State Universitys Northridge

PERSONALITY TRAITS AND SELECTED BEHAVIORAL a-IA~ACTERISTICS OF INTERCOLLEGIATE PLAYERS

A thesis submitted in partial ~atisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Mast~e:r of Arts in

Physical Education

by

Mark Daniel -Winters

June, 1974 The thesiJ o~Mark Da~el Wi~rs is approved:

California State University, Northridge

June, 1974

ll r---~------· ------·- ·---···· .... ------···--·------...... ·-~------______.. ______--·-···------·-- ..... ·-·-·----·

I

DEDICATION

••. to my parents, Aland Virginia,

and 'the Lady' for. having patience

and taking the time •••

iii ACKNOWLEDGI'v1ENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge Drs. Don Bethe,

!Bill Cullum, and Darrel Guthrie, each for his interest in

and unique contributions to this study.

A special thanks is extended to Chris Johnson and

:Pat Dickson whose technical assistance was so essential. l i

M.D.W.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

,Dedication • • iii

!Acknowledgments, iv

:List o£ Tables • . . . .. vii ! ! :Abstract • viii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION. 1

The Problem Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Assumptions Delimitations Limi·tations Importance o:f the Study Definition of Terms

II.. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. 16

' Personality Characteristics o.f Successful Athletes The Tennis Player The Behavioral Characteristics o.f Succe.ssfu.l T ..:mnis Players S U..'11Illar y

III. RESEARCH PRCCEDURES • • 43

Selection of Subjects Organization of the Research Testing Instruments Behavioral Characteristics Questionnaire Statistical Design

v IV. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA • • • • • • 55

Hypotheses, Results, and Discussion Responses from the Coaches Summary

v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMt\1ENDATIONS 75

Summary Conclusion Recommendations

:BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • 80

APPENDICES • 88

vi LIST OF TABLES

----Table

1. Reliability Coefficients £or the Comrey Personality Scales •• . . 49

2. Means and Variabilities £or the Personality Traits. 57

3. Means and Variabilities £or the Behavioral Characteristics. 64

vii ABSTRACT

PERSONALITY TRAITS AND SELECTED BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS PLAYERS

by

Mark Daniel Winters

Master o£ Arts in Physical Education

June, 1974

The purpose o£ this study was to identify the person- i ali ty traits and the behavioral characteristics which were

descriptive of successful and unsuccessful intercollegiate

tennis players. ·' The varsity intercollegiate tennis team members,

!playing the six singles positions at nine select institu-

tions, participated in the study. The subjects were given

1the Comrey Personality Scales to assess their personality

traits. The responses o£ the individual coaches to a

questionnaire were used to assess the behavioral character-

! istics of the players. Based on season end singles dual '· :match winning percentage, the players were ranked from

highest to lowest. The eighteen players ranked ~n the

upper third made up the successful group, while the

eighteen players ranked in the lower third made up the

viii , unsucc..t=:ssf.ul group.

A one-way analysis of variance was us~~d ·to determine

~whethe:r the two groups differed significantly on a person-

:ality trait or a behavioral characteristic. A :mul t·iple-

discriminant analysis was employed to determine whether the. j groups could be differentiated when the en·tire personality ' trait profile was used simultaneously.

Whether comparing the two groups on a single person-

ality trait, behavioral characteristic, or utilizing the

entire profile, the variance within the two groups was

grea·ter than the differences in the central tendencies

between them. It was concluded that any difference be-

t·\'leen the successful group and the unsuccessful group was

not a £unction o£ either specific personality traits or

selected behavioral characteristics.

ix CHAPTER I

Tennis is loaded with guys who can hit hard ru"'ld even keep it in the court, but .few of them ever win because they don't know how to think or how to control their nerves.

INTRODUCTION

After existing for decades in an aura of diletantism,

!tennis was suddenly bxought to the atte~tion o£ the public.

This was due primarily to the advent of Open Tennis which

!in 1968 dramatically changed the nature as well as the

·:focus of the game. Overnight, tennis became a commercial

success. Tournaments increased in number. The modern

professional tour developed. Tennis players competed

!throughout the world for prize money instead of just tro-

phies~

Interest in the game as a result soared to new

!heights. This was reflected in the growth of tournament iattendance. Newspaper, magazine, and television coverage

o:f tennis expanded to meet the demands of the public. The

widespread following was further demonstrated in the num- i ber of active participants in the game. With over thirteen

1 million devotees, tennis became the fastest growing par-

ticipant sport in the (53). It was easy to

understand why there were more good players, at all levels

o:f the game, than ever before.

A majority of the men holding national rankings ha·ve

played intercollegiate tennis. In view of the popularity

of the game, competition .for a position on an intercol-

legiate tennis team has become intense. Extensive prepar-

ation became necessary for anyone who desired to reach

this level and be a success. Intercollegiate coaches

and players came to realize that variables, other than

the physiological and the morphological, affect an in-

dividual's competitive tennis performance. For this rea-

son, tennis programs became concerned with developing

physical ability as well as the psychological charac·ter-

istics which would enhance a player's performance.

Unfortunately the information concerning the psycho- .

logical parameters o£ male intercollegiate tennis players i were extremely limited. Studies in which the personality

characteristics of various intercollegiate athletic groups

were compared furnished nearly all the data on these ath-

letes (48, 61, 64, 68). Ostrow (72) did the only study

' dealing exclusively with intercollegiate tennis players.

Research inv_estigatiJ?9 the_p~rsonalj.ty traits and the ,~> ~ • '''"- •·>· ""'" •"< •" n•~-- -····-·"-~·•• _, '• - 0' -••-' • ~-••7••t~•••• ••-••••,~·- ---· ·~···-~ -- • •·• •- •>~ .. -~-~-- ~ ••·-·~--~~· -• "••••'- --· -.- o<••·--•r ---~-----·•••~-~~~--~-•·•••·.•-· •• ~ •. • -•••• ,, 0 ' ibeha·viora.l characteristics of successful and unsuccessful

'intercol::.egiate tennis players had not been undertaken.

:Those vdshing to gain insight regarding successful and un-

;successful intercollegiate tennis players were forced to

'go outside the area of professional research and consult

:newspaper and magazine articles, autobiographies, and other I less formal sources. So doing, it quickly became apparent

that this material related to players who were champions or

.near-champions. Extrapolating from these sources, one

could only have made an educated guess concerning the per.-

sonality traits and the behavioral characteristics of

successful and unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

It was the purpose of this study to present a profile

of the personality traits and the behavioral characteris-

tics which might differentiate between successful and un-

successful intercollegiate tennis players.

The Problem

Statement of the Problem

The problem under investigation in this study was to

:analyze the relationship among specific personality traits,

·selected behavioral characteristics, and the competitive

•dual match performance of intercollegiate tennis players. 4

1. There will be significant differences among

specific personality traits between successful and un-

:successful intercollegiate tennis players.

1.1 Successful int~:~rcollegiate tennis players will

:be signi:ficantl'v more orderly (0) than unsuccessf·uJ. players.

1.2 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

be significantly more rebe,llious (C) than unsuccessful

,players.

1.3 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

be significantly more egocentric(P) than unsuccessful

_players.

1.4 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

;be significantly more extroverted(E) than unsuccessful

players.

1 • .5 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

significantly more emotionally sta.ble(S) than unsuc-

cessful players.

1.6 There will be no significant difference on the I ~personality trait of activity(A) between successful and i \unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

1.7 There will be no significant di.-f£erence on the

·personality trait o£ trust(T) between successful and un­ l.~'Uccessful intercollegiate .. tennis players. r-·-~ -~·-··"----~- --- '"·--<··~- -·~·-·"---~--~------·--~------.,--~------~ --~~~·------~·-·----w- .. ~----~---·- -· ·~----··-----·- --·- -·'- -~·"'! I J \ 1.8 There will be no sigr:.ificant difference on the

.personality trait of masculinity(M) between success£ul.and

.unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

2. 'TI1ere will be significant differences among

'selected behavioral characteristics between successful and

iunsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

2.1 Unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players will

be significantly more receptive to criticism regarding

their play than successful players.

2.2 The play of unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis

players will coincide significantly more often with the

expectations of their coaches than the play of successful

players.

2.3 The attention of unsuccessful intercollegiate

tennis players will be diverted significantly more oS~en ~ : f'rom i;he game tha.n the attention o£ successful players.

2 .. 4 Success.ful intercollegiate tennis players will

spend significantly more time working on weaknesses in

their games than unsuccessful players.

2.5 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

; approach a match with a significantly more confident at­ l titude than unsuccessful players. 2.6 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

be significantly more si~Jle, honest, and straightforward

when dealing with their coaches than unsuccessful players.

2.7 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

i 1 : be significantly more realistic in assessing their ability than unsuccessf'u.l players.

2.8 Unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players will

be significantly more emo'tional during a match than sue-

cessful players.

2.9 Successful intercollegiate tennis players will

be significantly more concerned with their own performance

during a match than unsuccessful players.

2.10 Unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players

will seek the advice of their coaches when they are not

playing well significantly more often than successful

players.

f\ssumpt:._ions

The.study was based on the :following assumptions:

1) that there are personality traits and behavioral char-

acteristics which are descriptive of intercollegiate ten-

: nis players; 2) that specific individual personality

traits are identifiable; 3) that the coaches would be able

to identify the behavioral characteristics of the players; 7

that the players, as members o£ an intercollegiate ten-

:nis team, w-ere relatively homogeneous in terms o£ phvsical

1 : abil.i ty; 5) that the players werE~ representative of a

, collegiate student population; 6) that those taking ·the it2st represented a particular level of intercollegiate

; tennis player; and 7) t.hat the Co:mrey Personality Scales

were the best available tool to measure the personality

traits of intercollegiate tennis players.

:Delimitations

The study was delimited by the following conditions: i 1) only institutions with similar 1973 dual ma·tch sched- 'j jules, overall tennis program development, recent won-loss

'record, and proximity to Northridge participated; 2) only

the six singles players competing on the varsity level iat these institutions participated. 1 ;

'Limitations

The following were limitations of the study: 1)

personal interpretation of the questions on the Comrey

Personality Scales may have influenced the responses given

by the players; 2) personal bias may have influenced the

responses given on the questionnaire by the coaches; 3)

lack of control over the extrinsic variables may have in-

fluf:::nced either a pl?~yerts or a coach's receptiveness to 8

irespond to the material.

It is not uncommon for a coach to have an inter-

:collegiate tennis player on his team who loses frequently

:while c>,nother player, seemingly less physically endowed,

'wins C'.")nsistently. For those competing on the intercol-

legiate level, the difference between winning and losing

may well be a £unction of a player's psychological mc>,keup •

.: Pete Bodo in ~ York. aptly characterizes the situation

: !that often confronts an intercollegiate tennis coach,

A psychology degree is not requir0d for playing tennis. But perhaps it should be. The full range of human passion and ec­ centricity, of foibles and paranoia, is unsparingly revealed on court (12:44).

Psychologists over the years have developed methods

for assessing the dynamics of personality and behavior.

'Investigators in the field of Sports Psychology using

1 similar techniques have found that athletes who possess

: certain psychological characteristics excel in sports

{5, 6, 7). A number of personality traits descriptive of

. outstanding athletes in general have been identified.

· Ogilvi2 and Tutko report,

It becomes increasingly clear that out­ stand:Lng athletes can be identified by a number o£ common, desirable personality ______traits (5:JO). 9

Personality traits specific to an athletic group have been

' :found. Cratty relates,

Certain groups of personality traits are found in superior athletes. At: times, certain clusters o£ traits are specific to a sport (4:195).

Unfortunately, the information describing the per-

sonality characteristics o,f male intercollegiate tennis

players available to the coach is extremely limited. To ! deal effectively with the personalities o:f his players, he·

is forced to rely on methods developed £rom past exper-

ience. Information gained :from studies done in the field

of Sports Psychology occasionally will provide clues :for

dealing with the personality complexities o£ these ath-

letes. The coach, more often than not, finds himself

generalizing from these investigations with the hope that

the conclusions he has drawn are valid.

There is a need for a study which investigates the

personality traits and the behavioral characteristics o£ l i intercollegiate tennis players. A study of this nature

will alleviate much of the guess work that faces the coach

when he is dealing with the personality complexities

of his players. This information will assist the coach in

becoming more aware of the psychological :factors which in-

fluence a player's growth and development. The data will 10

.. ~c "~ - ,, _A.,~-~ ·•·-•• --·-··~-~--·--~" ··~- •-··• ·••' ·.----·-~· ,·-·-·~- •-··•~---· --- -~•-·. --~"-~-~--·~-. ,,,_, ~-- - ·-·----~·------·----~-~-· •••-• ·-- •--•- --•- ,. i ' ;provide the coach with an addi tiorial :method for differ-·

entiat:ing players of equal physical ability. Intercol-

legiate tennis players will, also, benefit from this re-

·:search. ~"lowledge of the psychological characteristics of i :successful intercollegiat.e tennis players vlill enable them

jto formulate an· approach to the game that would minimize

the factors which adversely affect competitive performance •.

An awareness of these psychological parameters holds the

,potential of helping intercollegiate players set realistic ' i igoals.

This study was designed to determine if there are

! specific personality traits and selected behavioral char·· ' ,acteristics which are descriptive of successful and un-

1 successful intercollegiate tennis players. It should pro-

vide answers for some of the questions concerning the psy-

, chological makeup of this athletic group, and lay the

; ground work for future studies on tennis players.

Definition of Terms

Behavioral Characteristic--A·particular behavioral " .concept that is identified in a set of responses given by

a coach.

Comrey Personality Scales--A comprehensive, multi-

' dimensional assessment instrument used in measuring Jl

characteristics. The Comrey Personality

·scales are intended :for use with normal, socially func-

tioning individuals. The structure of the inventory re-

::fleets the characteristics which are held to underlie I )everyday behavior (5:3). ;

Heterogen'eous Personality Characteristic--A particu- lar personality trait, measured by the Comrey Personality

Scales, which differentiates significantly one group :from the other •.

Homogeneous Personality Characteristic--A particular personality trait, measured by the Comrey Personality

Scales~ on which there is no significant di:f:ference be- tween the groups.

Intercollegiate Tennis Player--A member o:f the men 1 s varsity tennis team, playing one of the six singles posi- tions, at either California State University, Northridge, or a varsity member o:f a selected intercollegiate tennis team that played against California State University,

Northridge, during the 1973 tennis season.

Successful Intercollegiate Tennis P..l:ayer--A player whose 1973 singles dual match winning percentage placed him in the upper third o:f the players involved in the study. 12

Unsuccess:ful_Intercolle9.iate Tennis Player--A player

whose 1973 singles dual match winning percentage placed

him in the lower third of the players involved in the

·:study.

Intercollegiate Tennis Team--An institution whose

self-determined· schedule, tennis budget, and overall

athletic program does not have·the range and depth o£ a

large university. Also, tennis at this institution is not

a major sport (Note: California State University, North-

ridge's tennis program, N.C.A.A. Division II, compared to

that at University o£ California at Los Angeles, N.C.A.A.

Division I.

Normative Populati2£--365 male, college age non-

athletes used by Comrey as the comparative group (3:10-11)~

Qee? Tennis--Tournaments offering prize money in

which amateurs and professionals are eligible to compete;

the first such tournament was held in Bournemouth,

in 1968.

Persona1i!X_--Personality was interpreted in the

:following ways: 1) as the individual's external appearance

.and behavior, or social stimulus value; 2) as an indi-

, vidual's personal awareness of self as a permanent organiz-.

ing force in his life; and 3) as an individual's particular 13

patte:cn or organization of mea~-:;urable traits (1: 1.43).

Personal:iJ:y_ Characteristic--A particular personality

; trait measured by the Cornrey Persona.li ty Scales~ ' ' Validi tl _fheck Scale--A scale found on the Comrey Per-

sonality Scales which is designed to detect random marking

or other kinds of erratic subject behavior.

Response Bias Scale--A scale found on the Comrey Per-

sonality Scales which is designed to give a measure of

a subject's tendency to answer items in a socially desir-

able way.

Trust vs. Defensiveness(T)--Subjects scoring high on this ' i ipersonality factor show that they, more than the average ! person, believe in the basic honesty, trustworthiness, and i good intentions of other people. They believe others wish

·them well, and they have faith in human nature. Low

scores on this ;factor indicate a subject is cynical, de-

fensive, suspicious, and has a lower opinion of' these

values than the normative man.

Orderliness vs. Lack of Compulsion(O)--Subjects scoring

high on this factor tend to be very concerned with neatness

and orderliness. They display signs of being systematic

and meticulous. They like to live in a routine way. Sub-

jects who score low on this factor are inclined to be 14

r-·,···· ___... ., ... - ---·--·-··------·----- ·-·~·------..... ···-·----·-·.- __ .. ______...... ------~---- ...... ····-·-- ... ···-· I !careless, sloppy, reckless, untidy, and unsystematic in

their style of life •

.§2.£:!-~1 CC?!].:fo_Fm~y~. RebelliousnessJ.~--Subjects scoring

[high in this area tend to accept society as it is, respect

!the law, seek approval o£ society, and resent nonconformity

;in others.· Subjects scoring low are inclined to challenge

the law and the institutions of the society, resent con-

trol, accept nonconformity, and be nonconformist them-

'selves. i \Activity vs. Lack. of Energy (A l. --Subjects scoring high on

this factor have great energy and stamina and strive to

excel. They tend to enjoy physical activity, hard work, land exercise. Subjects scoring low are inclined to be ! ·physically inactive, to lack drive and energy, and to have

little motivation to excel.

~tional Stability_ vs. Neuroticism ( S) --Subjects scoring

1 high on this factor tend to be happy, calm, optimistic,

stable in mood, and have confidence in themselves. Sub-

jects who are low on this factor have inferiority feelings,

are agitated, depressed, pessimistic, and have frequent

-mood swings.

/ 'Extr~:y_ersion vs. Introversion(El--Subjects scoring high in

; this area tend to be outgoing, se·ek the company of othf~rs, meet strangers easily, and speak with little fear before . -- --· ·~ .. --- 15

r-·-- ~- ~~·'·---~-•-"•-·-•• •• ~·--·----·---······-~• ·-~--~~-...----.-•·•-~-· --·-··---~-· ·-• ·~·------~· ·-<-- • _.-·---~--~-···~•••• ~--~---• •·-~u-o·· -.-~.~---·· ___ , •• -~·· i !groups. Subjects who score low on this £actor are re-

served, seclusive, shy, and suffer from stage fright.

Masculinity ,vs. FeminfE~--Subjects scoring high on

:this factor tend to be ·tough-minded individuals Q They have i !little interest in love stories, and they are not bothered , ;by vulgarityo Subjects who score low on this factor are

interested in roman·tic love, and are disturbed by vulgar-

ity.

Empathy vs. Egocentricism(P)--Subjects scoring high in this

area are sympathetic, generous, helpful, unselfish, and

interested in devoting their lives to the service of

others. Subjects scoring low are not particularly helpful

to others. They tend to be concerned about themselves and

their own goals (3:6-7).

Successful Athlete--A synonym :for any one o£ the

following: winner, champion, N.C.A.A. Champion, national

champion, All-American, varsity letter winner.

W.C.T.--World Championship Tennis is a group headed

by ; the leading tennis professionals in the world belong to this organization; composed of three tour-

ing groups--Red, Green, and Blue--each with twenty-eight

. players. CHAPTER II

The match completely takes me over. I:f I'm in my groove, the ball will take care of it­ sel:f, and my movements and ·thougll ts and con­ centration will be determined by the ball, not by me. Torben Ulrich

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The purpose o:f this chapter was to review the litera-·

ture pertaining to the personality traits and behavioral

characteristics descriptive of successful intercollegiate

athletes. Material describing the personality traits and

!behavioral characteristics of tennis players was also

:examined.

The review of literature will be presented and dis-

cussed in three sec~ions. In the first section an intro-

duction to the personality traits descriptive of success-

!ful athletes, in general, and successful tennis players,

i in particular, is presented. This is followed by an ex­ i ! ru~ination o:f studies concerning successful intercollegiate

· athletes~ The second section investigates studies in which

tennis playe:rs served as subjects. The final section re-

views articles which offered insight concerning the

. ~ 16 17

lbeha.vioral characteristics of successful tennis players.

!:,er~onality Characteristics o£ Successful Athletes

Athletes, competing on the top levels of a sport,

'I :have comparable physical ability. For many, then, the dif- ference between being successful or unsuccessful~ in terms of performance, may well be a £unction of psychological makeup. Krumdick and Lumian (47) suggested that the degree of success that an athlete realizes was determined by his mental attitude. They characterized the successful athlc:::te as confident, and possessing feelings of exception- al self-assurance. He took pride in the challenges of- fered by his sport, and he utilized the challenges to strengthen his self -respect.

In psychology and Physical Activity, Cratty (4) de- voted a chapter to discussing the superior athlete. Ac- cording to Cratty, the superior athlete came from a back- ground of success. His need for achievement was manifested in a high aspiration level. The superior athlete was interested in continually exploring his potential, and thus, actively involved in setting performance goals. He often channeled hostility and aggression into a perform- anee. He was extremely perceptive and had a good grasp of personal strengths and weaknesses. He was aware of the

• social implications o£ both his successes and his :failures.·

Approval or disapproval of his actions often provided the

!impetus for the strivings of the superior athlete. In

!conclusion, Cratty stated that athletic success was a com­ l jbination of superior personality traits, physical ability,

and an environment in which the athlete can train effec-

tively.

Ogilvie and Tutko (5) have been the leading invest:i.- jgators in the field of personality and athletic success ' /£or a number of years. In their work, they have described ! ! :the' successful athlete as facing reality calmly, avoiding ! \; l !childish, less mature, solutions for conflict. The sue-

!cessful athlete was achievement-oriented, and derived

personal satisfaction from his strivings. He was at his

best when the odds were slightly against him. In defeat,

:he concentrated on the part o£ his performance that

limited his excellence, not the loss itself. Ogilvie,

discussing the traits held in common by successful ath-

letes, has stated,

They are success oriented, ambitious, highly organized individuals, tend to seek leadership roles, have great psy­ chological endurance, and f'ind it easy to express self-assertion. They tend to have a very low need to express in­ terest in the problems of others, nor 19

do they expect others to show special interest or concern in them. Th(~y show low inclination to study the motivation of others and appear to be extremely self-contained individuals. The higher the criterion of excellence one estab­ lishes, the greater probability will be that the athlete will be emotionally stable, tough minded, conscientious, have sel.f-controlled discipline, self -assurance, be relaxed with low levels of resting ten­ sion, be trusting, free of jealousy, and for males, a tendency to become increas­ ingly more outgoing in personality (56:1).

Being a successful tournament tennis player is synonymous with being a winner. After interviewing a num- ber of top ranked United States players, Luszki (54) con- eluded that those who were successful were highly competi- tive, strong on the sadistic side, and exhibited a high degree of extra-punative aggression. Non-tournament play- ers tended toward the masochistic side and demonstrated intra-punitive aggression. Concentration and emotional control were termed essential for success to be realized.

In conclusion, the author stated,

••• competitive tennis is not a friendly game designed to improve camaraderie and friendship; it is deadly serious competi­ tion. Winning is the only aim and "love" has no relationship to the usual meaning of the word (54:39).

To become a successful tennis pla.yer, according to Diehl

(32), the fear of failure had to be overcome. Having the proper temperament 1 and the right mental attitude enabled

·a player to approach a match with relaxed assurance. He

:could then concentrate on his shots. Enjoyment was gained

1.from the challenges provided in each match~ Success was !predicated on having a winning attitude, I Winning tennis is a combination o.f physical and mental conditioning. If you lose control of the mental side of the game, all your physical ability and conditioning will not be sufficient to make you a winner (32:91).

Vic Braden (13), a licensed psychologist, has been

recognized as an innovative instructor who sought to sim-

plify the mental aspects of the game. has

called Braden the world 1 s number one tennis coach. Accord-

ing to Braden, a successful player possessed a tremendous

desire to be the best. He thought like a champion. Nega-

tive thought processes were not part of his personality

makeup. He had confidence in his ability. The success.ful

player was never content with his past records. As a re-

sult, he had an insatiable desire to learn. He prepared

well for each match, yet he possessed the ability to relax

when not competing. Braden characterized a winner as

doing his thinking before a match and his hitting during

the competition. 21

r·· ··-··"--·· ..... --~------...... ------:- ----~--·-~-·- --·------..·-- .. ····--"------· ...... ·- ...... ------......

Il Successful athletes are members o£ a very select !

group. In the preceding 1 a number of personality traits

:descriptive o:f this group, in general, were identif"ied.

Studi8s which examine the personality traits o£ athletes

who wer(~ successful on the intercollegiate level will now

be discussed.

A group o£ researchers, headed by Warren Johnson

(39), administered the group Rorschach and the Chromatic

H-T-P to twelve National Champions or All-Americans in

their respective sports (football, lacrosse, wresting,

boxing, track, and shooting). The findings indicated tha·t

champions were readily distinguishable £rom other athletes.

·The champions were characterized by extreme aggression,

uncontrolled affect, high and generc:..lized anxiety, a high

level o£ intellectual aspiration, and exceptional feelings

of self-assurance. They were better able to concentrate

personal resources on desired objectives than were other

athletes. The champions exhibited an unusual concern £or

physical power and physical perfection. For these ath-

letes, being a champion was found to be a physical neces-

sity.

Bentson and Summerskill (11) studied differences in personality adjustment between 1':ifty-nine intercollegiate

varsity letter winners and fifty-nine non-letter winners. 22

)""~ . ""'··~- ·~>·•~ -~·-·-- -·---·····-·-'" ~- - -~~~------~-~~--~------~--~-- _, ~- -~ ...... ,. --~---~~------~-- -~-- --- ~------~------~-....·-·- --~-- ______, ------~- . 1' ;rhey interviewed the letter winners and determined that

:from their participation in athletics these individuals i i •gained tremendous personal satisfaction and the esteem o£

!the campus community. They derived additional satisfaction

:from the social interaction o£ being on a team. Their i ;ability to accept others greatly improved. They made not- 'l ; :able gains in their personal and social development.

The relationship between athletic performance and

•certain psychological variables was investigated by Langer

and Nelson (57). In their study it was determined that

basic anxiety, as measured by the Cattell 16 PF, was

significantly related to success. Intercollegiate football

players, who were rated successful based on performance,

had lower resting levels o£ anxiety, and a rise in pre-

game anxiety that was never beyond their control. Players,

rated poorer in performance, had a significantly higher

level o£ resting anxiety. They allowed pre-game anxiety

to get out o£ control. Successful football players were

described as having higher ego strength, being more ven-

turesome and bold, more self-disciplined, and had below

average fluctuations in anxiety £rom game to game. The

data seemed to support the conclusion that successful ath-

letes have internal mechanisms which prepare them £or competition. Cattell's 16 PF was also used by Kroll and ...... -~-. .::o:.l

~~·- ·~·~ '>' "'>''••'''- • -• ·~~··-•~ -r. --~~·y·.-~ ·---.-.~~---.--"•" ----··--~~--~-~ ---·----·---·~··-···~... ~~--•· --·------··-·~--~---·-• -~-··-·• ·•-•·-·• ~-~-- --·~·· ••• '' •-·~ ~ ! jPeten;on (46) to discriminate between winning and losing

'intercollegiate football teams. Comparing five winning I 'and five losing teams, the researchers determined tha.t jwinning teams were more venturesome and bold, more self-

assured, more sel£ ·-confident and placid, :more self-

controlled, and possessed more abstract mental ability.

Berger and Littlefield {10) studies thirty outstand-

ing football players, thirty average football players, and

thirty non-athletes to determine if differences in person-

ality, as measured by the California Psychological Inven-

tory, existed between the groups. Findings indicated that

no significant differences existed between the groups on

any of the eighteen items.

Sixty-one N.C.A.A. Champion wrestlers were the sub-

ject of a study by Yensen (74). A personality profile,

descriptive of this athletic group, was compiled from the

individual responses made by the wrestlers to questions

regarding their successful intercollegiate careers. Deter-

ruination, desire, aggressiveness, and confidence were

listed as the mental factors which contributed most to a

successful performance. In response to the question of

; how they felt before an important match, the terms deter-

mined, confident, eager, and relaxed appeared 127 times as

~.compared -t;o seventeen times for the word scared. The 24

Ir., ______---·---- .... ------·"····~·----·-·--,"------··-----·-·------·-·------·-----··. ------~------· ...... -· iphrases "no one can beat me" and "best wrestler in the ! ·U.s .A. 11 were used to also describe the attitudes held prior

'to a match.

Kroll {45) administered the Cattell 16 PF to three • •groups o£ wrestlers: Superior--N.C.A.A. or N.A .. I.A. Cham- iPions or place winners; excellent--a group who were varsity

!representatives and had won at least sixty percent of their I :matches during the season; and average or below average-- ! •the remaining wrestlers on the £our teams that participated

:in the study. Compared to population norms, wrestlers were

:found to be significantly different on the factors indi- j eating toughmindedness, self-reliance, and masculinity.

[Discriminant £unction analysis, however, £ailed to indicate

1 any profile differences between the groups.

The relationship between personality traits and sue-

cess in swimming and diving was analyzed by Smith (73).

The Cattell 16 PF was the assessment instrument used in

the study. Participants in the eighteen swimming and div-

ing events at the Wisconsin State University Conference

meet in 1969 were categorized, based on their performance,

successful, ranking in the top hal£ of an event, or unsuc-

cess£ul, ranking in the lower hal£ o£ an event. Teams

were also categorized based on their performance. No sig-

nificant difference was found when successful and unsuccess:ful teams were compared.. Significant differences

'between successful and unsuccessful competi to.rs resul·ted

. in ten of the eighteen even·ts. Ten of the seventeen sig-

: nificant dif:ferences appeared on three of the 16 PF £act-

: ors. On the :facto·r Prot ens ion (L) the results indi.cated

,that successful participants were more trusting, adaptable,

free of jealousy, and easy to get along wi·th. The unsuc-

cessful group was more suspicious, self-opinionated, and

hard to fool. Performers in th~ 200-yard butterfly were jjust the opposite for this factor. Successful competitors, ion the facto:r Self -Suff'iciency (Q2 ), were more group de- 'pendent, joiners, and sound followers while the unsuccess-·

, ful group was self-sufficient,. resourceful, and preferred

their own decisions. On the £actor of Tenseness (Q4) suc··

cessful competitors were tense, frustrated, driven, and

overwrought. The unsuccessful group was relaxed, tranquil,

and unfrust:cated. The groups were reversed for the fifty

yard freestyle on this factor.

The work of Cratty, and Ogilvie and ~1tko (4, 5)

provided descriptions of the successful athlete in very

general terms. Studies by Johnson, I..anger and Nelson, and

Kroll and Peterson (39, 46, 51} identified specific per-

sonality traits descriptive of successful athletic material

on successful tennis players suggested tha·t they are extl:"emely competi·ti ve ,and manifest a high degree o:E extra."-

1punitive aggressions They were found to possess a posi··

'tive mental attitude, the ability to concentrate intently,

!and were never satisfied with their past records.

The Tennis Play~~

Research investigating the personality traits o£

tennis players, whether amateurs or professionals, is

limited. Knowledge pertaining to the psychological makeup

characteristic o£ successful intercollegiate tennis players

is even more limited. The studies, to be discussed, pre­

sent the information currently available regarding this

athletic group.

Sperling (69) administered £our personality tests to

435 college varsity athletes, intramural athletes, and

non-athletes. The results indicated that reliable differ­

ences existed between the personality trait patterns o£

the two athletic groups and the non-athletic group. Inter-

collegiate tennis team players, in the varsity athletes

group, scored highest on the liberalism factor when com­ pared to the other athletic groups.

Lakie ( 48) compared the personality traits o£ 230

varsity athletes £rom a state university, a private uni­

~ versity, and a state college •. The athletes participated in either :football, baseball, tennis~ golf, track~ or

v..-:restling. From the results of the Omnibus- Personality .In-

ventory, it was concluded that the combined ·tennis -golf

l group was ~1ore independent, less conventional and compul-

j • ;sl..ve, and possessed greater intellectual curiosity a.nd

'interest in aesthetic matters than the other athletic

1 groups.

In his study, Hughes (70) investigated differences in

personality among select groups of male freshmen who played

on intercollegiate teams at Springfield College. The Ed-

wards Personal Preference Schedule was administered 207

freshmen athletes. Tennis team members scored significant-

ly higher than the other freshmen teams on the factors het-

erosexuality, aggression, and exhibition. They scored sig-

nificantly lower on dominance, autonomy, and intraception.

In a study comparing the personality traits of col-

lege varsity and professional tennis players and golfers,

Gold (68) used the Guilford-Martin Personality Inventorys

He found that intercollegiate and professional tennis

players overall scored similarly on the test. Intercol-

legiate tennis players, however, were more calm, unruffled,

;and relaxed than professional tennis players. Singer (61)

·employed the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and

season end ratings of each athlete, made by the coaches at iOhio State University, to evaluate the personality char··

acteristics of the members· of the varsity baseball and ·

. tennis teams • In his comparison of the personality char-

:a.cter of these two groups, he found no significant differ-

'ence.

Kane and Callaghan (40} administered the Cattell

116 PF to sixty-seven winners of national or international

tennis championships. The findings indica ted that these

athletes, when compared to test norms~ were outwardly easy

;going and sociable when in company, but possessed basic

'diffidence and apprehension. ·They were neither dominant

nor aggressive. As a group, they tended to be high in

;anxiety, uncontrolled elation, and tenseness. The authors

concluded that a little basic temperamental anxiety may benefit a player provided it was controlled.

Using the Maudsley Personality Inventory, Knapp (43)

found that forty-six British tournament tennis players were high on extraversion and low on neuroticism. Overall,

these a·thletes were not significantly different from

British non-athletes.

The personality characteristics of twelve outstand-

ing past and present tennis champions were evaluated by

Olsen (57). He employed the interview technique to gain 29

~is information. The personality traits of players,

judged by experts to be world champions~ were compared with I 'the personality traits of those classified as near-

· champions. The champions were found to be more purposely

; 'intense and serious, more mechanized, more conGerned with

winning, less a.ware of crowd reaction, less disturbed dur- 1 !ing a ma·tch, and felt less burdened by being expected to i !win. The champions never ha.d to ·take a break, they prac- l !ticed constantly.

The only study dealing exclusively with intercol-

; legiate tennis players was done by Ostrow {72). He used

:the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule to assess pre-

season and post-season levels of aggression of fifteen male

intercollegiate tennis players, twelve male, non-active

tennis players (they did not make the team), and thirty-one

,male, non-athletes. No significant d~fference was found

;when the pre-season aggression levels of the three groups

. ' i were compared. The study concluded that participation in I

tennis did not significantly affect aggression levels of i i intercollegiate tennis players from pre-season to post- '·

:season.

In the studies that were presented differences on

personality traits ~ere noted between intercollegiate

tennis players and other groups of 'intercollegiate athletes .30

r-,--,··o···--·----·--········- ••>-•·-··------··--··--·· ··------·--·-·-·------···-·-·------·--· ·------··-·-·--··· -···,

! (Sperling, Lakie, Hughes), between. tennis players and t~he

normative population (Kane and Callaghan), and between.

classes o£ tennis players (Gold, Olsen). Singer, Knapp,

:and Ostrow (43, 61, 72) found no differences between ten-

nis players and selected comparative groups. Overall

intercollegiate tennis players seemed to be liberal, inde-

pendent, heterosexual, aggressive, and calm. Professiona.l

tennis players were found to be anxious, intense, and

serious, mechanized in their life style and extremely con-

cerned about winning.

The Behavioral Characteristics of Successful Tennis Players

Insights concerning the life style of a tennis

champion can be derived from many sources. Magazine arti-

cles are a case in point. With the growth in popularity

of tennis, over the last few years, there has been a sharp

increase in the feature stories dealing with tennis cham-

pions. From the information provided in these articles,

it was possible to paint a fairly accurate portrait of the

behavioral characteristics of successful tennis players.

The adjectives used by the media to describe sue-

cessful tennis players are often colorful and extravagant.

It is important, however, to remember that while these

L.' -·-.:..";;'"J

players have much in corlllllon the individuals_ make-up this

athletic group. (3-1;- 41. 66) lends support to

this claim. He is the 1973 W.C.T. Champion, a former

;vJimbledon Champion, and the leader o:f the U~S. team which

·held' the five consecutive years. Smith has been

;depicted in the following manner,

Among other things, Stan Smith is deeply religious, God-fearing, temperate and disciplined, a true sportsman, a respect­ ful loving son and a self-made champion whose "corny dream" is to build and manage his own Y~~A {31:22).

Vic Braden says of Smith, the tennis player,

Stan is a lot like Kramer in the sense that he is able to put all external stimuli aside on the court. He does not permit himself to get involved in emo­ tional issues out there (31:29).

Speaking candidly about himself, Smith relates,

Roy Emerson is characterized as a great competitor, a work horse ••. I a.m also a work horse, I win on competitiveness and court coverage. I hate to see guys who play just for money and not for pleasure ••• ( 66:46) •

Bob Lutz, who, with Smith, won the 1973 W.C.T. Doubles Championship, says of the younger Smith,

He was never shy, just independent in his own way. He didn't want to associate with the guys. He kept to himself. He'd look down on others sometimes because he thought his way of training was the only way, best for everyone. We'd all go out, he'd stay in his room and jump rope. A lot o£ the

L ~ "" .. -- ---·-· ------~-- r-··-·- A<~~·~--··-·-··-··--_,---,-----~·------'"··------··---u---~---- -~------~-·••·---·~-~·------·~ -~--~---~~~- ··-~~--·-· ~ -··---~- -~ ._.., guys were always making fun of him, but that never seemed to bother him. Now stan is more open, more hang-loose. He does what he thinks he should do, not what someone else has told him to do (31 :23).

Australians have been leaders in the world tennis

i • f rank~ngs or years. Those who follow tennis.closely are

1not really sure whether Aussies appear so temperai'nentally

alike because they share the same nationality, or because

they are influenced by the players who precede them in

.international competition. (42) and

idiosyncratic--Rosewall eternally homesick and Laver the

'fussbudget.

Ken Rosewall has been playing international tennis

for over twenty years. In the early 1950's he and another

youngster, , came out of to power

.in her defense of the Davis Cup. Since that time, Rosewall

has won every major singles "'ci tle except Wimbledon.

A devoted family man, the discipline and denial of

the life he has led as a tennis player, shows in his face •

. Arthur Huxley, an official of Slazengers and a close

·.friend of Rosewall' s for more than twenty years, refers to

• him as "just a very decent little bloke" ( 42:83). Rosen-

wall's personality is neither flamboyant, nor devil-may- 3.3 . I!~·~····-~··-·----· ~- 0~ -~ ---~~~ ~------·- ~--~-- ~---~----·-~-~----~ ...... ,... _____ ~ ·-~------~-~-~-~-~------~~- ~~-~------· ! !care.i His personal habits are governed by bonesty and I :thrift. His tennis game is a direct extension o£ his per··

sonality. He does not play the big serve and game,

;where errors often surpass the number o£ placements. He

!wins with steadiness and control. Ken says,

I try not to overdo anythinga I try to keep £it and not hurt myself {42:83).

Rodney George Laver is the only man, other than Don

Budge, to win four major world singles titles in one year. I He accomplished this feat twice, once as an ruuateur in 196~

and again with Open Tennis as a professional in 1969.

Lance Tingay, the distinguished lawn tennis correspondent

of the Daily Telegraph, has called Laver the best

player in the history of the game (65:84). Britain's

all-time great, , says Laver must be included

with the top players of the game (20:18). Ken Rosewall,

usually laconic, will talk at length about the mechanics

of Laver's game,

He's exceptional, he's unorthodox and he's someone you couldn't copy. As a champion his performances and court tem­ perament could be held up as a fine model for young players {20:18).

Rod is steady, thrifty, honest, compassionate, humble,

almost shy. Away from the courts, the intensity and ner-

vous viciousness which distinguishes his play dissipates. },._.,~,._~. ---·--·· -· .-, --··-·~--~- --·..-,····-~·~ . --· -- -~-----:·- ~-----~-~---··-- ~--··------.~--,~------~-~~· ~~-~-~----~~-~ .---·-~-·------'· -----· ·--·---~~-··--···- ~-· ,i lHe becomes more like s01neone out of the Boy Scout Manual, ' a composite of the ideal Australian (20:18).

Roger Taylor (16) is the son of a Sheffield steel-

;worker. His background, thus, is not typical of a tennis

!champion. He is a proud, distant, and fiercely independent

Yorkshireman. He works hard and m.akes the most of his

physical ability. This has not always been the case. His

tennis career has been marked by tremendous fluctuations.

When he was younger, his pursuit of the good times led

directly to a number of his tennis :failures. Taylor, quite'

simply, was his own worst enemy. Maturity crune late but

as Taylor approaches thirty, he seems to be set on becoming

one of Britain's most successful players ever.

Gene Scott and are two exceptions who

were successful in tennis. Scott (59), a :former Davis

Cupper, was once ranked :fourth in the United States.

Though his play is greatly restricted by his law practice,

Scott is now the top ranking Junior Veteran in the coun-

try. He is probably best known for reaching the semi-

finals of Forrest Hills in 1967. There he lost to the

eventual champion, . In discussing the sue-

cess he enjoyed in the tournament, Scott revealed himself

to be a most unique individual. Tennis was never the most 3.5

-----·-·· ----····-----·--· ...... ------' --- '., l important thing in his life. He enjoyed winning but he

never expected to be champion at Wimbledon or Forrest

Hills. He had no desire to be the best in the world. When

!he played a tournament, he did so merely to have :fun.

Mention the name \\Thi tney Reed (22). to a group o:f ten-

nis enthusiasts and watch their .faces light up. Stories

surrounding his career are practically never ending.

Whitney is a tennis legend, a modern folk hero. In 1960,

'he was ranked eighth in the United States. The following

year he jumped to number one. 1962 found him ranked

·sixth, and £rom that point, his career went steadily down-

hill. All the while, ~~itney enjoyed himself fully. His

! disregard £or training, love o£ parties, and inability to 1 •keep track o£ the time are all well documented. Bob

Kellerher, the 1962 Davis Cup Captain, recalls,

But whereas training should help a player, it seemed to hurt Whit. His system wasn't geared to conditioning and he didn't play very well {22:71).

Whitney's game was highly unorthodox and impetuous. He was

an artful improviser who was, also, quite a successful ten-

nis player.

Torben Ulrich (44) £rom Copenhagen, Denmark is

W.C.T.'s oldest active player. He is, also, a noted jazz

critic, and a writer. Ulrich, a bearded, long-haired 36

eccentric, has never really belonged anywhere. As a ten-

nis professional and as an individual, he is unique. He

has been described as having ·the inner peace known only to

a man o:f God. His life, as is his tennis, is governed by

rules known only to him. In both, Ulrich stresses £eel,

~low, and pattern. Mark Kram has said o£ him,

In the conformist world o£ tournament tennis, Torben Ulrich is a blithe spirit, a player o£ £air talent and delightful eccentricities to whom winning and losing mean nothing compared to the ballet of the stroke, the sweet symphony of ball meeting strings (44:79).

Most tennis champio.ns dedicate themselves to the

·game quite early. (9) is a case in point.

Tennis has been a part o£ the former N.C.A.A. Champion's

life since he was six years old. He progressed through the

·junior ranks winning numerous national age group titles

·along the way. In the process he su££ered through the

good, the bad, and the ugly syndrome which is typical o£

age group sports. Looking back on his years in the ju-

niors, Stockton questions the role played by his parents.

They applied pressures which were occasionally quite

·subtle, but more often than not quite direct. Still,

Stockton, now a successful W.C.T. pro, believes the only

way you can become a successful players is to have some

. ~ 37

experience at winning when you are young {9:78).

Cli££ Richey (25, 36) is a member of a family that is

•a close-knit tennis dynasty. George Richey, Cliff's dad,

i is a prominent teaching pro. His older sister, Nancy, has

i'been ranked in the United States women's top ten for years. 1 'Cliff began hi t·ting tennis balls be.fore he was old enough

!to walk. He quit high school in his junior year in order l ; to devote more time to the game. On the court, Cliff is

intense, competitive, tenacious, stubborn, and cocky. His

:pursuit of victory is almost an obsession. Cliff, of the

;players on the W.C.T. tour, probably works the hardest. i ' jThis accounts for the fact that he gets the most from his ! !innate physical ability.

For years, (8, 27} was the epitome of

a tennis brat. He was the kid from Bakersfield, California

who was being groomed to be the next Kramer. At eighteen,

'he reached the semi-finals at Forrest Hills. He passed up

high school graduation to go to Wimbledon where he won the

doubles charr~ionship of the world. In 1963, he teamed

with Chuck McKinley to break Australia's stranglehold on

the Davis Cup. In spite of his records, Dennis never

attained the eminence that had been ordained for him.

Arthur Ashe recalls, r--··--···-····-·-·------·---~-·--·------~--~------·-·- --··------·--·--·-:------·-·------·--- --·, ! i From 17 on, Dennis was to be the great- _est, the next Gonzales, and when he couldn't live up to ·that, it frustrated him terribly. But Denny let himself get caught too. There 1 s a black ·expression: "K..TlOW where he's coming from." There was no question that Dennis was spoiled where he was coming from (27:37). l ;Dennis said during that period,

Everybody always figured I was so good, they can never understand why I lose. Look, I'm just no Gonzales, no Kramer (27: 32).

Today, Dennis Ralston, barely into his thirties and forced

to limit his play because of arthritic knees, is captain

of the Davis Cup team. Tennis: which shaped so much of his

early life, is giving him a chance to realize success on a

different level. To the members of the team, Dennis is a

strategist, a diplomat, a teacher, and a friend. Neil

Amdur characterizes the approach Dennis utilizes,

His feeling for the game drags you deeper into a commitment until you sense the same sense of appreciation that Ralston attaches to tennis: it is more than mechanics; it is art, like a painter struggling to find the perfect canvas, the right touch, the one great stroke that will make his oil dis­ tinctive, different (8:59).

Dennis Ralston became involved in tennis at an early

age. Stan Smith on the other hand took up tennis while in his teens. Though contrary to general beliefs, Smith feels

his late conversion has worked to his advantage 1 39

Most American players played tennis from the time ·they were seven years old. But all they did was play it. They just hit a million tennis balls. They weren't really athletes. Australians, for instance, always are athletes who just happen to play tennis (31:23).

Australian~ (19) also took up the game quite

late. He participated in a variety o£ sports as a young-

s·ter. As an adult, he gave up a career as a carpenter

(hence the nickname nNails") to pursue tennis. Peter

Burwash says o£ Carmichael's odyssey,

••• Carmichael did it all on his own, with­ out a lesson, without sponsorship, and without a nickel to spare. He worked £or everything he got and fought his heart out for every win. His is a Cinderella story without the fairy godmother {19:84).

Whether it is the tenacious dedication of a Cliff i. Richey or the imaginative athleticism o£ a Whitney Reed, l personal commitment is essential for success to be realized

in tennis. Rod Laver analyzes the situation,

There's more to my life than just playing the game. It's my business and a big part of my life, but when I am away from it I try to enjoy myself. However, once I'm on the court, the desire is always there {18: 54).

·Charles Pasarell (67), another former N.C.A.A. Singles

Champion and now a member of W.C.To, admits there is agony

in defeat. Still, he has never considered giving up the 40

game. w.c.T .. pro, Marty Rissen summarizes his approach to

the game,

I think of myself as a fighter. I have to try for every point. If I don't play that way, I'm no good (17:26).

Gardnar Mulloy (58) winner of twenty-eight national tennis

titl~s, was still beating the best players in the world at

the age of fifty. At fifty-one, he considered himself

"promising," and hoped to improve. Gardnar summed up his

devotion to tennis,

I think I'll quit when I don't get a kick out of it any longer. But I keep getting successes, lifts. Let's be honest. Plaudits help you. You £eel a little em­ barrassed when you get them, but you're more embarrassed when you don't. I don't think I'll ever quit. I guess I'm a tennis degenerate (58:59)~

In international tennis there is little time £or the players to form close friendships. The Australians, how- ever, practice a rare type of camaraderie. says of his countrymen,

The Americans stick together, too, espec­ ially when they're not in their country. You know, they have the same bloody habits. But the difference is, Australians look after each other. It's not". the same with the Americans. With us, you lost a tight one, another one of ~s will be there to say, don't worry, if you want I'll drink a few beers with you tonight and help you relax {26: 97). 41

r··-·· --~ ... -'>···-· ·-· ---···-·- •• ------·~"~------~ ~--·------~~---~---~·------. ------~-- -~ ------~-:------~ __ _,._,. ___ --- ·F ------~ ..... ·---- ~ --- -~ --. ---··------· ! ' !outwardly thz Aussies appear blanched and uniformly dull.

They are forever coming up with "another Aussie,n another ! ·champion. There is always someone waiting in line. John

!Newcombe relates,

I think one of the reasons for our success is that we always have had such good leaders to look up to, to follow$ I'm cer­ tainly influenced by Emerson, but the basic game we all play can be traced back to Sedgman and McGregor (29:31).

A closer look at the Aussies reveals that they are ; :among the most engaging characters in sports. There is a

phrase they use which apt1y characterizes them. The phrase

. is, "I'm all right, Jack." Roughly it translates as not

; ·caring' at all about others. Rod Laver explains the concept

o:f Jack, the self-contained, supremely confident hero,

I'm all right Jack is what the guy who just drove o££ with the rental car shouts to the three guys le:ft standing on the curb (65:87).

In this section the behavioral characteristics o£

successful tennis players were presented. From this in-

£ormation, it was possible to draw a number o£ conclusions

regarding the li:fe style of this athletic group. Most o£

the players took up the game at a young age, and had

·worked very hard at it ever since. Their backgrounds,

both. social_ly and e~<:>nom~cally, wer~ gui t~ diverse. 42

Individually, they were thrifty, honest, disciplined,

, tenacious~ highly competitive, and self-reliant~ Of:f the i courts, they were reserved, humble, almost shy. They pre-

:£erred to remain in ·the background rather than be the

· Cf"~nter of attention. Finally, they shared a deep devotion

. to the game. Tennis ·was a business, but it was a business

:they greatly enjoyed.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the literature pertaining to

!the personality traits o£ successful intercollegiate

! athletes, to the personality traits descriptive o£ tennis ' :players, and to the behavioral characteristics o£ success-

£ul tennis players. It was found that intercollegiate

:tennis players, when compared to other intercollegiate ' . athletic groups, were more independent, aggressivE:, in·-

'tense, extroverted, and less conventional. As a group,

'successful tennis players shared certain commalities. They

. enjoyed a challenge, and had a high. need £or achievement.

;collectively, they led dedicated and disciplined lives.

'They were honest, thrifty, and self-reliant. Of:f the

:courts,' they were reserved, humble, almost shy. They be-

· lieved that hard work would eventually bring them success.

;They derived tremendous satisfaction from playing the game

:of tennis. CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study was to identify 1:he person-

ali ty traits a.nd the behavioral characteristics v,rhich were

:descriptive or successful and unsuccessful intercollegiate

;tennis players. This chapter will present the method used ' ' iin the selection of' subjects; the organization of the re-

;search; a description of the test and testing procedures; land the statistical design used to analyze the data.

Selection o£ Subj~_cts

The initial problem facing the investigator was to

determine which intercollegiate tennis teams should partie-

ipate in t~e study. It was intended that all o£ the sub-

jects participating in the study have approximately the

same level o£ skill. The investigator believed that homo- i geneity on the physical factor would lead to a more I

~accurate description of those personali·ty traits and be-

'havioral characteristics which might differentiate between

successful and unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

43 f~~- -~---·~~·"---'"-·~-·-~ ''---~-~~--~· --·-··~·~~--··---·· ¥••-.o/~ ··~--~----·--··--·----~-· ••'-~•u•r~·------·----·-,•<--·-•---••••• T-.~-"-"'"--·...... ,.•~·· -~ooo-r,_ •• l The investigator considered several £actors in order

to insure physical homogeneity. Intercollegiate teams,

playing home and home matches with California State Uni~

iversity, Northridge, were asked to submit a copy of their

1973 dual match schedule. Once the schedules were re-

:ceived, teams were classified as either acceptable or not

acceptable based on the total number o£ dual matches they

were to play during the season. The teams playing at least

twenty dual matches were given further consideration. The

/development of a particular institution's tennis program f iin terms of the tennis budget, conference membership, and

'the number of tennis scholarships offered, and the won-

; loss record over the last few years were examined next. It

·was the goal of the investigator to match the institutions

that were going to participate as closely as possible on

these factors. The location of the institution was the j final £actor considered. Proximity was considered essen­

tial £or scheduling test dates.

Based on the 1973 dual match schedule, the overall

-l development of the tennis program, the recent won-loss ' record, and the proximity o£ the institution, the following

j teams were termed homogeneous and were therefore included

in the study: California State University Bakersfield, California State University Fresno, California State Uni-

versity Fullerton, California State ·university Los Angeles,

·California State University Northridge, California State jUniversity San Diego, California State University San Luis

!Obispo, University of California Riverside, and Univer:sity

;

1 of Redlands.

The nine coaches and the six singles players from

these institutions participated in the study. The coaches were judged to have the best knowledge of the inter-

collegiate tennis players behavioral characteristics. For this reason, their individual assessments of their players were used in the study. It was assumed that by including only the top six players greater homogeneity would be

i - j assured in ·terms of ability. ;

Organization of the Research

In December of 1972 an introductory letter was sent to ·the coaches o£ the teams playing home and home matches with California State University, Northridge, during the

1973 tennis season (Appendix A). The study was explained briefly as an investigation o£ the personality traits and the behavioral characteristics of intercollegiate tennis players. The coaches were asked, speaking for those on their teams, if they were interested in participating in 46

,.~ ..·~·------··~ -~-- -~ ... ~-~~ -·~~--- -.---~··-· ------~-~---..--·-----~·-----~-·--"!-'------·-----·-·------~-·":"'_:~·------~-- :! ;the study, and, i£ so, to send a copy o£ their 1973 sched-

,ule to the investigator in the self-addressed envelope that i had been enclosed. Once the schedules were received, they

[were carefully analyzed to insure that the teams par-

ticipating met the established criteria. Nine teams v.rere

selected. The nine coaches were then contacted by phone

to determine i£ they and their team would still partici- , i ! pate. I£ they agreed to take part, a testing date and time'

I were set. All nine were anxious to participate. A follow-

up letter was then sent to each coach specifying the date

and the time £or the testing (Appendix B). The testing

was begun on March 30, 1973 and was completed by fvlay 5,

! 1973.

On the designated date the investigator met with the

·: coach and his six singles players in the early afternoon

prior to practice. At this time, a brie£ introduction,

'explaining the purpose o£ the test, was given. The play-

ers were told that the investigator was doing a study

concerned with the personality traits descriptive o£ inter­ i !collegiate tennis players.· The subjects were then asked to

: read the instructions on the front o£ the Comrey Person-

: ality Scales test booklet while the investigator read them I

• aloud. Questions regarding either the test or the testing r--- ·-"------~--~- -~------~------,.------~---- -·------, I - !procedures were answered at this time. The subjects were

asked to respond in an honest and truthful manner to each

'item on the Comrey Personality Scales. I£ items were left

!blank, ·they were to be assigned a value o£ four which

'i 1 represented a neutral response (3 :7). Once the questions

[had been answered, the subjects were instructed to begin I the test and proceed at their own rate. There 'Nas no time

; limit put on the testing period. On conclusion of' the

test, plans were made with the coach for another meeting

at which time his team's results could be discussed. The

coach was also informed that he would receive a behavioral

characteristics questionnaire, to be used in conjunction

1with each subject's personality profile, once his team ' completed its competitive season.

At the end of each team's competitive season, the

coach was sent a behavioral characteristics questionnaire

(Appendix C). In it the coach was asked to provide each

of his six player's season end singles dual match won-loss

record, answer the ten questions regarding the behavioral

characteristics of each player, and give his opinion con-

•cerning the personality traits and the behavioral charac-

teristics which are descriptive of a successful intercol-

legiate tennis player. Each coach was asked, in the r...... ·---.- -- ··-··---·-·--·· ._ .. ------.. --.. ------~,--.--...... ------.______.. _____ ------...... ______-----· ------......

!cover 1.etter 1 to return this material, along with a nota- ' ·tion as to whether or not he wanted an abstract of the I i •study, to the investigator as soon as possible. All of

:the material was received by September 1973.

Testing Instruments

The Comrey Personality Scales (3), a multidimensional

assessment instrument for measuring personality, was the

tool used to analyze the personality traits of the inter-

collegiate tennis players. The test was designed for use

with normal, socially functioning individuals. The eight

scales of the test reflected the personality characteris-

tics which underlie everyday behavior. The following areas

of the adult personality domain were covered in the test:

Trust vs. Defensiveness(T); Orderliness vs. Lacko£ Com-

pulsion(O); Social Conformity vs. Rebelliousness(C);

Activity vs. Lack of Energy(A); Emotional Stability vs.

Neuroticisra(S); Extroversion vs. Introversion(E); Mascu-

linity vs. Femininity(M); and Empathy vs. Egocentrism(?).

The inventory contained 180 items with possible

responses ranging from one to seven. This range eliminated

forced choice answers. It offered the respondent the

;opportunity to express a degree of variability on the items ! !'!N'll.ich :make~up a factor scale. Hal£ of the items were negatively worded. The remaining.items were worded in a

,positive manner. This arrangement £unctim1ed as a reli­ ! :ability check on the internal consistency of the answers

i {see Table 1). The test also contained a response bias j !check and a validity check which served as criteria :for

;accepting or rejecting a respondent's test results.

Table 1

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES

Traits r

Trust vs. Defensiveness(T) .91

Orderliness vs. Lack of Compulsion(O) .92

Social Conformity vs. Rebelliousness(C) .94

Activity vs. Lack of Energy(A) .91

Emotional Stability vs. Neuroticism(S) .95

Extroversion vs. Introversion(E) .. 96

Masculinity vs. Femininity(M) .87

Empathy vs. Egocentrism(P) .94

;Based on 746 volunteer subjects, 365 males and 381 females .:50

The Comrey Personality Scales was selected :for use in

·this study for several reasons. JV'any of the personality ·

:inventories currently available were concerned only with

!psychiatric disabilities. They were found to be di:fficul t

I !to administer and to interpret. In situations where these ' ! tests were used, it becomes necessary to e1uploy the ser-

vices of an individual with professional training, in order

1 to gain a clear and functional profile o:f a respondent. I I !These difficulties were not encountered with the Comrey

Personality Scales.

The Comrey Personality Scales was designed :for ad-

ministration to a normal, college-age population. A review

tOf the literature (1, 2) determined that the test was not

only the best standardized and most reliable instrument

available, more important, it assessed the major areas of

a intercollegiate tennis player's personality domain

(48, 64, 68, 70). The test has been used to evaluate per-

sonality in research, school, college, or business settings

(3:27). Construct-validity studies have shown the test to

be a highly successful assessment tool {3:5). Homogeneity

coefficients for the eight :factors were excellent {2: 121).

The multiple response format, two interchangeable seven-

!point answer scales, increased the reliability o:f the

:individual items. Because of the greater variance in the !

• • -.1.5""'

f'"""·~------··-~------·--·------~----~·------~------·--~~~------.-"'------·-----<·-··-----~ I :responses, the results in factor analytic studies have

,proven more stable than those obta:ined from the two or ' .three choice inventories.

Studies by Comrey and other psychologists supported

the contention that relatively unitary andwell defined

factors form as the basis of the personality scales (23,

24, 34). It was concluded that the Comrey Personality

Scales was a valid assessment instrument which was promis-

ing in terms of the homogeneity of the eight personality

scales, the distinctiveness of the scales, and its correla-

tion with the biographical data of intercollegiate tenni.s

players.

Behavioral Characteristics questionnaire

The ten questions which made up the questionnaire

were derived from a review of the literature in which the

behavioral characteristics of successful tennis players

were described. The inves·tigator, early in the study,

developed a number of questions from this material. A panel of experts composed of a professor of Sports Psy-

chology, an intercollegiate tennis coach, and an authority

:on research procedures, was then consulted and asked to

:give opinion concerning the value of each question. With their aid,. the list o£ questions was finally reduced to

:ten in number (Appendix C).

In responding to the questionnairE:~, ·the coaches were

, asked to rank each player on a particular behavioral­ ! :characteristic. There were four possible responses: 1)

,almost always; 2) often; 3) sometimes; and 4) very rarely.

iThe responses were used by the investigator to gain a more

complete picture o£ the behavioral characteristics o£

!interco'llegiate tennis players.

Statistical Design

The personality trait profile answer sheets £or each

player were hand scored according to the procedure des-

cribed in the Comrey Personality Scales test manual (3:7).

The responses made by each coach concerning the behavioral

characteristics o£ their players were also hand scored.

IBM cards, containing the scores on the eight personality

scales, the coach's assessment o£ a player's behavioral

characteristics, and the player's season end singles

winning percentage for the 1973 dual match season, were

punched £or each subject. The players were then ranked

£rom highest to lowest based on their winning percentage.

: A player, in order to have his record considered, had to

play in at least ninety percent o£ his tennis dual matches. 53

The eighteen players ranked in the upper third made up

the success:ful group of intercollegiate tennis players,

while the eighteen players ranked in the lower third made

up the unsuccessful group of intercollegiate tennis

.players. A one-way analysis of variance was administered

the data. Comparisons were made to determine whether the

two groups differed significantly on a particular per-

! sonality trait, or behavioral characteristic. A multiple-

I !discriminant analysis was employed to determine whether

! the two groups could be differentiated when the entire ! 1 personality trait profile was used simultaneously. The

raw test scores, resulting from the personality trait

profiles and coaches' questionnaire, were used in both

analyses.

For this study, a standard rejection level was not

:established for each hypothesis. It was believed that

: compliance with the conventional practice of setting

· levels of signif"icance a priori would have seriously im-

peded the interpretation of the data (32, 60). I

! it was assumed that the practical significance of the

[results would vary from one reader to another. In the

discussion of the results of each hypothesis, the

investigator, thus, presented his own conclusion based i L__ ------~------··------"1 !' on the findings and t:he general assumption that a p. < .15 was worth serious consideration. CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

The purpose of this study was to identify the person- i :ality traits and the behavioral characteristics which were

descriptive of successful and unsuccessful intercollegiate 1

)tennis players. The six singles players from nine inter-

!collegiate tennis teams were administered the Comrey Per- i lsonality Scales. The players were ranked based on their

!season' end singles dual match winning percentage from I i • ih~ghest to lowest. The eighteen players ranked in the i !upper third made up the successful group o£ intercollegiate ! :tennis players while the eighteen players ranked in the

[lower third made up the unsuccessful group o£ intercol-

'legiate tennis players. A one-way analysis o£ variance was

+administered the data to determine i£ there were specific

personality traits· which would differentiate successful

:intercollegiate tennis players from those who were un-

:successful. The data derived £rom the nine coaches' re­ i :sponse to the behavioral characteristics questionnaire, i ;were analyzed to determine i£ there were specific behavior- i' !al characteristics which would differentiate the two L

55 56

i. ;groups. Finally, a multiple-discriminant analysis was i 'utilized to determine whether the successful group and the i :unsuccessful group could be differentiated when the en·tire

,personality trait profile was used simultaneously. The

results for each of these tests will be presented in this

chapter.

Hypotheses, Results, and Discussion

:Hypothesis 1: There will be significant differences among

:specific personality traits between successful and unsuc-

cessful intercollegiate tennis players.

:Results: A one-way analysis of variance, and a multiple­ i ' [discriminant analysis were used to determine if there were

!specific personality traits which would differentiate sue-

1cessful from unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

~An F ratio of 4.13 was necessary for a result to be sig-

'nificant at the .05 level of confidence. The multiple

discriminant analysis determined n2 0.616 and F 0.551 with

8/27 df. The results from the one-way analysis of variance

are presented in Table 2.

Discussion: The hypothesized differences between successful

and unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players were de-

veloped from readl.ngs in the field of Sports Psychology

' . Table 2

MEANS A.l\ID VARIABILITIES FOR THE PERSONALITY TRAITS ,- Successful Unsuccessful Group Group Trait Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F p

:Validity Check(V) 15.11 4.78 13.27 5.57 1.12 0.297 ,Response Bias(R) 45.55 7.22 46.61 7.09 0.19 0.665 Trust(T) 84.66 10.77 82.88 11.21 0.23 0.636 ;Orderliness ( 0) 89.50 13.22 86.50 15.65 0.38 0.545 iconformi ty (c) 88.83 10.60 90.00 14.55 0.07 0.781 'Activity (A) 98.38 9.04 98.77 11.27 0.01 0.905 :stability ( s) 100.05 9.88 100.16 13.79 o.oo 0.976 .Extroversion (E) 81.72 14.56 82.05 18.05 o.oo 0.950 ;Masculinity { M) 84.11 9.65 88.72 10.97 1.79 0.186 !Empathy(?) 93.66 10.47 89.88 7.24 1.58 0.214 i

;(48, 64, 70), and related research (61, 68, 71, 72). The I !statistical results directly challenged a number of the convictions that were drawn from these sources. Whether comparing the two groups on a single trait, or the entire. personality profile, differences between successful and un-

!successful intercollegiate tennis players proved to be minimal. This was due primarily to the large standard de- viations that were achieved. The variance within the two

greater than the differences in the central

between them. The results also suggest that 58

!based on previous research (57, 71) assessing the person-

;ali ties of tennis champions, there were probably no

champions participating in this study.

Hypothesis 1.1: Successful intercollegiate tennis players

I :will be significantly more orderly(Oj ·than unsuccessful

!players.

;Results: The one-way analysis of variance determined the F i I tratio to be 0.386. ! ! iDiscussion: Olsen (57) determined that champion t:::mnis ! ;players were inner-directed. They were purposely intense

!and serious, and more mechanized than were near-champions. i i I !Their life style was quite routine. For these reasons, l i :successful players were assumed to be cautious and meticu- ilous while unsuccessful players were assumed to be care- !' Jless, reckless, and unsystematic. The data, however, did

'not justify these conclusions.

'HyPothesis 1. 2: Successful intercollegiate tennis players

,will be significantly more rebellious(C) than unsuccessful lplayers.

'Results: An F ratio of 0.076 was found for this factor.

Discussion: Intercollegiate tennis players, in a study by .

?Pe!ling__ (61), scor~d- highest on the liberalism factor when . compa.red to other intercollegiate athletic groups s Lakie

{48) concluded the combined tennis-golf group was more

:independent, less conventional, and more compulsive than

,other groups of intercollegiate athletes. These two stud- lies led to the postulate that success£ul_intercollegiate ftennis players would be more singleminded, independent, and

self-directed than players who.were unsuccessful. Unsuc-

:cessful tennis players were e~~ected to be more team ioriented than the successful players. These assumptions, i ihowever, were not verified. I

!Hypothesis 1.3: Successful intercollegiate tennis players i :will be significantly more egocentric(P) than unsuccessful I jplayers.

'Results: An F ratio of 1.58 was achieved on this £actor.

Discussion: It was hypothesized that successful intercol-

"legiate tennis players would be more concerned about them- selves and their goals than players who were unsuccessful.

'studies by Sperling ( 64), Lakie ( 48), and Hughes (70)

!seemed to support this contention. It was believed that j :singlemindedness would serve an intercollegiate tennis ' !' !player better than empathy if he were to be successful in I . !a competitive situation. The results on this hypothesis i' !were expected to be similar to those achieved on Hypothesis l__ ... ·-..... - ...... --. ---· ····- ··-·---· -- .. ~- ··- .. -- .. -- ·-· -·· ·-- -··-··--- .. ---· ··-··- ·-- --- ··-··· ··--· ··-·· .. ···- ...... I 60

'1. 2. Successful players were neither more rebellious nor

more egocentric than unsuccessful players.

~ypothesis 1.4: Successful intercollegiate tennis players

:Will be significantly more extroverted(E) ·than unsuccessful players.

,Results: The one-way analysis of variance determined the F

!ratio to be 0.004.

.Discussion:' Ogilvie and Tutko ( 5 ) have characterized

!successful athletes as extroverts. International tennis i ' 'players were described by Kane and Callaghan (40) as out-

/wardly easy going. Olsen has stated~

The champion, however, seemed to display an extreme degree of extraversion (outgoingness, projecting, expressive) that directed his aggressive tendencies (57:3).

The results, however, did not support these contentions.

;The differences between the two Comrey Personality Scales

'on this factor were inconsequential.

Hypothesis 1.5: Successful intercollegiate tennis players

;will be significantly more emotionally stable(S) than un- isuccess:ful players.

' An :Results:; . F ratio of 0.001 was found on this :factor. 61

,have supported the assumption that successful intercol-

'legiate tennis players, when compared to those who are un-

,successful, are calm, self -confident, and are not victims

of mood swings. A study by Gold {68) supported the

:assump·tion.. Tennis champions, according to Olsen (57),

:were less disturbed during a match. Unsuccessful players

were expected to become excited and lose site of their goal i !during competition. The results, however, did not support

:these assumptions.

jHypothesis 1.6: There will be no significant difference on j !the personality trait o£ activity(A) between successfiJ.l and, !

1unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players. ! !Results: An F ratio of 0.013 was found on this factor.

:Discussion: In a study by Hedrick (69), three intercol-

:legiate athletic groups were compared on this trait. The

,football sub-group was found to be more active than either

'the basketball or wrestling sub-groups. This finding was

·unique. Previous research concerned with the per.sonali ty

:of athletes had not investigated differences between ath- iletic groups on this trait. Because of the nature of the I i isport, intercollegiate tennis players were expected to be I !active. For this reason, a significant difference was not ! [~xpect'=c'!-~o _l:>~ __ n_o_~~~between t~~-two Comrey Personality .... ··-·· 62.

Scales.

Hypothesis 1.7: There will be no significant difference on

[the personality trait of trust (T) between successful and

·unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players~

;Results: The one-way analysis of variance determined the

F ratio to be 0.235.

; iDiscussion: Ogilvie has characterized successful athletes

ias trustful,

The trait trusting vs. suspicious may seem to be one of the most unexpected find­ ings contained in this review. Past re­ search using other psychometric devices has contributed to a personality dimension which we have labeled, coachability. This is the tendency to be open to teachers and authorities and have a basic respect for the instruction of others (55:16).

;It was noted in the review of literature (18, 26, 42) that

:international tennis players generally were independent and

self-reliant. They were cautious in accepting others out-

:side ·their immediate athletic group. It was assumed that i :both groups of intercollegiate tennis players would also

be cautious in trusting outsiders. 1

' !Hypothesis 1.8: There will be no significant difference on I ithe personality trait of masculinity (M) between successful iand unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players.

[ __·-·------···--··- ... ·------·-·-· ------...... -----·----·-- ...... ----··------· ... ''

!; .Results: P~ F ratio of 1.79 was achieved on this factor.

Discussion: Hedrick (69), using the Comrey Personality

:Sca.les, :found significant differences existed on this trait

:between three intercollegiate athletic groups. Hughes

{70} found that tennis team members scor€.~d significantly

higher than the other freshmen athletic teams on the factor

!of heterosexuality. There was no other research involving I jintercollegiate tennis players available on this topic.

;rn view of the limited information, differences between

ithe successful and the unsuccessful groups were not ex-

'pected to be meaningful.

i Hypothesis 2: There will be significant differences among i :selected behavioral characteristics between successful and ! I

~nsubcessful intercollegiate tennis players.

1 Results: A one-way analysis of variance was used to deter-

mine i£ there were selected behavioral characteristics

-which would differentiate successful from unsuccessful in-

:tercollegiate tenn:ls players. To be significant at the .05

ilevel of confidence, an F ratio of 4.13 was necessary. i ' !The results :from the one-way analysis of variance are

I presented in Table 3. I : !Discussion: The nine coaches responded to the ten questions i' L______------·----· ------

• d Table 3

MEANS AND VARIABILITIES FOR THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS

Successful Unsuccessful GrouR_ Group :Behavioral Characteristic . Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F p

:one 2.11 0.96 2.05 0.93 0.03 0.856 ;Two 2.05 0.99 0.61 I 1.55 3.27 0.,076 !Three 3.38 0.69 3.05 0.87 1.60 0.211 iFour 2.11 0.83 2.55 0.92 2.30 0.134 fFive 2.05 0.80 2.16 1.09 0.12 0.730 :six 1.72 0.75 2.00 0.84 1.09 0.303 i !Seven 2.05 0.80 le61 0.84 2.60 0.112 !Eight 3.16 0.98 3.50 0.85 1.17 0.286 :Nine 2.94 0.63 3.16 0.51 1.32 0.257 :Ten 2.61 1.09 2.44 1.14 0.19 Oo662

! 'in which they were asked to rate each of their players on

'selected behavioral characteristics. Their responses

,ranged £rom one (almost always) to fou.r (very rarely). The questions were included in the study so that a more com- i 'plete understanding of successful and unsuccessful inter- i I ;collegiate tennis players could be gained. Whether com-

!paring the two groups on a single behavioral character is tic~ i i or the entire collection, only minimal differences were

noted. The questions and the subsequent hypotheses are lpresen_~ed _in_ this section of the chapter. 65

-- -·---· --, i Hypothesis 2.1: Unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players

will be significantly more receptive to criticism regarding

~heir play than successful players.

Question: He is receptive to criticism regarding his play.

Results: The one-way analysis of variance determined the

F ratio to be 0.031.

Discussion: A significant difference on this characteristic

would have supported the assumption that successful inter­

jcollegiate tennis players were independent and self­

,reliant. Unsuccessful players were expected to be more

;open to suggestions from their coach as regarding their ; play. The results indicated that both groups were recep·­ i 1tive to criticism from their coaches.

Hypothesis 2.2: The play of unsuccessful intercollegiate

tennis players will coincide significantly more often with

!the expectations of their coaches than the play of success-

:tul players.

'Question: His play has coincided with your expectations of

I ·Results: An F ratio of 3.27 was found for this factor. I ' I

i I -- .... - ----··----·---~--- ·--~------·------·------' 66

Discussion: Playing up to the expectations of others hc..s often been a difficult task for a tennis player. In his study, Olsen (57) concluded that champion tennis players were less burdened being expected to win than were near­ champions. It was assw~ed that an intercollegiate tennis coach would hold higher expectations for a successf'ul play­ er than he would. for a player ·who was unsuccessful. The results indicated that the unsuccessful players almost al­ ways played up to expectations, while successful players often performed at the level expected of them.

Hypothesis 2.3: The attention of unsuccessful intercol­ legiate tennis players will be diverted significantly more often from the game than the attention of successful players.

Question: His attention is diverted from the game by other interests (e.g., girls, work, school).

Results: An F' ratio of 1.602 was achieved on this factor.

Discussion: Olsen (57) found that champion tennis players never had to take a break, they practiced constantly. In this study, interests outside of tennis were found to di­ vert the attention of players from both groups. Dedication 67

!similar to that :found in the players in Olsen's study was I ! :not present in either the successful group or the unsuc- , cessful group.

,Hypothesis 2.4: Successful intercollegiate tennis players

will spend significantly more time working on weaknesses i :in their games than unsuccessful players.

!Quest1.on: • He spends practice time working on weaknesses in

'his' game. !

iResults: The one-way analysis of variance determined the F

I :ratio to be 2.305.

!Discussion: Vic Braden (13) has noted that a champion ten­ ! inis player possesses a tremendous desire to be the best.

As a result, he worked constantly to improve his game. He

:worked, not only to maintain strengths, but also to improve

:his weaknesses. He was totally dedicated to the game. The

:coaches who took part in this study--1 seemed to agree that

!the players who were unsuccessful worked on the parts of

:their game which were already strong. This practice impeded

:their development as a player. Those who were successful I I :worked on all aspects of the game. i I i I I [_ . ------··-- ·-·----·------·-···- f -- 1 'Hypothesis 2. 5: Successful intercollegiate tennis players I I I 'Will approach a match with a signif.icantly more confident

:attitude than unsuccessful players.

_Question: He approaches matches with an affirmative~ con-

:fident attitude.

Discussion: It has been noted that part of being a success

!in athletics was knowing how to win (5, 6, 9). As simple

1as this may sound, the mastery and application of this

:principle has baffled many of those in athletics. Success- ' !ful intercollegiate tennis players were expected to know

how to win. This being the case, they would approach a

:match with confidence. Unsuccessful players were assumed ito approach a match lacking total confidence. The results,

however, show that both groups approach a match in much the

:same manner. Had they been asked individually, the play-

ers, no doubt, could have provided a more accurate ap-

praisal of this situation.

Hypothesis 2.6: Successful intercollegiate tennis players will be significantly more simple, honest, and straight-

forward when dealing with their coaches-than unsuccessful players. 69

:Question: His dealings with you are simple, honest, and i i ·!straightforward.

:Results: An F ratio of 1.09 was achieved on this £actor.

'Discussion: Tennis champions exhibited strong tendencies

:toward inner-directedness ~ Their lives focused on their

individual values and desires. They were aggressive and

~singleminded in the pursuit of their goals (57). A sue-

jcessful intercollegiate tennis player, like the tennis

champion, was expected to be direct and singleminded in the

pursuit of his goals. He would, thus, deal with his

!coach in a more honest and straightforward fashion than the

!unsuccessful player. The results seemed to indicate that i !the players in both groups were almost always direct in

.their dealings with the coaches •

:Hypothesis 2.7: Successful intercollegiate ·tennis players

will be significantly more realistic in assessing their

ability than unsuccessful players.

! :Question: He is realistic in his assessment of his playing

;ability.'

Results: The one-way analysis of variance determined the F

ratio to be 2.603. 70

:Discussion: According to Rod Laver (18:54), hard work and I :confidence were necessary before success would be realized

;in tennis. Further, a player would not win a major

!championship unless he thought he could. He had to be

:realistic in assessing his ability so that he could se-t;

:attainable performance goals. The results suggested that

.the successful intercollegiate player tended to be more I

!realistic in assessing his playing ability than the unsuc-

>cess:ful player.

Hypothesis 2.8: Unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players

[will be si~1ificantly more emotional during a match than

successful players.

!Question: He is given to emotional displays during a match.

Results: An F ratio of 1.172 was achieved on this factor.

:Discussion: In response to why he does not show emotion

.on the court~ Rod Laver replied,

I don't feel that I could both concen­ trate and be a showman at the same time. I always felt that I was better off winning matches and letting my game speak :for it­ self. Pancho Gonzalez is a showman, but he is one of the very few who can do it and still play good tennis (18:54). 71

-~~-~--~----~l'h±s--seemed--1;-o--be-a valid summary applicable to most ten-

~ 'nis players. The coaches taking part in the study agreed

. that a little emotion could help a player pro~'ided Lt did

:not control his actions. Members of both Comrey Personal-

ity Scales exhibited emotional control when they played.

,Hypothesis 2.9: Successful intercollegiate tennis players

;will be significantly more concerned with their own per-

;formance during a match than unsuccessful players.

;Question: He is more concerned with his ovm performance

than that o£ the entire team.

Results: The one-way analysis of variance determined the F

:ratio to be 1.320. i

:Discussion: A significant difference on this characteristic

'would have supported the assumption that successful inter-

collegiate tennis players when compared to those who were

:unsuccessful, were independent, singleminded, and self-

directed. Successful players were, also, expected to be

;more egocentric than unsuccessful players (Hypothesis 1.3).

The successful player was likened to the self-contained,

supremely confident Aussie hero Jack, of "I'm all right,

Jack." The results indicated that neither group approached

the characteristics of Jack. 72

Hypothesis 2.10: Unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis play- ers will seek the advice of their coaches when they are not

' \playing well significantly more often ·than successful play-·

,ers.

1Question: He comes to you for advice when he is not playing i ! well.

Results: An F ratio of 0.199 was found for this factor.

Discussion: It was assumed that an intercollegiate tennis player who was not successful would seek the advice of his coach more often than a player who was successful. The coaches, however, refuted this notion. Both groups were similar in the amount o£ help they sought. A statement made by Rod Laver aptly summarized this situation,

I like to work out my own shots. Some of the boys may give me a few tips to put different parts of the strokes back in order again, but one eventually has to know how to do it alone (18:55).

Responses from the Coaches

In the final section of the behavioral characteris- tics questionnaire sent to each coach, he was asked to indicate which personality traits and behavioral character- istics were most descriptive of successful intercollegiate 73

tennis players. The opinions naturally were quite varied.

Still it was possible to draw a number of' conclusions re-

;garding the players who make up this athletic group.

Unrelenting work habits, not being afraid to work,

.realizing hi.s potential and working to achieve it, were

co~~ents which appeared most often. The coaches next

:listed determination, having a positive attitude, quiet

'I ,dedication, and concentration of purpose ••• the ability to

.overcome adversity as important characteristics. One

coach believed "a successful tennis player had to have

:guts."

A success.ful player had to be courageous a.nd tena-

icious. The coaches agreed that he had to know how to win.

/He was an egotist, yet he was expected to be humble and

.self-controlled. His interests, outside of tennis, had to

ibe greatly restricted. The successful player was inde-

pendent, but coachable. As one coach stated, a successful

player has a realistic view of his ability, and is mature

,enough to place the needs of others ahead of his own when

'situations dictate.

Summar~

The results indicated that the intercollegiate tennis

players involved in this study were members of a l.=.------·-· -·--~------~------· --·· ······------· - --·-·. ------··------···---- ____ j 74

homogeneous athletic group. Any differences that exist

between successful and unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis

!players were not strictly a £unction of either s~eci£ic

,personality traits or selected behavioral characteristics.

:Based on studies assessing the personality traits and the

behavioral characteristics of champion tennis players,

!the results suggested that there were probably no champions

1 in this population o£ intercollegiate tennis players. --·---··, .L __

CHAPTER V

SUMMA..RY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Suif'JTI.ary

The purpose o£ this study was to identify the per-

1sonality traits and the behavioral characteristics which i ,were descriptive o£ successful and unsuccessful intercol-

; ilegiate tennis players. The varsity intercollegiate tennis

[team members, playing the six singles positions during the

tl97.3 dual match season at nine select institutions, par-

iticipated in the study. During the competitive tennis

,season, the players were administered the Comrey Person-

iali ty Scales. Based on their season end singles dual match i I winning percentage, the players were ranked £rom highest to

'lowest. The eighteen players ranked in the upper third

·made up the successful group, while the eighteen players

ranked in the lower third made up the unsuccessful group.

A one-way analysis o£ varia."1ce v>Tas used to determine

whether the two groups differed significantly on a particu-

lar personality trait or a behavioral characteristic. A

multiple-discriminant analysis was employed to determine

-- ·--- -·----~--- ·--~--" -·------~---- ·--·---.-----·-··_j

75 ·7·6

,whether the groups could be differentiated when the entire

personality trait profile was used simultaneously.

Whether comparing the successful and the unsuccessful groups on a single personality trait, behavioral character-

istic, or utilizing the entire profile, the two groups were

;quite similar. This was largely due to the fact that the

:variance within the groups was greater than the differences iin the central tendencies between them. The results also

(suggested that there were probably no tennis champions

:in this population of intercollegiate tennis players. Dif-

!ferences in competitive background, previous success in

!tennis, and innate ability may be responsible for the di-

verse achievements realized by these players in irttercol-

legiate tennis competition.

Conclusion

Based on the findings and within the limitations of

this study, it was concluded that differences between sue-

cessful and unsuccessful intercollegiate tennis players

~were not a function of either specific personality traits tor selected behavioral characteristics.

Recommendations

In view of the limitations of the study, the L___ ------·--·-- ····------"l'l'• f

,:following recommendations are made £or future research:

1. In this study, the intercollegiate tennis coaches

:were asked to assess the behavioral characteristics of

. their players. It was assumed ·that the coaches would be

objective in making their judgments. This may not have

;been a valid assumption. A coach may see :more positive

attributes in a player he expects to be successful than in ia player not expected to be a success. A study comparing i the expectations held by a number of well known intercol-

:legiate tennis coaches (N.C.A.A. Divisions I and II, and

N ,.A. I .. A.), with those their players had o£ themselves would

provide information on how realistic acknowledged eXJ:;erts

were in assessing the playing ability and overall perform-

'ance of intercollegiate tennis players.

2. Studies (48, 57, 64, 68, 70) have shown that

:tennis players manifest a number o£ personality and be-

havioral characteristics. Research (4) seems to indicate

that individual and team sports attract athletes with dif-

:ferent personality consistencies. It would be interesting

:to take a group of freshman intercollegiate athletes 'i participating in individual and team sports, and conduct

:an indepth logitudinal investigation o£ their personalities

'UP through the senior year. A combination of methods could

[~e employed to gain this information (interviews, ..... J 78

projective techniques, professional analysis). The goal

would be to determine how much influence intercollegiate,

'athletics have on the development o£ personality during a

:set period o£ time.

3. A number o£ intercollegiate tennis players, both

,men and women who compete £or universities where tennis

is a major sport, desire to play professional tennis. As

:evidenced by their play, they seem to have the necessary

'physical ability. A study comparing the psychological

:and behavioral characteristics' both within groups and

;among groups, o£ leading male and female intercollegiate i i :tennis players, current leaders on the professional tour,

:and past tennis greats would provide information on the

!personality consistencies and differences .found on various

:levels o£ this athletic group.

4. Recent studies in the field o£ Sport Psychology

have concentrated on obtaining results which would di£-

:.terentiate athletic groups on a number o£ personality vari-

'ables. In actual £act, differences that exist within an

athletic group may be more significant and more meaningful

',than the differences between athletic groups. Studies con-.

centrating on differences within an athletic group would

,provide information £or those who believe individual di£-

( lf e!C?nces_ should be considered wJ:len ~ VIi th the •• -----··--· _j 79

f ·- -·~ - . -· - -·· --· ·- --· -··· -· ·-· ---- ··-···-- -~--- personality personality complexities o:f their athletic rather than broad sterotypes. '""1 i

BIBLIOGRAPHY

80 Q~ WJ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

--Books

, 1. Baughman, Earl E. and Welsh, GeorgeS. Personali!~; Beh.a.vioral Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

2. Bures~ 0. The Seventh Mental Measurement Yea!E2ok. Highland Park, New .Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1972.

3. Comrey, Andrew. ~omrey Personality S~&les Manual. San Diego~ California: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1970.

4. Cratty, Bryant J. ~~logv_~nd Ph):"s~cal Ac-tivi!.).:_. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

5. Ogilvie, Bruce C. and Tutko, Thomas A. Problem Athletes _0nd How to Handle Them. 26 Bloomsbury Street, London, W.C.I.: Pelham Books LTD, 1966.

6. Tutkos Thomas A. and Richards, Jack W. Psycholog%' of CoacP-ing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1971.

7. Vanek, N. and Cratty, Bryant J. ?~ycholog%' and the §uperior Athlet~. London: The Macmillan Company, 1970~

Periodicals

8. Amdur, Neil. "The Dennis Ralston Nobody Knows," t\Torld Tennis, 20:58-62, September 1972.

9. "Remember Dickie Stockton?," World Tennis, 20:76-83, April 1973. - j ; 10. Berger, Richard A. and Littlefield, Donald H. "Com­ parison Between Football Athletes and Non­ athletes," Research Quarter12., 40:663-665, Dec'=:"!mber 1969.

'11. Bentson, T.- B. and Summerskill, .J. "Relation o£ Per­ sonal Success in Intercollegiate Athletics to Certain Aspects of Personal Adjustment," Research Quarterly, 26:8-14, 1955.

Bodo, Pete. ncity Courtiers: Six Tennis Types," , 6:44, April 1973.

'13. Braden, Vic. !!So You Want to Become a Champion?,H Tennis West, 4:32-33, March-April 1972.

"Thinking on the Court Hurts a \tJinning Game," Tennis Trade, 2:35, April 1973.

15. Bruns, Bill. "How to Beat Yourself at Tennis," Human ~havior, 2:30-36, September 1973.

i ! :16. Burwash, Peter. "An Afternoon with ," ! World Tennis, 17:22-23, April 1970.

17. "Interview with ," World Tennis, 18:26-28, September 1970.

'18. "Interview with Rod Laver," World Tennis, 18:54-56, December 1970.

'19. "Interview with Bob Carmichael," \ v-· World Tennis, 20:84-87, July 1972. \l~_· Chapin, Kim. "Open Season for a Test of' Time," Sports Illustrated, 29:22-29, August 1968.

21. Collins, Bud. "Goldfilling 1 s Adventures," World Tennis, 20:60-68, June 1972.

;22. "Where Have You and Your Game Gone, Whitney," World Tennis, 20:70-75, January 1973.

23. Comrey, A. L. and Backer, T. E. "Construct Validation · of the Comrey Personality Scales," Multivariate Behavioral Research 1970, in press. 83

'24. Comrey, A. L. and Schlesinger, B. "Verification and Extension o£ a System o£ Personality Dimension,n Journal of Applied~chologz, 46:257-262, 1962.

25. Deford, Frank. ''The Highest Ranking Family in Tennis," ?ports Illustrated, 23:47-51, July 1965.

26. --.- "O'er the Land o£ the Fee, 11 _Sport_s. llJustra~ed, 37:92-106, November 1972.

27. __ "Dennis, No Longer a Menace," Sports Illustrated, 39:31-38, September 1973.

'28. "Service, but First a Smile," Sports fllus~ate~, 25:47-50, August 1966.

:29. "He's Old Hat to Australians," Soorts Illustrated, 27:30-33, September 1967.

'30. --·--- "Some Beer £or Newk, A Waltz for Billie," §2Eo~rt_~ Illustrated, 27:22-25, July 1967.

:31. "This Smith, A Mighty Man is He,'' §..£2_rts Illus·trated, 36:22-30, February 1972.

:32. Diehl, Sheldon.. "The Psychology of Play," World T~nni~, 18:90-91, rviay 1971.

133. "If You Think You Arc Good--You Probably Are," ~is T;Vest, 5:38-39, August 1973.

34. Duffy, K. E., Jameson, K. andComrey, A. L. "Assess­ ment of a Proposed Expansion o£ the Comrey Per­ sonality Factor System," Multivariate Behavioral ~sea~ch, 4:295-308, 1969.

;35. Duggan, Thomas J. and Dean, Charles W. "Cmn_mon Mis­ interpretations of Significance Levels in Socio­ logical Journals," Jhe American Soc;iologist, 3:45, February 1968. 1 36, Heldman, Julie. "Interview with ," World 1_ennis, 19:56-60, June 1971.

37~ Jares, Joe. "Arthur Was King for a Day," Sports Illustrated, 23:36-37, 121, September, 1965. 84

38. · "Newk Serves Notice He's Back," ~port..::~. Illustrated, 39:34-37, September 1973.

39. Johnson, W. R., and Hulton, D. C. and Johnson, G. B8 "Personality Traits o:f Some Champion Athletes as Measured by Two Projective Tests: Rorschach and H-T-P," Research Quarterly, 25:484-485, 1954 .•

40. Kane, .J. E. and Callaghan, J .. L. "Personality Traits in Tennis Players,n British Lawn Tennis, 1:18-19, July 1965.

41. Kirkpatrick, Curry. "l'vlr. ·smith Goes to Bucharest~ 11 Sports Illustrated, 37:22-25, October 1972.

42. Kirshenbaum, Jerry. "Just a Decent Bloke," Sports Illustrated, 36:80-91, May 1972 •

.43. Kna.pp, Barbara. "The Personality of Lawn Tennis Players," Bulletin of the British Psychological Societ~, 18:21-23, O~tober 1965.

L~>,:44'. Kram, Mark. "The Not-So-Melancholy Dane," Sport~ Illustrated, 30:79-86, April l969w

45. Kroll, Walter. "Sixteen Personality Factor Profiles of Collegiate Wrestlers," Research Quarterly, 38:49-57, 1967.

i46. Kroll, Walter and Peterson, K. H. "Personality Factor Profiles o£ Collegiate Football Teams," Researcl?:. puarte:r:ly, 36:433-440, 1965.

47. Krumdick, Victor F. and Lumian, Norman C. "The Psychology of Athletic Success," Athletic Journal, 44:52,54,85,87, September 1963.

48. Lakie, William L. "Personality Characteristics of Certain Groups of Intercollegiate Athletes," Research Quarterly, 33:566-573, 1962.

i49. Langer, Philip. "Some Psychological Implication of Varsity Football Performance," Coach and Athlete, 29:30-2, September 1966.

"Varsity Football Performance," Per­ uceptual and Motor Skills, 23:1191~'1:199,H 1966. 85

51. • "Getting to Really Know Your Play------ers," Athletic Journal, :39, 88-93, September 1963.

52. Langer, Philip and Nelson, Dale. "Comments on the Athlete's Playing Performance and His Anxiety," Coach and Athlete, 28:12-13, 23, December 1965.

53. Letters from the publisher, Sports Illustrated, 39:7, December 1973.

54. Luszki, Walter A. "Love and Kill in Tennis," World Tennis, 16:38-39, December 1968.

55. Ogilvie, Bruce. "Psychological Consistencies Within the Personality of High Level Competitors," Journal American Medical Association, Invited Paper, Special Olympic Year Edition, September­ October 1968.

56. "Negative and Positive Psychological Factors Associated with Athletic Competition," Paper presented to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, July 1969. i i 57. Olsen, Edward c. "What Dif£eren·tiates a Tennis Champion from His Nearest Rivals?" The Ohio High School Athlete, 27:28-30, September 1967.

Rogin, Gilbert. "The Irrepressible l\1r. Mulloy," Sports Illustrated, 21:57-62, July 1964.

Scott, Eugene. "Great Scott! Gene Won Another One," Snorts Illustrated, 27:46-53, October 1967.

11Conversations With One of Us,'' Wor~§ T~~~' 17:22-23, April 1970.

Sinqer, Robert N. "Person.:>.li ty Differences Between and \-Vi thin Baseba.Il and Tennis Players, 10 Res~~rch 9.1~arterly, 40:582-588, 1969.

62. ___ . t!per sonali ty and Sport," The Physical Educator, 26:153-154, December 1969 .. 86

63. Skipper, James K., et al., "The Sacredness of .05: A Note Concerning the Uses of Statistical Levels of Significance in the Social Sciences~" The American Sociologist, 2:16-18, February 1967.

64. Sperling, Abraham P. "The Relationship Between Per­ sonality Adjustment and Achievement in Physical Education," Research Quarterly, 13:351-363, 1942.

65. Underwood, John. "Rocket Heard Round the World," S.Eorts Illustrated, 34:80-94-, May 1971.

66. World Tennis Reporter. "Interview with Stan Smith," World Tennis, 18:46-48, June 1970.

67. Interview with Charli te Pasarell," World Tennis, 18:16-18, July 1970.

Unpublished Material

68. Gold, Marvin. "A Comparison of Personality Character-' istics of Professional and College Varsity Tennis and Golf Players as Measured by the Guilfqrd­ J'vlartin Personality Inventory." Unpublished ~~ster's Thesis, University of Maryland, 1955.

69. Hedrick, William E. "Personality Trait Comparisons Among Specific Athletic Groups and Between Athletes and Non-athletes.n Unpublished Master's Thesis, California State University, Nbrthridge, 1972.

70., H-ughes, Thomas. "A Study of Personality Characteris­ tics of a Selected Group o£ Springfield College Freshmen." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Spring­ field College, 1963.

71 ~ Olsen, Edlhiard C. '1 Identification of Personality Dif­ ferences AmC)ng Male Tennis Chru"llpions. 11 Unpub­ lished Doctoral Dissert.?_tion, Ohio State Univer­ sity, 1966.

72. Ostro'N, Andrew G. "The Aggressive Tendencies of Male Intercollegiate Tennis Team Players. 0 Unpllblished

Master's Thesis, University_ of Maryland, _1969! ______1 8 '":'..

73~ Smith, Robert D~ "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Success in Swimming and Diving." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Wisconsin State University, 1969.

74.. Yensen, William A. "An Investigation of Factors that Contribute to the Success of N.c.A.A. Wrestling Champions." Unpublished Master 1 s Th12sis, San Diego State College, 1963.

'·-·------...------· APPENDICES

------

88 89

APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

December 13, 1972

Dear

I am completing graduate work in the .field of" physical

ed~cation at Cali.fornia State University, Northridge. In

order to ful.fill the requirements o£ the Master o£ Arts

program, I am conducting a study investigating the person~

ality traits and the behavior characteristics of intercol­

legiate tennis players. I would like to include your team

in my study. I£ you and the top six players on your team

,are interested in participating, send me a copy of your

1973 dual match tennis schedule. A sel.f-addressed stamped

envelope is enclosed. I will contact you by phone in early

January 1974 to provide more details regarding the study.

If you hav2 any questions, please .feel .free to call me at

'(213) 885-3242.

Sincerely,

Mark D. Winters

Enc. 90

APPENDIX B

LETTER CONFIRMING DATE AND TIME

February 1974

;Dear

:This is a note to remind you that I will be at__ llocatiop)

:on -~< ~d=a"-y..~...) _ (month and dat~ at (time) to

:administer the Comrey Personality Scales to your top six

players. It is vital to the study that all six of the

players are present at this time. If you have any ques­

tions, contact me immediately at (213) 885-3242.

Sincerely,

Mark D. Winters

• d 91

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTER

Dear

The following questionnaire is designed to obtain informa­ tion regarding the individual behavioral characteristics of your top six tennis players. Your responses, in conjunc­ tion with the personality profiles obtained earlier, will be utilized in an attempt to determine which personality traits and behavioral characteristics are descriptive of

·intercollegiate tennis players.

For the purpose of this study, season and singles won-loss records and answers to the questionnaire pertain to only the 1973 ~ match season. All replies will remain con­ fidential. Your cooperation is vital to the success of this study. Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and interest. Please check if you desire an abstract of this study--- Sincerely,

Mark D. Winters

Enc. 92

APPENDIX C (Continued)

INDIVIDUAL PLAYER DATA

Single 1973 Singles Dual Positions Name of Plaver Match Won-Loss Record

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. ('()c-..

APPENDIX C (Continued) BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS QUESTIONNAIRE Record the answer which most closely applies to each situation - 1. Almost always 2. Often Player- 3. Sometimes 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Very rarely He is receptive to criticism regarding his play. His play has coincided with your expectations of him. His attention is diverted from the game by other interests (eg. girls, work, school}.

He spends practice time working on weaknesses in his game. He approaches matches with an affirmative, confident attitude. His dealings with you are sir::tple, honest, and straightforward. He is realistic in his assessment of his playing ability. He is given to emotional displays during a match.

He .is more concerned with his own performance than that of the entire team.

He comes to you for advice when he is not playing well.

f.'~.ddj:.,!:_i.onal;....,££TII!'"!!._ents_ r-egarding any or all of the players {regarding behavioral ,!?l_~act.eristics influencing performance). 94

APPENDIX C {Continued)

In your opinion which personality traits and behavioral cha.racteristics are most descrip- tive of successful intercollegiate tennis players?