Exploring the shame coping experiences of youth sport parents.
Partridge, Julie A. ; Wann, Daniel L.
Shame is conceptualized as a negative, self-conscious family of
emotions that results from feelings of devaluation (Elison, 2005;
Nathanson, 1992; Tomkins, 1963). When an individual perceives being seen
as "less than" by others (whether this perception is accurate
or not), the emotions of shame, embarrassment, or humiliation can
result. Youth sport is a public (and widely valued) forum through which
children are provided opportunities to compare their physical skills and
abilities with others and is thus a likely site at which shame and
embarrassment may be experienced.
The definition of shame has been extensively debated in the
psychological literature (Tangney& Dearing, 2002). While shame is
universally considered to be a negative emotion, views on its cause,
characteristic intensity, and the degree to which it is adaptive or
maladaptive vary. Tangney and Dearing (2002), following H. B. Lewis
(1971), believe that shame is elicited by a focus on the self as
"bad", and is an apparently global, stable attribution. Due to
the nature of shame attributions (i.e., the entire self is bad), shame
is viewed as an intensely negative experience and shame-proneness is
viewed as quite maladaptive.
How Do We Cope with Shame?
All people experience feelings of shame and embarrassment at one
time or another, but may cope with shame very differently. A
constructive coping style is to attend to the antecedent cause of the
shame, evaluate whether or not one cares to address it, and then take
steps to make changes necessary to prevent the shame from reoccurring.
For example, a person who is ashamed of a poor grade in a class might
choose to work harder on their assignments to perform better in the
future. However, Nathanson (1992) suggested that people do not typically
respond to shame in an adaptive manner and thus identified four distinct
maladaptive coping styles commonly used in response to shame. Each
family of coping styles is associated with different motivations,
affects, cognitions, behaviors, and outcomes and characterizes the
styles by which an individual attempts to reduce or ignore the negative
emotional experience of shame without actually addressing its source.
Nathanson's (1992) model describes four families of maladaptive
shame-focused coping styles, labeled Withdrawal, Attack Self, Attack
Other, and Avoidance.
At the Withdrawal pole, the person acknowledges the experience as
negative, acknowledges that the shame is a valid (i.e., deserved)
emotion, and tries to withdraw or hide from the situation (Elison,
Pulos, & Lennon, 2006; Nathanson, 1992). For instance, a young
athlete might ask to quit the basketball team after a shame-inducing
performance. At the Attack Self pole, the person acknowledges the
experience as negative and also accepts the shame as a valid experience,
but in this case, turns anger inward. For example, a young baseball
player might feel self-directed rage for being a "loser" after
dropping a simple fly ball. Withdrawal and Attack Self share two
important aspects, recognition of the negative experience and conscious
acceptance (i.e., internalization) of shame's message that the
"self' is inadequate (Partridge & Elison, 2009). An
important distinction between Withdrawal and Attack Self is the
motivation behind each strategy. Withdrawal leads people to pull away
from others in order to reduce their discomfort and shame experiences,
while individuals using Attack Self often endure shame to preserve
relationships with others (i.e., acknowledge their own deficiencies to
maintain important social connections).
The other two coping styles described by Nathanson (1992) utilize
more extemalizations of the negative shame experience. In Avoidance, a
person typically does not acknowledge the negative experience of the
self, typically does not accept shame's message as valid (i.e.,
denies its existence), and attempts to distract the self (and others)
from the painful feeling. For example, an athlete might joke about
missing important free throws or disavow interest in basketball.
Finally, at the Attack Other pole, the person may or may not acknowledge
the negative experience of self, typically does not accept shame's
message, and attempts to make someone else feel worse (e.g., by teasing
someone else or externalize the shame by blaming an opponent for
cheating). Support for the coping styles proposed by Nathanson have been
found in college-age students (Elison, Lennon, et al., 2006; Elison,
Pulos, & Lennon, 2006), as well as sport fans (Partridge, Warm,
& Elison, 2010) and collegiate athletes (Elison & Partridge,
2012).
Vicarious Shame
Shame is considered to be a self-directed emotional response;
however, there is growing evidence to suggest that shame can also be
experienced vicariously through association with others (Lickel, Steele,
& Schmader, 2011). The actions of an identified in-group may have an
impact on the emotional responses of individuals who identify with that
social group, and groups with which an individual identifies most
strongly are more likely to result in stronger emotional reactions
(Branscombe & Doojse, 2004; Johns, Schmader, & Lickel, 2005).
Johns and colleagues (2005) found that stronger levels of identification
as an American predicted higher levels of shame and higher desire to
distance oneself from the group when reacting to a very negative event
(i.e., prejudice toward people of Middle Eastern descent following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001). Similarly, Lickel, Schmader,
Curtis, Seamier, and Ames (2005) found that level of vicarious shame was
predicted by a shared identity with a wrongdoer, an appraisal of a
self-image threat, and a motivation to distance oneself from the event.
One important form of identification that exists in sport is the
relationships between parents and children. Parents have been found to
be susceptible to experiencing levels of vicarious shame in response to
their children's negative or incorrect behaviors. Furthermore,
parents have been found to exhibit specific responses to experiencing
vicarious shame. Seamier, Schmader, and Lickel (2009) found that parents
reported higher levels of shame response to vignettes involving a
child's wrongdoing when a critical observer was present compared to
the absence of this critical observer.
Sport Parent Shame
Parents have been found to exert a significant amount of influence
over youth sport participants, particularly in terms of the child's
perceptions of their own competence, and therefore beliefs about their
likelihood of future success in sport (Babkes & Weiss, 1999; Bois,
Sarrazin, Brustad, Trouilloud, & Cury, 2002; Fredricks & Eccles,
2002; Horn & Weiss, 1991), enjoyment of the activity (Babkes
Stellino, Partridge, & Moore, 2012; Bois, Lalanne, & Delforge,
2009; McCarthy, Jones, & Clark-Carter, 2008), and feelings of
anxiety (Babkes & Weiss, 1999; Bois et al., 2009; Brustad, 1988).
The majority of this research on parental influence has only focused on
how parents impact their children, while largely ignoring the reciprocal
effect that children may have on the parent. Dorsch, Smith, and
McDonough (2009) examined the reciprocal nature of these relationships
and found that youth sport parents are socialized in a number of ways
(behaviorally, cognitively, affectively, and in relationships). From an
emotional standpoint, parents reported feelings of emotional connection
to sport, utilizing emotional management strategies, and experiencing
reactive emotional experiences in the youth sport setting (including
feelings of shame, embarrassment, and guilt over a child's
performance). Moreover, behavioral, cognitive, affective and
relationships issues were reported to be highly interrelated, with
experiences in one area frequently impacting their responses in another
(e.g., reactive emotional experiences could lead to specific behaviors).
It seems clear that more investigation of parental emotional
responses to their child's participation is needed to understand
this complex relationship. Such an investigation was the focus of the
work research. However, because of insufficient prior work in the area
of shame coping among sport parents, the development of specific
hypotheses was not warranted. That is, although past research had
certainly investigated the process of shame coping generally (Elison et
al., 2006; Nathanson, 1992) and more specifically within sport settings
(Elison & Partridge, 2012; Partridge et al., 2010) investigators had
yet to examine shame coping strategies among youth sport parents.
Parents often report particularly high levels of identification with
their child athletes and this identification can facilitate a number of
responses, including those of an abusive or hostile nature (Wann, 2014).
There is reason to believe that the reactions of sport parents may be
different from other sport groups (e.g., athletes, fans without a
familial relationship with the player). In addition, prior work on shame
coping among fans targeted shame reactions to team performances
(Partridge et al., 2010) while the current work was focused on reactions
to a single player. Therefore, past research, although relevant, was not
appropriate for developing specific hypotheses due to the critical
differences in the participants (parents versus other sport
participants) and the shame target (player versus team). Consequently,
the current study examined two research questions, 1) What maladaptive
shame coping styles are most frequently endorsed by youth sport parents,
and 2) What variables account for the greatest amount of unique variance
in maladaptive shame coping styles of youth sport parents. We are not
suggesting that shame is the only (or even primary) emotional response
exhibited by highly identified parents in response to viewing their
child in competition. Rather, research indicates that these persons
report many different affective responses (Sloan & Van Camp, 2008).
This includes both positive (e.g., happiness, satisfaction, and
confidence) and negative emotions (e.g., anger, discouragement, and
tension) (Sloan, 1989; Wann, Dolan, McGeorge, & Allison, 1994).
However, shame as an emotional response had yet to be empirically
examined and thus, this research was warranted.
Method
Participants
Participants were 218 youth sport parents (M age = 40.2 years; SD
=8.14) who volunteered to take part in the study. There were 49 (22.7%)
males and 167 (77.3%) females (two participants did not report gender
and thus were not included in the gender analyses). The sample was
obtained from the Midwest region of the United States and included
parents whose children participated in a total of 15 different sports
(swimming, gymnastics, baseball, softball, soccer, tennis, basketball,
dance, volleyball, golf, cheerleading, football, track, martial arts,
and equestrian). The parents had an average of 2.4 children (SD = .76)
participating in sport, however, participants were asked to consider the
child with the most experience in sport when completing the surveys.
Materials
Compass of shame scale-parent. The Compass of Shame Scale (CoSS;
Elison, Lennon et al., 2006; Elison et al., 2006) was originally
designed to assess the four distinct maladaptive shame coping styles
described by Nathanson (1992) and has been found to exhibit good
psychometric properties. It was previously modified for sport situations
(CoSS-Sport; Elison & Partridge, 2012). For this study, the
CoSS-Sport was adapted to target the responses of parents to their
child's sporting events. The CoSS-Sport consists of eight
situational scenarios (i.e., items) with four corresponding response
statements that are aligned with each pole of Nathanson's model:
Attack Other (AO), Attack Self (AS), Avoidance (AV), and Withdrawal
(WD). A fifth response, Attack Self-Child (AS-C) was created for this
study to address the possibility that parents might Attack Self through
a negative response directed at themselves in terms of their
child's behaviors or abilities. For instance, a parent might
observe their child making an error in the field during a game and
respond to any resulting embarrassment by berating him or herself for
not working with the child more on their fielding. Each of the five
response options to each of the eight items utilizes a Likert-type
response scale of 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5
= almost always. A sample CoSS-Parent item reads, "When someone
points out my child's weaknesses...". Response options to this
item are, "I just want to be by myself' (Withdrawal), "I
want to point out other players' faults" (Attack Other),
"I deny there is any reason for me to feel bad" (Avoidance),
"I tend to obsess over these weaknesses" (Attack Self), and
"It makes me feel like my child is less worthy" (Attack
Self-Child). Total possible subscale scores range from 8 (low use of the
coping style) to 40 (high use of the coping style). Internal consistency
using Cronbach's alpha reliability procedure revealed that each
scale possessed adequate reliability (AS = .79; AO = .80; WD = .83; AV =
.68; AS-Child = .80).
It is important to note that the CoSS was designed to measure only
maladaptive responses to shame. An individual who copes adaptively with
shame can report low scores on each of the CoSS subscales, thus the
questionnaire does not imply that any individual is maladaptively coping
with shame. Furthermore, the responses to the stem statements do not
necessarily require acknowledgement of shame, which means that
individuals are not assumed to have any inherent level of shame present
(Borg et al., 1988). Rather than inquiring about shame directly,
responses describe related feelings and behaviors such as getting angry
with others, being self-critical, or making jokes.
Sport spectator identification scale. The Sport Spectator
Identification Scale (SSIS; Warm & Branscombe, 1993) is a 7-item,
Likert-type scale measuring the degree to which an individual identifies
with a specific team or athlete. Participants were asked to identify
their favorite sport team by writing it on a line at the top of the
SSIS. Participants could identify any team from any sport at any level,
or an individual in an individual sport such as auto racing or figure
skating. All questions on the subsequent questionnaires pertained to the
identified team or athlete. A sample item from the SSIS is, "How
important is it to YOU that the team listed above wins?" Possible
responses ranged from 1 (low identification) to 8 (high identification).
Therefore, higher numbers indicate greater levels of spectator
identification. The SSIS has been found to be a highly valid and
reliable measure (see Wann et al. 2001, for a review). Internal
consistency for the SSIS was [alpha] = .76.
Dysfunctional fandom scale. The Dysfunctional Fandom Scale (DFS;
Wakefield & Wann, 2006) is a 5-item, Likert-type scale designed to
measure an individual's level of dysfunctional fandom. A sample
item from the DFS is, "I have had confrontations with others while
watching the team listed above when I voiced my opinion." Responses
range from 1 (inaccurate) to 8 (accurate). Higher numbers on the DFS
indicate higher levels of dysfunctional fandom. The internal consistency
of the DFS was [alpha] = .79.
Sport fandom questionnaire. The Sport Fandom Questionnaire (SFQ;
Wann, 2002) is a 5-item, Likert-type scale questionnaire that assesses
the level of general sport fandom that an individual possesses. An
example item from the SFQ is: "I consider myself to be a sport
fan." Statement responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8
(strongly agree). Higher scores on the SFQ reflect greater levels of
fandom. The internal consistency for the SFQ was [alpha] = .92.
Procedure
Approval for the study was obtained from the Human Subjects
Committee at the first author's university. Youth sport league
administrators gave approval for the researchers to approach parents
about taking part in the study. Individuals who agreed to participate
provided signed consent and then completed a questionnaire packet
containing a demographics questionnaire, a measure of trait shame coping
(Compass of Shame Scale-Parent), and three measures of fandom (Sport
Spectator Identification Scale, Dysfunctional Fandom Scale, Sport Fandom
Questionnaire). The measures were given to participants in a random
order to avoid any ordering effects. Upon completion of the
questionnaire packet (approximately 20 minutes), participants were
thanked for their cooperation, debriefed, and released from the testing
session.
Results
Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. To examine Research
Question 1 ("What maladaptive shame coping styles are most
frequently endorsed by youth sport parents?"), a series of
paired-sample t-tests (df = 185) were used to compare the average shame
coping style scores among sport parents (see Table 1). A Bonferroni test
was used to adjust for inflated Type I error. Results indicated that the
Avoidance subscale was significantly higher than the other four coping
subscales (Attack Self, Attack Other, Withdrawal, and Attack
Self-Child). The Attack Self and Attack Other subscales did not differ
from each, but both were significantly higher than Withdrawal.
Correlations were calculated using a Pearson product moment
correlation and are shown in Table 2 (gender was coded as males = 1;
females = 2). Because gender was found to be significantly correlated
with certain variables (i.e., team identification and AS), gender was
incorporated into the regression analyses reported below.
To examine Research Question 2 ("What variables account for
the greatest amount of unique variance in maladaptive shame coping
styles of youth sport parents"?), five separate linear regression
analyses were performed, one each for the five shame coping subscales
(AS, AO, AV, WD, and AS-Child). Team identification, dysfunctional
fandom, sport fandom, parent gender, and child's perceived ability
in their primary sport were identified as predictor variables while the
shame coping strategies were the dependent variables.
Attack Other (AO)
The combined effect of the five predictor variables was
significant, F(4, 165) = 6.09, [R.sup.2] = .14, p < .001. With
respect to independent contributions to AO scores, dysfunctional fandom
(t = 3.62, p < .01, p = .28) and team identification (t = 2.07, p
< .05, [beta] = .18) accounted for a significant amount of unique
variance. Therefore higher scores on dysfunctional fandom and team
identification predicted higher AO scores. The other variables (i.e.,
sport fandom, gender, and child's perceived ability) did not
account for a significant proportion of unique variance in AO scores
(sport fandom t = -.30, p > .05, [beta] = -.03; parent gender t =
.79, p > .05, P = .06; child's perceived ability t = -1.09, p
> .05, [beta] = -.09).
Attack Self (AS)
The combined effect of the five predictor variables was significant
F(5, 164) = 2.41, [R.sup.2] = .07, p < .05. With respect to
independent contributions to AS scores, dysfunctional fandom (t = 2.45,
p < .05, [beta] = .20) and parent gender (t = -2.43, p < .05,
[beta] = -.19) accounted for a significant amount of unique variance.
This indicates that higher levels of dysfunctional fandom and being a
male were predictive of higher AS scores. Team identification (t = .41,
(3 = .04), sport fandom (t = -.42, [beta] = -.04), and child's
perceived ability (t = -.38, [beta] = -.32) did not account for
significant amounts of unique variance.
Attack Self-Child (AS-Child)
The combined effect of the five predictor variables was
significant, F(5, 164) = 4.41, [R.sup.2] = .12, p < .01. With respect
to independent contributions to AS-Child scores, dysfunctional fandom (t
= 3.96, p < .01, [beta] = .31) and child's perceived ability (t
= -1.88., p < .05, [beta] = -. 15) accounted for a significant amount
of unique variance. Therefore, higher levels of dysfunctional fandom and
lower perceptions of the child's ability were predictive of higher
AS-Child scores. Team identification (t = .51, [beta] = .05), sport
fandom (t = -.43, [beta] = -.04), and parent gender (t = -.75, [beta] =
-.54) did not account for significant amounts of unique variance.
Avoidance (AV)
The combined effect of the five predictor variables was not
significant, F(5, 163) = 1.25, [R.sup.2] = .04, p > .05. Team
identification (t = .98, [beta] = .09), dysfunctional fandom (t = 1.72,
[beta] = .14), sport fandom (t = -.47, [beta] = -.04), parent gender (t
= .67, [beta] = .05), and child's perceived ability (r = -.17,
[beta] = -.01) were not significant predictors of AV shame coping
strategies.
Withdrawal (WD)
The combined effect of the five predictor variables was significant
F(5, 162) = 1.93, [R.sup.2] = .06, p < .10. With respect to
independent contributions to WD scores, only dysfunctional fandom (t =
2.29, p < .05, [beta] = .19) accounted for a significant amount of
unique variance, and indicated that higher levels of dysfunctional
fandom predicted higher WD scores. Team identification (t = -.20, [beta]
= -.02), sport fandom (t = .37, [beta] = .03), parent gender (t = -.93,
[beta] = .07), and child's perceived ability (t = 1.53, [beta] =
.13), were not significant predictors of WD shame coping strategies.
Discussion
Shame is an emotion that is typically conceptualized as an
experience that occurs when one is devalued, or seen as "less
than" in front of others (Elison, 2005), and may occur vicariously
through identification with a secondary group or individual (e.g., a
child). The current study sought to expand our understanding of the
experience of vicarious shame in sport parents, including the most
frequently used parental coping styles, as well as factors that may
contribute to the use of these coping mechanisms in youth sport parents.
There were two research questions in this study: 1) What maladaptive
shame coping styles are most frequently endorsed by youth sport parents,
and 2) What variables account for the greatest amount of unique variance
in maladaptive shame coping styles of youth sport parents?
Paired samples t-tests indicated that all five measured coping
styles were significantly different from one another (AV > AS > AO
> AS-C > WD). Avoidance is an externalization technique that is
used to protect the individual against several negative psychological
symptoms (e.g., depression, hostility, anger and psychopathy) in dealing
with shame (Campbell & Elison, 2005; Elison, Lennon, et al., 2006;
Elison, Pulos, et al., 2006; Partridge & Elison, 2009; Yelsma,
Brown, & Elison, 2002). Furthermore, the motivation in Avoidance
behaviors is to minimize the conscious experience of shame, or to show
oneself to be above the experience of being ashamed. Avoidance behaviors
would serve such an externalizing, protective function, although none of
the measured variables were found to be significant predictors of this
coping style within the sample. This finding is also consistent with
previous research on vicarious fan shame (Partridge et al., 2010).
Similarly, a Withdrawal coping style has been found in previous samples
to be the least commonly endorsed style overall, which is consistent
with results of the current study.
Results from the t-tests also indicated that there were significant
differences between scores on each of the other coping styles (i.e.,
Attack Self, Attack Other, and Attack Self-Child). Each of these
"attacking" coping styles contain a common anger component,
although they have different targets (i.e., internal or external).
Seamier et al. (2009) found that the presence of others elevated levels
of vicarious parental shame stemming from a child's behavior.
Furthermore, shame and guilt were predictive of maladaptive disciplinary
responses (i.e., overreactivity). Given the visibility of sport, even at
the youth levels, parents may be more likely to react with anger if
their child's performance causes shames and is seen as a reflection
of their own behavior. Unfortunately, this anger can have significant
implications on psychological health. Attack Self has been found to have
a significant relationship with negative psychological symptoms such as
depression, while Attack Other was significantly correlated with
hostility, anger and psychopathy (Campbell & Elison, 2005; Elison,
Lennon, et al., 2006; Elison, Pulos, et al., 2006; Yelsma, Brown, &
Elison, 2002).
Consistent with previous research (Massey & Partridge, 2010;
Partridge et al., 2010), the least commonly utilized coping style was
Withdrawal, which is an internalization technique in which an individual
is aware of the shameful experience and attempts to avoid other
individuals as well as discussion/coverage of the shameful event.
Withdrawal behaviors in the context of a child's sport experience
could include refusal to discuss the sporting event following a
particularly embarrassing loss, or refusing to talk about the game with
other parents or coaches. However, the highly public and social nature
of youth sport (i.e., expectations placed upon parents to attend
children's games and to discuss the games with others), may be a
contributing factor in why Withdrawal coping mechanisms are more
difficult to engage in than the other forms of shame coping.
Results from the regression analyses indicated that a significant
amount of variance in four of the five coping subscales (Attack Other,
Attack Self, Withdrawal, and Attack Self-Child) was accounted for by the
predictor variables. Specifically, dysfunctional fandom accounted for a
significant amount of variance in each of those four subscales, and in
fact, was the only significant predictor of Withdrawal coping.
Dysfunctional fandom has been associated with a variety of negative
behaviors. For example, dysfunction fans are more likely to consume
large amounts of alcohol and to call into sport talk radio to voice
their complaints (Wakefield & Wann, 2006). Dysfunctional fans often
engaged in bullying behaviors as children (Courtney & Wann, 2010)
and tend to view physical and verbal fan violence as appropriate
(Donahue & Wann, 2009). It is perhaps not surprising, then, that a
higher level of fan dysfunctional correlates with greater tendencies to
be verbally and physically aggressive at sporting events (Wakefield
& Wann, 2006; Wann & Waddill, in press; Wann, Waddill, Thomas,
Scheuchner, & Ruga, 2012). Given that fan dysfunction includes a
confrontational element, it seems reasonable that persons with high
levels of fan dysfunction would cope with shame in a more dysfunctional
manner, particularly those who would choose to internalize a
child's embarrassing or shameful performance in sport.
In addition to the influence of dysfunctional fandom,
identification with a child's sport team also had an impact on
Attack Other scores. Identification with a sport team has been found to
influence AO scores in a fan population (Partridge et al., 2010) and it
seems logical that more highly identified parent fans would be more
likely to "lash out" against others (e.g., referees, coaches,
other parents) when vicarious shame is experienced.
The Attack Self scores were predicted by both fan dysfunction and
parental gender. Attack Self is an internalization technique where anger
associated with shame is directed inward, and has been found previously
to occur significantly more frequently in females (Elison &
Partridge, 2012; Nathanson, 1992). The sample for the current study was
primarily female. If mothers experience vicarious shame in response to
something that their child does in a sport setting, they may be more
likely to experience self-directed anger or an awareness of one's
own faults (e.g., "If I were better at sports, then maybe my child
wouldn't make so many mistakes"). Sport-related stressors,
including stress over a child's level of performance have been
identified previously as influencing a parent's sport experience
(Harwood, Drew, & Knight, 2010). Results from the current study
support the potentially negative impact of a vicariously experienced
emotion resulting from a child's sport performance.
The Attack Self-Child subscale was moderated by both dysfunction
and parent's perception of their child's ability. Parents who
have higher expectations for their child in an achievement domain such
as sport may respond differently to their performance in that domain
(Eccles & Harold, 1991). Several studies have identified that a
parent's competence belief for their child in sport may influence
the child's own perceptions of competence (Babkes & Weiss,
1999; Bois et al., 2002; Fredericks & Eccles, 2002), and may also
result in positive or negative emotional outcomes for the child (Bois et
al., 2009). The results from this study suggest that parents who have
higher expectations for their children in sport and a higher
dysfunctional fan nature would be more likely to direct anger inwardly
in response to a shaming experience (i.e., feel inadequate for a
child's poor performance).
Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions
There are limitations to this study that should inform future
research on this topic.
The current study examined parental identification at only one
discrete time, and parents were asked to respond to the questionnaires
regarding a child who was currently in season for their sport. It is
possible that a parent could have higher identification with a child in
one sport compared to others, or that their identification level with a
child could fluctuate depending on the sport being played. Furthermore,
future research should assess overall levels of shame proneness as well
as trait shame coping styles to determine if higher or lower total
levels of shame influence the specific coping style utilized in order to
better identify whether it is the mere experience of shame, or the
relative amount of shame that might lead to a specific reaction in a
parent. If differing overall levels of shame predict different coping
styles, interventions to help parents cope more effectively could be
developed to improve emotional reactions to a child's performance
in sport.
Parental behavior at youth sport events, particularly negative
actions such as fighting or berating a child or an official, has become
more important as youth sport has continued to become more popular,
expensive and competitive. Youth sport organizations should utilize the
information presented in this research to train coaches, officials and
administrators more effectively by increasing awareness of the different
types of emotional reactions in youth sport parents, as well as what may
trigger these specific responses.
The often inappropriate behaviors of parents (and other adults) at
youth sport organizations has gained the attention of the media and
organizations dedicated to improving youth sports have begun to confront
the issues of poor sportsmanship from parents. For instance, the
National Alliance for Youth Sports publishes its National Standards for
Youth Sports containing suggestions for youth sports administrators to
assist leagues in decreasing the number and intensity of abusive
behaviors among parents (National Standards, 2008). While exceptionally
valuable, standards such as these are typically designed to focus
situational antecedents of problematic parental behavior (e.g., a
league's culture, modeling of inappropriate behaviors among
coaches, etc.). However, research on hostility and aggression indicates
that, although situational factors are important, so too are personality
variables (Anderson, 1997; Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1996).
Given the significant impact of fan dysfunction for many of the shame
coping styles, and in particular Attack Self-Child, it is evident that
the current work supports the notion that personality traits are
important antecedents of hostility. Youth sport administrators should be
aware of this when developing strategies to improve the culture
surrounding youth sports. That is, while focusing on situational
determinants is important, they should also implement strategies
designed to reduce the negative reactions of parents possessing traits
associated with poor behaviors, such as high levels of dysfunctional
fandom. While it would not be reasonable to "test" parents to
determine those which are most at risk (i.e., to determine those parents
who are highly dysfunctional), it could be quite useful to inform
parents (and league officials) about the relationship between fan
dysfunction and tendencies to cope through Attack Self-Child. By arming
parents with this knowledge, they may become more aware of their own
traits and, consequently, begin to implement strategies designed to
reduce the corresponding reaction behaviors.
References
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait
hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive
Behavior, 23, 161-178.
Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1996).
Examining an affective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature
affects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366-376.
Babkes, M. L., & Weiss, M. R. (1999). Parental influence on
children's cognitive and affective responses to competitive soccer
participation. Pediatric Exercise Science, 11, 44-62.
Babkes Stellino, M., Partridge, J. A., & Moore, K. (2012).
Social influence on emotion and coping. In J. Thatcher, M. Jones, &
D. Lavallee (Eds.) Coping and emotion in sport (2nd ed., pp. 145-166).
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Bois, J. E., Lalanne, J., & Delforge, C. (2009). The influence
of parenting practices and parental pressure on children's and
adolescents' pre-competitive anxiety. Journal of Sports Sciences,
27, 995-1005.
Bois, J. E., Sarrazin, P. G., Brustad, R. J., Trouilloud, D. O.,
& Curry, F. (2002). Mothers' expectancies and young
adolescents' perceived physical competence: A year long study.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 384-406.
Branscombe, N. R., & Doojse, B. (2004). Collective guilt:
International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brustad, R. J. (1988). Affective responses in competitive youth
sport: The influence of intrapersonal and socialization factors. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 307-321.
Campbell, J. S., & Elison, J. (2005). Shame coping styles and
psychopathic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84,
96-104.
Courtney, J. J., & Warm, D. L. (2010). The relationship between
sport fan dysfunction and bullying behaviors. North American Journal of
Psychology, 12, 191-198.
Donahue, T., & Warm, D. L. (2009). Perceptions of the
appropriateness of sport fan physical and verbal aggression: Potential
influences of team identification and fan dysfunction. North American
Journal of Psychology, 11, 419-428.
Dorsch, T. E., Smith, A. L., & McDonough, M. H. (2009).
Parents' perceptions of child-to-parent socialization in organized
youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 444-468.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. (1991). Gender differences in sport
involvement: Applying the Eccles' expectancy-value model. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7-35.
Elison, J. (2005). Shame and guilt: A hundred years of apples and
oranges. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 5-32.
Elison, J., Lennon, R., and Pulos, S. (2006). Investigating the
compass of shame: The development of the Compass of Shame Scale. Social
Behavior and Personality, 34, 221-238.
Elison, J., & Partridge, J. A. (2012). Relationships between
shame-coping, fear of failure and perfectionism in college athletes.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 35, 19-39.
Elison, J., Pulos, S., & Lennon, R. (2006). Shame-focused
coping: An empirical study of the compass of shame. Social Behavior and
Personality, 34, 161-168.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children's
competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth
trajectories in two male sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology,
38, 519-533.
Harwood, C., Drew, A., & Knight, C. J. (2010). Parental
stressors in professional youth football academies: A qualitative
investigation of specializing stage parents. Qualitative Research in
Sport and Exercise, 2, 39-55.
Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). A developmental analysis of
children's self-ability judgments in the physical domain. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 3, 310-326.
Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2005). Ashamed to be an
American? The role of identification in predicting vicarious shame for
anti-Arab prejudice after 9-11. Self and Identity, 4, 331-348.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York:
International Universities Press.
Lickel, B., Schmader, T., Curtis, M., Seamier, M., & Ames, D.
R. (2005). Vicarious shame and guilt. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 8(2), 145-157.
Lickel, B., Steele, R. R., & Schmader, T. (2011). Group-based
shame and guilt: Emerging directions in research. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 5, 153-163.
Massey, W. V., & Partridge, J. A. (2010). Patterns of shame
coping styles in high school athletes. Journal of Youth Sports, 6,1-12.
McCarthy, P. J., Jones, M. V., & Clark-Carter, D. (2008).
Understanding enjoyment in youth sport: A developmental perspective.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 142-156.
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride. New York: Norton.
National Standards. (2008). National standards for youth sports.
West Palm Beach, FL: National Alliance for Youth Sports.
Partridge, J. A., & Elison, J. (2009). Shame in sport and
exercise: Issues and directions. Journal of Contemporary Athletics,
4(3), 197-210.
Partridge, J. A., Wann, D. L., & Elison, J. (2010).
Understanding college sport fans' experiences of and attempts to
cope with shame. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(2), 160-175.
Seamier, M., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2009). Parental shame
and guilt: Distinguishing emotional responses to a child's
wrongdoings. Personal Relationships, 16, 205-220.
Sloan, L. R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J. D. Goldstein
(Ed.), Sports, games and play: Social and psychosocial viewpoints (2nd
ed.) (pp. 175-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sloan, L. R., & Van Camp, D. (2008). Advances in theories of
sport fan motives: Fan personal motives and the emotional impacts of
games and their outcomes. In L. W. Hugenberg, P. M. Haridakis, & A.
C. Earnheardt (Eds.), Sports mania: Essays on fandom and the media in
the 21st century (pp. 129-157). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New
York: Guilford Press. Tomkins, S. S. (1963).
Affect/imagery/consciousness. Vol. 2. New York: Springer.
Wakefield, K. L., & Wann, D. L. (2006). An examination of
dysfunctional sport fans: Method of classification and relationships
with problem behaviors. Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 168-186.
Wann, D. L. (2014, February). Investigating the impact of team
identification on the verbal and physical aggression of youth baseball
parents. Paper presented at the annual Western Kentucky University Sport
Psychology Forum, Bowling Green, KY.
Wann, D. L., Dolan, T. J., McGeorge, K. K., & Allison, J. A.
(1994). Relationships between spectator identification and
spectators' perceptions of influence, spectators' emotions,
and competition outcome. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16,
347-364.
Wann, D. L., & Waddill, P. J. (in press). Predicting sport
fans' willingness to consider anonymous acts of aggression:
Importance of team identification and fan dysfunction. In C. Mohiyeddini
(Ed.), Psychology of sports. Hauppauge NY: Nova.
Wann, D. L., Waddill, P. J., Thomas, D., Scheuchner, H., &
Ruga, K. (2012). Sport spectator verbal aggression: The impact of team
identification and fan dysfunction and fans 'verbal abuse of
opponents and officials. Unpublished manuscript.
Yelsma, P., Brown, N. M., & Elison, J. (2002). Shame-focused
coping styles and their associations with self-esteem. Psychological
Reports, 90, 1179-1189.
Julie A. Partridge
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Daniel L. Wann
Murray State University
Address correspondence to: Julie A. Partridge, Ph.D., Southern
Illinois University Carbondale, Department of Kinesiology, 1075 S.
Normal Ave., Carbondale, IL 62901-4310. Email: jpartrid@siu.edu.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the fan and shame coping variables.
Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Predictor Variables
Team Identification 40.39 7.63 9.00 53.00
Dysfunctional Fandom 13.93 8.17 5.00 41.00
Sport Fandom 27.60 9.99 5.00 40.00
Child's Perceived Ability 4.00 .84 1.00 5.00
Shame Coping Skills
Attack Others 12.70 4.52 8.00 28.00
Attack Self 14.79 5.04 8.00 30.00
Attack Self-Child 11.87 4.22 8.00 27.00
Avoidance 18.86 5.29 8.00 31.00
Withdrawal 11.19 4.25 8.00 25.00
Note: For the shame coping subscales, all means were significantly
different (paired samples t-tests, p < .05).
Table 2
Correlations among the variables
1 2 3 4 5
Child's Perceived Ability
(1)
Team Identification (2)
Sport Fandom (3) 99 ** 43 **
Dysfunctional Fandom (4) .05 .25 ** .12
Attack Other (5) -.03 .19 * .03 .32 **
Attack Self (6) -.03 .03 .01 .17 * 44 **
Attack Self-Child (7) -.12 .06 .04 .27 ** .56 **
Avoidance (8) .01 .11 -.02 .15 * .50 **
Withdrawal (9) .13 .06 .07 .17 * .63 **
Gender (10) .04 19 ** -.07 .06 .08
6 7 8 9 10
Child's Perceived Ability
(1)
Team Identification (2)
Sport Fandom (3)
Dysfunctional Fandom (4)
Attack Other (5)
Attack Self (6)
Attack Self-Child (7) .64 **
Avoidance (8) .42 ** 34 **
Withdrawal (9) 59 ** .59 ** .35 **
Gender (10) -.16 * -.07 .03 -.01
Note: * = p < .01; ** = p < .001; gender was coded as males = 1,
females = 2
