23.12.2012 Views

european college of sport science

european college of sport science

european college of sport science

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

OP-RE03 Rehabilitation 3<br />

Method: The study was carried out as a case study with a qualitative approach. A total <strong>of</strong> 10 individual interviews were carried out (5<br />

athletes and 5 employees (2 from Antidoping Norway (ADN), 3 from the Norwegian Ski Association). In addition a focus group was used<br />

(consisting <strong>of</strong> 3 athletes).<br />

Results: The meanings <strong>of</strong> the athletes vary from those who think that the whereabouts information is stressful, to those who doesn’t think<br />

it`s stressful. All agree that there must be an efficient out-<strong>of</strong>-competition testing program, but that the technical system creates difficulties<br />

for the athletes. The lack <strong>of</strong> harmonization is also something that worries the athletes.<br />

Discussion: Many athletes are dissatisfied with the system because they find ADAMS too advanced. There are indications that the sensegiving<br />

process connected to ADAMS has been executed poorly. The lack <strong>of</strong> sensegiving affects the sensemaking process within the<br />

national team. Furthermore, there seem to be a gap between what the employees in ADN find plausible and what the athletes find<br />

plausible. How other athletes evaluate and interpret the system influences the athlete to some extent.<br />

References:<br />

BACL (2008): Anti Doping and Athlete whereabouts Questionnaire, unpublished study<br />

Hanstad, D.V., & Loland, S. (2009): Elite athletes’ duty to provide information on their whereabouts: Justifiable anti-doping work or an<br />

indefensible surveillance regime? European Journal <strong>of</strong> Sport Science, 9(1), 3-10<br />

GAMBLING MOTIVATIONS AND FINANCIAL RISK TAKING ATTITUDES OF SPORT GAMBLING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS<br />

AND THEIR PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES FROM NON GAMBLERS<br />

KARLI, Ü., AKPINAR, S., KOÇAK, M.S.<br />

NIGDE UNIVERSITY, NIGDE, TURKEY, 1. MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, ANKARA, TURKEY.<br />

Introduction and aim: Sport gambling is a developing market in <strong>sport</strong> industry and <strong>sport</strong> gamblers are the stakeholders <strong>of</strong> the market.<br />

Analyzing <strong>sport</strong> gamblers in the scope <strong>of</strong> consumer behavior would be beneficial for creating successful marketing decisions. Therefore,<br />

the purpose <strong>of</strong> this study was three-fold; to determine the personality and financial risk-taking attitude differences between <strong>sport</strong>s gambling<br />

students and non-gambling students, to specify gambling motivations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>sport</strong> gambling students and to identify the relationship<br />

among personality traits, financial risk-taking attitude and gambling motivations <strong>of</strong> the students who gamble on <strong>sport</strong> events.<br />

Method: The subject group was composed <strong>of</strong> 1109 (male 700, female 409) Middle East Technical University students who were participating<br />

in <strong>sport</strong> gambling activities (n=435) and who had never participated in <strong>sport</strong> gambling activities (n=674). Big Five Personality Inventory<br />

(John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), Investment Risk Attitude Scale (Nyhus, 1995) and Gambling Motivation Scales (Chantal, Vallerand and<br />

Vallieres, 1994) were used in the data collection. ANOVA, MANOVA and Hierarchical Multiple Regression were conducted in statistical<br />

analysis.<br />

Results: Results indicated that <strong>sport</strong> gambling students and non-gambling students showed significant differences in personality, Pillai’s<br />

Trace = .24, F(5,1101) = 70.51, p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!