Parents behaving badly? The relationship between the sportsmanship behaviors of adults and athletes in youth basketball games.

Arthur-Banning, Skye ; Wells, Mary Sara ; Baker, Birgitta L. 等

Sport can be an important and healthy component of youth development. In fact, based on participation statistics, youth sport appears to be one of the most important activities in a child's life (Brustad, 1993; Gould, 1987). It is also frequently suggested in both the popular media and in research that youth sport programs can be used to foster positive development and to build character (Coakley, 2004; Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003). More specifically, youth sport participation is associated with many general indicators of development, including identity development; personal exploration; initiative; improved cognitive and physical skills; cultivating social connections, teamwork, and social skills; extending peer networks; and improved connections to adults (Hansen et al., 2003).

In reality, however, sport does not inherently build character and in fact, many sport programs may lead to negative, rather than positive, youth development (Hellison, 1995). Sport only provides a context in which individuals may demonstrate positive development characteristics (Bigelow, Moroney, & Hall, 2001; Eitzen, 2003). It is the responsibility of youth sport administrators to ensure that programs exist that take advantage of this opportunity. Youth sport can be used to promote life long physical activity and enjoyment of sport, but only if programs are specifically designed with this intent (Smith & Smoll, 1997; Weiss & Petlichkoff, 1989).

In addition, youth cannot gain the benefits from youth sport if they are no longer participating in these activities. Recent statistics suggest that children are dropping out of sport at extremely high levels. Some research has found that as many as 70% of children will cease participation in organized sport before they reach the age of 13 (Engh, 2002). Many external and internal factors in addition to the sport itself may be contributing to this excessive dropout rate (Linder, Johns, & Butcher, 1991; Viira & Raudsepp, 2000). External factors might include the child moving to a new town or parents losing a job and no longer being able to pay for the activity. Internal factors frequently mentioned include negative experiences, feelings of incompetence, a lack of fun or enjoyment in the activity, wanting to try new things, or simply needing a break from a particular sport (Gould, 1987; Petlichkoff, 1992).

While the external reasons children cease participation in youth sport are not typically within the control of youth sport administrators, many of the internal reasons can be addressed. Specifically within the realm of their responsibility are the reasons related to negative experiences due to poor sportsmanship. In order to reduce the dropout of youth in sport programs due to sportsmanship issues, it is necessary for youth sport administrators to understand how these problems occur and develop within a program.

Previous research has suggested that increasing positive and decreasing negative sportsmanship behaviors is possible in youth sport environments (Arthur-Banning, Paisley, & Wells, 2007; Ellis, Henderson, Paisley, Silverberg, & Wells 2004; Wells, Ellis, Paisley, & Arthur-Banning, 2005; Wells, Ellis, Arthur-Banning, & Roark, 2006). Although it is useful to know which theoretically based techniques to employ, it is also necessary for youth sport administrators to know to whom they should be focusing these techniques. Determining this requires an understanding of the relationships involved in demonstrating sportsmanship behaviors. Little, if any, research, however, has examined the link between children's positive and negative sportsmanship behaviors with those of other important people involved in the game environment, specifically the spectators (who generally tend to be parents) and coaches. Information about such a link would be highly important to youth sport administrators who are hoping to design programs that address sportsmanship. Knowing that a relationship exists would allow them to target interventions on specific groups of people.

Much literature suggests that a link should exist between parents' or coaches' behaviors and those of their children or athletes. The behaviors demonstrated by the significant individuals in a person's life (such as a parent or a coach) have a great impact on that person's behavior. Most of this literature implies a directional link from the adult to the child. In other words, the behavior of children is in part influenced by the behavior of the parent. Research has found this relationship to be true in a variety of areas including smoking (Goddard, 1992; Flay et al., 1994; Jackson & Henriksen, 1997), alcohol consumption (Yu & Perrine, 1997), and prosocial and antisocial behaviors (Stuart & Ebbeck, 1995; Wyatt & Carlo, 2002).

Information relating specifically to moral behavior development in youth sports suggests that it is a very complex phenomenon and adults can have an influence on children's attitudes and behaviors through the modeling that occurs in the environment (Guivernau & Duda, 2002; May, 2001; Vallerand, Deshaies, & Cuerrier, 1997). Modeling most often occurs through the prominent influences in a person's life. The most significant factor in this process is not that person's actual beliefs, but the individual's perception of these beliefs (Biddle, Wang, Kavussanu, & Spray, 2003; Carr & Weigand, 2002; Duda, 1993; Givvin, 2001; White, Kavussanu, Tank, & Wingate, 2004). For example, children who observe coaches berating other teams or refusing to shake the hand of another coach are likely to assume that sportsmanship is not a valued quality, no matter what the coach claims. If, however, they observe a coach engaging in positive sportsmanship behaviors such as congratulating members on another team for a good performance, they might believe that these types of behaviors are truly important. Based on these perceived values, children will often choose to meet the expectations of the coach either in a sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike way, depending on which they perceive is more valuable.

Theory suggests that children's sportsmanship behaviors should be correlated to those of the spectators (who are primarily parents) and coaches in a youth sport setting. However, no specific study has been completed confirming this idea. Knowing the relationship between parents', coaches' and children's behaviors will tell us if youth sport administrators should also be employing techniques focused on parents and coaches as a means of enhancing the sportsmanship of young athletes and the overall atmosphere in games. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the positive and negative sportsmanship behaviors demonstrated by parents and coaches and those of children. Consequently, the following hypotheses were tested:

H1: Positive spectator behavior is a significant predictor of positive player behavior

H2: Positive coach behavior is a significant predictor of positive player behavior

H3: Negative spectator behavior is a significant predictor of negative player behavior

H4: Negative coach behavior is a significant predictor of negative player behavior

Method

Setting and participants. Two recreation centers were involved in this study. At the first site, no intervention took place, and researchers merely observed the behaviors of individuals as they were organized by the league. The second site was sponsored by the same organization as site one and both were run under virtually the same rules. Both sites were similar in demographic features including ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Participants taking part in the study were in two age groups, third and fourth graders and fifth and sixth graders. These two age groups were chosen because after this approximate age, children begin to be influenced more by peers rather than parents.

Measurement. Sportsmanship behaviors were measured through observational techniques. Participants, coaches and spectators were observed each quarter by individuals trained to recognize behaviors consistent with positive or negative sportsmanship. At least one research assistant was present at each game whose sole job was to observe these sportsmanship behaviors. Individual behaviors were separated by team, as well as by player, coach or spectator. In most instances, parents sat on separate sides of the gym, making it easy to identify team affiliation of spectators.

The observation form used to measure sportsmanship behaviors was complied from various pieces of literature indicating what appropriate positive and negative sportsmanship behaviors were. These behaviors were then modified to more closely match the sport of basketball. This sportsmanship behavior observation form has been accurately used in other studies (Arthur-Banning et al, 2007; Wells et al., In Press). Examples of positive sportsmanship behaviors include cheering on opponents and checking on an injured player. Negative sportsmanship behaviors included taunting opponents, yelling at referees and acts of excessive aggression.

Design. Three groups were observed in this design. A control group was at site one so that no contamination of sportsmanship interventions were witnessed. Two groups were observed at the second site. The first treatment group received some simple league level sportsmanship interventions that were implemented with all participants involved. The second group received the same league level sportsmanship interventions and, in addition, employed referees who were trained to enhance prosocial behavior by using specific techniques found in the literature. Techniques used by the referees included a variety of behaviors such as modeling and creating expectations of positive sportsmanship. The games at the second site were equally split so that half received the sportsmanship intervention only and the other half received the sportsmanship intervention plus the referees trained in prosocial behavior techniques.

Procedures. Prior to the beginning of the season a coach/parent meeting was held at both facilities. At the control facility, the meeting was put on as normal with no extra information provided by the researchers. At the second site, parents and coaches were informed about some of the changes to the league to make it more focused on developing positive sportsmanship behaviors. These changes included a post game social for both teams. At this social, one player on each team was recognized by the opposite team for their acts of sportsmanship during the game. In addition, the parents and coaches were informed that signs and petitions supporting positive sportsmanship would be located throughout the gymnasium and that there would be minor rule changes such as the ability for referees to call technical fouls on spectators for negative sportsmanship violations. Finally, the parents and coaches were made aware that during half the games, referees would be employing specific techniques that would further promote positive sportsmanship consistent with research on prosocial behavior (Arthur-Banning et al., 2007).

Observation training. Measures of sportsmanship were all conducted using observations. Training for observers took place before the study began. All observers were graduate students or faculty in the parks and recreation field. This training was performed by an individual familiar with both sportsmanship research and the use of observational techniques. After an initial discussion of the background of the study, the observation sheets were reviewed with the research assistants who would be serving as observers for the study. The trainer and observers discussed each of the behaviors listed on the sheet along with examples of how each of those behaviors might manifest themselves in a youth basketball game. Observers then viewed six different video segments taped from youth basketball games, each of which focused on several different behaviors. Following each video clip, the observers and the trainer discussed what behaviors were witnessed, and how they were recorded on the observation forms. If there was a consensus about the clip by the observers, the group then would move onto the next clip. If, however, inconsistencies existed in how the observers scored the behaviors, before moving on the trainer would help to clarify the behaviors, and the clip was watched again to reinforce the discussion about the behaviors. The process was then continued for the remaining five video segments assuring that at least a consistency level of 80% between the observers was accomplished.

On game days, observers would typically situate themselves in a position where they could see and hear a majority of the events happening in the gymnasium. Most of the spectators would sit in clusters that represented their respective teams. This made it easy to identify which comments or behaviors could be associated with spectators for each team.

Data analysis. In this study, the unit of analysis was an aggregated team variable. More specifically, outcome variables were aggregates of the behaviors of all members of one team during a particular game. Predictor variables were the sum of either all the coach behaviors or all the spectator behaviors for one team during a game. All analyses were run using SAS version 9.1. Proc GLM to fit analysis of covariance models which were then utilized to test the hypotheses that positive coach and spectator behaviors were predictive of positive player behaviors and that negative coach and spectator behaviors were predictive of negative player behaviors when controlling for grade level of players and treatment group.

Results

Descriptive statistics were calculated for game totals of positive and negative spectator, coach and players behaviors. Mean numbers of positive and negative coach, spectator, and player behaviors per team per game are shown in Table 1. T-tests were used to determine whether player, coach, and spectator behaviors differed depending on the age of the players involved in the game (see Table 2). The only significant difference between teams with players in third and fourth grades and teams with players in grades five and six was in the number of positive behaviors of team members. Older teams engaged in an average of almost four more positive behaviors per game than did younger teams.

Positive spectator (b = .26) and coach (b = .22) behaviors were significant predictors of positive player behaviors in a model that accounted for 37.00% of the variance in positive player behaviors ([R.sup.2] = .37) when controlling for the grade level and treatment group of the team (see Tables 3 and 4). This means that during the course of a game, every additional positive spectator behavior was associated with .26 additional positive player behaviors while each additional positive coach behavior was associated with .22 additional positive player behaviors.

Negative spectator (b = .14) behaviors was a significant predictor of negative player behaviors in a model that accounted for 9.60% of the variance in negative player behaviors ([R.sup.2] =. 10) when controlling for the grade level and treatment group of the team (see Tables 5 and 6). In other words, every additional negative spectator behavior in a game was associated with. 14 additional negative player behaviors.

Discussion

This study examined the effects that sportsmanship behaviors exhibited by spectators and coaches can have on player sportsmanship behavior in youth basketball games. In general, the positive mean scores of players were higher than the positive means of coaches and spectators behaviors. This result is similar to the negative behaviors in that players tended to exhibit more negative behaviors than did coaches or spectators. This appears to demonstrate that as an individual becomes less directly involved in the game, he or she demonstrates fewer behaviors related to sportsmanship.

When looking at the positive and negative behaviors demonstrated in the third and fourth grade games in comparison to the fifth and sixth grade games, the only significant difference was in the positive behaviors of the players. Fifth and sixth grade players engaged in significantly (p < .01) more positive sportsmanship behaviors than third and fourth grade players per game. This means that the fifth and sixth graders demonstrated an average of approximately four more positive behaviors per game than younger teams. This difference likely occurred because the older teams tended to play at a faster tempo or pace and therefore, had more opportunities to exhibit behaviors, both positive and negative. For example, in the younger age group, teams tended to score fewer points per game than the older age group. With fewer points being scored, there is also less opportunity for the younger athletes to cheer or to congratulate their opponents.

Lack of statistical differences in group means for negative behaviors could be related to the standard deviations. In all negative behaviors, the standard deviations were higher than the means. This is probably the result of a "floor effect." In other words, although there was a wide range in numbers of behaviors, some as high as 34 behaviors per game, overall the numbers tended to be close to 0. In addition, this league is emphasized as a recreational league, and the pressures to win, or advance to a "championship" do not exist as they might in other higher level tournaments, or leagues (Arthur-Banning et al., 2007). This becomes an important factor to consider when decisions about sportsmanship expectations are outlined at the beginning of the season. A cookie cutter program approach will almost certainly be less effective than a program designed specifically with the league and type of participants in mind.

As hypothesized, positive sportsmanship behaviors by spectators and coaches (p < .01) predicted positive player behaviors after accounting for the treatment and age groups. This relationship suggests that throughout each game, every time a spectator demonstrated four positive sportsmanship behaviors, there was an associated increase of one positive player behavior regardless of age or league. Similarly, when coaches demonstrated approximately five positive sportsmanship behavior, there was an associated increase of one positive player behavior. Thus, players were more likely to behave positively if the team's spectators and coaches did so as well.

Similar to positive sportsmanship, negative spectator (p = .04) behavior was a significant predictor of negative player behaviors. Contrary to expectations, however, negative coach behavior (p = .26) was not a significant predictor of player behavior. In both cases, these results are lower relationships that we would expect, and this is likely a result of the overall low numbers of behaviors that were recorded per game, coupled with the higher standard deviations. It may also be the result of young athletes being more attuned to their parents' negative behaviors than to their coaches. For example, the perception might exist that the one of the coaches' roles is to argue with referees so when they do, players are less likely to notice. When parents, however, argue with referees, it is more noticeable because it is outside the expected role of the spectator.

Limitations. Although this literature represents a beginning point from which to understand the potential impact adults can have on the youth game environment, limitations were present in this study which could be addressed in future research. Primarily, these data did not focus on the directionality of the relationship as this portion of the study was not an experimental design. As a result, the authors recognize there can be no direct causal links from adults' behaviors to player's behaviors. The literature from many fields, however, suggests that young children learn behaviors from their adult role models (Bandura, 1986, May, 2001). Following this line of reasoning would mean that if players witness an event and hear the spectators yelling and screaming at the officials, they are more likely to perform a similar behavior because they think it is acceptable. As an attempt to further understand this relationship, it would be interesting to determine if participants responded directly to spectator statements and actions. For example, there were numerous occasions when a spectator would say to a child "hey don't let them push you around, push them back." Future studies might attempt to link that pushing request with the degree to which the participants followed through with a specific action.

In addition, the observational nature of the study is limiting in that while the observers made every effort to record the behaviors and comments that were stated by spectators, it was difficult to capture them all. It would be ideal to have some form of a microphone set up near the spectators so the comments could be captured more clearly without causing obvious behavior modification. Similarly, previous studies using the same observational and training techniques yielded Euclidian distance estimates of .55, indicating that in each game, observations were merely one half behavior different among observers.

Future research. The results of this study certainly bring to light additional questions that would further the understanding of the relationship between the positive and negative sportsmanship behaviors of spectators, coaches and players. Future studies might seek to find a direct link between a specific parent and player. Specifically, researchers might observe what the parent is saying to his or her child in the game, and witness how that child behaves as a result. This would allow us to know if a more direct relationship exists between behaviors. It also would be beneficial to see how different sports were affected by these types of relationships in behaviors. For example, in soccer or hockey, it is much more difficult to hear the fans simply because of proximity to the action, whereas in basketball, the spectators are much closer to the court. This distance might have a reduced impact on the behaviors of the young athletes. Other studies might attempt to determine the impact of spectator training or certification programs on the overall environment. Such studies could help determine whether or not the sportsmanship environment of a game, along with player behaviors, changes after spectators and coaches undergo a specific training program. Finally, the literature suggests that participants are less influenced by adults as they grow older and become more influenced by their peers (Stuart & Ebbeck, 1995). It would, therefore, be interesting to learn if the relationship that exists between participant and spectator behaviors changes as young athletes begin to mature.

Implications for practice. The results of this study provide valuable information to youth sport administrators hoping to improve their programs. Perhaps one of the most important findings from this study in terms of implications for practice is the strength of relationships between spectators and players for positive sportsmanship. It is important for individuals involved in all aspects of youth sport to realize that being a good sport involves more than simply not being a bad sport. In other words, if youth sport administrators hope to use their programs to produce good sports, then they need to realize that this means they should try to promote positive sportsmanship along with discouraging negative behaviors. The strength of relationship between parents and player suggests that the more positive the parents behave, the more positively the young athlete will behave. Currently, many youth sport leagues focus on implementing strategies such as the very popular "Silent Saturdays" where parents sit quietly in the gym. They are not allowed to either make negative comments or positive ones. Although this strategy is likely to decrease the negative behaviors, it also prevents parents from engaging in important positive sportsmanship such as cheering after a basket is made. If children do indeed learn positive sportsmanship by following the examples set by their parents, then valuable learning opportunities for role modeling are lost. In the future, administrators in youth sport leagues should rethink the use of Silent Saturdays, and refocus their attention on programs that both promote positive sportsmanship and discourage negative sportsmanship rather than merely eliminating negative behaviors.

The importance of parents demonstrating positive sportsmanship behaviors implies that youth sport administrators should also focus some of their efforts on promoting these behaviors. Techniques similar to those employed with young athletes might also be effective with adults. For instance, parents could be asked to sign a petition and the players could vote on an award for the spectator who was the "best sport" during the game.

Similarly, as youth sport administrators alter rules to govern player behavior, they should also be cognizant of the impact the adults may have on the overall sportsmanship environment. For example, administrators frequently address problems with sportsmanship by changing rules for the players. They also may wish to try changing rules for the adults such as allowing officials to call technical fouls on the identifiable spectators for acts of negative sportsmanship. This would assist the league in outlining acceptable and unacceptable behaviors immediately in the game, and would provide an example to the young athletes about what is considered acceptable and unacceptable for them in the future.

Conclusion

With drop out rates in youth sports approaching alarming levels, coupled with daily accounts of parents who are out of control at youth sporting events, administrators must seek new and innovative ways to make their leagues more inviting to participants. This study has made an effort to better understand one relationship that has an impact on the game environment. By recognizing how adults can impact participant behavior, we have the knowledge necessary to begin making changes to improve the atmosphere and experience for the young athletes.

References

Arthur-Banning, S.G., Paisley, K., & Wells, M.S. (2007). Promoting sportsmanship in youth basketball players: The effects of referees' prosocial behavior techniques. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 25(1), 96-114.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial behavior: Theory and research. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, C. K. J., Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2003). Correlates of achievement goal orientations in physical activity: A systematic review of research. European Journal of Sport Science, 3(5), 1-20.

Bigelow, B., Moroney, T., & Hall, L. (2001). Just let the kids play: How to stop other adults from ruining your child's fun and success in youth sports. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.

Brustad, R. J. (1993). Youth in sport: Psychological considerations. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 695-717). New York: MacMillan.

Carr, S., & Weigand, D. A. (2002). The influence of significant others on the goal orientations of youngsters in physical education. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(1), 19-40.

Coakley, J. (2004). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Duda, J. L. (1993). Goals: A social-cognitive approach to the study of achievement motivation in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 421-436). New York: MacMillan.

Eitzen, D. S. (2003). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ellis, G. D., Henderson, H. L., Paisley, K., Silverberg, K. E., & Wells, M. S. (2004). Bringing sportsmanship back to your youth sports leagues. Parks & Recreation, June, 47-51.

Engh, F. (2002). Why Johnny hates sports: Why organized youth sports are failing our children and what we can do about it. Garden City Park, NY: Square One.

Flay, B.R., Hu, F.B., Siddiqui, O., Day, L.E., Hedeker, D., Petraitis, J., Richardson, & Sussman, S. (1994). Differential influence of parental smoking and friends' smoking on adolescent initiation and escalating of smoking, Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 35, 248-265.

Givvin, K. B. (2001). Goal orientations of adolescents, coaches and parents: Is there a convergence of beliefs? Journal of Early Adolescence, 21 (2), 228-248.

Goddard, E. (1992). Why children start smoking. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 17-25.

Gould, D. (1987). Understanding attrition in youth sport. In D. Gould (Ed.), Advances in pediatric sport sciences (pp. 61-85). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Guivernau, M., & Duda, J. L. (2002). Moral atmosphere and athletic aggressive tendencies in young soccer players. Journal of Moral Education, 21(1), 67-85.

Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 25-55.

Hellison, D. (1995). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jackson, C., & Henriksen, L. (1997). Do as I say: Parent smoking, antismoking socialization, and smoking onsetam ong children. Addictive Behaviors, 22, 107-114

Linder, K. J., Johns, D. P., & Butcher, J. (1991). Factors in withdrawal from youth sport: A proposed model. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14(1), 3-18.

May, R. A. B. (2001). The sticky situation of sportsmanship. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 25, 372-289.

Petlichkoff, L. M. (1992). Youth sport participation and withdrawal: Is it simply a matter of fun? Pediatric Exercise Science, 4(2), 105-110.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1997). Coaching the coaches: Youth sports as a scientific and applied behavioral setting. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(1), 16-21.

Stuart, M. E., & Ebbeck, V. (1995). The influence of perceived social approval on moral development in youth sport. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 270-280.

Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., & Cuerrier, J. (1997). On the effects of the social context on behavioral intentions of sportsmanship. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 126-140.

Viira, R., & Raudsepp, L. (2000). Achievement goal orientations, beliefs about sport success and sport emotions as related to moderate to vigorous physical activity of adolescents. Psychology and Health, 15, 625-633.

Weiss, M. R., & Petlichkoff, L. M. (1989). Children's motivation for participation in and withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing links. Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 195-211.

Wells, M. S., Arthur-Banning, S. G., Paisley, K. P., Ellis, G. D., Roark, M. F. & Fisher, K. (In Press). Good (youth) sports: Using benefits-based programming to increase sportsmanship. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration.

Wells, M. S., Ellis, G. D., Paisley, K. P., & Arthur-Banning, S. G. (2005). Development and evaluation of a program to promote sportsmanship in youth sports. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23(1), 1-17.

Wells, M. S., Ellis, G. D., Arthur-Banning, S. G., & Roark, M. (2006). Effect of staged practices and motivational climate on goal orientation and sportsmanship in community youth sport experiences. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 24(4), 64-85.

White, S. A., Kavussanu, M., Tank, K. M., & Wingate, J. M. (2004). Perceived parental beliefs about the causes of success in sport: Relationship to athletes' achievement goals and personal beliefs. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14, 57-66.

Wyatt, J. M. & Carlo, G. (2002). What will my parents think? Relations among adolescents' expected parental reactions, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 646-666.

Yu, J., & Perrine, B. M. W. (1997). The transmission of parent/adult-child drinking patterns: Testing a gender-specific structural model. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 23(1), 143-165.

Skye Arthur-Banning

Clemson University

Mary Sara Wells

University of Utah

Birgitta L. Baker

The Pennsylvania State University

Ryan Hegreness

Essex Junction Recreation and Parks

Address Correspondence To: Skye G. Arthur-Banning, PhD, Clemson University, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, 263 Lehotsky Hall Box 340735, Clemson, SC 29634-0735, Phone: (864)-656-2206, E-mail: sarthur@clemson.edu

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Behaviors

 Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
 Deviation

Positive Player Game 9.41 6.06 1 41
Behaviors

Positive Coach Game 6.86 4.84 0 36
Behaviors

Positive Spectator 5.11 3.90 0 25
Game Behaviors

Negative Player 2.82 3.98 0 34
Game Behaviors

Negative Coach 1.95 2.92 0 16
Game Behaviors

Negative Spectator 1.93 3.81 0 29
Game Behaviors

Table 2. Differences in Mean (SD) Scores for Player, Coach,
and Spectator Behaviors for Grade 3/4 and 5/6.

 Grade Level of Players on Team

Measure Grade 3/4 Grade 5/6

Positive Player Game 7.54 (4.18) 11.50 (7.08)
Behaviors

Positive Coach Game 6.51 (5.03) 7.25 (4.60)
Behaviors

Positive Spectator Game 5.10 (3.85) 5.11(3.97)
Behaviors

Negative Player Game 2.59 (3.85) 3.09 (4.12)
Behaviors

Negative Coach Game 2.05 (2.67) 1.85 (3.18)
Behaviors

Negative Spectator 2.18 (3.93) 1.66 (3.67)
Game Behaviors

 Grade Level of Players on Team

Measure T-value p-value

Positive Player Game 5.48 < .O1
Behaviors

Positive Coach Game 1.26 .21
Behaviors

Positive Spectator Game .02 .98
Behaviors

Negative Player Game 1.03 .31
Behaviors

Negative Coach Game .56 .58
Behaviors

Negative Spectator 1.11 .27
Game Behaviors

Table 3. Test of Between Subject Effects for ANCOVA Predicting
Positive Player Behaviors.

Source Type III df Mean
 Sum of Square
 Squares

Model 3606.12 7 515.16
Grade 820.70 1 820.70
Treatment 966.48 2 483.24
Grade * Treatment 608.27 2 304.14
Positive Spectator Behaviors 257.26 1 257.26
Positive Coach Behaviors 271.02 1 271.02
Error 6140.4 258 23.80
Corrected total 9746.51 265

Source F Sig.

Model 21.65 < .01
Grade 34.48 < .01
Treatment 20.30 < .01
Grade * Treatment 12.78 < .01
Positive Spectator Behaviors 10.81 < .01
Positive Coach Behaviors 11.39 < .01
Error
Corrected total

Table 4. Estimated Slopes and Estimated Marginal Means for
ANCOVA Predicting Positive Player Behaviors

 Slope Least T Sig.
 Square
 Means

Positive Spectator Game Behaviors 0.26 3.29 < .01
Positive Coach Game Behaviors 0.22 3.37 < .01
Grade 3/4 8.28
Grade 5/6 12.18
Treatment Group 0 10.37
Treatment Group 1 12.47
Treatment Group 2 7.85
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 0 9.91
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 1 8.15
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 2 6.77
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 0 10.82
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 1 16.79
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 2 8.94

Table 5. Test of Between Subject Effects for ANCOVA
Predicting Negative Player Behaviors

Source Type III df Mean
 Sum of Square
 Squares

Model 403.10 7 57.59
Grade .02 1 .02
Treatment 90.40 2 45.20
Grade * Treatment 157.02 2 78.51
Negative Spectator Behaviors 65.63 1 65.63
Negative Coach Behaviors 18.72 1 18.72
Error 3799.60 258 14.73
Corrected total 4202.70 265

Source F Sig.

Model 3.91 < .01
Grade .97
Treatment .05
Grade * Treatment < .O1
Negative Spectator Behaviors .04
Negative Coach Behaviors .26
Error
Corrected total

Table 6. Estimated Slopes and Estimated Marginal Means
for ANCOVA Negative Player Behaviors

 Slope Least
 Square
 Means

Negative Spectator Game Behaviors 0.14
Negative Coach Game Behaviors 0.10
Grade 3/4 2.84
Grade 5/6 2.82
Treatment Group 0 3.44
Treatment Group 1 1.91
Treatment Group 2 3.15
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 0 3.61
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 1 2.73
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 2 2.18
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 0 3.26
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 1 1.09
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 2 4.13

 T Sig.

Negative Spectator Game Behaviors 2.11 0.04
Negative Coach Game Behaviors 1.13 0.26
Grade 3/4
Grade 5/6
Treatment Group 0
Treatment Group 1
Treatment Group 2
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 0
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 1
Grade 3/4 * Treatment Group 2
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 0
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 1
Grade 5/6 * Treatment Group 2