are receiving more
of the particular coaching behavior than is preferred. With the training and instruction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
behavior, satisfied athletes reported a significantly greater discrepancy score (M =
-4.38) than dissatisfied athletes (M = -3.69), indicating that both satisfied and
dissatisfied athletes were receiving more o f this behavior than was preferred. It was
also determined that both satisfied and dissatisfied athletes perceived their coaches as
providing lower frequencies of positive feedback than was preferred, with the
dissatisfied athletes having a significantly higher discrepancy value for positive
feedback (M = 1-52) than the satisfied athletes (M = 1.14). There were no other
significant differences between the two groups o f athletes regarding coach behavior
discrepancy scores.
Significant differences between the groups were not found for personal goal
orientation, yet differences emerged for situational goal orientation, specifically
mastery motivational climate. Satisfied athletes perceived their teams to be
significantly more mastery oriented than did dissatisfied athletes (M = 17.16, 17.52,
respectively). Significant differences were also found on all scales from the Athlete
Satisfaction Questionnaire, which was the tool used to assess satisfaction-
dissatisfaction with leadership, teammates, performance, and administration. Satisfied
athletes, predictably, reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with each of
these areas than dissatisfied athletes.
Since only dissatisfied athletes completed the Competitive Experience
Questionnaire, the gender differences between the dissatisfied athletes were examine
via independent sample t tests. Results of the descriptive and t test analysis are listed
in Table 5. Only two significant differences emerged between dissatisfied male and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
female athletes regarding their uses of adaptive and maladaptive consequential action
alternatives. The male athletes (M = 10.79) engaged in maladaptive behaviors to a
greater extent than did the female athletes (M = 9.29) (t = -2.08 (254), p = .04), yet the
female athletes (M = 6.95) engaged in maladaptive emotional alternatives to a greater
extent than did the male athletes (M = 5.62) (t = 2.50 (272.6), p = .01).
Correlational Analysis
Pearson correlations were conducted to examine the interrelationships among the
factors representing motivational beliefs (individual and situational), motives,
coaching behaviors, perceptions o f satisfaction with selected elements of the athletic
experience, and consequential alternatives. A correlation between two variables which
is greater than .70 indicates a high correlation. The correlations were also conducted
to check for multicollinearity (r >.80); correlations greater than this value indicate
poor discriminant validity. As Table 6 indicates, none o f the correlations were greater
than this value, indicating good discriminant validity. Also seen in Table 6 are the
numerous significant relationships, although these significant correlations are either
low or moderate in magnitude.
Beginning with the coaching behavior factors, training/instruction discrepancy was
moderately related to the other four coaching behaviors, indicating that a high
discrepancy with one coaching behavior is related to a high discrepancy with another.
Training/instruction was also moderately (negatively) related to mastery motivational
climate. The five leader behaviors were clearly associated with the perceptions of
satisfaction with the coach, yet in a negative direction which indicated that high
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
discrepancy scores were associated with lower satisfaction with the leader
(dissatisfaction). Training/instruction and democratic discrepancy scores were also
significantly associated with maladaptive psychological alternatives (r = .22, .20; £ <
.05) and maladaptive emotional alternatives (r = .27, .19; p < .05), respectively.
Next, the motive factors were found to be associated with numerous variables. For
example, intrinsic motive scores were moderately related to social motives, and
interestingly, with discrepancy in the positive feedback provided by coaches (i = .20,
P < .05). Both social and extrinsic motive scores were not significantly associated
with any factors. Personal and situational goal orientations were found to be
associated with other factors.
Ego goal orientation was found to be significantly correlated with a performance
motivational climate (r = .20, p < .05). Task orientation was found to be slightly
correlated with maladaptive behavioral alternatives (r = -.18, p < .05), indicating that
a high task orientation was associated with lower frequency of maladaptive behavioral
actions. Perceptions of a mastery motivational climate were negatively associated
with performance climate, and positively associated with the four determinants of
athlete satisfaction-dissatisfaction; satisfaction with leadership, performance, team,
and administration (r = .49, .32, .37, & .24, p < .05), respectively. These correlations
indicate that players who reported their teams’ as being more mastery oriented were
associated with higher satisfaction scores with their leader, their performance,
teammates, and administrative support. Performance climate scores were moderately
(negatively) related to satisfaction with leadership (r = -.43, p < .05), and positively
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
related to two types o f maladaptive alternatives and one type of adaptive alternative;
maladaptive psychological (i = .21, g < .05), maladaptive emotional (i = .33, g < .05),
and adaptive psychological (r = .18, g < .05). These correlations indicate that high
perceptions o f performance climate were related to low satisfaction (high
dissatisfaction) with leadership, and high frequencies of maladaptive psychological
and emotional alternatives, and adaptive psychological actions.
The four determinants of athlete satisfacton-dissatisfaction were found to be
associated with each other, as well as the maladaptive and adaptive consequential
alternatives. Satisfaction with leadership was found to be moderately correlated with
satisfaction with performance (i = .57, g < .05) and satisfaction with teammates (i =
.59, g < .05), and negatively associated with satisfaction with administrators (i = -.22,
g < .05). In addition, satisfaction with leadership was negatively associated with
maladaptive behavior, psychological and withdrawal alternatives, and adaptive
behavior. These correlations indicate that athletes who were dissatisfied with their
coaches were associated with having a higher frequency of maladaptive actions.
Satisfaction with performance and with teammates were also found to be negatively
associated with the four forms of maladaptive alternatives, indicating that high
dissatisfaction (low satisfaction) were related to higher incidences of the maladaptive
alternatives. Among the maladaptive consequential alternatives, maladaptive
psychological was significantly associated with maladaptive emotional and
withdrawal, and adaptive behavioral. Adaptive behavioral was also moderately
associated with adaptive psychological (r = .47, g < .05).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Based solely on these pearson correlation coefficients, numerous research
hypotheses were only partially supported (see Research Hypotheses pg. 17). These
hypotheses were more formally tested via structural equation modeling procedures
and results will be detailed later in the results section. The results regarding the
research hypotheses and the correlational data will now be addressed:
Hypotheses 1: High task orientation scores were associated with lower frequency
o f maladaptive behavioral actions (i = 18, p < .05). Unexpectedly, task orientation
was not significantly associated with the determinants o f satisfaction, and ego
orientation was not associated with either the determinants o f satisfaction or with
maladaptive/adaptive consequential actions.
Hypotheses 2: As predicted, a mastery climate was significantly associated with
the four determinants o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction. Yet no relationships were found
between a mastery climate and consequential actions, contrary to what was predicted.
Unexpectedly, a performance climate was only related to one o f the four determinants
of satisfaction, satisfaction with leadership (r = -.43, p < .05). As predicted, however,
a performance climate was significantly related to maladaptive psychological and
emotional alternatives (r = .21, .33, p < .05), yet no association was found with the
other two maladaptive alternatives which was predicted.
Hypotheses 3: Athletes who reported high discrepancy scores between their
preferences and perceptions o f their coaches’ behaviors were found to be significantly
correlated with higher perceptions of dissatisfaction with their coaches, as predicted.
Yet only the discrepancy score with the coaches’ level of training and instruction was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
associated with the four determinants o f dissatisfaction. Discrepancy scores of the
level of democratic, autocratic, social support, and positive feedback behaviors of
coaches’ were associated only with the level of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with the
coach, not with their teammates, performance, or administration which was predicted.
Hypotheses 4: Not applicable with correlational data.
Hypotheses 5: The only significant association between motives for participation
and coaching behavior discrepancy was found between intrinsic motives and positive
feedback (r = .20, g < -05). Unexpectedly, athletes’ motives were not significantly
related to their personal goal orientations.
Hypotheses 6: Could not be determined by the correlational analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Questionnaires
Individual confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on three questionnaires to
assess if the items adequately measured their underlying latent variables. The three
questionnaires assessed were the MCAP, ASQ and the CEQ. The MCAP and CEQ
were designed specifically for this study, thus, psychometric evaluation of these
instruments were necessary. Despite the ASQ having adequate psychometric
properties (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995), it was necessary to examine the factor
structure since the current usage of the inventory was extensively modified to reflect
the specific purpose of this study. Modifications included utilizing a shorter version of
Riemer and Chelladurai’s scale (from 56 items to 26), and the use o f two new items
added to the original questionnaire; “I was satisfied with...my coaches’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
‘sportspersonlike’ behavior”, and “...my team’s level of fitness throughout the
competitive season”.
For the confirmatory factor analyses, the maximum likelihood (ML) method was
used to estimate parameters in the model and to test the goodness-of-fit o f the data to
the overall model. To get a measure of the fit o f the model to the data, the chi square
is used as a determinant, with smaller values indicating better fitting models. An
alternative approach is to use the chi square-degree o f freedom ratio, termed the
likelihood ratio, with values less than 3.00 representing model fit (Byrne, 1994).
Another method is to use the goodness of fit index, specifically the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), which measures the amount of variances/covariances accounted for by
the model. Higher values (> .90) on the CFI indicate better model fit. As shown in
Table 7, the MCAP (chi square/df = 5.0 and GFI = 0.63) and the ASQ (chi square/df=
3.9 and CFI=0.83) did not fit the sample data well. A caveat is that the chi square test
is reportedly overly strict and sensitive to sample size, meaning that the test is biased
against large samples (Byme, 1989). Although these questionnaires are reliable
measures, more work is needed to quantify the validity of these particular measures.
The third instrument evaluated, the CEQ, exhibited an acceptable likelihood ratio
(1.95) which indicates adequate fit. The CFI, however, was below the criterion of
0.90. These results indicate preliminary evidence about the construct validity o f the
CEQ.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Study Model
Exploratory factor analysis o f the proposed study model was necessary since the
model was made up o f relatively new concepts to the sport psychology research
literature (e.g., sport satisfaction, consequences o f sport dissatisfaction) and thus, the
interrelationships between study variables, constructs, and indicators have not been
empirically evaluated. The indicators used in the exploratory factor analysis of the
study model were measured variables created from the questionnaire items which
were believed to best represent the underlying constructs. Through exploratory factor
analysis, on the basis of the factor loadings, certain indicators may be deemed relevant
(high loadings) or irrelevant (very low loadings), or items may either verify or
contradict the definition of a particular factor which it is presumably measuring
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
To determine whether there was correspondence between the structure o f the set of
indicators and the constructs they presumably reflect, loadings which exceeded 0.40
and loaded on one factor were considered meaningful and thus was assumed to
sufficiently represent the construct. Indicator which loaded on more than one factor
were allowed if it made theoretical sense, yet if the loading contradicted the
conceptual definition of the construct, the indicator was deleted. This was the case
with three such indicators which were split third variables said to represent the
global/general levels of dissatisfaction. All three of these indicators loaded on
numerous factors, indicating that these items were not accurate predictors of their
latent construct and thus, these indicators were subsequently dropped from further
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
analysis. See Table 8 for the results of the exploratory factor analysis o f the proposed
model.
As the results from Table 8 indicate, ten factors were extracted, along with those
underlying indicators presumed to reflect the constructs. Again, the higher the
loading, the more meaningful it is, which represents a significant impact o f the factor
on the indicator (Red & Schmelkin, 1991). Factor One was primarily concerned with
those coaching behaviors which are preferred and perceived (in the form of
discrepancy scores) by the athletes. The specific coaching behaviors consist of
training, social support, positive feedback, autocratic, and democratic behaviors.
Factor Two consisted of items which assessed intrinsic and social motives for college
athletic participation, as well as the task goal orientation of the athlete. This factor
was labeled as Motives/Task Orientation. Factor Three was primarily concerned with
extrinsically-related motives for college athlete participation, labeled as Extrinsic
Motives. Factor Four, labeled as Ego Orientation, consisted of items which related to
an ego personal goal orientation. Factor Five consisted of items which assessed
satisfaction with specific leader behaviors, such as player treatment, strategy, and
training, as well as the type of motivational climate created by the coach. Factor Six
was primarily concerned with the impact o f a player’s teammates in terms of their
contribution, performance, and integration. This factor was labeled as Causes of
Dissatisfaction with Teammates. Factor Seven, Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Administration, consisted of items which assessed the impact of administrators’
actions in regards to dissatisfaction. Factor Eight, labeled as Adaptive Consequences,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
reflected three types of adaptive consequences: psychological, emotional, and
behavioral. Factor Nine, Maladaptive Behaviors, consisted of items which reflected
behavioral consequences to dissatisfaction, including performance decrements,
aggressive tendencies, and rebellious acts. The final factor was primarily concerned
with maladaptive consequences due to athlete dissatisfaction in the form of
maladaptive psychological alternatives and withdrawal practices. This factor was
labeled Maladaptive Psychological/Withdrawal Consequences.
Since the exploratory factor analysis has identified the number of factors necessary
to explain the linkages among a set of indicators, the next step in the analysis was to
conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypotheses that specific relations
between observed variables and their underlying factors exist, based upon theory and
empirical research.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis o f the Study Model
Conducting an analysis o f latent models involves numerous stages. First, it is
important to assess the extent that the measurement of each latent variable is
psychometrically sound. This was the reason for the reliability and factor analyses on
all measurement scales, in addition to the CFA conducted on the newest
questionnaires. Next came the testing of the measurement model. Drawing upon
theory and empirical research, including the results from a exploratory factor analysis,
the CFA is conducted to test the hypotheses that particular linkages between measured
variables and underlying factors actually exist. By doing so, the validity of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
measurement model was tested to determine if this hypothesized model actually
measured what it was supposed to measure (Byme, 1994).
Before evaluating the measurement model via CFA, it is necessary to first note the
differences between the proposed study model (first shown in Figure I) and the
revised model, shown in Figure 7. The proposed model was revised due to the results
of the exploratory factor analyses and an initial run of the CFA- These analyses
indicated that the design (factors, measured variables, and paths) of the proposed
model was in need of revisions. For example, the factor ‘Task/Ego” was better
represented as being separate constructs (F2, F4), perceptions of motivational climate
loaded heavily onto another factor which made sense conceptually, so it was allowed
(F5). Additionally, the factor “General Level of Satisfaction” was eliminated from
further analysis because the measured variables, made up o f triplets (ASQ items
randomly split into thirds), cross-loaded upon numerous factors and had
nonsignificant loadings to their underlying factor. When variables cross-load, and
loadings are not significant to the particular factor, represents confusion and
ambiguity with the construct. Finally, additional measured variables emerged for both
the Adaptive and Maladaptive Consequential Alternative factors. After these revisions
were made, the CFA was run again, indicating the following results.
Assessment of the Measurement Model
As stated in Chapter 3, there are numerous assessments one conducts when
evaluating the measurement model. Beginning with an initial analysis, that of
convergence, the current measurement model converged in 18 iterations, with no
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
special problems encountered. If models do not converge, it indicates a problematic
model. Factor correlations were then examined to check for discriminant validity; if a
correlation is greater than 0.90, discriminant validity is not proven. The factor
correlations of the measurement model, shown in Table 9, are well below the 0.90
standard, with the largest correlation being 0.54. There were numerous significant
interfactor correlations indicated by the correlational analysis as well. Coaching
behavior discrepancy was found to be significantly associated with intrinsic social
motives, negatively correlated with satisfaction with leadership/climate, and positively
associated with adaptive consequences. These correlations indicate that high
discrepancy in coaching behavior is associated with high intrinsic/social motives,
lower satisfaction with leadership, and high frequency of adaptive consequences.
Intrinsic/social motives were also significantly correlated with extrinsic motives, ego
goal orientation, dissatisfaction with teammates, adaptive consequences, and
negatively associated with maladaptive consequences. These correlations suggest that
high intrinsic/social motives relate to high extrinsic motives, high ego orientation,
high dissatisfaction with teammates, high frequency o f adaptive consequences, yet
lower frequency of using maladaptive consequences. Extrinsic motives were
significantly associated with ego goal orientation. Satisfaction with leadership/climate
were significantly correlated to satisfaction with teammates and administrators, as
well as being negatively associated with adaptive and maladaptive consequential
alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Next, the factor loadings were evaluated to determine if they were significant and
substantial. As Table 11 and Figure 8 indicate, all of the standardized loadings were
significant and substantial, with loadings ranging from 0.33 to 0.91. Model fit is a
critical assessment tool used to validate the measurement model. Model fit refers to
the difference between the observed and predicted correlations, with the desired
difference being insignificant. To determine model fit, numerous tests can be utilized,
such as the chi square test and the use of fit indices. Chi square is a measure o f the fit
of a model, with smaller values and insignificant g values indicating better models.
The chi square test specifically examines the difference between the covariance
matrix predicted by the path model and the observed covariances. If the chi square test
is insignificant, it suggests that the pattern of covariance in the observed data are very
consistent with the pattern implied by the model, indicating a good model. But as is
often the case, the chi square test is found to be significant, suggesting that the
predicted covariances are not consistent with the observed covariances. In the present
CFA, the chi square value was quite large and provided questionable support for
model fit; chi square (439) = 1392.21, p < .001. This finding was expected since the
CFA examined 31 variables using a large sample (N=274).
Due to the aforementioned shortcomings o f this model fit test, the chi square test is
rarely considered as a reasonable basis to reject a model, and alternative analyses are
recommended. One alternative approach is to use the chi square/degree of freedom
(df) ratio (chi square is divided by the df), also termed the likelihood ratio, with values
less than 3.00 reporting adequate fit (Byrne, 1989). For this measurement model, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
likelihood ratio was 3.17, slightly greater than the cutoff value. Another approach is to
utilize fit indices. One of the most used index is the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), with
the acceptable range being above 0.90. For this study, the CFI was 0.75, indicating an
inadequate fit of the data to the model.
Further analyses of the measurement model included specification searches,
specifically a review o f the error residuals and the modification indices. Examination
of the standardized residual matrix indicated an average off-diagonal absolute
standardized residual value equaling 0.06, and the standardized residuals ranged from
0.01 to 0.5. Model misspecification can result if the average off-diagonal absolute
standardized research values are greater than 0.1, and/or if the standardized residuals
are greater than 0.2 (Carpenter et al., 1993). Based upon this criteria, the first
indicator revealed a good fit o f the model, with the average off-diagonal value being
.06, which is less than 0.1, yet the second indicator did not reveal adequate fit, since
0.5 is slightly higher than 0.2.
Utilizing modification indices can improve model fit. One modification index, the
Lagrange Estimation, has been used to improve model fit by evaluating the effect of
adding free parameters to a restricted model, thus reducing restrictions on the model.
Another modification index called the Wald Test, evaluated the effect of dropping
parameters, thus, adding restrictions to the model (Bentler, 1995). For the current
study, no action was taken as a result of the Lagrange and Wald tests as it was felt that
these changes would not dramatically improve the fit of the model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
To summarize, the measurement model adequately measured the underlying
factors and was found to adequately fit the sample data, although it is far from being
exact due to the following: a.) all factor loadings were significant; b.) the likelihood
ratio of 3.17 was slightly over the criteria cutoff of 3.0; c.) The average off-diagonal
absolute standardized residual value o f 0.06 was below the cutoff value o f 0.1. Due to
these results, the researcher is confident that this measurement model will assist in
obtaining a good fit in the structural model.
Structural Equation Modeling of the Study Model
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used as a final stage in analyzing the
study model. Since the prior stage, CFA o f the measurement model, revealed
significant loadings and adequate model fit via likelihood ratio and average off-
diagonal standardized value, the researcher was confident in proceeding to this next
and final stage. SEM was used to assess the extent to which the hypothesized model
adequately describes the sample data. From this, “causal relationships” can be
summized about the relationships among the latent and measured variables, as well as
the relationships from latent factor to latent factor. The term “causal” is used loosely
in this context, since in the behavioral sciences causal relationships cannot be
established, yet since SEM is a procedure which takes measurement error into account
while testing model fit, it is the nearest thing there is to causality.
Assessment o f the Structural Model: Convergence and Direct/Indirect Effects
Similar to the evaluation of the measurement model, one o f the first things to do is
to evaluate the convergence of the structural model analysis. The structural model
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
155
converged in 11 iterations, with no special problems encountered. As shown in Table
12, each measured variable significantly loaded on the expected factor. Table 13
summarizes the standardized measurement equations for the structural model which
specifically details the direct effects, while Figure 9 depicts the standardized structural
coefficients. As can be seen in Table 13, numerous paths were added via the
Multivariate Lagrange Multiplier Test One path denoted a significant association
between a measured variable and a factor (V I0, FI), and two paths indicated
significant associations between measured variables and a particular categorical
variable, playing ability (V12, V2; V I3, V2). These paths were utilized because they
made conceptual sense, and adding these paths would improve the fit of the model.
Table 14 summarizes the standardized construct equations which detail the direct
effects, while Figure 10 pictorially represents the significant construct coefficients. As
is indicated, numerous significant paths exist between the factors, and between the
factors and the two categorical variables of gender (V I) and playing ability (V2).
Coaching behavior (Factor 1=F1) had a significant path with gender (VI) (B = -0.51, t
= -3.3, p < .05), while intrinsic/social motives (F2) were significantly associated with
extrinsic motives (F3) (B = 0.24, t = 3.8, p < .05), playing ability (V2) (B = .28, t =
2.9, p < .05), and gender (V l)(B = -1 .0 1 ,t = -4.9, p < .05. The paths for ego (F4),
gender (V I), and ability (V2) to extrinsic motives (F3) were significant (B = 0.18, t =
2.9, p < .05; B = 1.03, t = 3.7, p < .05; B = 0.58, t = 4.4, p < .05, respectively), as well
as the paths leading from coaching behavior discrepancy (FI), causes of
dissatisfaction-teammates (F6), causes o f dissatisfaction-administration (F7), and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
playing ability (V2) to causes o f dissatisfaction-leadership (F5) (B = -0.82, t = -4.3, p
< .05; B = 0.77, t = 6.4, p < .05; B = 0.26, t = 2.3, p < .05; B = 0.37, t = 2.6, p < .05,
respectively). Yet the paths from gender (V I) and playing ability (V2) to ego
orientation (F4) were insignificant (T values < 1.96). A significant path was found
from causes of dissatisfaction-administration (F7) to causes o f dissatisfaction-
teammates (F6) (B : 0.44, t = 4.0, p < .05) as well. Also, a significant path was
indicated from gender (VI) to causes o f dissatisfaction-administration (F7) (B = -
0.56, t = -3.1, p < .05), and for paths from intrinsic/social motives (F2) and
maladaptive consequential alternatives (F9) to adaptive consequential alternatives
(F8) (B = 0.77, t = 2.9, p < .05; B = 0.48, t = 2.2, p < .05, respectively). Finally, the
path from causes of dissatisfaction-leadership (F5) to maladaptive consequential
alternatives (F9) was found to be significant (B = -0.12, t = -2.3, p < .05).
The previous paragraph noted all of the significant direct effects in the structural
equation model, yet the effect o f a given variable may also be in part or totally
indirect through the mediation o f other variables. Numerous significant indirect
effects were identified by the structural equation modeling analyses, pictured in
Figure 10. For indirect effects to be considered significant all of the adjoining paths
must be significant. In all, seven indirect effects were found in the structural equation
model: a.) coaching behavior discrepancy (FI) has an indirect effect on maladaptive
consequential alternatives (F9) through satisfaction-dissatisfaction with teammates; b)
intrinsic/social motives (F2) has an indirect effect on maladaptive consequential
alternatives (F9) through satisfaction-dissatisfaction with teammates (F6) and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
leadership (F5); c.)extrinsic motives (F3) has an indirect effect on adaptive
consequential alternatives (F8) through intrinsic/social motives (F2); cL) ego goals
(F4) has an indirect effect on adaptive consequential alternatives (F8) through
extrinsic motives (F3) and intrinsic/social motives (F2); e.) ego goals also has an
indirect effect on maladaptive consequential alternatives (F9) through a multitude of
constructs, including extrinsic motives (F3), intrinsic/social motives (F2), satisfaction-
dissatisfaction with teammates (F6) and leadership (F5); f.) satisfaction-dissatisfaction
with teammates (F6) has an indirect effect on maladaptive consequential alternatives
(F9) through satisfaction-dissatisfaction with leadership (F5); g.) satisfaction-
dissatisfaction with administration (F7) has an indirect effect on maladaptive
consequential alternatives (F9) through satisfaction-dissatisfaction with leadership
(F5).
Assessment o f the Structural Model: Model Fit
Similarly with the model assessment utilized in the CFA, model fit can be
determined via numerous tests, which include the chi square test, the use of the
likelihood ratio, and the use of fit indices. Beginning with the chi square test, a
nonsignificant chi square value is desirable which indicates that the covariance pattern
in the observed data is consistent with the covariance pattern implied by the model.
The chi square test with the structural model was large, with a chi square = 1364.13,
with a degree of freedom (df) = 458, p < .001, thus, rejecting the structural model.
Since this test is considered strict and biased against large numbers o f variables and
larger samples, the next criteria was utilized. The likelihood ratio, which is the chi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
square value divided by the degrees of freedom, indicates an adequate model fit if the
value is less than 3.0. After considering adding eight paths as suggested by the
multivariate lagrange estimator and because they made conceptual sense, the
likelihood ratio was 2.97, signifying that the structural model adequately fits the
sample data. The eight paths added to the structural model which helped to improve
model fit were the paths from construct to construct, namely: causes o f
dissatisfaction-satisfaction with teammates (F6) to causes of dissatisfaction-
satisfaction with administration (F7) to causes o f dissatisfaction-satisfaction with
leadership (F5), from F7 to F6, from maladaptive consequential alternatives (F9) to
adaptive consequential alternatives (F8), and from extrinsic motives (F3) to
instrinsic/social motives (F2).
Other paths added were those from a categorical variable to measured variables
from other constructs or from a construct to a measured variable: paths from player
ability (V2) to both individual performance (V12) and team contribution (V13), and a
path from coaching behavior discrepancy (FI) to leader player interaction (V10).
Again, these paths were added because they made conceptual sense and that the paths
added between the constructs were also found to correlate in an earlier analyses
(correlational analyses), and finally, that it helped to improve model fit. Prior to the
addition of the paths to the structural model, the likelihood ratio equaled 3.3, higher
than the 3.0 standard.
The last criteria to test the fit of the structural model is to utilize fit indices. The fit
index used was the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), which indicates an adequate fit of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
the data to the model fit if the value is above .90. For this structural model, however,
the CFI was .77, indicating an inadequate fit. To summarize, the structural model
adequately measured the underlying factors and their accompanying measured
variables, although it is far from being exact. Although it was favorable to obtain a
likelihood ratio value within the acceptable range (indicating an adequate model fit),
the other two criteria utilized to test model fit, the chi square test and the CFI, rejected
the structural model. Thus, these results should be viewed with caution. Similar to the
methodology utilized by Lee (1997), the results from the assessment of model fit and
structural path coefficients were utilized to determine the accuracy o f the stated
research hypotheses.
Assessment of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Since the measured variable, task orientation, was found during the
exploratory factor analysis as loading high onto another factor, the revised factor (F2)
consisted of task orientation, and intrinsic and social motives for participation. Since
task orientation was allowed to form a new factor, the first portion of Hypotheses 1
could not be verified by this revised structural model. Taking this into consideration,
it seems worthwhile to examine the interrelationships o f this new factor (F2) with the
other variables in the model. These relationships will be discussed in Hypothesis 5.
Ego Orientation, however, was revised to reflect its own factor (Factor 5) as a result of
the exploratory factor analysis.
The second section of Hypothesis 1 which specifically addressed the influence of
ego orientation was not verified. Unexpectedly, ego goal orientation did not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
significantly affect perceptions o f dissatisfaction o f leadership (F5), teammates (F6),
or administrators (F7), or affected the maladaptive consequential alternatives (F9) as
was hypothesized. A few reasons have been posited. First, during the confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA), all factors were allowed to covary with all other factors. After
the CFA was run, the output indicated significant correlations between the factors,
which were recorded in Table 9. Since ego orientation (F4) did not correlate with any
other factor during the CFA phase o f the analysis, it was highly unlikely that it would
have interrelationships in the structural model.
However, in the structural equation analyses, ego orientation was found to have an
indirect effect on adaptive consequential alternatives (F8) through extrinsic motives
(F3) and intrinsic-social motives (F2). In other words, athletes who are more ego
oriented adopted multiple motives for their participation, which lead them to choose
more adaptive consequential alternatives to deal with their dissatisfaction experiences.
Moreover, ego orientation was found to have an indirect effect on maladaptive
consequential alternatives (F9) through four other constructs. Namely, athletes who
adopted an ego orientation also adopted multiple motives, which affected their
satisfaction with their teammates, which lead to a greater perception o f satisfaction
with the coach, climate and performance, which then lead to a decreased usage of
maladaptive consequential alternatives.
Hypothesis 2: Similarly with what occurred with the task and ego orientation
indicators, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed that both perceptions of
mastery and performance climate loaded heavily onto another factor, entitled “causes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
of dissatisfaction/satisfaction with leadership/climate/performance” (F5). Since the
motivational climate o f a team is primarily the result o f the coach (e.g., coaches’
personality, leadership style, situational constraints) (Ames, 1992a; Treasure &
Roberts, 1994), enabling these two variables to load onto this particular factor made
conceptual sense and was verified by research. Since the indicators of motivational
climate were measured variables regressed onto another factor (F5), the researcher
allowed these two measured variables to load on those factors believed to be affected
by perceptions o f motivational climate, as stated by Hypothesis 2. Those factors
included the perceptions o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction (F5-F7) and the consequential
alternatives (F8, F9).
In a subsequent CFA analysis, these hypothesized paths were added, and numerous
significant path coefficients were revealed, yet the CFA model did not converge.
Thus, the next run o f the CFA included only the significant paths, which converged in
19 iterations. Expectedly, perceptions of a mastery climate positively affected
perceptions of satisfaction, but only with one area, that of administration (B = .27, t =
2.37, p < .05), indicating that those players v/ho perceived a mastery climate were
those who were more satisfied with the support o f the athletic administration.
Perceptions of a mastery climate were also found to positively affect the use of
adaptive consequential alternatives, as predicted (B = .11, t = 2.27, p < .05). Thus,
those athletes who perceived their teams to be more mastery oriented exhibited higher
frequencies of adaptive consequential alternatives. Unexpectedly, perceptions o f a
performance climate positively affected perceptions of satisfaction with teammates.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
This result indicated that those players who perceived high levels of performance
climate were those satisfied with their teammates. Also, unexpectedly, perceptions of
a performance climate were not associated with consequential action alternatives.
Hypothesis 3: According to the CFA measurement model, discrepancy in coaching
behavior (FI) were significantly (negatively) associated with
satisfaction/dissatisfaction of leadership/climate (F5) (r = -.40, p < .05), indicating that
higher coaching behavior discrepancy scores were associated with lower satisfaction
or higher dissatisfaction scores. This result held up in the structural equation modeling
analysis, with coaching behavior discrepancy negatively affecting the perceptions of
satisfaction-dissatisfaction with leadership (B = -.82, t = -4.3, p < .05). This can be
interpreted as those athletes who perceived high discrepancy between the behaviors
preferred and those actually received had lower levels of satisfaction, or high
dissatisfaction with their leader, climate and performance. This structural equation
analysis also indicated a significant indirect effect; coaching behavior discrepancy has
a significant indirect effect on maladaptive consequential alternatives (F9) through
satisfaction-dissatisfaction with leadership (F5). Again, athletes who were not getting
the coaching behavior they preferred were dissatisfied with their experience, and
primarily responded in maladaptive ways.
Hypothesis 4: This hypothesis could not be verified by structural equation
modeling due to the revisions made to the original research model. These revisions
included the task orientation variable being reassigned to represent an intrinsic-task-
social motive factor (F2), as well as ego orientation representing a latent factor. Also,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
both mastery and performance climate were reassigned to represent the behaviors and
climate portrayed by the coach (causes o f dissatisfaction/satisfaction with leader, F5).
Hypothesis 5: According to zero order correlations (see Table 6), intrinsic motive
scores were not significantly associated with personal goal orientation as was
predicted (ego: r = .04, p > .05; task: i = .08, p > .05), yet social motives were
significantly associated with intrinsic motives (r = .31, p < .05). Interestingly, during
the EFA o f the study model, intrinsic and social motives loaded significantly with task
orientation, despite a nonsignificant zero order correlation presented earlier. This
combination of measured variables was allowed to represent a construct entitled
“intrinsic/social motives”, with the ‘intrinsic’ representing both the intrinsic motives
for participation and the intrinsic motivation believed to be represented by adopting a
task orientation (e.g., I feel more successful in my sport when I work hard, learn a new
skill, and do my very best). Utilizing this construct (F2), it was revealed during the
CFA measurement model analysis that F2 was significantly correlated with coaching
behavior discrepancy (FI) (r = .34, p < .05). Extrinsic motives (F3), however, was not
significantly associated with coaching behavior discrepancy. In the structural equation
modeling analysis, however, it was unexpectedly revealed that intrinsic/social motives
(F2) did not affect discrepancy in coaching behaviors (B = .12, t = 1.2, p > .05).
Although not hypothesized, numerous significant paths were revealed, including:
intrinsic/social motives positively affected the causes o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction
with teammates (B = .34, t = 1.9, p < .05), and adaptive consequential alternatives (B
= .83, t = 2.5, p < .05). Also indicated by the structural model analyses were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
significant indirect effects. It was found that intrinsic/social motives (F2) has an
indirect effect on maladaptive consequential alternatives (F9) through satisfaction-
dissatisfaction with teammates (F6) and leadership (F5). Stated another way, athletes
driven by intrinsic/social motives leads to greater satisfaction with teammates and
coaches, which then leads to a lower usage o f maladaptive consequential alternatives.
It was also revealed that extrinsic motives (F3) has an indirect effect on adaptive
consequential alternatives (F8) through intrinsic/social motives (F2), indicating that
athletes driven by multiple motives (intrinsic, social and extrinsic motives) lead to the
use of more adaptive consequential alternatives.
Hypothesis 6: Expectedly, males utilized more extrinsically motivated motives for
their participation in intercollegiate athletics than did the female athletes.
Unexpectedly, no significant association was found between gender and ego goal
orientation. As expected, the male athletes did have higher perceptions of
dissatisfaction (lower satisfaction scores) with administration (B = -.56, t = -3.1, p <
.05), than females, but not with the other two main areas of dissatisfaction, teammates
and leadership. Unexpectedly, no significant association was found between gender
and the two types o f consequential alternatives, adaptive and maladaptive actions. As
predicted, females cited more intrinsic/social motives for participation (B = - 1.01, t =
-4.49, p < .05) and were more satisfied with the administrative and academic support
provided them. As stated earlier, gender did not affect the other two facets o f the sport
experience (teammates and leadership), and failed to associate with the two types of
consequential alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Although not hypothesized, it was found that male athletes had lower coaching
behavior discrepancy scores than females. This can be interpreted as the male athletes
receiving the coaching behaviors they preferred more often than the female athletes (B
= -.51, t = -3.3, p < .05). In the sport leadership literature, contradicting studies exist
regarding gender differences on preferred and perceived leadership (Terry, 1984;
Chelladurai, 1993). More research is needed to determine gender differences between
the specific coaching behaviors preferred and perceived.
Hypotheses 7: Since the influence of performance level on perceptions of coaching
behaviors, personal and situational goal orientation, and satisfaction-dissatisfaction in
sport have not been addressed in the sport research, no hypotheses were forwarded
regarding potential interrelationships. Results from the structural equation modeling
analysis indicated that performance level assessed by the coaches affected one’s
intrinsic/social motives (B = -.28, t = -2.91, p < .05), extrinsic motives (B = .58, t =
4.43, p < .05), dissatisfaction/satisfaction with leadership/climate/performance (B =
.37, t = 2.6, p < .05), and administration (B = . 16, t = 2.9, p < .05). Insignificant
coefficients were indicated for coaching behavior discrepancy, ego goal orientation,
dissatisfaction/satisfaction with teammates and administration, and adaptive and
maladaptive consequential alternatives. The significant coefficients indicated that
those players rated as being better players reported being less driven by intrinsic and
social motives, and being less task oriented than those athletes given lower ability
ratings. Consequently, the “better” players reported being driven to participate in
college athletics by extrinsic motives, as well as being more satisfied with their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
coaches, administration, team climate, and performance, as compared to those players
given a lower ability rating.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
CHAPTER V.
DISCUSSION
Introduction:
The primary purpose o f this study was to extend and apply the theoretical and
empirical research on dissatisfaction from the industrial organizational literature into
the sport context Missing from the sport satisfaction research literature is the analysis
of what happens to athletes when they are not satisfied with particular aspects of their
athletic experience. Numerous anecdotal evidence exists which details the many
actions athletes do as a result of their dissatisfaction, yet there is a paucity of research
committed to verifying such reports. This current study setout to test a modified
version of a job dissatisfaction model applied to the sport setting. The results from the
confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation analyses o f the test model will be
presented, as well as the verification of the test hypotheses and answers to the
research questions stated in Chapter One. Also included will be the unexpected results
which emerged from these analyses, including the significant indirect effects.
Implications regarding the college student athlete experience, coach and team
effectiveness, and the prediction and remedial interventions for dissatisfied athletes
will also be forwarded. Additionally, recommendations for future research will also be
listed throughout this section when appropriate.
Sport Dissatisfaction Model
Obtaining adequate model fit for the structural model o f athlete dissatisfaction
shows support for the application o f a modified version o f a job satisfaction model
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
into the sport setting. Similar to the results of an exploratory study on athlete
dissatisfaction (Voight & Callaghan, 1999b), the majority of responses for the current
study paralled those from the workforce research literature. For example, one of the
top sources o f dissatisfaction identified by those in the workforce was the behavior of
their respective bosses (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Schriesman, Hinkin, &
Tetrault, 1991), while the top source o f dissatisfaction cited by the present sample of
college athletes was the behavior of their “bosses”, their head coaches. Furthermore,
the dissatisfied athletes in the present study followed similar courses of action as their
workforce counterparts regarding the manner with which they deal with their
dissatisfaction. According to Henne and Locke (1985), consequential alternatives used
as a result of their dissatisfaction could be interpreted as either adaptive or
maladaptive, and take the form o f behavioral, psychological, and withdrawal
alternatives. As is seen in Table 3, college athletes in the present study reported
engaging in maladaptive and adaptive alternatives, similar with the dissatisfied
employees. For example, the dissatisfied athletes who reported maladaptive ways of
dealing with their dissatisfaction engaged in behavioral alternatives (e.g., their play
became overly aggressive, academic and athletic performance was hindered, and they
complained to their teammates), psychological alternatives (e.g., experienced bouts of
depression and a decrease in commitment toward the team), emotional alternatives
(e.g., experienced burnout symptoms, decreased feelings of self esteem/playing
confidence, and increased anxiety), and withdrawal practices (e.g., thoughts about
quitting the sport).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
Dissatisfied athletes in the current study also reported engaging in adaptive
behavioral responses such as increasing one’s effort at practice, seeking advice from
significant others, and/or confronting the source o f their dissatisfaction. Furthermore,
dissatisfied athletes also reported engaging in psychological alternatives including
tolerating the dissatisfaction or using it as a motivator to improve specific areas o f
their performance or attitude. Although this sport specific model o f the causes and
consequences of dissatisfaction adequately fit the sample data, this model represents
only a starting point for further empirical attention into the causes and subsequent
consequential actions of dissatisfied athletes. Much more investigation into the model
(testing current and additional variables) is needed in the sport setting since many of
the hypotheses utilized in the present study were not confirmed.
Prior to the reporting of the hypotheses results, it is necessary to address that
several of the apriori hypotheses could not be verified simply because the original
research model was guided by these hypotheses and through subsequent exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses. The study model was revised to more accurately
represent the significant paths from measured variables to their latent constructs, and
from construct to construct. Hypotheses which were affected by these revisions
include Hypothesis I, since the task orientation indicator was linked with
instrinsic/social motives (Factor 2); Hypothesis 2, since mastery and performance
motivational climate indicators were linked with other indicators to form a construct
which assesses the causes of dissatisfaction-satisfaction with specific leader
behaviors, motivational climate, and performance (Factor 5); Hypothesis 4 which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
attempted to determine which was the stronger predictor o f dissatisfaction and
maladaptive consequential alternatives usage, personal goal orientation or
motivational climate.
Task/Ego Orientation and Causes/Consequences o f Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
Numerous researchers have shown that goal orientation was linked to specific
aspects o f the sport experience, especially with satisfaction. Lochbaum and Roberts
(1993) found that satisfaction was derived from both mastery attempts (e.g., skill
improvement) and social approval. Treasure and Roberts (1994) indicated that task
oriented individuals derived greater feelings o f satisfaction about their sport
experience than those who were more ego oriented. Roberts et al. (1996) expanded
upon this by indicating that those athletes high in both ego and task were also found to
be satisfied with their experience. Since task orientation loaded onto another factor,
the influence of this particular variable on perceptions o f satisfaction and
consequential alternatives could not be directly determined. Yet the effect of ego
orientation could be determined because it represented its own latent construct.
The structural equation modeling of this study failed to support Hypotheses 1 in
regards to ego orientation, meaning that ego orientation did not have a significant
affect on perceptions o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction or on consequential action
alternatives. Since no prior research has been conducted investigating the effect of
goal orientation on adaptive and/or maladaptive consequential alternatives, significant
results would have provided preliminary results from which to base further
investigations. No effect was found, however, in the present study but more empirical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
attention should still be given to these particular constructs. Since it has been
determined that these two constructs, task and ego orientation, are not at opposite
ends of the same continuum and thus can covary, it is necessary to obtain the
differential levels o f both task and ego orientation (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). In this
study, however, only one of the goal orientations was available for analysis (ego
orientation), thus limiting the interpretation of these results. It is believed that the
lower reliability estimates for the measure o f task and ego orientation contributed to
the task orientation indicator being loaded onto another factor and that the shortened
version used in the present study did not adequately measure the construct. Further
analyses regarding the impact of personal goal orientation on the satisfaction
experiences and consequential actions o f athletes are indeed recommended to extend
the previous research but must be done with a reliable and valid instrument. If the use
of a shortened version of a questionnaire is necessary, sound evidence o f its
psychometric properties should be derived prior to its implementation. Despite there
being no significant direct effects between goal orientation and causes/consequences
of athlete dissatisfaction, ego orientation was found to have indirect effects on both
adaptive and maladaptive consequential alternatives mediated by motives and
satisfaction with teammates and with leadership.
Performance/Masterv Climate and Causes/Consequences of Dissatisfaction
Previous research has shown that the structure o f the team environment can
influence which goal orientation is adopted, with specific emphasis being given to the
motivational implications of ego involving (performance oriented) versus task
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
involving (mastery oriented) goal structures (Ames, 1991a, 1992b; Treasure &
Roberts, 1994). Treasure (1997) reported that those students who perceived a mastery
oriented climate also reported higher perceptions o f ability and greater feelings of
satisfaction than those students who perceived a performance oriented climate who
reported a negative attitude and dissatisfaction. Walling, Duda, and Chi (1993) and
Goudas and Biddle (1994) had similar results. In the current study the perceptions of
motivational climate indicators, originally believed to represent their own latent
construct, loaded onto another factor which represented the actions/behaviors
portrayed by the coach, entitled “causes of dissatisfaction-satisfaction with
leadership/climate/performance” (factor 5). Since the motivational climate of a team
is primarily the result of the coach, this loading was allowed.
Despite these indicators now being measured variables regressed onto another
factor, they were allowed to load onto factors believed to be affected by motivational
climate as stated by Hypotheses 2. The confirmatory factor analysis of this study
expectedly reported that perceptions of a mastery climate positively affected
perceptions of satisfaction, yet only with athlete’s satisfaction with the support
provided by the athletic administrators. Although affecting only one area, this result
does support the literature which indicates a relationship between mastery climate and
perceptions o f satisfaction. Another expected finding was that mastery climate
positively affected the use of adaptive consequential alternatives, representing
preliminary evidence regarding the influence of motivational climate on how one
handles their dissatisfaction in terms of action alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
Perceptions o f a performance climate unexpectedly affected the perceptions of
satisfaction not dissatisfaction with only one area, that o f satisfaction with teammates.
This particular result revealed that those players who perceived high levels of
performance climate were satisfied with their teammates, contrary to what is reported
in the sport literature. This contrary result with the sport research may indicate that
the constructs o f mastery and performance climate are also not at opposite ends o f a
continuum similar to the construct o f task and ego orientation. Thus, teams may be
perceived as being high on both mastery and performance climate, low on both, or
high on one and low on the other at any one time. As stated in the previous section,
the use o f a shortened version o f the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport
Questionnaire may have been problematic (low reliability) and part o f the reason why
perceptions of a mastery and performance climate loaded onto another factor and did
not represent its own construct. In future investigations utilizing perceptions of
motivational climate, perceptions o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction, and consequential
alternatives, careful consideration must be given to the measuring instruments and
subsequent analysis.
Coaching Behavior Discrepancy and Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
This present study utilized Chelladurai’s multidimensional model of leadership as
a framework since the model suggests that the degree of congruence (discrepancy)
among three states of leader behavior (required, actual, and preferred) determines the
effect on group performance and member satisfaction. An earlier study utilizing this
theoretical model revealed a curvilinear relationship between satisfaction and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
perceptions/preferences of coaching behavior, in that athletes are less satisfied when
the actual behavior o f the coach deviated from the preferred behavior, in either
direction (Chelladurai, 1977). In a later study, Chelladurai (1984) showed that
satisfaction was linearly related to players perceptions/preferences o f their coaches
behaviors; the greater the perceptions of training and instruction, democratic behavior,
social support, and positive feedback, and the lower the perceptions o f autocratic
behavior, relative to the preferences, was equated with greater satisfaction.
Furthermore, Weiss and Friedrichs (1986) found that perceptions o f all five leader
behaviors were significant predictors of team and individual satisfaction scores. In
sum, those coaches whose behaviors were either congruent with their players’
preferences or greater than their players’ preferences for the same behaviors, have
more satisfied players (Dwyer & Fischer, 1990; Schriesman, 1987; Voight, Callaghan,
& Bottom, 1999).
The confirmatory factor analysis of this study revealed that discrepancy in
coaching behaviors were significant and negatively associated with satisfaction-
dissatisfaction of the leader, o f the team, and o f the administration; this indicates that
higher coaching behavior discrepancy scores were associated with lower satisfaction
or higher dissatisfaction scores, as expected. This finding from the CFA of this study
was consistent with the earlier research which showed that discrepancy between the
particular coaching behavior players prefer versus coaching behaviors they perceive
they receive will have an affect on the players’ satisfaction, with the greater the
discrepancy the greater the dissatisfaction. Expectedly, in the structural equation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
analyses o f this study, discrepancy with coaching behavior did affect perceptions of
dissatisfaction with leadership, but not with teammates, or with administration. This
revealed that athletes who perceived high discrepancy with their coaches’ behaviors
lead to dissatisfaction with their coaches. A significant indirect effect was also found
between coaching behavior discrepancy and maladaptive consequential alternatives
mediated by satisfaction-dissatisfaction with leadership.
Intrinsic/Social Motives and Coaching Behavior Discrepancy and other constructs
Previous research has revealed an association between goal orientation and
motives individuals have for their athletic participation. White and Duda (1991)
indicated that those athletes who were more ego oriented were more likely to
participate in sport for external reasons, such as competition and recognition. Yet
those individuals who were more task oriented placed a greater importance on skill
development and fitness, thus denoting more intrinsic factors. Nicholls (1989) and
Dweck (1985) have both previously posited that task orientation would be positively
associated with intrinsic motives since one engages in an activity for its own sake and
focuses on the process, whereby ego involvement is expected to be negatively related
to intrinsic motives because one engages in an activity as a means to an end
(superiority) and would focus on the outcome (outside of one’s control, extrinsic).
Based upon the zero order correlation analysis conducted in the current study sample
of athletes intrinsic motive scores were not significantly associated with personal goal
orientation, contrary to what previous research has reported.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
It was also hypothesized in the current study that athletes’ motives for college
athlete participation would be associated with perceived discrepancy with coach
behaviors. This linkage between participation motivation and coaching behaviors was
addressed by two models; the situation-interaction model of motivation posited by
Gould and colleagues (1985) and the multidimensional model o f leadership by
Chelladurai (1980). The situation-interaction model posited that athlete motivation
results from both individual goals and environmental factors, most notably the
environment fostered by the coach. It is believed that optimal performance and
enjoyment result when athletes’ motives are fulfilled by the athletic environment
fostered by the coach. Coaches must then be made aware of how their own behaviors
and the athletic environments they help foster match the primary motives of their
athletes.
An important portion of Chelladurai’s multidimensional model o f leadership is the
influence that athletes’ personality characteristics play in their preference for and
perceptions of specific behaviors practiced by their coaches. One specific aspect o f an
athlete’s personality which has been used by research adopting this model is that of
motivation. There is some preliminary evidence which has suggested that motivation
is associated with preferred leadership. Chelladurai (1993) cited a study by Erie,
which is one o f the only studies which looked at the effect of motivation on coaching
behavior. Erie’s study found that athletes’ high on task motivation preferred greater
levels of training and instruction, yet those high on affiliation and extrinsic motivation
preferred more social support. Since only one empirical study was located, more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
research is obviously needed before a hypothesis could be formulated linking
motivation and coaching behaviors, especially with the influence of participation
motives on coaching behavior discrepancy.
The confirmatory factor analysis o f the revised model in the current study revealed
that extrinsic motives were not significantly associated with coaching behavior
discrepancy, yet interestingly, a significant positive association was found between
intrinsic/social motives and coaching behavior discrepancy. This result indicated that
those athletes who were more task oriented and cited intrinsic and social motives, also
reported high discrepancy scores between the coaching behaviors they most preferred
and the actual coaching behaviors they received. The most significant predictor o f
coaching behavior discrepancy, according to the CFA, was positive feedback and
social support, indicating that athletes preferred more o f this behavior then they were
actually receiving. In the structural equation modeling analysis, however, the intrinsic-
social motives did not significantly affect discrepancy in coaching behaviors, thus, the
results from the CFA should be viewed with caution. More research is needed to
determine the influence of athletes’ motivational orientations and their motives for
participation on their preferences and perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors,
especially as it applies to Chelladurai’s multidimensional model o f leadership (one of
the main antecedent factors: member characteristics).
Although not hypothesized, numerous significant paths were found in the structural
equation analyses which is worthy of attention. Intrinsic/social motives positively
affected the perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with teammates and the use of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
adaptive consequences. Athletes who were characterized by using more intrinsic and
social motives, and task oriented were those who were more satisfied with their
teammates, and utilized more adaptive consequential alternatives as a result of their
dissatisfaction. This result provides preliminary evidence regarding the influence o f
participation motivation and task orientation on the perceptions of satisfaction-
dissatisfaction in the sport domain. Thus, more attention must be given to the effect of
goal orientation and personal motives for participation on satisfaction-dissatisfaction
in sport, and on the consequential alternatives used as a result of dissatisfaction.
Although no comparable research exists in the sport research with which to
compare these results, these significant findings do support those from the industrial
organizational psychology research literature on job satisfaction, specifically those
which have cited the significant influence personality characteristics have on job
satisfaction (Spector, 1997). Specific areas of the workers’ personalities which have
been reported as being associated with perceptions of job satisfaction include locus o f
control, negativity, level o f commitment, self efficacy, persistence, and motivation
(Lawler, 1994; Locke & Latham, 1990b). To advance these preliminary findings
linking participation motives and the causes/consequences o f athlete dissatisfaction,
numerous significant indirect effects were found; intrinsic/social motives indirectly
affects maladaptive consequential alternatives mediated by perceptions of
satisfaction-dissatisfaction with their teammates and coaches, whereby extrinsic
motives indirectly affects adaptive consequences mediated by intrinsic/social motives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
Gender and Motives. Causes and Consequences of Dissatisfaction
The mediating influence of gender on the numerous constructs used in the present
study was an important individual difference variable examined by structural equation
modeling. Beginning with the most salient motives athletes cite for their athletic
participation, it has been determined by previous research that female athletes are
more intrinsically motivated than male athletes among numerous samples of athletes,
including elite national competitors, junior college, university, and recreational
athletes (Chantal et al., 1996; Fortier et al., 1995; Pelletier et al., 1995). The structural
equation analyses found that gender differences emerged for motives and perceptions
of dissatisfaction. Consistent with the literature, female athletes cited more
intrinsic/social motives for their participation in intercollegiate athletics, whereby the
male athletes utilized more extrinsically motivated motives for their participation.
Interestingly, extrinsic motives were found to be significantly associated with
intrinsic/social motives, suggesting that athletes who use high frequencies of extrinsic
motives also use intrinsic/social motives to explain their reasons for their
participation. Previous research has indicated that athletes do cite numerous reasons
for their participation, and these multiple motives vary greatly and could consist of
competing motives, shared, or unique motives for their involvement in athletics
(Gauron, 1984; Weinberg & Gould, 1995).
The influence o f gender on perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction and with the
consequential alternatives have not yet been addressed in the sport satisfaction
research, so the results from the present study are exploratory in nature. However, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
effect of gender on perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction has been investigated in
the industrial organizational psychology field. Research investigating males and
females on their perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction have revealed small and
inconsistent overall differences (Murray & Atkinson, 1981; Saal & Knight, 1997; Witt
& Nye, 1992). Despite there being no documented gender differences on perceptions
of job satisfaction, some researchers have found that differences do occur regarding
specific job characteristics (Brush, Moch, & Pooyan, 1987; Witt & Nye, 1992). For
example, Murray and Atkinson (1981) indicated significant differences on nine out o f
thirteen specific job attributes, including the evaluation of physical surroundings,
recognition, and supervisors.
The structural equation analyses of the present study did indicate significant gender
differences regarding perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with one of the major
facets of the sport experience. As expected, the male athletes perceived greater
dissatisfaction (lower satisfaction scores) with the administration and academic
support than the female athletes, who were more satisfied with this type o f support.
No significant differences emerged for the other two facets; satisfaction-
dissatisfaction with teammates and leadership/climate/performance. The male athletes
were mostly dissatisfied with the funding provided to their teams and the academic
services provided to them, followed by the lack of support provided to the program
and coach by the athletic administration.
No significant differences emerged for the two types of consequential alternatives,
adaptive and maladaptive consequential alternatives. However, based upon descriptive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
and t test analysis, two significant gender differences emerged: male athletes reported
engaging in more maladaptive behavioral alternatives (e.g., hindering of
academic/athletic performance, deviant behavior, complaining) than female athletes,
while the female athletes reported engaging in more maladaptive emotional
alternatives (e.g., experienced burnout, decreased feelings o f self esteem, yet increases
in anxiety) than the male athletes. Despite these limited significant findings, more
research is needed to determine potential gender differences between the perceptions
o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction with other facets of the sport experience and on the
consequential action alternatives taken by the dissatisfied athletes.
Ability. Coaching Behavior Discrepancy, and Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
Although no formal apriori hypotheses were forwarded regarding the influence of
player ability on the numerous factors used in the present study, numerous significant
findings were revealed by the structural equation modeling procedure. One of these
significant findings was that ability had an affect on both the intrinsic/social motives
and extrinsic motives of dissatisfied athletes. These significant coefficients indicated
that those players rated as being better players reported being less driven by
intrinsic/social motives and less task oriented than those athletes given lower ability
ratings. Moreover, the “better*’ players reported being driven more by extrinsic
motives than the “lower ability” players. The influence of ability level on participative
motives has not been empirically investigated by the sport research, so these results
provide preliminary evidence that ability may mediate the most salient motives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
athletes cite for their involvement in collegiate athletics. However, more research is
needed to support these preliminary findings.
Previous research in the coaching behavior and motivational orientation literature
have given empirical attention to the mediating influence of ability. In the coaching
behavior research, ability of both the coach and player are considered important
variables which can influence the perceptions and preferences o f coaching behaviors
(Chelladurai, 1980; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). Garland and Barry (1988) found
that all five leader dimensions measured by the Leadership Scale for Sports
(Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980), consisting of training, democratic and autocratic
decision making behaviors, positive feedback, and social support behaviors, were
significantly related to ability, explaining 51% of the variance. Additionally,
Chelladurai’s (1990) multidimensional model of leadership considers athletes’ ability
as both a dependent variable and as an antecedent variable. In another theoretical
model on leadership, the mediational model o f leadership, Smith, Smoll and Curtis
(1978) revealed that the observed behavioral dimensions of supportiveness and
instructiveness of coaches by their players are significantly related to the players’
personal levels of self esteem. Regression analysis showed that low self esteem
players perceived higher levels of attractiveness to coaches who were more supportive
and instructive, yet those players who had moderate to high levels o f self esteem were
not as influenced by their coaches’ amount of supportiveness-instructiveness.
In the motivational goal orientation literature, perceptions o f ability are the central
mediating construct of achievement behavior and is an important mediator to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
183
achievement striving through the use of ego and task goals (Nicholls, 1984, 1989;
Roberts, 1992). Duda and Nicholls (1992) found that satisfaction-enjoyment was
moderately associated with task orientation, and that satisfaction was strongly
predicted by athletes’ perceptions o f ability. Moreover, Spink and Roberts (1980)
stated that the way a person feels about h/her performance is a crucial determining
factor in successful experiences in sport, and that perceptions of satisfaction-
dissatisfaction can be used as a measure o f perceived success-failure.
Despite this research from the coaching behavior and motivational orientation
literature citing the influence of ability on perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors and
goals, the present study indicated no such influence of ability on coaching behavior
discrepancy and on ego goal orientation. This conflicting result may indicate that the
coaches’ ratings o f the players’ were problematic, or that level o f ability does not
influence perceptions of coaching behaviors or ego goals. This despite a study by
Allen and Howe (1998) who reported numerous advantages to using coaches’ ratings
of player’s ability, including that these ratings are based upon their involvement with
their athletes over many practices and games. Thus, it would appear that the coaches
are in the best position to evaluate the ability of the players since they have the
experience and “know how” to validly rate the performance ability of their athletes. In
addition, Smith, Smoll, & Curtis (1978) showed that players’ perceptions o f their
coaches’ behaviors can be moderated by players’ self esteem, as well as their attitudes
toward their coach, their sport, and their teammates. Confounding results such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
these reveal the need for additional research regarding the influence of ability on the
preferences/perceptions o f coaching behaviors and goal orientations.
Since ability has not been utilized as a potential individual difference variable in
the limited research on satisfaction in the sport context, no predictions were made
regarding the influence o f ability on perceptions o f satisfaction-dissatisfaction. But the
influence of ability on perceptions o f job satisfaction-dissatisfaction has been
addressed by the industrial organizational psychology research literature. According to
Lawler (1994), no matter how motivated an individual is to perform, optimal
performance is not possible if the individual lacks the necessary ability. Lawler also
stated that one of the important influences on an employees’ perceptions of
satisfaction are the skills and abilities they bring to the job. Moreover, Locke and
Latham (1990) in their model on the determinants of job satisfaction, called the high
performance cycle, cited ability of the employee as an important mediating factor.
Consistent with this research from the industrial organizational psychology
literature, the structural equation modeling of this study reported that ability level
affected the perceptions o f dissatisfaction, namely, dissatisfaction with the
leadership/climate/performance and administration. This indicated that those players
rated as being “better players” were more satisfied than those given lower ability
ratings with their coaches’ behaviors (e.g., coaches’ choice o f strategies, training,
amount of playing time), which included the teams’ motivational climate (e.g., trying
hard is rewarded, important roles, encouraged to outplay teammates), the teams’
performance (overall performance, personal improvement, team’s level of fitness), as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
well as the support provided by the administration (academic, budget, and
administrative support). The other facet o f sport satisfaction-dissatisfaction,
satisfaction with teammates, was found to be insignificantly associated with ability.
Similar with the workforce research literature, it appears that ability o f the employee
and ability of the athlete are important influences on their perceptions o f satisfaction
with the job or the sport experience, respectively.
Conclusions
Although none o f the research hypotheses were fully confirmed, three out of five of
the remaining hypotheses were partially supported. Two hypotheses were not included
in this count because Hypotheses 4 could not be addressed due to modifications made
to the research model, and Hypotheses 7 was exploratory in nature. Conclusions will
be made in this section regarding the verification of the five hypotheses, as well as
addressing the responses to the research questions (previously stated on page 13)
based upon the result of structural equation modeling. The conclusions will be
presented in the following order: first, conclusions regarding the sport dissatisfaction
model; second, the significant results involving the intrapersonal variables of
participation motives and goal orientation on the determinants and consequences of
athlete dissatisfaction; third, the significant results which encompasses the situational
variables of coaching behavior discrepancy and motivational climate on the
determinants and consequences of athlete dissatisfaction; and fourth, the influence of
ability and gender of the athletes will then be reported.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
Applicability of the Sport Dissatisfaction Model: Causes and Consequences
The present study model on the causes and consequences of sport dissatisfaction is
an appropriate model with which to base future empirical investigations and guide
applied practitioners. The current model was found to adequately fit the sample of
collegiate athletes utilizing the four intrapersonal and situational constructs (coaching
behavior, intrinsic/social motives and extrinsic motives, and ego goals), the three
determinating factors of satisfaction-dissatisfaction (leadership, teammates and
administrative support), two consequential factors (adaptive and maladaptive
consequential alternatives), and two exogenous, categorical variables (gender and
satisfaction). Although many more personal, situational, and determinant variables
could be important additions to the model, the current study model was restricted to
those variables posited by theory, empirical research, anecdotal evidence, and
practical experience to be the most viable.
This sport dissatisfaction model is unique in that it is the first of its kind in the
sport literature. Even in the industrial organizational psychology literature, there are
theoretical models which describe the determinating factors involved with job
satisfaction-dissatisfaction, and others dedicated to the consequences of job
dissatisfaction, but no theoretical model which fully integrates the two. Theories such
as Lawler’s Facet Satisfaction Model (1994) and Locke and Latham’s (1990a) High
Performance Cycle were used as critical guiding forces behind the determinant
portion of the current sport dissatisfaction model. Lawler (1994) stressed the
importance of considering the individual’s perceptions of reality since it are these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
perceptions which are more salient than reality itself. Also included were the
moderating variables, most notably the ability o f the individuals and situational
constraints. An important element of this theory not utilized in the present sport model
was the influence of others on one’s satisfaction, in terms o f their skills, abilities, and
outcomes they receive.
Locke and Latham’s (1990a) model stressed the importance o f personality
variables such as self efficacy and motivation, and situational factors such as
challenging goals and specific standards o f performance. Also included were the
numerous moderating variables, most notably the ability o f the individuals and
situational constraints. The important influences that one’s self efficacy, commitment,
and goal setting have on satisfaction and especially performance, were highlighted in
the High Performance Cycle but not utilized in the present sport dissatisfaction model.
Perhaps some follow-up investigations utilizing a sampling o f these important
influences posited by Lawler and Locke and Latham could be undertaken to provide a
more comprehensive look at the determinants of dissatisfaction, especially as they are
applied to the sport setting.
Numerous theoretical approaches helped to guide the consequential portion of the
present sport model, most notably the Rosse and Miller (1984) model on behavioral-
adaptation, the Henne and Locke (1985) model on consequential alternatives, and the
Fisher and Locke (1992) model on dissatisfaction. Taken in combination, these three
theoretical approaches provided a sound, integrated basis with which to formulate a
sport specific consequential model. Important elements of each o f these theories were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
integrated into the current model, including the major premise behind the model; job
(or sport) dissatisfaction does not have any direct consequences but is considered as
an emotional state, and what action is taken in response to it depends upon the
cognitive processes and situational factors, and the interaction of these two. Another
important area derived from these theories include the choice processes for
responding to job dissatisfaction, which were broadly categorized by Henne and
Locke into action and psychological alternatives.
Areas from these theories not included into the current sport dissatisfaction model
which could be o f interest to researchers include the consequential effects of utilizing
a particular consequential alternative. Henne and Locke (1985) and Fisher and Locke
(1992) reported that consequential alternatives can be evaluated in terms of expected
positive or negative consequences. Positive consequences consist of actions which
dissipate the feelings of dissatisfaction (e.g., using it as a motivator), whereby
negative consequences are those actions which could adversely affect the individual,
including their physical and mental health, lessened credibility or reputation, or
punishment. Another area of future research could be investigating the effect o f social
norms or social comparison on consequential alternatives chosen as a result of
dissatisfaction. Finally, a last area of inquiry from these theoretical approaches not
addressed by the present model is the effect of prior level of satisfaction-
dissatisfaction on the responses illicited with a current dissatisfying situation, or even
the plausibility o f a trait affect or chronic dissatisfaction state, and how this would
influence the choosing o f consequential alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
189
Intrapersonal Variables and Causes/Consequences of Dissatisfaction
Beginning with the personal motivational orientation of the athlete, only ego
orientation was used in the analysis since the construct of task orientation loaded onto
another factor during the exploratory factor analysis. No direct effects were found for
ego orientation on the causes or consequences o f dissatisfaction, yet two significant
indirect effects were found. The first indirect effect indicated that those players who
were more ego oriented adopted multiple motives for their participation (intrinsic,
social, and extrinsic motives) which lead them to utilize more adaptive consequential
alternatives to better deal with their dissatisfaction. The second indirect effect
revealed that those players who are more ego oriented adopt multiple motives for their
participation and tend to be more satisfied with their teammates and coaches, which in
turn, lead them to utilize lower frequencies o f maladaptive consequential alternatives
when dealing with their dissatisfaction.
Next, with regards to participative motives, it was found that the Division I athletes
in the present sample cited multiple motives for their participation in collegiate
athletics, from extrinsic, to intrinsic, to social motives. It was aiso determined that
male athletes who were dissatisfied with some facet of their sport experience were
driven more by extrinsic motives, whereby female athletes who were dissatisfied were
driven more by intrinsic and social motives. Athletes who are driven by
intrinsic/social motives tend to be more satisfied with their teammates and use more
adaptive consequential alternatives as a result o f their dissatisfaction. Also, based
upon a significant indirect effect, those players who are more intrinsic/socially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
motivated to participate tend to be more satisfied with their teammates and coaches,
in turn, uses lower frequencies o f maladaptive consequences. No direct effects were
found for extrinsic motives on the causes and consequences of dissatisfaction, yet an
indirect effect was revealed- Thus, those players who were driven by multiple motives
to participate used higher frequencies of adaptive consequential alternatives with
which to deal with their dissatisfaction.
Situational Factors and Causes/Consequences of Athlete Dissatisfaction
Perceptions of a team’s motivational climate were found to directly effect the
perceptions of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with the sport experience (via CFA). For
example, those players who perceived their team as being more mastery oriented tend
to be more satisfied with the administrative support provided to them and their
program. Also, players who believe the team is more mastery oriented utilize more
adaptive consequential alternatives to help deal better with their dissatisfaction. On
the other hand, those players who believe their team is characterized as being more
performance oriented tend to be more satisfied with their teammates.
The other situational factor used in the present structural model was the
discrepancy between the coaching behaviors players’ preferred versus those behaviors
they actually received. It was determined that athletes who believed they were not
getting the coaching behaviors they preferred lead to dissatisfaction with the coach.
An indirect effect was found for this factor, also, indicating that those players who
were not receiving the coaching behaviors they preferred were dissatisfied with their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
coach, which lead to them using maladaptive consequential alternatives with which to
deal with their dissatisfaction with the coach.
Individual Difference Variables: Gender and Ahilitv
Two individual difference variables were examined via structural equation
modeling: gender and ability of the athletes. Beginning with gender, numerous direct
effects were found. The male athletes cited more extrinsically motivated motives for
their participation, while the female athletes cited more intrinsic/social motives. Male
athletes also reported perceiving lower coaching behavior discrepancy scores,
indicating that males were receiving the particular coaching behaviors they preferred.
Additionally, male athletes have higher perceptions of dissatisfaction with the support
provided to them and their program by the administration, whereby the female
athletes were satisfied with the administrative support provided them. Next, the
athletic ability of the athletes were found to have direct effects on many factors in the
model. It was determined that the “better” players reported being less driven by
intrinsic and social motives, yet driven more by extrinsic motives and found to be
more satisfied with their coaches and the support provided by the administration, as
compared to those players given a lower ability rating.
Implications
Investigating the dissatisfaction experiences of athletes, in terms of the
determinating factors and consequential alternatives represents an important step in
enhancing our understanding of the perceptions athletes’ have about their collegiate
athletic experience. In the industrial organizational psychology research, sport
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
research literature, and in the popular press, more o f an emphasis has been given to
the humanistic value of job or sport satisfaction over and above the simple notion that
“happy workers (or players) are more productive ones”. In other words, satisfaction
should be considered as a primary goal o f organizations, and continued recognition
must be given to the importance of the affective and behavioral reactions people
experience since the quality of one’s experience (at work or in sport) can have
profound effects on their lives, the lives o f others, on the organization and society as a
whole (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Henne & Locke, 1985; Lawler, 1994).
Specifically in the sport arena, all those involved in athletics need to be concerned
with making the athlete’s sport experience a meaningful, positive, and satisfying one,
which is instrumental in enhancing upon their growth and development (Chelladurai,
1980; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997). The executive director of the NCAA used similar
words when he told delegates that intercollegiate athletics must exist for the student
athletes, and that athletes must be the priority and chief focus (“NCAA”, 1998).
According to anecdotal evidence and a preliminary investigation (Voight &
Callaghan, 1999b), it appears that those coaches and athletic programs not concerned
about making their athletes’ experiences positive and satisfying may have athletes
who are not performing up to their capabilities, or who are dissatisfied enough to
withdraw from their program (via quitting or transferring), or even have athletes
protest against the coaches and may assist in getting them fired (player revolts). The
anecdotal evidence which exists in the popular sport press has indicated numerous
examples of these occurrences happening on an all to regular basis (“Dissatisfaction”,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
1998; Drape, 1998; Finger, 1998; USA Today, 1998). The results from the current
structural equation modeling study supported and extended this anecdotal and
preliminary evidence regarding the causes and consequential actions of athlete
dissatisfaction.
Based upon the structural model, it was found that athletes were differentially
satisfied and dissatisfied with numerous facets of their sport experience, yet generally,
the major determinant of athlete dissatisfaction was with the coach. Specific
behaviors causing the most dissatisfaction include the game strategy employed by the
coach, the training and technical/tactical instruction, and the interaction between
coach and player. Other behaviors included the type of motivational climate
constructed by the coach, whether it was more performance or mastery oriented. The
other two major facets of athlete satisfaction and dissatisfaction included teammates
and administrative support. The most significant predictor o f satisfaction with
teammates was the extent that the team contributed their efforts toward the team’s
goals (team integration), whereby the support provided by the athletic administrators
was the most significant predictor of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with administration.
Despite only using dissatisfied athletes in the confirmatory and structural analyses,
those who were more dissatisfied (to a greater extent) with a particular facet,
especially with their coaches, practiced higher frequencies o f maladaptive
consequential alternatives to either eliminate or attempt to deal with their
dissatisfaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
Based upon the descriptive analysis of the soccer players’ responses, those who
were dissatisfied engaged in maladaptive consequential alternatives, such as
behavioral alternatives including rebellious acts, decreases in performance, and
increases in aggressive tendencies. Specifically, those behaviors found to be used to a
good extent as a result of being dissatisfied was a decrease in academic and athletic
performance, and an increase in aggressive tendencies (more frequent fouling). The
most frequently used maladaptive emotional alternatives include dissatisfied players’
experiencing burnout symptoms, decreased feelings o f self esteem, playing
confidence, and commitment to the team goals, and increased feelings o f heightened
anxiety and thoughts about quitting the team.
Although not directly linked to a specific facet of dissatisfaction (no path from
leadership, teammates or administration factors), adaptive consequences were used to
a greater extent by the dissatisfied athletes who cited being driven by intrinsic/social
motives. Those adaptive consequential alternatives used to a greater extent by the
dissatisfied athletes included behavioral and psychological alternatives. Behavioral
alternatives included increasing one’s efforts at practice, seeking advice from
significant others, and /or confronting the sources of their dissatisfaction, and thinking
about transferring to another program, whereby the psychological alternatives
included changing one’s perceptions about the dissatisfaction experience, changing
one’s goals/motives, and tolerating the feelings of dissatisfaction- Interestingly,
dissatisfied athletes did utilize multiple consequential alternatives to better deal with
their dissatisfaction. Those dissatisfied athletes who utilized maladaptive alternatives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
to a greater extent also utilized adaptive maladaptive to a great extent, but not vice
versa.
Implications for Selected Populations in University Athletics
The results from the structural equation modeling analyses provides valuable
information for all those involved in collegiate athletics, including the athletes,
athletic support staff (which includes athletic counselors and sport psychologists),
coaches, and athletic administrators. This section will address the implications of the
current study results on these specific populations, beginning with the athletes
themselves.
Implications for Athletes. The current study results suggest numerous implications
for college athletes, keeping in mind that the study sample consisted of male and
female collegiate soccer players, thus, the generalizability across other sports is
limited. However, based upon the structural equation model, the results suggested that
those athletes who utilized more intrinsic/social motives for their participation utilized
more adaptive consequential alternatives. These particular adaptive consequential
alternatives are not debilitating to one’s performance and actually assists in either
eliminating or dealing better with the negative feelings and consequences of
dissatisfaction. Actually, one of the adaptive consequential alternative questions on
the CEQ specifically inquires whether the dissatisfied athlete has attempted to change
one’s motives in an attempt to eliminate their dissatisfaction experience. This was
actually one o f the most frequently used adaptive consequential alternatives.
Additionally, these dissatisfied athletes who were more intrinsically/socially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
motivated were more satisfied with their teammates, leading them to be more satisfied
with their coaches, which then lead them to utilize less maladaptive consequential
alternatives. Thus, by incorporating more intrinsic/social motives, such as playing for
the intrinsic and/or social benefits and not just extrinsic motives (e.g., stepping stone
to the pro’s, status, rewards, winning), athletes may deal with their specific facet of
dissatisfaction in more adaptive, non-debilitating methods, leading to more productive
consequences.
As was evidenced by the structural equation analyses, being more aware of one’s
motives for participation can have effects on one’s perceptions of satisfaction-
dissatisfaction and with the types of consequential alternatives utilized. Another area
which athletes may want to pay more attention to is the specific coaching behavior
they prefer to see from their coaches. The present study revealed that those athletes
who were not receiving the coaching behavior they preferred lead to them being
dissatisfied with the coach, especially with the feedback, social support, and strategy
employed by the coach. This dissatisfaction with the coaches lead to these athletes
utilizing maladaptive consequential alternatives in which to deal with this particular
facet of dissatisfaction. One way to “break this cycle” is to lower the discrepancy
between what the athletes’ prefer versus what they actually receive. Since athletes
have little control over the specific behaviors coaches provide yet total control over
their preferences for certain behaviors, athletes who can modify their preferences for
certain behaviors (in effect, be more lenient or patient) will have a lower discrepancy
between what they prefer and receive. Based upon the current results, once athletes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
lower the coaching behavior discrepancy, there will be an increase in satisfaction with
the coach and a concomitant decrease in the chances of utilizing maladaptive
alternatives. Thus, athletes who are too stubborn with their preferences for certain
behaviors and not willing to modify their preferences will continue to perceive a high
discrepancy which will lead to dissatisfaction. According to Chelladurai’s
Multidimensional Model o f Leadership, the greater the discrepancy, the greater the
effect on both satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) and performance. But those athletes
who realize that they have little say over their coaches’ behaviors toward them and
adjust their preferences, such as not expecting their coach to suddenly become their
buddy if this is not part o f their coach’s personality, will perceive a lower discrepancy,
which will lead to higher perceptions of satisfaction with the coach, and a decreased
usage of maladaptive consequential alternatives. Realizing what athletes have control
over versus what they do not have control over is an important intervention method
for athletes, which will be addressed further in a subsequent section.
Being more aware of the types o f options available and the subsequent
consequences are important considerations for dissatisfied athletes. Realizing that
dissatisfaction can affect one’s behaviors, cognitions, and emotions, such as
decrements in academic and athletic performance, burnout, decrements in self esteem,
playing confidence, and competitive anxiety, athletes must be aware that they are
experiencing dissatisfaction and are the potential causes. Only after these questions
are answered can dissatisfied athletes attempt to eliminate or cope with the
behavioral, psychological, and emotional responses to dissatisfaction. There are many
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
198
different types o f support services available to university athletes which can assist
them in finding the answers to these important questions.
Implications for Support Staff: Two specific types of support staff who could be of
great assistance to the athletes include the use of athletic counselors and sport
psychologists. Both parties are in optimal positions to assist athletes in improving
upon their awareness, reactions, and ways o f dealing with athlete dissatisfaction. Both
athletic counselors and sport psychologists need to first consider the numerous causes
and potential consequences of athlete dissatisfaction. The current study only presented
thirteen of the more salient facets of the student athlete experience, and thirty-two of
the more salient consequential alternatives known at this time. Thus, many more
determinant facets and consequential alternatives may exist, so support staffs must be
cognizant o f the facets and consequential alternatives mentioned here yet
acknowledge and be open to those not mentioned by the current study.
One of the more critical things support staffs can do to help athletes improve upon
their awareness of the dissatisfaction is to provide athletes with an outlet, a place and
a person to talk to about their dissatisfaction experiences. If those involved with sport
truly want to enhance upon the experience of their student athletes, they need to start
by listening to them and their experiences. Support staffs should help the athletes
determine the sources of their dissatisfaction and whether these are within the
athlete’s control or outside of the athlete’s control. As stated earlier, athletes do have
control over their motives for participation and their preferences of coaching
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
behaviors and thus, changes can be made to them which may alleviate or lessen the
effect of dissatisfaction.
Moreover, finding out the ways dissatisfied athletes have dealt with their
dissatisfaction is another important area o f inquiry. As indicated by the current study,
those athletes dissatisfied with their coaches utilized maladaptive consequential
alternatives to deal with their dissatisfaction. These maladaptive alternatives were
found to include decrements in both academic and athletic performance, as well as
debilitating effects on their psychological and emotional well being. So it is important
for support staffs to help athletes choose more adaptive ways of responding to their
dissatisfaction instead o f the maladaptive alternatives. Support staffs can help
accomplish these things by first creating open lines of communication between them
and the athletes, and between the athletes and their coaches, if possible. Secondly,
support staffs must educate athletes about controllability issues (what they have
control over versus what they do not), the potential effects of dissatisfaction
(facilitating and debilitating), and the consequential alternatives used in response to
dissatisfaction. Third, support staffs can also educate coaches on the effects of their
own coaching behaviors on their athletes, the effects and consequential actions of
dissatisfied athletes, and how dissatisfaction can influence team dynamics, coach-
player compatibility, performance, and student athlete well being. Fourth, support
staffs must also acknowledge that what they do or do not do can influence the student
athlete experience. The present study did show that dissatisfaction with administrative
support, including academic counseling, did have an effect on athlete satisfaction or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
dissatisfaction. As the results also showed, those athletes who were dissatisfied with
the support provided to them by administrative staff, including academic counselors,
lead to dissatisfaction with the coach, which then lead to the use of maladaptive
consequential alternatives. While support staffs may be a source o f dissatisfaction,
they can also be of valuable assistance to athletes in dealing more effectively with
their dissatisfaction experiences.
In particular, sport psychologists should consider the possibility o f a dissatisfaction
experience as being a possible mediating variable in performance decrements and
emotional/psychological dysfunctions among athletes. Consultants could use some
form o f the ASQ and CEQ as an inquiry tool to illicit information regarding the causes
o f dissatisfaction and how the particular athlete attempts to deal with their feelings of
dissatisfaction. The items from the questionnaires could be used in a more qualitative
manner in which to gather the information as well. For example, many of the athletes
in the current study cited numerous emotional and psychological consequences as a
result o f their dissatisfaction, consisting o f depression, burnout, sleep disorders, and
effects on self confidence and anxiety.
Another area which sport psychologists could be of great importance is the
detection o f dissatisfied athletes, especially those who utilize maladaptive
alternatives. Based upon the results o f this study, numerous behavioral, psychological,
and emotional indicators were revealed which could be used to detect dissatisfied
athletes who are trying to deal with their dissatisfaction experiences in maladaptive
ways. Behavioral symptoms o f dissatisfied athletes which should warrant attention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
consist of decrements in academic and athletic performance for some unknown
reason, an increase in complaining, and an increase in aggressive tendencies during
practice/matches (e.g., increase fouling). Psychological symptoms include increased
occurrences o f sleep disorders, bouts o f depression, frequent thoughts and talk about
quitting the sport, and decrements in commitment, which could be manifested by lack
of effort and concentration during practice and matches. Emotional symptoms consist
of burnout symptomology (could be characterized by a lack of energy, feelings of
being overburdened, and helplessness), decrements in self esteem and playing
confidence, and heightened feelings of anxiety and worry before/during competitions.
Numerous other symptoms were utilized by the present study sample but in smaller
frequencies, which consisted of: premeditated insubordination against the coach,
social withdrawal from teammates and friends outside the team, use of drugs/alcohol,
use o f pathogenic disordered eating methods, showing up continually late for practice
and matches, increases in deviant behavior off the field, and deliberately ignoring
team rules.
Implications for Coaches. Since dissatisfaction with the coach was found to be the
most commonly cited facet of athlete dissatisfaction, and was directly linked to the
use o f maladaptive alternatives, this section will address the many implications for
coaches. To begin, dissatisfaction with the coach consisted of specific coaching
behaviors o f leader-player interaction, leader strategy, and training/instruction. Other
variables which loaded onto this factor (via EFA, CFA) was the motivational climates
o f the teams, and the performance of the athletes. According to the results o f the CFA,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
each of these six areas significantly represented the underlying factor of satisfaction-
dissatisfaction with leadership-climate-performance, meaning that each of these areas
impacted athletes’ satisfaction-dissatisfaction with their coach. Interestingly, players
were dissatisfied with their coaches if their performances were unsatisfactory, yet
were satisfied with their coaches if their performance was satisfactory. Also, players
who perceived their team as being more performance oriented were less satisfied with
the coach, possibly because a performance oriented team is characterized by: players
being punished for mistakes, players being encouraged to outplay each other, and the
favoring of certain players. Thus, if coaches are concerned about making their
athletes’ experiences positive and satisfying, they must be aware of how their
behaviors and the team’s motivational climate are being perceived by the players.
Moreover, coaches must also be aware o f the preferences their players have for
specific coaching behaviors.
It was determined by the structural equation analyses that those athletes not
receiving the coaching behavior they prefer lead to them being dissatisfied with the
coach, which then lead to them using maladaptive alternatives. To break this cycle of
dissatisfaction and maladaptive actions, coaches must open the lines of
communication with their players in an attempt to better understand what the players’
needs are and how the coach can better serve these needs. The same can be said
regarding the specific motives athletes have for their participation. It was shown that
those athletes who utilized more intrinsic/social motives, even if they also cited
utilizing extrinsic motives, lead to the use of adaptive consequential alternatives. If
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
coaches are aware o f the major motives their athletes have for their participation and
attempt to satisfy these motives, athletes will be more satisfied with their teammates
and their coaches, and will utilize more adaptive ways (and less maladaptive ways) of
dealing with their dissatisfaction experiences. For example, if one o f the most salient
motives o f a player is to be with her friends and make new one (social motives), the
coach should be providing enough time and opportunity for the team to socialize with
each other; if this particular athlete will not be having her motives met, leading to
dissatisfaction.
Coaches must also be aware o f the influences of the two individual difference
variables utilized in the present study, gender and ability. Beginning with gender, it
was found that females had higher discrepancy between the behaviors they preferred
and those actually received, they were more intrinsically/socially motivated, yet less
extrinsically motivated, and were more satisfied with the administrative support as
compared to males. Based upon these results, the coaches o f these particular female
soccer players were not providing the frequency of coaching behaviors the players
preferred, which lead to them being dissatisfied and utilize maladaptive consequential
alternatives. Moreover, coaches of women’s teams need to provide opportunities
whereby their players can socialize and get to know each other better, as well as
reinforcing the intrinsic benefits o f their sport participation. Coaches of male teams
must realize that their players are more extrinsically motivated and thus would put a
greater emphasis on results, since it are these results which they perceive will get
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
them to the pro’s, get their education paid for, and help them to earn honors and
championships.
Coaches must also realize that the ability level o f their athletes may influence their
perceptions, including their motives for participation and perceptions o f satisfaction-
dissatisfaction. It was determined by the current study that the “better” players,
denoted by a higher ability rating, used multiple motives for their participation
(extrinsic, intrinsic, and social motives), and were more satisfied with their coaches
and administrators. Due to a lack o f playing time, recognition, and attention from the
coach or the press, may predispose the lower ability players, denoted by a lower
ability rating, to be more dissatisfied with numerous facets of their student athlete
experience. Coaches must realize these individual differences and become sensitive to
the needs o f the players who do not see a lot o f playing time and thus, do not receive
the same recognition and status as the better players.
Despite the better players being more satisfied than the lesser ability players with
selected facets o f their experience, over 57% o f starters (who could be assumed to be
the better players) were dissatisfied with some facet of their experience; so it is not
just the substitutes who are dissatisfied. Additionally, it is not just the losing teams
that contain dissatisfied players. The present study sample consisted of 269
dissatisfied athletes, with over 56% o f them being on winning teams, teams who
finished in the top 3 in their respective conferences, teams who won their conferences,
and teams who made it to the NCAA tournament. A specific breakdown o f the
percentages are as follows: 39% o f the dissatisfied athletes were on winning teams;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
19% were on teams which finished in the top 3 in their conference; 16% were on
teams which won their conferences; and 17% were on teams which made it to the
NCAA tournament Over 41% of the dissatisfied athletes were on teams which had
losing records, with the remaining o f the dissatisfied athletes being on teams which
finished with a .500 season (3%).
To help coaches get on the “same page” with their athletes, there are five specific
areas which coaches need to give attention: (1) Acknowledgment: Coaches need to
acknowledge that dissatisfaction could be occurring with members of their teams, and
although identifying the source is important, of similar importance is how the athlete
is choosing to respond to their dissatisfaction experiences. As evidenced by this study,
athletes who deal with their dissatisfaction in maladaptive ways could experience
serious consequences to their behavioral, psychological, and emotional well being,
while also negatively impacting their teammates and the team dynamics; (2)
Awareness: Coaches need to be aware that they could be a primary source of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction due to specific coaching behaviors, motivational climate
of the team, and performance results. Coaches then must be more aware of how their
coaching behaviors are impacting their players in terms of how these behaviors relate
to their preferences and their primary motives. As has been indicated, discrepancy
between what was preferred and what was received created dissatisfaction. For
coaches to actively meet the needs of their players they must first be more aware of
what their players’ preferences and motives are, then examine how their own
coaching behaviors may either be in concert or in contrast with those preferences and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
motives; (3) Evaluation: Coaches must evaluate what they feel/think are the primary
objectives to their coaching and program. A good question to ask is “how high a
priority is the experience of your student athletes?” If the experience o f the players
have not been given appropriate priority, this alone could indicate a significant
problem. There are numerous different types of coaches, some being more goal
directed (outcome is of utmost importance), others more person directed (priority
is given to personal relationships with players), and still others somewhere between.
Despite the many different types o f coaches, it appears that as we near the new
millennium, it becomes even more critical that coaches change with the times, which
means connecting with the athletes of today.
Numerous reports have come out in the popular press which state that athletes of
today are different, and that the tough guy coaching just does not work with today’s
athletes, and thus, athletes need to be handled differently than in the past (Mangan,
1995; “Tough Guy”, 1995). Some writers have cited that athletes o f today lack the
respect for authority, or they ask more questions and are more aware of their rights, or
even that athletes are smarter today in that they sense if their coaches really care about
them (Berkow, 1997; Mangan, 1995). In dealing with their coaches, some reports
found in the sport press has hinted that players have much more power and control
than they ever have, with many reported accounts of player mutiny and coaches
getting fired because of their players (“Dissatisfaction”, 1998; Drape, 1998; Finger,
1998). With all this being reported in the sport press, it is important that coaches
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
prioritize what is most important to them, their players, and their program, while
considering the impact that athlete dissatisfaction has on these entities.
The fourth area deals with the adjustments coaches must make. Coaches must be
flexible enough to make adjustments to their coaching behaviors if they are not in
concert with the players’ preferences and motives. This is not to say that the players
should govern everything their coaches do and say, but as this study showed,
discrepancy lead to dissatisfaction which lead to decrements in behavioral,
psychological, and emotional well being. So if coaches want to help alleviate the
dissatisfaction and its negative ramifications, opening lines of communication and
attempting to satisfy some of the players’ preferences may have lasting benefits for all
involved; (5) Identification: Coaches who have personal relationships and open
communication with their players are in ideal positions to identify when their athletes
may be dealing with some dissatisfaction. Those coaches who only have contact with
their athletes during training sessions and matches may not see the signs and
recognize when one of their athletes is dissatisfied. So if coaches can acquaint
themselves with these possible symptoms they will be in a better position to detect it
early and intervene appropriately. The section after the next will address possible
interventions with which to better deal with the dissatisfaction of athletes. But before
interventions are addressed, the next section will discuss the implications for a final
group of people, athletic administrators.
Implications for Athletic Administrators. The results from this present study
revealed some insights into the student athlete experiences o f a sample o f collegiate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
208
athletes. As was indicated, 74% (N=274) of the athletes in this sample were found to
be dissatisfied with at least one particular facet o f their experience, and dealt with
their dissatisfied experiences in both adaptive and maladaptive ways. All those
involved with collegiate athletics should concern themselves with attempting to
alleviate these dissatisfaction experiences of our athletes especially in regards to the
use o f maladaptive consequential alternatives. Athletic administrators are in an ideal
position to influence coaches and support staff on considering the student athlete
experience as a critical priority o f their programs. If athletic administrators are serious
about giving top priority to making their athletes’ athletic experiences positive and
satisfying, their coaches must then be held accountable for accomplishing this
endeavor. Coaches’ successes in accomplishing such an endeavor should be part of
the yearly evaluation coaches normally go through. Administrators could use some
form of the ASQ, whether it be in verbal or interview format, to gather specific
information from the coach regarding their perceptions of their effectiveness in the
selected facets. As part o f the senior exit interviews (interviews given by athletic
administrators to the graduating seniors to gather information regarding their
experiences) given by athletic administrators, versions of the ASQ and CEQ could be
utilized to gather more specific information regarding the student athlete experience
beyond the more simplistic approach normally utilized.
Athletes who are not playing a lot, or on losing teams, will most likely be
disgruntled and dissatisfied, which is the reality of being a competitive athlete; but
how they deal with their dissatisfaction is the pertinent question and one which needs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
to be given more attention by administrators, coaches, and support staff. As this study
indicated, over half of the dissatisfied athletes (56%) were on winning programs, on
teams who won their respective conferences, and competed in the NCAA postseason
tournament So for these athletes to be dissatisfied tend to raise some questions as to
“what’s going on with that team?”. Athletic administrators must be more involved and
aware of what actually goes on with their programs on the training fields, in the locker
rooms and coaches’ offices. By formally evaluating the coach and getting player
feedback regarding their experiences will help to keep the athletic administrators
better informed as to what is actually going on with each respective program.
Obtaining the coaches’ perspectives regarding their athletic experiences is a very
important part o f the evaluative process not addressed by the present study. The
present study viewed the satisfaction-dissatisfaction experiences of collegiate athletes
only from the athletes’ perspectives. If more research is dedicated toward
investigating the satisfaction-dissatisfaction experiences o f athletes, attention must be
given to the perspective of the coaches. In some cases, athletes could simply “have an
axe to grind” against their coach, yet behind the scenes this same player could be the
root of the problems. As stated earlier, coaches are normally given the blame when
teams perform poorly and for having losing records, so some athletes could simply
have “sour grapes” against their coach due to their poor performances and insufficient
playing time. Getting the whole story and not just half of it could prove to be quite
beneficial in future investigations. If athletic administrators are truly serious about the
welfare of their student athletes, they will not only acknowledge the importance of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
this dissatisfaction issue but take action by: setting up educational meetings with their
coaches and support staff to inform them about the causes and consequences of
athlete dissatisfaction; holding coaches more accountable by evaluating the coaches’
progress on these issues; and obtaining testimonials from their athletes on a yearly
basis.
Interventions
As was covered extensively in the review o f the industrial organizational
psychology literature, numerous interventions are used in the workforce aimed at
maximizing job satisfaction and productivity. Although some of these interventions
concerned changes to the work itself or in the human resource management practices
(e.g., employee compensation, benefits, and training), numerous reviews showed
favorable effects o f psychologically based interventions on productivity and
satisfaction. Similarly, there is a wealth of information which exists in the sport
psychology literature which presents the effectiveness of intervention strategies
designed to improve sport performance and enjoyment. This section will integrate the
intervention strategies utilized in the industrial organizational psychology field and
those from the sport psychology literature, and apply them in a coherant manner to
specifically address dissatisfaction in collegiate athletics.
Intervention strategies utilized by those in the workforce (cited by in the industrial
organizational psychology literature) consists o f enhancing the quality o f leader-
subordinate exchanges, improving the appraisal and feedback processes, enhancing
upon decision making techniques, and organizational interventions like improvements
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
in recruitment/selection, training, financial compensation, work redesign, supervisory
methods, organizational structure, and redesigning work schedules. Numerous studies
have proven the effectiveness o f these intervention programs (Guzzo, Jette, & Katzell,
1985; Katzell & Guzzo, 1983; Locke & Yukl, 1976). Other workforce interventions
found to be effective in increasing productivity and alleviating the potentially harmful
consequences of job dissatisfaction consist of goal setting interventions, team building
activities, stress management, and leader effectiveness (Bullock, 1984; Katzell,
Thompson, & Guzzo, 1992; Latham & Napier, 1984; Locke & Latham, 1990b,
1990c). Since these intervention programs have been found to be effective in
increasing the production and satisfaction of workers, these same interventions (more
specifically the last four interventions) should be as effective in another setting; sport.
To improve sport performance, interventions such as goal setting, team building,
stress management, and leader effectiveness have been utilized by sport psychologists
and coaches for years. But the direct application o f these interventions to specifically
address athlete dissatisfaction represents a kind o f “unchartered” area. Future research
in the area of athlete dissatisfaction could investigate the efficacy of specific
intervention programs on alleviating the debilitating effects of dissatisfaction on
athletes’ behavioral, emotional, and psychological well being. Until research such as
this is conducted, a definitive set of intervention programs used to help alleviate the
dissatisfaction experiences of athletes go unproven. However, based upon the results
and accompanying implications presented in the current study, numerous intervention
programs can be posited which at least offer a good place to start.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
212
Beginning with athletes’ perceptions o f the causes of dissatisfaction, it was
indicated that those athletes who were not receiving the frequency o f the specific
coaching behavior they preferred were dissatisfied. An intervention strategy presented
earlier has to do with educating the athletes about controllability issues; knowing what
you have control over versus what you do not have control over. What is passed onto
the athletes is that they only have control over how they perceive and deal with the
coaching behaviors of their coaches, and that they have little control over their
coaches’ actions. Additionally, athletes can be taught how to better cope with negative
coaching behaviors by using stress management practices, positive affirmations,
visualization, or simply by seeking advice from the older players who have experience
in dealing with their coach (Greenberg, 1990; Yambor, 1998). This is not to say that
athletes can not have an influence on their coaches which may produce some change
in behavior, but this can only be accomplished through open and direct
communication.
Enhancing the communication skills o f both athlete and coach is another critical
intervention. Enhancing communication between athlete-coach, and coach-athlete,
can take many forms. Some communication intervention techniques teach athletes
how to be more assertive in their communication with their coach, with the prime
objective being although it may not guarantee change, at least the athlete expresses
their concerns and received feedback (Connelly & Rotella, 1991; Greenberg, 1990).
Other articles attempt to help coaches master the basic skills of communication which
consist of: raising athletes’ self image, effective teaching of sport skills, and gaining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
athletes’ respect (Anshel, 1997). There are also specific interpersonal communication
exercises which coaches can implement with their respective teams which can help
raise the awareness levels of communication skills while also providing a practice
ground for improving these skills (Sullivan, 1993).
Establishing better communication patterns between coach-athlete and athlete-
coach will help both parties realize where the other is coming from, what they are
thinking, and what they need and prefer. In the current study, athletes who utilized
intrinsic/social motives utilized more adaptive ways of dealing with their
dissatisfaction, while those athletes who perceived their team to be more performance
oriented and had high discrepancy with specific coaching behaviors lead to
dissatisfaction with their coach, then to the use of maladaptive alternatives. If coaches
and athletes have an established rapport, coaches will be more aware o f their athletes’
motive and preferences for specific coaching behaviors, so some conflicts can be
resolved before they start. Another way o f resolving conflicts and potential
dissatisfaction experiences is through the use of goal setting.
The efficacy of goal setting programs have been shown in both the industrial
organizational psychology and sport research literatures. Setting up team and
individual goal setting programs can eliminate some conflicts by helping to clarify
roles and expectations, giving the athletes some say in the workings o f their teams,
facilitating increased motivation, improving performance, and enhancing task
persistence. Implementing a team goal setting program involves the following:
athletes and coaches assess their strengths and weaknesses; they then prioritize the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
areas that need attention; they then decide how these areas can be improved (action
plans); and finally, they decide on ways in which evaluation and accountability should
occur. Helping athletes to take more responsibility for their thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors is an important lesson for them since there are a number of things athletes
can do to help prevent and/or minimize conflicts with their coaches, beginning with
accepting more responsibility for their actions (Yambor, 1998).
Team building activities can also be used to help get coaches and athletes on the
“same page”, in terms of working toward common goals. Team building intervention
programs help to develop group solidarity, positive team chemistry, and cooperative
team-oriented behaviors through team brainstorming sessions including both coaches
and athletes (Yukelson, 1997). One particular team building intervention program
used to address dissatisfaction issues/conflicts consists of six specific areas believed
to be most salient for building successful teams (Voight, 1998; Yukelson, 1997): (1)
shared vision or long term goals, which help establish standards of performance and
goals to shoot for; (2) role clarity, acceptance, and action, since a lot of conflict occurs
as a result o f role ambiguity; (3) strong leadership and accountability, which means
that each player must do whatever is necessary to carry out the team’s standards of
performance; (4) team identification, which involves the team developing a sense of
pride in group membership; (5) team culture, which involves making all the team
members feel important and valued, as well as putting the welfare o f the team ahead
of personal goals; (6) open and honest communication cannot be stressed enough
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
since the lines of communication must be clear and concise for teams to function
effectively.
Performance profiling is another specific intervention program which could be
utilized to prevent or minimize dissatisfaction experiences. Performance profiling
consists of athletes’ comparing the most salient characteristics of elite performers
from their respective sport with their self assessments on these characteristics. This
information provides players and coaches alike with a greater insight into how athletes
perceive their mental and physical skills, preparation, strengths, weaknesses, and ways
of improving deficiences. This input can then be used to develop both individual and
team goals to help them achieve more appropriate levels of each characteristic (Bull,
Albinson, & Shambrook, 1996; Butler & Hardy, 1992; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Jones,
1993). Performance profiles can also be conducted with the “team” as the major focus
by having each player address the most salient characteristics of an elite team in their
respective sport, then rate their team’s current level on each of the stated
characteristics. The performance profiling process helps to do the following: creates a
more open atmosphere for communication between coach and athlete; helps to
facilitate individual and team goal setting; increasing the input from the players
regarding team matters; helps athlete work collectively toward common goals; assists
in pointing out the discrepancy between how athletes and coaches view performance
and team dynamics; may possibly alleviate conflicts between coach and athlete from
the outset (Butler & Hardy, 1992; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
The final intervention deals with enhancing coach effectiveness. Improving coach
effectiveness involves coaches being open to sharpening their skills in the following
areas:
(1) becoming more effective educators of sport skills and strategies (sport pedagogy);
(2) more effective use o f reinforcement, such as targeting behavioral objectives,
stressing positive reinforcement (sandwich approach, which is positive statement
followed by future oriented positive feedback which is followed by a compliment); (3)
praise and criticize behavior not personality; (4) being more effective listeners, and
being open to new ideas and player feedback; (5) how well the coaches’ leadership
style matches the demands o f the specific coaching situation and athlete/coach
perceptual congruence; (6) self analysis and reflective abilities; (7) effectiveness in
enhancing athletes’ confidence; (8) and effectiveness of incorporating mental training
techniques into their teaching to improve coaching effectiveness (Anshel, 1997;
Douge & Hastie, 1993; Hall & Rodgers, 1989; Yambor, 1998). Improvements in these
areas could alleviate conflicts between teammates and between athletes and their
coaches, which could lead to decreased dissatisfaction experiences and maladaptive
consequences of athletes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, J.B., & Howe, B.L. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female
adolescent athletes’ perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology. 20. 280-299.
Allen, R.E., & Keaveny, T.J. (1981). Correlates of university faculty interest in
unionization: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology. 66. 582-
588.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D.
Schunk and J. Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom, (pp. 327-343).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational
processes. In G.C. Roberts (Eds.), Motivation in Sport and Exercise (pp. 161-176).
Ames, C. (1992c). Classrooms: Goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 84. 261-271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’
learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80.
260-267.
Amorose, A.J., & Weiss, M.R. (1998). Coaching feedback as a source o f
information about perceptions of ability: A developmental examination. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology. 20. 395-420.
Anshel, M.H. (1997). Sport psychology: From theory to practice. Scottsdale, AZ:
Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers.
Arnold, H.J., & Feldman, D.C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants
of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology. 67 (3), 350-60.
Associated Press. (1997, February 23). My way. Los Angeles Times.
Associated Press. (1999, February 3). McShane quits at Oregon. Los Angeles
Times.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1980). Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An
examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. Journal of Marketing. 17. 65-77.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist. 37. 122-147.
Barrett, N.P., Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-
athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist. 6 (2), 111-127.
Begley, T., & Czajka, J.M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects o f
commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational
change. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 78 (4), 552-556.
Bentler, P.M. (1995). EOS: Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software, Inc.
Bentler, P.M., & Wu, E.J. (1995). EOS for Windows User’s Guide. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software, Inc.
Berkow, I. (1997, December 9). A mask for bad behavior. New York Times. 20.
Black, S.J., & Weiss, M.R. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching
behaviors, perceptions o f ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 14. 309-325.
Brewington, P. (1999, March 9). Keller not on U.S. roster. USA Today, p. C5.
Brush, D.H., Moch, M.K., & Pooyan, A. (1987). Individual demographic
differences in job satisfaction. Journal o f Occupational Behavior. 8. 139-155.
Bull, S.J., Albinson, J.G., & Shambrook, C.J. (1996). The mental game plan:
Getting psvched for sport. Morgantown, WV: Sports Dynamics.
Bullock, R.J. (1984). Improving job satisfaction. New York: Pergamon Press.
Butler, R.J., & Hardy, L. (1992). The performance profile: Theory and application.
The Sport Psychologist. 6. 253-264.
Byrne, B.M. (1989). A primer o f LISREL: Basic applications and programming for
cfa models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Byrne, B.M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with eqs & eqs/windows. Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
219
Caldwell, D.F. & O’Reilly, C.A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-
comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75 (6), 648-657.
Cammann, L., Fishman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The michigan
organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Campion, M.A. (1988). Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive
replication of extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73. 465-481.
Carpenter, P.J., Scanlan, T.K., Simons, J.P., & Lobel, M. (1993). A test of the sport
commitment model using structural equation modeling. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 15 (2). 119-133.
Carron, A. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and
considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology. 4 . 123-138.
Carron, A., Ball, J., & Chelladurai, P. (1978). Motivation for participation, success
in performance and their relationship in individual and group satisfaction. Perceptual
and Motor Skills. 45. 835-841.
Chantal, Y., Guay, F., Martinova, T., & Vallerand, R. (1996). Motivation and elite
performance: An exploratory investigation with Bulgarian athletes. International
Journal of Sport Psychology. 27. 173-182.
Chelladurai, C. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of
Applied Sport Sciences. 5 (4), 226-231.
Chelladurai, C. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of
leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport
Psychology. 6. 27-41.
Chelladurai, C. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of
Sport Psychology. 21. 328-354.
Chelladurai, C. (1993). Leadership. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook of research on sport, (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co.
Chelladurai, C., & Carron, A.V. (1981). Application to youth sports of the LSS.
Perceptual and Motor Skills. 53. 361-362.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
Chelladurai, C., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oinuma, Y., & Miyauchi, T. (1988).
Sport leadership in a cross-national setting: The case o f Japanese and Canadian
university athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 12. 374-389.
Chelladurai, C., & Riemer, H. (1997). A classification o f the facets of athlete
satisfaction. Journal of Sport Management. 11. 133-159.
Chelladurai, C., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian
Journal o f Sport Sciences. 3. 85-92.
Coakley, J. (1982). Play, games and sport: Developmental implications for young
people. In J. Harris and R. Park (Eds.), Plav. Games and Sports in Cultural Contexts.
(pp. 431-450).
Cohn, P.J. (1990). An exploratory study of sources of stress and burnout in youth
golf. The Sport Psychologist. 4 (2), 95-106.
Collier calls halt to Indiana career. (1997, December 19). USA Today.
Connelly, D., & Rotella, R.J. (1991). The social psychology o f assertive
communication: Issues in teaching assertiveness skills to athletes. The Sport
Psychologist. 5. 73-87.
Daily Report (1997, December 18). Los Angeles Times, p. D4.
Daily Report. (1999, January 22). Los Angeles Times, p. D4.
Daily Report. (1999, August 22). Los Angeles Times, p. D5.
Dale, G.A., & Wrisberg, C.A. (1996). The use o f a performance profiling technique
in a team setting: Getting the athletes and coach on the “same page”. The Sport
Psychologist. 10. 261-277.
Dalton, A.H., & Marcis, J.G. (1987). Gender differences in job satisfaction among
young adults. Journal of Behavioral Economics. 10. 21-32.
Danserau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. 13. 46-78.
Dawis, R.V. (1992). Person-environmental fit and job satisfaction. In C.J. Cranny,
P. Smith, & E E . Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and
how it affects their performance, (pp. 69-88). New York: Lexington Books.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self Determination in
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dissatisfaction. (1998, February 17). USA Today, p. 7.
Dixon, O. (1998, March 4). Coach, player fight. USA Today, p. 8.
Drape, J. (1998, April 20). Talking ‘bout a revolution: Is player power out of
control? Depends who you ask. ESPN Magazine. 103.
Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coach effectiveness. Sport Science Review. 2. 14-
29.
Duda, J. (1987). Toward a developmental theory o f child’s motivation in sport
Journal of Sport Psychology. 9. 130-45.
Duda, J. (1988). The relationship between goal perspective and persistence and
intensity among recreational sport participants. Leisure Studies. 10. 95-106.
Duda, J. (1989). The relationship between task and ego orientation and the
perceived purpose o f sport among male and female high school students. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology. 11. 318-335.
Duda, J. (1993). Goals: A social cognitive approach to the study of achievement
motivation in sport. In R. Singer, M.Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Sport Psychology (pp 421-436). New York: Macmillan.
Duda, J. (1996). Maximizing motivation in sport and physical education among
children and adolescents: The case for greater task involvement. Quest 48. 290-302.
Duda, J., Chi, L., Newton, M., Walling, M., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego
orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport International Journal o f Sport
Psychology. 2 6 .40-63.
Duda, J., Fox, K., Biddle, S., & Armstrong, N. (1992). Children’s achievement
goals and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
62,313-323.
Duda, J., & Horn, H.L. (1993). Interdependencies between the perceived and self-
reported goal orientations of young athletes and their parents. Pediatric Exercise
Science. 5. 234-241.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
Duda, J., & Nicholls, J. (1992). Dimensions o f achievement motivation in
school work and sport Journal of Educational Psychology. 84 (2), 290-299.
Duda, J., Olson, L.K., & Templin, T.J. (1991). The relationship of task and ego
orientation to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 62.79-85.
Dweck, C.S. (1985). Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation
maintenance: An achievement goal analysis. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research
on motivation in education: The classroom milieu (Vol.w, pp. 289-305). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist. 41. 1040-1048.
Dwyer, J., & Fischer, D. (1988). Psychometric properties of the coach’s version of
leadership scale for sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 67. 795-798.
Dwyer, J., & Fischer, D.G. (1990). Wrestler’s perceptions of coach’s leadership as
predictors of satisfaction with leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 71. 511-517.
Elliott, E.S., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 54. 5-12.
Feltz, D., & Petlichkoff, L. (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic
sport participants and dropouts. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science. 8 (4),
231-235.
Finger, M. Penders’ future in doubt. The Web Texan. 2.
Fisher, C., & Locke, E.A. (In press). The new look in job satisfaction research and
theory. In C.J. Cranny, P.C. Smith & E.F. Stone (Eds.), Job Satisfaction: Advances in
Research and Applications. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Briere, N., & Provencher, P. (1995). Competitive and
recreational sport structures and gender: A test o f their relationship with sport
motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 26. 24-34.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A
review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 40. 287-322.
Gardner, R. & Neufield, W. (1987). Use of the simple change score in correlational
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 47. 849-864.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223
Gauchos Mutiny against Pimm. (1997, December 17). Los Angeles Times, p. 12c.
Garland, D.J., & Barry, J.R. (1988). The effects of personality and perceived leader
behavior on performance in collegiate football. The Psychological Record. 38. 237-
247.
Gauron, E.F. (1984). Mental Toughness for Peak Performance. Lansing, NY: Sport
Science Associates.
Gill, D., Gross, J., & Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth
sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 14. 1-14.
Goudas, M., & Biddle, S. (1994). Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic
motivation in school physical education classes. European Journal of Psychology of
Education. 3. 241-250.
Gould, D., Feltz, D., & Weiss, MLR. (1985). Motives for participating in
competitive youth swimming. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 16. 126-140.
Gould, D., Feltz, D., Horn, T., & Weiss, M.R. (1982). Reasons for discontinuing
involvement in competitive youth swimming. Journal of Sport Behavior. 5. 155-65.
Gould, D., Horn, T., & Spreeman, J. (1983). Competitive anxiety in junior elite
wrestlers. Journal o f Sport Psychology. 4. 203-18.
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1997). Burnout in competitive junior
tennis players: HI. Individual differences in the bumout experience. The Sport
Psychologist 11 (3), 257-76.
Gould, D., & Weiss, M.R. (1987). Advances in Pediatric Sport Sciences. fVol 21:
Behavioral Issues. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Grand, R., & Carron, A. (1982). Development of a team climate questionnaire. In
L.M. Wankel and R. Wilberg (Eds.), Psychology of Sport and Motor Behavior:
Research and Practice. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta.
Granito, V.J., & Carlton, E.B. (1993). Relationship between locus o f control and
satisfaction with intercollegiate volleyball teams at different levels of competition.
Journal o f Sport Behavior. 16 (4), 221-228.
Grean, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects o f leader-member
exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 30. 109-131.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
Greenberg, J.S. (1990). Coping with stress: A practical guide. Dubuque, Iowa:
William C. Brown.
Greenhaus, J.H. Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W.M. (1990). Effects o f race on
organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy o f Management Journal. 33. 64-86.
Guzzo, R.A., Jette, R.D., & Katzell, R.A. (1985). The effects of psychologically
based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology. 38. 275-291.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 60. 159-170.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design o f work:
Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance. 16. 250-279.
Hall, C.R., & Rodgers, W.M. (1989). Enhancing coach effectiveness in figure
skating through a mental skills training program. The Sport Psychologist. 3. 142-154.
Heneman, H.G. & Schwab, D.P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional
nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology. 20. 129-141.
Henne, D., & Locke, E.A. (1985). Job dissatisfaction: What are the consequences?
International Journal o f Psychology. 20. 221-40.
Henne, D. (1986). Thoughts and actions as consequences of job dissatisfaction.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Business and Management, University
of Maryland.
Hochgesang, R. (1997, March 19). Gardner says situation turned sour. The Daily
Troian. 18.
Hoffman, D.A., & Strickland, O.J. (1995). Task performance and satisfaction:
Evidence for a task-by-ego-orientation interaction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology. 25 (6), 495-511.
Horn, T. (1987). The influence o f teacher-coach behavior on the psychological
development o f children. In D. Gould & M.R. Weiss (Eds.), Advances in Pediatric
Sport Sciences (pp 121-142). Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Home,T., & Carron, A. (1985). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationships.
Journal of Sport Psychology. 7 . 137-149.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Admnistrative
Science Quarterly. 16. 321-338.
Hupp, S.L. (1991). A revision o f Rossman’s leisure program satisfaction form.
Society and Leisure. 14111. 85-96.
Ironson, G.R, Smith, P.C., Brannick, M.T., Gibson, W.M., & Paul, K.B. (1989).
Constitution of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific
measures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74. 193-200.
Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of
research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes. 36. 16-78.
Jagacinski, C. (1992). The effects of task involvement and ego involvement on
achievement-related cognitions and behaviors. In D.H. Schunk and J.L Meece (Eds.),
Student Perceptions in the Classroom, (pp. 307-322). Champaign, Illinois: Human
Kinetics.
Jagacinski, C.M., & Nicholls, J.G. (1990). Reducing effort to protect perceived
ability: “They’d do it but I wouldn’t.” Journal of Educational Psychology. 82. 15-21.
James, L.A., & James, L.R. (1984). Integrating work environement perceptions:
Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74.
739-751.
James, L.R., & James, L.A. (1992). Psychological climate and affect: Test of a
hierarchical dynamic model. In C.J. Cranny, P.C. Smith, & E.F. Stone (Eds.), Job
Satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance.
(pp. 89-122). New York: Lexington Books.
Jex, S.M., & Beehr, T.A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues
in the study of work-related stress. Research in personnel and human resources
management. 9. 311-365.
Jex, S.M., & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An
exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 13. 509-517.
Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables:
A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 27. 443-463.
Jones, G. (1993). The role o f performance profiling in cognitive behavioral
interventions in sport. The Sport Psychologist. 7. 160-172.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd
edition! New York: John Wiley.
Katzell, R.A. & Guzzo, R.A. (1983). Psychological approaches to productivity
improvement American Psychologist 14.468-472.
Kavussani, M., & Roberts, G.C. (1996). Motivation in physical activity contexts:
The relationship o f perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and self-
efficacy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 18. 264-280.
Kenow, L., & Williams, J.M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athlete’s
perceptions of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior. 22 (2). 251-259.
Kimiecik, J.C., Allison, M.J., & Duda, J.L. (1986). Performance satisfaction,
perceived competence, and game outcome: The competitive experience of boys club
youth. International Journal o f Sport Psychology. 17. 255-268.
Klint, K., & Weiss, M. (1986). Dropping in and dropping out: Participation
motives of current and former youth gymnasts. Canadian Journal o f Applied Sport
Sciences. 11. 106-114.
Krane, V., Greenleaf, C.A., & Snow, J. (1997). Reaching for gold and the price of
glory: A motivational case study of an elite gymnast. The Sport Psychologist. 11, 53-
71.
Kurtz, M.E., & Propst, D.B. (1991). Research note: Relationship between
perceived control in leisure and life satisfaction: A study of non-institutionalized older
persons. Leisure Studies. 10. 69-77.
Knight’s time to look in the mirror. (1997, March 23). New York Times.
Knight and day. (1997, December 21). Florida Times Union.
Latham, G.P., & Frayne, C.A. (1989). Self-management for increasingjob
attendance: A followup and a replication. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74. 411-416.
Latham, G.P., & Frayne, C.A. (1990). Increasingjob attendance through training in
self management: A review o f two field experiments. In Kleinbeck, Quast, Thierry, &
Hacker fEds.L Work Motivation, (pp. 169-187). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Latham, G.P., & Napier, N.K. (1984). Practical ways to increase employee
attendance. In P. Goodman, R. Atkin, & Associates (Eds.), Absenteesim. (pp. 322-
359). New York: Jossey-Bass Publ.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
Latham, G.P., & Yukl, G.A. (1976). Effect o f assigned and participative goal
setting on performance and satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 6 1 .166-171.
Lawler, E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. CA: Wadsworth Publ. Co.,
Inc.
Lawler, E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.
Lawler, E.E., & Porter, L.W. (1967). The effect o f performance on job satisfaction.
Industrial Relations. 7. 20-28.
Lee, L. (1997). Goal orientations, goal setting, and academic performance in
college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California,
Los Angeles.
Lee, C., Ashford, S.J., & Bobko, P. (1990). Interaction effects of “type A”
behavior, and perceived control on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic
complaints. Academy o f Management. 33. 870-881.
Lewin, D. (1987). Dispute resolution in the nonunion firm. Journal of Conflict
Resolution. 3 1 .465-502.
Lochbaum, M.R., & Roberts, G.C. (1993). Goal orientations and perceptions o f the
sport experience. Journal o f Sport and Exercise Psychology. 15 (21. 160-171.
Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. 4. 309-336.
Locke, E.A. (1970). Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 5 .484-500.
Locke, E.A. (1982). Relation o goal level to performance with a short work period
and multiple goal levels. Journal of Applied Psychology. 67. 512-514.
Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self efficacy,
goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied PsychologvU>9.
241-251.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990a). Work motivation: The high performance
cycle. In V. Kleinbeck, H. Quast, H. Thierry, & H. Hacker (Eds.), Work motivation.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990b). A theory o f goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990c). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at
the end of the tunnel. American Psychological Society. 1 (4), 240-246.
Maehr, M.L., & Braskamp, L. (19861.The motivation factor A theory of personal
investment.Lexington. MA: Heath.
Mangan, K.S. (1995, February 10). Coaching the coaches. Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. 7.
Mangione, T.W., & Quin, R.P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive
behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60 (1), 114-116.
McGuire, R. (1990). Athletes at risk: In R. Tricker & D.L. Cook (Eds.), Athletes at
risk: Drugs and sport (pp. 1-14). Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown.
Moyle, P. (1995). The role of negative affectivity in the stress process: Tests of
alternative models. Journal o f Organizational Behavior. 16. 647-668.
Murray, M.A., & Atkinson, T. (1981). Gender differences in correlates of job
satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 13 (11.44-52.
NCAA director Focus must stay on student-athletes. (1998, January). NABC
Courtside. p. 5.
Neuman, G.A., Edwards, J.E., & Raju, N.S. (1989). Organizational development
interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 66. 356-381.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and. performance. Psychological Review. 91. 328-346.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
Nicholls, J.G., Cheung, P., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989). Individual
differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs and values.
Learning and Individual Differences. 1. 63-84.
Nicholls, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of
education. Journal of Educational Psychology. 11. 683-692.
O’Connor, E.J., Peters, L.H., Rudolf, C.J., & Pooyan, A. (1982). Situational
constraints and employee affective reactions: A partial field replication. Group and
Organizational Studies. 7. 418-428.
Olson-Buchanan, J.B. (1996). Voicing discontent: What happens to the grievance
filer after the grievance? Journal of Applied Psychology. 8 (1), 52-63.
Orpen, C. (1985). The effects of need for achievement and need for independence
on the relationship between perceived job attributes and managerial satisfaction and
performance. International Journal of Psychology. 20. 207-219.
Padsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational
moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. 34. 21-63.
Papaioannou, A., & Kouli, O. (1999). The effect of task structure, perceived
motivational climate, and goal orientations on student’s task involvement and anxiety.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 10. 145-155.
Parks, K.P. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment:
Additive and interactive predictors o f mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology.
75 (4), 399-409.
Passer, M.W. (1982). Children in sport: Participation motives and psychological
stress. Quest. 33 (2), 231-244.
Payne, D. (1996, October 28). Clark finds new home after New Zealand stint.
Soccer America, p. 23.
Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An
integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R_, Tuson, K., Briere, N., & Blais, M. (1995).
Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation
in sports: The sport motivation scale (sms). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology.
17(1), 35-53.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
Penner, M. (1999, October 26). Examining today’s athletes: Some things don’t
change. Los Angeles Times.
Peters, L.H., & O ’Connor, E.J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes:
The influences o f a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management
Review. S. 391-397.
Pritchard, R.D., Jones, S.D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K.K., & Ekeberg, S.E. (1988).
Effects o f group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 73. 337-358.
Prussia, G.E., Kinicki, A.J., & Bracker, J.S. (1993). Psychological and behavioral
consequences of job loss: A covariance structure analysis using Weiner’s (1985)
attribution model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78 (3), 382-394.
Pyle, T. (1998, February 10). Quinine also decides to leave ducks behind. Oregon
Daily Emerald. 1.
Ralston, D.A. (1989). The benefits o f flextime: Real or imagined? Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 10. 369-373.
Report: Embattled Penders out as texas coach. (1998, March 26). Fox Sports News
('onlineV
Riemer, H.A. (1995). Development o f the athlete satisfaction questionnaire.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Riemer, H.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology. 17 (3), 276-293.
Riemer, H.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development o f the Athlete Satisfaction
Questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 20 (2 ). 127-156.
Roberts, G.C. (1992). Motivation in sport and exercise.Champaign. Illinois:
Human Kinetics.
Roberts, G.C., & Duda, J. (1984). Motivation in sport: The mediating role o f
perceived ability. Journal o f Sport Psychology. 6. 312-324.
Roberts, G.C., Hall, H.K., Jackson, S.A., kimiecik, J.C., & Tonymon, P. (1990).
Personal theories o f ability and success in sport: Goal perspectives and the sport
experience. Unpublished manuscript.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
Roberts, G.C., & Treasure, D.C. (1992). Children in sport. Sport Science Review. 1
(2), 46-64.
Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C., & Kavussani, M. (1996). Orthogonality of
achievement goals and its relationship to beliefs about success and satisfaction in
sport. The Sport Psychologist. 10.398-408.
Robinson, G. (1998, February 17). Player meeting preceded Kilcullen removal. The
College Heights Herald Online, p. 6.
Robinson, T.T., & Carron, A.V. (1982). Personal and situational factors associated
with dropping out versus maintaining participation in competitive sport. Journal o f
Sport Psychology. 4. 364-378.
Rosse, J.G., & Hulin, C.L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee
health, withdrawal, and change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 36. 324-345.
Rosse, J.G., & Miller, H.E. (1984). Relationship between absenteeism and other
employee behaviors. In P.S. Goodman & R.S. Atkin (Eds.), Absenteeism, (pp. 194-
228). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rotella, R.J., & Newburg, D.S. (1989). The social psychology of the benchwarmer.
The Sport Psychologist. 3 .48-62.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 80 111. 609.
Rubult, C.E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model:
The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in
rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 68 (3),
429-438.
Ryan, R.M. (1982).Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An
extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 43. 450-61.
Ryan, R.M , & Deci, E.L. (1989). Bridging the research traditions o f task/ego
involvement and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation: Comment on Butler (1987). Journal of
Educational Psychology. 8 1 .265-268.
Saiyadain, M.S. (1985). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction: India-Nigeria
comparison. International Journal o f Psychology. 20. 143-153.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
Sandoval, G. (1998, February 24). Sims: Instability is trouble with trojans. Los
Angeles Times.
Scanlan, T.K., Carpenter, P., Schmidt, G., Simon, J., & Keeler, B. (1993). An
introduction to the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 15. 1-15.
Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychological aspects of the
competitive sport experience for male youth sport participants: I. Predictors of
competitive stress. Journal of Sport Psychology. 1. 151-159.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D.C., & Fox, M. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-
related stress. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 77.327-335.
Schliesman, E.S. (1987). Relationship between the congruence o f preference and
actual leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership. Journal of Sport
Behavior. 10. 157-166.
Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., Mckenzie, R.C., & Muldrow, T. (1979). Impact of
valid selection procedures on work force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology.
64, 609-626.
Schmidt, G., & Stein, G. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating
enjoyment, dropout, and burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 13. 254-
265.
Schmitt, N., & Pulakos, E.D. (1985). Predictingjob satisfaction from life
satisfaction: Is there a general satisfaction factor? International Journal of Psychology.
20,155-167.
Schneider, B., & Dachler, H.D. (1978). A note on the stability o f the job
descriptive index. Journal of Applied Psychology. 63. 650-653.
Schriesman, C.A., Hinkin, T., & Tetrault, L. (1991). The discriminant validity of
the leader reward and punishment questionnaire and satisfaction with supervision: A
two-sample, factor analytic investigation. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 64.
159-166.
Schriesman, C.A., & Murphy, C.J. (1976). Relationships between leader behavior
and subordinate satisfaction and performance: A test of some situational moderators.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 61 (5), 634-641.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
Seifriz, J., Duda, J.L., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational
climate to achievement-related affect and cognitions in basketball. Journal o f Sport &
Exercise Psychology. 14. 375-391.
Sheldon, J. (1997, May/June). Project 40 or project 8? Soccer America, p. 3.
Shields, D.L., & Bredemier, B.L. (1995). Character development in physical
activity. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Silva, J.M. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in competitive
athletics. Journal o f Applied Sport Psychology. 2. 5-20.
Slamming coach on the court gets him off it. (1998, February 24). Los Angeles
Times.
Smith, F.S. (1976). The index of organizational reactions. JSAS catalog o f selected
documents in psychology. 6. 1265.
Smith, P.C. (1992). In pursuit of happiness: Why study general job satisfaction? In
C.J. Cranny, P. Smith, & E.F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about
their jobs and how it affect their performance, (pp. 6-19). New York: Lexington
Books.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (1984). Leadership research in youth sports. In J.M.
Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations o f sport (pp. 371-386).
Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis,B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in little league
baseball. In F. Smoll & R. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports
(pp. 173-201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A
cognitive behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sports coaches.
Journal of Sport Psychology. 1. 59-75.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral
assessment o f athletic coaches. Research Quarterly. 4 8 .401-407.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
Smith, R.E., Zane, N.W., Smoll, F., & Coppel, D. (1983). Behavioral assessment in
youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children’s attitudes. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise. 15. 208-214.
Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1980). Psychologically-oriented coach training
programs: Design, implementation, and assessment. In C.H. Nadeau, K. Newell, & G.
Roberts (Eds.l. Psychology o f motor behavior and sport - 1979 (pp. 112-129).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smoll, F.L., & Smith, R.E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A . theoretical
model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 9. 201-208.
Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function o f employee’s locus
on control. Psychological Bulletin. 91 (3), 482-497.
Spector, P.E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:
Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal o f Community
Psychology. 13. 693-713.
Spector, P.E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on
affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work & Stress. 1. 155-
162.
Spector, PJ3. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and
consequences. C A: Sage Publications.
Sperber, M. (1990). College sports inc. The athletic department versus the
university. New York: Henry Holt.
Spink, K.S., & Roberts, G. (1980). Ambiguity of outcome and causal attributions.
Journal of Sport Psychology. 2 (3), 237-244.
SPSS/PC computer software program. (1999).
Stainback, R.D. (1997). Alcohol and Sport. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst o f change: A dispositional
approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 7 0 .469-480.
Tait, M., Padgett, M.Y., & Baldwin, T.T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: A
reexamination of the strength o f the relationship and gender effects as a function o f
the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74. 502-507.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
Terborg, J.R., Lee, T.W., Smith, F.J., Davis, G.A., & Turbin, M.S. (1982).
Extension o f the Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization procedure to the
prediction o f absenteeism behavior from knowledge of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment Journal of Applied Psychology. 67 (4), 440-449.
Terry, P.C. (1984). The coaching preferences of elite athletes competing at
Universiade c 83.Canadian Journal o f Applied Sport Sciences. 9 .201-208.
Theeboom, M., DeKnop, P., & Weiss, M. (1995). Motivational climate,
psychological responses and motor skill development in children’s sport: A field-
based intervention stdy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 3. 294-311.
Tough guy coaching is out. (1995, May/June). Soccer America, p. 7.
Treasure, D.C. (1997). Perceptions of the motivational climate and elementary
school children’s cognitive and affective response. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology. 19 GY 278-290.
Treasure, D.C., & Roberts, G.C. (1994). Cognitive and affective concomitants of
task and ego goal orientations during the middle school years. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology. 16. 15-28.
Varca, P.E., Shaffer, G.S., & Saunders, V. (1984). A longitudinal investigation of
sport participation and life satisfaction. Journal of Sport Psychology. 6. 440-447.
Vemacchia, R.A. (1977). Humanistic research for the sport psychologist. The case
profile approach. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science. 2. 105-108.
Vemacchia, R.A. (1998). Making the case for case study research. In M.
Thompson, R.Vemacchia, & W. Moore, (Eds.), Case studies in applied sport
psychology: An educational approach (pp. 7-18). Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Voight, M.R. (1998, December). Team building: Strategies to improve team
effectiveness. NABC Courtside. 12.
Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (1999a). The relationship of perceived coaching
behaviors, motivation, and satisfaction of vouth soccer plavers. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (1999b). An exploratory investigation into the
determinants and consequences o f dissatisfaction of collegiate athletes.Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236
Vroom, V. f 19641 Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Walling, M.D., Duda, J.L, & Chi, L. (1993). The perceived motivational climate in
sport questionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology. 15. 172-183.
Wankel, L.M., & Berger, B.G. (1990). The psychological and social benefits of
sport and physical activity. Journal of Leisure Research. 22 (2), 167-182.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J.W., & Folger, R. (1986). Beyond negative affectivity:
Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management. 8. 141-157.
Weaver, C.N. (1978). Job satisfaction as a component of happiness among males
and females. Personnel Psychology. 31. 831-840.
Weaver, C.N. (1980). Job satisfaction in the U.S. in the 1970's. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 65. 364-367.
Weinberg, R , & Gould, D. (1995). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Weiss, M.R., & Bredemeier, B.J. (1983). Developmental sport psychology: A .
theoretical perspective for studying children in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, .5,
216-230.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the
minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Weiss, M.R., & Duncan, S.C. (1992). The relationship between physical
competence and peer acceptance in the context o f children’s sport participation.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 17. 177-191.
Weiss, M.R., & Friedrichs, W. (1986). The influence of leader behaviors, coach
attributes, and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction of collegiate
basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology. 8 .332-346.
Weiss, M.R., & Petlichkoff, L. (1989).Children’s motivation for participation in
and most withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing links. Pediatric Exercise
Science. 1. 195-211.
Wertheim, L.J. (1999, November 15). Fall guys. Sports Illustrated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237
Whitlock, J. (1998, March 26). Penders is victim o f lack o f savy. The Star.
Whittal, N.R., & Orlick, T.D. (1978). The sport satisfaction inventory. In G.C.
Roberts & K.M. Newell (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp. 144-
155). Champaign, 1 1 1 : Human Kinetics.
White, S.A., & Duda, J. (1994). The relationship o f gender, level of sport
involvement, and participation motivation to task and ego orientation. International
Journal of Sport Psychology. 2 5 .4-18.
Wire reports. (1998, February 17). Dissatisfaction. USA Today.
Wire reports. (1999, March 22). Los Angeles Times. C4.
Wire reports. (1999, April 25). College basketball. Los Angeles Times. C 9.
Witt, L.A., & Nye, L.G. (1992). Gender and the relationship between perceived
fairness of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 77
(6), 910-917.
Wood, R.E. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory o f organizational
management. Acadmev of Management Review. 14. 361-384.
Wood, R.E. & Locke, E.A. (1986). Goal setting and strategy effects on complext
tasks. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol 12.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yambor, J. (1998). Coach-athlete issues. In M. Thompson, R.Vemacchia, & W.
Moore (Eds.), Case studies in applied sport psychology: An educational approach (pp.
115-138). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A
direct services approach at Penn State University. Journal o f Applied Sport
Psychology. 9 (I), 73-96.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A.
TABLES 1-14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1. Scale Reliability Estimates
Scale Number o f Items Alpha
Motives for Athletic Participation 15 .72
Leadership Scale for Sports:
Perception Scale 10 .79
Preference Scale 10 .78
Task & Ego Orientation in Sport 8 .58
Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport 10 .50
Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire 26 .93
Competitive Experience Questionnaire* 34 .89
Note. N = 369, except for the Competitive Experience Questionnaire,
* = Competitive Experience Questionnaire was completed by dissatisfied
athletes only, N = 273.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
240
Table 2. Pattern Matrix of the Principal Component Analysis o f the Seven Scales
Scale Alpha Item Fcl Fc2 Fc3 Fc4 Fc5 Fc6 Fc7 Fc8
MCAP .72 to be popular 0.43 -0.33 0.18
make new friends 0.52 0.35 -0.11
be with my friends 0.65 0.07 -0.18
athlete recognition 0.59 0.03 0.01
for the excitement -0.01 0.54 -0.04
personal accompl. 0.13 0.50 0.08
be a part of team 0.28 0.51 -0.09
stepping stone 0.02 0.05 0.61
education paid for -0.04 0.00 0.40
earn honors 0.24 0.05 0.52
eigenvalue 3.46 2.02 1.57
% variance 22.00 13.00 10.00
LSS(Pc) .79 reward athletes 0.68 0.05 0.19 0.11 0.27
express appreciation 0.68 0.03 0.16 0.09 0.32
plan independent 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.11 0.12
figure ahead 0.25 0.10 0.26 0.02 0.55
asks for opinions 0.14 0.10 0.64 0.17 0.16
get group approval 0.19 0.00 0.64 0.15 0.19
helps athletes 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.65 0.18
personal welfare 0.32 0.06 0.17 0.44 0.38
work to capacity 0.24 0.04 0.13 0.21 0.58
explains techniques 0.19 0.33 0.16 0.19 0.49
eigenvalue 3.67 1.14 1.10 0.86 0.74
% variance 37.00 11.00 11.00 8.60 7.40
(Table Continues)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
241
Table 2 (Continued)
Scale Alpha Item Fcl Fc2 Fc3 Fc4 Fc5 Fc6 Fc7 Fc8
LSS (Pf) .78 reward athletes
express apprec
0.64
0.68
0.17
0.19
0.12
0.05
0.28
0.17
0.22
0.18
plan independent
figure ahead
0.07
0.05
0.66
0.09
0.13
0.14
0.07
0.18
0.04
0.61
ask for opinions
get group approval
0.09
0.17
0.13
0.01
0.60
0.57
0.12
0.21
0.23
0.14
helps athletes
personal welfare
0.35
0.09
0.09
0.24
0.09
0.02
0.55
0.62
0.17
0.18
work to capacity
explains techniques
eigenvalue
% variance
0.17
0.21
3.56
36.00
0.13
0.17
1.10
11.00
0.08
0.28
0.95
10.00
0.18
0.24
0.93
9.00
0.57
0.47
0.81
8.00
TEOSQ .58 do better than TM’s 0.62
I’m the best 0.68
I don’t mess up 0.63
I score most pts 0.69
0.00
0.09
-0.16
0.03
skills feel right
I do my very best
I work really hard
I learn new skills
eigenvalue
% variance
0.10
-0.09
-0.05
0.13
2.35
24.00
0.61
0.68
0.69
0.57
2 2 5
23.00
PMCSQ .50 players are punished 0.49
coach favors players 0.60
encour outplay TM’s 0.44
afraid make mistakes 0.60
top players noticed 0.53
0.04
-0.18
0.25
-0.09
-0.25
effort is rewarded -0.16
focus on improving -0.03
work on weaknesses-0.01
improvement is imp -0.26
important roles -0.37
0.47
0.59
0.66
0.61
0.47
eigenvalue
% variance
2.98
30.00
1.78
18.00
(Table Continues)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
242
Table 2 (cont)
Scale Alpha Item Fcl Fc2 Fc3 Fc4 Fc5 Fc6 Fc7 Fc8
ASQ .93 coach’s strategy 0.62 0.29 0.22 0.19
recognition received 0.62 0.01 0.45 0.12
training received 0.53 0.28 0.29 0.25
coach’s adjustment 0.65 0.28 0.26 0.23
friendliness of coach 0.63 0.04 0.27 0.06
instruction received 0.71 0.17 0.22 0.27
c’s sportspersonlike 0.63 0.25 -0.06 -0.04
c’s game plans 0.65 0.32 0.22 0.23
level of appreciation 0.68 0.04 0.28 0.13
c’s teaching of tactics0.57 0.24 0.28 0.28
feedback from TM’s 0.09 0.56 0.29 0.10
TM acceptance -0.02 0.54 0.23 0.13
sportspersonlike 0.03 0.66 0.19 0.07
TM’s dedication 0.16 0.71 0.10 0.15
team’s performance 0.20 0.60 0.21 0.15
team meeting goals 0.31 0.61 0.23 0.21
TM’s played as team 0.28 0.66 0.05 0.16
TM’s level o f fitness 0.33 0.41 0.12 0.27
degree reached goals 0.06 0.18 0.71 -0.01
improvement in perf 0.23 0.32 0.58 0.16
amount time played 0.37 -0.11 0.52 0.03
degree ability used 0.03 0.19 0.71 0.07
funding provided 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.71
academic services 0.07 0.18 0.13 0.53
support by admin 0.19 0.15 0.06 0.68
eigenvalue 9.70 2.45 1.85 1.39
% variance 37.00 9.50 7.10 5.30
(Table Continues)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2 (Continued)
243
Scale Alpha Item Fcl Fc2 Fc3 Fc4 Fc5 Fc6 Fc7 Fc8
bouts of depression 0.61 0.08 0.18 0.29 0.14 0.09 0.18 0.03
sleep disorders 0.58 0.07 0.14 0.20 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.01
self esteem lowered 0.50 -0.09 0.35 0.41 -0.03 0.00 0.08 0.24
heightened anxiety 0.52 -0.01 0.35 0.32 0.05 -0.05 0.09 0.18
team file grievances 0.01 0.66 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.09 -0.03
getting coach fired 0.00 0.63 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.01 0.05 -0.01
faked injury 0.15 0.44 0.11 0.08 0.37 0.02 0.07 -0.03
file grievance to ad 0.27 0.55 -0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.17
increase effort 0.07 0.04 0.49 -0.05 -0.09 0.36 -0.06 0.16
change perceptions 0.15 0.02 0.53 0.05 0.14 0.18 0.16 -0.04
change goals 0.09 0.06 0.54 0.09 -0.05 0.26 0.20 0.16
use as motivator 0.18 -0.01 0.52 -0.06 0.00 0.13 -0.03 0.31
hinder athletic perf 0.31 0.12 0.11 0.46 0.01 0.07 0.39 0.05
think transfer 0.23 0.13 -0.08 0.50 0.08 0.32 0.04 0.09
think quitting 0.22 0.06 0.04 0.59 0.14 0.19 0.12 0.13
lower commitment 0.35 0.11 0.10 0.50 0.17 0.02 0.26 0.15
experience burnout 0.37 0.04 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.09 0.20 0.33
delib perform poorly 0.01 0.23 0.11 0.35 0.45 0.07 0.19 -0.20
insubordination 0.12 0.38 -0.04 -0.04 0.43 0.22 0.08 -0.01
use drugs/alcohol 0.34 0.01 -0.08 0.12 0.44 0.19 0.26 0.12
pathogenic eating 0.14 0.11 -0.04 0.13 0.62 0.06 0.03 0.00
late for matches 0.08 0.19 0.02 0.06 0.63 0.03 0.16 -0.02
deviant behavior 0.19 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.65 0.01 0.17 0.01
ignore team rules 0.04 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.55 -0.03 0.16 0.13
seek advice 0.11 0.07 0.33 0.19 -0.05 0.45 0.09 0.23
confront the source 0.19 0.02 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.63 0.09 0.06
overly aggressive 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.61 -0.02
hinder acad perf 0.25 0.14 -0.05 0.19 0.09 0.21 0.44 -0.14
tolerate feelings 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.31 -0.05 0.02 -0.11 0.48
satisfied how dealt -■0.24 -0.08 0.27 -0.09 0.06 0.09 -0.12 0.48
complain to TM’s 0.25 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.55
(Table Continued)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
244
Table 2 (Continued)
Fcl Fc2 Fc3 Fc4 Fc5 Fc6 Fc7 Fc8
Eigenvalue 8.15 3.35 2.07 1.50 1.40 1.20 1.14 1.03
Variance 24.00 10.00 6.10 4.40 4.10 3.50 3.40 3.00
Note. Fc = Factor, MCAP = Motives for College Athletic Participation Questionnaire,
LSS-Pc = Leadership Scale for Sports-Perceived version, LSS-Pf = Leadership Scale for
Sports-Preferred version, TEOSQ = Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire,
PMCSQ = Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire, ASQ = Athlete
Satisfaction Questionnaire, CEQ = Competitive Experience Questionnaire, accompl =
accomplishments, apprec = appreciation, encour = encouragement, c’s = coach’s, TM =
team, TM’s = teammates, perf = performance, delib = deliberate, acad = academic.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
245
Table 3. Summary of Questionnaire Subscale and Item Descriptives
Scale Subscale SS Mean SD Range Item Item Mean SD Range
MCAP Intrinsic 10.81 1.35 5-15 Int 1 2.70 .50 1-3
Int 2 2.64 .55
Int 3 2.75 .50
Int 4 2.83 .39
Int 5 2.74 .49
Extrinsic 7.99 2.01 7-21 Ext 1 1.78 .82 1-3
Ext 2 2.06 .81
Ext 3 2.68 .52
Ext 4 1.89 .77
Ext 5 1.83 .73
Ext 6 2.10 .69
Social 8.62 1.73 4-12 Soc 1 1.38 .59 1-3
Soc 2 2.51 .65
Soc 3 2.65 .57
Soc 4 2.10 .77
LSS-Perc Training 12.96 1.74 2-10 T I1 4.39 .64 1-5
TI2 4.17 .79
Democratic 6.64 1.62 Demo 1 3.23 .96
Demo 2 3.41 .98
Autocratic 7.66 1.30 Auto 1 3.63 .86
Auto 2 4.03 .78
Social Suppt 7.53 1.63 SS 1 3.45 1.06
SS 2 4.06 .85
Pos Feedback 7.63 1.60 PF I 3.70 .86
PF 2 3.93 .88
(Table Continues)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (Continued)
Scale Subscale SS Mean SD Range Item Item Mean SD Range
LSS-Pref Training 9.11 1.10 2-10 TI 3 4.66 .58 1-3
TI 4 4.43 .71
Democratic 7.94 1.55 Demo 3 3.92 .92
Demo 4 4.03 .87
Autocratic 9.05 1.30 Auto 3 3.57 .97
Auto 4 4.46 .69
Social Suppt 9.05 1.30 SS 3 3.90 .94
SS 4 4.50 .73
Pos Feedback 9.05 1.30 PF 3 4.47 .71
PF 4 4.60 .65
LSS-Discp Training -3.86 1.74 0-8
Democratic 1.30 1.93
Autocratic 1.40 1.70
Social Suppt 1.52 1.96
Pos Feedback 1.42 1.95
TEOSQ Task 17.60 2.23 4-20 Task 1 4.34 .74 1-5
Task 2 4.60 .71
Task 3 4.56 .70
Task 4 4.10 .86
Ego 8.55 2.70 Ego 1 3.20 1.10
Ego 2 3.32 1.19
Ego 3 2.50 1.11
Ego 4 2.91 1.21
PMCSQ Mastery 16.10 2.31 5-25 Mast 1 3.76 .83 1-5
Mast 2 3.96 .82
Mast 3 4.22 .78
Mast 4 4.16 .78
Mast 5 3.85 1.01
(Table Continues)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
247
Table 3 (Continued)
Scale Subscale SS Mean SD Range Item Item Mean SD Range
PMCSQ Performance 16.80 3.41 Perf 1
Perf 2
Perf 3
Perf 4
Perf 5
3.12
3.57
3.79
3.19
3.08
1.04 1-5
1.07
.96
1.08
1.08
ASQ Performance 27.00 6.12 6-42 SatPerfl 4.30 1.22 1-7
SatPerE 4.46 1.47
SatPerG 4.63 1.25
SatPerf4 4.62 1.38
SatPerf5 4.14 1.51
SatPerfo 4.92 2.00
Leadership 51.30 11.99 11-77 Lshipl 4.11 1.35
Lship2 4.48 1.43
Lship3 4.22 1.48
Lship4 4.78 1.47
Lship5 4.49 1.48
Lship6 5.02 1.51
Lship7 4.81 1.53
Lship8 5.18 1.47
Lship9 4.87 1.44
LshiplO 4.58 1.51
Lshipll 4.81 1.49
Teammates 29.95 6.20 6-42 SatTMl 4.59 1.46
SatTM2 5.59 1.39
SatTM3 5.09 1.35
SatTM4 4.74 1.49
SatTM5 4.98 1.37
SatTM6 4.99 1.45
Admin 13.75 4.11 3-21 SatADl 4.04 1.89
SatAD2 5.16 1.55
SatAD3 4.56 1.74
(Table Continues)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
248
Table 3 (Continued)
Scale Subscale SS Mean SD Range Item Item Mean SD Range
CEQ Mai Behavior 9.99 5.98 0-45 Mbehl 1.97 1.44 0-5
Mbeh2 1.63 1.56
Mbeh3 2.37 1.46
Mbeh4 .49 1.01
MbehS .32 .96
Mbeh6 .39 .92
Mbeh7 .33 .93
Mbeh8 2.15 1.65
Mbeh9 .42 1.01
Mai Psychol 5.23 5.44 0-30 Mpsycl .62 1.24
Mpsyc2 .27 .81
Mpsyc3 1.31 1.49
Mpsyc4 1.42 1.64
Mpsyc5 1.06 1.58
Mpsyc6 .58 1.12
Mai Emotl 6.33 4.50 0-15 Memotl 2.34 1.75
Memot2 2.34 1.82
Memot3 1.69 1.73
Mai Withdrl 3.24 3.72 0-25 Mwithl .27 .85
Mwith2 .73 1.24
Mwith3 .54 1.11
Mwith4 1.45 1.73
Mwith5 .32 .89
Adap Behav 11.10 5.35 0-30 Adbehl .85 1.40
Adbeh2 3.10 1.48
Adbeh3 2.89 1.66
Adbeh4 2.04 1.69
Adbeh5 1.67 1.86
Adbeh6 .58 1.08
Adap Psychol 8.98 4.50 0-25 Adpsycl 1.62 1.57
Adapsyc2 2.35 1.70
Adpsyc3 2.83 1.52
Adpsyc4 2.34 1.71
Adpsyc5 2.68 1.65
Note. N = 369, Suppt = Support, Pos = Positive, Pref = Preference, Perc = Perceived,
Discrp = Discrepancy, Admin = Administration, Mai Psychol = Maladaptive
Psychological, Mai Emotl = Maladaptive Emotional, Mai Withdrl = Maladaptive
Withdrawal, Adap Behav = Adaptive Behavioral, Adap Psychol = Adaptive
Psychological.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
249
Table 4. Summary o f Subscale Descriptives & T Tests for Satisfied & Dissatisfied Athletes
Satisfied Athletes: Dissatisfied Athletes: T Test
(N=95) (N=274)
Scale Subscale SS Mean SD SS Mean SD t value df p value
MCAP Intrinsic 10.96 1.25 10.76 1.38 1.28 179.0 .20
Extrinsic 8.45 2.03 7.83 1.98 2.60 160.9 .01*
Social 8.84 1.57 8.54 1.79 1.53 185.0 .12
LSS - Training -4.38 1.15 -3.69 1.87 -4.24 268.1 .00*
Discrepancy
Democratic 1.21 1.59 -1.34 2.04 -.61 207.0 .54
Autocratic 1.22 1.34 1.46 1.79 -1.35 217.0 .18
Social Suppt 1.32 1.53 1.60 2.08 -1.39 223.0 .17
Pos Fdbk 1.14 1.40 1.52 2.10 -1.97 245.6 .05**
TEOSQ Task 17.78 1.74 17.52 2.37 1.17 222.1 .24
Ego 8.54 2.42 8.55 2.73 -.35 183.0 .97
PMCSQ Mastery 17.16 1.86 15.73 2.33 6.01 203.1 .00*
Perf 16.24 3.26 16.94 3.45 -1.76 171.0 .07
ASQ Perf 32.08 3.92 25.24 5.75 12.88 240.0 .00*
Lead 60.61 7.19 48.07 11.64 12.31 266.0 .00*
TM 34.25 3.75 28.46 6.13 10.84 269.0
*
O
o
Admin 16.21 2.53 12.89 4.21 9.12 273.5 .00*
Note, df = degrees of freedom, * = significant at .01 level, ** = significant at .05 level,
Suppt = Support, Pos Fdbk = Positive Feedback, Perf = Performance Climate, Perf=
Performance, Lead = Leadership, TM = Teammates, Admin = Administration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
250
Table 5. Summary o f Consequential Alternative Subscale Descriptives and Gender
Female Athletes
(N=146)
Male Athletes
(N=I29)
T Test
Scale Subscale SS Mean SD SS Mean SD t value df p value
CEQ MalBeh 9.29 5.50 10.79 6.41 -2.08 254.0 .04**
MalPsych 5.27 5.39 5.19 5.52 .11 267.1 .91
MalEmotl 6.95 4.60 5.62 4.23 2.50 272.6 .01*
MalWithl 3.11 3.38 3.39 4.09 -.62 249.0 .53
AdapBeh 11.08 5.17 11.12 5.57 -.05 262.3 .96
AdapPsych 9.14 4.54 8.81 4.44 .61 270.1 .54
Note, df = degrees of freedom, * = significance at .01 level, ** = significance at .05
level, MalBeh = Maladaptive Behavioral Action, MaLPsych = Maladaptive
Psychological Alternatives, MalEmotl = Maladaptive Emotional Alternatives,
MalWithl = Maladaptive Withdrawal Alternatives, AdapBeh = Adaptive Behavioral
Action, AdapPsych = Adaptive Psychological Alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
251
Table 6. Summary o f Zero-Order Correlations
Variables 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
l.Motfnt — .10 .31* .13 .12 .10 .09 .20* .08 .04 .02 -.01
2.MotExt .11 .13 .10 .03 -.04 .05 -.01 .11 -.05 -.19
3 .MotSoc .04 .09 .09 .09 .15 .12 .06 .10 .01
4.TIdiscrp .39* .37* .35* .40* .07 .00 -.36* .11
5.Demdiscp .29* .39* .52* .04 -.06 -.05 .12
6.Autodiscp .55* .57* .13 -.07 -.07 -.01
7.SSdiscp .61* .13 -.05 -.11 .14
8.PFdiscp .09 -.06 -.14 .14
9.Task .03 .12 -.11
10.Ego .01 .20*
11 .Mastery -.27*
12.Perf
----
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
l3.Leader -.39* .01 .01 -.39* -.30* -.27* -.29* -.32* .08 -.02 .49* -.43*
14.Perform -.02 .10 -.02 -.28* .19* .16 .14 -.16 .06 -.04 32* -.27
15.TM .07 .04 .14 -.30* -.08 -.11 -.10 -.05 .09 -.07 .37* -.14
16. Admin .06 -.08 .00 -.20* .01 -.09 -.08 .06 .01 -.01 .24* -.07
17.MalBeh -.13 .10 -.01 .05 .09 .01 .01 -.03 -.18* .11 -.07 .16
18_MaIPsy -.04 .12 .01 .22* .20* .05 .08 .08 -.10 .11 -.16 .21*
19.Mal£m -.13 .10 -.01 .27* .19* .14 .19* .19* -.02 .12 -.09 .33*
20.MalWith -.13 .03 -.04 .13 .14 .02 .10 .07 -.17 .13 -.10 .12
2l.AdBeh .04 .01 .07 .12 .11 .10 .18* .07 .13 .09 .03 .18*
22.AdPsych .02 -.09 .02 .08 .01 .03 .15 .09 .06 .12 .00 .13
(Table Continued)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
252
Table 6 (Continued)
Variables 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
I3.Leader — .57* .59* .27* .22* -.29* -.40* -.23* -.20* -.11
l4.Perform .70* .08 -.20* -.30* -.40* -.21* -.09 -.03
15.TM .24* -.19* -.28* -.31* -.28* -.13 .04
16. Admin -.15 -.08 -.13 -.09 -.05 .10
17_MalBeh -.09 -.13 -.09 -.05 .10
18.MalPsy .65* .68* .30* .17
l9.MaIEm .46* .31* .38*
20.MalWith .33* .11
21. AdBeh .47*
22.AdPsych ----
Note. * denotes significance <05, Motlnt = Intrinsic Motives, MotExt = Extrinsic
Motives, MotSoc = Social Motives, Tldiscp = Training discrepancy, Demdiscp =
Democratic Discrepancy, Autodiscp = Autocratic Discrepancy, SSdiscp = Social
Support Discrepancy, PFdiscp = Positive Feedback Discrepancy, Leader =
Satisfaction with Leadership, Perform = Satisfaction with Performance, TM =
Satisfaction with Teammates, Admin = Satisfaction with Administration,
MalBeh = Maladaptive Behavior, MalPsy = Maladaptive Psychological, MalEm =
Maladaptive Emotional, MalWith = Maladaptive Withdrawal, AdBeh =Adaptive
Behavioral, AdPsych = Adaptive Psychological.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
253
Table 7. Summary o f Confirmatory Factor Analysis on MCAP, ASQ, & CEQ
Scale Chi Square df
P
Chi Sq/df CFI
Motives for
College Athletic
Participation
Questionnaire 918.82 497 .000 1.84* .86
Athletic Satisfaction
Questionnaire 1185.05 291 .000 4.10 .82
Competitive
Experience
Questionnaire 493.36 98 .000 5.03 .63
Note. N = 273, df = degrees of freedom, * = indicates adaquate model fit based on
Likelihood ratio value < 3.00, CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
254
Table 8. Pattern Matrix of the results from an Exploratory Factor Analysis of Study Model
FI F2 F3 F4 F5
Training 0.49 Task 0.46 Extmotl 0.75 Ego 0.75 Ld Player Tx -0.63
Democratic 0.58 Motlntr 0.55 Extmot2 0.75 Ego 0.76 Ld Strategy -0.62
Autocratic 0.67 MotSocl 0.59 Indiv Perf 0.46
Social Supp 0.72 Coach TI -0.69
Pos Fdbk 0.77 Perf Clim 0.56
Mast Clim -0.58
(GenSat 1 -0.54)
(GenSat2 -0.45)
(GenSat3 -0.64)
F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
TM Perf 0.69 Admin I 0.76 AdBeh 0.56 MalBeh 10.74 Mai Psych 0.64
TM Cont 0.58 Admin2 0.74 Ad Psych 0.67 MalBeh20.72 Mai Emotl 0.62
TM Integr 0.74 (GenSat2 0.49) Ad Emot 0.64 MaIBeh3 0.85
(GenSatisl 0.64) (GenSat3 -0.42)
(GenSatis2 0.52)
Note. ( ) = denotes variables which cross-loaded on numerous variables, Ld Player Tx = Player
Treatment by the Leader, Pos Fdbk = Positive Feedback, GenSat = General Levels
of Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction, Indiv Perf = Individual Performance, Cont = Contribution,
Integr = Integration, Perf-Mast Clim = Performance-Mastery Climate, Ad = Adaptive,Beh =
Behavior Actions, Emot = Emotional Alternatives, Psych = Psychological Alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
255
Table 9. Summary of Factor Correlations in the Measurement Model
Factor FI F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
Fl=Coaching Behavior — 0.34* 0.08 0.02 -0.40* -0.04 -0.03 0.20* -0.03
F2=lntrinsic/Social Motives 0.35* 0.24* 0.07 0.28* 0.08 0.25* -0.30
F3=Extrinsic Motives 0.19* 0.01 -0.01 -0.09 -0.01 0.12
F4=Ego Goal Orientation -0.05 -0.07 -0.01 0.10 0.08
F5=Satisfaction/Leadership 0.54* 0.33*-0.18* -0.20*
F6=Satisfaction/Teammates 0.33* -0.01 -0.09
F7=Satisfaction/Administration 0.08 -0.16*
F8=Adaptive Consequences 0.22*
F9=Maladaptive Consequences
—
Note. N = 274, * denotes significance at .05 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
256
Table 10. Summary of Factor Loadings (Nonstandardized) in Measurement Model
Factor Indicator Loading
FI = Coaching Behavior Training & Instruction
Democratic Behavior
Autocratic Behavior
Social Support
Positive Feedback
1.00 +
1.21*
1.25*
1.54*
1.80*
F2 = Intrinsic/Social Motives Task Orientation
Intrinsic Motives
Social Motives
1.00 +
0.53*
0.74*
F3 = Extrinsic Motives Extrinsic Motives
Extrinsic Motives
1.00 +
0.44*
F4 = Ego Goal Orientation Ego Goals
Ego Goals
1.00 +
0.62*
F5 = Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Satisfaction with Leader
Leader-Player Treatment
Leader Strategy
Individual Performance
Coach Training & Instruction
Performance Climate
Mastery Climate
1.00 +
1.39*
1.00*
1.36*
-0.43*
0.41*
F6 = Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Satisfaction with Team
Team Performance
Team Contribution
Team Integration
1.00 +
0.85*
2.35*
F7 = Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Satisfaction-Admin
Administration
Support
1.00 +
1.57*
F8 = Adaptive Consequential Psychological Alternatives
Behavioral Alternatives
Emotional Alternatives
1.00 +
0.56*
1.43*
F9 = Maladaptive Consequential Psychological Alternatives
Withdrawal Alternatives
Behavior I
Behavior 2
Behavior 3
1.00 +
1.85*
1.43*
2.37*
3.79*
Note. + = loadings set to 1.0, * = significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
257
Table 11. Summary o f Standardized Measurement Equations in Measurement Model
Factor Equation
FI = Coaching Behavior Training & Instruction
=
0.52 FI +
0.81 E4
Democratic Behavior = 0.58*F1 +
0.82 E5
Autocratic Behavior
=
0.68*F1 +
0.73 E6
Social Support = 0.72*F1 +
0.69 E7
Positive Feedback 0.85*F1 + 0.53 E8
F2 = Intrinsic/Social Motives Task Orientation = 0.43 F2
- U
0.90 E17
Intrinsic Motives
=
0.50*F2 + 0.87 E18
Social Motives 0.46*F2 +
0.89 E19
F3 - Extrinsic Motives Extrinsic Motives
=
0.81 F3
+ 0.59 E24
Extrinsic Motives — 0.82*F3 + 0.57 E25
F4 = Ego Goal Orientation Ego Goals 1.00 F4 + 0.00 E22
Ego Goals = 0.61 *F4 0.79 E23
F5 = Causes of Dis/Sat- Player Treatment
=
0.73 F5
+
0.68 E10
Leader Leader Strategy
=
0.86*F5
+
0.51 E ll
Individual Performance = 0.64*F5 +
0.77 E12
Training & Instruction = 0.82*F5 + 0.58 E14
Performance Climate
=
- 0.61 *F5
+
0.92 E20
Mastery Climate =
0.51 *F5
- T -
0.86 E21
F6 = Causes of Dis/Sat- Team Performance
=
0.66 F6
+
0.75 E9
Team Team Contribution = 0.57*F6 + 0.82 E13
Team Integration — 0.9l*F6 + 0.44 E15
F7 = Causes of Dis/Sat- Administration 0.64 F7
+
0.69 E3
Admin Support
=
0.92*F7 +
0.58 E16
F8 = Adaptive Consequences Psychological Alternatives 0.70 F8
+
0.69 E28
Behavioral Alternative
=
0.68*F8 +
0.75 E31
Emotional Alternative
=
0.48*F8 +
0.88 E33
F9 = Maladaptive Psychological Altemative= 0.33 F9 0.94 E26
Consequences Withdrawal Alternative = 0.47*F9 +
0.88 E29
Behavioral 1
=
0.80*F9 + 0.59 E27
Behavioral 2
=
0.91*F9 + 0.41 E30
Behavioral 3 — 1.00*F9 + 0.00 E32
Note. All standardized path coefficients are significant, Dis/Sat = Dissatisfaction-
Satisfaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12. Summary of Factor Loadings (Nonstandardized) in Structural Model
Factor Indicator Loading
FI = Coaching Behavior Training & Instruction
Democratic Behavior
Autocratic Behavior
Social Support
Positive Feedback
(Leader-PIayer Interaction
1.00 +
1.27*
1.27*
1.61*
2.01*
-1.30*)
F2 = Intrinsic/Social Motives Task Orientation
Intrinsic Motives
Social Motives
1.00 +
0.62*
0.84*
F3 = Extrinsic Motives Extrinsic Motives
Extrinsic Motives
1.00 +
0.46*
F4 = Ego Goal Orientation Ego Goals
Ego Goals
1.00 +
0.62*
F5 = Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Satisfaction with Leader
Leader-PIayer Treatment
Leader Strategy
Individual Performance
Coach Training & Instruction
Performance Climate
Mastery Climate
1.00 +
1.64*
1.10*
1.63*
-0.77*
0.47*
F6 = Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Satisfaction with Teammates
Team Performance
Team Contribution
Team Integration
(Performance Climate
1.00 +
0.86*
2.40*
0.64*)
F7 = Causes of Dissatisfaction-
Safisfaction with Admin
Administration
Support
(Mastery Climate
1.00 +
1.93*
0.26*)
F8 = Adaptive Consequential Psychological Alternatives
Behavioral Alternatives
Emotional Alternatives
(Mastery Climate
1.00 +
0.60*
0.48*
0.10*)
F9 = Maladaptive Consequential Psychological Alternatives
Withdrawal Alternatives
Behavioral 1
Behavioral 2
Behavioral 3
1.00+
1.85*
1.43*
2.40*
3.80*
Note. + = loadings set to 1.0, * = significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13. Summary o f Standardized Measurement Equations in Structural Model
259
Factor Equation
FI = Coaching Behavior Training & Instruction
Democratic Behavior
Autocratic Behavior
Social Support
Positive Feedback
=
0.49 FI
0.58*F1
0.65*Fl
0.7I*FI
0.88*F1
+
+
+
+
- i-
0.87E4
0.82E5
0.76E6
0.71E7
0.48E8
F2 = Intrinsic/Social Motives Task Orientation
=
0.39 F2 + 0.92E17
Intrinsic Motives
-
0.55*F2 +
0.84E18
Social Motives — 0.49*F2 + 0.87EI9
F3 = Extrinsic Motives Extrinsic Motives
=
0.79 F3 + 0.62E24
Extrinsic Motives
=
0.84*F3 + 0.54E25
F4 = Ego Orientation Ego Goals = 1.00 F4 + .O O O E22
Ego Goals = 0.6l*F4 + 0.79E23
F5 = Causes of Dissatis-
Satisfaction: Leadership
Leader Player Interaction^ 0.62 F5
0.64E10
- 0.30*Fl +
Leader Strategy = 0.86*F5 + 0.51EII
Individual Performance = 0.59*F5
0.75E12
+ 0.22*V2 +
Training & Instruction
=
0.83 *F5
+ 0.57E14
Performance Climate = -0.62*F5
0.92E20
+ (0.36*F6) +
Mastery Climate 0.51*F5 +
(0.14*F8) +
(0.14*F7) +
0.86E21
F6 = Causes of Dissatis- Team Performance
= 0.66 F6
+ 0.75E9
Satisfaction: Team Team Contribution
=
0.58*F6
0.81E13
+ 0.17*V2 +
Team Integration = 0.91*F6 + 0.43E15
F7 = Causes of Dissatis- Administration = 0.69 F7 + 0.72E3
Satisfaction: Admin Support = 0.84*F7 + 0.55E16
F8 = Adaptive Consequences Psychological Altem = 0.73 F8 + 0.69E28
Behavioral Altem = 0.68*F8 + 0.74E31
Emotional Altem = 0.47*F8 + 0.88E33
F9 = Maladaptive Psychological Altem
- 0.33 F9 + 0.94E26
Consequences Withdrawal Altem = 0.47*F9 + 0.88E29
Behavioral 1
=
0.81*F9 + 0.60E27
Behavioral 2
=
0.9UF9 + 0.41E30
Behavioral 3 - 1.00*F9 + 0.00E32
Note. Underlined coefficients indicate added paths via Multivariate Lagrange
Multiplier Test, ( ) denotes paths which were added to verify Hypotheses I & 2,
V2 = Player Ability Rating, Dissatis = Dissatisfaction, Altem = Alternatives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
260
Table 14. Summary of Standardized Construct Equations in Structural Model
Factor Equation
FI = Coaching Behavior ,12*F2 - .51* VI - .11*V2
+ .93DI
F2 = Intrinsic/Social Motives .24*F3
.86D2
+ ■
.07*F4 - l.01*Vl - .288V2 +
F3 = Extrinsic Motives .30*F1
.9ID3
-t-
.18*F4 + 1.03*V1
+ •58*V2 +
F4 = Ego Goal Orientation .17*VL - _02*V2 + .99D4
F5 = Causes Dissatis/Sat-Leader -.82*F1
.90D5
+
.77*F6 + •26F7
+ .37*V2 +
F6 = Causes Dissatis/Sat-TM -.1 l*Fl
-.19*V2
+
+
.34*F2
.99D6
+ .44*F7 .02*V1 +
F7 = Causes Dissatis/Sat-Adm -.12*F1 - .56*V1 + .16*V2
+ .95D7
F8 = Adaptive Consequences .23*Fl
,39*F7
+
+
.83*F2
.48*F9
- .19*F5
,34*V2
+ .03*F6 +
+ 1.00 D8
F9 = Maladaptive Consequences -.07*F1
-.09*F7 +
.19*F2
.44*V1
- .12*F5
+ 1.00D9
+ ,09*F6 +
Note. Bold indicates significant coefficients, VI = gender, V2 = playing ability,
VI, V2 = categorical variables, Dissatis/Sat = Dissatisfaction/Satisfaction, TM =
Teammates, Adm = Administration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B.
FIGURES 1 - 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 2
A bility-
Coaching
Behaviors
Motivational
Climate
Participation
Motives
Causes of satis-
dissatis=Perf _
Onentation
Causes of satis-
dissatis=Coach
Causes of satis-
dissatis=Team _
Causes of satis-
dissatis=Adm
Satisfied
Athlete
General Level
-►
Adaptive
Satis-Dissatis
Consequential
Maladaptive
Consequential
Figure 1. Proposed Study Model
Note. Gender and Ability represent categorical variables, the remaining
variables represent latent constructs, arrows designate causal direction,
satis-dissatis = satisfaction-dissatisfaction, Perf = performance, Adm =
Administration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceived job
characteristic
Perceived
amount received
Perceived
personal job inputs
Perceived inputs
and outcomes of
referent others
Perceived a
amount that
should be received
Actual outcomes received
Perceived outcomes o f referent others
a = b - Satisfaction
a > b — Dissatisfaction
a < b - Guilt, inequity,
discomfort
Level
Difficulty
Timespan
Amount of
responsibility
Skill
Experience
Training
Effort
Age
Seniority
Education
Company loyalty
Past performance
Present performance
Figure 2. Lawler’s Model (1992) of the Determinants of Satisfaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
264
High
Performance
Specific, High
Goals
High
Expectancy,
Self-Efficacy
Commitment to the
Organization and
its Goals
Satisfaction
(and anticipated
satisfaction)
Contingent &
Non-Contingent
Rewards
Mediating Mechanisms
Effort
Persistence
Direction
Task Strategies (plans)
Moderating Factors
Goal commitment
Feedback
Ability
Task complexity
Situational Constraints
Figure 3. Locke & Latham’s (1990) High Performance Cycle
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
265
Behavior
Relative
Dissatisfaction
Opportunity
Constraints
Evaluation of
Alternative
Responses
Stimulus
Event
Reinforcement History
Role Models
Social Norms
Recognition o f
Alternative
Behavioral
Responses
Figure 4. Rosse and Miller (1984) Model
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
266
Job Satisfaction
Cognitive Processing
Decision Making
Choice
Consequences of Choice
Life Satisfaction
Mental Health
Physical Health
Action Alternatives
Job satisfaction
Persuasive Protest
Aggressive Protest
Physical Withdrawal
Psychological Alternatives
Change Perceptions
Change Values
Change Reactions
Toleration
Figure 5. Henne and Locke (1985) Model
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
267
i L
Identification of
Action
Alternatives
Choice/Behavioral
Intentions
Satisfaction-
Dissatisfaction,
Change in Level
Appraisal of
Situation
Job
Situation
Action
Evaluation of
Action
Alternatives
Personal Values
Expectations
Attributions
Comparison Others
Self Efficacy
Personality/Self-Concept
Constraints
Expected Positive Consequences
Expected Negative Consequences
Role Models
Group Norms
Personal History
Company Policy
Contract Provisions
Voice Mechanisms
Figure 6. Fischer and Locke (1992) Choice Model of Behavioral Responses to Job
Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
268
Leader Individual
Strategy Performanc
Social
SuDoort
Leader-Pl
Interaction
Autocratic
Training &
Instruction
Coaching
Behavior
Discrep
FI
Positive
Feedback
Performanc
Climate
Democratic
Mastery
Climate
Training &
Instruction
Task Goal
Orientation
Behavioral
Conseq-
Adaptive
Intrinsic-
Social
Motives
F2
Psycholog
ical
Intrinsic
Motives
Emotional
Social
Motives
Team Con
tribution
Behavioral
1
Ability
V2
Behavioral
2
Extrinsic
Motives I
Conseq
Maladap
Extrinsic
Motives
Team
Integration
Behavioral
3
Extrinsic
Motives 2
Psycholog
ical
Withdrawal Ego Goal
| Orientation
/ Causes o f \
I Satis-Dis- I '
Adminis
tration
I Admin l\
\ F7 J V
Ego Goal Admin
Orientation SuDDort
Figure 7. Revised Study Model based on results from Exploratory
Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis o f Instruments
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
269
Training &
Instruct V4
Democratic
Behavior V5
Autocratic
Behavior V6
Social
SuDDOtt V7
Positive
Feedback V8
Task (G.O)
VI7
Intrinsic ^ > J
Motives VI8
.50 /
Social
Motives V19
Extrinsic 3 A
Motives V24
Extrinsic 3B
Motives V25
Ego 2A
V22
Ego 2B
V23
Leader-Pl
Interact VI0
Leader
Strateev V I1
Individual
Perf VI2
Training &
Instruct VI4
Performance
Climate V20
Mastery
Climate V21
Team
Perform V9
Causes of
Dissatis =
Teammat
F6
Team V13
Contribution
Coaching
Behavior-
Pref-Perc
FI
Team VI5
Integration
Admmistra-
Causes of
Dissatis
Admin
F7 Support
Behavioral
V31
Intrinsic-
Social
Motives
F3
Adaptive
Conse- Psychological
V28 quences
F9
Emotional
V33
Extnnstc
Motives
Behavioral I
V27
Behavioral 2
V30
Maladap
Conse-
Behavioral 3
V32
Onentati
Psychological
V26
Withdrawal
V29
Climate
Figure 8. CFA Model: Standardized Structural Coefficients
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
270
V4 V5
V6
Coach
Behav
V7
,-71
V8
Gender
VI
V17
Int/Soc
Motive
V18
-55.
V19
.49
V10 V12 V I1
.62 :86
V14
'.59
Sat/Dis
Lship
V20
V21
V28
.73
V31
Consq-
Adapt
F8
.68'
V9
.47
V33
Sat/Dis
Team
F6
V13
.58
V26
V15
.33, .9 1 1
V27
Consq-
Malad
F9
.81
V3
V30 Sat/Dis
Admin
'69
1.00,
V32 1 .8 4
V16
V24
Ext
Motive
'79
V25 .84
V22
1.00
Ego
Goals
F4
V23
.61
Figure 9. Structural Model: Standardized Structural Coefficients
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
271
Coaching
Behavior
FI
Causes of
Satis-Dis-
Lship
-.51 -.82
.37
.26
.77
Conseq-
Adaptive
Int/Soc’l
Motives
- 1.01,
F8
Causes of
Satis-Dis-
Teamates
.34 I-.I2
F2
.29 .48
,1 0
Conseq-
Maladap
.44
Extrinsic
Motives
F3
1.03
F9
Causes of
Satis-Dis-
Admin
-.56
.18
Ego
Goals
F4
Gender
VI
Ability
Rating V2
Figure 10. Structural Model:
Standardized Construct Coefficients
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
272
APPENDIX C.
ATHLETE SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
273
ATHLETE SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
I was satisfied with.
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Satisfied Satisfied___ Satisfied
1. the degree to which I reached my
performance goals
2. the team’s overall performance
3. the degree to which my abilities were
used
4. coach’s choice of strategies during games
5. the recognition I received from my coach
6. the training I received from the coach
during the season
7. the constructive feedback I received
from my teammates
8. the degree to which my teammates
accept me on a social level
9. my teammates’ sportspersonlike
behavior
10. team members’ dedication to work
together toward team goals
11. the funding provided to the team
12. the academic support services provided
13. the improvement in my performance
14. the extent to which the team is meeting
its goals for the season
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
274
15. the extent to which my role matched
my potential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. how the coach made adjustments
during competitions I 2 4 5 6 7
17. the friendliness of the coach towards
me I 2
■ < - »
4 5 6 7
18. the instruction I have received from
the coach this season I 2
-■ »
- > 4 5 6 7
19. my coaches’ sportspersonlike behavior I 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. the extent to which teammates played
as a team I 2
o
J 3 4 5 6 7
21. the amount of time I played during
competitions I
2 4 5 6 7
22. my coach’s game/competitions plans I 2 4 5 6 7
23. the level of appreciation my coach
showed when I did well 1 2 4 5 6 7
24. the coach’s teaching of the tactics and
techniques of my position 1 2 -> 4 5 6 7
25. my team’s level of fitness throughout
the competitive season I 2 4 5 6 7
26. the support provided to our program and
coach by the athletic administration I 2 3 4 5 6 7
* For those who responded to ANY o f the previous questions with a 1, 2, or 3,
please proceed and complete the next questionnaire
** For those who responded to ALL o f the previous questions with a 4 or
above, please skip the next questionnaire and complete the demographic
questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
275
APPENDIX D.
SCORING KEY FOR
ATHLETE SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
276
SCORING KEY FOR ATHLETE SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
PERFORMANCE
Individual Performance Items 1 & 13
Team Performance . . 2 & 14
COACHING BEHAVIORS
Ability Utilization . 3, 15, & 21
Strategy . . . . 4, 16, & 22
Personnel Treatment (Interaction) . 5,17, & 23
Training & Instruction 6,18, 24 & 25
Ethics/Sportspersonship . . 19
TEAMMATES
Team Task Contribution . . . 7
Team Social Contribution . . . 8
Team Integration . . . . 9, 10 & 20
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
Budget . . . . . 11
Academic & Athletic Support 12 & 26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
277
APPENDIX E.
COMPETITIVE EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
278
COMPETITIVE EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
To what extent.... Not at all To a ureat extent
1. did your play on the field become overly
aggressive due to your perceived feeling
of dissatisfaction 0 I 2 3 4 5
2. was your academic performance hindered
due to your dissatisfaction? 0 I 2
3 4 5
3. was your athletic performance hindered
due to your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 4 5
4. did you deliberately perform poorly to prove
a point to your coach? 0 1 2 4 5
5. did you or your team file grievances with the
athletic department about the coaching staff? 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. are you involved in getting your coach fired? 0 1 2
- *
J 4 5
7. did you increase your effort at practice to deal
with your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2
->
3 4 5
8. did you seek advice from significant others to
deal with your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2
o
3 4 5
9. did you confront the source(s) of your
dissatisfaction directly via one on one meetings 0 1 2 J 4 5
10. did you partake in premedicated insubor
dination activities against your coach 0 1 2
"V
4 5
11. did you not practice or compete due to faking
an injury as a result o f your dissatisfaction? 0 I 2 3 4 5
12. did you withdraw from off-field activities
with your team as a result of your
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
279
13. did you withdraw from so6ial activities with
your friends (outside the team) as a result of
your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. did you think about transferring to another
college/university? 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. did you think about quitting your sport? 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. did you change your perceptions about the
dissatisfaction experience (situation may have
have been misinterpreted by you)? 0 1 2 3 4 5
17. did you change your goals or motives in an
attempt to eliminate the dissatisfaction you
experienced? 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. did you think about filing a grievance to
administration regarding the source(s) of your
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
19. did you use drugs or alcohol to deal with your
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
20. did you use pathogenic eating disorder methods
(such diet pills, self induced vomiting and/or
use of laxatives) to deal with your
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
21. did you experience bouts of depression due
to your perceptions of dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
22. did you simply tolerate your feelings of
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
23. did your level of commitment to your team’s
goals weaken due to your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
24. did you experience “burnout” symptoms due
to your perceptions o f dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
25. did you experience sleep disorders due to
your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
280
26. did you show up late for practices &
competitions due to your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. did you use your perceptions of
dissatisfaction as a motivator to improve upon
your particular situation? 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. did you regret your participation as a
collegiate student athlete? 0 1 2 3 4 5
29. did you partake in deviant behavior
(e.g., fighting, unlawful acts) off the field due
to your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
30. did your feelings of self-esteem & playing
confidence lower as a result o f your
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
31. did you experience heightened anxiety &
worry before/during competitions due to your
dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
32. were you satisfied with how you dealt with or
handled your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
33. did you complain to your teammates about the
source(s) of your dissatisfaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5
34. did you deliberately ignore team rules 0 1 2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
281
APPENDIX F.
SCORING KEY FOR
COMPETITIVE EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
282
SCORING KEY FOR THE
COMPETITIVE EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
MALADAPTIVE ALTERNATIVES:
BEHAVIORAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL
EMOTIONAL
WITHDRAWAL
ADAPTIVE ALTERNATIVES:
BEHAVIORAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Items 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,6 ,1 0 ,2 9 , 33, &
34
19, 20,21,23, 25, & 28
24, 30, & 31
11, 12, 13, 15, & 26
5, 7, 8, 9, 14, & 18
16, 17, 22, 27, & 32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
283
APPENDIX G.
MOTIVES FOR ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
284
MOTIVES FOR COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION
Specific Stem: W hy do you participate in collegiate athletics?
Very Somewhat Not a t all
Im portant Im portant Im portant
1. To develop my skills 3 2 I
2. For the fitness benefits
- >
2 1
3. As a stepping stone to the pro’s/Olympics 3 2 1
4. So my college education is paid for 3 2 1
5. To be popular J 2 1
6. For the excitement/challenge
- * >
2 1
7. To win games and championships 3 2 I
8. To make new friends j 2 1
9. For the love of my sport 3 2 1
10. To earn honors (e.g., All-American)
* ■ >
3 2 1
11. To be a part of a team
■ - 1
3 2 1
12. For the top notch facilities 3 2 1
13. For a sense of personal accomplishments 3 2 1
14. To play for the excellent coaching staff 3 2 1
15. To be with my friends 3 2 I
16. For the status & recognition of being a
collegiate athlete 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
285
APPENDIX H.
SCORING KEY FOR
MOTIVES FOR ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
286
SCORING KEY FOR
MOTIVES FOR COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION
INTRINSIC MOTIVES . Items 1 ,2 ,6 ,9 , 13
EXTRINSIC MOTIVES . . . 3 ,4 ,7 , 10, 12, & 14
SOCIAL MOTIVES . . . . 5, 8, 11, 15, & 16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Determining factors that predict physical activity behavior and compliance with an intervention program in Latino women

PDF

Cross-cultural analysis in anxiety, positive mood states and performance of male cricket players

PDF

The influence of age on muscle fiber recruitment patterns during heavy resistance exercise

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

The effect of psychological skills and affective intervention programs on exercise adherence

PDF

Critical thinking cognitive abilities and the analytical section of the educational testing service Graduate Record Examinations(R) General Test: A conceptual study in content validity

PDF

A validation study of past year physical activity history versus 24-hour physical activity recall

PDF

A structural model of self-efficacy, goal orientation, worry, self-regulated learning, and high-stakes mathematics achievement

PDF

Collective efficacy, anxiety, creativity/innovation and work performance at the team level

PDF

Influences on bone mineral density in active adult women

PDF

Development and validation of the Cooper Quality of Imagery Scale: A measure of vividness of sporting mental imagery

PDF

Faculty perception of stress in a non-profit business and technology college

PDF

A teamwork skills questionnaire: A reliability and validity study of the Chinese version

PDF

Development of a diagnostic tool for assessing knowledge management

PDF

Comparison of the predictive validity of a written test, an integrity test, a conscientiousness questionnaire, a structured behavioral interview and a personality inventory in the assessment of j...

PDF

A quantitative and qualitative study of computer technology and student achievement in mathematics and reading at the second- and third-grade levels: A comparison of high versus limited technolo...

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

PDF

Effects of email on learners' compositional ability: A quantitative and qualitative study

PDF

Effects of the STAR testing program on teachers and the curriculum

PDF

Institutional factors affecting academic persistence of underprepared community college freshmen

Asset Metadata

Creator Voight, Michael Rudie (author)

Core Title A structural model of the determinants, personal and situational influences, and the consequences of athlete dissatisfaction

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Exercise Science

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Physical,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, industrial

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Callaghan, John (committee chair), Girandola, Robert (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-69267

Unique identifier UC11337953

Identifier 3018042.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-69267 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3018042.pdf

Dmrecord 69267

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Voight, Michael Rudie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA