1 / 17

Philippe Sarrazin & Emma Guillet Laboratoire d’Etudes et Recherches sur l’Offre Sportive

Psychological and Social influences of the dropout vs. sport commitment : the example of the female handballers. Philippe Sarrazin & Emma Guillet Laboratoire d’Etudes et Recherches sur l’Offre Sportive J. Fourier University, Grenoble.

taniel
Download Presentation

Philippe Sarrazin & Emma Guillet Laboratoire d’Etudes et Recherches sur l’Offre Sportive

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Psychological and Social influences of the dropout vs. sport commitment : the example of the female handballers Philippe Sarrazin & Emma Guillet Laboratoire d’Etudes et Recherches sur l’Offre Sportive J. Fourier University, Grenoble.

  2. Massive passion for the sport which one could observe these last years masks a paradox: a massive number of teenagers, particularly girls, drops out from sport every year (Sallis & Patrick, 1996). Why do some people develop strong commitment to continue their sport activity, while others drops out from sport every year ? Research Question

  3. Various motivational theories can be useful with respect to the study of sport dropout (see Gould, 1987; Weiss & Chaumeton, 1992; Guillet, Sarrazin & Cury, in press). Motivation ...a key variable to look at when attempting to predict sport participation or withdrawal.

  4. a targeted (micro) prospect on a privileged social actor, for example the coach. an " average (meso) " prospect which is interested to isolate several classes of factors to explain the sport commitment. a broad prospect on a "cultural (macro)" level which apprehends influence of the gender role Three levels of analysis of the social influences and the implied psychological processes:

  5. Coaches’ s behavior establish a « motivational climate » (Ames, 1992) which can have an important impact on athletes’ motivation. The Hierarchical Model of Vallerand (1997) seems particularly well suited to study the influence of the coach. 1- Social influences from the micro point of view: context of the coach

  6. Psychological mediators : - perceived competence - perceived autonomy - perceived relatedness Consequences persistence dropout, ... The Hierarchical model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (Vallerand, 1997) + Social factors : coach’s behavior Type of Motivation more or less self-determined

  7. Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury (submitted) 335 female handballers between the ages of 13-15 years Prospective study over 21 months Measures at the middle of one season Sport Motivation Scale(Brière et al., 1995; Pelletier et al., 1995) Task- or Ego-involving climate of the coach (PMCSQ, Biddle et al., 1995; Cury et al., 1996) Motivational mediators Future sport intentions (Ajzen & Driver, 1992) Social influences from the micro point of view: context of the coach

  8. PercRELAT1 PercRELAT2 .97 .92 TaskInvCl1 TaskInvCl2 Perceived Relatedness .87 .85 .56 .08 SDmotiv1 SDmotiv2 BehInt1 BehInt2 Task involving climate .87 .86 .87 .99 Behavior dropout 21 months later R2=.31 .27 Self-determined motivation R2=.78 Behavioral intention R2=.62 PercCOMP1 PercCOMP2 .86 .99 -.79 .55 -.21 .23 .51 Perceived Competence c2(79)=204, p<.001 GFI = .99 CFI = .99 NFI = .99 RMSR = .08 c2(56)=68.61, p>.10 GFI = 1.00 CFI = 1.00 NFI = 1.00 RMSR = .04 Ego involving climate .78 -.24 .74 .89 Perceived Autonomy EgoInvCl1 EgoInvCl2 .77 .66 PercAUTO1 PercAUTO2 Results

  9. Commitment : a variable used by social psychologist to describe a set of factors that can explain why people stay in relationships or continue involvement in activities (e.g., Homans, 1961; Kelley, 1983; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Scanlan and her colleagues (e.g., Carpenter, & Coleman, 1998; Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons & Keeler, 1993) modified Rusbult's model to examine sport commitment. 2- Social influences in a meso-prospect: the sport commitment model

  10. Attractiveness of the most preferred alternatives available to a person - Social constraints : social expectations which create feelings of obligation to remain in the activity ? Cost / benefit ratio of the involvementanticipated positive and negative, material and psychological consequences + Personal Investments : resources that are put into the activity which cannot recovered if participation is discontinued + The Sport Commitment Model Sport Commitment desire and resolve to continue sport participation

  11. Guillet, Sarrazin, Trouilloud, & Cury (manuscript in preparation) 253 female handballers between the ages of 14-16 years Prospective study over 8 months Measures at the middle of one season Commitment Investments : number of years of practice Social constraints (e. g., I feel I have to play handball to please people important for me (my coach, my parents) Involvement alternatives Cost / benefice ratio : perceived competence, progress, affiliation, autonomy, coach's support, time of play. Social influences in a meso-prospect: the sport commitment model

  12. PI 1 Personal Investments Competence Com 1 Com 2 .57 ns Progress .69 Behavior dropout 8 months later R2=.50 -.70 Commitment R2=.76 Cost / benefit ratio of the involvement Affiliation .53 .90 .46 Autonomy Social constraints .62 Coach’s support -.19 c2(54)=114, p>.15 GFI = .98 CFI = .98 NFI = .97 RMSR = .07 c2(66)=150, p>.15 GFI = .98 CFI = .98 NFI = .97 RMSR = .09 .52 -.15 Time of play SC 1 alternatives SC 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Results

  13. Sport remains one of those life areas which are clearly divided in the men’s and women’s worlds: there are “appropriate” sports for men and others for women (Salminen, 1990; Koivula, 1995) One of the explanations of the differences between boys’ and girls’ sport participation and commitment came from the socialization of gender-role (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1991). 3- Social influences in a macro-prospect: conformity with the gender roles

  14. This socialization could lead the individuals to drop out a sport activity according to its conformity with their gender’s stereotypes. This phenomenon seems particularly salient among girls and boys who strongly wish to conform to their gender-role (i.e., sex-typed men and women) (Bem & Lenney, 1976; Koivula, 1995; Matteo, 1988). Females who want to be feminine should be less likely to continue sports sex-typed as male (e.g., handball). Social influences in a macro-prospect: conformity with the gender roles

  15. Guillet, Sarrazin, & Fontayne (manuscript in preparation) 336 female handballers between the ages of 13-16 years Longitudinal study over 30 months Measures at the middle of one season Sex-Role (BSRI; Fontayne, Sarrazin & Famose, in press)  4 gender identity groups (i.e., Feminine, Masculine, Androgynous, and undifferentiated subjects). At each beginning of season, subjects were contacted by mail or telephone to know their statute (i.e., taking part vs. dropout). Social influences in a macro-prospect: conformity with the gender roles

  16. Results of survival analysisc2 (3) = 12.12, p <.001

  17. The sport dropout is a complex phenomenon. A more complete comprehension of the phenomenon requires the crossing of several theoretical models. The stake is serious: to stop a phenomenon which in the long term could prove to be alarming on the level of the public health. Conclusion

More Related