ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe researchers compared\npredictors of engagement and burnout in adolescent athletes and non-athletes by\nfocusing on daily positive and negative performance-related events (e.g.,\nperforming well in team practice) and interpersonal events (e.g., sharing a\nlaugh with teammates). Participants were recent high school graduates who\nretrospectively reported participation in high school sports or heavy\ninvestment in alternate activities (e.g., marching band). The athletes and\nnon-athletes were similar in how many hours they practiced and competed each\nweek, frequency of activity-related travel, and performance level. In addition,\nthe two groups did not differ in the extent to which their high school identity\nand self-esteem were based on their participation. Results revealed no overall differences\nbetween the two groups on engagement or burnout. For both groups, positive performance\nevents predicted activity engagement (characterized by dedication, vigor and\nenthusiasm). However, the experiences of\nathletes versus non-athletes differentially predicted burnout (marked by\nemotional and physical exhaustion). In athletes, burnout related to both\nperformance and interpersonal events. In non-athletes, burnout was only related\nto performance events. In addition, burnout was positively associated with\ncoach focus on winning (a situation more common for athletes) and negatively\nassociated with coach focus on fun (a situation more common for non-athletes).\nThese findings indicate that experiencing positive and negative events is a\nprecursor for engagement and burnout in high school athletes and non-athletes.\nPromoting positive (relative to negative) events during training, practice,\ncompetitions or performances could enhance benefits and prevent maladaptive\noutcomes of participation in extracurricular activities. Positive social\ninteractions may be particularly important for preventing burnout in adolescent\nathletes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Key\nwords:<\/strong> <\/em>adolescent,\nburnout, engagement, daily events, athlete, extracurricular<\/p>\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPrevious researchers strongly support the\nidea that adolescent sports participation is beneficial. For instance, compared\nto those who do not participate in sports, young athletes benefit from more\nfavorable self-perceptions including more positive body image (Bowker &\nFindlay, 2009), enhanced feelings of physical competence (Koivula, 1999), and\nincreased global self-esteem (Bowker, 2006; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006).\nSports seem to serve a protective role by reducing the risk of self-esteem\ndeclines that frequently occur during adolescence (Bowker, 2006) as well as\nreducing the risk of adolescent depression (Dishman et al., 2006). Furthermore,\nsports participation often provides opportunities for social interactions and\nis linked to better social skills, less loneliness, and a sense of community\n(Lin, Chalip & Green, 2016; Neely & Holt, 2014; Weiss & Ferrer, 2002). Finally, sports\nparticipation has been associated with better self-regulation and effective\ngoal setting behavior (Bruner et al., 2017; Larson, Hansen & Moneta, 2006)\nand this may explain why it has also been linked to higher academic achievement\n(Eldridge et al., 2014; Lumpkin & Favor, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experience and\nAntecedents of Burn-out<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe aforementioned benefits reflect a\ngeneral or average effectfor\nathletes who participate in organized sports compared with youth who do not.\nHowever, sports participation does not result in uniformly positive outcomes.\nIndeed, negative emotional outcomes are a relatively common consequence of\nadolescent sports participation, most notably in the context of competitive\nathletics (Curran, Appleton, Hill & Hall, 2011; Eklund & Cresswell,\n2007). Some young athletes are plagued by a state of burnout, involving\nphysical and mental exhaustion, self-doubt and negative evaluations of one\u2019s\nathletic performance, as well as detachment and declining interest in their\nsport (Cresswell & Eklund, 2006; Raedeke & Smith, 2001; Williams,\n2018). Furthermore, these effects seem to be linked to negative mental health\noutcomes including depression, anxiety, and fear of failure (Eklund &\nCresswell, 2007; Gustafsson, Sagar & Stenling, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Given the potential harmful consequences\nof burnout on athlete performance and welfare, researchers have investigated\npossible antecedents of this syndrome. A study of elite male rugby players\ndemonstrated that perceptions of sports-related stressors were positively\nlinked to burnout (Cresswell & Eklund, 2004), and in junior elite athletes,\nchronic stress also predicted burnout (Frank, Nixdorf & Beckmann, 2017).\nSimilarly, adolescent athletes\u2019 perceptions of negative conflict with peers or\ncoaches were identified as predictors of burnout (DeFreese & Smith, 2014;\nSmith, Gustaffson & Hassmen, 2010). For example, coaches with a\ndisempowering or controlling motivational style increased the likelihood that\ntheir athletes experienced burnout (Appleton & Duda, 2016; Gonz\u00e1lez, Tom\u00e1s,\nCastillo, Duda, & Balguer, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alternatively, perceptions of social\nsupport have been shown to be negatively linked to burnout in professional\nathletes (Cresswell & Eklund, 2007), adult athletes (Al-Yaaribi &\nKavussanu, 2017), collegiate athletes (Defreese & Smith, 2013), and\nadolescent athletes (Holt & Hoar, 2006). All of these findings are\nconsistent with the cognitive-affective stress-based model of athlete burnout,\narguing the idea that high amounts of sport-related stress in conjunction with\nlack of effective coping mechanisms predict athlete burnout (Smith, 1986).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experience and\nAntecedents of Engagement<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe flip side of this scenario is\nreflected in athletes who experience deep engagement in their sport,\ncharacterized by high levels of dedication, vigor, and enthusiasm (Lonsdale,\nHodge & Jackson, 2007; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker,\n2002). Vigor is defined by high levels of perseverance and striving for\nexcellence despite obstacles. Dedication is characterized as reflecting deep\ninvolvement, inspiration and enthusiasm. Absorption is marked by deep\nconcentration and focus on the task. Albeit not as extensively investigated as\nathlete burnout, athlete engagement has recently garnered the attention of\nresearchers who acknowledge the need to study well-being in conjunction with\nill-being. Positive sports engagement has been linked to favorable outcomes\nincluding effective self-regulation of behavior (Martin & Malone, 2013),\npersonal and social responsibility (Martins, Rosado, Ferrerira, & Biscaia,\n2017), continued sports participation (Henry & Hodges, 2018), competency\n(DongWook & Youngkuk, 2015), positive affect (Lonsdale et al., 2007) and\nthe experience of flow, an intrinsically rewarding state of deep immersion in\nan activity (Hodge, Lonsdale & Jackson, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Previous researchers have also begun to\nexamine antecedents of sports engagement. In accordance with their theory of self-determination,\nRyan and Deci (2002) argue that satisfaction of basic psychological needs\nincluding autonomy (perceptions of choice and self-direction), relatedness\n(feelings of connecting to others) and competence (confidence in one\u2019s abilities)\ndetermine the extent to which positive states such as engagement or flow will\noccur. Researchers have provided evidence that supports this proposed link\nbetween satisfaction of basic psychological needs and engagement of athletes\n(e.g., Curran, Hill, Hall & Jowett, 2014; Hodge et al., 2009; Podlog et\nal., 2015). As one example, coaching\nstyles impact whether athlete\u2019s psychological needs are met, which in turn,\ninteracts with athlete engagement. Curran, Hill, Hall, and Jowett (2015) found\nthat overall engagement was higher when coaches focused on skill mastery versus\nperformance. Conversely, burnout was related to coaches\u2019 failure to satisfy\nathletes\u2019 needs (Moen & Federici, 2017). Similarly, the satisfaction of\npsychological needs provides an explanation for perfectionistic concerns\npredicting burnout and perfectionistic strivings predicting engagement (Jowett,\nHill, Hall & Curran, 2016). This relationship between basic needs,\nengagement, and burnout has also been documented outside the world of\nathletics. Thwarting of basic needs seems to prevent engagement and predict\nburnout in employees (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2014; Van Den Broeck,\nVansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008) and middle school students (e.g., Bartholomew,\nNtoumanis, Ryan and Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Influence of Daily Events<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nRecent researchers, using the workplace\ncontext, explored engagement and burnout from a unique perspective, focusing on\nthe relationship between well-being and daily positive and negative events. Sinclair\net al. (2015) conducted an 8-month longitudinal study of nurses and found that\ndaily performance and interpersonal events predicted outcomes such that\npositive events increased nurses\u2019 engagement, while negative events undermined\ntheir engagement and facilitated burnout. These findings are consistent with\nthe Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) which argues that\npositive or negative affective events in the workplace evoke emotional\nresponses that influence workers\u2019 attitudes or actions. Sinclair et al. (2015)\nalso found that negative events were more strongly linked to both engagement\nand burnout, compared to positive events. These particular results support the\n\u201cbad is stronger than good\u201d premise, suggesting that negative, compared to\npositive, events are more highly associated with healthy outcomes (Baumeister,\nBratsiavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The importance of daily events has been\nhighlighted by literature in the stress and coping domain as well. According to\nDelongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, and Lazarus (1982), daily hassles account for\na greater proportion of accumulated stress over an individual\u2019s life span,\ncompared to more major life events or catastrophes. Daily hassles have been\nlinked to anxiety (Asselmann, Wittchen, Lieb, & Beesdo-Baum, 2017; Johnson\n& Swendsen, 2015), emotional exhaustion (Schmidt, Klusmann, L\u00fcdtke, M\u00f6ller,\n& Kunter, 2017) and psychological distress (Villeneuve et al., 2014), while\ndaily positive events seem to support daily well-being (Machell, Kashdan, Sort\n& Nezlek, 2015; Nezlek, Rusanowska, Holas, & Krejtz, 2017). Thus, a\nfocus on routine, day-to-day occurrences may prove informative in taking\nproactive steps to prevent negative consequences of adolescent sports\nparticipation and promote positive outcomes. Prior research in sport and work\ncontexts has documented noteworthy overlap with respect to predictors of\nengagement and burnout in these two domains. However, previous studies have not\nconcomitantly examined the impact of daily events on adolescent athlete burnout\nand engagement. Thus, in the present study, the researchers expected that\nroutine occurrences may impact adolescent athletes in a manner comparable to\nthat observed in a work context (e.g., Sinclair et. al., 2015) influencing the\nquality of adolescent sports participation, as well as athletes\u2019 experience of\nnegative or positive emotional outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The present study also compared\nexperiences of athletes with that of non-athletes who become deeply involved in\nalternate activities such as music or dance. Much of the previous research\ncompares athletes to non-athletes, without clarifying the extent to which\nnon-athletes engaged with extracurricular activities outside a sport context.\nThus, data directly comparing participants across different extracurricular\ninvolvements is limited. Poczwardowski and Conroy (2002) reported different\ncoping strategies for elite athletes compared to performing artists. Other\nresearchers who have examined these two groups in conjunction found that high\nschool students involved in either sports or alternate arts-related activities\nwere less likely to drop out (Neely & Vaquera, 2017) and exhibited higher\nlevels of self-awareness, social connectedness, and social responsibility\ncompared to those not involved in such activities (Bower & Carroll, 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The expectations in the present study were\nthat daily events tied to performance and interpersonal interactions would\npredict engagement and burnout in adolescents who were actively engaged in\nathletics or other extracurricular activities. Specifically, a positive\nassociation was expected between engagement and positive events and a negative\nassociation between engagement and negative events. A reverse pattern was\nexpected for burnout. Specifically, the current researchers expected a negative\nassociation between burnout and positive events and a positive association\nbetween burnout and negative events. The current researchers also expected\ngreater vulnerability to burnout for adolescents who worked with a coach or\nactivity leader who emphasized winning. This prediction is consistent with\nfindings revealing a link between athlete stress and competitive pressures\n(e.g., Cresswell & Eklund, 2006; Gould, Tuffey, Udry & Loehr, 1997).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
METHOD<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nParticipants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nParticipants (n<\/em> = 121) were\nrecruited through freshmen-level classrooms on a university campus and offered\npartial course credit for participation. Participants were recruited early during\nthe fall semester, shortly after their high school graduation. The sample only\nincluded adolescents who reported significant engagement in sports or alternate\nextracurricular activities. Thirty-four participants identified as men, 86\nidentified as women, and one person did not identify a gender. The mean age was\n18.78 (SD<\/em> = 1.08); all participants\nwere 18 years of age or older. Sixty-four participants reported as\nWhite\/Caucasian, 51 as Black\/African American, and six as Hispanic\/Latino. <\/p>\n\n\n\nSeventy-three participants reported sports participation during high\nschool, and the remainder reported heavy participation in some non-sport\nactivity during high school. The most common sports activities were basketball\n(14 participants), track (10 participants), soccer (9 participants), volleyball\n(6 participants), and softball (6 participants). Other sports included\nbaseball, football, golf, gymnastics, lacrosse, swimming, tennis, and\nwrestling. The most common non-sports activities reported were orchestra\/music\n(7 participants), marching band\/color guard (5 participants), and dance (3\nparticipants). Other activities traditionally not called \u201csports\u201d included\nJunior ROTC, student government, yearbook, photography\/video club and theatre.\nThe researchers compared the demographic characteristics of the two groups. Chi-squares\ntests of independence confirmed that the groups were equivalent for\nparticipants\u2019 race [\u03c72<\/sup>(2, N<\/em>\n= 121) = 4.84, p<\/em> > .05, ns<\/em>] and gender [\u03c72<\/sup>(1, N<\/em> = 120) = 0.44, p<\/em> > .05, ns<\/em>]. A t<\/em>-test\nconfirmed that the mean age of the two groups did not significantly differ, t<\/em>(116) = -1.92, p<\/em> = .057.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterials<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nParticipants encountered a series of researcher-created questions that\nassessed hours per week participants invested in their activity, frequency of\nactivity-related travel, seriousness of participation, importance of\nparticipation, amount of time spent thinking about the activity, and\nperformance level. Responses were made on 4-point Likert scales. Participants\nwere also asked to indicate how much their identity and self-esteem during high\nschool were based on the activity; these responses were made on 5-point Likert\nscales. Participants were asked to rank five factors (self-esteem, group\ncohesion, winning, improvement\/growth, and fun) with 1 representing the factor\nthat they perceived was most important to their coaches and 5 representing the\nfactor that was least important to their coaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Participants also responded to the 12-item Sport Engagement Scale, which\nassess three aspects of engagement: vigor, absorption, and dedication (Guill\u00e9n\n& Mart\u00ednez-Alvarado, 2014). On the original scale, the questions are worded\nin the present tense. The researchers modified the scale by making the\nquestions past tense, as participants were told to reflect on their high school\nexperience. For example, \u201cI am persistent in my sport activity\u201d was modified to\nbecome \u201cI was persistent in my sport activity.\u201d An example of a modified item\nassessing vigor was \u201cI was able to train for long periods of time.\u201d An example\nof an item assessing dedication was \u201cI was enthusiastic about my sport\nactivity.\u201d An example of an item assessing absorption was \u201cTime flew when I was\ntraining or competing.\u201d Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale where\n1 represented \u201cStrongly Disagree\u201d and 5 represented \u201cStrongly Agree.\u201d The scale\nfunctions best as a one construct scale, with a published reliability alpha of\n.90 (Guill\u00e9n & Mart\u00ednez-Alvarado, 2014). This sample achieved a reliability\nof .88.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Participants responded to a modified version of the Burnout-Exhaustion\nscale from the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (Raedeke & Smith, 2001). This\nfive-item scale measures the level of physical and emotional tiredness that an\nathlete experiences. The original scale is specific to swimming and the wording\nis in the present tense. The researchers made two modifications. First,\nstatements were re-worded to be applicable to any sport\/activity. Second, statements\nwere worded in past tense, as participants were reflecting on their high school\nexperiences. For example, one item measuring exhaustion \u201cI feel overly tired\nfrom swimming\u201d was modified to \u201cI felt overly tired from my sport\/activity.\u201d\nParticipants responded on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 represented \u201cAlmost\nNever\u201d and 5 represented \u201cAlmost Always.\u201d The reliability alpha for the\noriginal scale is .88 (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) and the computed reliability\nalpha for the modified scale was .91. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The researchers developed four\nscales to measure positive and negative interpersonal and performance events\nexperienced. To develop the scales, the researchers questioned elite and\nrecreational high school athletes, and wrote items based on common themes that\nemerged. The wording of the items was modeled on the previously mentioned scale\nthat assessed positive and negative interpersonal and performance events in\nnurses and linked to both engagement and burnout in that sample (Sinclair et\nal., 2015). For example, the original scale had items such as, \u201cA coworker\ncomplimented my work\u201d and \u201cI had duties for which I did not have sufficient\neducation and\/or experience,\u201d while the new scale had items such as, \u201cA\nteammate complimented my work\u201d and \u201cI was asked to perform skills for which I\ndid not have enough training and\/or practice.\u201d Participants responded on a\n6-point Likert scale where 1 represented \u201cNever\u201d and 6 represented \u201cVery\nOften.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\nwere 22 items for Negative Performance, such as \u201cI was bothered by physical\npain during competition\u201d and \u201cI felt unmotivated during training\/practice.\u201d The\nscale achieved a reliability alpha of .92. Positive Performance had 17 items,\nsuch as \u201cI exceeded my personal best at a critical time\u201d and \u201cI felt confident\nduring training\/practice.\u201d The scale achieved a reliability alpha of .93.\nNegative Interpersonal had 17 items, such as \u201cMy teammates made me doubt my own\nabilities\u201d and \u201cMy coach expected too much from me.\u201d The scale achieved a reliability\nalpha of .92. The first version of the Positive Interpersonal scale had 16\nitems with a reliability alpha of .76. Reliability analysis revealed that one\nitem had low correlation with the others (\u201cI had positive interactions with my\ncoach\u201d). Dropping this item raised the reliability alpha to .90. Thus, the\nfinal Positive Interpersonal scale had 15 items, such as \u201cMy teammates and I\nsupported each other\u201d and \u201cMy coach supported me.\u201d See Table 1 for a list of\nall items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Table 1. Items Used in Positive and Negative Interpersonal and Performance Scales<\/strong><\/p>\n\n \n Positive Interpersonal<\/strong>
\n A teammate or fellow athlete complimented my work during training\/practice.
\n I had positive interactions with my teammates or fellow athletes.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes and I shared a laugh.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes and I supported each other.
\n I helped\/encouraged a teammate or fellow athlete.
\n I received help\/encouragement from a teammate or fellow athlete.
\n Teammates\/fellow athletes went out of their way to be nice to each other.
\n Teammates\/fellow athletes and I had fun together.
\n My coach complimented my work during competition.
\n My coach and I shared a laugh.
\n I received help\/encouragement from my coach.
\n My coach went out of his\/her way to be nice.
\n My coach and I had fun together.
\n I helped to build rapport (positive relationships) on my team or with teammates.
\n My coach supported me.<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Negative Interpersonal<\/strong>
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes showed little interest in me.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes doubted my commitment to the activity\/sport.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes doubted my abilities.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes made me doubt my own abilities.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes expected too much from me.
\n My teammates\/fellow athletes spoke harshly to me.
\n I experienced jealousy.
\n My coach was disappointed in me.
\n My coach showed little interest in me.
\n My coach doubted my commitment to the activity\/sport.
\n My coach doubted my abilities.
\n My coach made me doubt my own abilities.
\n My coach expected too much from me.
\n My coach spoke harshly to me.
\n My efforts during training, practice, or competition went unnoticed.
\n My coach treated me unfairly.
\n I was discriminated against due to my race, ethnicity, religion, etc.<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Positive Performance<\/strong>
\n I overcame a challenge I experienced during training\/practice.
\n I performed very well in training\/practice.
\n I put forth outstanding effort during training\/practice.
\n I felt strong and energized during training\/practice.
\n I felt confident during training\/practice.
\n I enjoyed training\/practice.
\n I overcame a challenge I experienced during competition.
\n I performed very well during competition.
\n I put forth outstanding effort during competition.
\n I felt strong and energized during competition.
\n I felt confident during competition.
\n I enjoyed competition.
\n I exceeded my personal best at a critical time.
\n I exceeded my own performance expectations.
\n I was allowed to set my own performance goals.
\n I rebounded (came back strong) after a major defeat.
\n I felt like a winner.<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Negative Performance<\/strong>
\n I didn’t have enough physical energy to perform my best in training\/practice.
\n I was bothered by physical pain during training\/practice
\n I didn’t have enough mental energy to perform my best in training\/practice
\n I felt a distracting level of anxiety during training\/practice.
\n I doubted my abilities during training\/practice.
\n I felt unmotivated during training\/practice.
\n Training or practice conditions were stressful.
\n I didn’t have enough physical energy to perform my best in competition.
\n I was bothered by physical pain during competition.
\n I didn’t have enough mental energy to perform my best in competition.
\n I felt a distracting level of anxiety during competition.
\n I doubted my abilities during competition.
\n I felt unmotivated during competition.
\n Competition conditions were stressful.
\n The time commitment to the sport\/activity was stressful.
\n I had to use equipment that was in poor condition.
\n I had to perform under unpleasant conditions (e.g., bad weather, hard footing).
\n I didn’t receive effective coaching to help me improve my performance.
\n I was asked to perform skills for which I did not have enough training\/practice.
\n I received unclear instructions from my coach.
\n I received conflicting messages from my coach about performance goals.
\n I did not perform at the level of which I was capable.<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\nProcedure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Participants were tested in group\nsettings, and the protocol received Institutional Review Board approval. The\nstudy used retrospective methodology and the survey materials began with\nparticipants being instructed to \u201cthink only about the time period when you\nwere in high school.\u201d They were then asked if they had participated in any type\nof sport. Participants who played sports were asked to indicate the one sport\nthat was \u201cthe biggest part of your identity at the time\u201d and \u201cthe sport in\nwhich you invested the most time and energy.\u201d Participants who indicated that\nthey did not play a sport were asked to indicate the one activity that was \u201cthe\nbiggest part of your identity at the time\u201d and \u201cthe activity in which you\ninvested the most time and energy.\u201d Athletes were told to keep their sport in\nmind as they responded to the survey questions, while non-athletes were told to\nfocus on their extracurricular activity. Non-athletes were presented with substitute\nwording or explanations of word definitions in the scales where necessary. For\nexample, they were told that \u201cteammates\u201d should refer to any peers who\nparticipated in their activity alongside them, while \u201ccoach\u201d could be a leader\nor group supervisor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following these instructions,\nparticipants encountered the researcher-created questions related to investment\nwith activity, identity, and perceived coach emphasis. Participants then\nresponded to the modified versions of the Sport Engagement Scale (Guill\u00e9n &\nMart\u00ednez-Alvarado, 2014), the Burnout-Exhaustion scale (Raedeke & Smith,\n2001), and the researcher-developed scales assessing positive and negative\ninterpersonal and performance events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n RESULTS <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nMeans were calculated for the four\nperformance and interpersonal scales for all participants combined. Negative\nInterpersonal yielded an overall mean of 2.06 (SD<\/em> = .85). Positive Interpersonal yielded a mean of 5.12 (SD<\/em> = .63). Negative Performance yielded\nan overall mean of 2.80 (SD<\/em> = 1.05),\nand Positive Performance yielded an overall mean of 4.93 (SD<\/em> = .65). The mean for\nengagement was 3.92 (SD<\/em> = .57) and\nfor burnout was 2.68 (SD<\/em> = .96).\nBurnout and engagement were not significantly correlated, r<\/em>(121) = -.01, p<\/em> = .916.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAthletes and non-athletes were compared using a MANOVA.\nTable 2 depicts the means (p<\/em> > .05\nin all cases). There were no differences between these two groups in how many\nhours they practiced and competed each week, frequency of activity-related\ntravel, performance level, importance of the activity, time spent thinking\nabout sport, and the seriousness of their participation. In addition, the two groups did not differ in\nthe extent to which their high school identity and self-esteem were based on\ntheir participation. The results also revealed no differences between the two\ngroups on engagement, burnout, two interpersonal scales, and two performance scales.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTable 2. Mean and Standard Deviations for Athletes and Non-Athletes<\/b><\/p>\n\n \n Variable<\/strong><\/td>\n Athlete<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n Non-Athlete<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n p<\/em><\/strong>-value<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Practice hours per week<\/p><\/td>\n | 11.34 (6.54)<\/p><\/td>\n | 11.20 (7.69)<\/p><\/td>\n | .919<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Competition hours per week<\/p><\/td>\n | 5.32 (2.88)<\/p><\/td>\n | 4.56 (4.80)<\/p><\/td>\n | .281<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Frequency of travel<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.53 (1.41)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.04 (1.47)<\/p><\/td>\n | .072<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Seriousness of participation<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.40 (0.76)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.42 (0.77)<\/p><\/td>\n | .891<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Importance of activity<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.36 (0.81)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.44 (0.77)<\/p><\/td>\n | .581<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Time spent thinking of activity<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.23(0.70)<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.98 (0.73)<\/p><\/td>\n | .057<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Identity based on activity<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.67 (1.02)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.60 (1.23)<\/p><\/td>\n | .745<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Self-esteem based on activity<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.68 (1.01)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.48 (1.26)<\/p><\/td>\n | .333<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Performance level in activity<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.88 (0.73)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.94 (0.81)<\/p><\/td>\n | .668<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Engagement <\/p><\/td>\n | 3.92 (0.53)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.90 (0.62)<\/p><\/td>\n | .892<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Burnout<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.76 (0.89)<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.55 (1.07)<\/p><\/td>\n | .245<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | 5.09 (0.64)<\/p><\/td>\n | 5.15 (0.63)<\/p><\/td>\n | .601<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.09 (0.93)<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.0 (0.73)<\/p><\/td>\n | .566<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | 4.95 (0.59)<\/p><\/td>\n | 4.90 (0.74)<\/p><\/td>\n | .743<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.85 (1.05)<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.73 (1.05)<\/p><\/td>\n | .575<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n Multiple linear regressions were used with\nnegative and positive performance and interpersonal variables to examine\npredictive factors for engagement and burn-out in athletes and non-athletes as\nseparate samples. See Table 3. In athletes, positive performance (\u03b2 = .65, p<\/em> < .001) predicted Engagement and a\nsignificant proportion of variance, F<\/em>(4, 71) = 18.70, p<\/em> <\n.001, R<\/em>2<\/sub> = .53. In non-athletes, positive performance (\u03b2 =\n.64, p<\/em> < .001) also predicted Engagement and a significant\nportion of variance, F<\/em>(4, 47) = 12.28, p<\/em> < .001, R<\/em>2<\/sub> = .53. <\/p>\n\n\n\nTable 3. Beta Coefficients and Significance for Linear Regressions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n \n <\/p><\/td>\n | \u03b2<\/p><\/td>\n | t<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n p <\/em>value<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Engagement: Athletes<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | .032<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.45<\/p><\/td>\n | .652<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | .051<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.53<\/p><\/td>\n | .595<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | .043<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.68<\/p><\/td>\n | .497<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Performance <\/p><\/td>\n | .651<\/p><\/td>\n | 6.73<\/p><\/td>\n | .000<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Engagement: Non-Athletes<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Interpersonal <\/p><\/td>\n | .330<\/p><\/td>\n | 1.98<\/p><\/td>\n | .055<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | .132<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.84<\/p><\/td>\n | .406<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | -.042<\/p><\/td>\n | -0.42<\/p><\/td>\n | .674<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Performance <\/p><\/td>\n | .638<\/p><\/td>\n | 5.65<\/p><\/td>\n | .000<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Burnout: Athletes<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Interpersonal <\/p><\/td>\n | .004<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.03<\/p><\/td>\n | .974<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | -.410<\/p><\/td>\n | -2.24<\/p><\/td>\n | .029<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | .400<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.36<\/p><\/td>\n | .001<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | -.142<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.77<\/p><\/td>\n | .440<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Burnout: Non-Athletes<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n | <\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Interpersonal<\/p><\/td>\n | -.160<\/p><\/td>\n | -0.48<\/p><\/td>\n | .640<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Interpersonal <\/p><\/td>\n | .055<\/p><\/td>\n | 0.18<\/p><\/td>\n | .860<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Negative Performance <\/p><\/td>\n | .770<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.83<\/p><\/td>\n | .000<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Positive Performance<\/p><\/td>\n | .500<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.22<\/p><\/td>\n | .032<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n In athletes, positive interpersonal\nevents (\u03b2 = -.29, p = .029) and negative performance (\u03b2 = -.41, p = .001)\npredicted Burnout and a significant proportion of variance, F<\/em>(4, 71) =\n10.92, p<\/em> < .001, R<\/em>2<\/sub> = .40. In non-athletes,\nnegative performance (\u03b2 = .77, p < .001) and positive performance (\u03b2 = .50,\np = .032) events predicted Burnout, F<\/em>(4, 47) = 6.00, p<\/em> = .001, R<\/em>2<\/sub> = .36.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFor athletes, activity-frequency predicted engagement, with moderate to\nlarge effects. Higher Engagement scores were related to: more frequent\ntravel to play the sport, r<\/em>(72) = .37, p<\/em> = .002, seriousness of\nathletes\u2019 participation, r<\/em>(73) = .59, p<\/em> < .001, importance of the sport to the players, r(73) = .54, p<\/em>\n< .001, identity more strongly based on sport during high school, r<\/em>(73)\n= .63, p<\/em> < .001, self-esteem more strongly based on sport during high\nschool, r<\/em>(72) = .43, p<\/em> < .001, more time spent thinking about\nthe sport, r<\/em>(73) = .58, p<\/em> < .001, and higher self-reported\nperformance levels, r<\/em>(73) = .45, p<\/em> < .001. The higher the\nengagement score, the more the athletes agreed that their current identity is\nrelated to that same sport, r<\/em>(73) =\n.35, p<\/em> = .002, a moderate effect. In\ncontrast, none of the activity- or identity-related variables related to\nburnout in athletes. <\/p>\n\n\n\nFor non-athletes, activity-frequency and identity variables predicted\nboth burnout and engagement. Representing large effect sizes, higher Engagement\nscores were related to: seriousness of non-athletes\u2019 participation, r<\/em>(48)\n= .65, p<\/em> < .001, importance of the\nactivity, r(48) = .64, p<\/em> < .001, identity more strongly based on\nactivity during high school, r<\/em>(48) = .63, p<\/em> < .001,\nself-esteem more strongly based on activity during high school, r<\/em>(48) =\n.63, p<\/em> < .001, more time spent thinking about the activity, r<\/em>(48)\n= .60, p<\/em> < .001, and higher self-reported performance levels, r<\/em>(48)\n= .53, p<\/em> < .001. The higher\nthe engagement score, the more the non-athletes agreed that their current\nidentity is related to that same high school activity, r<\/em>(48) = .39, p<\/em> = .006;\nthis is a moderate effect. Reflecting moderate effects, higher burnout was\nrelated to: hours of competition per week, r<\/em>(47)\n= .32, p<\/em> = .031, and identity more\nstrongly based on activity during high school, r<\/em>(48) = .31, p<\/em> = .031.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn athletes, positive but not negative events\npredicted how important the sport was, how much the athletes\u2019 identities during\nhigh school were based on the sport, and how much time the athletes spent\nthinking about their sport. The more important the sport, the higher the\nPositive Interpersonal, r<\/em>(73) = .26, p<\/em> = .024, and the higher the Positive\nPerformance, r<\/em>(73) = .38, p<\/em> = .001. The more an athlete\u2019s identity\nwas based on the sport, the higher the Positive Interpersonal, r<\/em>(73) = .24, p<\/em> = .044, and the higher the Positive Performance, r<\/em>(73) = .39, p<\/em> = .001. The more time the athletes spent thinking about their\nsport, the higher the Positive Interpersonal, r<\/em>(73) = .33, p<\/em> = .004,\nand the higher the Positive Performance, r<\/em>(73)\n= .41, p<\/em> < .001. These are small\nto moderate effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn non-athletes, Positive Performance was the only\npredictor for how important the activity was, how much the non-athletes\u2019\nidentities during high school were based on the activity, and how much time the\nnon-athletes spent thinking about their activity; however, several variables\npredicted seriousness of participation. The higher the Positive Performance,\nthe more important the activity, r<\/em>(48)\n= .43, p<\/em> = .001, the more identity\nwas based on the activity, r<\/em>(48) =\n.38, p<\/em> = .007, and the more time\nspent thinking about the activity, r<\/em>(48)\n= .40, p<\/em> = .004. These are moderate\neffect sizes. In non-athletes the more serious the participation in the\nactivity, the higher the Positive Interpersonal, r<\/em>(48) = .35, p<\/em> = .014,\nthe higher the Positive Performance, r<\/em>(48)\n= .67, p<\/em> < .001, the lower the\nNegative Interpersonal, r<\/em>(48) = -.37,\np<\/em> = .010, and the lower the Negative\nPerformance, r<\/em>(48) = -30, p<\/em> = .039; there are moderate to large\neffect sizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\nParticipants ranked the perceived emphasis of\ntheir coaches from 1 being the most emphasized to 5 being the least emphasized\nfocus. Table 4 depicts the means. Both athletes and non-athletes were most\nlikely to perceive that their coaches emphasized improvement\/growth followed by\ngroup cohesion. Athlete coaches then emphasized winning, self-esteem, and fun.\nNon-athlete coaches then emphasized fun, self-esteem, and winning. The coaches\nof athletes were more likely to focus on winning [t<\/em>(108) = -2.28, p<\/em>\n= .025], whereas non- athlete coaches emphasized fun [t<\/em>(107) = 2.27, p<\/em>\n= .025]. The more coaches emphasized having fun, the lower the burnout, r<\/em>(109) = .27, p<\/em> = .005; the more coaches emphasized winning, the higher the\nburnout, r<\/em>(110) = -.24, p<\/em> = .010. These are small effects. <\/p>\n\n\n\nTable 4. Participant Mean Rankings and Standard Deviations for Coaches’ Emphasis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n \n
\n Coaches’ Emphasis<\/strong><\/td>\n Athlete<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n Non-Athlete<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n p<\/em><\/strong>-value<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Self-esteem<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.53 (1.21)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.63 (1.11)<\/p><\/td>\n | .657<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Group cohesion<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.78 (1.20)<\/p><\/td>\n | 2.74 (1.13)<\/p><\/td>\n | .870<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Winning<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.19 (1.56)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.86 (1.37)<\/p><\/td>\n | .025<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Improvement\/growth<\/p><\/td>\n | 1.79 (0.99)<\/p><\/td>\n | 1.50 (0.88)<\/p><\/td>\n | .120<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n | \n Fun<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.57 (1.28)<\/p><\/td>\n | 3.0 (1.25)<\/p><\/td>\n | .025<\/p><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThese findings build on what is known\nabout the comparability of experiences for athletes and non-athletes. They also\nprovide a unique perspective by comparing the experiences of adolescent\nathletes with those who were not engaged in athletics but were deeply invested\nin alternate extracurricular activities. Results revealed that high school\nathletes and non-athletes shared similar levels of investment in and experiences\nrelated to their sport or non-sport activity. These two groups also experienced\nsimilar levels of positive and negative performance and interpersonal events,\nwith positive experiences being more common than negative experiences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Engagement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe researchers hypothesized that positive performance\nand interpersonal events would predict engagement, a prediction that was\npartially supported. The results demonstrated that positive performance events\npredicted engagement for both athletes and non-athletes. Interpersonal events\ndid not. High school students who enjoyed training and were inspired to invest\noutstanding effort during practice experienced deep engagement in their\nextracurricular activities. In turn,\nengagement and positive events strongly predicted high school students spending\nmore time participating in and basing their identities on their extracurricular\ninvolvement, even into later adolescence (e.g., the early college years). <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is noteworthy that positive events\npredicted engagement, while negative events did not. This finding supports the\npremise of Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), stating that\npositive emotional states are evoked through daily events that inspire positive\naffect. These results suggest that positive daily events can provide a\nfoundation for enhancing constructive engagement in high school extracurricular\nactivities, thereby increasing students\u2019 well-being and quality of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Burnout<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nDespite these similarities related to\nengagement, the experiences of athletes versus non-athletes differentially\npredicted burnout and did not match the hypotheses. For high school athletes,\nnegative performance events and positive interpersonal events linked to\nburnout. In non-athletes, performance events (both positive and negative)\nlinked to burnout, while interpersonal events were not significant predictors.\nThis pattern of results suggests that social factors have a greater impact on\nathletes\u2019 (compared to non-athletes\u2019) vulnerability to burnout. This difference\nhighlights the unique effect relational variables may exert on young people who\nplay sports and is consistent with research that identified social support as a\nsignificant resource for student athletes (Freeman, Coffee & Rees, 2011;\nReverdito et al., 2017) and a lack of social support as a contributor to\nburnout in collegiate athletes (DeFreese & Smith, 2014). Previous\nresearchers have argued that the interdependence seen among athletes (both in\nindividual and teams sports) relates to positive outcomes, such as improved\ngroup functioning, athlete satisfaction, social skill development, and social\nidentity (Bruner, Hall, & Cote, 2011; Bruner, Eys, Blair & Wilson,\n2015; Evans & Eys, 2015). Indeed, collegiate athletes have been found to\nunderutilize professional mental health services, relative to non-athletes,\npresumably due in part to reliance on teammates for social support as an\nalternative to formal support services (Pinkerton, Hinz & Barrow, 1989).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Positive interpersonal relations seemed\nto be less central to emotional outcomes of adolescents in this study who\nengaged in non-athletic (versus athletic) extracurricular activities. Rather,\nperformance events, which reflect an emphasis on independent action, assumed a\ngreater focus for non-athletes. This pattern reinforces the notion that high\nschool athletics may emphasize interdependence to a greater degree than\nalternate extracurricular activities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Identification\nand Involvement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nFor athletes in this study, only positive\nevents predicted athletic involvement and identity, and these activity and\nidentity variables did not relate to burnout. In contrast, both positive and\nnegative events influenced non-athletes\u2019 seriousness of participation, and\nnon-athletes\u2019 burnout increased with more hours of competition per week and the\nmore their identity was based on their activity. One explanation can be derived from Schaefer,\nSimpkins, Vest, and Price (2011) who used social network analysis to compare\nmiddle and high school students\u2019 extracurricular participation in sports and\narts. They found that dyadic friendships were strongest for students who\nparticipated in the arts versus sports and suggested that athletes were likely\nto be friends with a variety of other students, both athletes and non-athletes,\nwhereas artists were most likely to be friends more exclusively with other\nartists. This restriction in social networking could mean that when negative,\nactivity-related events occur, especially those related to identity, non-athletes\nhave limited external resources and consequently experience burnout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perceived Coach\nEmphasis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAnother difference in this study concerned\nthe emphasis of coaches\/activity leaders in sports and non-sports contexts.\nSports coaches were more prone to focus on winning, while non-sports coaches\nwere more likely to concentrate on fun. Supporting the hypothesis, burnout was\npositively linked to an emphasis on winning and negatively associated with a\nfocus on fun. This suggests that young athletes may experience more coaching-related\nrisk factors for burnout compared to non-athletes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Limitations\nand Future Directions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAlthough utilized by\nprevious researchers in this domain (e.g., Coutinho, Mesquita, Fonseca &\nCote, 2015; Russell, 2014; Zibung & Conzelmann, 2013), a limitation of the\npresent study is the reliance on self-report data that required participants to\nassume a retrospective perspective, reflecting on their recent high school\nexperiences. Although the majority of participants were reporting on relatively\nrecent events, this methodology could have contributed to measurement bias. Perhaps\nspecific events led to burnout and engagement, or the experience of burnout or\nengagement colored past perceptions. Future studies could focus on high school\nstudents who are actively engaged in their sport or non-sport activity to\naddress this concern. It is worth noting, however, that even if the outcome\nmodified memories, this study reported unique effects for athletes and\nnon-athletes related to burnout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another potential future\ndirection for researchers would be to examine the role of personality traits or\nother individual difference variables as moderators of the connection between\ndaily events and engagement and burnout in young people. The interplay between\nperson variables and situational factors in determining emotional outcomes has\nbeen highlighted in models such as the cognitive-relational theory of stress\n(Lazarus, 1991). If personality variables interact with environmental factors\nto impact appraisals of stress, this interplay is likely to have relevance to\nthe experience of burnout and engagement. Exploring these variables would\nincrease the understanding of the factors that contribute to the creation of\nactivity contexts that promote favorable as opposed to unfavorable outcomes in\nthe extracurricular pursuits of high school students. Furthermore, the\nassociation between parental involvement and burnout and engagement in athletes\nand non-athletes could be examined. While parental support\nhas been identified by student athletes as an important coping resource (Cosh\n& Tully, 2015) excessive parental pressure and focus on success or failure\nare associated with athlete stress (Gustafsson, Hill, Stenling & Wagnsson,\n2016). Since predictors of burnout differed for athletes and non-athletes in the\npresent study, it is possible that parents may exert a different effect on adolescents\nengaged in sports and non-sports activities. Last, coaches of youth sports\nreport that they emphasize fun, growth, social connections, and confidence as\nthe most important outcomes for their athletes (Lesyk & Kornspan, 2000),\nwhich was similar, but not identical, to the present findings. Future\nresearchers may want to investigate whether coaches and athletes agree on what\ncoaches believe they are emphasizing, as complementary goals between coaches\nand athletes relate to lower levels of burnout (Westfall, Martin & Gould, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThis study compared\npredictors of engagement and burnout in adolescent athletes and non-athletes.\nThe researchers focused on daily positive and negative performance-related\nevents and interpersonal events. Results revealed that experiencing positive\nand negative events during activity participation is a precursor for engagement\nand burnout in youth who are invested in both sports and non-sports activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n APPLICATIONS\nIN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA significant number of adolescents are invested in\nextracurricular pursuits during their high school years. While some experience\nhealthy engagement in their activity, others experience maladaptive symptoms\nassociated with burnout. The findings of this study indicate that a fruitful approach to enhancing benefits and preventing maladaptive\noutcomes associated with high school sports and non-sports activities is to\nfocus on increasing the frequency of positive (relative to negative) daily\nevents experienced by participants. These positive events can be\nperformance-based or interpersonal. Although not all of the variables examined\nin the present study are under the coach\u2019s control (i.e., poor weather\nconditions), many are under the direct or indirect influence of the coach. For\nexample, coaches can increase positive performance events by providing\nfunctional equipment, monitoring athlete injuries, and offering regular\nopportunities for success during practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Positive social interactions\nmay be particularly important for preventing burnout in adolescent athletes. Coaches\ncan increase positive interpersonal events by verbally encouraging athletes, having\nrealistic expectations of athletes, and explaining rationales for tasks.\nCoaches can also promote social support among their players by implementing\ncooperative practice teams (Standage & Vallerand, 2008) and organizing\nteam-building social events (Bloom & Wickwire, 2003). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Activities\nthat emphasize winning increase the susceptibility\nto burnout, so increasing the frequency of positive events may be particularly\nimportant in competitive contexts. Coaches of competitive teams should be\nencouraged\nto design practice, training, and performance environments that promote\nintrinsic enjoyment of the sport. Autonomy promotes intrinsic motivation and\nthus coaches should provide athletes choices and opportunities to take\ninitiative. All of the aforementioned constructive steps will help safeguard\nparticipants from the debilitating effects of burnout and provide a path for promoting their positive engagement, retention, optimal performance and\nenhanced well-being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nNone
<\/p>\n\n\n\n REFERENCES<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAl-Yaaribi, A. & Kavussanu, M. (2017). Teammate prosocial and antisocial behaviors predict task cohesion and burnout: The mediating role of affect. Journal of Sport and Exercise<\/em> Psychology<\/em>, 39<\/em>(3), 199-208.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAppleton, P. R. & Duda, J. L. (2016). Examining the interactive effects of coach-created empowering and disempowering climate dimensions on athletes\u2019 health and functioning. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |