Youth sport status and perceptions of satisfaction and cohesion.

Jeffery-Tosoni, Sarah M. ; Eys, Mark A. ; Schinke, Robert J. 等

Status within sport teams is defined as "the amount of importance or prestige possessed by or accorded to individuals by virtue of their position in relation to others" (Jacob & Carron, 1994, p. S67). Through a qualitative investigation with Canadian and East Indian athletes, Jacob-Johnson (2004) highlighted four major sources of status within sport. These included an individual's physical (e.g., performance, experience, role, position), psychological (e.g., positive attitude, team spirit), and demographic attributes (e.g., age), as well as his/her relationships with external others (e.g., parental support).

One common type of sport status that results from a combination of the aforementioned sources is starting status. Predominately a reflection of both physical and psychological attributes, two general categories of starting status are commonly considered (e.g., Beauchamp, Bray, Eys, & Carron, 2005; Connelly, 1992; Granito & Rainey, 1988; Gruber & Gray, 1982). First, starting athletes (i.e., 'starters') are classified as those players who begin the competition on the playing surface and typically receive regular playing time (i.e., higher status athletes). Second, non-starting athletes (i.e., 'non-starters') are those who typically do not begin competition on the playing surface and receive limited to no playing time (i.e., lower status athletes; Eys, Carton, Bray, & Beauchamp, 2003).

Starting status is often included as a standard demographic variable in sport research. Despite the fact that this variable is not typically the direct focus of study, there is evidence to suggest its importance toward the psychological environment within sport. For example, Gruber and Gray (1982) found that non-starting athletes held lower perceptions of self-performance satisfaction than starting athletes. Further, in comparison to starting athletes, non-starters perceive (a) less value toward their team membership (Gruber & Gray, 1982), (b) lower affiliation desire (Gruber & Gray, 1982), (c) the group as less cohesive (Granito & Rainey, 1988), (d) lower interpersonal attractions to the group (Bergeles & Hatziharistos, 2003), (e) lower need for achievement (Teevan & Yalof, 1980), (f) an intense competition with the starting athletes that can lead to social distance at the end of a season (Cowell & Ismail, 1961), and (g) that they are not part of the team and feel bitter, rejected, isolated, or incompetent (Connelly, 1992). Finally, in a qualitative examination of a modified soccer program, Hill and Green (2008) found that parents of children who were consistently in a non-starting role felt their children's satisfaction and sense of belonging could be hampered due to their lack of participation.

Based on the research presented in the previous paragraph, it is reasonable to suggest that starting and non-starting athletes may differ in perceptions of (a) satisfaction with their athletic experience (e.g., Connelly, 1992; Gruber & Gray, 1982; Hill & Green, 2008) and (b) the degree of cohesiveness within their sport groups (e.g., Bergeles & Hatziharistos, 2003; Granito & Rainey, 1988; Gruber & Gray, 1982; Hill & Green, 2008). However, a number of limitations prevent more firm conclusions and/or greater understanding regarding satisfaction and cohesion as they pertain to starting status. First, in several cases, the generalizability of the results is limited due to the fact that the researchers focused on one specific sport within their studies (e.g., basketball; Gruber & Gray) or one gender (e.g., males only; Granito & Rainey). Second, recent multidimensional conceptualizations and operationalizations of satisfaction (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) and cohesion (Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron, 2009) within sport allow for a more in-depth examination of these constructs in comparison to some of the earlier work that utilized a unidimensional approach. Finally, Hill and Green provided insights into more recent experiences of substitute/non-starting players using a qualitative approach (e.g., field notes, formal and informal interviews). However, their study tended to focus on the perceptions of coaches and parents over those of the sport participants.

Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to extend this previous research and quantitatively examine perceptions of satisfaction and cohesion as they pertain to starting and non-starting youth athletes (i.e., higher and lower status athletes) from a variety of sports and both genders. Toward this end, two separate samples of athletes were examined. The first sample was utilized to examine perceptions of satisfaction while cohesion perceptions were assessed from the second sample. As a frame of reference, athlete satisfaction refers to "a positive affective state resulting from a complex evaluation of the structures, processes, and outcomes associated with the athletic experience" (Riemer & Chelladurai, 2001, p. 135) while cohesion is "a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs" (Carton, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213). Given the suggestions and findings from the previous studies, it was generally hypothesized that starters would have greater perceptions of satisfaction and cohesion than non-starters. However, no specific a priori hypotheses were forwarded with regard to the specific dimensions of each construct.

The potential implications of the current research project are c lear: perceptions of both cohesion and satisfaction are linked with adherence behavior in sport (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1988; Riemer & Chelladurai, 2001). A closer examination of which facets of satisfaction and cohesion are linked to a player's status will allow for a more focused approach to intervention, greater consideration toward lower status athletes (especially at the youth level) with respect to their contributions to their teams, and potential continued involvement of these athletes in sport and physical activity. A quote from Hill and Green (2008) illustrates this issue succinctly: "The children who transferred to other teams or withdrew ... before the end of the season were nearly always those who were repeatedly used as substitutes" (p. 192).

Methods

Participants

The perceptions of two samples of athletes were examined in the present study, drawing from concurrent on-going research projects examining youth physical activity. Those individuals between the ages of 12-17 (i.e., youth) and who participated in interdependent team sports were included in the analyses. The participants in the first sample (N = 61) were drawn from Canadian public schools and ranged in age from 12 to 15 years, with a mean age of 13.59 years (SD = 0.62). Forty-three self-reported as starting athletes and 18 self-reported as nonstarting athletes. There were a total of 34 (55.7%) males and 27 (44.3%) females included in the analysis. The majority listed either soccer or volleyball as their most important current team (23% each), followed by hockey (21.3%), basketball (19.7%), and baseball/softball or football (6.5% each).

In the second sample, athletes (N = 215) ranged in age from 13 to 17 years, with a mean age of 15.27 years (SD = 1.05). One hundred and seventy participants self-reported as starting athletes while 45 self-reported as non-starting athletes. The gender distribution was similar to the first sample (57.7% male; 42.3% female) and the participants listed their most important current sports as hockey (41.4%), basketball (20.0%), volleyball (15.3%), soccer (13.5%), and football (9.8%).

Measures

Demographic information. For both samples, participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, most important and current sport team, their playing position, and their starting status. Participants were further instructed to refer to their experiences with the indicated sport team for the subsequent questionnaires.

Athlete satisfaction. The Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) was administered to assess perceptions of satisfaction in the first sample. Support for the reliability and validity of the questionnaire was demonstrated by Riemer and Chelladurai (1998). The complete ASQ has a total of 56 items housed under 15 dimensions. However, only 23 items from six dimensions were utilized for the purposes of this study. Subscales were chosen based on anticipated relevance to the purpose of the present study as well as the youth sport environment. An example of a dimension that was not included for examination in the present study pertained to participants' satisfaction with their team's medical personnel. The vast majority of participants, if not all, did not have access to this type of service through their athletic program. Consequently, the satisfaction dimensions assessed were ability utilization (e.g., "I am satisfied with the extent to which my role matches my potential"; 5 items; [alpha] = .90), personal treatment (e.g., "I am satisfied with the recognition I receive from my coach"; 5 items; [alpha] = .96), training and instruction (e.g., "I am satisfied with the training I receive from my coach during the season"; 3 items; [alpha] = .84), team task contribution (e.g., "I am satisfied with the guidance I receive from my teammates"; 3 items; [alpha] = .83), team social contribution (e.g., "I am satisfied with the degree to which my teammates accept me on a social level"; 3 items; [alpha] = .91), and personal dedication (e.g., "I am satisfied with the degree to which I do my best for the team"; 4 items; [alpha] = .79). Each item was scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied).

Cohesion. The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ; Eys et al., 2009) was utilized to assess perceptions of cohesion in the second sample. Initial support for the reliability and validity of the questionnaire has been demonstrated (Eys et al., 2009). The YSEQ is an 18-item survey that measures two dimensions of cohesion: task (e.g., "As a team, we are all on the same page"; 8 items; [alpha] =.88) and social cohesion (e.g., "I spend time with my teammates"; 8 items; [alpha] = .92). The two remaining items are phrased negatively and are not intended to be included in the analyses. Participants responded to each item on a nine-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree).

Procedure

Data collection took place within a classroom setting for both samples. Initial contact with school principals was made following approval from both the authors' Research Ethics Board and the participating school boards. Subsequent to obtaining parental and participant consent, each participant was given the package of questionnaires to complete during class time.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations for the total sample and each subsample (i.e., higher status athletes and lower status athletes) are presented in Table 1. In general, the scores for each study variable were relatively high for each group, as the means for each of the dimensions of satisfaction and cohesion were above their respective mid-points. Inter-correlations between satisfaction variables were moderately to highly intercorrelated (.38 [less than or equal to] r [less than or equal to] .84; p < .01) while the bivariate correlation (r) between task and social cohesion was .39 (p < .001).

Sport Status and Perceptions of Satisfaction

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test differences between status levels (i.e., starters vs. non-starters) with regard to perceptions of six dimensions of satisfaction (i.e., ability utilization, personal treatment, training and instruction, team task contribution, team social contribution, personal dedication). The omnibus MANOVA was significant, Wilks' [lambda] = .58, F(6,54) = 6.65, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .43, indicating that differences existed between status levels. Further univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were examined with sport status as the independent variable (two levels: higher status and lower status), and each of the six dimensions of satisfaction as the individual dependent variables. Significant differences were found between groups for ability utilization, F(1,60) = 14.05, p < .000, [[eta].sup.2] = .19, team social contribution, F(1,60) = 22.47, p < .000, [[eta].sup.2] = .28, and personal dedication, F(1,60) = 10.75, p < .002, [[eta].sup.2] = .15. In each case, starters perceived greater satisfaction than non-starters (see Table 1).

Sport Status and Perceptions of Cohesion

Analyses of cohesion perceptions in the second sample proceeded in a similar manner to satisfaction. The omnibus MANOVA, Wilks' [lambda] = .97, F(2,212) = 3.22, p < .05, [[eta].sup.2] = .04, indicated significant differences in perceptions of cohesion between starters and non-starters. Univariate ANOVA revealed that starters perceived greater social cohesion than non-starters, F(1,213) = 4.07,p < .05, [[eta].sup.2] = .02 (see Table 1).

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine perceptions of satisfaction and cohesion as they pertain to starting and non-starting youth athletes (i.e., higher and lower status athletes). Overall, the results lead to the interpretation that non-starting athletes were less satisfied and perceived less social cohesion on their teams than starting athletes. A number of issues related to specific dimensions of satisfaction and cohesion are addressed in subsequent paragraphs.

One of the satisfaction dimensions that differed between starters and non-starters pertained to ability utilization. From a face validity standpoint, this result provides support for the current study in that it might be expected that non-starters (by definition, those whose playing abilities are not utilized extensively) would be less satisfied with respect to this dimension. Even more pressing is what the present result means in terms of practical application. One might propose that there could be alternatives to typical sport team structures and operations such that substitutes/non-starters could be more satisfied with the degree to which their abilities are utilized. As one option, coaches could make stronger attempts to encourage, utilize, and recognize other abilities/behaviors of lower status athletes (e.g., providing social support for the team, challenging other players in practice, etc.) to increase perceptions of satisfaction for the non-starters. As a result, lower status athletes might gain a clear sense of the specific abilities they possess that are valued by their coaches and teammates.

Another option, dependent on the level of competition, is to eliminate the concept of starters/non-starters from the team's environment. Numerous recreational and youth leagues have attempted to modify rules, physical space, and playing time expectations to maximize participation for all team members (Hill & Green, 2008). Hill and Green have even gone one step further to suggest that sport organizations consider planning team roster sizes that allow all athletes to participate on the playing surface at all times. While their suggestion might seem (a) a bit drastic and (b) relevant only to very specific sports and/or situations wherein athletes have the stamina to endure the entire match/contest, alternative structures and behaviors should be considered to keep lower status athletes interested and motivated in sporting activities.

The previous discussion pertaining to satisfaction with ability utilization focuses mostly on the task component of sport involvement. However, a consistent finding across both samples was related to social aspects of the athletes' environment. For the first sample, nonstarters perceived less satisfaction with team social contribution, which refers to how other group members relate to the athlete on a personal level (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998). Nonstarters in the second sample perceived less social cohesion within their team. This dimension of cohesion reflects how the group interacts socially as a unit and the degree to which the athlete is drawn toward the social activities of the group. These results are similar to previous findings suggesting lower status athletes have less affiliation desire (Gruber & Gray, 1982), lower interpersonal attractions to the group (Bergeles & Hatziharisos, 2003), and perceive social distance from higher status athletes (Cowell & Ismail, 1961). From these results, the need to focus on the social dynamics within a team and ensure that lower status athletes feel included in the group are stressed. Within the sport setting, coaches could lead team building exercises that do not focus on technical skill (e.g., cooperative games, trust exercises) so as to allow all athletes to reap the benefits regardless of status level. Also, facilitating team social gatherings outside of the sport setting would allow lower status athletes the opportunity to bond with their teammates without the potential of feeling marginalized by their particular athletic status on the team.

Two limitations in the present study are worth briefly noting. First, an unequal number of self-identified higher and lower status athletes participated in the research project (i.e., approximately a quarter of participants self-identified as non-starters across the two samples). This is likely due to the method employed as participants from both samples were instructed to refer to their most important current sport team as a frame of reference for responding to the questionnaires. It is likely that a participant's most important team was the one he/she participated in the most. In an effort to examine the possible effect of unequal sample size, a post-hoc examination of cohesion perceptions was conducted comparing the non-starters (n = 45) with a random sample of 45 starting athletes (through the SPSS randomization tool). Our initial findings were supported in that the omnibus MANOVA, Wilks' [lambda] = .93, F(2,87) = 3.24, p < .05, [[eta].sup.2] = .07, indicated significant differences in perceptions of cohesion between starters and nonstarters. Similarty, univariate ANOVA revealed that starters (M = 6.31 [+ or -] 1.59) perceived greater social cohesion than non-starters (M = 5.63 [+ or -] 1.66), F(1,88) = 3.92, p = .05, [[eta].sup.2] = .04. Again, no differences were round between the two groups for perceptions of task cohesion.

A second issue is that conclusions drawn from the satisfaction results in the present study are limited given the number of participants in the first sample. However, the ratios of males/females and starters/non-starters are consistent with those round in the second larger sample. Further, taken in totality (i.e., from both samples), the results are consistent and support the need to consider the group's social environment with respect to starters and nonstarters.

In sum, the present study provides further evidence that perceptions of satisfaction and cohesion differ between starting and non-starting athletes, which has implications for research and application. A common practice in sport research is to query participants on their starting status as part of the collection of demographic information. This feature of sport involvement should be considered a potent moderating variable when examining psychological or social-psychological constructs in this environment. More importantly, given the interconnections between cohesion, satisfaction, and adherence behaviors (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1988; Riemer & Chelladurai, 2001), individuals working with athletes (e.g., coaches, sport psychology consultants, etc.) will want to consider the implications of status on the youth sport experience.

References

Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2005). Leadership behaviors and multidimensional role ambiguity perceptions in team sports. Small Group Research, 36, 5-20.

Bergeles, N., & Hatziharistos, D. (2003). Interpersonal attraction as a measure of estimation of cohesiveness in elite volleyball teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 81-91.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1988). Group cohesion and individual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 119-126.

Connelly, D. (1992). The benchwarmer. Sport Psychology Training Bulletin for Athletes, Coaches & Parents, 4, 1-8.

Cowell, C. C., & Ismail, A. H. (1961). Validity of a football rating scale and its relationship to social integration and academic ability. Research Quarterly, 32, 461-467.

Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2003). Role ambiguity and athlete satisfaction. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 391-40 l.

Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31,390-408.

Granito, V. J., & Rainey, D. W. (1988). Differences in cohesion between high school and college football teams and between starters and nonstarters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 471-477.

Gruber, J. J., & Gray, G. R. (1982). Responses to forces influencing cohesion as a function of player status and level of male varsity basketball competition. Research Quarterly, 53, 27-36.

Hill, B., & Green, B. C. (2008). Give the bench the boot! Using Manning Theory to design youth-sport programs. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 184-204.

Jacob, C. S., & Carron, A. V. (1994). Sources of status in intercollegiate sport teams. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, S67.

Jacob-Johnson, C. S. (2004). Status in sport teams: Myth or reality? International Sports Journal, 8, 55-64.

Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 127-156.

Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Satisfaction and commitment of Canadian university athletes: The effects of gender and tenure. Avante, 7, 27-50.

Teevan, R. C., & Yalof, J. (1980). Need for achievement in "starting" and in "non-starting" varsity athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 402.

Sarah M. Jeffery-Tosoni

York University

Mark A. Eys

Wilfrid Laurier University

Robert J. Schinke and John Lewko

Laurentian University

Address correspondence to: Sarah Jeffery-Tosoni, York University, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, Norman Bethune College, Room 351, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3. Email: sjt@yorku.ca.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Total Sample and the Two
Status Levels (Mean [+ or -] SD)

Variable                          Total Sample       Starting Status

Ability Utilization (a)        5.85 [+ or -] 1.12   6.17 [+ or -] 0.81
Personal Treatment (a)         6.06 [+ or -] 1.16   6.21 [+ or -] 1.00
Training and Instruction (a)   5.87 [+ or -] 1.01   5.94 [+ or -] 1.00
Team Task Contribution (a)     5.39 [+ or -] 1.15   5.44 [+ or -] 1.07
Team Social Contribution (a)   5.63 [+ or -] 1.52   6.14 [+ or -] 1.02
Personal Dedication (a)        6.21 [+ or -] 0.81   6.41 [+ or -] 0.52

Task Cohesion (b)              6.60 [+ or -] 1.39   6.57 [+ or -] 1.40

Social Cohesion (b)            6.08 [+ or -] 1.70   6.20 [+ or -] 1.69

Variable                        Non-Starting Status

Ability Utilization (a)          5.10 [+ or -] 1.40
Personal Treatment (a)           5.69 [+ or -] 1.45
Training and Instruction (a)     5.72 [+ or -] 1.04
Team Task Contribution (a)       5.26 [+ or -] 1.36
Team Social Contribution (a)     4.41 [+ or -] 1.82
Personal Dedication (a)          5.72 [+ or -] 1.13

Task Cohesion (b)                6.72 [+ or -] 1.39

Social Cohesion (b)              5.63 [+ or -] 1.66

Notes. (a) Satisfaction dimensions, scale range = 1-7.

(b) Cohesion dimensions, scale range= 1- 9.