Coach and Athlete Burnout: The Role of Coaches’ Decision-Making Style

Brandonn S. Harris, B.S.

Thesis submitted to the School of Physical Education

at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science in

Sport and Exercise Psychology

Andrew C. Ostrow, Ph.D., Chair Jack C. Watson, II, Ph.D.

Roy H. Tunick, Ed.D.

Department of Sport and Exercise Psychology

Morgantown, WV 2005

Keywords: Coach and Athlete Burnout, Decision-Making, Leadership

ABSTRACT

Coach and Athlete Burnout: The Role of Coaches’ Decision-Making Style

Brandonn S. Harris

Recent burnout research has examined coaches and athletes collectively to determine the influence of coach behaviors on coach and athlete burnout. Results revealed a potential incongruity between decision-making behaviors and their influence on coach and athlete burnout. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between decision-making styles of coaches and burnout among coaches and athletes; gender influence on burnout was also examined. Collegiate swimmers and coaches completed questionnaires assessing burnout and decision-making behaviors. Results revealed a significant relationship between athlete burnout and autocratic coaching behaviors. A significant inverse relationship emerged between athlete burnout and democratic behaviors. ANOVAs revealed no significant interactions between gender and decision-making on burnout scores. Significant main effects were found for democratic behaviors on exhaustion and depersonalization subscales; swimmers classified as perceiving fewer democratic behaviors scored higher on these subscales. No significant relationships or gender differences were found with in the coaches.

iii

DEDICATION This entire work is dedicated to my Mom, Dad, Lindsey, and Meghan, whose continuous

love and support has been my impetus in completing this project and my graduate education. I love you all very much.

-Brandonn

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A project of this magnitude involves the work and guidance of others in order to be successful. There are several people who played a significant role with this thesis, without whom this endeavor would not have been possible.

I would like to thank my chair and advisor Dr. Andrew Ostrow for his guidance and wisdom throughout this entire process. The time and effort you have given over the past two years with this research has allowed me the opportunity to take an interest and idea and turn it into a terrific learning experience. I am very grateful for the knowledge you have imparted upon me and for the support you gave me, particularly when things were not going as planned.

I would also like to thank Dr. Jack Watson for serving on my committee and providing me with support and feedback with this project and life outside of the master’s thesis. I feel very fortunate to have you as a resource and future colleague. I cannot thank you enough for always making time for me when there is someone else in line waiting for your guidance. You have set a positive example for us future professionals to follow.

I am also grateful to Dr. Roy Tunick for his help, feedback, and support with my thesis. I am very appreciative to you for making the time to serve as one of my committee members and for the helpful comments and guidance you have provided me while completing this project.

I would also like to thank the personnel at the World Swimming Championships and World Coaching Clinic for their willingness to allow me the opportunity to collect my data at their venues. I would also like to acknowledge those collegiate swimmers and swimming coaches who took the time to complete my inventories and for providing me with such a crucial component to a project of this nature. Without your help, none of this would have evolved to the point it is at today.

I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues in the Sport and Exercise Psychology Program. It often takes the support and encouragement of folks who have been in your shoes before to help you endure the ups and downs that come with a thesis. In particular, I would like to thank Age for her constant support, kind words of encouragement, and wisdom over the past year. I would also like to thank Liz for sharing this experience with me. It has been a bumpy road for the both of us but we managed to pick each other up during the process.

A very big thank you to Lindsey Blom and her family, the Grossmans, for providing me with a place to stay while on the road collecting my data. Not having to worry about housing accommodations made this project financially feasible for me to take on. I am very grateful for your hospitality and generosity.

Finally, I would like to thank West Virginia University and the School of Physical Education for the funding they provided me to help finance this project. I appreciate the university and school’s financial support for graduate students taking on such endeavors.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1

Theory and Research Regarding Leadership Style in Sport . . 2

Research Regarding Decision-Making Style in Sport . . 4

Research Regarding Decision-Making Style and Burnout . . 7

Study Purposes, Hypotheses, and Significance . . . 9

Methods . . . . . . . . . 11

Participants . . . . . . . . 11

Measures Completed by Athletes . . . . . 11

Swimmer Demographic Information Form . . . 11

Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ) . . . 12

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: Athlete Perception) . 14

Measures Completed by Coaches . . . . . 17

Swimming Coach Demographic Information Form . . 17

Coach Burnout Questionnaire (CBQ) . . . 17

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: Coach Perception) . 18

Procedures . . . . . . . . 19

Athletes . . . . . . . 19

Coaches . . . . . . . 21

Results . . . . . . . . . 23

Collegiate Swimmers . . . . . . 25 Preliminary Analyses . . . . . 25

vi

Relationship Between Decision-Making Style and Burnout . 26 Influence of Gender and Autocratic Style on Burnout . 27 Influence of Gender and Democratic Style on Burnout . 28 Influence of Both Decision-Making Styles on Burnout . 29 Predictive Value of Decision-Making Style on Burnout . 30

Collegiate Swimming Coaches . . . . . 31

Preliminary Analyses . . . . . . 31 Relationship Between Decision-Making Style and Burnout . 32

Influence of Gender and Decision-Making Style on Burnout 32

Discussion . . . . . . . . . 33

Influence of Decision-Making on Swimmer’s Burnout . . 34

Influence of Decision-Making on Swimming Coaches’ Burnout . 38

Implications and Future Directions . . . . . 43

References . . . . . . . . . 47

Tables . . . . . . . . . 52

Figures . . . . . . . . . 54

Appendices . . . . . . . . . 58

Appendix A- Swimmer Demographic Information Form . . 58

Appendix B- Athlete Burnout Questionnaire . . . 60

Appendix C- Leadership Scale for Sports: Athlete Perception . 62

Appendix D- Swimming Coach Demographic Information Form . 65

Appendix E- Coach Burnout Questionnaire . . . . 67

Appendix F- Leadership Scale for Sports: Coach Perception . 69

vii

Appendix G- Cover Letter . . . . . . 72

Appendix H- IRB Approval Letter . . . . . 74

Appendix I- Review of Literature . . . . . 76

Appendix J- Review of Literature References . . . 103

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1- Internal Consistency and Descriptive Statistics for Intercollegiate 52

Swimmers and Coaches Table 2- Pearson Product Correlation Coefficients for Burnout and Decision- 53

Making Style Among Collegiate Swimmers and Collegiate Swimming Coaches

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. The Multidimensional Model of Leadership . . . 54 Figure 2. The Cognitive-Affective Model of Burnout . . . 55 Figure 3. The Negative Training Stress Syndrome . . . . 56 Figure 4. The Stress Response Process . . . . . 57

Burnout 1

INTRODUCTION

Burnout has become a topic of increasing interest to the sport community.

Originally explored in individuals in the helping professions, burnout is not a novel topic

in the study of human behavior. However, the concept has only begun to be examined in

a sport context with most of the research initiated a decade and a half ago. In fact, some

have even suggested that burnout has become synonymous with sports (Lai & Wiggins,

2003). When asked what feelings they associate with being burned out, athletes and

coaches often cite internal and external sources of pressure, physical and mental

exhaustion, mood changes, increased anxiety, and lack of caring (Weinberg & Gould,

1999). As both athletes and coaches experiencing burnout can mentally and physically

withdraw from a sport they once used to enjoy, it is apparent that a great deal of

significance rests in the understanding of burnout.

Various theories and definitions of burnout have played an instrumental role in

guiding research toward an understanding of the construct and variables believed to

influence burnout. Relevant models have taken a cognitive-affective approach (Smith,

1986), a negative response to training stress (Silva, 1990), the result of sport commitment

or entrapment (Raedeke, 1997; Schmidt & Stein, 1991), or have taken a social

phenomenon approach (Coakley, 1992). With these and other works (e.g. Feigley, 1984)

having focused on athlete burnout, burnout among coaches has also been explored

(Kelley, 1994; Vealey, Udry, Zimmerman, & Soliday, 1992).

Although the coach and athlete populations have received research attention

individually, recent studies have examined both groups collectively to determine the

influence of coaching behaviors on coach and athlete burnout (Price & Weiss, 2000;

Burnout 2

Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Tuffey, 1997; Vealey, Armstron, Comar, & Greenleaf, 1998).

Relevant behaviors would include type and amount of feedback, social support, amount

and type of training/instruction, and decision-making styles. This area of study seems to

have continuing promise for future research on burnout. This may be particularly true

should studies take aspects of coaching leadership behaviors into consideration when

examining athlete and coach burnout as relatively little attention has been given to this

area thus far. Although not frequently attending to its effect on burnout, the sport

leadership research has focused on coach and athlete leadership preferences and

satisfaction as a result of varying coach behaviors. Various frameworks have often

served as guides in conducting such research. To understand its potential influence on

both coach and athlete burnout, it is helpful to first examine the nature and types of coach

leadership behaviors and how they can impact the interactions between these two groups

of individuals.

Theoretical Framework and Research Regarding Leadership Style in Sport

Several models have emerged as major approaches in examining leadership in

sport (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Proposed have been a mediational model (Smoll &

Smith, 1989; Smoll, Smith, Curtis, & Hunt, 1978), a normative model of decision styles

(Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1978), and a multidimensional leadership model (Chelladurai,

1980, Chelladurai, 1990; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). While the mediational and

normative models have made important contributions to the sport leadership literature,

the multidimensional model will be described in further detail as it lends itself nicely for

the purposes of the present research.

Burnout 3

The multidimensional theory of leadership synthesized previous non-sport

leadership models (e.g. path-goal theory, House & Dressler, 1974) and extended them to

a sport context (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). The model proposes that athlete

satisfaction and group performance are a function of the combined effects of required,

preferred, and actual leader behavior (see Figure 1). Three antecedents affect the leader

behavior. These include situational, leader, and member characteristics. Required leader

behaviors are those necessitated by both situational and member characteristics. These

would include the parameters of the organization, its environment, governmental

regulations, age, and gender, for example (Chelladurai, 1990; Chelladurai & Riemer,

1998). Preferred leader behavior is determined by member characteristics and the

situational variables. Actual leader behavior is a function of characteristics of the leader,

required behavior, preferred leader behavior, and group performance and satisfaction.

Leader characteristics would include their personality, ability, and experiences

(Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Using this model of leadership as a guide, Chelladurai

and Saleh (1978, 1980) developed the Leadership Scale for Sports, a 40-item, five-factor

scale assessing specific coach leadership behaviors.

The LSS measures athletes’ perceptions of coach behavior, athletes’ preferences

of coach behavior, and coaches’ perceptions of their own behavior (Chelladurai, 1990).

Dimensions of behavior that are included assess the degree to which coaches include

training and instruction, social support, positive feedback, and autocratic and democratic

decision-making behaviors in their coaching. An autocratic decision-making style refers

to one in which the coach has the final word regarding team decisions. A coach with a

democratic style tends to include the team in the decision-making process. (Chelladurai

Burnout 4

& Doherty, 1998). These latter two dimensions are of particular interest for the current

study as one style of decision-making may predispose athletes to experience burnout

while the other has been found to predispose coaches towards burnout (e.g. Dale &

Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss, 2000; Vealey et al., 1998). As stated previously,

research investigating the influence of leadership behaviors on coach and athlete burnout

has been somewhat scarce, particularly as it relates to the moderating effects of coaches’

decision-making behaviors. However, related research has focused on coach and athlete

leadership preferences and satisfaction as a result of varying coach behaviors.

Using the multidimensional model and dimensions of the LSS as a guide, several

studies have examined athlete and coach preferences of various leadership behaviors.

For example, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) found that athletes in team sports preferred

greater coaching behaviors emphasizing training than those in individual sports. Further,

males were found to prefer social support more than females. Chelladurai and Carron

(1983) also studied these two coaching behaviors. Their investigation assessed if

preferences for social support and training and instruction varied as a function of athletic

maturity. Their results indicated that training and instruction preferences decreased

throughout high school but increased at the university level. Preferences for social

support increased from early high school to the university level of athletics.

Research Regarding Decision-Making Style in Sport

Athlete preferences of decision-making styles have also been addressed in the

leadership literature. In this line of research, several styles of decision-making have been

identified. For example, although not developed in a sport context, Vroom and Yetton

(1973) presented a continuum of styles ranging from autocratic to group, where

Burnout 5

autocratic involved no participation of group members and group involved significant

input from the members. Two types of autocratic behaviors were proposed. The “truest”

form involved the leader making decisions him or herself based on the information

available at that moment. The second autocratic style had the leader collect information

from members and then make the decision on his or her own. Two types of consultative

behaviors were also included. With the first type leaders consulted members individually

and then made a decision on their own, sometimes based on the members’ feedback and

other times not. The second form involved leaders talking with members as a group and

still making their decision on their own. Finally, a group style of decision making had

leaders consulting with members and jointly making a decision.

Chelladurai and Haggerty (1978) offered three styles of sport-specific decision-

making. Autocratic behaviors where those in which the final decisions were made by the

coach. However, their concept of autocratic behaviors included those decisions that may

have been made by consulting with some or all of the members in order to obtain

information. A participative style referred to those behaviors where the decision is made

by the group along with the coach. Both parties are considered to be of equal status.

Finally, a delegative style denoted that behavior where the coach allows one or more

members of the team to make the decision and is not involved in the choice him or

herself.

Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) Leadership Scale for Sports proposes a dichotomy

of decision-making styles. Democratic decision-making referred to the degree in which

coaches permit participation of athletes in making choices. The coach tends to solicit

opinions and approval from athletes before moving forward. Further, the team sets its

Burnout 6

own goals and works at its own pace. Autocratic behaviors denoted a style characterized

by a coach who isolates him or herself when decisions are to be made and stresses his or

her authority in dealing with the team. These coaches usually expect compliance with the

decisions they make.

Research regarding these two particular types of decision-making behaviors

suggests that men may prefer coaches with more of an autocratic decision-making style

while females may prefer a democratic style (Chelladurai, & Saleh, 1978). Studies have

also shown that autocratic decision-making styles may become the style of choice for

male athletes as they progress within a sport season, and throughout several seasons from

high school to college (Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Turman, 2003). Interestingly, while

Chelladurai, Haggerty, and Baxter (1989) found athletes in general preferred more of an

autocratic style of decision-making in their coaches, they failed to demonstrate any

gender differences.

It has been indicated that discrepancies between athletes’ perceived leader

behavior and preferred behavior can contribute to dissatisfaction with the

abovementioned components of coaches’ leadership behavior (Chelladurai, 1984). While

this may be true, burnout may also be a factor to consider as a result of this discrepancy

in both coaches and athletes. In noting that athletes cite severe practice conditions as the

most important reason for their own burnout, Vealey et al. (1998) suggested the

behaviors of the coaches who conduct the training sessions may be at the root of this

problem. Although this premise guided their own research on athlete burnout, relatively

little attention has been given to the effect coaches’ leadership behaviors, particularly

decision-making styles, have on both athlete and coach burnout.

Burnout 7

Research Regarding Decision-Making Style and Burnout

One relevant study to this line of research conducted was done so several years

ago by Dale and Weinberg (1989). These authors studied leadership style and burnout in

coaches and found those who utilized a consideration style evidenced greater emotional

exhaustion and depersonalization, two common indicators of burnout. It was noted that a

consideration style of leadership is democratic in nature and focused on interpersonal

relationships. The authors noted that coaches with this style of leadership may become

more emotionally involved with their teams and give more to them than themselves. Price

and Weiss (2000) found similar results in their research. Their study demonstrated that

coaches reporting greater levels of burnout were perceived by their athletes to utilize

democratic decision-making behaviors regarding their sport. In contrast to these two

studies, Kelley, Eklund, and Ritter-Taylor (1999) found a democratic style of leadership

to be associated with lower levels of burnout among coaches, a result described as

“striking” (p. 128) as the opposite result was expected in accordance with Dale and

Weinberg’s (1989) research. Certainly future research should address this discrepancy to

determine the exact nature of this relationship.

This line of burnout and leadership behavior research has also yielded some

disconcerting results, mainly the potential incongruity between decision-making styles

and burnout among athletes and coaches that becomes apparent when examining the

athlete burnout and leadership research. Vealey et al. (1998) examined the influence of

perceived coaching behaviors on athlete burnout. Results indicated that athletes who

scored higher on a burnout inventory also perceived their coach’s leadership style to be

more autocratic in nature. Other research has demonstrated similar trends. Price and

Burnout 8

Weiss (2000) found athletes reported higher levels of burnout in response to perceived

coaching behaviors that were autocratic in nature. A democratic style was associated

with less burnout in these athletes.

The results of the abovementioned research has left the burnout and leadership

arena with two significant issues that warrant future attention. First, the relationship of

decision-making style and burnout among coaches has yet to be clearly identified. As

mentioned above, research has yielded inconsistent findings. An additional issue of

concern regards the incongruity between athlete and coach burnout and coaches’

decision-making behaviors. The research has suggested the decision-making style that

has been linked to coach burnout (democratic or consideration) is one that may keep

athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the decision-making style linked to athlete

burnout (autocratic) may be one that protects coaches from experiencing burnout. Future

research is clearly needed to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship and

reduce the likelihood of either group experiencing burnout.

Despite the related research’s contributions to the literature, methodological

improvements in assessment can be made to enhance the validity of such research. For

example, Dale and Weinberg’s (1989) study did not utilize a sport-specific leadership

questionnaire to assess coaches’ leadership behaviors. Further, although Vealey et al’s.

(1998) study included an assessment of the coach’s use of autocratic behaviors according

to athletes, they did not assess athletes’ perception of a coach’s use of democratic

behavior. Additionally, these researchers did not include a sport-specific measure to

assess coach burnout. Their sample of coaches included in the research was also limited

and unable to assume a normal distribution of scores (n=12). Price and Weiss’ (2000)

Burnout 9

study did not include a sport-specific instrument to assess coach burnout. Like that of

Vealey et al. (1998), their sample size of coaches was also limited (n=15). Future

research that attempts to identify the relationship between the perception of decision-

making behaviors utilized by coaches and athlete and coach burnout should consider

employing the use of sport-specific measures to assess burnout and leadership behaviors

as well al utilizing an adequate sample size of each population.

Study Purposes, Hypotheses, and Significance

The present research examined the relationship between perceived coaches’

decision-making style and athletes’ and coaches’ burnout levels in the competitive sport

of collegiate swimming. Secondary purposes included assessing gender differences

within the coach and athlete populations, as well as the interaction between decision-

making style and gender on burnout dimensions. Swimmers are a likely sample to

experience burnout due to the high intensity and increasing training conditions of

practices. Further, the rigorous training that swimmers endure during both the

competitive and off-season make the sport’s athletes and coaches more susceptible to

experiencing burnout and therefore a good population to sample from. Athletes

responding negatively to this type of training stress may be likely to experience burnout

(Silva, 1990).

It is hypothesized that as athletes perceive their coach’s decision-making style to

be more autocratic in nature their own reported levels of burnout will increase. This

would be indicated by higher scores on the physical/emotional exhaustion sport

devaluation, and reduced personal accomplishment subscales on a burnout inventory.

Further, as athletes perceive their coach’s decision-making style to be democratic their

Burnout 10

own reported levels of burnout will decrease. This would be indicated by lower scores on

the physical/emotional exhaustion, sport devaluation, and reduced sense of

accomplishment subscales on a burnout inventory. Second, it is hypothesized that as

coaches report more of autocratic style for decision-making their reported levels of

burnout will decrease. This would be indicated in the same manner as described with the

athletes using the modified version of a burnout questionnaire to fit a coaching context.

Further, as coaches report more of a democratic decision-making style their reported

levels of burnout will increase. This would indicated by the manner as described with

athletes’ scores.

Directional hypotheses for gender differences are difficult to offer due to the lack

of literature on gender and burnout with athletes, and the inconsistent literature available

regarding gender and burnout in coaches. However, because previous literature has

suggested that male athletes may prefer more autocratic decision-making behaviors than

female athletes, interaction hypotheses between gender and decision-making style are

easier to formulate. It is expected that male athletes who perceive more autocratic

behaviors will be less burnt out (denoted by their scores on the three subscales of the

burnout inventory) than their female counterparts. The same relationship is expected in

the coaching population. It is also hypothesized that coaches who are high in autocratic

behaviors and low in democratic behaviors will report less burnout than those coaches

who are higher in democratic behaviors and lower in autocratic behaviors. Athletes who

perceive their coaches to be higher in autocratic behaviors and lower in democratic

behaviors will report more burnout than those athletes who report a perception of higher

democratic and lower autocratic behaviors.

Burnout 11

METHODS

Participants

Athlete participants included male (n=38) and female (n=53) collegiate swimmers

(N=91). Seventy-six collegiate swimmers competed in NCAA Division I (n=49) and

Division II (n=27) programs. An additional 15 international competitive collegiate

swimmers outside of NCAA governance also participated in the study. Athletes’ ages

ranged from 19 to 25 years with a mean age of 19.98 years and a standard deviation of

2.38 years. The average number of years athletes reported swimming competitively was

11.43 with a standard deviation of 3.23 years. Athletes also reported spending an average

of 20.93 hours per week on swimming-related obligations (SD=4.74).

The coaching sample included thirty-six collegiate swimming coaches who were

affiliated with NCAA Division I (n=13), Division II (n=8), and Division III (n=9)

swimming programs. Five coaches did not report their division status and one

international collegiate swimming coach was employed outside of the United States and

exempt of NCAA governance. Twenty-three of the coaches were male and 8 were

female. Gender was not reported by 5 participants. The mean age of coach participants

was 39.64 years with ages ranging from 23 to 58 years and a standard deviation of 9.94

years. The average number of years coaches reported coaching competitive swimming

was 18.75 with a standard deviation of 9.77 years. Coaches also reported spending an

average of 50.28 hours per week on coaching-related duties (SD=16.82).

Measures Completed by Athletes

Swimmer Demographic Information Form. All collegiate swimmers completed a

demographic information form (see Appendix A) that assessed personal characteristics,

Burnout 12

number of years swimming competitively, number of hours spent per week on

swimming-related duties, and variables pertaining to their academic level and level of

competition.

Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ). To assess burnout in athletes the Athlete

Burnout Questionnaire (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) was used (see Appendix B). This

multidimensional inventory contains 15 items that assess three subscales of sport burnout.

Subscales include a reduced sense of accomplishment, emotional and physical

exhaustion, and sport devaluation. Participants respond to the degree each item applies to

him or her using an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting “almost never” and

5 denoting “almost always.” The 1st and 14th items are reversed scored. Although a

fairly new means of assessing sport-specific burnout in athletes, this inventory went

through several stages of development to establish its psychometric properties before

reaching its current state.

The first stage involved examining the psychometric properties of a preliminary

burnout scale used in Raedeke’s (1997) previous related research. This inventory was

administered to swimmers from USA Swimming and consisted of 21 items that measured

each of the three dimensions on a 5-point ordinal scale. The results of a factor analysis

verified a three-factor structure and indicated that each of the dimensions measured was

internally consistent with Cronbach’s alpha levels above .70. The total variance

accounted for in the factor analytic model was 60%. Further, the reduced sense of

accomplishment scale split into two separate factors, distinguished by the negatively or

positively worded items.

Burnout 13

The second stage (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) of inventory construction attempted to

further assess the psychometric properties of a revised version of the burnout

questionnaire. In addition, the authors attempted to establish convergent validity by

examining correlation coefficients with related burnout constructs, such as motivation,

stress, and coping. The authors also attempted to reduce the number of items assessing

each dimension to five and to better fit the swimming context. Five additional face-valid,

trial items were also included in case some of the core items failed to load significantly

on their respective subscale. Again, swimmers from USA Swimming served as

participants. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the revised items loaded with

significance to the appropriate subscale and the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension was

above .80 and was deemed a good fit for the data. Two items were replaced with trial

items due to a cross-loading with the other dimensions which strengthened the

psychometric properties of the subscales. There were no indications of the reduced sense

of accomplishment scale splitting in two factors as in the first stage. Construct validity

was demonstrated as burnout scores showed a positive and moderate relationship with

stress and amotivation measures. Further, low to moderate negative relationships were

found between burnout scores and social support, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation

measures (Raedeke & Smith, 2001).

The third stage (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) involved assessing the generalizability

of the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire to other sport settings and giving further attention

to its psychometric properties. Participants were collegiate athletes in basketball, cross-

country, soccer, softball, tennis, track and field, and volleyball. The term “swimming”

was replaced with “sport,” and “swim” with “perform” on the 15-item questionnaire.

Burnout 14

Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that items again loaded significantly and were

found to be a good fit with the data. One item was replaced with a trial item and was

shown to be a better fit. Construct validity was established through correlations between

burnout scores and related constructs. Correlation coefficients between burnout scores

and motivation were similar to that of the second stage. Positive, low to moderate

relationships were found between burnout scores and competitive trait anxiety.

Enjoyment and commitment coefficients were negatively related to burnout scores and

were high or moderate in degree. The questionnaire was re-administered seven to nine

days following the first assessment in this stage. Test-retest reliability was demonstrated

for emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and sport

devaluation with coefficients of .92, .86, and .92, respectively. Through demonstrated

reliability and validity, the authors deemed the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire to be a

psychometrically sound instrument and available for use in a variety of competitive sport

situations.

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: Athlete Perception). To assess athletes’

perceived decision-making style of their coaches, Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1978, 1980)

Leadership Scale for Sports was utilized (see Appendix C). The LSS is a 40-item

inventory that assesses several dimensions of coaches’ leadership behaviors. These

include social support, training and instruction, positive feedback, autocratic behavior,

and democratic behavior. The latter two dimensions are of interest to the present study

due the potential incongruity they have regarding coach and athlete burnout. Research

has suggested that coaches utilizing a democratic decision-making style may be more

likely to experience burnout. However, a democratic style of decision-making may keep

Burnout 15

athletes from burnout out. An autocratic decision-making style may keep coaches from

burning out but may enhance the likelihood athletes experiencing burnout (Dale &

Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss, 2001). There are three versions of the LSS. One form

examines athletes’ preferences of coach leadership behavior. Another assesses athletes’

perception of their coach’s leadership behaviors. The last assesses the coach’s perception

of their own leadership behaviors. The latter two forms were used in the present study.

In completing the leadership perception inventory athletes are asked to respond by

indicating how often their coach exhibits particular leadership behaviors. Their answers

for each question are anchored from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting “always” and 5 denoting

“never.”

In its first stage of development (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978), the LSS contained a

pool of 99 items modified or created from already existing leadership scales. One

hundred sixty male and female physical education students completed the inventory, the

results of which were factor analyzed. This analysis yielded a similar five-factor model

that the current LSS contains (training behavior, social support, rewarding behaviors,

autocratic behaviors, democratic behaviors). Items that were retained from this first stage

were those that had a loading of at least .40 for their respective subscale, but did not load

above .30 for any other scale. Thirty-seven items met these criteria and were therefore

retained for further inventory development.

The second stage of development (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) included the

addition of 13 new items. Because no items of the training subscale examined teaching

behaviors of coaches, seven items were added to this subscale in order to assess

instructing behaviors. In addition, six more items on the social support subscale were

Burnout 16

also included. Further, before administering this revised, 50-item scale to participants the

authors quantified the intermediate response categories. Behaviors classified as

occurring “often,” “occasionally,” and “seldom” were assigned frequencies of 75%, 50%,

and 25%, respectively. This was done to clarify the frequencies of the classifications for

participants. Physical education students completed a form assessing their preferences of

coach behaviors. Varsity athletes were also assessed on their preferences and perceived

coach behaviors. Following the completion of this inventory, factor analyses were again

conducted on all three sets of data. In order for an item to be retained from this second

evaluation it needed to have its highest loading on the same factor of each of the three

data sets. In addition, its loading was required to be at least .30 in two of the three data

sets. Using these criteria, 40 items were retained. Thirteen items were kept for the

training and instruction subscale, 8 items for the social support subscale, 5 items for the

positive feedback scale, 5 items for the autocratic behavior subscale, and 9 items for the

democratic behavior subscale. The authors note that coefficients of determination for the

physical education students’ preferences, athletes’ preferences, and athletes’ perceptions

were 41%, 39%, and 56%, respectively.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the five subscales in all

three data sets (physical education students’ preferences, athletes’ preferences, and

athletes’ perceptions). All coefficients were above .70 except the autocratic scores for

the physical education students (.66) and the athletes’ preferences (.45). To establish

test-retest reliability of the LSS the Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) administered the form

to the physical education students with an interval of four weeks between testings. Test-

retest reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .82 and were deemed adequate.

Burnout 17

To further demonstrate factorial validity the authors compared the factor structure

from the versions of the scale administered to athletes with that of the physical education

students. The factor structure from the first stage of scale development (Chelladurai &

Saleh, 1978) was also used in comparison. Results revealed that the structure was similar

across the three data sets as well as in comparison to that of the first stage. From this

finding authors concluded the factor structure replicable and stable. Further, from their

two-staged analyses for scale development, the authors suggested the final version of the

LSS could be used successfully to examine coaching behaviors.

Measures Completed by Coaches

Swimming Coach Demographic Information Form. All collegiate swimming

coaches completed a demographic information form (see Appendix D) that assessed

personal characteristics, number of years coaching swimming competitively, number of

hours spent per week on swimming-related duties, and variables pertaining to their

academic level and level of competition.

Coach Burnout Questionnaire (CBQ). Because there is no known sport-specific

coaching burnout measure available to date, a modified version of the Athlete Burnout

Questionnaire was developed to assess burnout levels in coaches (see Appendix E). To

develop the coach version of the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire the researcher modified

each of the 15 items in the original questionnaire to reflect coaching rather than playing

their respective sport. For example, “I’m accomplishing many worthwhile things in

swimming” was changed to “I’m accomplishing many worthwhile things in coaching

swimming.” Once each of the items was modified accordingly, the coach version of the

inventory was submitted to an expert panel of four members who were former

Burnout 18

competitive swimmers in addition to teaching swimming courses. Each member was

asked to review the original and modified version of the questionnaire and determine if

each item appeared to fit under its respective subscale. In addition, members were asked

to determine if each modified item retained its original meaning and clarity as compared

to the original item. Panel members responded to these three questions for each item of

the questionnaire using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting that they

strongly disagree and 5 denoting strong agreement. The question regarding the retention

of meaning of new items was reversed scored. No items were found by the panel to be

inappropriately modified. Two minor changes in wording were made based on consensus

of the panel. Based on their suggestions, this final modified version appeared to have

content validity and served as the coach version of the burnout questionnaire.

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS: Coach Perception). The coach perception

version of the Leadership Scale for Sports was used to assess coaches’ perception of their

own decision-making behaviors (see Appendix F). The inventory was created with the

athlete perception and athlete preference versions using the same procedure previously

described for the collegiate swimmer sample. However, in their analysis of the

measures’ psychometric properties, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978, 1980) excluded the

coach version of the LSS. Other research, however, has demonstrated adequate

psychometric properties of this version of the LSS. Turman (2003) utilized all three

versions in research with coaches and athletes. Internal consistencies for the coach

perception version were above .70 for all five subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha scores of

.72 and .79 for the autocratic and democratic subscales, respectively. However, because

previous research has found the autocratic subscale to have questionable internal

Burnout 19

consistency (Dwyer & Fischer, 1988) this component of the LSS was of concern to the

present research. To combat the potentially inadequate reliability of this subscale,

improvements to its internal consistency were attempted based on previous research by

Price and Weiss (2000). These authors added three additional items to the autocratic

subscale in an attempt to improve its internal consistency. Their items included “makes

decision regardless of what athletes think,” “does not take into account athletes’

suggestions when making decisions,” and “controls what athletes can and cannot do.”

These additions resulted in adequate reliability for this subscale. Therefore, these same

additions were used for the present study after having obtained permission from Price and

Weiss.

Procedures

Athletes. Two rounds of data collection were used to obtain the sample of

collegiate swimmers used in data analyses. The first site used for data collection was a

major international swimming competition held in the Midwest. A proposal explaining

the study’s purposes and procedures was prepared and forwarded to the event’s executive

director for review and permission to survey collegiate swimmers participating and/or

volunteering at the championships. Upon being granted permission, the site where data

collection would occur was discussed and finalized. It was decided that a table would be

set up in the vicinity adjacent to the registration area where all swimmers either

competing in or volunteering for the event would pass through to receive their

credentials. The researcher used the table to store study inventories in addition to

displaying the prizes used for a raffle for those who completed the questionnaires. A

Burnout 20

large sign was also displayed on the table to get competitors’ and volunteers’ attention as

they passed through the registration area and recruit them for participation.

When potential participants arrived to receive their credentials, the researcher

approached them to assess if they were collegiate swimmers and if so, whether or not

they would be interested in participating in the research. All individuals approached were

explained the purposes and procedures of the study. Those willing to participate were

given an envelope containing a cover letter explaining the nature of the study (see

Appendix G), a demographic information sheet, the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire, and

the athlete perception version of the Leadership Scale for Sports. Each packet was

counterbalanced so that order of inventory completion would not influence the results of

the research. All participants were told to keep the cover letter that contained

information on how to contact the researcher if there were questions or concerns.

Participants were also instructed to complete the inventories, place them the envelope,

and seal it when finished. Once envelopes were returned to the researcher, each

participant selected a piece of paper from a basket and told to open it. If the paper

contained a star, he or she won one of the prizes on the display table. Each individual

was thanked for their participation following the raffle.

To increase the sample size of collegiate swimmers, a second round of athlete

data collection was conducted and involved the assessment of collegiate swimmers in the

southeast region of the United States. The researcher contacted the head coach of

swimming programs in this region via phone and/or e-mail to discuss the purposes and

procedures of the study. A time was set up with those teams willing to participate in the

research when the investigator would visit teams before or after practice to administer the

Burnout 21

study’s inventories. At each meeting, the researcher explained the nature of the study as

was done with the data collected at the championships. Those collegiate swimmers

willing to participate were given an envelope containing the questionnaires and asked to

place the inventories back in the envelope once finished. When returning the sealed

enveloped to the researcher, each individual was thanked for their participation in the

study. Between both rounds of data collection, 22 “elite” athletes who were competing in

the Championships were sampled. 69 collegiate swimmers not participating in the event

were also sampled.

Coaches. Two rounds of data collection were also conducted to obtain the

swimming coach data used in analyses. The first round occurred at a world swimming

coach’s clinic held in the Midwest. A proposal explaining the study’s purposes and

procedures was prepared and forwarded to the sponsoring association’s executive director

for review and permission to survey collegiate swimming coaches attending the clinic.

Upon being granted permission, the site where data collection would occur was discussed

and finalized. Similar to the championships, it was decided that a table would be set up

in the vicinity adjacent to the registration area where all swimming coaches attending the

event would pass through to receive their name tags and conference materials. The

researcher used the table to store study inventories in addition to displaying the prizes

used for a raffle for those coaches who completed the questionnaires. A large sign was

also displayed on the table to get collegiate coaches’ attention as they passed through the

registration area and recruit them for participation. This was particularly useful as

coaches from other levels of competition (i.e. club, high school) were attending the

conference as well.

Burnout 22

When potential participants arrived to receive their materials, the researcher

approached them to assess if they were collegiate swimming coaches and if so, whether

they would be interested in participating in the research. All individuals approached were

explained the purposes and procedures of the study. Those willing to participate were

given an envelope containing a cover letter explaining the nature of the study, a

demographic information sheet, the Coach Burnout Questionnaire, and the coach

perception version of the Leadership Scale for Sports. Each packet was counterbalanced

so that order of inventory completion would not influence the results of the research. All

participants were told to keep the cover letter that contained information on how to

contact the researcher if there were questions or concerns. Participants were also

instructed to complete the inventories, place them the envelope, and seal it when finished.

Once envelopes were returned to the researcher, each participant selected a piece of paper

from a basket and told to open it. If the paper contained a star, he or she won one of the

prizes on the display table. Each individual was thanked for their participation following

the raffle. 25 coaches were sampled during this first round of data collection.

Previous research has evaluated the psychometric equivalency of Internet-based

research and found that data collection on the web is a valid, reliable, and cost-effective

method of acquiring data similar to that obtained when using traditional paper and pencil

methods (Metzger, Kristof, & Yoest, 2003; Meyerson & Tryon, 2003; Miller, Neal,

Roberts, Baer, Cressler, Metick, et al., 2002). Therefore, to increase the sample size of

swimming coaches, additional data were obtained by placing coach inventories on the

Internet under the domain of the university the researcher was affiliated with. Contact

was made by the researcher with the executive director of a national collegiate coach’s

Burnout 23

swimming association. After explaining the nature of the study, permission was granted

to e-mail a link to the website containing the inventories to the members of this

association. Each member received an e-mail explaining the purpose and procedures of

the study in addition to a request for their participation. Those who were willing to

complete the inventories clicked on a linked that took them to a webpage containing a

cover letter that provided additional information regarding the study and the contact

information of the researcher. A link was provided on the bottom of the cover letter that

took participants to the webpage containing the internet version of the demographic form,

the Coach Burnout Questionnaire, and the coach perception of the Leadership Scale for

Sports. Once coaches completed the forms online, they were instructed to click “submit”

at the bottom of the webpage. This transmitted the anonymous data through an e-mail to

the researcher. Clicking “submit” also took participants to a final webpage thanking

them for their participation in the research. The results of this second round of data

collection yielded an additional 11 swimming coach participants.

RESULTS

The results of the study are organized in two sections. The first section addresses

those analyses conducted with the data obtained from the collegiate swimmers sample.

Preliminary analyses were run on the inventories completed by the athletes (i.e. the

Athlete Burnout Questionnaire and Leadership Scale for Sports) to provided descriptive

statistics in addition to assessing the scales’ internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients. In addition, independent sample t-tests were used to assess any differences

in burnout and perception of decision-making style between the “elite” collegiate

swimmers competing in the World Swimming Championships and those swimmers not

Burnout 24

competing in the Championships in order to determine if these groups could be combined

for the purposes of the subsequent data analyses. To examine the relationship between

athletes’ reported levels of burnout and their perception of their coach’s decision-making

style, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed. Two-way

analyses of variance (ANOVA) were also conducted to evaluate the interactions between

perceptions of decision-making style and gender on swimmers’ reported levels of

burnout. ANOVAs were also used to examine the interaction of both decision-making

styles on burnout in collegiate swimmers. Finally, stepwise multiple regression analyses

were used to determine the predictive value of assessing athletes’ perception of coaches’

decision-making style on these collegiate swimmers’ reported burnout levels.

The second section reports those analyses conducted on the data acquired from

collegiate swimming coaches. Preliminary analyses were also run on the data provided

by this sample that included descriptive statistics in addition to computing Cronbach’s

alpha coefficients to determine the internal consistency of inventory subscales. In

addition, independent sample t-tests were used to assess any differences in burnout and

perception of decision-making style between the coaches surveyed via paper and pencil

inventories at the World Clinic and those coaches surveyed over the Internet to determine

if these two methodologies produced similar results. Pearson product-moment

correlation coefficients were utilized to examine the relationship between coaches’

perception of their decision-making behaviors and their reported levels of burnout.

Independent sample t-tests were used to determine the differences in burnout among male

versus female coaches in addition to differences on burnout between those coaches

Burnout 25

classified as being high or low in terms of their autocratic and democratic decision-

making behaviors.

Preliminary Analyses for Collegiate Swimmers

To assess the reliability of the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire and Leadership

Scale for Sports: Athlete Perception subscales, internal consistencies were calculated

using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (See Table 1). All alpha coefficients were above .70.

Notable is that the reliability for the autocratic subscale of the LSS was also adequate

with an alpha coefficient of .80. This is encouraging considering literature has previously

noted the potential problems associated with the internal consistency of this subscale

(Dwyer & Fischer, 1988).

Descriptive data (e.g. means and standard deviations) for swimmers’ perceptions

of coaches’ decision-making style for those subscales of the LSS in addition to their

reported levels of burnout of each subscale of the ABQ can also be found in Table 1. The

means for athletes’ perception of their coach’s decision-making style are comparable to

those reported by Chelladurai (personal communication, March 1, 2004). An analysis of

those studies using the athlete perception version of the Leadership Scale for Sports

yielded an average democratic score of 3.05 (SD= .71) and an average mean for the

autocratic scores of 2.64 (SD=.72). Because the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire was

published recently (2001), norms were not yet available for comparison with the present

study’s results.

To examine any potential differences in the data obtained from those “elite”

collegiate swimmers competing in the World Swimming Championships and those

swimmers who did not compete in the event, independent sample t-tests were utilized.

Burnout 26

The only significant difference between the two groups of collegiate swimmers was on

the democratic subscale of the Leadership Scale for Sports (t (89) = -2.5, p<.05). “Elite”

swimmers reported perceiving significantly more democratic behaviors of their coaches

than did those swimmers not competing in the Championships. It should be noted,

however, that the mean difference between group scores was .38 and was not deemed

practically significant for the purposes of the present study. Both groups of collegiate

swimmers did not significantly differ on any subscales of the Athlete Burnout

Questionnaire or the autocratic subscale of the Leadership Scale for Sports. Therefore,

both athletic groups were combined into one group for the purpose of subsequent data

analyses.

Relationship Between Perceived Decision-Making Style and Burnout Among Swimmers

The primary purpose of the present research was to determine the relationship

between athletes’ perceived decision-making style of coaches and both coach and athlete

burnout. To examine the relationship between collegiate swimmers’ perceived decision-

making style of their coaches and their own reported levels of burnout, Pearson product-

moment correlations were computed (see Table 2). The results revealed a statistically

significant inverse relationship between swimmers’ perception of a democratic decision-

making style and their reported levels of burnout on all three subscales (e.g. exhaustion,

sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment). Correlation coefficients ranged

from r= -.27 to -.33 (p<.01). Results also revealed significant relationships between

swimmers’ perception of an autocratic decision-making style of their coaches and their

reported levels of burnout on all three subscales. Correlation coefficients from this

analysis ranged from r= .22 to .32 (p<.05). These results suggest that as collegiate

Burnout 27

swimmers perceive their coaches to use more of an autocratic style in making decision,

their own levels of burnout increase correspondingly. Further, as collegiate swimmers

perceive their coaches to utilize a democratic approach to decision-making, their own

levels of burnout decrease. However, while statistically significant, the obtained

correlation coefficients between athletes’ perceptions of the decision-making style of

their coaches and their levels of burnout were low.

Gender, Autocratic Decision-Making Style, and Burnout Among Swimmers

To assess any interactions between collegiate swimmers’ gender and a perceived

coaches’ autocratic decision-making style on their burnout levels, three, two-way (gender

x high/low autocratic) ANOVAs were utilized. Each burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion,

sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment) served as a dependent variable for

each two-way ANOVA conducted. MANOVAs were not employed due to the

insufficient cell sizes and statistical power necessary to carry out this statistical

procedure. Collegiate swimmers’ scores on the perceived autocratic decision-making

behavior subscale of the LSS were recoded into either high or low autocratic perception

categories. A median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as high or

low. Those scores above the median were classified as high autocratic perception and

those below classified as low autocratic perception.

The results of the ANOVAs revealed no statistically significant interactions

between gender and high/low autocratic perceptions of collegiate swimmers on any of the

three subscales of burnout. Further examination revealed no significant main effects for

gender or high/low autocratic perception on any of the three burnout subscales. Although

not statistically significant, trends in the data revealed that collegiate swimmers

Burnout 28

perceiving their coach to be more autocratic in their decision-making reported higher

levels of burnout on the sport devaluation and reduced sense of accomplishment

subscales compared to those athletes perceiving their coach as being less autocratic in

their decision-making.

Gender, Democratic Decision-Making Style, and Burnout Among Swimmers

Three two-way (gender x high/low democratic) ANOVAs were also computed to

examine any interactions between collegiate swimmers’ gender and a perceived coaches’

democratic decision-making style on these athletes’ own levels of burnout. Again, each

burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment)

was used as a dependent variable for each ANOVA conducted. Swimmers’ scores on the

perceived democratic decision-making behavior subscale of the LSS were recoded as

being either a high or low democratic perception. Similar to the autocratic scale, a

median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as high or low. Those

scores above the median were classified as high democratic perception and those below

categorized as a low democratic perception of coaches’ decision-making style.

The results of the ANOVAs revealed no significant interactions between gender

and high/low democratic perceptions of collegiate swimmers on any of the three burnout

subscales. No significant main effects were found for gender on any of the burnout

subscales. However, statistically significant main effects did emerge for high/low

democratic decision-making behaviors as a result of the analyses. A significant main

effect was found for high/low perceptions of democratic behaviors with regards to the

exhaustion burnout subscale (F (1, 87) = 6.13, p<.05, η2=.07). Those swimmers

perceiving their coach to use a high degree of democratic decision-making behaviors

Burnout 29

reported significantly less emotional and physical exhaustion than those reporting their

coaches to be less democratic. A significant main effect was also found for high/low

perceptions of democratic behaviors regarding the sport devaluation burnout subscale

(F (1, 87) = 7.23, p<.01, η2= .08). Collegiate swimmers perceiving their coach as using a

high degree of democratic decision-making behaviors reported significantly less sport

devaluation than those swimmers reporting their coaches to be less democratic.

The Influence of Both Decision-Making Styles on Swimmers’ Burnout

Three two-way (high/low autocratic x high/low democratic) ANOVAs were also

computed to examine any interactions between both decision-making styles and burnout

among collegiate swimmers. Again, each burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion, sport

devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment) was used as a dependent variable for each

ANOVA conducted. Swimmers’ scores on the perceived democratic and autocratic

decision-making behavior subscales of the LSS were recoded as being either a high or

low perception. A median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as high

or low. Those scores above the median were classified as a high perception and those

below categorized as a low perception of coaches’ decision-making style.

The results revealed no significant interactions between both decision-making

styles on collegiate swimmers’ levels of burnout. Significant main effects were found for

the democratic subscales on the exhaustion (F (1, 87)= 5.73, p<.05, η2= .06) and sport

devaluation (F (1, 87)= 5.52, p<.05, η2= .06) burnout subscales. Collegiate swimmers

perceiving their coaches to use a higher degree of democratic decision-making behaviors

reported significantly less burnout on these subscales than those swimmers reporting a

low perception of democratic decision-making behaviors.

Burnout 30

Does Perception of Decision-Making Style Predict Burnout Among Swimmers?

Because it was hypothesized that collegiate swimmers’ perception of their coach’s

decision-making style would influence their own reported levels of burnout, it was

logical to ascertain the predictability of decision-making style on swimmers’ burnout. To

examine this, three stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted. Each burnout

subscale served as the criterion variable in each analysis. To determine what, if any,

additional demographic predictor variables should be included in the analyses (besides

autocratic and democratic decision-making styles), in addition to testing for

multicolinearity, a Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was utilized. The results

revealed no significant relationships between athletes’ demographic information (e.g.

number of years swimming competitively, number of hours per week spent on

swimming-related duties) and any of the three burnout subscales. Therefore, no

additional demographic variables were included in the regression analyses. Further,

neither of the predictor variables (autocratic decision-making style, democratic decision-

making style) were found to be highly correlated with one another. Therefore,

multicolinearity was not of concern.

The only statistically significant predictor of the emotional and physical

exhaustion component of burnout was the perception of a democratic decision-making

style (F (1, 89) =7.39, p<.01). However, this model was only found to account for just

under 8% of the variance in the exhaustion burnout subscale (R2=.078). Two models

were found to account for a statistically significant amount of the variance in the sport

devaluation subscale of burnout. The most parsimonious of the two found perceptions of

both a democratic and autocratic decision-making style to be significant predictors of

Burnout 31

depersonalization (F (2, 89) =8.49, p<.001). This model, while significant, only

accounted for about 16% of the variance in the criterion variable (R2=.163). For the

reduced sense of accomplishment subscale of burnout, a model containing only a

perception of democratic decision-making behaviors accounted for a statistically

significant amount of the variance (F (1,89) =7.25, p<.01). However, this model was

found to account for about 7% of the variance of this criterion variable (R2= .076).

Preliminary Analyses for Collegiate Swimming Coaches

To assess the reliability of the Coach Burnout Questionnaire and Leadership Scale

for Sports: Coach Perception subscales, internal consistencies were calculated using

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (See Table 1). Scores ranged from .80 to .93 for the three

burnout subscales (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment).

The preliminary support for the internal consistency of this questionnaire is an

encouraging finding as no sport-specific burnout measure is currently available for the

assessment of coach burnout. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the perceptions of

democratic and autocratic decision-making behaviors were slightly lower. This was

particularly true for the autocratic subscale for which its low reliability has been reported

in previous research (Dwyer & Fischer, 1988). A certain degree of caution should be

exerted when evaluating the results of the coach data due to the lower reliability of this

leadership subscale.

Descriptive data (e.g. means and standard deviations) for swimming coaches’

perceptions of each decision-making style in addition to their reported levels of burnout

can also be found in Table 1. Coaches in the present study reported using significantly

more democratic than autocratic behaviors. These results are similar to those found by

Burnout 32

Dwyer and Fischer (1988) whose sample of wrestling coaches yielded a comparable

pattern.

To examine any differences between coaches surveyed via paper and pencil

questionnaires at the World Coach Clinic and those coaches completing inventories over

the Internet, independent samples t-tests were utilized. The results revealed no

significant mean score differences between the two groups on any of the burnout

subscales or the decision-making subscales of the Leadership Scale for Sports. This

suggests that both groups responded to the questionnaires similarly.

Relationship Between Perceived Decision-Making Style and Burnout Among Coaches

To examine the relationship between collegiate swimmers coaches’ perceived

decision-making style and their own reported levels of burnout, Pearson product-moment

correlations were computed (see Table 2). The results revealed no statistically significant

relationships between the perception of either possessing an autocratic or democratic

decision-making style and coaches’ scores on any of the three burnout subscales (e.g.

exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment. Further, trends in these

analyses did not suggest that a particular relationship between decision-making style and

burnout in coaches might exist.

Gender, Decision-Making Style, and Burnout Among Coaches

To assess any differences in collegiate swimming coaches’ gender on their

burnout levels, three independent t-tests were utilized. Two-way ANOVAs were not

employed to examine gender and decision-making style influences on burnout due to

insufficient cell sizes and statistical power necessary to conduct such analyses. Each

burnout subscale (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment)

Burnout 33

served as a dependent variable for each t-test conducted. No significant differences were

found between males and females on any of the burnout subscales.

To examine differences in burnout between coaches categorized as using high

versus low levels of democratic or autocratic decision-making behaviors, six additional

independent t-tests were utilized. Three t-test analyses were computed for each decision-

making style, one for each of the three burnout subscales serving as the dependent

variable. Collegiate swimming coaches’ scores on their perceived autocratic and

democratic decision-making behavior subscales of the LSS were recoded into either high

or low perceptions. A median split was used to determine if scores were categorized as

high or low. Those scores above the median were classified as a high perception and

those below classified as a low perception. No significant differences were found on any

of the three burnout subscales between those coaches classified as using a high or low

degree of democratic or autocratic decision-making behaviors. This finding is consistent

with the absence of relationships found between coaches’ perceptions of their decision-

making style and their reported burnout.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of the present research was to investigate the influence that

coaching behaviors can have on burnout in coaches and athletes. In particular, the

relationship between perception of coaches’ decision-making style and burnout among

collegiate swimmers and swimming coaches was examined. Previous research has

suggested that coaches utilizing a democratic decision-making style may be more likely

to experience burnout. Conversely, a democratic style of decision-making may help

protect athletes from burning out. Further, an autocratic decision-making style may keep

Burnout 34

coaches from burning out but may enhance the likelihood athletes experience burnout

(Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss, 2001; Vealey et al., 1998). This potential

incongruity served as the focal point of the present research. It should be noted, however,

that because many of the athletes and coaches surveyed were not from the same

swimming programs, between-group inferences could not be made. Further, this design

did not provide the opportunity to account for any team interactions between coaches and

athletes that may explain the perception of decision-making behaviors.

The Influence of Decision-Making Style on Collegiate Swimmers’ Burnout

As hypothesized for the athlete sample, collegiate swimmers’ levels of burnout on

all three subscales (e.g. exhaustion, sport devaluation, reduced sense of accomplishment)

were significantly related to their perception of coaches’ use of autocratic and democratic

decision-making styles. As swimmers perceived their coach to utilize more of an

autocratic decision-making style, swimmers’ reported levels of burnout on all three

subscales increased. Further, as collegiate swimmers perceived their coach to utilize

more of a democratic decision-making style, swimmers’ reported levels of burnout on all

three subscales decreased. However, although statistically significant, readers should be

cautioned as the strength of the correlation coefficients was small. Squaring these values

reveals that decision-making style only accounted for between four to eleven percent of

the variance in the burnout subscales. This suggests that there are other constructs that

may be accounting for more of the variance in burnout scores that was not assessed with

the present research.

The relationships between swimmers’ perceived decision-making style of their

coach and swimmers’ reported level of burnout were further confirmed by the results of

Burnout 35

the two-way ANOVAs and multiple regression analyses performed on the swimmers’

data. Significant main effects were found for swimmers’ perception of a high versus low

degree of democratic decision-making behaviors and their scores on the exhaustion and

sport devaluation burnout subscales. This suggests that collegiate swimmers perceiving

their coaches to be more democratic in their decision-making reported significantly less

burnout on these subscales than those swimmers’ perceiving their coaches to use fewer

democratic decision-making behaviors. In addition, perception of decision-making style

was found to significantly predict all three subscales of burnout among collegiate

swimmers. For the exhaustion and reduced sense of accomplishment subscales, the

perception of a democratic decision-making style emerged as a significant predictor of

athlete burnout. Perceptions of a democratic and autocratic decision-making style were

found to significantly predict the sport devaluation component of athlete burnout.

Collectively, these results suggest that collegiate swimmers’ perception of their coach’s

decision-making style, particularly a democratic style of decision-making, has some

influence on swimmers’ reported levels of burnout. When interpreting these results it

should be noted that the effect sizes generated by the ANOVA analyses were small in

nature. Further, the coefficientss of determination for each of the significant regression

models were small, suggesting that the predictive value of decision-making style only

accounted for between seven and sixteen percent of the variance in burnout scores.

It is of interest that swimmers’ perception of a democratic decision-making style

emerged from the analyses as the more salient of the two types of decision-making styles.

A likely explanation for this finding may rest in the type of sport used for the present

research. Weinberg and Gould (1999) noted that athletes participating in interactive,

Burnout 36

team sports may prefer more of an autocratic style of decision-making than athletes

taking part in a coactive sport such as swimming. Although swimming can be considered

a team sport, the nature of training and competition is such that members often participate

individually. Partially due to the mere nature of their sport, swimmers’ responses to the

inventories may have reflected the preference for a democratic style which would help

explain why more democratic than autocratic behaviors were reported by both swimmers

and swimming coaches. It might also explain why a democratic perception of decision-

making style was more strongly and consistently linked to burnout in swimmers in the

present study compared to an autocratic perception.

The results of the swimmers’ data mirror those of previous research examining

the influences of coach leadership on athlete burnout within a multidimensional model of

leadership. Price and Weiss (2000) and Vealey et al. (1998) also found the perception of

an autocratic decision-making style among athletes to be linked to greater athlete

burnout. Price and Weiss further revealed in their study that athletes perceiving their

coach to utilize more of a democratic style of leadership also reported feeling less burnt

out. Because democratic coaches elicit feedback from their athletes regarding decisions

about their team, these athletes may perceive to have more control over and meaning in

their sport participation. These perceptions may help act as a buffer against the physical

and psychological stressors that, over time, can eventually lead to burnout if untreated.

On the other hand, autocratic coaches do not invite feedback from their athletes. This

could contribute to a lack of perceived control and meaning among athletes regarding

their sport involvement and could partially contribute to an extreme training environment

that Vealey et al. (1998) noted athletes cite as the most significant cause of burnout. The

Burnout 37

results also support the findings of Udry and colleagues (1997), that suggested that

athletes coping with burnout often view their sport interactions with important others

(including coaches) as more negative than positive. The perception of an autocratic

decision-making style of their coach could fit into collegiate swimmers’ negative

perception of important others.

The secondary purpose of the present research was to examine the collective and

individual influence of gender and decision-making style on collegiate swimmers’

burnout, in addition to the interaction of both decision-making styles on swimmers’

burnout. Previous research has found that males may prefer more of an autocratic style

of decision-making from their coaches compared to their female counterparts

(Chelladurai, & Saleh, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Turman, 2003). For this

reason, it was expected that male collegiate swimmers perceiving their coach to utilize

more autocratic decisions would report less burnout than females. The results of the

analyses did not support this hypothesis. Interestingly, collegiate swimmers did not

significantly differ between genders on their level of burnout on any of the three

subscales. Although males have been found to prefer an autocratic style of decision-

making more than females, it may be that this preference does little to influence the

degree of burnout that male athletes experience in comparison to females.

The failure to reveal significant gender differences in burnout among athletes

does, however, support previous research conducted by Lai and Wiggins (2003). In

conducting their research, these authors utilized coach burnout research to formulate their

hypotheses regarding gender differences. Because little research has examined gender

differences in burnout among athletes, it is important that future studies do so in the

Burnout 38

hopes that such hypotheses can be made using the results of athlete data rather than that

of coaches. Although the present study did not reveal gender differences in burnout

among collegiate swimmers, it did mimic those results of previous research and will

provide future burnout studies with a basis from which to work from.

It was also of interest that the two decision-making styles did not interact

significantly to influence burnout among collegiate swimmers. This suggests that for the

collegiate swimmers and swimming coaches surveyed, a particular combination of both

decision-making styles did not influence the degree of burnout either group experienced.

Prior to this study, research had not examined the potential interaction between these two

leadership characteristics.

The Influence of Decision-Making Style on Collegiate Swimming Coaches’ Burnout

The purpose of this study was also to examine the relationship between coaches’

perception of their decision-making style and coaches’ reported levels of burnout.

Previous research has suggested that the use of a democratic decision-making style might

predispose coaches to experiencing burnout (Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Price & Weiss,

2000; Vealey et al., 1998) while an autocratic decision-making style may help prevent

them from experiencing burnout. Kelley et al. (1999) suggested this may be due to the

additional stress that comes with being sensitive to their athletes’ opinions and

preferences while still attending to their normal duties as the coach.

Based on this previous research, it was hypothesized that as collegiate swimming

coaches perceived themselves to utilize more of a democratic style of decision-making,

their reported levels of burnout would increase. Further, as these coaches reported more

of an autocratic style of decision-making, their levels of burnout would decrease. The

Burnout 39

results of the analyses did not support this hypothesis; collegiate swimming coaches’

perception of their decision-making style was not found to be significantly related to any

of the three burnout subscales. Subsequent analyses confirmed this finding, as coaches

classified as being high in their use of autocratic or democratic decision-making

behaviors did not significantly differ from one another on any of the three burnout

subscales. There were no differences in burnout revealed between male and female

coaches as well. Finally, perception of decision-making style did not significantly predict

burnout in collegiate swimming coaches.

Several propositions can be offered in understanding why no link was found

between coaches’ perception of their decision-making style and their reported levels of

burnout. The present study was one of the few to isolate a particular type of leadership

behavior and examine its influence on both athlete and coach burnout (e.g. decision-

making style). It is likely that the role of coaches’ decision-making style by itself is not

of significant importance in understanding coach burnout. Rather, its impact on coach

burnout may be more prominent when taken into consideration with other types of

leadership (i.e. social support, feedback, training and instruction) or other variables (role

ambiguity, role conflict, anxiety, etc.). Because burnout is now seen as more of a

multidimensional construct, it seems logical that personal and situational variables will

collectively contribute to burnout among coaches.

The failure to reveal gender differences in the present study, although not

supporting the secondary hypotheses, is not surprising as previous research has yielded

equivocal findings (Davenport, 1998). Caccese and Mayerberg (1984) found that female

coaches experienced significantly higher levels of burnout denoted by greater levels of

Burnout 40

emotional exhaustion and lower levels of personal accomplishments than their male

counterpart. No gender differences were found regarding the depersonalization subscale.

Similar results have been mirrored by other studies regarding the emotional exhaustion

subscale (Kelley, 1994; Kelley et al., 1999; Pastore & Judd, 1993; Vealey et al., 1992).

However, Pastore and Judd (1993) and Vealey and colleagues (1992) failed to

demonstrate any gender differences regarding the personal accomplishment subscale.

Where these studies have found no gender differences in depersonalization, others have

suggested males experience greater levels of depersonalization than females (Dale &

Weinberg, 1989). It is not surprising that the present study failed to reveal gender

differences on any of the three burnout subscales when one takes into consideration the

inconsistent findings of the previous research. Future studies should continue to examine

gender differences in coach burnout to better understand the impact the gender of the

coach has on burnout.

One also has to consider the sample size of collegiate swimming coaches obtained

for the present study as a possible explanation for the results. Because a smaller sample

of coaches was used for the analyses, a greater treatment effect would need to be present

in order for significant differences or relationships to surface. However, the sample of

coaches obtained was larger than those of previous studies examining the influence of

leadership behaviors on coach and athlete burnout (e.g. Price & Weiss, 2000; Vealey et

al., 1998).

It is also possible that coaches responded to the questionnaires in a socially

desirable manner in expressing their levels of burnout and style of decision-making. In

fact, previous research has masked the true nature of burnout questionnaires to account

Burnout 41

for the negative connotation associated with the construct of burnout (e.g. Gould, Udry,

Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996). The lack of willingness among coaches to express their true

levels of burnout and style of decision-making could have potentially contributed to the

findings of the present study.

The accuracy of the coaches’ responses to the study’s questionnaires, particularly

the Leadership Scale for Sports, may also be worthy of consideration. Research has

found that coaches’ perceptions of their own leadership behaviors are less accurate than

those of the athletes they coach or those of an expert observing the actual leadership

behaviors (Smoll & Smith, 1981). It is plausible that a portion of coaches sampled in the

present study misrepresented their decision-making behaviors on the Leadership Scale for

Sports, not in a socially desirable manner, but rather due to an inaccurate perception of

those behaviors. These misperceptions could potentially have influenced the results of

the analyses conducted on the swimming coaches’ data.

The fact that two different methods of obtaining data from collegiate swimming

coaches were used could also have influenced the results of the research. Many of the

coach participants completed pencil and paper inventories in the presence of the

researcher, while others completed the same surveys online. Due to the smaller sample

size obtained, it was not possible to contrast coaches’ scores in addition to the

psychometric properties of each method of data collection. However, previous research

has found the two methods of obtaining to be similar to one another in terms of their

validity and reliability (Metzger et al., 2003; Meyerson & Tryon, 2003; Miller et al.,

2002). Therefore, it seems unlikely that the two methods of data collection used to gather

Burnout 42

data from collegiate swimming coaches was a major contributor to the results of the

present study.

Finally, one has to consider the reported levels of burnout by both athletes and

coaches in the study to potentially have some degree of influence on the results. The

sample of collegiate swimmers obtained was not experiencing a high degree of burnout.

Further, because the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire is a newer instrument used in the

assessment of sport burnout, norms 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 conclusions can be drawn. If one were to consider an

average level of burnout to be the halfway point on each subscale (two and one-half), the

collegiate swimmers in the present study could be considered to have reported relatively

average levels of burnout. As shown in Table 1, their scores on the depersonalization and

reduced sense of accomplishment subscales were slightly below the midpoint. These

athletes also reported slightly higher levels of emotional and physical exhaustion as

indicated by a mean score higher than the midpoint. It is possible that many of these

swimmers, particularly those “elite” swimmers competing in the Championships, were

surveyed immediately following a tapering period of their training in preparation for this

significant competition. Because these athletes had not recently been exposed to the

extreme training conditions that swimmers typically endure, their levels of burnout may

have been slightly lower at the time of assessment.

The collegiate swimming coaches did not evidence elevated degrees of burnout as

well. Because the Coach Burnout Questionnaire was created for the present study, norms

are not available for comparison with data in the present study. However, with the range

Burnout 43

of possible scores on each of the three subscales stemming from one to five, some

conclusions can be drawn. If one were to consider an average level of burnout to be the

halfway point on each subscale (two and one-half), the collegiate swimming coaches in

the present study could be considered to have reported relatively average levels of

burnout. As shown in Table 1, their scores on the depersonalization and reduced sense of

accomplishment subscales were slightly below the midpoint. These coaches also

reported slightly higher levels of emotional and physical exhaustion as indicated by a

mean score higher than the midpoint. This pattern of burnout mimics that of the

collegiate swimmers sampled in the present study.

Implications and Future Directions

As previously mentioned, research has suggested that athletes cite severe training

conditions as their most significant reason for experiencing burnout (Vealey et al., 1998).

Certainly the extreme physical conditions that are often a part of elite competitive sport

weigh heavily on this matter. However, the fact that number of hours per week spent on

swimming-related duties did not relate to or predict burnout among athletes partially

suggests that it is not simply the frequency of intense physical practices that causes

burnout. It is also important to examine the behaviors, particularly decision-making

style, of those coaches who are conducting the practice sessions. These actions may, in

part, determine if coaches and/or their athletes will be more susceptible to experiencing

burnout. Because athletes experiencing higher degrees of burnout often report coach

decision-making behaviors to be autocratic, and coaches experiencing higher levels of

burnout report more of a democratic decision-style, an incongruity may be present. As

this stands, coaches would have to make a choice: implement a decision-making style

Burnout 44

that predisposes their athletes to experiencing burnout or a style that predisposes

themselves.

To date, this potential incongruity had yet to be addressed. The present research

attempted to further examine this relationship. The results revealed that collegiate

swimmers’ perception of their coaches’ leadership behaviors, in particular decision-

making style, had some degree of influence on burnout levels reported by those

swimmers. Thus, it is recommended that coaches take into consideration the degree to

which they elicit feedback from their athletes regarding team-related decisions that need

to be made. By inquiring about feedback or opinions from athletes, coaches could help

create a feeling of control and meaningfulness among athletes that act as a buffer against

experiencing burnout. This idea is further strengthened by the fact that results did not

show collegiate swimming coaches’ decision-making style was related to or predicted

coach burnout. If such is the case, coaches who utilize a democratic style of decision-

making with their team can help prevent burnout among their players without

jeopardizing their own likelihood of experiencing burnout.

Future burnout research should continue to examine the relationship between

coaches’ leadership variables and their impact on both coach and athlete burnout. The

results of research that has examined this area are not unequivocal. Further, the limited

amount of research attention given thus far has yet to come to a consensus regarding the

true relationship between the perception of coaches’ decision-making style and burnout

among coaches and athletes. The same holds true for research examining gender

differences in burnout among coaches and athletes.

Burnout 45

A major effort of subsequent research should also be to identify and recruit

coaches and athletes who are experiencing a high degree of burnout as study participants.

Although difficult to accomplish as many of these individuals may have dropped out of

sport, assessing coaches and athletes who are experiencing a high degree of burnout may

provide the strongest evidence regarding the potential incongruity between perception of

decision-making style and burnout among coaches and athletes.

A beneficial approach to examining burnout in the future would be to continue to

incorporate qualitative research methods in burnout investigations as has been done in the

past (e.g. Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996). This would be particularly useful with a

coach population as little qualitative burnout research has been done with this group to

date. Using qualitative methods of data collection with a sample of athletes and coaches

who are experiencing a high degree of burnout could provide professionals with rich and

valuable information about the nature of burnout and mediating leadership variables that

influence its occurrence in both coaches and athletes.

Additional research attention should also be given to the assessment of burnout

within the sport domain. Because the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire was developed

recently, norms for the subscales and additional validation of the instrument have yet to

be provided. The present research provided additional support for the internal

consistency of this measure, although future research should continue to validate its

psychometric properties across various sport types and establish norms for each of its

subscales to compare future research against. The present research also provided

preliminary support for a measure to assess sport burnout in coaches. To date, no sport

burnout measure is available for the coach population. The internal consistencies found

Burnout 46

with the Coach Burnout Questionnaire were high and a promising indication that such a

measure could be developed and validated in the near future.

Burnout 47

REFERENCES

Caccese, T., & Mayerberg, C. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of

college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 279-288.

Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied

Sport Sciences, 5, 226-231.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership

behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport

Psychology, 6, 27-41.

Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 21, 328-354.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership.

Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.

Chelladurai, P., & Doherty, A. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaching. In J.

Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance

(pp.115-126). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T.R. (1978). A normative model of decision-making styles

in coaching. Athletic Administrator, 13, 6-9.

Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R., & Baxter, P. (1989). Decision style choices of university

basketball coaches and players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 201-

215.

Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaches. In J.L. Duda

(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology measurement (pp. 227-253). Morgantown,

WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Burnout 48

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of

Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports:

Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social

problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285.

Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1989). The relationship between coaches’ leadership style and

burnout. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 1-13.

Davenport, M. (1998). A descriptive analysis of the burnout of rowing coaches over a

competitive season. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College,

Wilmington, Ohio.

Dwyer, J., & Fischer, D. (1988). Psychometric properties of the coach’s version of

Leadership Scale for Sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 795-798.

Feigley, D. (1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician and

Sportsmedicine, 12, 109-119.

Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis

players: II. A qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341-366.

Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis

players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10,

322-340.

House, R.J., & Dressler, G. (1974). A path-goal theory of leadership. In J.G. Hunt &

L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29-55).

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Burnout 49

Kelley, B. (1994). A model of stress and burnout in collegiate coaches: Effects of

gender and time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 48-58.

Kelley, B., Eklund, R., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and burnout among collegiate

tennis coaches. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.

Lai, C., & Wiggins, S. (2003). Burnout perceptions over time in NCAA division I soccer

players. International Sports Journal, 7, 120-127.

Metzger, M., Kristof, V., & Yoest, D. (2003). The world wide web and the laboratory: A

comparison using face recognition. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of

the Internet, Multimedia, and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 6, 613-

621.

Meyerson, P., & Tryon, W. (2003). Validating internet research: A test of the

psychometric equivalence of Internet and in-person samples. Behavior Research

Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 614-620.

Miller, E., Neal, D., Roberts, L., Baer, J., Cressler, S., Metrik, J., et al. (2002). Test-retest

reliability of alcohol measures: Is there a difference between Internet-based

assessment and traditional methods? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 56-

63.

Pastore, D., & Judd, M. (1993). Gender differences in burnout among coaches of

women’s athletic teams at 2-year colleges. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 205-

212.

Burnout 50

Price, M., & Weiss, M. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviors,

and athletes’ psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409.

Raedeke, T. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment

perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.

Raedeke, T., & Smith, A. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete

burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.

Schmidt, G., & Stein, G. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating enjoyment,

dropout, and burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 254-265.

Silva, J. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in competitive athletics.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 5-20.

Smith, R. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of

Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.

Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (1981). Preparation of youth sport coaches: An educational

application of sport psychology. Physical Educator, 38, 85-94.

Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and

research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.

Smoll, F., Smith, R., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E. (1978). Toward a mediational model of

coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly, 49, 528-541.

Turman, P. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective:

The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and

perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education,

52, 73-86.

Burnout 51

Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Tuffey, S. (1997). People helping people? Examining

the social ties of athletes coping with burnout and injury stress. Journal of Sport

& Exercise Psychology, 19, 368-395.

Vealey, R., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. (1998). Influence of perceived

coaching behaviors on burnout and competitive anxiety in female college athletes.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318.

Vealey, R., Udry, E., Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and

situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 14, 40-58.

Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University

of Pittsburgh Press.

Weinberg, R, & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Burnout 52

Table 1 Internal consistency and descriptive statistics for intercollegiate swimmers (N=91) and coaches (N=36) Cronbach α M SD ATHLETES

ABQ

Exhaustion .91 3.06 .890

Sport Devaluation .80 2.15 .803

Reduced Sense of Accomplishment .79 2.15 .702

LSS

Perceived Autocratic Behaviors .80 2.76 .744

Perceived Democratic Behaviors .81 3.30 .711 COACHES

CBQ

Exhaustion .94 2.73 .984

Sport Devaluation .88 2.03 .836

Reduced Sense of Accomplishment .81 2.07 .671

LSS

Perceived Autocratic Behaviors .61 2.62 .470

Perceived Democratic Behaviors .76 3.12 .492

Burnout 53

Table 2 Pearson product correlation coefficients for burnout and decision-making style among collegiate swimmers (N=91) and collegiate swimming coaches (N=36) Autocratic Democratic ATHLETES

Exhaustion .249* -.278** Sport Devaluation .317** -.330**

Reduced Sense of Accomplishment .218* -.275** COACHES

Exhaustion .023 -.107

Sport Devaluation -.109 -.019

Reduced Sense of Accomplishment -.237 .106 *p<.05 **p<.01

Burnout 54

Antecedents Leader Behavior Consequences

Figure 1. The multidimensional model of leadership (from Chelladurai, 1980, 1990).

Leader Characteristics

Member Characteristics

Required Behavior

Actual Behavior

Preferred Behavior

Situational Characteristics

Performance Satisfaction

Burnout 55

Personality and Motivational Factors

Situation Cognitive appraisal Physiologic responses Coping and Demands/ -of demands -e.g., arousal task behaviors Resources -of resources Stress -of consequences -of “meaning” of

consequences

-High or conflicting -Perceived overload -Tension, anger, -Inappropriate demands: overload -Low perceived anxiety, depression behavior -Low social support predictability and -Insomnia, fatigue -Decreased Burnout -Low autonomy control: helplessness -Illness susceptibility performance -Low rewards -Perception of few -Interpersonal -Low demands: meaningful difficulties boredom accomplishments -Withdrawal -Lack of meaning and from activity devaluation of self/activity Figure 2. The cognitive-affective model of burnout (from Smith, 1986).

Burnout 56

Figure 3. The negative training stress syndrome (from Silva, 1990).

Negative Reaction/Response

(Psychophysiological)

Training Plateau or Detraining Effect

Impose Training

Stress

Maintain or Increase Training Stimulus Staleness

Overtraining

Burnout Withdrawal

Burnout 57

Figure 4. The stress response process (from Tennebaum et al., 2003).

Stressors

Environmental Physical Social General Life Secondary

Appraisal Perception

Challenge Threat Relaxation Boredom

Personal Dispositions

& States

Self-Efficacy Social Support Goal Setting Arousal/Anxiety/EmotionsAttributional Style Attachment Coping/Defense Responses

Physiological Emotional Behavioral Cognitive

State of Adaptation

Physiological Emotional Cognitive Behavioral/Social

Burnout 58

APPENDIX A

Swimmer Demographic Information Sheet

Burnout 59

Swimmer Demographic Information Sheet Please respond to the following questions to the best of your ability. Do not write your name or other identifying information on this form. Your answers will remain anonymous. *Age:__________ (years) *Gender: Male Female (circle one) *What is your nationality? ___________________ *What is your primary language? _____________________ *Number of years swimming competitively: _____________ *Average number of hours per week spent swimming or completing swimming-related obligations?________________ *Age group of competition currently competing in (circle all that apply): Pre-high school High school Collegiate Post-Collegiate/Professional Other: ________________ *What year in school are you currently in (circle one): Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Not Applicable Other:___________ *If participating at the collegiate level, what division do you compete at? Division I Division II Division III Not Applicable

Burnout 60

APPENDIX B

Athlete Burnout Questionnaire

Burnout 61

Please read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your current sport participation. Your current sport participation includes all the training you have completed during this season. Please indicate how often you have had this feeling or thought this season by circling a number 1 to 5, where 1 means "I almost never feel this way" and 5 means "I feel that way most of the time." There are no right or wrong answers, so please answer each question as honestly as you can. Please make sure you answer all items. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Almost Rarely Some- Fre- Almost never times quently always 1. I’m accomplishing many worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5

things in swimming.

2. I feel so tired from my training that I have 1 2 3 4 5 trouble finding energy to do other things.

3. The effort I spend in swimming would be 1 2 3 4 5 better spent doing other things.

4. I feel overly tired from my swimming 1 2 3 4 5 participation.

5. I am not achieving much in swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I don’t care as much about my swimming 1 2 3 4 5

performance as much as I used to.

7. I am not performing up to my ability in 1 2 3 4 5 swimming.

8. I feel “wiped out” from swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I’m not into swimming like I used to be. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel physically worn out from swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I feel less concerned about being successful 1 2 3 4 5

in swimming than I used to. 12. I am exhausted by the mental and physical 1 2 3 4 5

demands of swimming. 13. It seems that no matter what I do, 1 2 3 4 5

I don’t perform as well as I should. 14. I feel successful at swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I have negative feelings towards swimming. 1 2 3 4 5

Burnout 62

APPENDIX C

Leadership Scale for Sports: Athlete Perception

Burnout 63

Each of the following statements describe a specific behaviour that a coach may exhibit. For each statement there are five alternatives: 1. ALWAYS; 2. OFTEN (about 75% of the time); 3. OCCASIONALLY (50% of the time); 4. SELDOM (about 25% of the time); 5. NEVER Please indicate your coach's actual behavior by placing an "X" in the appropriate space. Answer all items even if you are unsure of any. Please note that you are rating your present coach. 1 2 3 4 5 My coach: 1. Sees to it that athletes work to capacity. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 2. Asks for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2 3. Helps athletes with their personal problems. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 3 4. Compliments an athlete for good performance in front of others. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 4 5. Explains to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5 6. Plans relatively independent of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 6 7. Helps members of the group settle their conflicts. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 7 8. Pays special attention to correcting athletes' mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 8 9. Gets group approval on important matters before going ahead. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 9 10. Tells an athlete when the athlete does a particularly good job. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 10 11. Makes sure that the coach's function in the team is understood by all athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 11 12. Does not explain his/her actions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 12 13. Looks out for the personal welfare of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 13 14. Instructs every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 14 15. Lets the athletes share in decision making. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 15 16. Sees that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 16 17. Figures ahead on what should be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 17 18. Encourages athletes to make suggestions for ways to conduct practices. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 18 19. Does personal favours for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 19 20. Explains to every athlete what should be done and what should not be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 20 21. Lets the athletes set their own goals. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 21 22. Expresses any affection felt for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 22 23. Expects every athlete to carry out one's assignment to the last detail. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 23 24. Lets the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 24 25. Encourages the athlete to confide in the coach. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 25 26. Points out each athlete's strengths and weaknesses. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 26 27. Refuses to compromise on a point. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 27 28. Expresses appreciation when an athlete performs well. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 28 29. Gives specific instructions to each athlete on what should be done in every situation. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 29

Burnout 64

1 2 3 4 5 My coach: 30. Asks for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 30 31. Encourages close and informal relations with athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 31 32. Sees to it that the athletes' efforts are coordinated. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 32 33. Lets the athletes work at their own speed. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 33 34. Keeps aloof from the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 34 35. Explains how each athlete's contribution fits into the total picture. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 35 36. Invites the athletes home. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 36 37. Gives credit when it is due. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 37 38. Specifies in detail what is expected of athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 38 39. Lets the athletes decide on plays to be used in a game. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 39 40. Speaks in a manner which discourages questions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 40 41. Makes decisions regardless of what athletes think. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 41 42. Does not take into account athletes’ suggestions when making decisions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 42 43. Controls what athletes can and cannot do. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 43

Burnout 65

APPENDIX D

Swimming Coach Demographic Information Form

Burnout 66

Swimming Coach Demographic Information Form

Please respond to the following questions to the best of your ability. Do not write your name or other identifying information on this form. Your answers will remain anonymous. *Age: __________ (years) *Gender (circle one): Male Female *Are you a head coach or an assistant coach (circle one)? Head Assistant *What is your nationality? ___________________ *What is your primary language? _____________________ *Number of years coaching swimming competitively: _____________ *Average number of hours per week spent coaching swimming or completing coaching-related duties:_________________ *Age group of competition currently coaching (circle all that apply): Pre-high school High school Collegiate Post-Collegiate/Professional Other: _______________ *If coaching at the collegiate level, what division do you compete at? Division I Division II Division III Not Applicable

Burnout 67

APPENDIX E

Coach Burnout Questionnaire

Burnout 68

Please read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your current coaching involvement. Your current coaching involvement includes all the coaching you have done during this season. Please indicate how often you have had this feeling or thought this season by circling a number 1 to 5, where 1 means "I almost never feel this way" and 5 means "I feel that way most of the time." There are no right or wrong answers, so please answer each question as honestly as you can. Please make sure you answer all items. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Almost Rarely Some- Fre- Almost

never times quently always 1. I’m accomplishing many worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5

things in coaching swimming.

2. I feel so tired from my coaching swimming that I have 1 2 3 4 5 trouble finding energy to do other things.

3. The effort I spend coaching swimming would be 1 2 3 4 5

better spent doing other things.

4. I feel overly tired from coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I am not achieving much in coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I don’t care as much about my coaching 1 2 3 4 5

performance as much as I used to.

7. I am not performing up to my ability in 1 2 3 4 5 coaching swimming.

8. I feel “wiped out” from coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I’m not into coaching swimming like I used to be. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel physically worn out from coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I feel less concerned about being successful 1 2 3 4 5

in coaching swimming than I used to. 12. I am exhausted by the mental and physical 1 2 3 4 5

demands of coaching swimming. 13. It seems that no matter what I do, 1 2 3 4 5

I don’t coach as well as I should. 14. I feel successful at coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I have negative feelings towards coaching swimming. 1 2 3 4 5

Burnout 69

APPENDIX F

Leadership Scale for Sports: Coach Perception

Burnout 70

Each of the following statements describe a specific behaviour that a coach may exhibit. For each statement there are five alternatives: 1. ALWAYS; 2. OFTEN (about 75% of the time); 3. OCCASIONALLY (50% of the time); 4. SELDOM (about 25% of the time); 5. NEVER You are requested to indicate your characteristic behavior by marking an "X" in the appropriate space. There are no right or wrong answers. Your spontaneous and honest response is important for the success of the study. 1 2 3 4 5 In coaching I: 1. See to it that athletes work to capacity. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 2. Ask for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2 3. Help athletes with their personal problems. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 3 4. Compliment an athlete for good performance in front of others. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 4 5. Explain to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5 6. Plan relatively independent of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 6 7. Help members of the group settle their conflicts. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 7 8. Pay special attention to correcting athletes' mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 8 9. Get group approval on important matters before going ahead. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 9 10. Tell an athlete when the athlete does a particularly good job. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 10 11. Make sure that the coach's function in the team is understood by all athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 11 12. Do not explain my actions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 12 13. Look out for the personal welfare of the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 13 14. Instruct every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 14 15. Let the athletes share in decision making. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 15 16. See that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 16 17. Figure ahead on what should be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 17 18. Encourage athletes to make suggestions for ways to conduct practices. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 18 19. Do personal favours for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 19 20. Explain to every athlete what should be done and what should not be done. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 20 21. Let the athletes set their own goals. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 21 22. Express any affection felt for the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 22 23. Expect every athlete to carry out one's assignment to the last detail. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 23 24. Let the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 24 25. Encourage the athlete to confide in the coach. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 25 26. Point out each athlete's strengths and weaknesses. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 26 27. Refuse to compromise on a point. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 27 28. Express appreciation when an athlete performs well. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 28 29. Give specific instructions to each athlete on what should be done in every situation. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 29

Burnout 71

1 2 3 4 5 In coaching I: 30. Ask for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 30 31. Encourage close and informal relations with athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 31 32. See to it that the athletes' efforts are coordinated. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 32 33. Let the athletes work at their own speed. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 33 34. Keep aloof from the athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 34 35. Explain how each athlete's contribution fits into the total picture. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 35 36. Invite the athletes home. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 36 37. Give credit when it is due. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 37 38. Specify in detail what is expected of athletes. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 38 39. Let the athletes decide on plays to be used in a game. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 39 40. Speak in a manner which discourages questions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 40 41. Make decisions regardless of what athletes think. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 41 42. Don’t take into account athletes’ suggestions when making decisions. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 42 43. Control what athletes can and cannot do. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 43

Burnout 72

APPENDIX G

Cover Letter

Burnout 73

Dear Participant, This letter is a request for you to take part in a research project to determine the relationship of coaches’ decision-making styles on burnout in coaches and athletes. This project is being conducted by Brandonn Harris of the School of Physical Education at West Virginia University as a part of a master’s thesis. Your participation in this project will take approximately 15 minutes and will entail answering 3 questionnaires. Upon completion of these questionnaires you will be asked to place them in a sealed envelope and return them to the research investigator. Your involvement in this project will be anonymous. Your name or other identifying information will not be recorded for this study. Your participation in this project is completely voluntary and you do not need to answer any questions that you do not wish to answer. You may also stop your participation at any time without penalty if you desire. Your class standing and grades (if a student-athlete) or employment status (if a coach) will not be affected by your agreement or refusal to participate in this research project. I appreciate your consideration in taking part of this research project. Thank you for your time and help with this project. Sincerely, Brandonn Harris West Virginia University School of Physical Education P.O. Box 6116 Morgantown, WV 26506-6116 bharris7@mix.wvu.edu

Burnout 74

APPENDIX H

IRB Approval

Burnout 75

Burnout 76

APPENDIX I

Review of Literature

Burnout 77

The present section attempts to examine the current state of burnout in the sport

domain In doing so, the definitions, signs, symptoms, main theoretical frameworks used

to explain burnout, and the assessment of burnout will be addressed. In addition, the

phenomenon as it relates to coaches and athletes will be discussed. Research on

leadership and coach and athlete burnout will also be addressed. Finally, suggestions for

burnout’s treatment and prevention according to the literature will be presented followed

by a summary and direction for future research.

Defining Burnout and Related Terms

Several terms are often encountered in the burnout literature, many of which are

often used interchangeably. It is important to distinguish how these and alternative terms

differ from burnout. Overtraining is one related term present in the literature.

Interestingly, this term has been defined both as a positive and negative occurrence

(Raglin &Wilson, 2000). Overtraining can be viewed as part of a process (known as

periodization) by which an athlete’s training schedule is increased above its usual levels

followed by a tapering period for performance improvement (Raglin, 1993; Raglin &

Wilson, 2000). However, performance is not always enhanced as a result of this increase

in training. The result of maladaptive responses to overtraining is staleness. Athletes

have difficulty maintaining their training regimens and are no longer able to gain

improvements in performance (Weinberg & Gould, 1999). Symptoms associated with

staleness more so than burnout include hypercortisolism, premature fatigue during

training, decreases in muscular strength, and changes in athlete’s perception of physical

effort (Raglin & Wilson, 2000). While some of these symptoms of mood disturbances

and performance decrements are seen in burnout, they have been suggested to be directly

Burnout 78

related to training load during staleness as opposed to cognitive factors as in burnout

(Raglin, 1993; Raglin & Wilson, 2000).

Another term that utilizes a more holistic approach in describing related concepts

has also been presented. Henschen (2000) chose the term maladaptive fatigue syndrome

suggesting it encompasses or mirrors common terms like burnout, overtraining, and

staleness. Using work by Gould (1996), this syndrome was defined as a psychobiosocial

state that resulted in a physical, psychological, and emotional withdrawal from an activity

that was once enjoyable and motivating. Henschen (2000) further noted that maladaptive

fatigue syndrome was due to excessive fatigue. While this phenomenon was noted to

contain the same elements of overtraining, staleness, and burnout, it was preferred

because it identifies the actual situation, because other terms are grounded in the fatigue

syndrome that have remained unaddressed, and because of its holistic nature that allows

for flexibility.

It would also be advantageous to operationally define burnout before examining

its theoretical frameworks, assessment, occurrence, and prevention. However, a uniform

definition has been difficult to formulate because of its complexity, and has yet to be

identified both in and out of a sport context (Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Dale & Weinberg,

1990; Fender, 1989; Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke, Lunney, & Venables, 2002). Raedeke et

al. (2002) further stated that a definition of burnout including key signs and symptoms is

crucial in order to make progress with its related research. There is agreement among

professionals that burnout’s various definitions usually acknowledge a multidimensional

syndrome (Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Gould, 1996). Definitions also tend to vary

according to the theory providing the framework for a particular study.

Burnout 79

A popular definition came from research conducted by Maslach and Jackson

(1981). They contended burnout could be identified as a syndrome characterized by

emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and a lessened sense of personal

accomplishment. Although commonly seen in the sport burnout literature, this definition

has received some criticism. Kallus and Kellman (2000) stressed that too much emphasis

was placed on the cognitive components of burnout while overlooking physiological,

emotional, and behavioral characteristics. Perlman and Hartman (1982) presented a

similar definition based on their summary of early burnout literature which depicted the

phenomenon as including “emotional and/or physical exhaustion, a lowered job

productivity, and overdepersonalization” (p.293).

Another common definition of burnout stems from Smith’s (1986) theoretical

work, and is believed to be the most accepted definition for sport purposes thus far

(Raedeke, 1997). Smith introduced a stress-based explanation asserting burnout should

be considered a multidimensional experience that includes emotional, psychological, and

occasionally physical withdrawal from a previously enjoyable activity due to extreme and

persistent stress.

Schmidt and Stein (1991) presented an alternative definition that countered

Smith’s (1986) description. Using a commitment perspective, they suggested burnout

occurs when athletes remain in sport for some other reason outside of enjoyment. The

phenomenon can occur when the costs of participation rise along with an athlete’s

investment, with no concurrent rise in rewards, and a perception of nonexistent or few

alternatives.

Burnout 80

Finally, another definition has been presented also countering the stress-based

framework Smith (1986) presented. Coakley (1992) suggested that burnout lies in more

of a social foundation rather than stress. Young athletes withdraw from sport from

feelings of disempowerment and a realization that they have little control in the events

and decisions about their life experiences and developmental direction. While other

definitions have been presented for burnout in and out of the sport context, they tend to

be some derivative of one of the above mentioned descriptions driven by their respective

theoretical framework.

Signs, Symptoms, and Individual Differences in the Susceptibility to Burnout

Like the definitions of burnout, signs and symptoms of the phenomenon vary

according to the theoretical framework used in its examination. There are, however,

several common characteristics considered by most authors to be indications an

individual may be experiencing burnout.

There is a general belief, regardless of theory, that chronic stress plays some role

in the symptoms, signs, and results of burnout (Dale & Weinberg, 1990). The degree of

effect chronic stress has varies among authors. Feigley (1984) provided an interesting

description of burnout as a progressive phenomenon. Those experiencing burnout in its

beginning stages may experience an increasing state of fatigue and irritability. A loss of

enthusiasm may also be present at this time. Physically, he or she may notice minor body

aches and changes in eating patterns. Also present may be feelings of incompetence,

frustration, and anger. During the intermediate stage, one may exhibit withdrawing or

silent responses to questions regarding their sport. Physical symptoms would include

Burnout 81

more excessive disordered eating patterns and severe fatigue. At its advanced stage an

athlete would evidence cynicism, alienation, and escapist behavior toward their sport.

Other research has echoed some of the signs and symptoms Feigley described.

Physical symptoms also mentioned included fatigue, sleeplessness, headaches, shortness

of breath, and weight fluctuation. Behaviorally, athletes often are seen as easily angered,

frustrated, performing inconsistently, and possibly completely dropping out or

withdrawing from the sport altogether (Fender, 1989; Gould, 1996; Metzler, 2002;

Raedeke at al., 2002; Smith, 1986). Fender (1989) and Gould (1996) further added that

emotionally, those experiencing burnout may feel helpless, depressed, irritable, and

experience negativity towards their sport and other areas of life.

There is also a belief that certain characteristics will increase athlete susceptibility

to these signs and symptoms, and ultimately, burnout. Originally, burnout research

focused on people in the “helping” or “people” professions because of the emotional

investment these professionals made in their clients(Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984; Capel,

Sisley, & Desertrain, 1987; Dale & Weinberg, 1989; Fender, 1989; McCann, 1995;

Vealey et al., 1992). As a result, these people were believed to be at a greater risk of

experiencing burnout. As the phenomenon made its way into the athletic domain, other

sport-related characteristics suggested to increase an individual’s likelihood to experience

burnout were presented.

Perfectionism and overachieving have been linked to burnout as committed

athletes may set unrealistic goals and overexert themselves in the pursuit of them

(Feigley, 1984; Fender, 1989; Henschen, 1998). Gould, Udry, Tuffey, and Loehr (1996)

found burned out athletes experienced higher parental criticism, greater needs for

Burnout 82

organization, and greater concerns over mistakes. While these findings seem to support

the relationship between perfectionism and burnout, the authors also found burned out

athletes reported lower personal standards. It was suggested that this subscale has not

been found to be correlated with negative perfectionist aspects, but positive ones instead.

Henschen (1998) and Feigley (1984) further contended that susceptible individuals are

also other-oriented, having a strong desire to be liked by others and overly sensitive to

criticism. In addition, these authors add that burnout victims may lack assertive

interpersonal skills, making expressing negative feelings or setting boundaries more

difficult without experiencing guilt in doing so. While it appears that several factors are

associated with the occurrence of burnout in the sport domain, it should be noted that it is

a unique and personal experience that may vary among individuals (Gould, Tuffey, Udry,

& Loehr, 1997).

Major Theoretical Frameworks Supporting Burnout

Smith (1986) proposed a cognitive-affective model that utilized an interactional

approach emphasizing stress as a primary influence of burnout (see Figure 2). His model

contained four components that helped to explain the nature of this phenomenon. The

first stage considers the situation itself, which involves some interaction between the

environment and the athlete’s personal/environmental resources. The interaction places

some sort of demand on the athlete, whether high or low, that brings about the second

stage of the model. There, a cognitive appraisal of the demand occurs. The demand will

be perceived as high if, for example, it is appraised as being conflicting in nature or

overloads the athlete. Another possibility is a low perceived demand if it is appraised as

having little reward, not contributing to athlete autonomy, or is boring. In both instances,

Burnout 83

stress occurs from the appraisal of mismatch between the demand, and the lack of or

abundance of coping resources. When stress occurs the third stage of the model is

initiated. The harm or danger emanating from the appraisal is suggested to cause

physiological responses in the athlete, including anxiety, tension, anger, and fatigue. It

should be noted that at this stage, the physiological responses provides feedback to the

athlete about the situation and contributes to a positive or negative re-appraisal of the

situation. The physiological response(s) will lead the athlete to the fourth stage of the

model, which is an overt coping behavior. These could include decreased performance,

communication problems, and/or withdrawal from the sport itself.

Some have praised this model for its interactional approach to understanding the

nature of burnout (Dale & Weinberg, 1990) and for the usefulness it has in delineating

targets for intervention (Rotella, Hanson, & Coop, 1991). The model not only

incorporates situational, cognitive, physiological, and behavioral components, but

suggests that personality and motivational aspects act upon each of the stages as well.

Another strength of the model lies in its ability to differentiate between those who

withdraw from sport due to burnout (a result of stress explained by the model) and those

who withdraw for other reasons. Despite this intuitive appeal, little research attention has

been given to this model in explaining burnout in athletes (Gould, 1996). However, some

research has used this model in explaining coach burnout.

Vealey et al. (1992) utilized this model to examine cognitive, dispositional, and

situational predictors of coach burnout. Cognitive appraisal factors of interest were

perceived stress and meaningfulness of work. Intrapersonal factors included gender, the

presence of a partner, and coaching experience. The dispositional factor of interest was

Burnout 84

trait anxiety. Situational factors included amount time spent working and in leisure, level

of coaching, and sport type. The results indicated that trait anxiety was the strongest

predictor in burnout among coaches. Coaches who approached their job with feelings of

nervousness and worry tended to experience higher levels of burnout. Cognitively, the

results indicated that high levels of burnout were associated with a lack of perceived

meaningful accomplishments, as well as a perceived lack of control, success and support.

Intrapersonally, only gender emerged as relating to burnout, with females reporting

greater levels than males. The authors suggest that the results provide some support for

this model, particularly for its cognitive and dispositional factors.

Kelley and Gill (1993) also employed Smith’s (1986) model of burnout in their

examination of collegiate teacher-coaches. They sought to identify the relationship of

personal and situational variables to stress appraisal, and the relationship of stress

appraisal to burnout. The results of their work revealed that satisfaction with social

support, more coaching experience, and gender (with males scoring lower) were

predicative of stress appraisal. In addition, a greater stress appraisal was linked to higher

levels of burnout. The authors suggest that their results provide strong support for

Smith’s (1986) proposed model of burnout.

Gould, Tuffey, Udry, and Loehr (1996) conducted qualitative research in an

attempt to examine various aspects of burnout in junior tennis players. The authors

analyzed their results keeping three models of burnout in mind. These included Silva’s

(1990) negative training stress model, Coakley’s (1992) socialization model, and Smith’s

(1986) cognitive-affective model. Gould, Tuffey, and colleagues (1996) concluded that

their results were best explained using Smith’s model as a framework as it was the most

Burnout 85

comprehensive, taking into account situational and personal variables and the athlete’s

appraisal of stress.

Other stress-based models have been presented to explain burnout.

Silva (1990) presented a stress-based model that used training stress syndrome as a

theoretical foundation to understand burnout (see Figure 3). He contended that

participation in competitive athletics introduces physical and psychological training stress

upon an athlete. In coping with these stressors athletes adapted positively or negatively.

With positive training stress principles of overload are utilized, pushing athletes to adapt

at higher output levels using effective coping and problem solving strategies. These

positive improvements result in training gains. Conversely, negative training stress

occurs when athletes adapt poorly to the increased stress or overload conditions. Factors

related to this adaptation include insufficient rest patterns, boredom, and conflict. When

negative adaptation occurs to training stress, responses occur along a regressive

psychophysiological continuum. The training stress syndrome explains this continuum.

The first stage, staleness, is considered to be the initial failure of an athlete’s mechanisms

to psychologically and physically adapt to training stress. The next stage, overtraining,

occurs after the body repeatedly fails to cope with what has become chronic training

stress. There are observable changes in an athlete’s sport performance and mental

orientation. If nothing is done to address staleness and overtraining, burnout becomes a

likely result and is the final stage in the model. According to Silva, burnout is

characterized as an exhaustive physical and psychological response to frequent,

unsuccessful attempts to cope with extreme training and competitive stressors.

Burnout 86

Tennebaum, Jones, Kitsantas, Sacks, and Berwick (2003a) presented the most

recent stress-based model that suggested the related terms such as overtraining, staleness,

and burnout were better explained with a failure adaptation in response to stress (see

Figure 4). Failure adaptation was defined as “a state of physiological, behavioral,

emotional, and/or cognitive malfunction due to inadequate adaptive responses towards

the situation” (p. 20). This model, known as the Stress Response Process, incorporated

previous models (Coakley, 1992; Silva, 1990; Smith, 1986) to extend the perspective of

the stress environment and the complete athlete response to stress (Tennebaum, Jones,

Kitsantas, Sacks, and Berwick, 2003b). Stressors were at the top of the model and were

described as originating from environmental, physical, social, general life (outside of

sport), or secondary (emotional or cognitive) sources. The next stage of the model was

the athlete’s perception or appraisal of the stressor(s). This subjective appraisal, as

opposed to the objective reality of the stressor, dictated the form and intensity of an

athlete’s stress response. Possible ways of perceiving a stressor were as a challenge,

threat, relaxing, or boring. Further, an athlete’s appraisal process consisted of the

athlete’s initial appraisal, his/her appraisal of the coping resources necessary to deal with

the stressor(s), his/her appraisal of the consequences from meeting or failing to meet its

demands, and the level of importance those consequences have for the athlete. An

athlete’s appraisal is mediated by their disposition and state. Important factors included

an athlete’s self-efficacy, social support, goal setting, anxiety, method of attribution, and

attachment.

Following the appraisal process was the athlete’s defense strategy used to cope

with the stressor(s). These reactions were categorized into physiological, behavioral,

Burnout 87

emotional, and cognitive categories. The success of an athlete’s adaptation to stress was

contingent upon the success of their coping strategy in combating the stressor(s). The

result of his/her coping response influenced that athlete’s state of adaptation. Failure to

adapt was marked by one’s physiological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral

responses. Physiological signs of failure adaptation were exhaustion, illness, increase in

injuries, and a decrease in physiological capacity. Cognitively, one might expect to

experience catastrophic thinking, paranoia, and learned helplessness. Behaviorally,

failure adaptation was characterized by avoidance of practices and/or competitions.

Emotionally, he/she might experience extreme anxiety or affective disorders.

Because this model was recently developed research has yet to assess its utility.

However, Tennebaum et al. (2003b) conducted follow-up research to explore the value of

their model. The authors quantitatively and qualitatively studied 14 elite cyclists over 20

weeks. Their results supported their hypotheses derived from the Stress Response Model.

They noted that the model was successful in monitoring athletes’ stress response process.

The authors concluded that their model provides the means to examine the

comprehensive interaction of variables that were believed to affect an athlete’s adaptation

to stress.

Coakley (1992) presented an alternative model to the abovementioned, stress-

based theories. Although he acknowledged stress as an important component in

understanding burnout (a symptom rather than cause), Coakley suggested burnout is best

explained as a social phenomenon rather than a personal failure in coping with stress.

Specifically, he proposed that burnout is more closely tied to the social development of

young athletes, the social relations involved with participating in sport, and the social

Burnout 88

organization of sport performance. Young athletes were believed to burnout and

withdraw from competitive sport because of a restricted set of life experiences.

Participating in their sport leaves these athletes feeling disempowered in their

development, resulting in a unidimensional self concept based solely on sport. Burnout

also occurred from an athlete’s perceived lack of autonomy and control over their life

from the power relationships surrounding their sport. Coakley’s model received some

support for its consideration of the social influences on burnout, a component that the

stress-based models neglected. While the theory seems to lack the interactional approach

that others incorporate, research has demonstrated results that suggested a burnout model

should include social influences (Kjormo & Halvari, 2002).

A final athlete burnout perspective utilizes an investment paradigm. Schmidt and

Stein’s (1991) sport commitment model was developed to facilitate predictions about

environments fostering continued sport participation, dropout, and burnout. They

believed that athletes with high commitment remain in sport for one of two reasons.

Those who are experiencing an increase in rewards, investment, and satisfaction with a

concurrent decrease in costs and alternatives remain in sport for enjoyment reasons.

Conversely, high commitment athletes remaining in sport for reasons not related to

enjoyment are prone to burnout. Their sport experience would consist of an increase in

costs and investments with a concomitant decrease in rewards and perceived alternatives.

Raedeke (1997) suggested these athletes may remain in sport because they feel as though

they have to, a concept described as “entrapment”. The model differentiates dropout

from burnout with its investment and alternative components. Whereas athletes prone to

burnout experience an increase in their sport investment and decrease in perceived

Burnout 89

alternatives to participation, dropout victims observe a decrease in investment and

increase in alternatives, giving them an opportunity to take up a more attractive activity.

In response to the dearth of research on the commitment model of burnout,

Raedeke (1997) examined this perspective in swimmers while incorporating some of the

social aspects of Coakley’s (1992) research. His results indicated those athletes who

exhibited characteristics suggestive of entrapment experienced higher burnout levels. In

particular, four profiles were found to resemble those as denoted by Schmidt and Stein

(1991) and Coakley (1992). Included was enthusiasm, with those demonstrating higher

degrees experiencing lower levels of burnout. In addition, swimmers who were

malcontented and obligated in their participation had higher levels of burnout. Finally,

swimmers who were indifferent about their sport participation exhibited moderate

attraction to swimming and reported few benefits by participating. This was noted to be

similar to the low commitment profile identified by Schmidt and Stein (1991). In

addition, results indicated that low perceived control and high social constraints were

leading sources of entrapment. As the resulting profiles were similar to what was

expected for entrapment, dropout, and attraction profiles, Raedeke (1997) noted the

results of this research suggested a commitment model of burnout is a viable model by

which to increase the understanding of burnout. Raedeke, Granzyk, and Warren (2000)

have also applied a similar commitment model of burnout to coaches. The authors

surveyed 295 USA Swimming coaches on their determinants of commitment, their

experiences of the exhaustive component of burnout, and their actual commitment to

determine if salient profiles could be identified and linked to different levels of burnout

and commitment. Their results yielded three profiles including attraction-based

Burnout 90

commitment, low commitment, and entrapment. Entrapped coaches reported higher

levels of burnout than the less committed or attracted coaches. The authors gave further

support for the use of a commitment-based model in understanding burnout.

Burnout Assessment

Maslach and Jackson (1981) composed a burnout inventory that has been

recognized as the most widely used and accepted measure (Dale and Weinberg, 1990;

Fender, 1989). The authors used interview and questionnaire data previously collected to

construct preliminary items assessing hypothesized aspects of burnout. The preliminary

items were presented in a Hassles scale and administered to 420 individuals in helping

occupations. From their factor analysis of the results and items, three factors emerged

that were eventually retained for the final measure known as the Maslach Burnout

Inventory (MBI).

The MBI measures the intensity and frequency of three dimensions believed to be

associated with burnout: emotional exhaustion (feelings of being overextended and

emotionally exhausted), depersonalization (an impersonal response towards the

beneficiary of one’s services), and personal accomplishment (feeling of competence and

achievement with people in one’s employment). These subscales have nine, five, and

eight items, respectively. It should be noted that higher scores on the emotional

exhaustion and depersonalization scales denote a higher degree of experienced burnout.

Lower scores on the personal accomplishment scales signify a higher burnout level.

Reliability was demonstrated for the inventory as a whole (Maslach and Jackson,

1981). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha scores of .83 and .84 for frequency and intensity,

respectively. Acceptable reliability was also found for emotional exhaustion’s frequency

Burnout 91

(.89) and intensity (.86), depersonalization’s frequency (.77) and intensity (.72), and

personal accomplishment’s frequency (.74) and intensity (.74). The authors also

demonstrated sufficient test-retest reliability using a time interval of two-four weeks. All

reliability coefficients for the subscales’ frequency and intensity were above .60.

Maslach and Jackson (1981) established adequate convergent validity of the

inventory in three ways. Scores on the MBI were correlated with the following criteria:

independent behavior ratings by a person who knew the subject well, the presence of job

characteristics likely to contribute to burnout, and measures of outcomes hypothesized to

relate to burnout. To establish discriminant validity, scores on the MBI and an inventory

measuring job satisfaction were correlated. The results indicated that less than six

percent of variance was accounted for by the correlations, indicating that the MBI is not

measuring the construct of job satisfaction, thus providing support for the inventory’s

discriminant validity.

Research outside of the sport realm has further examined the psychometric

properties and efficacy of the MBI. Densten’s (2001) examination of the MBI’s

conceptualization and psychometric properties generated a five-factor structure opposed

to the original three-factor design. The research supported emotional exhaustion splitting

into psychological and somatic strain components. Further, the personal accomplishment

subscale was broken down into lack of self and others.

Wright and Bonett (1997) tested the relationships between the three dimensions of

the MBI with work performance. Their results only yielded a significant negative

relationship between the emotional exhaustion subscale and work performance. The

study’s longitudinal design confirmed the need for future longitudinal burnout designs

Burnout 92

that allow for its process to occur, prompting subsequent research to follow similar

designs (Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, Bosveld, & Van Dierendonck, 2000).

While the MBI has been used with research in the sport environment, some have

cautioned about extending its use beyond the helping professions it was originally

constructed for (Raedeke et al., 2002). Inventories have been constructed since the MBI

that deal with burnout in an athletic context. Fender (1988) constructed a modified

version of the MBI adapted for sport, known as the Sport Adaptation of the Maslach

Burnout Inventory (SAMBI)

The items of the original MBI were modified to reflect sport situations. The

revised inventory was finalized and administered to collegiate athletes to assess its

psychometric integrity. Internal consistency was established for the emotional

exhaustion subscale. However, the depersonalization and personal accomplishment

subscales did not achieve either significance or the necessary criterion value. External

reliability was established for all three subscales using a test-retest procedure and Pearson

Product Moment correlation. Validity analyses suggested that the three factors

accounting for about one-half of the total variance represented emotional exhaustion,

depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. There were several items that on the

MBI, did not identify with its equivalent factor of the SAMBI. As a result, it was

suggested to exert caution when interpreting the validity of this sport-revised version.

Future research could test the SAMBI with a larger population and spanning a greater

demographical area.

A more recent, sport specific inventory was presented by Raedeke and Smith

(2001). The authors formulated the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire in stages and around a

Burnout 93

modified Maslach and Jackson (1981) definition of burnout to fit a sport environment.

The burnout definition used for its development included emotional and physical

exhaustion, a reduced sense of accomplishment, and a devaluation of sport. This

inventory will be utilized for the present study and is discussed in detail in the

methodology chapter of this proposal.

Athletes and Burnout Research

Research on athlete burnout has examined various aspects using some of the

established theoretical frameworks. Silva (1990) surveyed 68 collegiate athletes from 10

different sports on their perspectives of the causes, symptoms, and frequency of negative

training stress responses in formulating his theoretical framework of staleness,

overtraining, and burnout. With regards to burnout, almost 47% of athletes reported

experiencing burnout with a strong majority indicating the phenomenon was believed to

be the worst possible response to training stress. Symptoms of burnout reported by

athletes included a loss of interest and desire to participate, extreme emotional and

physical exhaustion, and an absence of caring. While this research has contributed to

burnout’s knowledge base, it has been criticized for not operationally defining burnout

for the study’s participants (Raedeke et al., 2002).

In a related study, Murphy, Fleck, Dudley, and Callister (1990) found that

increases in volume training loads in judo athletes resulted in concomitant increases in

anger and anxiety levels and a decrease in selected performance indicators. While

burnout was not a dependent variable in this study, the results provide some support for

Silva’s (1990) model. Specifically, increases in training loads were shown to have some

Burnout 94

negative impact on the psychological and physical aspects of participation, similar to

what the training stress syndrome advocates.

In establishing an alternative model to stress-based theories, Coakley (1992)

interviewed adolescent athletes identified as burnout cases about their sport experiences

and how their participation was tied to other areas of their lives. His results indicated that

while stress is associated with burnout, its roots seemed to rest in a social framework.

Athletes tended to tie their non-sporting activities to their sport participation, and

mentioned experiencing stress and pressure from sport due to a perceived lack of control

over their life. Further, participants expressed disappointment on missing other

experiences their peers had due to their sport participation. Coakley concluded that

burnout occurred from a unidimensional self-concept based solely on sport, and a lack of

control over their sport experiences and general life development.

Other athlete burnout research has generated results that seem to mirror Coakley’s

findings. Kjormo and Halvari (2002) examined the relationship between burnout and

various environmental and personal factors. Their survey of 136 Olympic athletes

indicated athlete burnout was negatively correlated with their appraisal of confidence and

group cohesion, and positively correlated with role conflict and lack of time with

significant others outside sport. These findings further support the notion that burnout

may be best explained by a model that acknowledges social influences.

Interestingly gender differences in burnout among athletes has received little

attention. Lai and Wiggins (2003) examined burnout perceptions in collegiate soccer

players. Their hypotheses were formulated based on gender and burnout research

conducted with coaches. They found that while burnout symptoms significantly increased

Burnout 95

over the course of a competitive season, no gender differences in burnout perceptions

were existent. The authors suggested that future research address possible gender

differences in burnout among athletes. This is important so future research examining

gender and burnout among athletes can formulate hypotheses based on previous athlete

literature and not from coach research.

Coaches and Burnout Research

Research has examined various aspects of burnout and has discovered several

components mediating its occurrence in coaches. The issue of role conflict and

ambiguity on coach burnout has been the subject of inspection. Capel et al. (1987) found

role conflict related significantly to emotional exhaustion, and role ambiguity with

depersonalization. Years as a head coach related with scores on the personal

accomplishment scale. While the results pertaining to role conflict and ambiguity only

accounted for a small percentage of the data variance, the findings have been supported

by other research with coaches (Weiss, 1987a) and athletes (Kjormo & Halvari, 2002).

Contrary to the relationship the authors found with regards to years coaching and

burnout, Vealey and colleagues (1992) did not find years coaching related to burnout in

either gender, indicating another potential area for future attention.

Research has also inspected the role gender plays in coach burnout; however,

equivocal findings have been demonstrated (Davenport, 1998). Caccese and Mayerberg

(1984) administered the Maslach Burnout Inventory to 231 collegiate head coaches.

Their results indicated that female coaches experienced significantly higher levels of

burnout denoted by greater levels of emotional exhaustion and lower levels of personal

accomplishments than their counterpart. No gender differences were found regarding the

Burnout 96

depersonalization subscale. Similar results have been mirrored by other studies regarding

the emotional exhaustion subscale (Kelley, 1994; Kelley, Eklund, & Ritter-Taylor, 1999;

Pastore & Judd, 1993; Vealey et al., 1992). However, Pastore & Judd (1993) and Vealey

and colleagues (1992) failed to demonstrate any gender differences regarding the

personal accomplishment subscale. Where these studies have found no gender

differences regarding the depersonalization subscale of the MBI, others have suggested

males experience greater levels of depersonalization than females (Dale & Weinberg,

1989). It can be concluded that gender differences in burnout among coaches needs

further examination to help clarify the inconsistent findings of the previous research.

Leadership Behavior and Burnout

A line of athlete burnout research of particular interest to the present investigator

has inspected the role coaches play in the occurrence of burnout among athletes. Vealey

et al. (1998) examined the influences perceived coaching behaviors had on athletes’

burnout. Through their investigation of 149 female collegiate athletes and 12 coaches,

authors found several coaching behaviors relating to athlete’s burnout. Results suggested

that those athletes scoring higher on the negative self-concept, emotional and physical

exhaustion, devaluation, and psychological withdrawal dimensions perceived coaching

behaviors to be less empathetic, stressing winning more than development, and using

more dispraise and an autocratic coaching style. These results were complimented by

research conducted by Price and Weiss (2000). These authors discovered that female

varsity soccer players experiencing low perceived sport competence and pleasure along

with higher anxiety and burnout levels reported coaching behaviors that were

characterized by less instruction or training, social support, positive feedback and more

Burnout 97

autocratic in nature. More important to the proposed research, it was also found that

athletes who reported lower levels of burnout also perceived coaching behaviors to be

more democratic rather than autocratic in nature.

Similarly, research has also examined the role coach leadership behaviors play in

burnout among coaches. Dale and Weinberg (1989) surveyed 302 high school and

collegiate coaches to determine the relationship between leadership style and burnout.

The authors found that coaches exhibiting a consideration style of leadership rather than

an initiating structure style scored higher on the depersonalization and emotional

exhaustion subscales, a result also suggested by more recent research (Price & Weiss,

2000). Those authors found that coaches who scored higher on the emotional exhaustion

subscale were perceived by athletes as using more democratic and less autocratic

decision-making behaviors. Consideration style coaches typically exhibit more of a

friendship, trustworthy, and respectful interactions with their athletes. Dale and

Weinberg (1989) noted this style of leadership is often associated with coaches who are

democratic, oriented in intrapersonal relationships, caring, approachable, and warm. This

disposition may invite them to become emotionally invested in their athletes. This may

relate to an other-oriented approach to coaching, a personality characteristic which has

been linked to burnout (Feigley, 1984; Henschen, 1998).

Other research has demonstrated an opposing relationship between burnout and

leadership. Kelley et al. (1999) found that coaches who reported more consideration

leadership behaviors also reported lower burnout levels. Similar trends have also been

suggested as coaches who scored higher on burnout subscales of depersonalization and

emotional exhaustion have been perceived by their athletes as using more of an autocratic

Burnout 98

style of coaching (Vealey et al., 1998). In attempting to explain this discrepancy in the

coach population, Vealey and colleagues (1998) suggested methodological differences

may be at fault. Dale and Weinberg (1989) assessed leadership behaviors through

coaches’ self-reported measures. The Vealey study (1998) determined leadership

behaviors using athletes’ perceptions of the coaching behaviors. This difference in

measurement may have lead to the equivocal findings.

The results of the decision-making behavior and burnout research warrant future

attention. The literature suggests that the coaches’ decision-making style (democratic or

consideration) which has been shown to ignite at times their own burnout is one that may

keep athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the decision-making style linked to

athlete burnout (autocratic or initiating structure) may be one that protects coaches from

experiencing the same. With the results of the abovementioned research equivocal,

future research is clearly needed to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship

and reduce the likelihood of either group experiencing burnout.

Prevention and Treatment of Burnout

Various approaches have been offered for treating and preventing burnout.

Outside of a sport context, Pines (2000) proposed a psychodynamic existential

perspective on burnout and believed the phenomenon occurred when individuals failed to

derive meaning in their lives from their career. Although the theory was presented

outside the sport context, it lends itself nicely to coaches, who could fail to perceive life

significance from their effort and work in a sport environment. In treating burnout, it was

necessary to identify the conscious and unconscious reasons for an individual’s choice in

vocation and how this choice was believed to lead to a sense of life significance. In

Burnout 99

addition, it was important to determine why a person failed to derive a sense of

significance from their work and how this failure relates to burnout. Finally, changes that

were believed to enable the person to achieve meaning in life through their work were

established to help treat burnout.

Much like the definitions of burnout, how to overcome the phenomenon as it

occurs in sport varies depending on the theoretical framework used to explain burnout.

Based on his cognitive-affective stress model, Smith (1986) suggested the additional or

unnecessary sources of stress placed on athletes not endemic to the sport setting be

addressed. Advocated were sport programs that diversify practices, modify problematic

coaching and parental behaviors, and structuring sport experiences that are rewarding to

the athlete. Further, learning athletic and problem-solving skills could enhance an

athlete’s coping ability to perceived stress. Fostering social support through team

building, communication training, and coach training was also believed to help reduce the

likelihood of burnout. Other research has provided similar suggestions, stressing the

importance of social support and communication skills, a creative and fun training

environment, and providing rewarding experiences where athletes feel a sense of

accomplishment (Feigley, 1984; Fender, 1989; Gilbert, 1988; Raedeke et al., 2002;

Rotella et al., 1991).

Rotella et al., (1991) presented additional suggestions empirically supported for

athletes to help prevent burnout from occurring as well as suggestions for coaches to

assist their athletes in avoiding burnout. Ideas for athletes were to have a well-rounded

identity and sport interests, take days off from practice or find time to relax, emphasize

quality practices rather than its quantity, and to try and make practicing and competing

Burnout 100

fun. Suggestions for coaches in keeping their athletes from burning out included

watching signs for staleness, having an awareness of personalities that are more

susceptible to burnout, vary practices, and encouraging athletes to keep balance in their

lives and pursue non-sport interests.

Coakley (1992) recommended moving away from stress as the basis for

prevention and argued that changes in several social arenas would provide the best means

for battling burnout. The following areas were targeted for adjustment: the social

relations associated with the elite sport participation, the amount of control athletes have

over their lives outside of and in sport, the social organization of sport programs and its

circumstances of competition and training, and the ability of athletes to assess the reasons

for their participation and its significance to the rest of their lives. Coakley stressed

attempting to aid athletes in adjusting to the social isolation and dependency often

associated with sport only serves to foreclose those athletes’ identity and entrapment in

sport. Focusing on the social circumstances in which the athlete’s identity is foreclosed

can help foster autonomy and control over their lives reducing the opportunities for

burnout, an idea also supported by others (Feigley, 1984).

Utilizing a stress-based foundation for burnout, Weiss (1987b) provided strategies

for combating burnout in coaches and proposed psychological skills training to do so.

Skills recommended to induce relaxation and reduce anxiety and/or stress included self-

talk modification, controlling physiological arousal, and mental imagery. Also proffered

were enhancing communication skills, reducing role conflict and ambiguity, seeking

social support, and reserving time for themselves.

Burnout 101

Dale and Weinberg (1989) also offered several strategies for the prevention of

burnout for coaches with more of a consideration style of leadership. It was

recommended that coaches focus on quality time with athletes, rather than quantity of

time. Relaxation, imagery, and goal setting, and other coping techniques should be used

as stress-management skills to help coaches deal with the pressures associated with their

vocation. The authors also mentioned that because of the physical symptoms often

experienced with burnout it is important that coaches maintain a good level of physical

health by keeping in shape, sustaining a proper diet, and getting adequate sleep. Finally,

it was suggested coaches realize they are not completely responsible for their athletes’

welfare, and to rely on other avenues of social support (i.e. parents, assistant coaches,

sport psychologist) to help address athlete needs.

Summary

The previous chapter discussed the definitions of burnout and its related terms,

the major theoretical frameworks used to explain its occurrence, and the instrumentation

available to assess burnout. In addition, burnout as it occurs in both athletes and coaches

was addressed, as well as suggestions for its treatment and prevention. Despite the

attention that burnout in a sport context has started to receive, other areas of investigation

are certainly warranted.

Price and Weiss (2000) noted that in addition to their own, only one other study

(Vealey et al., 1998) has examined the relationships between perceived coaching

behaviors, coach burnout, and athlete burnout (or other psychological outcomes) using

the multidimensional model of leadership. Two areas of interest are present regarding this

line of research. First, the relationship of decision-making style and burnout among

Burnout 102

coaches has yet to be clearly identified. As mentioned above, research has yielded

inconsistent findings. An additional issue of concern arises as the coaches’ decision-

making style that has been linked at times to their own burnout (democratic or

consideration) is one that may keep athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the

decision-making style linked to athlete burnout (autocratic or initiating structure) may be

one that protects coaches from experiencing the same. Future research is clearly needed

to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship and reduce the likelihood of either

group experiencing burnout.

The aforementioned research has paved the way for future studies to examine

similar aspects of leadership behavior and both coach and athlete burnout. Despite their

contributions to the literature, portions of the methodology or study design could be

modified. For example, although Vealey et al’s. (1998) study included an assessment of

coach’s use of autocratic behaviors according to athletes, they did not assess athletes’

perception of a coach’s use of democratic behavior. In addition, a sport-specific measure

to assess coach burnout was not used. Further, the sample of coaches included in the

research was limited (n=12). Price and Weiss’ (2000) study did not include a sport-

specific instrument to assess coach burnout. Further, their sample size of coaches was

also limited (n=15). Future research that attempts to identify the relationship between the

perception of decision-making behaviors utilized by coaches and athlete and coach

burnout should consider utilizing an adequate sample size of each population as well as

employing the use of sport-specific measures to assess burnout.

Burnout 103

APPENDIX J

Review of Literature References

Burnout 104

References

Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W., Sixma, H., Bosveld, W., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2000).

Patient demands, lack of reciprocity, and burnout: A five-year longitudinal study

among general practitioners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 425-441.

Barrow, J. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework.

Academy of Management Review,2, 231-251.

Caccese, T., & Mayerberg, C. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of

college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 279-288.

Capel, S., Sisley, B., & Desertrain, G. (1987). The relationship of role conflict and role

ambiguity to burnout in high school basketball coaches. Journal of Sport

Psychology, 9, 106-117.

Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied

Sport Sciences, 5, 226-231.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership

behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport

Psychology, 6, 27-41.

Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 21, 328-354.

Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, and L. Tennant (Eds.),

Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan

Publishing Company.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership.

Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.

Burnout 105

Chelladurai, P., & Doherty, A. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaching. In J.

Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance

(pp.115-126). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T.R. (1978). A normative model of decision-making styles

in coaching. Athletic Administrator, 13, 6-9.

Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R., & Baxter, P. (1989). Decision style choices of university

basketball coaches and players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 201-

215.

Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. (1998). Styles of decision making in coaches. In J.L. Duda

(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology measurement (pp. 227-253). Morgantown,

WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of

Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports:

Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social

problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285.

Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1989). The relationship between coaches’ leadership style and

burnout. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 1-13.

Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1990). Burnout in sport: A review and critique. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 67-83.

Burnout 106

Davenport, M. (1998). A descriptive analysis of the burnout of rowing coaches over a

competitive season. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College,

Wilmington, Ohio.

Densten, I. (2001). Re-thinking burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 833-

847.

Dwyer, J., & Fischer, D. (1988). Psychometric properties of the coach’s version of

Leadership Scale for Sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 795-798.

Feigley, D. (1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician and

Sportsmedicine, 12, 109-119.

Fender, L. (1988). Athletic burnout: A sport adaptation of the Maslach Burnout

Inventory. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kent State University.

Fender, L. (1989). Athlete burnout: Potential for research and intervention strategies.

The Sport Psychologist, 3, 63-71.

Gilbert, R. (1988). Player burnout: How to prevent it. Soccer Journal, 33, 32.

Gould, D. (1996). Personal motivation gone awry: Burnout in competitive athletes.

Quest, 48, 275-289.

Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis

players: II. A qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341-366.

Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1997). Burnout in competitive junior tennis

players: III. Individual differences in the burnout experience. The Sport

Psychologist, 11, 257-275.

Burnout 107

Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis

players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10,

322-340.

Henschen, K. (1998). Athletic staleness and burnout: Diagnosis, prevention, and

treatment. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to

peak performance (pp.398-408). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing

Company.

Henschen, K. (2000). Maladaptive fatigue syndrome and emotions in sport. In Y. Hanin

(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 231-242). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

House, R.J., & Dressler, G. (1974). A path-goal theory of leadership. In J.G. Hunt &

L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29-55).

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kallus, K.W., & Kellmann, M. (2000). Burnout in athletes and coaches In Y. Hanin

(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 209-230). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kelley, B. (1994). A model of stress and burnout in collegiate coaches: Effects of

gender and time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 48-58.

Kelley, B., Eklund, R., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and burnout among collegiate

tennis coaches. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.

Kelley, B., & Gill, D. (1993). An examination of personal/situational variables, stress

appraisal, and burnout in collegiate teacher-coaches. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 64, 94-102.

Burnout 108

Kjormo, O., & Halvari, H. (2002). Relation of burnout with lack of time for being with

significant others, role conflict, cohesion, and self-confidence, among Norwegian

Olympic athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 795-804.

Lai, C., & Wiggins, S. (2003). Burnout perceptions over time in NCAA division I soccer

players. International Sports Journal, 7, 120-127.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal

of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99-113.

McCann, S. (1995). Overtraining and burnout. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology

interventions (pp.347-368). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Metzler, J. (2002). Applying motivational principles to individual athletes. In J. Silva

and D. Stevens (Ed.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp.80-106). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Murphy, S., Fleck, S., Dudley, G., & Callister, R. (1990). Psychological and performance

concomitants of increased volume training in elite athletes. Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 2, 34-50.

Pastore, D., & Judd, M. (1993). Gender differences in burnout among coaches of

women’s athletic teams at 2-year colleges. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 205-

212.

Perlman, B., & Hartman, E.A. (1982). Burnout: Summary and future research. Human

Relations, 35, 283-305.

Pines, A.M. (2000). Treating career burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 633-642.

Burnout 109

Price, M., & Weiss, M. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviors,

and athletes’ psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409.

Raedeke, T. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment

perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.

Raedeke, T., Granzyk, T., & Warren, A. (2000). Why coaches experience burnout: A

commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 85-105.

Raedeke, T., Lunney, K., & Venables, K. (2002). Understanding athlete burnout: Coach

perspectives. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 181-206.

Raedeke, T., & Smith, A. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete

burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.

Raglin, J. (1993). Overtraining and staleness: psychometric monitoring of endurance

athletes. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, and L. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research

on sport psychology (pp. 840-850). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Raglin, J., & Wilson, G. (2000). Overtraining in athletes. In Y. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in

sport (pp. 191-207). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Rotella, R., Hanson, T., & Coop, R. (1991). Burnout in youth sports. The Elementary

School Journal, 91, 421-428.

Schmidt, G., & Stein, G. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating enjoyment,

dropout, and burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 254-265.

Silva, J. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in competitive athletics.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 5-20.

Smith, R. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of

Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.

Burnout 110

Smoll, F., & Smith, R. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and

research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.

Smoll, F., Smith, R., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E. (1978). Toward a mediational model of

coach-player relationships. Research Quarterly, 49, 528-541.

Sullivan, P., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in

intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1-11.

Tenenbaum, G., Jones, C., Kitsantas, A., Sacks, D., & Berwick. (2003a). Failure

adaptation: Psychological conceptualization of the stress response process in

sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 1-26.

Tenenbaum, G., Jones, C., Kitsantas, A., Sacks, D., & Berwick. (2003b). Failure

adaptation: An investigation of the stress response process in sport. International

Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 27-62.

Turman, P. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective:

The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and

perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education,

52,73-86.

Udry, E., Gould, D., Bridges, D., & Tuffey, S. (1997). People helping people? Examining

the social ties of athletes coping with burnout and injury stress. Journal of Sport

& Exercise Psychology, 19, 368-395.

Vealey, R., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. (1998). Influence of perceived

coaching behaviors on burnout and competitive anxiety in female college athletes.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318.

Burnout 111

Vealey, R., Udry, E., Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and

situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 14, 40-58.

Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University

of Pittsburgh Press.

Weinberg, R, & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiss, M. (1987a). Avoiding burnout, part I: Recognizing burnout. Coaching Women’s

Basketball: Official Journal of the WBCA, 1, 15-17.

Weiss, M. (1987b). Avoiding burnout, part II: Beating burnout. Coaching Women’s

Basketball: Official Journal of the WBCA, 1, 6-9.

Wright, T., & Bonett, D. (1997). The contribution of burnout to work performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 491-499.