burnout in competitive junior tennis players: i. a ... · i. a quantitative psychological...

The Sport Psychologist, 1996,10,322-340 O 1996 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Burnout in Competitive Junior Tennis Players: I. A Quantitative Psychological Assessment

Daniel Gould Eileen Udry University of North Carolina University of Oregon

at Greensboro

Suzanne Tuffey James Loehr U.S. Olympic Committee Loehr-Groppel Sport Science,

Orlando, FL

This study reports results from the first phase of a large-scale research project designed to examine burnout in competitive junior tennis players. Thirty junior tennis burnout and 32 comparison players, identified by U.S. Tennis Asso- ciation personnel, voluntarily completed a battery of psychological assessments. A series of discriminant function analyses and univariate t-tests revealed that burned out, as contrasted to comparison players, had significantly: (a) higher burnout scores; (b) less input into training; (c) were more likely to have played high school tennis; (d) more likely played up in age division; (e) practiced fewer days; (f) were lower in external motivation; (g) were higher in amotivation; (h) reported being more withdrawn; (i) differed on a variety of perfectionism subscales; (j) were less likely to use planning coping strategies; and (k) were lower on positive interpretation and growth coping. It was con- cluded that in addition to a variety of personal and situational predictors of burnout, perfectionism plays a particularly important role.

"Dollar-driven tournaments turns desire to despair."

"Surviving stardom: Is the sport's obsession with youth and money burning out its brightest stars?"

"Teen turmoil"

"Junior tennis: Future champions or future burnouts?'

"Is tennis dying?"

Daniel Gould is with the Department of Exercise & Sport Science at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412-5001. Eileen Udry is with the Department of Exercise & Movement Studies at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. Suzanne Tuffey is with the Sport Science &Technology Division of the U.S. Olympic Committee. James Loehr is with Loehr-Groppel Sport Science, Orlando, FL.

Quantitative Analysis 323

These recent headlines reflect the concern that has been voiced both within and outside of the sport community regarding competitive pressure placed on junior athletes. In fact, over the last decade, growing concern with stress-induced burnout resulted in the International Tennis Federation deriving educational recommendations and rule changes aimed at preventing the problem (Hume, 1985). Despite these efforts, the controversy surrounding junior sport burnout has not abated. Today, it is one of the hottest topics surrounding intensive sport participation in young athletes as evidenced by the current debate surrounding age eligibil- ity requirements for women's professional tennis.

One would think that with all this controversy, sport science researchers would have extensively studied the topic of burnout in tennis and other high-intensity competitive sports for children. Yet, this is not the case. While sport psychologists (Silva, 1990; Smith, 1986) and sport sociologists (Coakley, 1992) have written theoretical papers on the topic, few if any in-depth empirical studies of burnouts have been conducted. In fact, a computer literature search conducted at the onset of this study did not reveal one empirical investigation of athlete burnout.

In response to continuing concern with junior tennis burnout and lack of any scientific research on the topic, this investigation was commissioned by the Sport Science Division of the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA). The goal of the project was to identify and psychologically describe junior tennis burnouts and compare these individuals to players who did not burnout of junior tennis, and to learn more about the specific experiences of those who burned out of tennis.

The project was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1, a national sample of junior tennis burnouts and comparable players who did not burn out completed a battery of psychological and social psychological inventories. Comparisons were then made between those two groups of participants. By conducting this national survey, the investigative team's goal was to obtain an accurate description of the junior tennis burnout that would not be specific to a particular region of the coun- try, but would adequately represent junior tennis as it is played in the United States. Reporting the results of Phase 1 is the focus of this article.

Phase 2 consisted of in-depth interviews with a subsample of the burned out individuals participating in Phase 1. The goal of this phase was to obtain detailed information about the experience of burning out of junior tennis and recommendations for preventing burnout. Each individual's unique burnout experience was examined and content analyses were used to identify patterns across individuals. The results of this phase are reported in a second article (Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996).

Before examining the sample and design used in this investigation, the concept of burnout must be briefly defied and discussed. In addition, current models or theories of burnout must be understood and variables thought to be related to it identified.

Understanding Burnout In the athletic community, burnout is a term that is used quite frequently, but sel- dom precisely defined. At times, it is viewed as a personality flaw of the player- a mental weakness that signifies a lack of mental toughness. At other times, burnout is viewed as being synonymous with anyone discontinuing sport involvement. In the psychological and sport psychological literature, burnout has a different and more precise meaning.

Burnout is defined as a psychological, emotional, and physical withdrawal

324 Gould, U d y , Tuffey, and Loehr

from a formerly pursued and enjoyable sport as a result of excessive stress which acts on the athlete over time (Smith, 1986). It is the manifestation or consequence of the situational, cognitive, physiologic, and behavioral components of excessive stress. Hence, burnout is not viewed solely as a component of one's personality. It is thought to result from a reciprocal interaction of personal and situational factors.

Similarly, not everyone who discontinues sport involvement bums out. In fact, Smith's (1986) model not only accounts for burnout-a special case of sport withdrawal-but sport withdrawal in general. Based on social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), Smith contends that individuals discontinue sport involvement when the costs outweigh benefits relative to alternative activities. More- over, the extensive research on children's participation motivation for sports involvement shows the vast majority of young athletes who discontinue do so because of a change of interests, conflicting interests, no fun, andlor low perceptions of competence (See Weiss & Chaumeton [I 9921 for an extensive review). Discon- tinuation due to burnout, however, is theorized to be driven by the young athlete's perception of excessive stress. Young athletes, then, discontinue sport participation for any number of reasons (e.g., sport conflicts with another activity like mu- sic; one would rather play another sport in which he or she is more successful), but those who burnout discontinue because of excessive long-term stress (Gould, 1993). Thus, not everyone who discontinues or drops out of youth sport burns out, only those who discontinue as a result of prolonged stress.

Models of Burnout

Although the empirical literature on burnout is sparse, models of burnout have been developed in the general psychological literature (See Vealey, Udry, & Zirnrnerman [I9921 for an overview of these models). Several sport scientists also have developed sport-specific theories or models of burnout that are most germane to the present study. These include Smith's (1986) cognitive-affective stress model, Silva's (1990) negative-training stress response model, and Coakley's (1992) unidimensional identity development and external control view. Each will be briefly discussed below.

Smith's (1986) Cognitive-Afective Stress Model Based on general psychology research on burnout in the helping processions (e.g., social workers, nurses) and his own cognitive-affective model of stress, Smith (1986) proposed a four-stage, stress-based process model of burnout in sport. In the first stage of this model, the athlete is placed under some demand (e.g., over- loaded with practice and training time, pressure to win by significant others). Then, in the second stage, the demand is not perceived equally by all participants- cognitive appraisal takes place and some athletes will view the situation as more threatening or overwhelming than others. In the third stage, if the demand is perceived as threatening, there is a physiological response (e.g., insomnia, fatigue). And, finally in the fourth stage, the physiological response leads to some type of coping and task behavior, such as decreased performance, interpersonal difficulties or withdrawal from the activity.

It also should be noted in Smith's model, all four stages of the burnout process are influenced by personality and motivational factors, such as one's self- esteem and trait anxiety. Additionally, the model is considered to be circular and continuous where the coping and task-behavior stage feeds back to the situational


demand and resources stage. Reciprocal relationships also exist between all four stages of the model.

Despite its intuitive appeal and precise identified relationships, Smith's model has failed to generate much burnout research. It does, however, provide a good framework for conceptualizing the topic.

Silva's (1990) Negative-Training Stress Response Model Although recognizing the importance of psychological factors, Silva (1990) developed a model to explain burnout that focused more attention on responses to physical training. In particular, Silva contended that physical training stresses the athlete which can have both positive and negative effects. Positive adaptation is a desirable outcome and main purpose of training (e.g., in weight training we pur- posely overload the body and the body adapts and becomes stronger). Too much training, however, results in negative adaptation. This negative adaptation is hy- pothesized to lead to negative-training responses moving on a continuum from staleness ("an initial failure of the body's adaptive mechanisms to cope with psychophysiological stress," Silva, 1990, p. lo), to overtraining ("detectable psychophysiological malfunctions characterized by easily observed changes in the athletes' mental orientation and physical performance," Silva, 1990, p. lo), and finally to burnout ("an exhaustive psychophysiological response exhibited as a result of frequent, sometimes extreme, but generally ineffective efforts to meet excessive training and sometimes competitive demands," Silva, 1990, p. 11).

Unfortunately, few if any tests of Silva's model have taken place, although in the original article a small sample of collegiate athletes were surveyed and asked a series of questions about the training stress process. Results from this exploratory data revealed that 72% of the respondents reported some staleness during their sport seasons, 66% overtrained two times during their career, and 47% burned out on average 1.5 times during their collegiate career.

Coakley's (1992) Unidimensional Identity Development and External Control Model

While the Smith (1986) and Silva (1990) burnout models focus primarily on stress, Coakley (1992) developed an alternative view that is more sociological in nature. Coakley agreed stress is definitely involved in burnout. He argued, however, that it is not the cause of burnout, only a symptom. The cause of burnout in young athletes is tied to the social organization of high-performance sport and its effects on identity and control issues in young athletes.

In terms of the identity of the young athlete, Coakley contended that burnout occurs because the structure of high-performance sport (e.g., time demands) does not allow the young athlete to develop a normal multifaceted identity (e.g., no time to spend with peers or in other nonsport activities). Instead, identity foreclosure occurs where the young athlete's identity is solely focused on sport success. And in many cases (e.g., when injury or performance failure occurs), this sole identity focus on being an athlete causes stress that contributes to burnout.

Coakley also contended that in high-performance sport, the social worlds of young athletes are organized in such a way that their control and decision-making is inhibited. In particular, he stated the young athletes' social environments "are organized in ways that leave them powerless to control events and make decisions


about the nature of their experiences and the direction of their own development" (Coakley, 1992, p. 282). This, too, leads to stress and ultimately burnout.

The Coakley model was developed as an alternative to the stress-based models of burnout, and is important for the emphasis it places on the social environment of the young athlete. Moreover, specific recommendations for preventing burnout are forwarded and include: (a) changing the social structure of high-performance sport for children; (b) changing the manner in which the sport experience is integrated in children's lives; and (c) structuring the relationships between significant others and child athletes in differing ways.

The Coakley model has not been tested, although it was formulated based on what he learned from conversations with 15 young athletes who had discontinued their sport involvement. It is unfortunate, however, that while quotes given from these young athletes are used to support his contentions throughout the article, they are not presented in a systematic and detailed enough fashion so the work's scientific contribution to the literature can be judged.

Factors Influencing Burnout In addition to the previously discussed models of burnout, a number of coaches, parents, and sport psychologists have written practically based articles on the topic. For example, Feigley (1984), based on his experience as a gymnastics coach and sport psychologist, identified perfectionism, a lack of assertiveness skills, and the need to please others as variables related to burnout in elite young gym- nasts. Similarly, Juba (1986) identified excessive training workloads, parental pressure, and the repetitive nature of the sport as major burnout causes for young swimmers. Finally, J. Smith (1986), in discussing junior tennis from a parent's perspective, identified inconsistent coaching practices, overuse injuries from excessive practice, and excessive time demands as major sources of burnout.

These, and other similar articles, were identified through the previously mentioned computerized literature search and reviewed in an effort to identify potential variables thought to be related to burnout. These variables are contained in Figure 1.

An inspection of this figure reveals that these variables were combined with ones identified in the various models of burnout, and organized within Smith's (1986) cognitive-affective stress framework. This was done because the investigative team felt the Smith model was a general enough framework to adequately house variables from the discussed models and from the general review of the applied literature. This integrated working model then was used to pictorially represent all the factors thought to be related to burnout. In addition, it was used to ensure that efforts were made to assess these factors either in Phase 1 (the questionnaire portion of the study represented by the symbol " Q in the table) or in Phase 2 (the interview portion of the study represented by the symbol "I" in the table).

To summarize, the first phase of the present investigation was designed to identify and psychologically describe junior tennis burnouts and compare these individuals to players who did not burn out of junior tennis. Based on the theorizing of Smith (1986), Silva (1992), and Coakley (1992), and a review of the practical burnout literature, measures such as trait anxiety, burnout, perfectionism, intrinsic-extrinsic motivational orientation, and athletic identity were assessed. Because so little empirical research has been conducted on burnout with athletes, specific


Situational Coenitive Phvsiolwleal CopinpPFssk Demands Appraisal Demands Behavior

high conflicting perceived overload decreased molivation physical withdrawal demands (I) (1 & Q) (1 Q)

lack of few meaningful fatigue (I & Q) emotional withdrawal controUpowerlw; accomplishn~enu (I) ( l & Q ) dependency (l)

high expectations by lack of meaning and decreased enjoyment psychological self and others (I) devaluation of activity (Q) withdrawal (I)

(I)

low social support lack of enjoyn~nt 0 ) decreased concentration decreased performam U&Q) (1 'Q Q) (I)

excessive time demands chronic stress (I & Q) weight gain/loss (0) giving up during play; (1) tanking (I)

limited social learned helplessness (Q) illnesdinjury rigidlinappropriate relationships (Q) susceptibility ( I & Q) behavior (I)

parental involvement: decreased life tension; anxiety (I & Q) interpersonal difficulties restrictive (I & Q); satisfaction (I) (a) inconsistent feedback (I & Q); negative feedback Q

coach involvement: identity crisis (I) mwdinessl impatience lower school inconsistent feedback (I (1 & 0) performance (I) & Q); negative feedback 0 k Q )

injuries (I) stifled: trapped (I) poor sleep (I & Q)

training loads: repetitive (I); high volume (I); number of competitions (I)

nervous during play (1 & Q)

anger; irritability O&Q)

muscle soreness (I 8r Q)

boredom (I & Q)

Personality & Motivational Factors

high trait anxiety (Q & I) low assertiveness (I)

low self esteem and low perceived competence self-critical (Q & I) (Q 1)

competitive orientations fear of failure; fear of poor perfectionism (I & Q) evaluation (Q)

unidimensional self-concept (Q & I) low perceived control (I)

high need to please others (Q & I) low frustration (I)

Figure 1 -An integrative working model of variables involved in athlete burnout.

328 Gould, Ud y, Tuffe, and Loehr

hypotheses were not forwarded or tested in this study.

Method

Procedure The problem of identifying burned out players was a formidable one faced by the investigative team in this study. In fact, difficulties associated with the identification of burned out participants may explain why so few burnout studies have been conducted with athletes in the past. That is, unlike active athletes, many of those individuals who have burned out are no longer actively involved in their sport. Hence, it is extremely difficult to sample these individuals.

This sampling problem in this study was overcome through the support of the USTA, whose personnel were instrumental in helping identify the participant pool. Specifically, the lead investigator attended a USTA national conference and solicited assistance from USTA sectional directors located in 17 geographical re- gions throughout the United States. Using Smith's (1986) chronic-stress burnout definition', sectional directors were instructed as to the nature of burnout and upon their return to their region, were asked to identify two types of individuals: (a) players who had burned out of junior tennis, and (b) comparison players who had not burned out of junior tennis, but who were similar in age, playing experience, and sex.

The original list generated by the sectional directors included 41 burnouts and 40 comparison players as potential subjects (N = 81). Using the list provided by the sectional directors, the investigators then initiated phone contact with potential subjects. Those individuals who agreed to participate were mailed a con- sent form, informed of the confidential nature of their responses, instructed to complete the assessments, and asked to return their completed assessments through the mail. Of the 81 potential subjects originally identified by the sectional directors, 62 individuals agreed to participate and returned the assessments. Thus, there was a survey return rate of 78%. Those individuals who completed the assessments were later mailed a USTAT-shirt as a way of thanking them for their participation.

It should be noted that in all phone contacts, written reminders, and on all assessments, the term "burnout" was intentionally avoided due to the negative connotations associated with this term in the tennis community. Instead, the term "lost motivation in tennis" was used. The instructions on the questionnaires asked those previously identified as "burnouts" to answer in relation to their "last year in competitive junior tennis." In contrast, those who were identified as comparison players were instructed to complete the questionnaires with regard to the "time in your junior tennis career when you were most involved with tennis."

Participants The final sample of 62 participants included 30 burnout and 32 comparison players. It should be noted that while all 30 burnout participants psychologically, physi-

'Burnout was defined as the psychological, physical, and emotional withdrawal from a formerly pursued and enjoyable activity that results from chronic stress.


cally, andlor emotionally withdrew from tennis, not all permanently discontinued playing tennis (e.g., some of the burnout participants later returned to tennis). More specifically, of the 30 burnouts, 17 (or 55%) participants later returned to tennis participation at some level.

The sample included 36 males (58%) and 26 (42%) females. The mean age of participants was 16.4 (SD = 2.4). In terms of players' training loads, the average number of hours per day they trained was 2.5 (SD = 1.8), with participants training an average of 5.6 days per week (SD = 1.1). The mean age participants began playing tennis was 7.4 (SD = 2. I), with the average age participants began playing competitive tennis being 9.4 (SD = 1.6). With respect to participants' skill level, on average, players achieved a mean state age group ranking of 4.98 (SD = 10. I), a regional ranking of 6.19 (SD = 10.7), and a national ranking of 55 (SD = 36.1).

Demographic and Background Inventory. Participants were assessed on a variety of demographic and background variables including: age, gender, years competitive experience, rankings achieved, level of current tennis involvement, age began playing tennis and playing competitive tennis, number of hours practiced per day, number of days practiced per week, amount of input into training and competitive schedules, perceived adequacy (present and past) of training and competitive schedules, high school team involvement, age divisions played in, and participants' perceptions of whether more injuries than usual had occurred during the time frame they had been asked to reflect upon.

Eades Athletic Burnout Inventory. Participants' levels of tennis burnout was assessed through the Eades Athletic Burnout Inventory (EABI) (Eades, 199 1). As with all subsequently mentioned assessments, the EABI was modified slightly for purposes of this investigation so participants responded with regard to their degree of tennis involvement rather than athletic involvement.

The EABI is a relatively new 36-item self-report inventory that has been patterned after general burnout inventories. That is, using a 7-point Likert scale, participants respond with respect to the frequency they experience various feelings and cognitions regarding their athletic (in this case, tennis) participation (e.g., "I feel overwhelmed by my tennis participation;" 0 = never; 6 = every day). Based on factor analyses, 6 subscales are assessed and include negative self-concept of athletic ability, emotional and physical exhaustion, psychological withdrawal from and devaluation of sport participation, devaluation by coach and teammates, congruent athlete-coach expectations, and personal and athletic accomplishment.

Preliminary psychometric work on the EABI is encouraging. However, a weakness of this scale is that there is not yet substantial validity and reliable information available. Yet, because the EABI is the only burnout inventory developed specifically for use in athletic settings currently, it was considered more relevant than a general nonsport measure of burnout.

The Sport Motivation Scale. The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) developed by Pelletier, Tuson, Fortier, Vallerand, Briere, and Blais (1995) was used to

2A copy of all assessment instruments used in this investigation is available upon request from the first author. In addition, because of journal space limitations, complete scale development and psychometric information could not be included on the instruments employed. This information, however, also is available upon request from the first author.


assess motivational differences with regard to tennis participation. Respondents indicate the extent to which the items correspond to their reasons for practicing and playing junior tennis using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = does not correspond at all; 7 = corresponds exactly).

The SMS contains 28 items and includes the following 7 subscales: (a) knowl- edge (e.g., "for the pleasure of discovering new training techniques"); (b) accomplishment (e.g., "for the pleasure I feel while executing certain difficult move- ments"); (c) stimulation (e.g., "the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences"); (d) identified regulation (e.g., "because it is one of the best ways to maintain good relationships with my friends"); (e) introjected regulation (e.g., "because I must do sports to feel good about myself'); (f) external regulation (e.g., "for the prestige of being an athlete"); (g) amotivation (e.g., "I don't know anymore; I have the impression that I'm not capable of succeeding in this sport). The scale has strong psychometric properties (Pelletier et al., 1995).

The first 3 subscales listed above are thought to represent varying forms of intrinsic motivation; the 4th through 6th subscales represent three forms of external motivation. The 7th subscale, amotivation, is thought to be theoretically similar to the concept of learned helplessness whereby individuals lack feelings of control because they do not perceive contingencies between their actions and the outcomes of their actions (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). These three broader forms of motivation (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation) are postulated to fall at different points along a self-determination continuum. Specifically, from highest to lowestwith regard to self-determination are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation.

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Recently, Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) have defined perfectionism as the setting of excessively high standards of performance in combination with a tendency to make overly critical self-evaluations. Consistent with this conceptualization of perfectionism, Frost and colleagues (1990) have developed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) that has been successfully employed to study athletes (Frost & Henderson, 1991) and was used in this investigation.

The MPS is a 35-item scale that has respondents indicate on a Likert scale the degree to which they agree with statements related to perfectionistic tendencies (e.g., "I should be upset if I make a mistake;" 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly disagree). The MPS yields an overall perfectionism score as well as 6 subscales scores. The subscales on the MPS include: (a) concern over mistakes, (b) personal standards, (c) parental expectations, (d) parental criticism, (e) doubts about actions, and (f) organization. It has been shown to have good internal con- sistency and convergent validity (Frost et al., 1990).

SportAnxiety Scale. Trait anxiety was measured through the Sport Anxi- ety Scale (SAS) (Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990). The SAS is a 21-item questionnaire that assesses three types of trait anxiety, somatic anxiety, worry, and concentration disruptions. Subjects respond to how they usually react to competition using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 4 = very much so). The SAS has been sub- jected to rigorous psychometric testing and has good psychometric properties.

Athletic Identity Measurement Scale. Because Coakley (1992) has hy- pothesized that athlete identity plays an important role in athletic burnout, the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) was used to assess both the strength and exclusivity of commitment to an athletic self-perception (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993). The developers of the AIMS maintain that individuals with a


strong athletic identity ascribe great importance to involvement in sport and are particularly attuned to self-perceptions in the athletic domain.

The AIMS is a 10-item single factor questionnaire that participants respond to using a 7-point Likert type scale (e.g., "I need to participate in tennis to feel good about myself;" 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Thus, higher scores on the AIMS are associated with a greater athletic self-schema. The AIMS appears to have adequate reliability and validity (Brewer et al., 1993).

COPE. Participants' use of coping strategies was assessed through the COPE inventory developed by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989). The COPE is a 52-item inventory that asks respondents to indicate on a 1 to 4 Likert scale the degree to which they used a particular coping strategy in a situation perceived to be stressful (1 = I usually don't do this at all; 4 = I usually do this a lot). For purposes of this investigation, subjects were asked to respond in relation to stressful tennis situations they encountered.

The COPE includes 13 factors that are assessed by 4 items each. These factors include: (a) active coping, (b) planning, (c) suppression of competing activities, (d) restraint coping, (e) seeking social support for instrumental reasons, (f) seeking social support for emotional reasons, (g) focusing on and venting of emotions, (h) behavioral disengagement, (i) mental disengagement, (j) positive reinterpretation and growth, (k) denial, (1) acceptance, and (m) turning to religion. It has generally good psychometric properties (Carver et al., 1989).

Results

Prelimina y Analyses Two types of preliminary analyses were conducted before proceeding to the discriminant analyses used to examine differences between burnout and comparison players. First, reliability coefficients were determined for each of the scales used in this in~estigation.~ Subscales with reliability coefficients less than .65 were elirni- nated from all subsequent analyses and included: congruent athlete-coach expectations (.5 1; EABI), personal and athletic accomplishment (.55; EABI), introjec- tion (.58; SMS), suppression of competing activities (.62; COPE), restraint coping (.54; COPE), and mental disengagement (.36; COPE).

The second step of the preliminary analyses was concerned with examining whether the participants identified as "burnouts" and "comparisons" did in fact differ significantly with regard to bum out as measured by the EABI. Univariate analyses revealed the burnouts (M = 99.9; SD = 34.3) did differ from the comparison participants (M = 70.7; SD = 22.4) with regard to their overall level of burnout ( t = 3.93; p < .000). This analysis was considered important because it provided verification that the USTA sectional directors successfully identified participants who meet the definition of "burnout" as defined for this investigation.

Additionally, the means and standard deviations of the burnouts and comparison players also were obtained for the following assessments: total scores on perfectionism (burnout M = 106.2; SD = 23.0; comparison M = 98.1; SD = 16. I), trait anxiety (burnout M = 51.2; SD = 16.2; comparison M =

3A table of reliability coefficients obtained for this sample for all scales and subscales used in this investigation is available upon request from the first author.

332 Gould, Udy, Tuffey, and Loehr

43.8; SD = 13.7), and athletic identity (burnout M = 34; SD = 12.1; comparison M = 30.4; SD = 10.4).

Burnout and Comparison Player Diferences To examine differences between burnout and comparison players, stepwise discriminant function analyses and follow-up univariate tests were conducted (p < .01). Two points should be made before describing the results of this aspect of the data analysis. First, discriminant function analyses, rather than separate univariate t-tests, were considered the more appropriate method of examining differences between burnout and comparison players because this type of multivariate analysis takes into account the intercorrelation structure of the variables.

Second, five of the self-report inventories used in this investigation are multidimensional in nature (i.e., burnout, motivation, perfectionism, trait anxiety, and coping). In recognition of the multidimensional nature of the various constructs assessed, all subscales of inventories were considered separate variables. How- ever, because of the small sample size, all variables measured could not be entered in one discriminant function analysis. Consequently, variables were grouped into conceptually similar categories and analyzed using 4 separate discriminant function analyses. Specifically, stepwise discriminant analyses were conducted for: (a) demographic and background, (b) psychological effects, (c) personality, and (d) coping variables. Prior to running each separate discriminant analysis, multicolinearity between criterion variables was assessed. None exceeded a coef- ficient of 30.

Demographic and Background Variables. Eleven background and demographic variables were entered into the first discriminant function analysis (See Table 1). This discriminant function was statistically significant, Wilks A = .63, x2(6) = 21.7, p < .001, with group centroids being .75 for the comparison and -.75 for the burned out players. Classification results indicated that 80.8% of the cases could be correctly classified. As shown in Table 1,6 of the 11 variables used in this analysis significantly contributed to maximizing the differences between the two groups. More specifically, as indicated by the significant univariate t-tests and the standardized discriminant coefficients contained in Table 1, burnout players had less input into their training, were more likely to have played on their high school team, felt they had played in too many tournaments, were more likely to have played up in age divisions in tournaments, and on average practiced fewer days per week. Further inspection of the standardized discriminant function coefficients showed input into training and the number of years played up in age divisions contributed the most to the overall multivariate effect.

Psychological Effects Variables. The subscales from the EABI and the SMS were entered into the second discriminant function analysis (Table 2). These variables were considered conceptually similar in that it would be expected that individuals who had burned out of tennis would differ from those who had not burned out of tennis with regard to their level of burnout and motivation. Thus, this discriminant function was labeled "psychological effects" discriminant function analysis.

This discriminant function analysis was statistically significant, Wilks X = .63, x2(3) = 24.8, p < .000, with group centroids being .77 for the comparison and -.74 for the burned out players. Classification results indicated that 75.4% of the


Table 1 Discriminant Function-Demographic and Background Variables

Mean Standard deviation

Corn- Corn- St. discrimin. Variable Burnout parison Burnout parison t p func. coeffic.

Input into training High school team Now-too many

tournaments Years played up Days practicedlweek Age began competing Age began playing Hours practicelday Tournament schedule

input Past-too many

tournaments Injuries

Table 2 Discriminant Function-Psychological Effects



Amotivation 12.34 5.57 6.69 1.97 26.44 .OOO 69 External motivation 14.00 16.79 5.69 4.86 14.77 .ON -.33 Withdrawal 18.79 10.25 8.77 5.31 10.41 .OOO .34 Negative 20.82 11.53 9.58 7.62 - - -

self-concept Emotional and 27.03 17.82 13.42 9.90 - - -

physical exhaustion Devaluation 8.96 3.61 7.84 4.25 - - - Experience 17.82 20.96 6.11 5.21 - - -

stimulation Know 14.31 17.53 6.31 5.72 - - - Accomplish 18.14 21.43 6.62 3.61 - - -

cases could be correctly classified. As indicated in Table 2, 3 of the 9 EABI and SMS variables significantly contributed to maximizing the differences between the two groups. Specifically, inspection of the univariate t-tests and discriminant function coefficients contained in Table 2 indicates that burned out players were lower in external motivation, higher on average in amotivation, and more withdrawn. Closer inspection of size of the standardized discriminant function coefficients reveals the subscale amotivation contributed the most to the overall multivariate effect.

Personality Variables. The subscales from the MPS, SAS, and the AIMS were used in the third discriminant function analysis (Table 3). These variables were considered conceptually similar in that they seemed to represent disposi- tional or personality variables. Hence, this discriminant function was labeled

"personality variables." Ten personality variables were entered into the third discriminant function analysis.

The results of this third discriminant function analysis were statistically significant, Wilks X = .75, x2(5) = 16.1, p < .007, with group centroids being -.56 for the comparisons and .57 for the burnout players. Classification results indicated that 70.5% of the cases could be correctly classified. As is revealed by the univariate analyses and the standardized discriminant function coefficients in Table 3, 5 of the 10 variables significantly contributed to maximizing the differences between the two groups. That is to say burnout players perceived greater amounts of parental criticism and parental expectations, had lower personal standards, had higher needs for organization, and experienced greater concern over mistakes. Further inspection of the magnitude of the standardized discriminant function coefficients shows that parental criticism, parental expectations, and personal standards contributed the most to the overall multivariate effect.

Coping Strategies. A final discriminant function analysis was conducted using the subscales of the COPE (Table 4). Ten coping strategies variables were entered into this discriminant function analysis.

This discriminant function analysis was statistically significant, Wilks X = .77, x2(2) = 14.14, p < .000, with group centroids being -.53 for the comparisons and .53 for the burned out players. Classification results indicated that 75.8% of the cases could be correctly classified. As indicated by the univariate t-tests and the standardized discriminant function coefficients in Table 4, only 2 of the 10 coping strategies variables significantly contributed to maximizing the differences between the two groups. More specifically, inspection of Table 4 indicates that burnout players were less likely to use planning and positive reinterpretation as coping strategies relative to the comparison players. Further inspection of the magnitude of the standardized discriminant function coefficients shows planning contributed the most to the overall multivariate effect.

Discussion The major purpose of this study was to identify and describe the psychological characteristics of junior tennis burnouts and compare these individuals to similar players who did not burn out. To summarize, relative to the comparison players on demographic variables, burnout players: (a) had less input into their training; (b) were more likely to have played on their high school tennis team; (c) were more likely to have played in higher age divisions in tournaments; and (d) practiced fewer days.

Intuitively, it would be expected that by playing up in age division more often, burned out players would encounter more difficult competition and more stress. In line with Coakley's (1992) contention, burned out players also reported less input into their training that would not only be expected to lessen intrinsic motivation, but cause stress and frustration as well. The less intuitive finding that the burned out players were more likely to have played high school tennis is most likely the result of the fact that, because these players were burning out, they were more likely to discontinue more competitive junior tennis and opt instead to play less demanding high school tennis. Similarly, it was felt the burned out players practiced fewer days because they had already, or were in the process of, burning out and in doing so, lessened their practice involvement.


Table 3 Discriminant Function-Personality Variables



Parental criticism Parental expectations Personal standards Organization Concern over

mistakes Doubts Cognitive trait

anxiety Somatic trait

anxiety Concentration

disruptions Athletic identity

Table 4 Discriminant Function-Coping Subscale Scores



Planning 9.34 12.17 2.96 2.87 13.62 .005 26 Positive 10.62 12.79 3.10 2.69 8.06 .009 .44

reinterpretation Active coping 9.34 11.17 3.02 2.72 - - - Instrumental 7.37 9.09 3.09 3.24 - - -

social support Emotional social 8.03 9.27 2.95 3.39 - - -

support Behavioral 7.41 5.65 3.29 3.11 - - -

disengagement Acceptance 10.58 10.79 3.19 3.24 - - - Venting emotions 9.62 9.14 3.54 3.15 - - - Denial 6.79 6.28 2.83 2.99 Religion 8.41 7.37 3.86 3.83 - - -

With respect to psychological variables, burnout players: (a) were lower in external motivation; (b) were higher in amotivation; and (c) reported being more withdrawn. When compared to the nonburned out players, then, the burned out players lost motivation and psychologically withdrew. Somewhat surprising, however, was the finding that burned out players were less externally motivated. This result does not support current motivational thinking by Vallerand and his colleagues (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Vallerand & Reid, 1990) who contend external extrinsic motivation would be negatively associated with sport persis- tence.

336 Gomld, U d y , Tufey, and Loehr

In terms of personality variables, relative to the comparison players, the burnout players differed on a variety of perfectionism subscales. In particular, burned out players: (a) were higher on perceived parental criticism and expectations; (b) had higher needs for organization; (c) experienced greater concern over mistakes; and (d) had lower personal standards. It certainly makes sense and supports current research (Frost et al., 1990; Frost & Henderson, 1991) that those individuals who perceive higher parental criticism and show greater concern over mistakes would experience more stress and burnout. Similarly, if one has a high need for organization, and things are not as organized as one would like, stress and burnout may occur. The finding that burnouts held significantly lower personal standards is not as easily explained. One would think burnouts might be characterized by higher performance standards. However, when compared to other perfectionism subscales, the personal-standards subscale has not been found to be closely associated with negative features of perfectionism. Instead, it has been found to be correlated with positive achievement striving (Frost & Henderson, 1991).

With respect to the use of coping strategies that were used to deal with stressful tennis situations, burnout players significantly differed from comparison players in that they were less likely to use planning strategies, and were lower on positive reinterpretation and growth coping skills. A lack of two types of coping skills, then, was found to be associated with junior tennis burnout.

Finally, while it was found that certain personality characteristics (e.g., perfectionism) may predispose one to tennis burnout, the results of this study also showed a variety of situational factors (e.g., parental criticism; playing up an age division) are involved in the burnout process as well. Moreover, players may have little control over such situational factors. The key to understanding burnout, then, is to view it not as a personality weakness, but as an interaction of player characteristics and situational demands.

Given the lack of original research on burnout in athletes, the results of this investigation are important in several ways. First, the results corroborated the sectional director's identification of burned out players. That is, they showed the burned out and comparison players significantly differed on their EABI scores. Burned out players also were found to be more motivationally withdrawn and have much higher levels of amotivation. This demonstrated athletes do indeed bum out of sport and either discontinue their involvement or curtail it by emotionally andlor physically withdrawing. These findings also provided some additional validation evidence for the EABI, a relatively new measure of burnout. However, since several of the EABI subscales did not achieve adequate reliability, further scale development work is needed. Lastly, the SMS, a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports was further validated.

Not only was it found that athletes bum out of tennis in this study, but two types of burnout were found to exist. Some players who burned out of tennis discontinued their involvement all together and had no desire to pick up a racquet again. Others, however, were better thought of as "active burnouts." These burnouts experienced as much stress as those players who totally discontinued involvement, but did not leave the sport. Instead, they physically (e.g., played less often, switched from more competitive junior tennis singles to high school doubles, played at a recreational level) or psychologically (e.g., reduced their effort, made excuses not to practice) decreased their involvement. These findings show that while all players who experience burnout curtail their involvement in some way, they may not always permanently discontinue participation all together.


One of the most important findings of this investigation was the identification of the important role perfectionism plays in burnout. Although identified in the practical literature in sport psychology (Feigley, 1984), perfectionism has not been empirically associated with burnout in sport prior to this investigation. Simi- larly, although a profile of the child athlete most susceptible or "at risk" to height- ened competitive state anxiety (e.g., high trait anxiety, low self-esteem, low ex- pectancies, frequent worry about evaluation, perceives uncertainty regarding her or his ability to perform) has evolved from the pediatric sport psychology research (See Gould [1993] for a detailed review), perfectionism has not been identified as a component of this profile. Based on these findings it should be examined.

Given Coakley's (1992) contentions that identity issues are a key factor associated with athlete burnout, it was somewhat surprising no differences were found between burnout and comparison players in terms of their athletic identity scores. It is important to recognize, however, the AIMS only measures one's identity relative to athletic involvement and not in multiple areas of their life. It is possible that how much one identifies with a particular sport is not as critical in understanding burnout as the failure to have developed self-identities in multiple areas. Unfortu- nately, because the AIMS does not measure self-identity in a variety of sport and nonsport areas, it was not possible to examine this issue.

It also was surprising that trait anxiety differences were not evident between the two groups since Vealey et al. (1992) found trait anxiety to be an important predictor of coaching burnout. However, it should be noted trait anxiety has been found to be correlated to perfectionism (Frost & Henderson, 1991). Hence, com- mon variance between these variables may account for this lack of significance.

Finally, only two coping strategy differences were evident between the burned out and comparison players. One explanation for the lack of significant differences on the COPE subscales may have resulted from the COPE instructions. In particular, the COPE asks respondents to reflect on stressful situations they experienced, but different respondents may choose to reflect on very different types of events (e.g., cheating by an opponent, overtraining injuries, poor play) which may negate potential coping strategy differences between groups because individuals may cope differently in different situations. Hence, because the context of each specific stressful encounter was not examined, the issue of coping strategy differences in burned out and nonbumed out players remains unresolved and awaits further investigation. "

Given the exploratory nature of sport psychological research on athlete bum- out, the results of this investigation must be seen as somewhat tentative. These results need to be replicated and extended to other populations of athletes. Several lines of future research would seem most appropriate and are outlined as follows.

While the results clearly show athletes bum out of sport, the design of the study did not allow the investigators to determine the incidence of burnout in junior tennis. Hence, we do not have any idea of how many young athletes burn out of tennis, or any sport for that matter. Because of this state of affairs, descriptive information relative to the incidence that burnout occurs in athletes is badly needed. Identifying how many athletes burn out is essential, as well as noting numbers of active versus totally burned out participants. Additionally, it is important to identify whether burnout occurs more in certain types of sports. For example, Coakley (1992) has suggested burnout occurs more in individual than team sports, and with middle and high socioeconomic athletes than their low socioeconomic counter- parts. No empirical support exists for Coakley's contentions, however.


A weakness of the present study was that it was retrospective in nature. Pos- sible memory decay or self-enhancing retrospection are potential variables influencing the findings (Johnston & Sherman, 1990; Ross & Conway, 1986). Hence, we cannot rule out the fact whether a player had burned out of tennis influenced his or her responses. While diff~cult to do, it would be useful to collect prospective longitudinal data on players, and then determine how the histories of players who did and did not bum out differed. The strongest design for such a study would be interdisciplinary in nature, simultaneously examining psychological, physiological, and performance-related factors over an extended period of time.

Given Smith's (1986) theorizing, in future studies it might be useful to dif- ferentiate between two types of activity changers: burnouts and dropouts. Burn- outs would be those individuals who dropout because of excessive chronic stress, and dropouts because of changes of interests or other nonstress motivational concerns (e.g., change in work schedule, conflicting schedule of activities). While youth sport participation motivation research has shown dropouts can be identified (Weiss & Chaumeton, 1992), with our burnout participants we found such a distinction difficult, if not impossible to make. The EABI results clearly showed these players were burned out. However, our SMS results also demonstrated a clear lack of motivation. We suggest that during the process of burning out, the athlete's participation motivation declines and they often develop a desire to pur- sue other activities (e.g., spend time with their friends)-a fact borne out in our Phase 2 results (See Gould et al., in press). Hence, stress-induced burnout appears to be explicitly intertwined with motivation and participant motivation concerns, and burnouts must be studied in a longitudinal process-oriented fashion to understand the interaction between these variables.

Interestingly, Golembiewski, Munzenrider, and Carter (1983) have proposed a phase model of burnout which contends that instead of viewing burnout as being comprised of separate and independent constructs-such as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishments-that they be viewed as interacting. In a similar vein, Smith's (1986) model of burnout is not appropriately viewed as reciprocal and constantly interacting with his social exchange explanation of participation motivation and withdrawal. They should not be viewed as independent mechanisms in future studies. In the future, it also might be useful to not only examine burnout models, but related motivational theories, such as Deci and Ryan's (1985) intrinsic motivation and self-determination theory and achievement goal perspectives (Duda, 1993).

Finally, another powerful way to study burnout would be to conduct inter- vention studies aimed at reducing stress in "at risk" perfectionistic young players. Psychological strategies aimed at teaching young players to accept and successfully cope with their perfectionistic orientations may be particularly helpful, as would general strategies designed to manage stress (Gould & Udry, 1994). Inter- estingly, in his consulting work, the first author has noted that many world cham- pion athletes are perfectionistic in their orientations which appears to help them excel beyond their contemporaries, but at the same time, they have learned to accept and channel these perfectionistic tendencies in appropriate versus counter- productive ways. This parallels theorizing on perfectionism, where certain sub- components of this construct (e.g., concern over mistakes and doubts about actions) are thought to be debilitating, while other components (e.g., personal standards) are thought to be related to positive motivation and achievement striving (Frost & Henderson, 1991). Hence, assessing the effectiveness of interventions


designed to help athletes better understand the elements of their perfectionism, and how to best use and live with these elements, is sorely needed.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Paul Rotert and Ron Woods of the USTA for being supportive of the idea behind this project, and the USTA Sport Science Division for provid- ing funding for the project. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the Department of Exercise and Sport Science at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro for its role in supporting the project, and the Educational Services Division of the U.S. Olympic Comrnit- tee for its assistance in conducting the computerized literature search used. Finally, the project could not have been conducted without the assistance of the 17 USTA sectional directors who were instrumental in identifying potential participants, and especially the 62 athletes who wiIlingly gave up their time to voluntarily participate. The coop- eration and willingness of these players to give something back to the game made this project possible.

References Abramson, L., Seligman, M., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Cri-

tique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87,49-74. Brewer, B., Van Raalte, J., & Linder, D. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules' muscles or

Achilles' heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24,237-254. Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically

based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283. Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social prob-

lem. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9,271-285. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum. Duda, J.L. (1993). Goals: A social-cognitive approach to the study of achievement motiva-

tion in sport. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 421-436). New York: Macmillan.

Eades, A. (1991). An investigation of burnout in intercollegiate athletes: The development of the Eades Athlete Burnout Inventory. Paper presented at the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity National Conference, Asilomar, CA.

Feigley, D.S. (1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 12(10), 109-1 12, 115-1 19.

Frost, R.O., & Henderson, K.J. (1991). Perfectionism and reactions to athletic competition. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13,323-335.

Frost, R., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14,449-468.

Golembiewski, R.T., Munzenrider, R., & Carter, D. (1983). Phases of progressive burnout and their work site covariants: Critical issues in OD research and praxis. Joumal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19,461-48 1.

Gould, D. (1993). Intensive sport participation and the prepubescent athlete: Competitive stress and burnout. In B.R. Cahill and A.J. Pearl (Eds.), Intensive participation in children's sports (pp. 19-38). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.


Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: 11. Qualitative content analysis and case studies. The Sport Psychologist.

Gould, D., & Udry, E. (1994). Psychological skills for enhancing performance: Arousal regulation strategies. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 26,478-485.

Hume, J. (1985). The bum out-the solution. London: The International Tennis Federation. Johnston, M.K., & Sherman, S.J. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing the past and the

future in the present. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior: Vol. 2. New York: Guilford Press.

Juba, N. (1986). The requirements of competitive swimming-the effect on children: A coach's perspective. In G. Gleeson (Ed.), The growing child in competitive sport (pp. 173-178). London: Hodder & Stroughton.

Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). Maslach burnout inventory. Manual (6th ed.) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Pelletier, L., Tuson, K., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Briere, N., & Blais, M. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 35-53.

Ross, M., & Conway, M. (1990). Remembering one's own past: The construction of personal histories. In R.M. Sorrentino & T.K. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior: Vol. 2. New York: Guilford Press.

Silva, J.M. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in competitive athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2,5-20.

Smith, J. (1986). My son used to enjoy tennis. In G. Gleeson (Ed.), The growing child in competitive sport (pp. 179-183). London: Hodder & Stroughton.

Smith, R. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8,36-50.

Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Schutz, R. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263-280.

Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Vallerand, R.J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as

predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620. Vallerand, R.J., & Reid, G. (1990). Motivation and special populations: Theory, research,

and implications regarding motor behavior. In G. Rein (Ed.), Problems in movement control (pp. 159-197). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Vealey, R.S., Udly, E.M., & Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 40-58.

Weiss, M.S., & Chaumeton, N. (1992). Motivational orientations in sport. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 61-99). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Manuscript submitted: December 1994 Revision received: February 1996

burnout in competitive junior tennis players: i. a ... · i. a quantitative psychological...

Documents