Decision styles in coaching: preferences of basketball players
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
This study investigated basketball players' preferences for different styles of decision making under varying situational conditions. A total of 144 varsity basketball players (F, 77; M, 67) from seven Canadian universities expressed their preferences for one of four decision styles (autocratic, consultive, participative, and delegative styles) in each of 16 different situations. The situation was described by four problem attributes (quality requirement, coach's information, problem complexity, and group integration). The decision style by sex contingency tables showed that females were more oriented toward participation than males were. In both groups, preferences were more influenced by main effects of coach's information and the interaction of quality requirement and problem complexity. However, the situation accounted for a much larger percentage of the variance in the preferences of females (52.3 percent) than in the preferences of males (21.3 percent). Examines whether a problem situation has a greater influence on a groups' preferences for various decision styles than individual differences. Four decision making styles are included in the study of athletes' preferences for decision styles in coaching: autocratic, consultive, participative, and the delegative. Four problem attributes which are hypothesized to affect the choice of decision style preference in a group context are considered. Varsity basketball players (n=144) from Ontario universities participate in the study. Case studies representing the problem types are presented to the subjects who are asked to indicate the decision style they would prefer their coaches to use in the situations described. Finds females to be more oriented toward participatory decision making. The delegative style is virtually rejected by the subjects. Concludes that situational differences have a larger effect on subjects' decision style preferences than individual differences.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
3
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
5/1021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|