U of t research 2015 respect in sport athlete outcomes

Examining the impact of the Respect in Sport Parent Program among minor hockey athletes

Katherine A. Tamminen & Carolyn E. McEwen

Introduction  Parental involvement in youth sport (Fraser‐Thomas et al., 2013; Holt et al., 2008; 2009; Lauer et al., 2010)

 Parental influence on athlete outcomes (Chan et al., 2012; Gershgoren et al., 2011)

 Parental support and pressure (Anderson et al., 2003; Lafferty & Dorrell, 2006; Ommundsen et al., 2006)

 Parent education programs in youth sport • STAR Sportsmanship education module (Ford et al., 2012)

• Working with parents in sport program (Lafferty & Triggs, 2014)

• Mastery approach program – coaches and parents (Smoll et al., 2007)

Respect in Sport Parent Program  Respect Group, Inc. • Canadian Red Cross

 “Program provides tools and information to assist sport parents in creating safe, healthy, respectful and fun sport experiences for their children” (Respect Group, Inc.)

Respect in Sport Parent Program  Example program modules/topics: Setting reasonable expectations Balance in sport/winning and losing Building positive self‐esteem in your child Positive and respectful relationships with officials, coaches, teammates, and other sport parents • Don’t be a silent bystander • • • •

 Example resources/handouts for parents: • Be a positive participant in your child’s athletics • Differences between abuse, bullying, and harassment • Long Term Athlete Development

Respect in Sport Parent Program  Program implementation and reach  Conceptually, the program content is directed at improving youth sport environment • Parental support/pressure • Athlete behaviours/relationships • Other sport parents/spectators

Purpose  To examine differences in minor hockey athlete outcomes according to the year their league implemented the Respect in Sport Parent Program.

Data Collection  Participants • • • •

64 minor hockey athletes 55% male, M age = 16.3, SD = 1.02 Sport participation: M = 7.82 years, SD = 3.17 Recreational/House, Competitive, Developmental levels

 Online Survey Measures (January 2015) • Parental Involvement in Activities Scale (Anderson et al., 2003) • Parental Support and Pressure

• Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviours (Kavussanu & Boardley, 2009) • Toward Teammates; Toward Opponents

• Perceptions of Spectator Behaviours (Omli & LaVoi, 2009)

Data Analysis  Athletes coded by league and year of program implementation • 2011, 2014/15, or ‘no program’

 Descriptive statistics  One‐way ANOVAS • Post‐hoc comparisons using Hochberg’s GT2 (due to uneven sample sizes; Field, 2013)

Cronbach’s Alpha

Mean (SD) 2011 (n = 10)

2014/2015 (n = 39)

No program (n = 15)

Parental Support

.66

3.88 (.16)

3.62 (.33)

3.53 (.43)

Parental Pressure

.76

1.61 (.58)

1.74 (.46)

1.67 (.40)

Prosocial Behaviours - Teammates

.73

4.58 (.55)

4.06 (.59)

4.42 (.47)

Prosocial Behaviours - Opponents

.74

2.57 (1.21)

1.68 (.80)

2.09 (1.02)

Antisocial Behaviours - Teammates

.80

1.70 (.77)

2.26 (.84)

1.72 (.60)

Antisocial Behaviours - Opponents

.83

1.71 (.69)

2.27 (.84)

1.71 (.60)

Perceptions of Spectator Behaviours

.85

2.30 (.58)

2.33 (.56)

2.19 (.53)

Significant differences in athlete perceptions of parental support (F (2, 60) = 3.34, p < .05, ω2 = .07) *

* p < .05, Hedges g = .96

Significant differences in prosocial behaviours toward teammates (F (2, 61) = 4.60, p < .05, ω2 = .10) *

* p < .05, Hedges g = .87

Significant differences in prosocial behaviours toward opponents (F (2, 61) = 4.05, p < .05, ω2 = .09)

*

* p < .05, Hedges g = .98

Discussion  Athletes had significantly higher scores on perceptions of parental support and prosocial behaviours toward teammates and opponents  Nonsignificant findings for parental pressure, antisocial behaviours toward teammates and opponents, and perceptions of spectator behaviours • Competitive level • Parent perceptions/outcomes

Discussion  Program adoption/implementation may reflect league commitment to promoting positive youth experiences in sport  Cross sectional data; data collection and analysis continuing  League implementation and messaging

Take home messages  Significant differences in athletes’ perceptions of parental support and reported prosocial behaviours toward teammates and opponents • No significant differences in parental pressure, antisocial behaviours, or perceptions of spectator behaviours

 Findings could be affected by competitive level of the athletes  League implementation of the Respect in Sport Parent Program may reflect values that support promotion of positive experiences in sport

Thank you!

Poster #44: Parent and Athlete Perceptions of the Respect in Sport Parent Program (K.Smith) katherine.tamminen@utoronto.ca @KA_Tamminen