Self-Concept and Interpersonal Perception Change in Basketball Teams
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1971 Self-concept and interpersonal perception change in basketball teams Richard Alan Wright The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Wright, Richard Alan, "Self-concept and interpersonal perception change in basketball teams" (1971). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5644. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5644 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 Th is is an unpublished manuscript in which copyright sub s is t s , Any further r epr in tin g of its contents must be approved BY THE AUTHOR. Mansfield Library U niversity of Montana Date: /o/zs/tfc*________ SELF-CONCEPT AND INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION CHANGE IN BASKETBALL TEAMS By Richard A, Wright B»A. University of Utah, I968 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1971 Approved bys Chairman, Board of Examinees D^an, Graduate School^ UMI Number: EP41108 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI EP41108 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Peter Hemingway for his support and encouragement, and to my good parents, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert A. Wright, for their patience and understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....... ......... LIST OF TABLES ..... ........ .................. LIST OF FIGURE ............ CHAPTER ■ I. INTRODUCTION . ........... 1 Interpersonal Perception 3 Self>concept ...................... 6 II. METHOD .... .......... 11 Subjects ........................ 11 Materials .... ....... .............. 11 Procedure ....................... 12 III. RESULTS . ........ 1? IV. DISCUSSION........ .... 29 V. S U M M A R Y .............. .• •• ....................... 39 APPENDIXES ............ 40 A. TSCS PROFILE SHEETS FOR THIRTEEN TEAMS . 40 B. TABLES ON QUESTIONS AND TIME-PUCE OF TEST ............ 54 . REFERENCES ....... *.................... 59 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1, Analysis of Variance for Hypotheses I, II, and III , . • • .18 2, Category Differentiation • ••••••••••••••••• 20 3, Correlation Martix for all Scores ••••••••••••*•22 h. Analysis of Variance for Tournament V, Nontournament Teams . 25 5. Comparison of Breakdowns for Analysis of Variances • . • • ,26 6« Comparison of Sample Size , , , , .. , • . •• • , . 31 7, Fractional Representation of P-S, W-L, ET and EC for Teams • 3^- 8, Paired Comparisons for Ri , R2, II, 12, MHP, and PI •■•••• 55' 9, Time and Place of First Administration •••••••••••58 10. Time and Place of Second Administration . • . • , . , . 57 11, Responses to Post Experimental Questions . « . , , .,.58 LIST OF FIGURE Figure 1, Representation of the TSCS Score Sheet CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Physical educators and coaches have speculated for many years on the benefits of athletics. Brace (1 9 5 8) lists fifteen values that physical education can give to people who go through any well planned program. Among them are "respect for authority" and "experience in leadership." Does the program accomplish this aim? Starting out their chapter on "Competitive Sports and Athletics," Slusher and Lockhart (1 9 6 6) contend that "athletics provide a primary means through which may be developed the habits, attitudes and ideals requisite to ethical competition and effective cooperation in a free society." Starr (1 9 6 1) states that one of the purposes of competitive athletics is to "provide a wholesome means for release of tension, hostility and the like, which is basic to good mental health..." Scott (i960) claims that a positive change in attitude and social efficiency will result from participation in physical activ ities, and concludes that the challenge in psychology and sports is perhaps the greatest of all the problems in physical education. The psychologist's role is to shorten the gap between physical activity and psychological investigation, to aid the coach in dealing with the prob lems of his players, and to aid the player in dealing with his problems. Cowell (i960) states that "... there are many gaps in current research connecting social research and physical activity." There are many more claims to the benefits of athletics (Fagan, 1963; Long, 1963; Ryan, 1963| Malpass, I9635 Bryant, 1 9 6 6j Voltmer, 1 9 6 7) and very few verifications. 2 It appears that benefits of many kinds derived from participation in athletics are for the most part taken for granted, Building good character is generally accepted or at least implied as a goal and end of athletics. Two problems arise from accepting the challenge of building a good character. First', one must somehow decide what ,,good,, is. In coaching fields, good is inseparably connected to winning. If a coach wins he is good. If a team wins good character will naturally follow for the players. The second problem is that one must determine how to measure success in a character building situation such as coaching an athletic team. Success of coaching should be equated to good character building if physical educators and coaches mean what they say. Thus in determining a success criterion, one determines what good is also. The rut coaches have been forced into is the followingj To be successful (i.e., keep a job, have community support) a coach must win, and to justify winning at all costs, the coach must claim that winning produces good character. Thus, success, winning, and character building are fused together. Even in research fields,, success has been measured by win-loss records (Fielder, 1953» Loy and Kenyon, 1969), Indeed it is possible that winning or losing produces good character, but it is also possible that they do not. The concern is that there are othercri terion of success being overlooked. Success could be measured by any or all of the variables - previously mentioned (e.g., positive change in attitude, good habits, leadership ability), As demonstrated the variables one could investigate are many and so one must choose. The criteria of success used in this study are 3 self-concept, interpersonal perception and the traditional win-loss category. Self-concept was picked because of its relationship to cer tain "admirable qualities", and because it can be measured empirically. Justification and connections are given in the literature section on self-concept. Interpersonal perception was used because of the de velopment of a fairly refined and bias free measuring technique, and because Fiedler (1953) demonstrated some support for a negative con nection between interpersonal perception and win-loss records for basketball teams. Self-concept and interpersonal perception have been extensively studied in the fields of education, psychology and sociology, INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION Early studies on interpersonal perception were interested in def initions and the usual connections with age, sex, education, personality (Gates, 19231 Walton, 1936; Dymond, 19^9, 1950), socioeconomic status and family background (Chowdhry, 1952; Scodell, 1953; Valentine, 1929)* * ' Social perception, an early term for interpersonal perception, was de fined by Luchins (1950) as ll..• a compromise between what the organism is given to see (excitation induced by the stimulus) and what the organism is set or wants to see." It is fairly well agreed that inter personal perception is the ability to see another accurately, or as that person sees himself (Sappenfield, 1965; Gage, 1955; Crombach, 1955; Danielian, 1967), Ronald Taft (1955) presents a comprehensive summary of early research dealing with "The Ability to Judge People," A fairly current issue in interpersonal perception is whether there 4 is a general ability to judge others accurately. Getales (1965)# Tagiuri, Blake and Bruner (1953)* Dorribush, Hastorf, Richardson, Muzzy Vreeland (1965) and Cline and Richards (i9 6 0, I962 ) support the view of a generalized ability to judge others. Gage and Croribach (1955)* Pyron (1968), Rabin (1958) and Gleser and Croribach (1953) support the view that there is no general ability to judge others. Taft (1955) and Allport (1937) conclude that there are two abilities, a general and a specific, emphasizing that ability is probably more general than specific. The evidence seems to lean in the direction of a general ability. Tagiuri (1957) attributes.such conflicts as the one above to the difference in design and analysis, and indeed, the literature shows a development of measuring techniques. Most early studies