Coach and Athlete Burnout - West Virginia University
Coach and Athlete Burnout - West Virginia University
Coach and Athlete Burnout - West Virginia University
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Coach</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong>: The Role of <strong>Coach</strong>es’ Decision-Making Style<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>onn S. Harris, B.S.<br />
Thesis submitted to<br />
the School of Physical Education<br />
at <strong>West</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
in partial fulfillment of the requirements<br />
for the degree of<br />
Master of Science<br />
in<br />
Sport <strong>and</strong> Exercise Psychology<br />
Andrew C. Ostrow, Ph.D., Chair<br />
Jack C. Watson, II, Ph.D.<br />
Roy H. Tunick, Ed.D.<br />
Department of Sport <strong>and</strong> Exercise Psychology<br />
Morgantown, WV<br />
2005<br />
Keywords: <strong>Coach</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong>, Decision-Making, Leadership
ABSTRACT<br />
<strong>Coach</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong>: The Role of <strong>Coach</strong>es’ Decision-Making Style<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>onn S. Harris<br />
Recent burnout research has examined coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes collectively to determine the<br />
influence of coach behaviors on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout. Results revealed a potential<br />
incongruity between decision-making behaviors <strong>and</strong> their influence on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete<br />
burnout. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between<br />
decision-making styles of coaches <strong>and</strong> burnout among coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes; gender<br />
influence on burnout was also examined. Collegiate swimmers <strong>and</strong> coaches completed<br />
questionnaires assessing burnout <strong>and</strong> decision-making behaviors. Results revealed a<br />
significant relationship between athlete burnout <strong>and</strong> autocratic coaching behaviors. A<br />
significant inverse relationship emerged between athlete burnout <strong>and</strong> democratic<br />
behaviors. ANOVAs revealed no significant interactions between gender <strong>and</strong> decisionmaking<br />
on burnout scores. Significant main effects were found for democratic behaviors<br />
on exhaustion <strong>and</strong> depersonalization subscales; swimmers classified as perceiving fewer<br />
democratic behaviors scored higher on these subscales. No significant relationships or<br />
gender differences were found with in the coaches.
DEDICATION<br />
This entire work is dedicated to my Mom, Dad, Lindsey, <strong>and</strong> Meghan, whose continuous<br />
love <strong>and</strong> support has been my impetus in completing this project <strong>and</strong> my graduate<br />
education. I love you all very much.<br />
-Br<strong>and</strong>onn<br />
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<br />
A project of this magnitude involves the work <strong>and</strong> guidance of others in order to be<br />
successful. There are several people who played a significant role with this thesis,<br />
without whom this endeavor would not have been possible.<br />
I would like to thank my chair <strong>and</strong> advisor Dr. Andrew Ostrow for his guidance <strong>and</strong><br />
wisdom throughout this entire process. The time <strong>and</strong> effort you have given over the past<br />
two years with this research has allowed me the opportunity to take an interest <strong>and</strong> idea<br />
<strong>and</strong> turn it into a terrific learning experience. I am very grateful for the knowledge you<br />
have imparted upon me <strong>and</strong> for the support you gave me, particularly when things were<br />
not going as planned.<br />
I would also like to thank Dr. Jack Watson for serving on my committee <strong>and</strong> providing<br />
me with support <strong>and</strong> feedback with this project <strong>and</strong> life outside of the master’s thesis. I<br />
feel very fortunate to have you as a resource <strong>and</strong> future colleague. I cannot thank you<br />
enough for always making time for me when there is someone else in line waiting for<br />
your guidance. You have set a positive example for us future professionals to follow.<br />
I am also grateful to Dr. Roy Tunick for his help, feedback, <strong>and</strong> support with my thesis. I<br />
am very appreciative to you for making the time to serve as one of my committee<br />
members <strong>and</strong> for the helpful comments <strong>and</strong> guidance you have provided me while<br />
completing this project.<br />
I would also like to thank the personnel at the World Swimming Championships <strong>and</strong><br />
World <strong>Coach</strong>ing Clinic for their willingness to allow me the opportunity to collect my<br />
data at their venues. I would also like to acknowledge those collegiate swimmers <strong>and</strong><br />
swimming coaches who took the time to complete my inventories <strong>and</strong> for providing me<br />
with such a crucial component to a project of this nature. Without your help, none of this<br />
would have evolved to the point it is at today.<br />
I would also like to thank my friends <strong>and</strong> colleagues in the Sport <strong>and</strong> Exercise<br />
Psychology Program. It often takes the support <strong>and</strong> encouragement of folks who have<br />
been in your shoes before to help you endure the ups <strong>and</strong> downs that come with a thesis.<br />
In particular, I would like to thank Age for her constant support, kind words of<br />
encouragement, <strong>and</strong> wisdom over the past year. I would also like to thank Liz for sharing<br />
this experience with me. It has been a bumpy road for the both of us but we managed to<br />
pick each other up during the process.<br />
A very big thank you to Lindsey Blom <strong>and</strong> her family, the Grossmans, for providing me<br />
with a place to stay while on the road collecting my data. Not having to worry about<br />
housing accommodations made this project financially feasible for me to take on. I am<br />
very grateful for your hospitality <strong>and</strong> generosity.<br />
Finally, I would like to thank <strong>West</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>and</strong> the School of Physical<br />
Education for the funding they provided me to help finance this project. I appreciate the<br />
university <strong>and</strong> school’s financial support for graduate students taking on such endeavors.<br />
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1<br />
Theory <strong>and</strong> Research Regarding Leadership Style in Sport . . 2<br />
Research Regarding Decision-Making Style in Sport . . 4<br />
Research Regarding Decision-Making Style <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> . . 7<br />
Study Purposes, Hypotheses, <strong>and</strong> Significance . . . 9<br />
Methods . . . . . . . . . 11<br />
Participants . . . . . . . . 11<br />
Measures Completed by <strong>Athlete</strong>s . . . . . 11<br />
Swimmer Demographic Information Form . . . 11<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire (ABQ) . . . 12<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: <strong>Athlete</strong> Perception) . 14<br />
Measures Completed by <strong>Coach</strong>es . . . . . 17<br />
Swimming <strong>Coach</strong> Demographic Information Form . . 17<br />
<strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire (CBQ) . . . 17<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: <strong>Coach</strong> Perception) . 18<br />
Procedures . . . . . . . . 19<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong>s . . . . . . . 19<br />
<strong>Coach</strong>es . . . . . . . 21<br />
Results . . . . . . . . . 23<br />
Collegiate Swimmers . . . . . . 25<br />
Preliminary Analyses . . . . . 25<br />
v<br />
Page
Relationship Between Decision-Making Style <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> . 26<br />
Influence of Gender <strong>and</strong> Autocratic Style on <strong>Burnout</strong> . 27<br />
Influence of Gender <strong>and</strong> Democratic Style on <strong>Burnout</strong> . 28<br />
Influence of Both Decision-Making Styles on <strong>Burnout</strong> . 29<br />
Predictive Value of Decision-Making Style on <strong>Burnout</strong> . 30<br />
Collegiate Swimming <strong>Coach</strong>es . . . . . 31<br />
Preliminary Analyses . . . . . . 31<br />
Relationship Between Decision-Making Style <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> . 32<br />
Influence of Gender <strong>and</strong> Decision-Making Style on <strong>Burnout</strong> 32<br />
Discussion . . . . . . . . . 33<br />
Influence of Decision-Making on Swimmer’s <strong>Burnout</strong> . . 34<br />
Influence of Decision-Making on Swimming <strong>Coach</strong>es’ <strong>Burnout</strong> . 38<br />
Implications <strong>and</strong> Future Directions . . . . . 43<br />
References . . . . . . . . . 47<br />
Tables . . . . . . . . . 52<br />
Figures . . . . . . . . . 54<br />
Appendices . . . . . . . . . 58<br />
Appendix A- Swimmer Demographic Information Form . . 58<br />
Appendix B- <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire . . . 60<br />
Appendix C- Leadership Scale for Sports: <strong>Athlete</strong> Perception . 62<br />
Appendix D- Swimming <strong>Coach</strong> Demographic Information Form . 65<br />
Appendix E- <strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire . . . . 67<br />
Appendix F- Leadership Scale for Sports: <strong>Coach</strong> Perception . 69<br />
vi
Appendix G- Cover Letter . . . . . . 72<br />
Appendix H- IRB Approval Letter . . . . . 74<br />
Appendix I- Review of Literature . . . . . 76<br />
Appendix J- Review of Literature References . . . 103<br />
vii
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table 1- Internal Consistency <strong>and</strong> Descriptive Statistics for Intercollegiate 52<br />
Swimmers <strong>and</strong> <strong>Coach</strong>es<br />
Table 2- Pearson Product Correlation Coefficients for <strong>Burnout</strong> <strong>and</strong> Decision- 53<br />
Making Style Among Collegiate Swimmers <strong>and</strong> Collegiate<br />
Swimming <strong>Coach</strong>es<br />
viii<br />
Page
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
Figure 1. The Multidimensional Model of Leadership . . . 54<br />
Figure 2. The Cognitive-Affective Model of <strong>Burnout</strong> . . . 55<br />
Figure 3. The Negative Training Stress Syndrome . . . . 56<br />
Figure 4. The Stress Response Process . . . . . 57<br />
ix<br />
Page
INTRODUCTION<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> has become a topic of increasing interest to the sport community.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 1<br />
Originally explored in individuals in the helping professions, burnout is not a novel topic<br />
in the study of human behavior. However, the concept has only begun to be examined in<br />
a sport context with most of the research initiated a decade <strong>and</strong> a half ago. In fact, some<br />
have even suggested that burnout has become synonymous with sports (Lai & Wiggins,<br />
2003). When asked what feelings they associate with being burned out, athletes <strong>and</strong><br />
coaches often cite internal <strong>and</strong> external sources of pressure, physical <strong>and</strong> mental<br />
exhaustion, mood changes, increased anxiety, <strong>and</strong> lack of caring (Weinberg & Gould,<br />
1999). As both athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches experiencing burnout can mentally <strong>and</strong> physically<br />
withdraw from a sport they once used to enjoy, it is apparent that a great deal of<br />
significance rests in the underst<strong>and</strong>ing of burnout.<br />
Various theories <strong>and</strong> definitions of burnout have played an instrumental role in<br />
guiding research toward an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the construct <strong>and</strong> variables believed to<br />
influence burnout. Relevant models have taken a cognitive-affective approach (Smith,<br />
1986), a negative response to training stress (Silva, 1990), the result of sport commitment<br />
or entrapment (Raedeke, 1997; Schmidt & Stein, 1991), or have taken a social<br />
phenomenon approach (Coakley, 1992). With these <strong>and</strong> other works (e.g. Feigley, 1984)<br />
having focused on athlete burnout, burnout among coaches has also been explored<br />
(Kelley, 1994; Vealey, Udry, Zimmerman, & Soliday, 1992).<br />
Although the coach <strong>and</strong> athlete populations have received research attention<br />
individually, recent studies have examined both groups collectively to determine the<br />
influence of coaching behaviors on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout (Price & Weiss, 2000;
<strong>Burnout</strong> 2<br />
Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Tuffey, 1997; Vealey, Armstron, Comar, & Greenleaf, 1998).<br />
Relevant behaviors would include type <strong>and</strong> amount of feedback, social support, amount<br />
<strong>and</strong> type of training/instruction, <strong>and</strong> decision-making styles. This area of study seems to<br />
have continuing promise for future research on burnout. This may be particularly true<br />
should studies take aspects of coaching leadership behaviors into consideration when<br />
examining athlete <strong>and</strong> coach burnout as relatively little attention has been given to this<br />
area thus far. Although not frequently attending to its effect on burnout, the sport<br />
leadership research has focused on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete leadership preferences <strong>and</strong><br />
satisfaction as a result of varying coach behaviors. Various frameworks have often<br />
served as guides in conducting such research. To underst<strong>and</strong> its potential influence on<br />
both coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout, it is helpful to first examine the nature <strong>and</strong> types of coach<br />
leadership behaviors <strong>and</strong> how they can impact the interactions between these two groups<br />
of individuals.<br />
Theoretical Framework <strong>and</strong> Research Regarding Leadership Style in Sport<br />
Several models have emerged as major approaches in examining leadership in<br />
sport (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Proposed have been a mediational model (Smoll &<br />
Smith, 1989; Smoll, Smith, Curtis, & Hunt, 1978), a normative model of decision styles<br />
(Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1978), <strong>and</strong> a multidimensional leadership model (Chelladurai,<br />
1980, Chelladurai, 1990; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). While the mediational <strong>and</strong><br />
normative models have made important contributions to the sport leadership literature,<br />
the multidimensional model will be described in further detail as it lends itself nicely for<br />
the purposes of the present research.
The multidimensional theory of leadership synthesized previous non-sport<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 3<br />
leadership models (e.g. path-goal theory, House & Dressler, 1974) <strong>and</strong> extended them to<br />
a sport context (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). The model proposes that athlete<br />
satisfaction <strong>and</strong> group performance are a function of the combined effects of required,<br />
preferred, <strong>and</strong> actual leader behavior (see Figure 1). Three antecedents affect the leader<br />
behavior. These include situational, leader, <strong>and</strong> member characteristics. Required leader<br />
behaviors are those necessitated by both situational <strong>and</strong> member characteristics. These<br />
would include the parameters of the organization, its environment, governmental<br />
regulations, age, <strong>and</strong> gender, for example (Chelladurai, 1990; Chelladurai & Riemer,<br />
1998). Preferred leader behavior is determined by member characteristics <strong>and</strong> the<br />
situational variables. Actual leader behavior is a function of characteristics of the leader,<br />
required behavior, preferred leader behavior, <strong>and</strong> group performance <strong>and</strong> satisfaction.<br />
Leader characteristics would include their personality, ability, <strong>and</strong> experiences<br />
(Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Using this model of leadership as a guide, Chelladurai<br />
<strong>and</strong> Saleh (1978, 1980) developed the Leadership Scale for Sports, a 40-item, five-factor<br />
scale assessing specific coach leadership behaviors.<br />
The LSS measures athletes’ perceptions of coach behavior, athletes’ preferences<br />
of coach behavior, <strong>and</strong> coaches’ perceptions of their own behavior (Chelladurai, 1990).<br />
Dimensions of behavior that are included assess the degree to which coaches include<br />
training <strong>and</strong> instruction, social support, positive feedback, <strong>and</strong> autocratic <strong>and</strong> democratic<br />
decision-making behaviors in their coaching. An autocratic decision-making style refers<br />
to one in which the coach has the final word regarding team decisions. A coach with a<br />
democratic style tends to include the team in the decision-making process. (Chelladurai
<strong>Burnout</strong> 4<br />
& Doherty, 1998). These latter two dimensions are of particular interest for the current<br />
study as one style of decision-making may predispose athletes to experience burnout<br />
while the other has been found to predispose coaches towards burnout (e.g. Dale &<br />
Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss, 2000; Vealey et al., 1998). As stated previously,<br />
research investigating the influence of leadership behaviors on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout<br />
has been somewhat scarce, particularly as it relates to the moderating effects of coaches’<br />
decision-making behaviors. However, related research has focused on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete<br />
leadership preferences <strong>and</strong> satisfaction as a result of varying coach behaviors.<br />
Using the multidimensional model <strong>and</strong> dimensions of the LSS as a guide, several<br />
studies have examined athlete <strong>and</strong> coach preferences of various leadership behaviors.<br />
For example, Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Saleh (1978) found that athletes in team sports preferred<br />
greater coaching behaviors emphasizing training than those in individual sports. Further,<br />
males were found to prefer social support more than females. Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Carron<br />
(1983) also studied these two coaching behaviors. Their investigation assessed if<br />
preferences for social support <strong>and</strong> training <strong>and</strong> instruction varied as a function of athletic<br />
maturity. Their results indicated that training <strong>and</strong> instruction preferences decreased<br />
throughout high school but increased at the university level. Preferences for social<br />
support increased from early high school to the university level of athletics.<br />
Research Regarding Decision-Making Style in Sport<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong> preferences of decision-making styles have also been addressed in the<br />
leadership literature. In this line of research, several styles of decision-making have been<br />
identified. For example, although not developed in a sport context, Vroom <strong>and</strong> Yetton<br />
(1973) presented a continuum of styles ranging from autocratic to group, where
<strong>Burnout</strong> 5<br />
autocratic involved no participation of group members <strong>and</strong> group involved significant<br />
input from the members. Two types of autocratic behaviors were proposed. The “truest”<br />
form involved the leader making decisions him or herself based on the information<br />
available at that moment. The second autocratic style had the leader collect information<br />
from members <strong>and</strong> then make the decision on his or her own. Two types of consultative<br />
behaviors were also included. With the first type leaders consulted members individually<br />
<strong>and</strong> then made a decision on their own, sometimes based on the members’ feedback <strong>and</strong><br />
other times not. The second form involved leaders talking with members as a group <strong>and</strong><br />
still making their decision on their own. Finally, a group style of decision making had<br />
leaders consulting with members <strong>and</strong> jointly making a decision.<br />
Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Haggerty (1978) offered three styles of sport-specific decision-<br />
making. Autocratic behaviors where those in which the final decisions were made by the<br />
coach. However, their concept of autocratic behaviors included those decisions that may<br />
have been made by consulting with some or all of the members in order to obtain<br />
information. A participative style referred to those behaviors where the decision is made<br />
by the group along with the coach. Both parties are considered to be of equal status.<br />
Finally, a delegative style denoted that behavior where the coach allows one or more<br />
members of the team to make the decision <strong>and</strong> is not involved in the choice him or<br />
herself.<br />
Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Saleh’s (1980) Leadership Scale for Sports proposes a dichotomy<br />
of decision-making styles. Democratic decision-making referred to the degree in which<br />
coaches permit participation of athletes in making choices. The coach tends to solicit<br />
opinions <strong>and</strong> approval from athletes before moving forward. Further, the team sets its
<strong>Burnout</strong> 6<br />
own goals <strong>and</strong> works at its own pace. Autocratic behaviors denoted a style characterized<br />
by a coach who isolates him or herself when decisions are to be made <strong>and</strong> stresses his or<br />
her authority in dealing with the team. These coaches usually expect compliance with the<br />
decisions they make.<br />
Research regarding these two particular types of decision-making behaviors<br />
suggests that men may prefer coaches with more of an autocratic decision-making style<br />
while females may prefer a democratic style (Chelladurai, & Saleh, 1978). Studies have<br />
also shown that autocratic decision-making styles may become the style of choice for<br />
male athletes as they progress within a sport season, <strong>and</strong> throughout several seasons from<br />
high school to college (Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Turman, 2003). Interestingly, while<br />
Chelladurai, Haggerty, <strong>and</strong> Baxter (1989) found athletes in general preferred more of an<br />
autocratic style of decision-making in their coaches, they failed to demonstrate any<br />
gender differences.<br />
It has been indicated that discrepancies between athletes’ perceived leader<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> preferred behavior can contribute to dissatisfaction with the<br />
abovementioned components of coaches’ leadership behavior (Chelladurai, 1984). While<br />
this may be true, burnout may also be a factor to consider as a result of this discrepancy<br />
in both coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes. In noting that athletes cite severe practice conditions as the<br />
most important reason for their own burnout, Vealey et al. (1998) suggested the<br />
behaviors of the coaches who conduct the training sessions may be at the root of this<br />
problem. Although this premise guided their own research on athlete burnout, relatively<br />
little attention has been given to the effect coaches’ leadership behaviors, particularly<br />
decision-making styles, have on both athlete <strong>and</strong> coach burnout.
Research Regarding Decision-Making Style <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 7<br />
One relevant study to this line of research conducted was done so several years<br />
ago by Dale <strong>and</strong> Weinberg (1989). These authors studied leadership style <strong>and</strong> burnout in<br />
coaches <strong>and</strong> found those who utilized a consideration style evidenced greater emotional<br />
exhaustion <strong>and</strong> depersonalization, two common indicators of burnout. It was noted that a<br />
consideration style of leadership is democratic in nature <strong>and</strong> focused on interpersonal<br />
relationships. The authors noted that coaches with this style of leadership may become<br />
more emotionally involved with their teams <strong>and</strong> give more to them than themselves. Price<br />
<strong>and</strong> Weiss (2000) found similar results in their research. Their study demonstrated that<br />
coaches reporting greater levels of burnout were perceived by their athletes to utilize<br />
democratic decision-making behaviors regarding their sport. In contrast to these two<br />
studies, Kelley, Eklund, <strong>and</strong> Ritter-Taylor (1999) found a democratic style of leadership<br />
to be associated with lower levels of burnout among coaches, a result described as<br />
“striking” (p. 128) as the opposite result was expected in accordance with Dale <strong>and</strong><br />
Weinberg’s (1989) research. Certainly future research should address this discrepancy to<br />
determine the exact nature of this relationship.<br />
This line of burnout <strong>and</strong> leadership behavior research has also yielded some<br />
disconcerting results, mainly the potential incongruity between decision-making styles<br />
<strong>and</strong> burnout among athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches that becomes apparent when examining the<br />
athlete burnout <strong>and</strong> leadership research. Vealey et al. (1998) examined the influence of<br />
perceived coaching behaviors on athlete burnout. Results indicated that athletes who<br />
scored higher on a burnout inventory also perceived their coach’s leadership style to be<br />
more autocratic in nature. Other research has demonstrated similar trends. Price <strong>and</strong>
<strong>Burnout</strong> 8<br />
Weiss (2000) found athletes reported higher levels of burnout in response to perceived<br />
coaching behaviors that were autocratic in nature. A democratic style was associated<br />
with less burnout in these athletes.<br />
The results of the abovementioned research has left the burnout <strong>and</strong> leadership<br />
arena with two significant issues that warrant future attention. First, the relationship of<br />
decision-making style <strong>and</strong> burnout among coaches has yet to be clearly identified. As<br />
mentioned above, research has yielded inconsistent findings. An additional issue of<br />
concern regards the incongruity between athlete <strong>and</strong> coach burnout <strong>and</strong> coaches’<br />
decision-making behaviors. The research has suggested the decision-making style that<br />
has been linked to coach burnout (democratic or consideration) is one that may keep<br />
athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the decision-making style linked to athlete<br />
burnout (autocratic) may be one that protects coaches from experiencing burnout. Future<br />
research is clearly needed to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship <strong>and</strong><br />
reduce the likelihood of either group experiencing burnout.<br />
Despite the related research’s contributions to the literature, methodological<br />
improvements in assessment can be made to enhance the validity of such research. For<br />
example, Dale <strong>and</strong> Weinberg’s (1989) study did not utilize a sport-specific leadership<br />
questionnaire to assess coaches’ leadership behaviors. Further, although Vealey et al’s.<br />
(1998) study included an assessment of the coach’s use of autocratic behaviors according<br />
to athletes, they did not assess athletes’ perception of a coach’s use of democratic<br />
behavior. Additionally, these researchers did not include a sport-specific measure to<br />
assess coach burnout. Their sample of coaches included in the research was also limited<br />
<strong>and</strong> unable to assume a normal distribution of scores (n=12). Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss’ (2000)
<strong>Burnout</strong> 9<br />
study did not include a sport-specific instrument to assess coach burnout. Like that of<br />
Vealey et al. (1998), their sample size of coaches was also limited (n=15). Future<br />
research that attempts to identify the relationship between the perception of decision-<br />
making behaviors utilized by coaches <strong>and</strong> athlete <strong>and</strong> coach burnout should consider<br />
employing the use of sport-specific measures to assess burnout <strong>and</strong> leadership behaviors<br />
as well al utilizing an adequate sample size of each population.<br />
Study Purposes, Hypotheses, <strong>and</strong> Significance<br />
The present research examined the relationship between perceived coaches’<br />
decision-making style <strong>and</strong> athletes’ <strong>and</strong> coaches’ burnout levels in the competitive sport<br />
of collegiate swimming. Secondary purposes included assessing gender differences<br />
within the coach <strong>and</strong> athlete populations, as well as the interaction between decision-<br />
making style <strong>and</strong> gender on burnout dimensions. Swimmers are a likely sample to<br />
experience burnout due to the high intensity <strong>and</strong> increasing training conditions of<br />
practices. Further, the rigorous training that swimmers endure during both the<br />
competitive <strong>and</strong> off-season make the sport’s athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches more susceptible to<br />
experiencing burnout <strong>and</strong> therefore a good population to sample from. <strong>Athlete</strong>s<br />
responding negatively to this type of training stress may be likely to experience burnout<br />
(Silva, 1990).<br />
It is hypothesized that as athletes perceive their coach’s decision-making style to<br />
be more autocratic in nature their own reported levels of burnout will increase. This<br />
would be indicated by higher scores on the physical/emotional exhaustion sport<br />
devaluation, <strong>and</strong> reduced personal accomplishment subscales on a burnout inventory.<br />
Further, as athletes perceive their coach’s decision-making style to be democratic their
<strong>Burnout</strong> 10<br />
own reported levels of burnout will decrease. This would be indicated by lower scores on<br />
the physical/emotional exhaustion, sport devaluation, <strong>and</strong> reduced sense of<br />
accomplishment subscales on a burnout inventory. Second, it is hypothesized that as<br />
coaches report more of autocratic style for decision-making their reported levels of<br />
burnout will decrease. This would be indicated in the same manner as described with the<br />
athletes using the modified version of a burnout questionnaire to fit a coaching context.<br />
Further, as coaches report more of a democratic decision-making style their reported<br />
levels of burnout will increase. This would indicated by the manner as described with<br />
athletes’ scores.<br />
Directional hypotheses for gender differences are difficult to offer due to the lack<br />
of literature on gender <strong>and</strong> burnout with athletes, <strong>and</strong> the inconsistent literature available<br />
regarding gender <strong>and</strong> burnout in coaches. However, because previous literature has<br />
suggested that male athletes may prefer more autocratic decision-making behaviors than<br />
female athletes, interaction hypotheses between gender <strong>and</strong> decision-making style are<br />
easier to formulate. It is expected that male athletes who perceive more autocratic<br />
behaviors will be less burnt out (denoted by their scores on the three subscales of the<br />
burnout inventory) than their female counterparts. The same relationship is expected in<br />
the coaching population. It is also hypothesized that coaches who are high in autocratic<br />
behaviors <strong>and</strong> low in democratic behaviors will report less burnout than those coaches<br />
who are higher in democratic behaviors <strong>and</strong> lower in autocratic behaviors. <strong>Athlete</strong>s who<br />
perceive their coaches to be higher in autocratic behaviors <strong>and</strong> lower in democratic<br />
behaviors will report more burnout than those athletes who report a perception of higher<br />
democratic <strong>and</strong> lower autocratic behaviors.
Participants<br />
METHODS<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 11<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong> participants included male (n=38) <strong>and</strong> female (n=53) collegiate swimmers<br />
(N=91). Seventy-six collegiate swimmers competed in NCAA Division I (n=49) <strong>and</strong><br />
Division II (n=27) programs. An additional 15 international competitive collegiate<br />
swimmers outside of NCAA governance also participated in the study. <strong>Athlete</strong>s’ ages<br />
ranged from 19 to 25 years with a mean age of 19.98 years <strong>and</strong> a st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation of<br />
2.38 years. The average number of years athletes reported swimming competitively was<br />
11.43 with a st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation of 3.23 years. <strong>Athlete</strong>s also reported spending an average<br />
of 20.93 hours per week on swimming-related obligations (SD=4.74).<br />
The coaching sample included thirty-six collegiate swimming coaches who were<br />
affiliated with NCAA Division I (n=13), Division II (n=8), <strong>and</strong> Division III (n=9)<br />
swimming programs. Five coaches did not report their division status <strong>and</strong> one<br />
international collegiate swimming coach was employed outside of the United States <strong>and</strong><br />
exempt of NCAA governance. Twenty-three of the coaches were male <strong>and</strong> 8 were<br />
female. Gender was not reported by 5 participants. The mean age of coach participants<br />
was 39.64 years with ages ranging from 23 to 58 years <strong>and</strong> a st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation of 9.94<br />
years. The average number of years coaches reported coaching competitive swimming<br />
was 18.75 with a st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation of 9.77 years. <strong>Coach</strong>es also reported spending an<br />
average of 50.28 hours per week on coaching-related duties (SD=16.82).<br />
Measures Completed by <strong>Athlete</strong>s<br />
Swimmer Demographic Information Form. All collegiate swimmers completed a<br />
demographic information form (see Appendix A) that assessed personal characteristics,
number of years swimming competitively, number of hours spent per week on<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 12<br />
swimming-related duties, <strong>and</strong> variables pertaining to their academic level <strong>and</strong> level of<br />
competition.<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire (ABQ). To assess burnout in athletes the <strong>Athlete</strong><br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) was used (see Appendix B). This<br />
multidimensional inventory contains 15 items that assess three subscales of sport burnout.<br />
Subscales include a reduced sense of accomplishment, emotional <strong>and</strong> physical<br />
exhaustion, <strong>and</strong> sport devaluation. Participants respond to the degree each item applies to<br />
him or her using an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting “almost never” <strong>and</strong><br />
5 denoting “almost always.” The 1 st <strong>and</strong> 14 th items are reversed scored. Although a<br />
fairly new means of assessing sport-specific burnout in athletes, this inventory went<br />
through several stages of development to establish its psychometric properties before<br />
reaching its current state.<br />
The first stage involved examining the psychometric properties of a preliminary<br />
burnout scale used in Raedeke’s (1997) previous related research. This inventory was<br />
administered to swimmers from USA Swimming <strong>and</strong> consisted of 21 items that measured<br />
each of the three dimensions on a 5-point ordinal scale. The results of a factor analysis<br />
verified a three-factor structure <strong>and</strong> indicated that each of the dimensions measured was<br />
internally consistent with Cronbach’s alpha levels above .70. The total variance<br />
accounted for in the factor analytic model was 60%. Further, the reduced sense of<br />
accomplishment scale split into two separate factors, distinguished by the negatively or<br />
positively worded items.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 13<br />
The second stage (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) of inventory construction attempted to<br />
further assess the psychometric properties of a revised version of the burnout<br />
questionnaire. In addition, the authors attempted to establish convergent validity by<br />
examining correlation coefficients with related burnout constructs, such as motivation,<br />
stress, <strong>and</strong> coping. The authors also attempted to reduce the number of items assessing<br />
each dimension to five <strong>and</strong> to better fit the swimming context. Five additional face-valid,<br />
trial items were also included in case some of the core items failed to load significantly<br />
on their respective subscale. Again, swimmers from USA Swimming served as<br />
participants. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the revised items loaded with<br />
significance to the appropriate subscale <strong>and</strong> the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension was<br />
above .80 <strong>and</strong> was deemed a good fit for the data. Two items were replaced with trial<br />
items due to a cross-loading with the other dimensions which strengthened the<br />
psychometric properties of the subscales. There were no indications of the reduced sense<br />
of accomplishment scale splitting in two factors as in the first stage. Construct validity<br />
was demonstrated as burnout scores showed a positive <strong>and</strong> moderate relationship with<br />
stress <strong>and</strong> amotivation measures. Further, low to moderate negative relationships were<br />
found between burnout scores <strong>and</strong> social support, enjoyment, <strong>and</strong> intrinsic motivation<br />
measures (Raedeke & Smith, 2001).<br />
The third stage (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) involved assessing the generalizability<br />
of the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire to other sport settings <strong>and</strong> giving further attention<br />
to its psychometric properties. Participants were collegiate athletes in basketball, cross-<br />
country, soccer, softball, tennis, track <strong>and</strong> field, <strong>and</strong> volleyball. The term “swimming”<br />
was replaced with “sport,” <strong>and</strong> “swim” with “perform” on the 15-item questionnaire.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 14<br />
Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that items again loaded significantly <strong>and</strong> were<br />
found to be a good fit with the data. One item was replaced with a trial item <strong>and</strong> was<br />
shown to be a better fit. Construct validity was established through correlations between<br />
burnout scores <strong>and</strong> related constructs. Correlation coefficients between burnout scores<br />
<strong>and</strong> motivation were similar to that of the second stage. Positive, low to moderate<br />
relationships were found between burnout scores <strong>and</strong> competitive trait anxiety.<br />
Enjoyment <strong>and</strong> commitment coefficients were negatively related to burnout scores <strong>and</strong><br />
were high or moderate in degree. The questionnaire was re-administered seven to nine<br />
days following the first assessment in this stage. Test-retest reliability was demonstrated<br />
for emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, <strong>and</strong> sport<br />
devaluation with coefficients of .92, .86, <strong>and</strong> .92, respectively. Through demonstrated<br />
reliability <strong>and</strong> validity, the authors deemed the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire to be a<br />
psychometrically sound instrument <strong>and</strong> available for use in a variety of competitive sport<br />
situations.<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: <strong>Athlete</strong> Perception). To assess athletes’<br />
perceived decision-making style of their coaches, Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Saleh’s (1978, 1980)<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports was utilized (see Appendix C). The LSS is a 40-item<br />
inventory that assesses several dimensions of coaches’ leadership behaviors. These<br />
include social support, training <strong>and</strong> instruction, positive feedback, autocratic behavior,<br />
<strong>and</strong> democratic behavior. The latter two dimensions are of interest to the present study<br />
due the potential incongruity they have regarding coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout. Research<br />
has suggested that coaches utilizing a democratic decision-making style may be more<br />
likely to experience burnout. However, a democratic style of decision-making may keep
<strong>Burnout</strong> 15<br />
athletes from burnout out. An autocratic decision-making style may keep coaches from<br />
burning out but may enhance the likelihood athletes experiencing burnout (Dale &<br />
Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss, 2001). There are three versions of the LSS. One form<br />
examines athletes’ preferences of coach leadership behavior. Another assesses athletes’<br />
perception of their coach’s leadership behaviors. The last assesses the coach’s perception<br />
of their own leadership behaviors. The latter two forms were used in the present study.<br />
In completing the leadership perception inventory athletes are asked to respond by<br />
indicating how often their coach exhibits particular leadership behaviors. Their answers<br />
for each question are anchored from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting “always” <strong>and</strong> 5 denoting<br />
“never.”<br />
In its first stage of development (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978), the LSS contained a<br />
pool of 99 items modified or created from already existing leadership scales. One<br />
hundred sixty male <strong>and</strong> female physical education students completed the inventory, the<br />
results of which were factor analyzed. This analysis yielded a similar five-factor model<br />
that the current LSS contains (training behavior, social support, rewarding behaviors,<br />
autocratic behaviors, democratic behaviors). Items that were retained from this first stage<br />
were those that had a loading of at least .40 for their respective subscale, but did not load<br />
above .30 for any other scale. Thirty-seven items met these criteria <strong>and</strong> were therefore<br />
retained for further inventory development.<br />
The second stage of development (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) included the<br />
addition of 13 new items. Because no items of the training subscale examined teaching<br />
behaviors of coaches, seven items were added to this subscale in order to assess<br />
instructing behaviors. In addition, six more items on the social support subscale were
<strong>Burnout</strong> 16<br />
also included. Further, before administering this revised, 50-item scale to participants the<br />
authors quantified the intermediate response categories. Behaviors classified as<br />
occurring “often,” “occasionally,” <strong>and</strong> “seldom” were assigned frequencies of 75%, 50%,<br />
<strong>and</strong> 25%, respectively. This was done to clarify the frequencies of the classifications for<br />
participants. Physical education students completed a form assessing their preferences of<br />
coach behaviors. Varsity athletes were also assessed on their preferences <strong>and</strong> perceived<br />
coach behaviors. Following the completion of this inventory, factor analyses were again<br />
conducted on all three sets of data. In order for an item to be retained from this second<br />
evaluation it needed to have its highest loading on the same factor of each of the three<br />
data sets. In addition, its loading was required to be at least .30 in two of the three data<br />
sets. Using these criteria, 40 items were retained. Thirteen items were kept for the<br />
training <strong>and</strong> instruction subscale, 8 items for the social support subscale, 5 items for the<br />
positive feedback scale, 5 items for the autocratic behavior subscale, <strong>and</strong> 9 items for the<br />
democratic behavior subscale. The authors note that coefficients of determination for the<br />
physical education students’ preferences, athletes’ preferences, <strong>and</strong> athletes’ perceptions<br />
were 41%, 39%, <strong>and</strong> 56%, respectively.<br />
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the five subscales in all<br />
three data sets (physical education students’ preferences, athletes’ preferences, <strong>and</strong><br />
athletes’ perceptions). All coefficients were above .70 except the autocratic scores for<br />
the physical education students (.66) <strong>and</strong> the athletes’ preferences (.45). To establish<br />
test-retest reliability of the LSS the Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Saleh (1980) administered the form<br />
to the physical education students with an interval of four weeks between testings. Test-<br />
retest reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .82 <strong>and</strong> were deemed adequate.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 17<br />
To further demonstrate factorial validity the authors compared the factor structure<br />
from the versions of the scale administered to athletes with that of the physical education<br />
students. The factor structure from the first stage of scale development (Chelladurai &<br />
Saleh, 1978) was also used in comparison. Results revealed that the structure was similar<br />
across the three data sets as well as in comparison to that of the first stage. From this<br />
finding authors concluded the factor structure replicable <strong>and</strong> stable. Further, from their<br />
two-staged analyses for scale development, the authors suggested the final version of the<br />
LSS could be used successfully to examine coaching behaviors.<br />
Measures Completed by <strong>Coach</strong>es<br />
Swimming <strong>Coach</strong> Demographic Information Form. All collegiate swimming<br />
coaches completed a demographic information form (see Appendix D) that assessed<br />
personal characteristics, number of years coaching swimming competitively, number of<br />
hours spent per week on swimming-related duties, <strong>and</strong> variables pertaining to their<br />
academic level <strong>and</strong> level of competition.<br />
<strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire (CBQ). Because there is no known sport-specific<br />
coaching burnout measure available to date, a modified version of the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
Questionnaire was developed to assess burnout levels in coaches (see Appendix E). To<br />
develop the coach version of the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire the researcher modified<br />
each of the 15 items in the original questionnaire to reflect coaching rather than playing<br />
their respective sport. For example, “I’m accomplishing many worthwhile things in<br />
swimming” was changed to “I’m accomplishing many worthwhile things in coaching<br />
swimming.” Once each of the items was modified accordingly, the coach version of the<br />
inventory was submitted to an expert panel of four members who were former
<strong>Burnout</strong> 18<br />
competitive swimmers in addition to teaching swimming courses. Each member was<br />
asked to review the original <strong>and</strong> modified version of the questionnaire <strong>and</strong> determine if<br />
each item appeared to fit under its respective subscale. In addition, members were asked<br />
to determine if each modified item retained its original meaning <strong>and</strong> clarity as compared<br />
to the original item. Panel members responded to these three questions for each item of<br />
the questionnaire using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting that they<br />
strongly disagree <strong>and</strong> 5 denoting strong agreement. The question regarding the retention<br />
of meaning of new items was reversed scored. No items were found by the panel to be<br />
inappropriately modified. Two minor changes in wording were made based on consensus<br />
of the panel. Based on their suggestions, this final modified version appeared to have<br />
content validity <strong>and</strong> served as the coach version of the burnout questionnaire.<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: <strong>Coach</strong> Perception). The coach perception<br />
version of the Leadership Scale for Sports was used to assess coaches’ perception of their<br />
own decision-making behaviors (see Appendix F). The inventory was created with the<br />
athlete perception <strong>and</strong> athlete preference versions using the same procedure previously<br />
described for the collegiate swimmer sample. However, in their analysis of the<br />
measures’ psychometric properties, Chelladurai <strong>and</strong> Saleh (1978, 1980) excluded the<br />
coach version of the LSS. Other research, however, has demonstrated adequate<br />
psychometric properties of this version of the LSS. Turman (2003) utilized all three<br />
versions in research with coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes. Internal consistencies for the coach<br />
perception version were above .70 for all five subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha scores of<br />
.72 <strong>and</strong> .79 for the autocratic <strong>and</strong> democratic subscales, respectively. However, because<br />
previous research has found the autocratic subscale to have questionable internal
<strong>Burnout</strong> 19<br />
consistency (Dwyer & Fischer, 1988) this component of the LSS was of concern to the<br />
present research. To combat the potentially inadequate reliability of this subscale,<br />
improvements to its internal consistency were attempted based on previous research by<br />
Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss (2000). These authors added three additional items to the autocratic<br />
subscale in an attempt to improve its internal consistency. Their items included “makes<br />
decision regardless of what athletes think,” “does not take into account athletes’<br />
suggestions when making decisions,” <strong>and</strong> “controls what athletes can <strong>and</strong> cannot do.”<br />
These additions resulted in adequate reliability for this subscale. Therefore, these same<br />
additions were used for the present study after having obtained permission from Price <strong>and</strong><br />
Weiss.<br />
Procedures<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong>s. Two rounds of data collection were used to obtain the sample of<br />
collegiate swimmers used in data analyses. The first site used for data collection was a<br />
major international swimming competition held in the Midwest. A proposal explaining<br />
the study’s purposes <strong>and</strong> procedures was prepared <strong>and</strong> forwarded to the event’s executive<br />
director for review <strong>and</strong> permission to survey collegiate swimmers participating <strong>and</strong>/or<br />
volunteering at the championships. Upon being granted permission, the site where data<br />
collection would occur was discussed <strong>and</strong> finalized. It was decided that a table would be<br />
set up in the vicinity adjacent to the registration area where all swimmers either<br />
competing in or volunteering for the event would pass through to receive their<br />
credentials. The researcher used the table to store study inventories in addition to<br />
displaying the prizes used for a raffle for those who completed the questionnaires. A
<strong>Burnout</strong> 20<br />
large sign was also displayed on the table to get competitors’ <strong>and</strong> volunteers’ attention as<br />
they passed through the registration area <strong>and</strong> recruit them for participation.<br />
When potential participants arrived to receive their credentials, the researcher<br />
approached them to assess if they were collegiate swimmers <strong>and</strong> if so, whether or not<br />
they would be interested in participating in the research. All individuals approached were<br />
explained the purposes <strong>and</strong> procedures of the study. Those willing to participate were<br />
given an envelope containing a cover letter explaining the nature of the study (see<br />
Appendix G), a demographic information sheet, the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire, <strong>and</strong><br />
the athlete perception version of the Leadership Scale for Sports. Each packet was<br />
counterbalanced so that order of inventory completion would not influence the results of<br />
the research. All participants were told to keep the cover letter that contained<br />
information on how to contact the researcher if there were questions or concerns.<br />
Participants were also instructed to complete the inventories, place them the envelope,<br />
<strong>and</strong> seal it when finished. Once envelopes were returned to the researcher, each<br />
participant selected a piece of paper from a basket <strong>and</strong> told to open it. If the paper<br />
contained a star, he or she won one of the prizes on the display table. Each individual<br />
was thanked for their participation following the raffle.<br />
To increase the sample size of collegiate swimmers, a second round of athlete<br />
data collection was conducted <strong>and</strong> involved the assessment of collegiate swimmers in the<br />
southeast region of the United States. The researcher contacted the head coach of<br />
swimming programs in this region via phone <strong>and</strong>/or e-mail to discuss the purposes <strong>and</strong><br />
procedures of the study. A time was set up with those teams willing to participate in the<br />
research when the investigator would visit teams before or after practice to administer the
<strong>Burnout</strong> 21<br />
study’s inventories. At each meeting, the researcher explained the nature of the study as<br />
was done with the data collected at the championships. Those collegiate swimmers<br />
willing to participate were given an envelope containing the questionnaires <strong>and</strong> asked to<br />
place the inventories back in the envelope once finished. When returning the sealed<br />
enveloped to the researcher, each individual was thanked for their participation in the<br />
study. Between both rounds of data collection, 22 “elite” athletes who were competing in<br />
the Championships were sampled. 69 collegiate swimmers not participating in the event<br />
were also sampled.<br />
<strong>Coach</strong>es. Two rounds of data collection were also conducted to obtain the<br />
swimming coach data used in analyses. The first round occurred at a world swimming<br />
coach’s clinic held in the Midwest. A proposal explaining the study’s purposes <strong>and</strong><br />
procedures was prepared <strong>and</strong> forwarded to the sponsoring association’s executive director<br />
for review <strong>and</strong> permission to survey collegiate swimming coaches attending the clinic.<br />
Upon being granted permission, the site where data collection would occur was discussed<br />
<strong>and</strong> finalized. Similar to the championships, it was decided that a table would be set up<br />
in the vicinity adjacent to the registration area where all swimming coaches attending the<br />
event would pass through to receive their name tags <strong>and</strong> conference materials. The<br />
researcher used the table to store study inventories in addition to displaying the prizes<br />
used for a raffle for those coaches who completed the questionnaires. A large sign was<br />
also displayed on the table to get collegiate coaches’ attention as they passed through the<br />
registration area <strong>and</strong> recruit them for participation. This was particularly useful as<br />
coaches from other levels of competition (i.e. club, high school) were attending the<br />
conference as well.
When potential participants arrived to receive their materials, the researcher<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 22<br />
approached them to assess if they were collegiate swimming coaches <strong>and</strong> if so, whether<br />
they would be interested in participating in the research. All individuals approached were<br />
explained the purposes <strong>and</strong> procedures of the study. Those willing to participate were<br />
given an envelope containing a cover letter explaining the nature of the study, a<br />
demographic information sheet, the <strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire, <strong>and</strong> the coach<br />
perception version of the Leadership Scale for Sports. Each packet was counterbalanced<br />
so that order of inventory completion would not influence the results of the research. All<br />
participants were told to keep the cover letter that contained information on how to<br />
contact the researcher if there were questions or concerns. Participants were also<br />
instructed to complete the inventories, place them the envelope, <strong>and</strong> seal it when finished.<br />
Once envelopes were returned to the researcher, each participant selected a piece of paper<br />
from a basket <strong>and</strong> told to open it. If the paper contained a star, he or she won one of the<br />
prizes on the display table. Each individual was thanked for their participation following<br />
the raffle. 25 coaches were sampled during this first round of data collection.<br />
Previous research has evaluated the psychometric equivalency of Internet-based<br />
research <strong>and</strong> found that data collection on the web is a valid, reliable, <strong>and</strong> cost-effective<br />
method of acquiring data similar to that obtained when using traditional paper <strong>and</strong> pencil<br />
methods (Metzger, Kristof, & Yoest, 2003; Meyerson & Tryon, 2003; Miller, Neal,<br />
Roberts, Baer, Cressler, Metick, et al., 2002). Therefore, to increase the sample size of<br />
swimming coaches, additional data were obtained by placing coach inventories on the<br />
Internet under the domain of the university the researcher was affiliated with. Contact<br />
was made by the researcher with the executive director of a national collegiate coach’s
<strong>Burnout</strong> 23<br />
swimming association. After explaining the nature of the study, permission was granted<br />
to e-mail a link to the website containing the inventories to the members of this<br />
association. Each member received an e-mail explaining the purpose <strong>and</strong> procedures of<br />
the study in addition to a request for their participation. Those who were willing to<br />
complete the inventories clicked on a linked that took them to a webpage containing a<br />
cover letter that provided additional information regarding the study <strong>and</strong> the contact<br />
information of the researcher. A link was provided on the bottom of the cover letter that<br />
took participants to the webpage containing the internet version of the demographic form,<br />
the <strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire, <strong>and</strong> the coach perception of the Leadership Scale for<br />
Sports. Once coaches completed the forms online, they were instructed to click “submit”<br />
at the bottom of the webpage. This transmitted the anonymous data through an e-mail to<br />
the researcher. Clicking “submit” also took participants to a final webpage thanking<br />
them for their participation in the research. The results of this second round of data<br />
collection yielded an additional 11 swimming coach participants.<br />
RESULTS<br />
The results of the study are organized in two sections. The first section addresses<br />
those analyses conducted with the data obtained from the collegiate swimmers sample.<br />
Preliminary analyses were run on the inventories completed by the athletes (i.e. the<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire <strong>and</strong> Leadership Scale for Sports) to provided descriptive<br />
statistics in addition to assessing the scales’ internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha<br />
coefficients. In addition, independent sample t-tests were used to assess any differences<br />
in burnout <strong>and</strong> perception of decision-making style between the “elite” collegiate<br />
swimmers competing in the World Swimming Championships <strong>and</strong> those swimmers not
<strong>Burnout</strong> 24<br />
competing in the Championships in order to determine if these groups could be combined<br />
for the purposes of the subsequent data analyses. To examine the relationship between<br />
athletes’ reported levels of burnout <strong>and</strong> their perception of their coach’s decision-making<br />
style, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed. Two-way<br />
analyses of variance (ANOVA) were also conducted to evaluate the interactions between<br />
perceptions of decision-making style <strong>and</strong> gender on swimmers’ reported levels of<br />
burnout. ANOVAs were also used to examine the interaction of both decision-making<br />
styles on burnout in collegiate swimmers. Finally, stepwise multiple regression analyses<br />
were used to determine the predictive value of assessing athletes’ perception of coaches’<br />
decision-making style on these collegiate swimmers’ reported burnout levels.<br />
The second section reports those analyses conducted on the data acquired from<br />
collegiate swimming coaches. Preliminary analyses were also run on the data provided<br />
by this sample that included descriptive statistics in addition to computing Cronbach’s<br />
alpha coefficients to determine the internal consistency of inventory subscales. In<br />
addition, independent sample t-tests were used to assess any differences in burnout <strong>and</strong><br />
perception of decision-making style between the coaches surveyed via paper <strong>and</strong> pencil<br />
inventories at the World Clinic <strong>and</strong> those coaches surveyed over the Internet to determine<br />
if these two methodologies produced similar results. Pearson product-moment<br />
correlation coefficients were utilized to examine the relationship between coaches’<br />
perception of their decision-making behaviors <strong>and</strong> their reported levels of burnout.<br />
Independent sample t-tests were used to determine the differences in burnout among male<br />
versus female coaches in addition to differences on burnout between those coaches
classified as being high or low in terms of their autocratic <strong>and</strong> democratic decision-<br />
making behaviors.<br />
Preliminary Analyses for Collegiate Swimmers<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 25<br />
To assess the reliability of the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire <strong>and</strong> Leadership<br />
Scale for Sports: <strong>Athlete</strong> Perception subscales, internal consistencies were calculated<br />
using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (See Table 1). All alpha coefficients were above .70.<br />
Notable is that the reliability for the autocratic subscale of the LSS was also adequate<br />
with an alpha coefficient of .80. This is encouraging considering literature has previously<br />
noted the potential problems associated with the internal consistency of this subscale<br />
(Dwyer & Fischer, 1988).<br />
Descriptive data (e.g. means <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviations) for swimmers’ perceptions<br />
of coaches’ decision-making style for those subscales of the LSS in addition to their<br />
reported levels of burnout of each subscale of the ABQ can also be found in Table 1. The<br />
means for athletes’ perception of their coach’s decision-making style are comparable to<br />
those reported by Chelladurai (personal communication, March 1, 2004). An analysis of<br />
those studies using the athlete perception version of the Leadership Scale for Sports<br />
yielded an average democratic score of 3.05 (SD= .71) <strong>and</strong> an average mean for the<br />
autocratic scores of 2.64 (SD=.72). Because the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire was<br />
published recently (2001), norms were not yet available for comparison with the present<br />
study’s results.<br />
To examine any potential differences in the data obtained from those “elite”<br />
collegiate swimmers competing in the World Swimming Championships <strong>and</strong> those<br />
swimmers who did not compete in the event, independent sample t-tests were utilized.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 26<br />
The only significant difference between the two groups of collegiate swimmers was on<br />
the democratic subscale of the Leadership Scale for Sports (t (89) = -2.5, p
<strong>Burnout</strong> 27<br />
swimmers perceive their coaches to use more of an autocratic style in making decision,<br />
their own levels of burnout increase correspondingly. Further, as collegiate swimmers<br />
perceive their coaches to utilize a democratic approach to decision-making, their own<br />
levels of burnout decrease. However, while statistically significant, the obtained<br />
correlation coefficients between athletes’ perceptions of the decision-making style of<br />
their coaches <strong>and</strong> their levels of burnout were low.<br />
Gender, Autocratic Decision-Making Style, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Among Swimmers<br />
To assess any interactions between collegiate swimmers’ gender <strong>and</strong> a perceived<br />
coaches’ autocratic decision-making style on their burnout levels, three, two-way (gender<br />
x high/low autocratic) ANOVAs were utilized. Each burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion,<br />
sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment) served as a dependent variable for<br />
each two-way ANOVA conducted. MANOVAs were not employed due to the<br />
insufficient cell sizes <strong>and</strong> statistical power necessary to carry out this statistical<br />
procedure. Collegiate swimmers’ scores on the perceived autocratic decision-making<br />
behavior subscale of the LSS were recoded into either high or low autocratic perception<br />
categories. A median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as high or<br />
low. Those scores above the median were classified as high autocratic perception <strong>and</strong><br />
those below classified as low autocratic perception.<br />
The results of the ANOVAs revealed no statistically significant interactions<br />
between gender <strong>and</strong> high/low autocratic perceptions of collegiate swimmers on any of the<br />
three subscales of burnout. Further examination revealed no significant main effects for<br />
gender or high/low autocratic perception on any of the three burnout subscales. Although<br />
not statistically significant, trends in the data revealed that collegiate swimmers
<strong>Burnout</strong> 28<br />
perceiving their coach to be more autocratic in their decision-making reported higher<br />
levels of burnout on the sport devaluation <strong>and</strong> reduced sense of accomplishment<br />
subscales compared to those athletes perceiving their coach as being less autocratic in<br />
their decision-making.<br />
Gender, Democratic Decision-Making Style, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Among Swimmers<br />
Three two-way (gender x high/low democratic) ANOVAs were also computed to<br />
examine any interactions between collegiate swimmers’ gender <strong>and</strong> a perceived coaches’<br />
democratic decision-making style on these athletes’ own levels of burnout. Again, each<br />
burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment)<br />
was used as a dependent variable for each ANOVA conducted. Swimmers’ scores on the<br />
perceived democratic decision-making behavior subscale of the LSS were recoded as<br />
being either a high or low democratic perception. Similar to the autocratic scale, a<br />
median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as high or low. Those<br />
scores above the median were classified as high democratic perception <strong>and</strong> those below<br />
categorized as a low democratic perception of coaches’ decision-making style.<br />
The results of the ANOVAs revealed no significant interactions between gender<br />
<strong>and</strong> high/low democratic perceptions of collegiate swimmers on any of the three burnout<br />
subscales. No significant main effects were found for gender on any of the burnout<br />
subscales. However, statistically significant main effects did emerge for high/low<br />
democratic decision-making behaviors as a result of the analyses. A significant main<br />
effect was found for high/low perceptions of democratic behaviors with regards to the<br />
exhaustion burnout subscale (F (1, 87) = 6.13, p
<strong>Burnout</strong> 29<br />
reported significantly less emotional <strong>and</strong> physical exhaustion than those reporting their<br />
coaches to be less democratic. A significant main effect was also found for high/low<br />
perceptions of democratic behaviors regarding the sport devaluation burnout subscale<br />
(F (1, 87) = 7.23, p
Does Perception of Decision-Making Style Predict <strong>Burnout</strong> Among Swimmers?<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 30<br />
Because it was hypothesized that collegiate swimmers’ perception of their coach’s<br />
decision-making style would influence their own reported levels of burnout, it was<br />
logical to ascertain the predictability of decision-making style on swimmers’ burnout. To<br />
examine this, three stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted. Each burnout<br />
subscale served as the criterion variable in each analysis. To determine what, if any,<br />
additional demographic predictor variables should be included in the analyses (besides<br />
autocratic <strong>and</strong> democratic decision-making styles), in addition to testing for<br />
multicolinearity, a Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was utilized. The results<br />
revealed no significant relationships between athletes’ demographic information (e.g.<br />
number of years swimming competitively, number of hours per week spent on<br />
swimming-related duties) <strong>and</strong> any of the three burnout subscales. Therefore, no<br />
additional demographic variables were included in the regression analyses. Further,<br />
neither of the predictor variables (autocratic decision-making style, democratic decision-<br />
making style) were found to be highly correlated with one another. Therefore,<br />
multicolinearity was not of concern.<br />
The only statistically significant predictor of the emotional <strong>and</strong> physical<br />
exhaustion component of burnout was the perception of a democratic decision-making<br />
style (F (1, 89) =7.39, p
depersonalization (F (2, 89) =8.49, p
Dwyer <strong>and</strong> Fischer (1988) whose sample of wrestling coaches yielded a comparable<br />
pattern.<br />
To examine any differences between coaches surveyed via paper <strong>and</strong> pencil<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 32<br />
questionnaires at the World <strong>Coach</strong> Clinic <strong>and</strong> those coaches completing inventories over<br />
the Internet, independent samples t-tests were utilized. The results revealed no<br />
significant mean score differences between the two groups on any of the burnout<br />
subscales or the decision-making subscales of the Leadership Scale for Sports. This<br />
suggests that both groups responded to the questionnaires similarly.<br />
Relationship Between Perceived Decision-Making Style <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Among <strong>Coach</strong>es<br />
To examine the relationship between collegiate swimmers coaches’ perceived<br />
decision-making style <strong>and</strong> their own reported levels of burnout, Pearson product-moment<br />
correlations were computed (see Table 2). The results revealed no statistically significant<br />
relationships between the perception of either possessing an autocratic or democratic<br />
decision-making style <strong>and</strong> coaches’ scores on any of the three burnout subscales (e.g.<br />
exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment. Further, trends in these<br />
analyses did not suggest that a particular relationship between decision-making style <strong>and</strong><br />
burnout in coaches might exist.<br />
Gender, Decision-Making Style, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Among <strong>Coach</strong>es<br />
To assess any differences in collegiate swimming coaches’ gender on their<br />
burnout levels, three independent t-tests were utilized. Two-way ANOVAs were not<br />
employed to examine gender <strong>and</strong> decision-making style influences on burnout due to<br />
insufficient cell sizes <strong>and</strong> statistical power necessary to conduct such analyses. Each<br />
burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment)
<strong>Burnout</strong> 33<br />
served as a dependent variable for each t-test conducted. No significant differences were<br />
found between males <strong>and</strong> females on any of the burnout subscales.<br />
To examine differences in burnout between coaches categorized as using high<br />
versus low levels of democratic or autocratic decision-making behaviors, six additional<br />
independent t-tests were utilized. Three t-test analyses were computed for each decision-<br />
making style, one for each of the three burnout subscales serving as the dependent<br />
variable. Collegiate swimming coaches’ scores on their perceived autocratic <strong>and</strong><br />
democratic decision-making behavior subscales of the LSS were recoded into either high<br />
or low perceptions. A median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as<br />
high or low. Those scores above the median were classified as a high perception <strong>and</strong><br />
those below classified as a low perception. No significant differences were found on any<br />
of the three burnout subscales between those coaches classified as using a high or low<br />
degree of democratic or autocratic decision-making behaviors. This finding is consistent<br />
with the absence of relationships found between coaches’ perceptions of their decision-<br />
making style <strong>and</strong> their reported burnout.<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
The primary purpose of the present research was to investigate the influence that<br />
coaching behaviors can have on burnout in coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes. In particular, the<br />
relationship between perception of coaches’ decision-making style <strong>and</strong> burnout among<br />
collegiate swimmers <strong>and</strong> swimming coaches was examined. Previous research has<br />
suggested that coaches utilizing a democratic decision-making style may be more likely<br />
to experience burnout. Conversely, a democratic style of decision-making may help<br />
protect athletes from burning out. Further, an autocratic decision-making style may keep
<strong>Burnout</strong> 34<br />
coaches from burning out but may enhance the likelihood athletes experience burnout<br />
(Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss, 2001; Vealey et al., 1998). This potential<br />
incongruity served as the focal point of the present research. It should be noted, however,<br />
that because many of the athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches surveyed were not from the same<br />
swimming programs, between-group inferences could not be made. Further, this design<br />
did not provide the opportunity to account for any team interactions between coaches <strong>and</strong><br />
athletes that may explain the perception of decision-making behaviors.<br />
The Influence of Decision-Making Style on Collegiate Swimmers’ <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
As hypothesized for the athlete sample, collegiate swimmers’ levels of burnout on<br />
all three subscales (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment)<br />
were significantly related to their perception of coaches’ use of autocratic <strong>and</strong> democratic<br />
decision-making styles. As swimmers perceived their coach to utilize more of an<br />
autocratic decision-making style, swimmers’ reported levels of burnout on all three<br />
subscales increased. Further, as collegiate swimmers perceived their coach to utilize<br />
more of a democratic decision-making style, swimmers’ reported levels of burnout on all<br />
three subscales decreased. However, although statistically significant, readers should be<br />
cautioned as the strength of the correlation coefficients was small. Squaring these values<br />
reveals that decision-making style only accounted for between four to eleven percent of<br />
the variance in the burnout subscales. This suggests that there are other constructs that<br />
may be accounting for more of the variance in burnout scores that was not assessed with<br />
the present research.<br />
The relationships between swimmers’ perceived decision-making style of their<br />
coach <strong>and</strong> swimmers’ reported level of burnout were further confirmed by the results of
<strong>Burnout</strong> 35<br />
the two-way ANOVAs <strong>and</strong> multiple regression analyses performed on the swimmers’<br />
data. Significant main effects were found for swimmers’ perception of a high versus low<br />
degree of democratic decision-making behaviors <strong>and</strong> their scores on the exhaustion <strong>and</strong><br />
sport devaluation burnout subscales. This suggests that collegiate swimmers perceiving<br />
their coaches to be more democratic in their decision-making reported significantly less<br />
burnout on these subscales than those swimmers’ perceiving their coaches to use fewer<br />
democratic decision-making behaviors. In addition, perception of decision-making style<br />
was found to significantly predict all three subscales of burnout among collegiate<br />
swimmers. For the exhaustion <strong>and</strong> reduced sense of accomplishment subscales, the<br />
perception of a democratic decision-making style emerged as a significant predictor of<br />
athlete burnout. Perceptions of a democratic <strong>and</strong> autocratic decision-making style were<br />
found to significantly predict the sport devaluation component of athlete burnout.<br />
Collectively, these results suggest that collegiate swimmers’ perception of their coach’s<br />
decision-making style, particularly a democratic style of decision-making, has some<br />
influence on swimmers’ reported levels of burnout. When interpreting these results it<br />
should be noted that the effect sizes generated by the ANOVA analyses were small in<br />
nature. Further, the coefficientss of determination for each of the significant regression<br />
models were small, suggesting that the predictive value of decision-making style only<br />
accounted for between seven <strong>and</strong> sixteen percent of the variance in burnout scores.<br />
It is of interest that swimmers’ perception of a democratic decision-making style<br />
emerged from the analyses as the more salient of the two types of decision-making styles.<br />
A likely explanation for this finding may rest in the type of sport used for the present<br />
research. Weinberg <strong>and</strong> Gould (1999) noted that athletes participating in interactive,
team sports may prefer more of an autocratic style of decision-making than athletes<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 36<br />
taking part in a coactive sport such as swimming. Although swimming can be considered<br />
a team sport, the nature of training <strong>and</strong> competition is such that members often participate<br />
individually. Partially due to the mere nature of their sport, swimmers’ responses to the<br />
inventories may have reflected the preference for a democratic style which would help<br />
explain why more democratic than autocratic behaviors were reported by both swimmers<br />
<strong>and</strong> swimming coaches. It might also explain why a democratic perception of decision-<br />
making style was more strongly <strong>and</strong> consistently linked to burnout in swimmers in the<br />
present study compared to an autocratic perception.<br />
The results of the swimmers’ data mirror those of previous research examining<br />
the influences of coach leadership on athlete burnout within a multidimensional model of<br />
leadership. Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss (2000) <strong>and</strong> Vealey et al. (1998) also found the perception of<br />
an autocratic decision-making style among athletes to be linked to greater athlete<br />
burnout. Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss further revealed in their study that athletes perceiving their<br />
coach to utilize more of a democratic style of leadership also reported feeling less burnt<br />
out. Because democratic coaches elicit feedback from their athletes regarding decisions<br />
about their team, these athletes may perceive to have more control over <strong>and</strong> meaning in<br />
their sport participation. These perceptions may help act as a buffer against the physical<br />
<strong>and</strong> psychological stressors that, over time, can eventually lead to burnout if untreated.<br />
On the other h<strong>and</strong>, autocratic coaches do not invite feedback from their athletes. This<br />
could contribute to a lack of perceived control <strong>and</strong> meaning among athletes regarding<br />
their sport involvement <strong>and</strong> could partially contribute to an extreme training environment<br />
that Vealey et al. (1998) noted athletes cite as the most significant cause of burnout. The
esults also support the findings of Udry <strong>and</strong> colleagues (1997), that suggested that<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 37<br />
athletes coping with burnout often view their sport interactions with important others<br />
(including coaches) as more negative than positive. The perception of an autocratic<br />
decision-making style of their coach could fit into collegiate swimmers’ negative<br />
perception of important others.<br />
The secondary purpose of the present research was to examine the collective <strong>and</strong><br />
individual influence of gender <strong>and</strong> decision-making style on collegiate swimmers’<br />
burnout, in addition to the interaction of both decision-making styles on swimmers’<br />
burnout. Previous research has found that males may prefer more of an autocratic style<br />
of decision-making from their coaches compared to their female counterparts<br />
(Chelladurai, & Saleh, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Turman, 2003). For this<br />
reason, it was expected that male collegiate swimmers perceiving their coach to utilize<br />
more autocratic decisions would report less burnout than females. The results of the<br />
analyses did not support this hypothesis. Interestingly, collegiate swimmers did not<br />
significantly differ between genders on their level of burnout on any of the three<br />
subscales. Although males have been found to prefer an autocratic style of decision-<br />
making more than females, it may be that this preference does little to influence the<br />
degree of burnout that male athletes experience in comparison to females.<br />
The failure to reveal significant gender differences in burnout among athletes<br />
does, however, support previous research conducted by Lai <strong>and</strong> Wiggins (2003). In<br />
conducting their research, these authors utilized coach burnout research to formulate their<br />
hypotheses regarding gender differences. Because little research has examined gender<br />
differences in burnout among athletes, it is important that future studies do so in the
<strong>Burnout</strong> 38<br />
hopes that such hypotheses can be made using the results of athlete data rather than that<br />
of coaches. Although the present study did not reveal gender differences in burnout<br />
among collegiate swimmers, it did mimic those results of previous research <strong>and</strong> will<br />
provide future burnout studies with a basis from which to work from.<br />
It was also of interest that the two decision-making styles did not interact<br />
significantly to influence burnout among collegiate swimmers. This suggests that for the<br />
collegiate swimmers <strong>and</strong> swimming coaches surveyed, a particular combination of both<br />
decision-making styles did not influence the degree of burnout either group experienced.<br />
Prior to this study, research had not examined the potential interaction between these two<br />
leadership characteristics.<br />
The Influence of Decision-Making Style on Collegiate Swimming <strong>Coach</strong>es’ <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
The purpose of this study was also to examine the relationship between coaches’<br />
perception of their decision-making style <strong>and</strong> coaches’ reported levels of burnout.<br />
Previous research has suggested that the use of a democratic decision-making style might<br />
predispose coaches to experiencing burnout (Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss,<br />
2000; Vealey et al., 1998) while an autocratic decision-making style may help prevent<br />
them from experiencing burnout. Kelley et al. (1999) suggested this may be due to the<br />
additional stress that comes with being sensitive to their athletes’ opinions <strong>and</strong><br />
preferences while still attending to their normal duties as the coach.<br />
Based on this previous research, it was hypothesized that as collegiate swimming<br />
coaches perceived themselves to utilize more of a democratic style of decision-making,<br />
their reported levels of burnout would increase. Further, as these coaches reported more<br />
of an autocratic style of decision-making, their levels of burnout would decrease. The
<strong>Burnout</strong> 39<br />
results of the analyses did not support this hypothesis; collegiate swimming coaches’<br />
perception of their decision-making style was not found to be significantly related to any<br />
of the three burnout subscales. Subsequent analyses confirmed this finding, as coaches<br />
classified as being high in their use of autocratic or democratic decision-making<br />
behaviors did not significantly differ from one another on any of the three burnout<br />
subscales. There were no differences in burnout revealed between male <strong>and</strong> female<br />
coaches as well. Finally, perception of decision-making style did not significantly predict<br />
burnout in collegiate swimming coaches.<br />
Several propositions can be offered in underst<strong>and</strong>ing why no link was found<br />
between coaches’ perception of their decision-making style <strong>and</strong> their reported levels of<br />
burnout. The present study was one of the few to isolate a particular type of leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> examine its influence on both athlete <strong>and</strong> coach burnout (e.g. decision-<br />
making style). It is likely that the role of coaches’ decision-making style by itself is not<br />
of significant importance in underst<strong>and</strong>ing coach burnout. Rather, its impact on coach<br />
burnout may be more prominent when taken into consideration with other types of<br />
leadership (i.e. social support, feedback, training <strong>and</strong> instruction) or other variables (role<br />
ambiguity, role conflict, anxiety, etc.). Because burnout is now seen as more of a<br />
multidimensional construct, it seems logical that personal <strong>and</strong> situational variables will<br />
collectively contribute to burnout among coaches.<br />
The failure to reveal gender differences in the present study, although not<br />
supporting the secondary hypotheses, is not surprising as previous research has yielded<br />
equivocal findings (Davenport, 1998). Caccese <strong>and</strong> Mayerberg (1984) found that female<br />
coaches experienced significantly higher levels of burnout denoted by greater levels of
emotional exhaustion <strong>and</strong> lower levels of personal accomplishments than their male<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 40<br />
counterpart. No gender differences were found regarding the depersonalization subscale.<br />
Similar results have been mirrored by other studies regarding the emotional exhaustion<br />
subscale (Kelley, 1994; Kelley et al., 1999; Pastore & Judd, 1993; Vealey et al., 1992).<br />
However, Pastore <strong>and</strong> Judd (1993) <strong>and</strong> Vealey <strong>and</strong> colleagues (1992) failed to<br />
demonstrate any gender differences regarding the personal accomplishment subscale.<br />
Where these studies have found no gender differences in depersonalization, others have<br />
suggested males experience greater levels of depersonalization than females (Dale &<br />
Weinberg, 1989). It is not surprising that the present study failed to reveal gender<br />
differences on any of the three burnout subscales when one takes into consideration the<br />
inconsistent findings of the previous research. Future studies should continue to examine<br />
gender differences in coach burnout to better underst<strong>and</strong> the impact the gender of the<br />
coach has on burnout.<br />
One also has to consider the sample size of collegiate swimming coaches obtained<br />
for the present study as a possible explanation for the results. Because a smaller sample<br />
of coaches was used for the analyses, a greater treatment effect would need to be present<br />
in order for significant differences or relationships to surface. However, the sample of<br />
coaches obtained was larger than those of previous studies examining the influence of<br />
leadership behaviors on coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout (e.g. Price & Weiss, 2000; Vealey et<br />
al., 1998).<br />
It is also possible that coaches responded to the questionnaires in a socially<br />
desirable manner in expressing their levels of burnout <strong>and</strong> style of decision-making. In<br />
fact, previous research has masked the true nature of burnout questionnaires to account
<strong>Burnout</strong> 41<br />
for the negative connotation associated with the construct of burnout (e.g. Gould, Udry,<br />
Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996). The lack of willingness among coaches to express their true<br />
levels of burnout <strong>and</strong> style of decision-making could have potentially contributed to the<br />
findings of the present study.<br />
The accuracy of the coaches’ responses to the study’s questionnaires, particularly<br />
the Leadership Scale for Sports, may also be worthy of consideration. Research has<br />
found that coaches’ perceptions of their own leadership behaviors are less accurate than<br />
those of the athletes they coach or those of an expert observing the actual leadership<br />
behaviors (Smoll & Smith, 1981). It is plausible that a portion of coaches sampled in the<br />
present study misrepresented their decision-making behaviors on the Leadership Scale for<br />
Sports, not in a socially desirable manner, but rather due to an inaccurate perception of<br />
those behaviors. These misperceptions could potentially have influenced the results of<br />
the analyses conducted on the swimming coaches’ data.<br />
The fact that two different methods of obtaining data from collegiate swimming<br />
coaches were used could also have influenced the results of the research. Many of the<br />
coach participants completed pencil <strong>and</strong> paper inventories in the presence of the<br />
researcher, while others completed the same surveys online. Due to the smaller sample<br />
size obtained, it was not possible to contrast coaches’ scores in addition to the<br />
psychometric properties of each method of data collection. However, previous research<br />
has found the two methods of obtaining to be similar to one another in terms of their<br />
validity <strong>and</strong> reliability (Metzger et al., 2003; Meyerson & Tryon, 2003; Miller et al.,<br />
2002). Therefore, it seems unlikely that the two methods of data collection used to gather
data from collegiate swimming coaches was a major contributor to the results of the<br />
present study.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 42<br />
Finally, one has to consider the reported levels of burnout by both athletes <strong>and</strong><br />
coaches in the study to potentially have some degree of influence on the results. The<br />
sample of collegiate swimmers obtained was not experiencing a high degree of burnout.<br />
Further, because the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire is a newer instrument used in the<br />
assessment of sport burnout, norms are not available for comparison with data in the<br />
present study. However, with the range of possible scores on each of the three subscales<br />
stemming from one to five, some conclusions can be drawn. If one were to consider an<br />
average level of burnout to be the halfway point on each subscale (two <strong>and</strong> one-half), the<br />
collegiate swimmers in the present study could be considered to have reported relatively<br />
average levels of burnout. As shown in Table 1, their scores on the depersonalization <strong>and</strong><br />
reduced sense of accomplishment subscales were slightly below the midpoint. These<br />
athletes also reported slightly higher levels of emotional <strong>and</strong> physical exhaustion as<br />
indicated by a mean score higher than the midpoint. It is possible that many of these<br />
swimmers, particularly those “elite” swimmers competing in the Championships, were<br />
surveyed immediately following a tapering period of their training in preparation for this<br />
significant competition. Because these athletes had not recently been exposed to the<br />
extreme training conditions that swimmers typically endure, their levels of burnout may<br />
have been slightly lower at the time of assessment.<br />
The collegiate swimming coaches did not evidence elevated degrees of burnout as<br />
well. Because the <strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire was created for the present study, norms<br />
are not available for comparison with data in the present study. However, with the range
of possible scores on each of the three subscales stemming from one to five, some<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 43<br />
conclusions can be drawn. If one were to consider an average level of burnout to be the<br />
halfway point on each subscale (two <strong>and</strong> one-half), the collegiate swimming coaches in<br />
the present study could be considered to have reported relatively average levels of<br />
burnout. As shown in Table 1, their scores on the depersonalization <strong>and</strong> reduced sense of<br />
accomplishment subscales were slightly below the midpoint. These coaches also<br />
reported slightly higher levels of emotional <strong>and</strong> physical exhaustion as indicated by a<br />
mean score higher than the midpoint. This pattern of burnout mimics that of the<br />
collegiate swimmers sampled in the present study.<br />
Implications <strong>and</strong> Future Directions<br />
As previously mentioned, research has suggested that athletes cite severe training<br />
conditions as their most significant reason for experiencing burnout (Vealey et al., 1998).<br />
Certainly the extreme physical conditions that are often a part of elite competitive sport<br />
weigh heavily on this matter. However, the fact that number of hours per week spent on<br />
swimming-related duties did not relate to or predict burnout among athletes partially<br />
suggests that it is not simply the frequency of intense physical practices that causes<br />
burnout. It is also important to examine the behaviors, particularly decision-making<br />
style, of those coaches who are conducting the practice sessions. These actions may, in<br />
part, determine if coaches <strong>and</strong>/or their athletes will be more susceptible to experiencing<br />
burnout. Because athletes experiencing higher degrees of burnout often report coach<br />
decision-making behaviors to be autocratic, <strong>and</strong> coaches experiencing higher levels of<br />
burnout report more of a democratic decision-style, an incongruity may be present. As<br />
this st<strong>and</strong>s, coaches would have to make a choice: implement a decision-making style
that predisposes their athletes to experiencing burnout or a style that predisposes<br />
themselves.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 44<br />
To date, this potential incongruity had yet to be addressed. The present research<br />
attempted to further examine this relationship. The results revealed that collegiate<br />
swimmers’ perception of their coaches’ leadership behaviors, in particular decision-<br />
making style, had some degree of influence on burnout levels reported by those<br />
swimmers. Thus, it is recommended that coaches take into consideration the degree to<br />
which they elicit feedback from their athletes regarding team-related decisions that need<br />
to be made. By inquiring about feedback or opinions from athletes, coaches could help<br />
create a feeling of control <strong>and</strong> meaningfulness among athletes that act as a buffer against<br />
experiencing burnout. This idea is further strengthened by the fact that results did not<br />
show collegiate swimming coaches’ decision-making style was related to or predicted<br />
coach burnout. If such is the case, coaches who utilize a democratic style of decision-<br />
making with their team can help prevent burnout among their players without<br />
jeopardizing their own likelihood of experiencing burnout.<br />
Future burnout research should continue to examine the relationship between<br />
coaches’ leadership variables <strong>and</strong> their impact on both coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout. The<br />
results of research that has examined this area are not unequivocal. Further, the limited<br />
amount of research attention given thus far has yet to come to a consensus regarding the<br />
true relationship between the perception of coaches’ decision-making style <strong>and</strong> burnout<br />
among coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes. The same holds true for research examining gender<br />
differences in burnout among coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes.
A major effort of subsequent research should also be to identify <strong>and</strong> recruit<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 45<br />
coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes who are experiencing a high degree of burnout as study participants.<br />
Although difficult to accomplish as many of these individuals may have dropped out of<br />
sport, assessing coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes who are experiencing a high degree of burnout may<br />
provide the strongest evidence regarding the potential incongruity between perception of<br />
decision-making style <strong>and</strong> burnout among coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes.<br />
A beneficial approach to examining burnout in the future would be to continue to<br />
incorporate qualitative research methods in burnout investigations as has been done in the<br />
past (e.g. Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996). This would be particularly useful with a<br />
coach population as little qualitative burnout research has been done with this group to<br />
date. Using qualitative methods of data collection with a sample of athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches<br />
who are experiencing a high degree of burnout could provide professionals with rich <strong>and</strong><br />
valuable information about the nature of burnout <strong>and</strong> mediating leadership variables that<br />
influence its occurrence in both coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes.<br />
Additional research attention should also be given to the assessment of burnout<br />
within the sport domain. Because the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire was developed<br />
recently, norms for the subscales <strong>and</strong> additional validation of the instrument have yet to<br />
be provided. The present research provided additional support for the internal<br />
consistency of this measure, although future research should continue to validate its<br />
psychometric properties across various sport types <strong>and</strong> establish norms for each of its<br />
subscales to compare future research against. The present research also provided<br />
preliminary support for a measure to assess sport burnout in coaches. To date, no sport<br />
burnout measure is available for the coach population. The internal consistencies found
<strong>Burnout</strong> 46<br />
with the <strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire were high <strong>and</strong> a promising indication that such a<br />
measure could be developed <strong>and</strong> validated in the near future.
REFERENCES<br />
Caccese, T., & Mayerberg, C. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of<br />
college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 279-288.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 47<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied<br />
Sport Sciences, 5, 226-231.<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences <strong>and</strong> perceptions of leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport<br />
Psychology, 6, 27-41.<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport<br />
Psychology, 21, 328-354.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity <strong>and</strong> preferred leadership.<br />
Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Doherty, A. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaching. In J.<br />
Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance<br />
(pp.115-126). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T.R. (1978). A normative model of decision-making styles<br />
in coaching. Athletic Administrator, 13, 6-9.<br />
Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R., & Baxter, P. (1989). Decision style choices of university<br />
basketball coaches <strong>and</strong> players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 201-<br />
215.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaches. In J.L. Duda<br />
(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology measurement (pp. 227-253). Morgantown,<br />
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 48<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of<br />
Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports:<br />
Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.<br />
Coakley, J. (1992). <strong>Burnout</strong> among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social<br />
problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285.<br />
Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1989). The relationship between coaches’ leadership style <strong>and</strong><br />
burnout. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 1-13.<br />
Davenport, M. (1998). A descriptive analysis of the burnout of rowing coaches over a<br />
competitive season. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College,<br />
Wilmington, Ohio.<br />
Dwyer, J., & Fischer, D. (1988). Psychometric properties of the coach’s version of<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports. Perceptual <strong>and</strong> Motor Skills, 67, 795-798.<br />
Feigley, D. (1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician <strong>and</strong><br />
Sportsmedicine, 12, 109-119.<br />
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). <strong>Burnout</strong> in competitive junior tennis<br />
players: II. A qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341-366.<br />
Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). <strong>Burnout</strong> in competitive junior tennis<br />
players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10,<br />
322-340.<br />
House, R.J., & Dressler, G. (1974). A path-goal theory of leadership. In J.G. Hunt &<br />
L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29-55).<br />
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois <strong>University</strong> Press.
Kelley, B. (1994). A model of stress <strong>and</strong> burnout in collegiate coaches: Effects of<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 49<br />
gender <strong>and</strong> time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise <strong>and</strong> Sport, 65, 48-58.<br />
Kelley, B., Eklund, R., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress <strong>and</strong> burnout among collegiate<br />
tennis coaches. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.<br />
Lai, C., & Wiggins, S. (2003). <strong>Burnout</strong> perceptions over time in NCAA division I soccer<br />
players. International Sports Journal, 7, 120-127.<br />
Metzger, M., Kristof, V., & Yoest, D. (2003). The world wide web <strong>and</strong> the laboratory: A<br />
comparison using face recognition. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of<br />
the Internet, Multimedia, <strong>and</strong> Virtual Reality on Behavior <strong>and</strong> Society, 6, 613-<br />
621.<br />
Meyerson, P., & Tryon, W. (2003). Validating internet research: A test of the<br />
psychometric equivalence of Internet <strong>and</strong> in-person samples. Behavior Research<br />
Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 614-620.<br />
Miller, E., Neal, D., Roberts, L., Baer, J., Cressler, S., Metrik, J., et al. (2002). Test-retest<br />
reliability of alcohol measures: Is there a difference between Internet-based<br />
assessment <strong>and</strong> traditional methods? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 56-<br />
63.<br />
Pastore, D., & Judd, M. (1993). Gender differences in burnout among coaches of<br />
women’s athletic teams at 2-year colleges. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 205-<br />
212.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 50<br />
Price, M., & Weiss, M. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviors,<br />
<strong>and</strong> athletes’ psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409.<br />
Raedeke, T. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment<br />
perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.<br />
Raedeke, T., & Smith, A. (2001). Development <strong>and</strong> preliminary validation of an athlete<br />
burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.<br />
Schmidt, G., & Stein, G. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating enjoyment,<br />
dropout, <strong>and</strong> burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 254-265.<br />
Silva, J. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in competitive athletics.<br />
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 5-20.<br />
Smith, R. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of<br />
Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.<br />
Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (1981). Preparation of youth sport coaches: An educational<br />
application of sport psychology. Physical Educator, 38, 85-94.<br />
Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model <strong>and</strong><br />
research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.<br />
Smoll, F., Smith, R., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E. (1978). Toward a mediational model of<br />
coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly, 49, 528-541.<br />
Turman, P. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective:<br />
The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences <strong>and</strong><br />
perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education,<br />
52, 73-86.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 51<br />
Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Tuffey, S. (1997). People helping people? Examining<br />
the social ties of athletes coping with burnout <strong>and</strong> injury stress. Journal of Sport<br />
& Exercise Psychology, 19, 368-395.<br />
Vealey, R., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. (1998). Influence of perceived<br />
coaching behaviors on burnout <strong>and</strong> competitive anxiety in female college athletes.<br />
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318.<br />
Vealey, R., Udry, E., Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal <strong>and</strong><br />
situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise<br />
Psychology, 14, 40-58.<br />
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership <strong>and</strong> decision-making. Pittsburgh: <strong>University</strong><br />
of Pittsburgh Press.<br />
Weinberg, R, & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport <strong>and</strong> exercise psychology.<br />
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 52<br />
Table 1<br />
Internal consistency <strong>and</strong> descriptive statistics for intercollegiate swimmers (N=91) <strong>and</strong><br />
coaches (N=36)<br />
ATHLETES<br />
ABQ<br />
Cronbach α M SD<br />
Exhaustion .91 3.06 .890<br />
Sport Devaluation .80 2.15 .803<br />
Reduced Sense of Accomplishment .79 2.15 .702<br />
LSS<br />
COACHES<br />
Perceived Autocratic Behaviors .80 2.76 .744<br />
Perceived Democratic Behaviors .81 3.30 .711<br />
CBQ<br />
Exhaustion .94 2.73 .984<br />
Sport Devaluation .88 2.03 .836<br />
Reduced Sense of Accomplishment .81 2.07 .671<br />
LSS<br />
Perceived Autocratic Behaviors .61 2.62 .470<br />
Perceived Democratic Behaviors .76 3.12 .492
<strong>Burnout</strong> 53<br />
Table 2<br />
Pearson product correlation coefficients for burnout <strong>and</strong> decision-making style among<br />
collegiate swimmers (N=91) <strong>and</strong> collegiate swimming coaches (N=36)<br />
ATHLETES<br />
COACHES<br />
*p
<strong>Burnout</strong> 54<br />
Antecedents Leader Behavior Consequences<br />
Situational<br />
Characteristics<br />
Leader<br />
Characteristics<br />
Member<br />
Characteristics<br />
Required<br />
Behavior<br />
Actual<br />
Behavior<br />
Preferred<br />
Behavior<br />
Performance<br />
Satisfaction<br />
Figure 1. The multidimensional model of leadership (from Chelladurai, 1980, 1990).
Personality <strong>and</strong> Motivational Factors<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 55<br />
Situation Cognitive appraisal Physiologic responses Coping <strong>and</strong><br />
Dem<strong>and</strong>s/ -of dem<strong>and</strong>s -e.g., arousal task behaviors<br />
Resources -of resources<br />
Stress -of consequences<br />
-of “meaning” of<br />
consequences<br />
-High or conflicting -Perceived overload -Tension, anger, -Inappropriate<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s: overload -Low perceived anxiety, depression behavior<br />
-Low social support predictability <strong>and</strong> -Insomnia, fatigue -Decreased<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> -Low autonomy control: helplessness -Illness susceptibility performance<br />
-Low rewards -Perception of few -Interpersonal<br />
-Low dem<strong>and</strong>s: meaningful difficulties<br />
boredom accomplishments -Withdrawal<br />
-Lack of meaning <strong>and</strong> from activity<br />
devaluation of self/activity<br />
Figure 2. The cognitive-affective model of burnout (from Smith, 1986).
Impose<br />
Training<br />
Stress<br />
Maintain or Increase<br />
Training Stimulus<br />
Negative<br />
Reaction/Response<br />
(Psychophysiological)<br />
Staleness<br />
Overtraining<br />
Figure 3. The negative training stress syndrome (from Silva, 1990).<br />
Training Plateau or<br />
Detraining Effect<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> Withdrawal<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 56
Stressors<br />
Environmental Physical Social General Life Secondary<br />
Appraisal Perception<br />
Challenge Threat Relaxation Boredom<br />
Coping/Defense Responses<br />
Physiological Emotional Behavioral Cognitive<br />
State of Adaptation<br />
Physiological Emotional Cognitive Behavioral/Social<br />
Figure 4. The stress response process (from Tennebaum et al., 2003).<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 57<br />
Personal Dispositions<br />
& States<br />
Self-Efficacy<br />
Social Support<br />
Goal Setting<br />
Arousal/Anxiety/Emotions<br />
Attributional Style<br />
Attachment
APPENDIX A<br />
Swimmer Demographic Information Sheet<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 58
<strong>Burnout</strong> 59<br />
Swimmer Demographic Information Sheet<br />
Please respond to the following questions to the best of your ability. Do not write your<br />
name or other identifying information on this form. Your answers will remain<br />
anonymous.<br />
*Age:__________ (years)<br />
*Gender: Male Female (circle one)<br />
*What is your nationality? ___________________<br />
*What is your primary language? _____________________<br />
*Number of years swimming competitively: _____________<br />
*Average number of hours per week spent swimming or<br />
completing swimming-related obligations?________________<br />
*Age group of competition currently competing in (circle all that apply):<br />
Pre-high school High school Collegiate<br />
Post-Collegiate/Professional Other: ________________<br />
*What year in school are you currently in (circle one):<br />
Freshman Sophomore Junior<br />
Senior Not Applicable Other:___________<br />
*If participating at the collegiate level, what division do you compete at?<br />
Division I Division II Division III Not Applicable
APPENDIX B<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 60
<strong>Burnout</strong> 61<br />
Please read each statement carefully <strong>and</strong> decide if you ever feel this way about your current sport<br />
participation. Your current sport participation includes all the training you have completed during<br />
this season. Please indicate how often you have had this feeling or thought this season by circling<br />
a number 1 to 5, where 1 means "I almost never feel this way" <strong>and</strong> 5 means "I feel that way most<br />
of the time." There are no right or wrong answers, so please answer each question as honestly as<br />
you can. Please make sure you answer all items. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.<br />
Almost Rarely Some- Fre- Almost<br />
never times quently always<br />
1. I’m accomplishing many worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5<br />
things in swimming.<br />
2. I feel so tired from my training that I have 1 2 3 4 5<br />
trouble finding energy to do other things.<br />
3. The effort I spend in swimming would be 1 2 3 4 5<br />
better spent doing other things.<br />
4. I feel overly tired from my swimming 1 2 3 4 5<br />
participation.<br />
5. I am not achieving much in swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
6. I don’t care as much about my swimming 1 2 3 4 5<br />
performance as much as I used to.<br />
7. I am not performing up to my ability in 1 2 3 4 5<br />
swimming.<br />
8. I feel “wiped out” from swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
9. I’m not into swimming like I used to be. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
10. I feel physically worn out from swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
11. I feel less concerned about being successful 1 2 3 4 5<br />
in swimming than I used to.<br />
12. I am exhausted by the mental <strong>and</strong> physical 1 2 3 4 5<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s of swimming.<br />
13. It seems that no matter what I do, 1 2 3 4 5<br />
I don’t perform as well as I should.<br />
14. I feel successful at swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
15. I have negative feelings towards swimming. 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX C<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports: <strong>Athlete</strong> Perception<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 62
<strong>Burnout</strong> 63<br />
Each of the following statements describe a specific behaviour that a coach may exhibit. For each statement there are five alternatives:<br />
1. ALWAYS; 2. OFTEN (about 75% of the time); 3. OCCASIONALLY (50% of the time);<br />
4. SELDOM (about 25% of the time); 5. NEVER<br />
Please indicate your coach's actual behavior by placing an "X" in the appropriate space. Answer all items even if you are unsure<br />
of any. Please note that you are rating your present coach.<br />
My coach:<br />
1 2 3 4 5<br />
1. Sees to it that athletes work to capacity. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1<br />
2. Asks for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2<br />
3. Helps athletes with their personal problems. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 3<br />
4. Compliments an athlete for good performance in front of others. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 4<br />
5. Explains to each athlete the techniques <strong>and</strong> tactics of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5<br />
6. Plans relatively independent of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 6<br />
7. Helps members of the group settle their conflicts. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 7<br />
8. Pays special attention to correcting athletes' mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 8<br />
9. Gets group approval on important matters before going ahead. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 9<br />
10. Tells an athlete when the athlete does a particularly good job. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 10<br />
11. Makes sure that the coach's function in the team is understood by all athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 11<br />
12. Does not explain his/her actions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 12<br />
13. Looks out for the personal welfare of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 13<br />
14. Instructs every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 14<br />
15. Lets the athletes share in decision making. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 15<br />
16. Sees that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 16<br />
17. Figures ahead on what should be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 17<br />
18. Encourages athletes to make suggestions for ways to conduct practices. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 18<br />
19. Does personal favours for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 19<br />
20. Explains to every athlete what should be done <strong>and</strong> what should not be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 20<br />
21. Lets the athletes set their own goals. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 21<br />
22. Expresses any affection felt for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 22<br />
23. Expects every athlete to carry out one's assignment to the last detail. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 23<br />
24. Lets the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 24<br />
25. Encourages the athlete to confide in the coach. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 25<br />
26. Points out each athlete's strengths <strong>and</strong> weaknesses. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 26<br />
27. Refuses to compromise on a point. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 27<br />
28. Expresses appreciation when an athlete performs well. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 28<br />
29. Gives specific instructions to each athlete on what should be done in<br />
every situation. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 29
My coach:<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 64<br />
1 2 3 4 5<br />
30. Asks for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 30<br />
31. Encourages close <strong>and</strong> informal relations with athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 31<br />
32. Sees to it that the athletes' efforts are coordinated. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 32<br />
33. Lets the athletes work at their own speed. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 33<br />
34. Keeps aloof from the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 34<br />
35. Explains how each athlete's contribution fits into the total picture. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 35<br />
36. Invites the athletes home. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 36<br />
37. Gives credit when it is due. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 37<br />
38. Specifies in detail what is expected of athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 38<br />
39. Lets the athletes decide on plays to be used in a game. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 39<br />
40. Speaks in a manner which discourages questions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 40<br />
41. Makes decisions regardless of what athletes think. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 41<br />
42. Does not take into account athletes’ suggestions when making decisions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 42<br />
43. Controls what athletes can <strong>and</strong> cannot do. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 43
APPENDIX D<br />
Swimming <strong>Coach</strong> Demographic Information Form<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 65
Swimming <strong>Coach</strong> Demographic Information Form<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 66<br />
Please respond to the following questions to the best of your ability. Do not write your<br />
name or other identifying information on this form. Your answers will remain<br />
anonymous.<br />
*Age: __________ (years)<br />
*Gender (circle one): Male Female<br />
*Are you a head coach or an assistant coach (circle one)? Head Assistant<br />
*What is your nationality? ___________________<br />
*What is your primary language? _____________________<br />
*Number of years coaching swimming competitively: _____________<br />
*Average number of hours per week spent coaching<br />
swimming or completing coaching-related duties:_________________<br />
*Age group of competition currently coaching (circle all that apply):<br />
Pre-high school High school Collegiate<br />
Post-Collegiate/Professional Other: _______________<br />
*If coaching at the collegiate level, what division do you compete at?<br />
Division I Division II Division III Not Applicable
APPENDIX E<br />
<strong>Coach</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 67
<strong>Burnout</strong> 68<br />
Please read each statement carefully <strong>and</strong> decide if you ever feel this way about your<br />
current coaching involvement. Your current coaching involvement includes all the<br />
coaching you have done during this season. Please indicate how often you have had this<br />
feeling or thought this season by circling a number 1 to 5, where 1 means "I almost never<br />
feel this way" <strong>and</strong> 5 means "I feel that way most of the time." There are no right or<br />
wrong answers, so please answer each question as honestly as you can. Please make sure<br />
you answer all items. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.<br />
Almost Rarely Some- Fre- Almost<br />
never times quently always<br />
1. I’m accomplishing many worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5<br />
things in coaching swimming.<br />
2. I feel so tired from my coaching swimming that I have 1 2 3 4 5<br />
trouble finding energy to do other things.<br />
3. The effort I spend coaching swimming would be 1 2 3 4 5<br />
better spent doing other things.<br />
4. I feel overly tired from coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
5. I am not achieving much in coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
6. I don’t care as much about my coaching 1 2 3 4 5<br />
performance as much as I used to.<br />
7. I am not performing up to my ability in 1 2 3 4 5<br />
coaching swimming.<br />
8. I feel “wiped out” from coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
9. I’m not into coaching swimming like I used to be. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
10. I feel physically worn out from coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
11. I feel less concerned about being successful 1 2 3 4 5<br />
in coaching swimming than I used to.<br />
12. I am exhausted by the mental <strong>and</strong> physical 1 2 3 4 5<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s of coaching swimming.<br />
13. It seems that no matter what I do, 1 2 3 4 5<br />
I don’t coach as well as I should.<br />
14. I feel successful at coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5<br />
15. I have negative feelings towards coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX F<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports: <strong>Coach</strong> Perception<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 69
<strong>Burnout</strong> 70<br />
Each of the following statements describe a specific behaviour that a coach may exhibit. For each statement there are five alternatives:<br />
1. ALWAYS; 2. OFTEN (about 75% of the time); 3. OCCASIONALLY (50% of the time);<br />
4. SELDOM (about 25% of the time); 5. NEVER<br />
You are requested to indicate your characteristic behavior by marking an "X" in the appropriate space. There are no right or<br />
wrong answers. Your spontaneous <strong>and</strong> honest response is important for the success of the study.<br />
In coaching I:<br />
1 2 3 4 5<br />
1. See to it that athletes work to capacity. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1<br />
2. Ask for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2<br />
3. Help athletes with their personal problems. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 3<br />
4. Compliment an athlete for good performance in front of others. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 4<br />
5. Explain to each athlete the techniques <strong>and</strong> tactics of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5<br />
6. Plan relatively independent of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 6<br />
7. Help members of the group settle their conflicts. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 7<br />
8. Pay special attention to correcting athletes' mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 8<br />
9. Get group approval on important matters before going ahead. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 9<br />
10. Tell an athlete when the athlete does a particularly good job. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 10<br />
11. Make sure that the coach's function in the team is understood by all athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 11<br />
12. Do not explain my actions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 12<br />
13. Look out for the personal welfare of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 13<br />
14. Instruct every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 14<br />
15. Let the athletes share in decision making. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 15<br />
16. See that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 16<br />
17. Figure ahead on what should be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 17<br />
18. Encourage athletes to make suggestions for ways to conduct practices. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 18<br />
19. Do personal favours for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 19<br />
20. Explain to every athlete what should be done <strong>and</strong> what should not be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 20<br />
21. Let the athletes set their own goals. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 21<br />
22. Express any affection felt for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 22<br />
23. Expect every athlete to carry out one's assignment to the last detail. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 23<br />
24. Let the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 24<br />
25. Encourage the athlete to confide in the coach. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 25<br />
26. Point out each athlete's strengths <strong>and</strong> weaknesses. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 26<br />
27. Refuse to compromise on a point. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 27<br />
28. Express appreciation when an athlete performs well. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 28<br />
29. Give specific instructions to each athlete on what should be done in<br />
every situation. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 29
In coaching I:<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 71<br />
1 2 3 4 5<br />
30. Ask for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 30<br />
31. Encourage close <strong>and</strong> informal relations with athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 31<br />
32. See to it that the athletes' efforts are coordinated. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 32<br />
33. Let the athletes work at their own speed. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 33<br />
34. Keep aloof from the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 34<br />
35. Explain how each athlete's contribution fits into the total picture. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 35<br />
36. Invite the athletes home. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 36<br />
37. Give credit when it is due. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 37<br />
38. Specify in detail what is expected of athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 38<br />
39. Let the athletes decide on plays to be used in a game. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 39<br />
40. Speak in a manner which discourages questions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 40<br />
41. Make decisions regardless of what athletes think. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 41<br />
42. Don’t take into account athletes’ suggestions when making decisions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 42<br />
43. Control what athletes can <strong>and</strong> cannot do. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 43
APPENDIX G<br />
Cover Letter<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 72
Dear Participant,<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 73<br />
This letter is a request for you to take part in a research project to determine the<br />
relationship of coaches’ decision-making styles on burnout in coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes. This<br />
project is being conducted by Br<strong>and</strong>onn Harris of the School of Physical Education at<br />
<strong>West</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> <strong>University</strong> as a part of a master’s thesis. Your participation in this project<br />
will take approximately 15 minutes <strong>and</strong> will entail answering 3 questionnaires. Upon<br />
completion of these questionnaires you will be asked to place them in a sealed envelope<br />
<strong>and</strong> return them to the research investigator.<br />
Your involvement in this project will be anonymous. Your name or other identifying<br />
information will not be recorded for this study. Your participation in this project is<br />
completely voluntary <strong>and</strong> you do not need to answer any questions that you do not wish<br />
to answer. You may also stop your participation at any time without penalty if you desire.<br />
Your class st<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> grades (if a student-athlete) or employment status (if a coach)<br />
will not be affected by your agreement or refusal to participate in this research project.<br />
I appreciate your consideration in taking part of this research project.<br />
Thank you for your time <strong>and</strong> help with this project.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>onn Harris<br />
<strong>West</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> <strong>University</strong><br />
School of Physical Education<br />
P.O. Box 6116<br />
Morgantown, WV 26506-6116<br />
bharris7@mix.wvu.edu
APPENDIX H<br />
IRB Approval<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 74
<strong>Burnout</strong> 75
APPENDIX I<br />
Review of Literature<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 76
<strong>Burnout</strong> 77<br />
The present section attempts to examine the current state of burnout in the sport<br />
domain In doing so, the definitions, signs, symptoms, main theoretical frameworks used<br />
to explain burnout, <strong>and</strong> the assessment of burnout will be addressed. In addition, the<br />
phenomenon as it relates to coaches <strong>and</strong> athletes will be discussed. Research on<br />
leadership <strong>and</strong> coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout will also be addressed. Finally, suggestions for<br />
burnout’s treatment <strong>and</strong> prevention according to the literature will be presented followed<br />
by a summary <strong>and</strong> direction for future research.<br />
Defining <strong>Burnout</strong> <strong>and</strong> Related Terms<br />
Several terms are often encountered in the burnout literature, many of which are<br />
often used interchangeably. It is important to distinguish how these <strong>and</strong> alternative terms<br />
differ from burnout. Overtraining is one related term present in the literature.<br />
Interestingly, this term has been defined both as a positive <strong>and</strong> negative occurrence<br />
(Raglin &Wilson, 2000). Overtraining can be viewed as part of a process (known as<br />
periodization) by which an athlete’s training schedule is increased above its usual levels<br />
followed by a tapering period for performance improvement (Raglin, 1993; Raglin &<br />
Wilson, 2000). However, performance is not always enhanced as a result of this increase<br />
in training. The result of maladaptive responses to overtraining is staleness. <strong>Athlete</strong>s<br />
have difficulty maintaining their training regimens <strong>and</strong> are no longer able to gain<br />
improvements in performance (Weinberg & Gould, 1999). Symptoms associated with<br />
staleness more so than burnout include hypercortisolism, premature fatigue during<br />
training, decreases in muscular strength, <strong>and</strong> changes in athlete’s perception of physical<br />
effort (Raglin & Wilson, 2000). While some of these symptoms of mood disturbances<br />
<strong>and</strong> performance decrements are seen in burnout, they have been suggested to be directly
<strong>Burnout</strong> 78<br />
related to training load during staleness as opposed to cognitive factors as in burnout<br />
(Raglin, 1993; Raglin & Wilson, 2000).<br />
Another term that utilizes a more holistic approach in describing related concepts<br />
has also been presented. Henschen (2000) chose the term maladaptive fatigue syndrome<br />
suggesting it encompasses or mirrors common terms like burnout, overtraining, <strong>and</strong><br />
staleness. Using work by Gould (1996), this syndrome was defined as a psychobiosocial<br />
state that resulted in a physical, psychological, <strong>and</strong> emotional withdrawal from an activity<br />
that was once enjoyable <strong>and</strong> motivating. Henschen (2000) further noted that maladaptive<br />
fatigue syndrome was due to excessive fatigue. While this phenomenon was noted to<br />
contain the same elements of overtraining, staleness, <strong>and</strong> burnout, it was preferred<br />
because it identifies the actual situation, because other terms are grounded in the fatigue<br />
syndrome that have remained unaddressed, <strong>and</strong> because of its holistic nature that allows<br />
for flexibility.<br />
It would also be advantageous to operationally define burnout before examining<br />
its theoretical frameworks, assessment, occurrence, <strong>and</strong> prevention. However, a uniform<br />
definition has been difficult to formulate because of its complexity, <strong>and</strong> has yet to be<br />
identified both in <strong>and</strong> out of a sport context (Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Dale & Weinberg,<br />
1990; Fender, 1989; Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke, Lunney, & Venables, 2002). Raedeke et<br />
al. (2002) further stated that a definition of burnout including key signs <strong>and</strong> symptoms is<br />
crucial in order to make progress with its related research. There is agreement among<br />
professionals that burnout’s various definitions usually acknowledge a multidimensional<br />
syndrome (Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Gould, 1996). Definitions also tend to vary<br />
according to the theory providing the framework for a particular study.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 79<br />
A popular definition came from research conducted by Maslach <strong>and</strong> Jackson<br />
(1981). They contended burnout could be identified as a syndrome characterized by<br />
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization <strong>and</strong> a lessened sense of personal<br />
accomplishment. Although commonly seen in the sport burnout literature, this definition<br />
has received some criticism. Kallus <strong>and</strong> Kellman (2000) stressed that too much emphasis<br />
was placed on the cognitive components of burnout while overlooking physiological,<br />
emotional, <strong>and</strong> behavioral characteristics. Perlman <strong>and</strong> Hartman (1982) presented a<br />
similar definition based on their summary of early burnout literature which depicted the<br />
phenomenon as including “emotional <strong>and</strong>/or physical exhaustion, a lowered job<br />
productivity, <strong>and</strong> overdepersonalization” (p.293).<br />
Another common definition of burnout stems from Smith’s (1986) theoretical<br />
work, <strong>and</strong> is believed to be the most accepted definition for sport purposes thus far<br />
(Raedeke, 1997). Smith introduced a stress-based explanation asserting burnout should<br />
be considered a multidimensional experience that includes emotional, psychological, <strong>and</strong><br />
occasionally physical withdrawal from a previously enjoyable activity due to extreme <strong>and</strong><br />
persistent stress.<br />
Schmidt <strong>and</strong> Stein (1991) presented an alternative definition that countered<br />
Smith’s (1986) description. Using a commitment perspective, they suggested burnout<br />
occurs when athletes remain in sport for some other reason outside of enjoyment. The<br />
phenomenon can occur when the costs of participation rise along with an athlete’s<br />
investment, with no concurrent rise in rewards, <strong>and</strong> a perception of nonexistent or few<br />
alternatives.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 80<br />
Finally, another definition has been presented also countering the stress-based<br />
framework Smith (1986) presented. Coakley (1992) suggested that burnout lies in more<br />
of a social foundation rather than stress. Young athletes withdraw from sport from<br />
feelings of disempowerment <strong>and</strong> a realization that they have little control in the events<br />
<strong>and</strong> decisions about their life experiences <strong>and</strong> developmental direction. While other<br />
definitions have been presented for burnout in <strong>and</strong> out of the sport context, they tend to<br />
be some derivative of one of the above mentioned descriptions driven by their respective<br />
theoretical framework.<br />
Signs, Symptoms, <strong>and</strong> Individual Differences in the Susceptibility to <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
Like the definitions of burnout, signs <strong>and</strong> symptoms of the phenomenon vary<br />
according to the theoretical framework used in its examination. There are, however,<br />
several common characteristics considered by most authors to be indications an<br />
individual may be experiencing burnout.<br />
There is a general belief, regardless of theory, that chronic stress plays some role<br />
in the symptoms, signs, <strong>and</strong> results of burnout (Dale & Weinberg, 1990). The degree of<br />
effect chronic stress has varies among authors. Feigley (1984) provided an interesting<br />
description of burnout as a progressive phenomenon. Those experiencing burnout in its<br />
beginning stages may experience an increasing state of fatigue <strong>and</strong> irritability. A loss of<br />
enthusiasm may also be present at this time. Physically, he or she may notice minor body<br />
aches <strong>and</strong> changes in eating patterns. Also present may be feelings of incompetence,<br />
frustration, <strong>and</strong> anger. During the intermediate stage, one may exhibit withdrawing or<br />
silent responses to questions regarding their sport. Physical symptoms would include
<strong>Burnout</strong> 81<br />
more excessive disordered eating patterns <strong>and</strong> severe fatigue. At its advanced stage an<br />
athlete would evidence cynicism, alienation, <strong>and</strong> escapist behavior toward their sport.<br />
Other research has echoed some of the signs <strong>and</strong> symptoms Feigley described.<br />
Physical symptoms also mentioned included fatigue, sleeplessness, headaches, shortness<br />
of breath, <strong>and</strong> weight fluctuation. Behaviorally, athletes often are seen as easily angered,<br />
frustrated, performing inconsistently, <strong>and</strong> possibly completely dropping out or<br />
withdrawing from the sport altogether (Fender, 1989; Gould, 1996; Metzler, 2002;<br />
Raedeke at al., 2002; Smith, 1986). Fender (1989) <strong>and</strong> Gould (1996) further added that<br />
emotionally, those experiencing burnout may feel helpless, depressed, irritable, <strong>and</strong><br />
experience negativity towards their sport <strong>and</strong> other areas of life.<br />
There is also a belief that certain characteristics will increase athlete susceptibility<br />
to these signs <strong>and</strong> symptoms, <strong>and</strong> ultimately, burnout. Originally, burnout research<br />
focused on people in the “helping” or “people” professions because of the emotional<br />
investment these professionals made in their clients(Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984; Capel,<br />
Sisley, & Desertrain, 1987; Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Fender, 1989; McCann, 1995;<br />
Vealey et al., 1992). As a result, these people were believed to be at a greater risk of<br />
experiencing burnout. As the phenomenon made its way into the athletic domain, other<br />
sport-related characteristics suggested to increase an individual’s likelihood to experience<br />
burnout were presented.<br />
Perfectionism <strong>and</strong> overachieving have been linked to burnout as committed<br />
athletes may set unrealistic goals <strong>and</strong> overexert themselves in the pursuit of them<br />
(Feigley, 1984; Fender, 1989; Henschen, 1998). Gould, Udry, Tuffey, <strong>and</strong> Loehr (1996)<br />
found burned out athletes experienced higher parental criticism, greater needs for
<strong>Burnout</strong> 82<br />
organization, <strong>and</strong> greater concerns over mistakes. While these findings seem to support<br />
the relationship between perfectionism <strong>and</strong> burnout, the authors also found burned out<br />
athletes reported lower personal st<strong>and</strong>ards. It was suggested that this subscale has not<br />
been found to be correlated with negative perfectionist aspects, but positive ones instead.<br />
Henschen (1998) <strong>and</strong> Feigley (1984) further contended that susceptible individuals are<br />
also other-oriented, having a strong desire to be liked by others <strong>and</strong> overly sensitive to<br />
criticism. In addition, these authors add that burnout victims may lack assertive<br />
interpersonal skills, making expressing negative feelings or setting boundaries more<br />
difficult without experiencing guilt in doing so. While it appears that several factors are<br />
associated with the occurrence of burnout in the sport domain, it should be noted that it is<br />
a unique <strong>and</strong> personal experience that may vary among individuals (Gould, Tuffey, Udry,<br />
& Loehr, 1997).<br />
Major Theoretical Frameworks Supporting <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
Smith (1986) proposed a cognitive-affective model that utilized an interactional<br />
approach emphasizing stress as a primary influence of burnout (see Figure 2). His model<br />
contained four components that helped to explain the nature of this phenomenon. The<br />
first stage considers the situation itself, which involves some interaction between the<br />
environment <strong>and</strong> the athlete’s personal/environmental resources. The interaction places<br />
some sort of dem<strong>and</strong> on the athlete, whether high or low, that brings about the second<br />
stage of the model. There, a cognitive appraisal of the dem<strong>and</strong> occurs. The dem<strong>and</strong> will<br />
be perceived as high if, for example, it is appraised as being conflicting in nature or<br />
overloads the athlete. Another possibility is a low perceived dem<strong>and</strong> if it is appraised as<br />
having little reward, not contributing to athlete autonomy, or is boring. In both instances,
<strong>Burnout</strong> 83<br />
stress occurs from the appraisal of mismatch between the dem<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> the lack of or<br />
abundance of coping resources. When stress occurs the third stage of the model is<br />
initiated. The harm or danger emanating from the appraisal is suggested to cause<br />
physiological responses in the athlete, including anxiety, tension, anger, <strong>and</strong> fatigue. It<br />
should be noted that at this stage, the physiological responses provides feedback to the<br />
athlete about the situation <strong>and</strong> contributes to a positive or negative re-appraisal of the<br />
situation. The physiological response(s) will lead the athlete to the fourth stage of the<br />
model, which is an overt coping behavior. These could include decreased performance,<br />
communication problems, <strong>and</strong>/or withdrawal from the sport itself.<br />
Some have praised this model for its interactional approach to underst<strong>and</strong>ing the<br />
nature of burnout (Dale & Weinberg, 1990) <strong>and</strong> for the usefulness it has in delineating<br />
targets for intervention (Rotella, Hanson, & Coop, 1991). The model not only<br />
incorporates situational, cognitive, physiological, <strong>and</strong> behavioral components, but<br />
suggests that personality <strong>and</strong> motivational aspects act upon each of the stages as well.<br />
Another strength of the model lies in its ability to differentiate between those who<br />
withdraw from sport due to burnout (a result of stress explained by the model) <strong>and</strong> those<br />
who withdraw for other reasons. Despite this intuitive appeal, little research attention has<br />
been given to this model in explaining burnout in athletes (Gould, 1996). However, some<br />
research has used this model in explaining coach burnout.<br />
Vealey et al. (1992) utilized this model to examine cognitive, dispositional, <strong>and</strong><br />
situational predictors of coach burnout. Cognitive appraisal factors of interest were<br />
perceived stress <strong>and</strong> meaningfulness of work. Intrapersonal factors included gender, the<br />
presence of a partner, <strong>and</strong> coaching experience. The dispositional factor of interest was
<strong>Burnout</strong> 84<br />
trait anxiety. Situational factors included amount time spent working <strong>and</strong> in leisure, level<br />
of coaching, <strong>and</strong> sport type. The results indicated that trait anxiety was the strongest<br />
predictor in burnout among coaches. <strong>Coach</strong>es who approached their job with feelings of<br />
nervousness <strong>and</strong> worry tended to experience higher levels of burnout. Cognitively, the<br />
results indicated that high levels of burnout were associated with a lack of perceived<br />
meaningful accomplishments, as well as a perceived lack of control, success <strong>and</strong> support.<br />
Intrapersonally, only gender emerged as relating to burnout, with females reporting<br />
greater levels than males. The authors suggest that the results provide some support for<br />
this model, particularly for its cognitive <strong>and</strong> dispositional factors.<br />
Kelley <strong>and</strong> Gill (1993) also employed Smith’s (1986) model of burnout in their<br />
examination of collegiate teacher-coaches. They sought to identify the relationship of<br />
personal <strong>and</strong> situational variables to stress appraisal, <strong>and</strong> the relationship of stress<br />
appraisal to burnout. The results of their work revealed that satisfaction with social<br />
support, more coaching experience, <strong>and</strong> gender (with males scoring lower) were<br />
predicative of stress appraisal. In addition, a greater stress appraisal was linked to higher<br />
levels of burnout. The authors suggest that their results provide strong support for<br />
Smith’s (1986) proposed model of burnout.<br />
Gould, Tuffey, Udry, <strong>and</strong> Loehr (1996) conducted qualitative research in an<br />
attempt to examine various aspects of burnout in junior tennis players. The authors<br />
analyzed their results keeping three models of burnout in mind. These included Silva’s<br />
(1990) negative training stress model, Coakley’s (1992) socialization model, <strong>and</strong> Smith’s<br />
(1986) cognitive-affective model. Gould, Tuffey, <strong>and</strong> colleagues (1996) concluded that<br />
their results were best explained using Smith’s model as a framework as it was the most
<strong>Burnout</strong> 85<br />
comprehensive, taking into account situational <strong>and</strong> personal variables <strong>and</strong> the athlete’s<br />
appraisal of stress.<br />
Other stress-based models have been presented to explain burnout.<br />
Silva (1990) presented a stress-based model that used training stress syndrome as a<br />
theoretical foundation to underst<strong>and</strong> burnout (see Figure 3). He contended that<br />
participation in competitive athletics introduces physical <strong>and</strong> psychological training stress<br />
upon an athlete. In coping with these stressors athletes adapted positively or negatively.<br />
With positive training stress principles of overload are utilized, pushing athletes to adapt<br />
at higher output levels using effective coping <strong>and</strong> problem solving strategies. These<br />
positive improvements result in training gains. Conversely, negative training stress<br />
occurs when athletes adapt poorly to the increased stress or overload conditions. Factors<br />
related to this adaptation include insufficient rest patterns, boredom, <strong>and</strong> conflict. When<br />
negative adaptation occurs to training stress, responses occur along a regressive<br />
psychophysiological continuum. The training stress syndrome explains this continuum.<br />
The first stage, staleness, is considered to be the initial failure of an athlete’s mechanisms<br />
to psychologically <strong>and</strong> physically adapt to training stress. The next stage, overtraining,<br />
occurs after the body repeatedly fails to cope with what has become chronic training<br />
stress. There are observable changes in an athlete’s sport performance <strong>and</strong> mental<br />
orientation. If nothing is done to address staleness <strong>and</strong> overtraining, burnout becomes a<br />
likely result <strong>and</strong> is the final stage in the model. According to Silva, burnout is<br />
characterized as an exhaustive physical <strong>and</strong> psychological response to frequent,<br />
unsuccessful attempts to cope with extreme training <strong>and</strong> competitive stressors.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 86<br />
Tennebaum, Jones, Kitsantas, Sacks, <strong>and</strong> Berwick (2003a) presented the most<br />
recent stress-based model that suggested the related terms such as overtraining, staleness,<br />
<strong>and</strong> burnout were better explained with a failure adaptation in response to stress (see<br />
Figure 4). Failure adaptation was defined as “a state of physiological, behavioral,<br />
emotional, <strong>and</strong>/or cognitive malfunction due to inadequate adaptive responses towards<br />
the situation” (p. 20). This model, known as the Stress Response Process, incorporated<br />
previous models (Coakley, 1992; Silva, 1990; Smith, 1986) to extend the perspective of<br />
the stress environment <strong>and</strong> the complete athlete response to stress (Tennebaum, Jones,<br />
Kitsantas, Sacks, <strong>and</strong> Berwick, 2003b). Stressors were at the top of the model <strong>and</strong> were<br />
described as originating from environmental, physical, social, general life (outside of<br />
sport), or secondary (emotional or cognitive) sources. The next stage of the model was<br />
the athlete’s perception or appraisal of the stressor(s). This subjective appraisal, as<br />
opposed to the objective reality of the stressor, dictated the form <strong>and</strong> intensity of an<br />
athlete’s stress response. Possible ways of perceiving a stressor were as a challenge,<br />
threat, relaxing, or boring. Further, an athlete’s appraisal process consisted of the<br />
athlete’s initial appraisal, his/her appraisal of the coping resources necessary to deal with<br />
the stressor(s), his/her appraisal of the consequences from meeting or failing to meet its<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> the level of importance those consequences have for the athlete. An<br />
athlete’s appraisal is mediated by their disposition <strong>and</strong> state. Important factors included<br />
an athlete’s self-efficacy, social support, goal setting, anxiety, method of attribution, <strong>and</strong><br />
attachment.<br />
Following the appraisal process was the athlete’s defense strategy used to cope<br />
with the stressor(s). These reactions were categorized into physiological, behavioral,
<strong>Burnout</strong> 87<br />
emotional, <strong>and</strong> cognitive categories. The success of an athlete’s adaptation to stress was<br />
contingent upon the success of their coping strategy in combating the stressor(s). The<br />
result of his/her coping response influenced that athlete’s state of adaptation. Failure to<br />
adapt was marked by one’s physiological, emotional, cognitive, <strong>and</strong> behavioral<br />
responses. Physiological signs of failure adaptation were exhaustion, illness, increase in<br />
injuries, <strong>and</strong> a decrease in physiological capacity. Cognitively, one might expect to<br />
experience catastrophic thinking, paranoia, <strong>and</strong> learned helplessness. Behaviorally,<br />
failure adaptation was characterized by avoidance of practices <strong>and</strong>/or competitions.<br />
Emotionally, he/she might experience extreme anxiety or affective disorders.<br />
Because this model was recently developed research has yet to assess its utility.<br />
However, Tennebaum et al. (2003b) conducted follow-up research to explore the value of<br />
their model. The authors quantitatively <strong>and</strong> qualitatively studied 14 elite cyclists over 20<br />
weeks. Their results supported their hypotheses derived from the Stress Response Model.<br />
They noted that the model was successful in monitoring athletes’ stress response process.<br />
The authors concluded that their model provides the means to examine the<br />
comprehensive interaction of variables that were believed to affect an athlete’s adaptation<br />
to stress.<br />
Coakley (1992) presented an alternative model to the abovementioned, stress-<br />
based theories. Although he acknowledged stress as an important component in<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing burnout (a symptom rather than cause), Coakley suggested burnout is best<br />
explained as a social phenomenon rather than a personal failure in coping with stress.<br />
Specifically, he proposed that burnout is more closely tied to the social development of<br />
young athletes, the social relations involved with participating in sport, <strong>and</strong> the social
organization of sport performance. Young athletes were believed to burnout <strong>and</strong><br />
withdraw from competitive sport because of a restricted set of life experiences.<br />
Participating in their sport leaves these athletes feeling disempowered in their<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 88<br />
development, resulting in a unidimensional self concept based solely on sport. <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
also occurred from an athlete’s perceived lack of autonomy <strong>and</strong> control over their life<br />
from the power relationships surrounding their sport. Coakley’s model received some<br />
support for its consideration of the social influences on burnout, a component that the<br />
stress-based models neglected. While the theory seems to lack the interactional approach<br />
that others incorporate, research has demonstrated results that suggested a burnout model<br />
should include social influences (Kjormo & Halvari, 2002).<br />
A final athlete burnout perspective utilizes an investment paradigm. Schmidt <strong>and</strong><br />
Stein’s (1991) sport commitment model was developed to facilitate predictions about<br />
environments fostering continued sport participation, dropout, <strong>and</strong> burnout. They<br />
believed that athletes with high commitment remain in sport for one of two reasons.<br />
Those who are experiencing an increase in rewards, investment, <strong>and</strong> satisfaction with a<br />
concurrent decrease in costs <strong>and</strong> alternatives remain in sport for enjoyment reasons.<br />
Conversely, high commitment athletes remaining in sport for reasons not related to<br />
enjoyment are prone to burnout. Their sport experience would consist of an increase in<br />
costs <strong>and</strong> investments with a concomitant decrease in rewards <strong>and</strong> perceived alternatives.<br />
Raedeke (1997) suggested these athletes may remain in sport because they feel as though<br />
they have to, a concept described as “entrapment”. The model differentiates dropout<br />
from burnout with its investment <strong>and</strong> alternative components. Whereas athletes prone to<br />
burnout experience an increase in their sport investment <strong>and</strong> decrease in perceived
alternatives to participation, dropout victims observe a decrease in investment <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 89<br />
increase in alternatives, giving them an opportunity to take up a more attractive activity.<br />
In response to the dearth of research on the commitment model of burnout,<br />
Raedeke (1997) examined this perspective in swimmers while incorporating some of the<br />
social aspects of Coakley’s (1992) research. His results indicated those athletes who<br />
exhibited characteristics suggestive of entrapment experienced higher burnout levels. In<br />
particular, four profiles were found to resemble those as denoted by Schmidt <strong>and</strong> Stein<br />
(1991) <strong>and</strong> Coakley (1992). Included was enthusiasm, with those demonstrating higher<br />
degrees experiencing lower levels of burnout. In addition, swimmers who were<br />
malcontented <strong>and</strong> obligated in their participation had higher levels of burnout. Finally,<br />
swimmers who were indifferent about their sport participation exhibited moderate<br />
attraction to swimming <strong>and</strong> reported few benefits by participating. This was noted to be<br />
similar to the low commitment profile identified by Schmidt <strong>and</strong> Stein (1991). In<br />
addition, results indicated that low perceived control <strong>and</strong> high social constraints were<br />
leading sources of entrapment. As the resulting profiles were similar to what was<br />
expected for entrapment, dropout, <strong>and</strong> attraction profiles, Raedeke (1997) noted the<br />
results of this research suggested a commitment model of burnout is a viable model by<br />
which to increase the underst<strong>and</strong>ing of burnout. Raedeke, Granzyk, <strong>and</strong> Warren (2000)<br />
have also applied a similar commitment model of burnout to coaches. The authors<br />
surveyed 295 USA Swimming coaches on their determinants of commitment, their<br />
experiences of the exhaustive component of burnout, <strong>and</strong> their actual commitment to<br />
determine if salient profiles could be identified <strong>and</strong> linked to different levels of burnout<br />
<strong>and</strong> commitment. Their results yielded three profiles including attraction-based
commitment, low commitment, <strong>and</strong> entrapment. Entrapped coaches reported higher<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 90<br />
levels of burnout than the less committed or attracted coaches. The authors gave further<br />
support for the use of a commitment-based model in underst<strong>and</strong>ing burnout.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> Assessment<br />
Maslach <strong>and</strong> Jackson (1981) composed a burnout inventory that has been<br />
recognized as the most widely used <strong>and</strong> accepted measure (Dale <strong>and</strong> Weinberg, 1990;<br />
Fender, 1989). The authors used interview <strong>and</strong> questionnaire data previously collected to<br />
construct preliminary items assessing hypothesized aspects of burnout. The preliminary<br />
items were presented in a Hassles scale <strong>and</strong> administered to 420 individuals in helping<br />
occupations. From their factor analysis of the results <strong>and</strong> items, three factors emerged<br />
that were eventually retained for the final measure known as the Maslach <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
Inventory (MBI).<br />
The MBI measures the intensity <strong>and</strong> frequency of three dimensions believed to be<br />
associated with burnout: emotional exhaustion (feelings of being overextended <strong>and</strong><br />
emotionally exhausted), depersonalization (an impersonal response towards the<br />
beneficiary of one’s services), <strong>and</strong> personal accomplishment (feeling of competence <strong>and</strong><br />
achievement with people in one’s employment). These subscales have nine, five, <strong>and</strong><br />
eight items, respectively. It should be noted that higher scores on the emotional<br />
exhaustion <strong>and</strong> depersonalization scales denote a higher degree of experienced burnout.<br />
Lower scores on the personal accomplishment scales signify a higher burnout level.<br />
Reliability was demonstrated for the inventory as a whole (Maslach <strong>and</strong> Jackson,<br />
1981). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha scores of .83 <strong>and</strong> .84 for frequency <strong>and</strong> intensity,<br />
respectively. Acceptable reliability was also found for emotional exhaustion’s frequency
(.89) <strong>and</strong> intensity (.86), depersonalization’s frequency (.77) <strong>and</strong> intensity (.72), <strong>and</strong><br />
personal accomplishment’s frequency (.74) <strong>and</strong> intensity (.74). The authors also<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 91<br />
demonstrated sufficient test-retest reliability using a time interval of two-four weeks. All<br />
reliability coefficients for the subscales’ frequency <strong>and</strong> intensity were above .60.<br />
Maslach <strong>and</strong> Jackson (1981) established adequate convergent validity of the<br />
inventory in three ways. Scores on the MBI were correlated with the following criteria:<br />
independent behavior ratings by a person who knew the subject well, the presence of job<br />
characteristics likely to contribute to burnout, <strong>and</strong> measures of outcomes hypothesized to<br />
relate to burnout. To establish discriminant validity, scores on the MBI <strong>and</strong> an inventory<br />
measuring job satisfaction were correlated. The results indicated that less than six<br />
percent of variance was accounted for by the correlations, indicating that the MBI is not<br />
measuring the construct of job satisfaction, thus providing support for the inventory’s<br />
discriminant validity.<br />
Research outside of the sport realm has further examined the psychometric<br />
properties <strong>and</strong> efficacy of the MBI. Densten’s (2001) examination of the MBI’s<br />
conceptualization <strong>and</strong> psychometric properties generated a five-factor structure opposed<br />
to the original three-factor design. The research supported emotional exhaustion splitting<br />
into psychological <strong>and</strong> somatic strain components. Further, the personal accomplishment<br />
subscale was broken down into lack of self <strong>and</strong> others.<br />
Wright <strong>and</strong> Bonett (1997) tested the relationships between the three dimensions of<br />
the MBI with work performance. Their results only yielded a significant negative<br />
relationship between the emotional exhaustion subscale <strong>and</strong> work performance. The<br />
study’s longitudinal design confirmed the need for future longitudinal burnout designs
that allow for its process to occur, prompting subsequent research to follow similar<br />
designs (Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, Bosveld, & Van Dierendonck, 2000).<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 92<br />
While the MBI has been used with research in the sport environment, some have<br />
cautioned about extending its use beyond the helping professions it was originally<br />
constructed for (Raedeke et al., 2002). Inventories have been constructed since the MBI<br />
that deal with burnout in an athletic context. Fender (1988) constructed a modified<br />
version of the MBI adapted for sport, known as the Sport Adaptation of the Maslach<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> Inventory (SAMBI)<br />
The items of the original MBI were modified to reflect sport situations. The<br />
revised inventory was finalized <strong>and</strong> administered to collegiate athletes to assess its<br />
psychometric integrity. Internal consistency was established for the emotional<br />
exhaustion subscale. However, the depersonalization <strong>and</strong> personal accomplishment<br />
subscales did not achieve either significance or the necessary criterion value. External<br />
reliability was established for all three subscales using a test-retest procedure <strong>and</strong> Pearson<br />
Product Moment correlation. Validity analyses suggested that the three factors<br />
accounting for about one-half of the total variance represented emotional exhaustion,<br />
depersonalization, <strong>and</strong> personal accomplishment. There were several items that on the<br />
MBI, did not identify with its equivalent factor of the SAMBI. As a result, it was<br />
suggested to exert caution when interpreting the validity of this sport-revised version.<br />
Future research could test the SAMBI with a larger population <strong>and</strong> spanning a greater<br />
demographical area.<br />
A more recent, sport specific inventory was presented by Raedeke <strong>and</strong> Smith<br />
(2001). The authors formulated the <strong>Athlete</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Questionnaire in stages <strong>and</strong> around a
<strong>Burnout</strong> 93<br />
modified Maslach <strong>and</strong> Jackson (1981) definition of burnout to fit a sport environment.<br />
The burnout definition used for its development included emotional <strong>and</strong> physical<br />
exhaustion, a reduced sense of accomplishment, <strong>and</strong> a devaluation of sport. This<br />
inventory will be utilized for the present study <strong>and</strong> is discussed in detail in the<br />
methodology chapter of this proposal.<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong>s <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Research<br />
Research on athlete burnout has examined various aspects using some of the<br />
established theoretical frameworks. Silva (1990) surveyed 68 collegiate athletes from 10<br />
different sports on their perspectives of the causes, symptoms, <strong>and</strong> frequency of negative<br />
training stress responses in formulating his theoretical framework of staleness,<br />
overtraining, <strong>and</strong> burnout. With regards to burnout, almost 47% of athletes reported<br />
experiencing burnout with a strong majority indicating the phenomenon was believed to<br />
be the worst possible response to training stress. Symptoms of burnout reported by<br />
athletes included a loss of interest <strong>and</strong> desire to participate, extreme emotional <strong>and</strong><br />
physical exhaustion, <strong>and</strong> an absence of caring. While this research has contributed to<br />
burnout’s knowledge base, it has been criticized for not operationally defining burnout<br />
for the study’s participants (Raedeke et al., 2002).<br />
In a related study, Murphy, Fleck, Dudley, <strong>and</strong> Callister (1990) found that<br />
increases in volume training loads in judo athletes resulted in concomitant increases in<br />
anger <strong>and</strong> anxiety levels <strong>and</strong> a decrease in selected performance indicators. While<br />
burnout was not a dependent variable in this study, the results provide some support for<br />
Silva’s (1990) model. Specifically, increases in training loads were shown to have some
<strong>Burnout</strong> 94<br />
negative impact on the psychological <strong>and</strong> physical aspects of participation, similar to<br />
what the training stress syndrome advocates.<br />
In establishing an alternative model to stress-based theories, Coakley (1992)<br />
interviewed adolescent athletes identified as burnout cases about their sport experiences<br />
<strong>and</strong> how their participation was tied to other areas of their lives. His results indicated that<br />
while stress is associated with burnout, its roots seemed to rest in a social framework.<br />
<strong>Athlete</strong>s tended to tie their non-sporting activities to their sport participation, <strong>and</strong><br />
mentioned experiencing stress <strong>and</strong> pressure from sport due to a perceived lack of control<br />
over their life. Further, participants expressed disappointment on missing other<br />
experiences their peers had due to their sport participation. Coakley concluded that<br />
burnout occurred from a unidimensional self-concept based solely on sport, <strong>and</strong> a lack of<br />
control over their sport experiences <strong>and</strong> general life development.<br />
Other athlete burnout research has generated results that seem to mirror Coakley’s<br />
findings. Kjormo <strong>and</strong> Halvari (2002) examined the relationship between burnout <strong>and</strong><br />
various environmental <strong>and</strong> personal factors. Their survey of 136 Olympic athletes<br />
indicated athlete burnout was negatively correlated with their appraisal of confidence <strong>and</strong><br />
group cohesion, <strong>and</strong> positively correlated with role conflict <strong>and</strong> lack of time with<br />
significant others outside sport. These findings further support the notion that burnout<br />
may be best explained by a model that acknowledges social influences.<br />
Interestingly gender differences in burnout among athletes has received little<br />
attention. Lai <strong>and</strong> Wiggins (2003) examined burnout perceptions in collegiate soccer<br />
players. Their hypotheses were formulated based on gender <strong>and</strong> burnout research<br />
conducted with coaches. They found that while burnout symptoms significantly increased
<strong>Burnout</strong> 95<br />
over the course of a competitive season, no gender differences in burnout perceptions<br />
were existent. The authors suggested that future research address possible gender<br />
differences in burnout among athletes. This is important so future research examining<br />
gender <strong>and</strong> burnout among athletes can formulate hypotheses based on previous athlete<br />
literature <strong>and</strong> not from coach research.<br />
<strong>Coach</strong>es <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong> Research<br />
Research has examined various aspects of burnout <strong>and</strong> has discovered several<br />
components mediating its occurrence in coaches. The issue of role conflict <strong>and</strong><br />
ambiguity on coach burnout has been the subject of inspection. Capel et al. (1987) found<br />
role conflict related significantly to emotional exhaustion, <strong>and</strong> role ambiguity with<br />
depersonalization. Years as a head coach related with scores on the personal<br />
accomplishment scale. While the results pertaining to role conflict <strong>and</strong> ambiguity only<br />
accounted for a small percentage of the data variance, the findings have been supported<br />
by other research with coaches (Weiss, 1987a) <strong>and</strong> athletes (Kjormo & Halvari, 2002).<br />
Contrary to the relationship the authors found with regards to years coaching <strong>and</strong><br />
burnout, Vealey <strong>and</strong> colleagues (1992) did not find years coaching related to burnout in<br />
either gender, indicating another potential area for future attention.<br />
Research has also inspected the role gender plays in coach burnout; however,<br />
equivocal findings have been demonstrated (Davenport, 1998). Caccese <strong>and</strong> Mayerberg<br />
(1984) administered the Maslach <strong>Burnout</strong> Inventory to 231 collegiate head coaches.<br />
Their results indicated that female coaches experienced significantly higher levels of<br />
burnout denoted by greater levels of emotional exhaustion <strong>and</strong> lower levels of personal<br />
accomplishments than their counterpart. No gender differences were found regarding the
<strong>Burnout</strong> 96<br />
depersonalization subscale. Similar results have been mirrored by other studies regarding<br />
the emotional exhaustion subscale (Kelley, 1994; Kelley, Eklund, & Ritter-Taylor, 1999;<br />
Pastore & Judd, 1993; Vealey et al., 1992). However, Pastore & Judd (1993) <strong>and</strong> Vealey<br />
<strong>and</strong> colleagues (1992) failed to demonstrate any gender differences regarding the<br />
personal accomplishment subscale. Where these studies have found no gender<br />
differences regarding the depersonalization subscale of the MBI, others have suggested<br />
males experience greater levels of depersonalization than females (Dale & Weinberg,<br />
1989). It can be concluded that gender differences in burnout among coaches needs<br />
further examination to help clarify the inconsistent findings of the previous research.<br />
Leadership Behavior <strong>and</strong> <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
A line of athlete burnout research of particular interest to the present investigator<br />
has inspected the role coaches play in the occurrence of burnout among athletes. Vealey<br />
et al. (1998) examined the influences perceived coaching behaviors had on athletes’<br />
burnout. Through their investigation of 149 female collegiate athletes <strong>and</strong> 12 coaches,<br />
authors found several coaching behaviors relating to athlete’s burnout. Results suggested<br />
that those athletes scoring higher on the negative self-concept, emotional <strong>and</strong> physical<br />
exhaustion, devaluation, <strong>and</strong> psychological withdrawal dimensions perceived coaching<br />
behaviors to be less empathetic, stressing winning more than development, <strong>and</strong> using<br />
more dispraise <strong>and</strong> an autocratic coaching style. These results were complimented by<br />
research conducted by Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss (2000). These authors discovered that female<br />
varsity soccer players experiencing low perceived sport competence <strong>and</strong> pleasure along<br />
with higher anxiety <strong>and</strong> burnout levels reported coaching behaviors that were<br />
characterized by less instruction or training, social support, positive feedback <strong>and</strong> more
<strong>Burnout</strong> 97<br />
autocratic in nature. More important to the proposed research, it was also found that<br />
athletes who reported lower levels of burnout also perceived coaching behaviors to be<br />
more democratic rather than autocratic in nature.<br />
Similarly, research has also examined the role coach leadership behaviors play in<br />
burnout among coaches. Dale <strong>and</strong> Weinberg (1989) surveyed 302 high school <strong>and</strong><br />
collegiate coaches to determine the relationship between leadership style <strong>and</strong> burnout.<br />
The authors found that coaches exhibiting a consideration style of leadership rather than<br />
an initiating structure style scored higher on the depersonalization <strong>and</strong> emotional<br />
exhaustion subscales, a result also suggested by more recent research (Price & Weiss,<br />
2000). Those authors found that coaches who scored higher on the emotional exhaustion<br />
subscale were perceived by athletes as using more democratic <strong>and</strong> less autocratic<br />
decision-making behaviors. Consideration style coaches typically exhibit more of a<br />
friendship, trustworthy, <strong>and</strong> respectful interactions with their athletes. Dale <strong>and</strong><br />
Weinberg (1989) noted this style of leadership is often associated with coaches who are<br />
democratic, oriented in intrapersonal relationships, caring, approachable, <strong>and</strong> warm. This<br />
disposition may invite them to become emotionally invested in their athletes. This may<br />
relate to an other-oriented approach to coaching, a personality characteristic which has<br />
been linked to burnout (Feigley, 1984; Henschen, 1998).<br />
Other research has demonstrated an opposing relationship between burnout <strong>and</strong><br />
leadership. Kelley et al. (1999) found that coaches who reported more consideration<br />
leadership behaviors also reported lower burnout levels. Similar trends have also been<br />
suggested as coaches who scored higher on burnout subscales of depersonalization <strong>and</strong><br />
emotional exhaustion have been perceived by their athletes as using more of an autocratic
<strong>Burnout</strong> 98<br />
style of coaching (Vealey et al., 1998). In attempting to explain this discrepancy in the<br />
coach population, Vealey <strong>and</strong> colleagues (1998) suggested methodological differences<br />
may be at fault. Dale <strong>and</strong> Weinberg (1989) assessed leadership behaviors through<br />
coaches’ self-reported measures. The Vealey study (1998) determined leadership<br />
behaviors using athletes’ perceptions of the coaching behaviors. This difference in<br />
measurement may have lead to the equivocal findings.<br />
The results of the decision-making behavior <strong>and</strong> burnout research warrant future<br />
attention. The literature suggests that the coaches’ decision-making style (democratic or<br />
consideration) which has been shown to ignite at times their own burnout is one that may<br />
keep athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the decision-making style linked to<br />
athlete burnout (autocratic or initiating structure) may be one that protects coaches from<br />
experiencing the same. With the results of the abovementioned research equivocal,<br />
future research is clearly needed to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship<br />
<strong>and</strong> reduce the likelihood of either group experiencing burnout.<br />
Prevention <strong>and</strong> Treatment of <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
Various approaches have been offered for treating <strong>and</strong> preventing burnout.<br />
Outside of a sport context, Pines (2000) proposed a psychodynamic existential<br />
perspective on burnout <strong>and</strong> believed the phenomenon occurred when individuals failed to<br />
derive meaning in their lives from their career. Although the theory was presented<br />
outside the sport context, it lends itself nicely to coaches, who could fail to perceive life<br />
significance from their effort <strong>and</strong> work in a sport environment. In treating burnout, it was<br />
necessary to identify the conscious <strong>and</strong> unconscious reasons for an individual’s choice in<br />
vocation <strong>and</strong> how this choice was believed to lead to a sense of life significance. In
addition, it was important to determine why a person failed to derive a sense of<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 99<br />
significance from their work <strong>and</strong> how this failure relates to burnout. Finally, changes that<br />
were believed to enable the person to achieve meaning in life through their work were<br />
established to help treat burnout.<br />
Much like the definitions of burnout, how to overcome the phenomenon as it<br />
occurs in sport varies depending on the theoretical framework used to explain burnout.<br />
Based on his cognitive-affective stress model, Smith (1986) suggested the additional or<br />
unnecessary sources of stress placed on athletes not endemic to the sport setting be<br />
addressed. Advocated were sport programs that diversify practices, modify problematic<br />
coaching <strong>and</strong> parental behaviors, <strong>and</strong> structuring sport experiences that are rewarding to<br />
the athlete. Further, learning athletic <strong>and</strong> problem-solving skills could enhance an<br />
athlete’s coping ability to perceived stress. Fostering social support through team<br />
building, communication training, <strong>and</strong> coach training was also believed to help reduce the<br />
likelihood of burnout. Other research has provided similar suggestions, stressing the<br />
importance of social support <strong>and</strong> communication skills, a creative <strong>and</strong> fun training<br />
environment, <strong>and</strong> providing rewarding experiences where athletes feel a sense of<br />
accomplishment (Feigley, 1984; Fender, 1989; Gilbert, 1988; Raedeke et al., 2002;<br />
Rotella et al., 1991).<br />
Rotella et al., (1991) presented additional suggestions empirically supported for<br />
athletes to help prevent burnout from occurring as well as suggestions for coaches to<br />
assist their athletes in avoiding burnout. Ideas for athletes were to have a well-rounded<br />
identity <strong>and</strong> sport interests, take days off from practice or find time to relax, emphasize<br />
quality practices rather than its quantity, <strong>and</strong> to try <strong>and</strong> make practicing <strong>and</strong> competing
fun. Suggestions for coaches in keeping their athletes from burning out included<br />
watching signs for staleness, having an awareness of personalities that are more<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 100<br />
susceptible to burnout, vary practices, <strong>and</strong> encouraging athletes to keep balance in their<br />
lives <strong>and</strong> pursue non-sport interests.<br />
Coakley (1992) recommended moving away from stress as the basis for<br />
prevention <strong>and</strong> argued that changes in several social arenas would provide the best means<br />
for battling burnout. The following areas were targeted for adjustment: the social<br />
relations associated with the elite sport participation, the amount of control athletes have<br />
over their lives outside of <strong>and</strong> in sport, the social organization of sport programs <strong>and</strong> its<br />
circumstances of competition <strong>and</strong> training, <strong>and</strong> the ability of athletes to assess the reasons<br />
for their participation <strong>and</strong> its significance to the rest of their lives. Coakley stressed<br />
attempting to aid athletes in adjusting to the social isolation <strong>and</strong> dependency often<br />
associated with sport only serves to foreclose those athletes’ identity <strong>and</strong> entrapment in<br />
sport. Focusing on the social circumstances in which the athlete’s identity is foreclosed<br />
can help foster autonomy <strong>and</strong> control over their lives reducing the opportunities for<br />
burnout, an idea also supported by others (Feigley, 1984).<br />
Utilizing a stress-based foundation for burnout, Weiss (1987b) provided strategies<br />
for combating burnout in coaches <strong>and</strong> proposed psychological skills training to do so.<br />
Skills recommended to induce relaxation <strong>and</strong> reduce anxiety <strong>and</strong>/or stress included self-<br />
talk modification, controlling physiological arousal, <strong>and</strong> mental imagery. Also proffered<br />
were enhancing communication skills, reducing role conflict <strong>and</strong> ambiguity, seeking<br />
social support, <strong>and</strong> reserving time for themselves.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 101<br />
Dale <strong>and</strong> Weinberg (1989) also offered several strategies for the prevention of<br />
burnout for coaches with more of a consideration style of leadership. It was<br />
recommended that coaches focus on quality time with athletes, rather than quantity of<br />
time. Relaxation, imagery, <strong>and</strong> goal setting, <strong>and</strong> other coping techniques should be used<br />
as stress-management skills to help coaches deal with the pressures associated with their<br />
vocation. The authors also mentioned that because of the physical symptoms often<br />
experienced with burnout it is important that coaches maintain a good level of physical<br />
health by keeping in shape, sustaining a proper diet, <strong>and</strong> getting adequate sleep. Finally,<br />
it was suggested coaches realize they are not completely responsible for their athletes’<br />
welfare, <strong>and</strong> to rely on other avenues of social support (i.e. parents, assistant coaches,<br />
sport psychologist) to help address athlete needs.<br />
Summary<br />
The previous chapter discussed the definitions of burnout <strong>and</strong> its related terms,<br />
the major theoretical frameworks used to explain its occurrence, <strong>and</strong> the instrumentation<br />
available to assess burnout. In addition, burnout as it occurs in both athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches<br />
was addressed, as well as suggestions for its treatment <strong>and</strong> prevention. Despite the<br />
attention that burnout in a sport context has started to receive, other areas of investigation<br />
are certainly warranted.<br />
Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss (2000) noted that in addition to their own, only one other study<br />
(Vealey et al., 1998) has examined the relationships between perceived coaching<br />
behaviors, coach burnout, <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout (or other psychological outcomes) using<br />
the multidimensional model of leadership. Two areas of interest are present regarding this<br />
line of research. First, the relationship of decision-making style <strong>and</strong> burnout among
coaches has yet to be clearly identified. As mentioned above, research has yielded<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 102<br />
inconsistent findings. An additional issue of concern arises as the coaches’ decision-<br />
making style that has been linked at times to their own burnout (democratic or<br />
consideration) is one that may keep athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the<br />
decision-making style linked to athlete burnout (autocratic or initiating structure) may be<br />
one that protects coaches from experiencing the same. Future research is clearly needed<br />
to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship <strong>and</strong> reduce the likelihood of either<br />
group experiencing burnout.<br />
The aforementioned research has paved the way for future studies to examine<br />
similar aspects of leadership behavior <strong>and</strong> both coach <strong>and</strong> athlete burnout. Despite their<br />
contributions to the literature, portions of the methodology or study design could be<br />
modified. For example, although Vealey et al’s. (1998) study included an assessment of<br />
coach’s use of autocratic behaviors according to athletes, they did not assess athletes’<br />
perception of a coach’s use of democratic behavior. In addition, a sport-specific measure<br />
to assess coach burnout was not used. Further, the sample of coaches included in the<br />
research was limited (n=12). Price <strong>and</strong> Weiss’ (2000) study did not include a sport-<br />
specific instrument to assess coach burnout. Further, their sample size of coaches was<br />
also limited (n=15). Future research that attempts to identify the relationship between the<br />
perception of decision-making behaviors utilized by coaches <strong>and</strong> athlete <strong>and</strong> coach<br />
burnout should consider utilizing an adequate sample size of each population as well as<br />
employing the use of sport-specific measures to assess burnout.
APPENDIX J<br />
Review of Literature References<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 103
References<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 104<br />
Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W., Sixma, H., Bosveld, W., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2000).<br />
Patient dem<strong>and</strong>s, lack of reciprocity, <strong>and</strong> burnout: A five-year longitudinal study<br />
among general practitioners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 425-441.<br />
Barrow, J. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review <strong>and</strong> conceptual framework.<br />
Academy of Management Review,2, 231-251.<br />
Caccese, T., & Mayerberg, C. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of<br />
college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 279-288.<br />
Capel, S., Sisley, B., & Desertrain, G. (1987). The relationship of role conflict <strong>and</strong> role<br />
ambiguity to burnout in high school basketball coaches. Journal of Sport<br />
Psychology, 9, 106-117.<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied<br />
Sport Sciences, 5, 226-231.<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences <strong>and</strong> perceptions of leadership<br />
behavior <strong>and</strong> satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport<br />
Psychology, 6, 27-41.<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport<br />
Psychology, 21, 328-354.<br />
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, <strong>and</strong> L. Tennant (Eds.),<br />
H<strong>and</strong>book of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan<br />
Publishing Company.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity <strong>and</strong> preferred leadership.<br />
Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.
Chelladurai, P., & Doherty, A. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaching. In J.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 105<br />
Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance<br />
(pp.115-126). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T.R. (1978). A normative model of decision-making styles<br />
in coaching. Athletic Administrator, 13, 6-9.<br />
Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R., & Baxter, P. (1989). Decision style choices of university<br />
basketball coaches <strong>and</strong> players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 201-<br />
215.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaches. In J.L. Duda<br />
(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology measurement (pp. 227-253). Morgantown,<br />
WV: Fitness Information Technology.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of<br />
Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.<br />
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports:<br />
Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.<br />
Coakley, J. (1992). <strong>Burnout</strong> among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social<br />
problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285.<br />
Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1989). The relationship between coaches’ leadership style <strong>and</strong><br />
burnout. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 1-13.<br />
Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1990). <strong>Burnout</strong> in sport: A review <strong>and</strong> critique. Journal of<br />
Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 67-83.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 106<br />
Davenport, M. (1998). A descriptive analysis of the burnout of rowing coaches over a<br />
competitive season. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College,<br />
Wilmington, Ohio.<br />
Densten, I. (2001). Re-thinking burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 833-<br />
847.<br />
Dwyer, J., & Fischer, D. (1988). Psychometric properties of the coach’s version of<br />
Leadership Scale for Sports. Perceptual <strong>and</strong> Motor Skills, 67, 795-798.<br />
Feigley, D. (1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician <strong>and</strong><br />
Sportsmedicine, 12, 109-119.<br />
Fender, L. (1988). Athletic burnout: A sport adaptation of the Maslach <strong>Burnout</strong><br />
Inventory. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kent State <strong>University</strong>.<br />
Fender, L. (1989). <strong>Athlete</strong> burnout: Potential for research <strong>and</strong> intervention strategies.<br />
The Sport Psychologist, 3, 63-71.<br />
Gilbert, R. (1988). Player burnout: How to prevent it. Soccer Journal, 33, 32.<br />
Gould, D. (1996). Personal motivation gone awry: <strong>Burnout</strong> in competitive athletes.<br />
Quest, 48, 275-289.<br />
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). <strong>Burnout</strong> in competitive junior tennis<br />
players: II. A qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341-366.<br />
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1997). <strong>Burnout</strong> in competitive junior tennis<br />
players: III. Individual differences in the burnout experience. The Sport<br />
Psychologist, 11, 257-275.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 107<br />
Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). <strong>Burnout</strong> in competitive junior tennis<br />
players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10,<br />
322-340.<br />
Henschen, K. (1998). Athletic staleness <strong>and</strong> burnout: Diagnosis, prevention, <strong>and</strong><br />
treatment. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to<br />
peak performance (pp.398-408). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing<br />
Company.<br />
Henschen, K. (2000). Maladaptive fatigue syndrome <strong>and</strong> emotions in sport. In Y. Hanin<br />
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 231-242). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics<br />
House, R.J., & Dressler, G. (1974). A path-goal theory of leadership. In J.G. Hunt &<br />
L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29-55).<br />
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Kallus, K.W., & Kellmann, M. (2000). <strong>Burnout</strong> in athletes <strong>and</strong> coaches In Y. Hanin<br />
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 209-230). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<br />
Kelley, B. (1994). A model of stress <strong>and</strong> burnout in collegiate coaches: Effects of<br />
gender <strong>and</strong> time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise <strong>and</strong> Sport, 65, 48-58.<br />
Kelley, B., Eklund, R., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress <strong>and</strong> burnout among collegiate<br />
tennis coaches. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.<br />
Kelley, B., & Gill, D. (1993). An examination of personal/situational variables, stress<br />
appraisal, <strong>and</strong> burnout in collegiate teacher-coaches. Research Quarterly for<br />
Exercise <strong>and</strong> Sport, 64, 94-102.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 108<br />
Kjormo, O., & Halvari, H. (2002). Relation of burnout with lack of time for being with<br />
significant others, role conflict, cohesion, <strong>and</strong> self-confidence, among Norwegian<br />
Olympic athletes. Perceptual <strong>and</strong> Motor Skills, 94, 795-804.<br />
Lai, C., & Wiggins, S. (2003). <strong>Burnout</strong> perceptions over time in NCAA division I soccer<br />
players. International Sports Journal, 7, 120-127.<br />
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal<br />
of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99-113.<br />
McCann, S. (1995). Overtraining <strong>and</strong> burnout. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology<br />
interventions (pp.347-368). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<br />
Metzler, J. (2002). Applying motivational principles to individual athletes. In J. Silva<br />
<strong>and</strong> D. Stevens (Ed.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp.80-106). Boston,<br />
MA: Allyn & Bacon.<br />
Murphy, S., Fleck, S., Dudley, G., & Callister, R. (1990). Psychological <strong>and</strong> performance<br />
concomitants of increased volume training in elite athletes. Journal of Applied<br />
Sport Psychology, 2, 34-50.<br />
Pastore, D., & Judd, M. (1993). Gender differences in burnout among coaches of<br />
women’s athletic teams at 2-year colleges. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 205-<br />
212.<br />
Perlman, B., & Hartman, E.A. (1982). <strong>Burnout</strong>: Summary <strong>and</strong> future research. Human<br />
Relations, 35, 283-305.<br />
Pines, A.M. (2000). Treating career burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective.<br />
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 633-642.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 109<br />
Price, M., & Weiss, M. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviors,<br />
<strong>and</strong> athletes’ psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409.<br />
Raedeke, T. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment<br />
perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.<br />
Raedeke, T., Granzyk, T., & Warren, A. (2000). Why coaches experience burnout: A<br />
commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 85-105.<br />
Raedeke, T., Lunney, K., & Venables, K. (2002). Underst<strong>and</strong>ing athlete burnout: <strong>Coach</strong><br />
perspectives. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 181-206.<br />
Raedeke, T., & Smith, A. (2001). Development <strong>and</strong> preliminary validation of an athlete<br />
burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.<br />
Raglin, J. (1993). Overtraining <strong>and</strong> staleness: psychometric monitoring of endurance<br />
athletes. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, <strong>and</strong> L. Tennant (Eds.), H<strong>and</strong>book of research<br />
on sport psychology (pp. 840-850). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.<br />
Raglin, J., & Wilson, G. (2000). Overtraining in athletes. In Y. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in<br />
sport (pp. 191-207). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<br />
Rotella, R., Hanson, T., & Coop, R. (1991). <strong>Burnout</strong> in youth sports. The Elementary<br />
School Journal, 91, 421-428.<br />
Schmidt, G., & Stein, G. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating enjoyment,<br />
dropout, <strong>and</strong> burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 254-265.<br />
Silva, J. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in competitive athletics.<br />
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 5-20.<br />
Smith, R. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of<br />
Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.
<strong>Burnout</strong> 110<br />
Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model <strong>and</strong><br />
research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.<br />
Smoll, F., Smith, R., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E. (1978). Toward a mediational model of<br />
coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly, 49, 528-541.<br />
Sullivan, P., & Kent, A. (2003). <strong>Coach</strong>ing efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in<br />
intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1-11.<br />
Tenenbaum, G., Jones, C., Kitsantas, A., Sacks, D., & Berwick. (2003a). Failure<br />
adaptation: Psychological conceptualization of the stress response process in<br />
sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 1-26.<br />
Tenenbaum, G., Jones, C., Kitsantas, A., Sacks, D., & Berwick. (2003b). Failure<br />
adaptation: An investigation of the stress response process in sport. International<br />
Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 27-62.<br />
Turman, P. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective:<br />
The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences <strong>and</strong><br />
perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education,<br />
52,73-86.<br />
Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Tuffey, S. (1997). People helping people? Examining<br />
the social ties of athletes coping with burnout <strong>and</strong> injury stress. Journal of Sport<br />
& Exercise Psychology, 19, 368-395.<br />
Vealey, R., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. (1998). Influence of perceived<br />
coaching behaviors on burnout <strong>and</strong> competitive anxiety in female college athletes.<br />
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318.
Vealey, R., Udry, E., Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal <strong>and</strong><br />
situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise<br />
Psychology, 14, 40-58.<br />
<strong>Burnout</strong> 111<br />
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership <strong>and</strong> decision-making. Pittsburgh: <strong>University</strong><br />
of Pittsburgh Press.<br />
Weinberg, R, & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport <strong>and</strong> exercise psychology.<br />
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<br />
Weiss, M. (1987a). Avoiding burnout, part I: Recognizing burnout. <strong>Coach</strong>ing Women’s<br />
Basketball: Official Journal of the WBCA, 1, 15-17.<br />
Weiss, M. (1987b). Avoiding burnout, part II: Beating burnout. <strong>Coach</strong>ing Women’s<br />
Basketball: Official Journal of the WBCA, 1, 6-9.<br />
Wright, T., & Bonett, D. (1997). The contribution of burnout to work performance.<br />
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 491-499.