Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine how relationships involving coaches and peers effect youth athletes’ motivation to participate in and continue to play competitive sports. This literature review will analyze the impact demographics can have on social connections as a motivation for youth athletes. A total of five journals were reviewed that attempted to answer the previous statement through case studies. During the course of this literature review, strengths and weaknesses of the case studies will be addressed along with some of the methods and conclusions made by the authors. In conclusion this paper will not only show that social connections are a major factor that influences youth athletes’ motivation to participate in competitive sports, but this review will also show how different demographics are affected by social connections .

Literature Review

There has been different types of research conducted in sports physiology over the years in an attempt to gain better understanding of athletes’ motivation within youth sports. Much of the research has focused on motivation and how it relates to a youth athlete’s physical ability, the task itself, and even ego goal orientations (Allen, 2003). In understanding a youth athlete’s motivation in sport an important element tends to be overlooked, social connection (Allen, 2003). The approach of viewing motivation and effects of social connections is also known as social goal orientation (Allen, 2003). This paper will discuss, analyze, and evaluate current research that focuses on how relationships with coaches and peers motivate youth athletes to participate in and continue to play competitive sports. The primary objective will be to evaluate how specific demographics effect youth athletes‘ motivation.

There are various reasons for why it would be beneficial to understand what different types of factors motivate youth athletes to participate in sports. This information would be critical for coaches, parents, teachers, and many other individuals who work directly with youth athletes on a daily basis. When reviewing the role of a coach, I believe their two primary responsibilities are to understand what motivates an individual athlete to do their best and what makes the sport enjoyable to that athlete.

Justine B. Allen from the Department of Sport and Leisure at the University of Waikato conducted a study involving one hundred high school girls between the ages of 14-17 with the use of a survey. The purpose of Allen’s (2003) study was to, “Examine the contribution that social goal orientations and perceptions of belonging make toward understanding youth sport motivation” (p. 551). The results from Allen’s (2003) study indicates that three social factors effected youth athletes’ participation in sports: close social relationships, social validation through popularity, and social validation through peer recognition.

Though Allen (2003) believes and proves that few individuals will participate in youth sports on their own, parts of her research may be misleading. I agree that social factors effect youth athletes’ participation in sports, however the population Allen choose to use in her study was a small sample size that was gender specific by only including female athletes. It is unclear if Allen assumes that both male and female athletes require the same social relationships and validation through popularity because she never acknowledges in her case study that male athlete may potentially have different needs. It’s not to say that Allen needed to have a clear understand of male athletes, but to acknowledge that there could possibly be a different would have been sufficient. I believe that some of Allen’s statements may have been too general and she failed to take gender into consideration when making her conclusions.

Alan L. Smith, Sarah Ullrich-French, Eddie Walker II, and Kimbery S. Hurley (2006) of both Purdue University and Sothern Illinois University examined not only young female athletes, but also young male athletes. The study indicated that male athletes are more likely to feel isolated or ignored by their peers in their sport (Smith et al., 2006). The same study also concluded that female athletes need more validation from their peers than males do and females only tend to participate in a sport when a friend accompanies them (Smith et al., 2006). I believe the above statement can be very valuable insight for coaches when try to better understand a female athletes versus male athletes. Both Allen’s study as well as Smith‘s, Ullrich-French‘s, Walker’s II, and Hurley’s study strongly prove the point that coaches need to be cognoscente that youth male and female athletes have differences when it comes to motivation. A coach that is in tune with their players and has this knowledge will be able to motivate their players in a more positive and productive manner. When it comes to motivating youth athletes through social connections, there is evidence that shows one should be gender specific.

Allen’s study would have stronger validation if she had used a larger sample size and if she had included young male athletes as well. The athletes in Allen’s (2003) study had participation in sports that ranged from never having participated to 11 years of participation (m=5.07, sd= 2.70). I think that it would have been more effective if Allen had focused on athletes with a smaller variance of time participated in sports. The reason for this is because as an athlete gets older, he or she could have different reason for wanting to participate in sports depending on how socially conscious they were. Janice Butcher from the University of Manitoba, Koenraad J. Lindner from the University of Hong Kong, and David P. Johns (2002) from Chinese University of Hong Kong conducted a study of why youth athletes withdrawal from sports and state that, “Significant differences were found in withdrawal reasons among dropout types, program types, grade levels, and between gender” (p. 145).

Butcher’s, Lindner’s, and Johns’ study population is what I would consider a strong sample population. The sample population consisted of 1,387 participants including both male and female student-athletes in the 10th grade completed a sport participation profile (Butcher et al., 2002). The population was picked from 13 different high schools across North America (Butcher et al., 2002). When determining the type of population to use for this study, the focus was to accurately represent socioeconomic and ethnical characteristics (Butcher et al., 2002). This study did a more proficient by looking at a cross section of ethnical characteristics than Smiths, Ullrich-French‘s, Walker’s II, and Hurley’s study which included an astonishing 92.2% white population with only 4.5% of the sample size being American Indian, Asian, and Black and less that 1% being from another ethnical background (Butcher et al., 2002).

I believe socioeconomic circumstances play a major role with an athletes motivation to play a sport. It is a proven fact that many inner-city athletes who come from families that are living below the poverty line view athletics as their only way out. Anyone who ever watched the emotionally inspiring documentary Hoop Dreams know that the two young black men were motivated by socioeconomic factors that middleclass athletes living in the suburbs would not relate to. Looking back to Allen’s (2003) conclusion that close social relationships, social validation through popularity, and social validation through peer recognition were the main reasons youths participate in sport doesn’t apply to the two lead characters William Gates and Arthur Agee of Hoop Dreams. To me it appeared that Gates’ and Agee’s primary motivation was to utilize the game of basketball as a tool to get off the streets, into college, and one day play professional basketball. This doesn’t mean that Allen’s conclusion was wrong; however it doesn’t apply to every case and every demographic.

The purpose of Butcher’s, Lindner’s, and Johns’ (2002) study was to determine why youth athletes withdraw from competitive sports. The study concluded that significant differences were seen among dropout types, program types, grade levels and genders (Butcher et al., 2002). An interesting factor this study focused on was it reasons for withdrawal were different between low, high, and elite level athletes (Butcher et al., 2002). Low level athletes often withdrew due to lack of enjoyment in the sport and athletes feeling they were inadequate; while elite athletes withdrew due to too much pressure and injuries (Butcher et al., 2002). The study finally concluded that nearly all young athletes dropped out of a sport at one time in their life (Butcher et al., 2002). However, a majority of the athletes that participated in many sports throughout their school years and were continually looking for the sports that most appealed to them (Butcher et al., 2002). When reviewing the methods used in this study, it is clear that it coved critical aspects for why youth athletes withdraw from competitive sports. The sample size, breakdown of genders, socioeconomic, and ethnical characteristics are all taken into consideration in Butcher‘s, Linder’s, and Johns’ (2002) study. I believe that this study could be duplicated and the outcome would be relatively the same.

The concept of low level athletes and elite level athletes citing different reasons for withdrawing and continuing to play a sport should not be overlooked. This is why I mentioned that I would have liked to see Allen use a more narrow range of athletes’ participation in sports in her study. Instead Allen (2003) used a range from never having participated to 11 years of participation and I believe it is too wide of a range. One could hypothesize that an athlete that has 11 years of experience in a sport will be at a higher level of performance than someone who is in their first year. Thus, Butcher’s, Lindner’s, and Johns’ (2002) study would conclude that these two different groups also have different factors that motivate them and will have different reasons for why they would decide to withdraw from the sport.

Richard Keegan, Christopher Spray, Chris Harwood, and David Lavallee (2010) conducted a case study that also had good aspects such as the type of population used. The young athletes involved in the study had participation in sports ranging from 2 to 6 years (Keegan et al., 2010). Patterns found in Keegan’s, Spray’s, Harwood’s, and Lavallee’s study may be stronger because they were able to focus on a smaller standard deviation in the amount of participation time then did Allen. Keegan, Spray, Harwood, and Lavallee (2010) had a unique approach to their case study in the fact that out of all five case studies reviewed here, they were the only ones that used 12 focus groups that interviewed a total of 79 youth athletes. The main questions used during the interviews focused on the influences coaches, parents, and peers had on athletes’ motivation behaviors (Keegan et al., 2010).

Instead of using a questionnaire or a survey as the other cases used, Keegan Spray, Harwood, and Lavallee (2010) allowed the young athletes to respond freely and at times debates emerged amongst the participants of the study. A focus group can be very insightful when trying to understand the motivation of youth athletes, however having 12 different focus groups leads me to question the consistency of the questions being administered to the different groups. At the same time, a questionnaire or survey can be structured and systematic when collecting data. A limitation that can be seen with a questionnaire or survey is that it can really limit the response from the participant.

Keegan’s, Spray‘s, Harwood‘s, and Lavallee’s (2010) study showed that both coaches and parents were able to influence motivation with verbal feedback and behavioral reinforcement. Keegan’s, Spray’s, Harwood’s, and Lavallee’s (2010) study came to the same conclusions the others studies did by indicating that in most cases, positive feedback was viewed as producing better results then negative feedback. It was noted that on some occasions negative feedback could undermine motivation, cause frustration, and may hurt the athlete’s relationship with the person giving the feedback (Keegan et al., 2010).

Keegan, Spray, Harwood, Lavallee (2010) also examined peer relationships and social interactions and found that relationships among peers may be used to encourage or discourage certain achievement motivations. For example one athlete said, “It just makes you want to keep doing that, for them, for the rest of the team….you have another 10 people on the pitch with you and you want to keep doing it for them.” (Keegan et al., 2010, p. 99). This ties in with Allen’s (2003) research that indicated there were three social factors that effected youth athletes’ participation in sports. All three major factors of Allen’s study are also supported by Keegan’s research.

In conjunction with Allen’s study as well as Keegan’s, Spray’s, Harwood’s, and Lavallee’s study a look should be taken at Cheryl P. Stuntz and Maureen R. Weiss’ study. Stuntz and Weiss (2009) asked youth athletes questions such as: “I please my coach when I perform well”, “My sport friend looks out for me”, and “Everyone on the team wants me for a friend” (p. 257). As in the other studies discussed, social goal orientations surfaced as being directly related to motivational outcomes in Stuntz‘s and Weiss‘ (2009) study. There was a strong correlation between success and friendships that had been established, being accepted by a peer group, and receiving praise from a coach Stuntz & Weiss, 2009). This study attempted to make the assertion that social connections were more relative when it comes to motivation than physical ability, the task itself, and even ego goal orientations (Stuntz & Weiss, 2009).

I think it is important to look at the demographics of the group questioned by Stuntz and Weiss. The population of Stuntz’s and Weiss’ (2009) study consisted of 303 middle-school students (157 female, 145 male, one did not indicate gender). Socioeconomic data is unknown, however the athletes’ age ranged between 11 and 14 years old and once again the sample was predominantly White (81.8%), with Black (7.3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (5.3%), Hispanic (1.3%), and American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut (1.0%) (Stuntz & Weiss, 2009). I would like to see further research conducted that has a better breakdown of socioeconomic and ethnical characteristics.

All of the case studies discussed were able to show a correlation between social connections and participation in sports. I think we would all agree that there are many reasons why youth athletes choose to play a sport or decide to stick with that sport. This literature review discussed the influence demographics have on social connections. It is important that more research be conducted to better understand social connections in youth sports instead of being overlooked to analyze more familiar territory of youth motivation. We all have different motivation influences and this paper has been able to shed some light on the sources of some of those motivations It would be unwise for any coach to ignore the effects of social connections and a youth athletes motivation to participate in and continue to participate in competitive sports.

References:

Allen, J. B. (2003). Social Motivation in Youth Sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25(4), 551-567.

Butcher, J., Lindner, K. J., & Johns, D. P. (2002). Withdrawal from Competitive Youth Sport: A Retrospective Ten-Year Study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(2), 145-161.

Keegan, R., Spray, C., Harwood, C., & Lavallee, D. (2010). The Motivational Atmosphere in Youth Sport; Coach, Parent, and Peer Influences on Motivation in Specializing Sport Participants. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(1), 87-105.

Smith, A. L., Ullrich-French, S., Walker II, E., & Hurley, K. S. (2006). Peer Relationship Profiles and Motivation in Youth Sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28.(3), 362-382 Retrieved from   

Stuntz, C. P., & Weiss, M. R. (2009). Achievement Goal Orientations and Motivational Outcome in Youth Sport; the Role of Social Orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(2), 255-262.