Communication profiles and sport experiences of collegiate track and field athletes |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Sport Leadership and Management, Miami University, USA;2. Department of Kinesiology and Health Science, Utah State University, USA;1. Department of Sport & Health, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, 33098, Paderborn, Germany;2. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK;1. Valoración del rendimiento deportivo, actividad física y salud y lesiones deportivas (REDAFLED), Department of Didactics of Musical, Plastic and Corporal Expression, Faculty of Education, University of Valladolid, 42004, Soria, Spain;2. Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, CreativeLab Research Community, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5001-801, Vila Real, Portugal;3. Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country, 01007, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain;4. Department of Didactics of Musical, Plastic and Corporal Expression, Faculty of Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country, 01007, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain;5. Evaluation and Data Department, Real Sociedad, 20014, Donostia – San Sebastián, Spain;1. Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer (NUPEF), Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa-MG, Brazil;2. EDAF Research Group, Faculty of Education, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain;1. Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, USA;2. Department of Neurology, University of Florida, USA;1. Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium;2. Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh, UK;1. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Digital Health and Prevention, Salzburg, Austria;2. Department of Psychology, Paris-Lodron-University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria;3. Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Paris-Lodron-University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria;4. Digital Health Information Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Graz, Austria;5. University Institute of Sports Medicine, Prevention and Rehabilitation, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesAthletes often communicate with one another and exchange information, attitudes, and feelings that can influence their sport experiences. In an effort to better understand the sport communication context, the purpose of the current study was to (a) describe communication profiles of athletes (b) examine potential predictors (i.e., team identity, sex) of profile membership, and (c) examine the salience of these profiles by assessing profile group differences on athletes’ perceptions of burnout, engagement, satisfaction, and enjoyment.DesignCross-sectional survey-based study.MethodCollegiate track and field athletes (N = 219) completed measures of demographic information, team communication, team identity, burnout, engagement, enjoyment, and satisfaction. Communication profiles were examined using latent profile analysis. Using the three-step method in Mplus, possible prediction of profile membership and profile differences in perceptions of sport experiences were examined.ResultsThree profiles emerged: the Less Effective Communicators, the Supportive Communicators, and the Functional Communicators. Athletes with greater team identity were more likely to be in the Supportive Communicators profile (p < 0.001), male participants were more likely to be in the Functional Communicators profile (p < 0.05) than the other profiles, and female participants were less likely to be in the Less Effective Communicators profile than the Supportive Communicators profile (p < 0.05). The Less Effective Communicators had greater perceptions of burnout (ps < 0.01) and lower perceptions of engagement (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05), satisfaction (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001), and enjoyment (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05) than the Supportive and Functional Communicators. Supportive Communicators had greater satisfaction (p < 0.001) and enjoyment (p < 0.001) than the Functional Communicators.ConclusionsDifferent profiles of communication in track and field athletes may have implications for athletes’ sport experiences and warrant continued study. |
| |
| Keywords: | Athlete burnout Athlete engagement Motivation Peers |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
