Perceptrral and Motor Shills, 1975, 41, 187-191. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975
T W O STUDIES OF PERSONALITY: MALE GRADUATE STUDENTS I N PHYSICAL EDUCATION WILLIAM A. RUFFER Indiana State University, Terre Hardbe' Summary.-In Study I, scores for 100 male graduate students in physical education were compared to the norms for the general population on the 1962 16 PF test: Ss were higher on Intelligence, Ego-strength, Dominance, and Tenseness, and lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, and Self-sufficiency. Centiles derived from the raw scores deviated markedly only on Intelligence, Dominance, and Shrewdness. In Study 11, scores of 96 similar Ss were compared to the norms for the 1970 1 6 PF test; Ss were higher on Intelligence, Dominance, Enthusiasm, and Tenseness, and lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, Apprehensiveness, and Radicalness. N o marked centile deviations were found.
Attempts co idencify characteristic personality traits of various groups involved in sport have been made for about 40 yr. for athleces, students of physical education or coaching, and teachers and coaches. Some work with athletes seems promising; Vanek and Cratty ( 1 5 ) have reviewed comparisons incersports and intra-sports (by event or position). Little has been published on students, teachers, or coaches in spite of the early interest evidenced by Duggan ( 6 ) . A few personality profile studies of coaches have appeared recently. Ogilvie and Tutko ( 1 4 ) found American coaches to be intelligent, inflexible, sociable, highly organized, dominant, stable and mature, and open and trusting, with low interest in the dependency needs of others. Hendry ( 7 ) pointed out that coaches are driving, aggressive people as well as anxious and insecure. Later he (8) identified them as being generally authoritarian and high in exhibitionism and organizational tendencies but found clear-cut differences between coaches of different types of sports. Any discussion of the application of personality testing to a specific group is complicated by the large number of tests which purport to measure personality as each test designer defines it. This variability in definition and the resulting terminology differences make it virtually impossible to compare results intelligently at the present time as researchers use a variety of tests. Henry (9) compared physical education majors, athleces, and aviation students using items from the Thurstone Neurotic Inventory and some ascendance-submission questions. Majors were more submissive and lower on the Thurstone items and in total scores. They were also lower on social introversion, hypochondriac and neurasthenic syndromes, inferiority, hypersensitivity, and possibly in self-consciousness and self-sufficiency, but not in cycloid tendency. Clark ( 4 ) used the MMPI and found that male majors showed higher masculinity than male students generally. On the Guilford-Martin inventory male majors compared to college 'Department of Men's Physical Education.
188
W. A. RUFFER
baseball, basketball, and football players were about average or slightly above on General Activity, somewhat below average on Ascendance-Submission, and somewhat above average on Masculinity-Femininity ( 10). Hendry (8) compared male students on the Dynamic Personality Inventory of Grygier at the end of their curriculum in a specialty physical education college with some of the "best" coaches in Great Britain. H e concluded that the students were dominant and authoritarian, aggressive, self-assertive, and sought social roles. They were submissive to authority and order and emphasized strong authority and discipline. Also, they were higher than the general population in exhibitionism and organizational abilities bur not as high as the coaches. On the 16 PF large differences were noted between male majors and other students: high Enthusiasm, Outgoingness, Adventurousness, and Controlledness, and low Tough-mindedness ( 13) . Dimsdale ( 5 ) noted male majors more than the norms of college males showed high Dominance, Enthusiasm, and Shrewdness and low Ego Sttength and Superego Strength. Carr ( 1) compared male majors' scores and the norms and found them high on Outgoingness, Intelligence, Enthusiasm, and Radicalness but were low on Superego Strength and Shrewdness. Little agreement is noted among these three studies despite use of the 16 PF and similar subjects, all of whom were British whose scores were compared to American norms. (British norms did not become available until about mid1973.) It is not known if age-correction factors were applied in any of these studies. However, it appears that their male physical education majors were outgoing and enthusiastic, with low superego strength. Contradictory results were obtained on shrewdness. The present studies were conducted to add to knowledge of the personality traits of prospective and acrual physical education teachers and coaches. This cadre of professionals is educated in the physical education programs of our colleges and universities and exerts a profound influence on athletic performance and attitudes toward sport ranging from that of the youthful beginner to the adult amateur sportsman to the superior or elite athlete. It is important to identify the traits of this group for possible student-guidance purposes within these institutions. If a "typical" personality profile can be identified, this information would be of value to students generally and a potential influence on the career choices of some students who deviate markedly on several traits.
METHOD In Study I, which was conducted from 1969 to 1972, Form A of the 1962 edition of the 16 PP test (2) was administered to 100 male physical education swdents at the Master's level enrolled in courses in the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation of Indiana State University; the vast majority of these subjects were practicing physical education teachers and/or coaches. In Study 11, which was conducted from 1969 to 1974, Form A of the 1967-1968 edition of the test (3) was given to 96 subjects similar to those in Study I. All test papers were scored by hand by the investigator and means
PERSONALITY: STUDENTS IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION
189
and standard deviations were calculated by computer. Since the subjects in Study I had an average age of 26.42 yr. and were compared to general population subjects (n = 1,127) whose average age was 35 yr., an age-correction factor was applied (12, p. 7 2 ) . An age-correction formula was applied ( 1 1 , p. 39) to the subjects in Study 11; an average age of 26.73 yr. was compared to 30 yr. for the general population (n = 2,255). Z was calculated comparing the subjects to the norms on each personality trait in each of the studies (see Table 1 ) . Centiles are also given.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Statistically significant differences between these male graduate students in physical education and the general population were found on a number of personality traits. The majors were higher on Intelligence, Ego Strength, Dominance, and Tenseness. They were lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, and Self-sufficiency. Also, statistically significant differences between these scudents in Study 11 and the general population were found, with the majors being higher on Intelligence, Dominance, Enthusiasm, and Tenseness. They were lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, Apprehensiveness, and Radicalness. In addition to the statistic Z , which simply identifies the degree of confidence one might have that a difference between the two groups will be repeated with other samples from the same populations, centiles were calculated. This statistic is a descriptive one and permits the investigator to generalize about the nature of the comparison group relative to the general population in a manner inappropriate to the Z statistic. The method involves converting the group means to Sten scores and thence to centiles; it is not an exact method but does give close approximations. For this reason the centiles given have been rounded off to whole numbers. In Study I, the physical education graduate students may be described as very intelligent (86 C ) , dominant (82 C), and naive (29 C). They were somewhat group-dependent ( 3 6 C ) and tense (67 C ) . They were higher than the general population in ego strength and practicalness but the differences were small. In Study 11, the scudents were found to be somewhat intelligent (66 C ) , dominant (64 C ) , enthusiastic (66 C ) ,and tense (64 C) . They were also more practical, naive, self-assured, and conservative than the general population, but only by a small margin. While a number of differences in degree were observed when comparing the results of the two studies, the over-all characteristics of these two groups of male graduate students in physical education are in general agreement. N o outright disagreements were found. These findings support previous research to a moderate degree. High intelligence, dominance, and enthusiasm in prospective and actual teachers of physical education and coaches have been observed in a number of previous studies and the research being reported here is in agreement. On the other hand, lack of agreement or contradictory results were found on some other traits, in particular, outgoingness, radicalness, and shrewdness. It is recommended that addi-
TABLE 1 TRAITS, MEANS, STANDARD D W I A ~ O NGENTILES, S, AND Z RATIOS FOR SWDIESI A N D 11 Study I
Traits Students n = 100
M Reserved - Outgoing Low Intelligence - High Intelligence Ego Weakness - Ego Strength Submissive - Dominant Sober - Enthusiastic Superego Weakness - Superego Str. Timid - Adventurous Tough-minded - Tender-minded Trusting - Suspicious Practical Imaginative Naive - Shrewd Self-assured - Apprehensive Conservative - Radical Group-dependent - Self-sufficient Uncontrolled - Controlled Relaxed - Tense *p 6 .05.
-
SD Cent.
9.72 3.02 8.17 1.89 17.03 3.95 14.82 4.65 13.15 4.09 14.13 2.93 13.27 5.87 8.61 3.02 8.54 3.73 11.34 3.25 10.44 2.93 9.05 3.88 10.67 3.09 9.30 3.22 10.61 3.13 12.36 5.08
Z
Norms n = 1,127 50 86 60 82 48 54 44 52 48 42 29 46 56 36 42 67
M 9.67 5.92 16.08 13.51 13.38 13.84 13.76 8.39 8.83 12.15 11.70 9.33 10.36 10.12 11.13 10.98
SD 3.35 .15 2.06 10.92* 3.75 2.53: 3.90 3.36* 4.43 .52 3.60 .81 5.16 .95 3.50 .63 3.20 .91 3.43 2.36* 2.62 4.81* 3.67 .76 2.83 1.10 3.46 2.37' 3.11 1.67 4.86 2.84*
Study I1 S~dents Norms n = 96 n = 2,255 M SD Cent. M SD 10.63 3.30 8.32 1.93 16.84 3.86 13.90 3.88 15.85 4.01 13.77 2.98 14.94 5.50 8.84 3.57 8.01 3.25 11.70 3.65 7.96 2.83 8.50 3.58 8.31 3.08 9.60 3.24 13.92 2.68 11.87 4.80
52 65 54 64 66 54 54 54 60 42 40 40 44 52 54 64
10.22 7.04 16.56 12.90 14.17 13.35 14.78 9.00 7.38 13.04 9.23 9.43 9.48 10.29 13.32 10.70
3.20 2.17 4.11 3.86 4.14 3.44 5.18 3.43 3.38 3.66 2.88 4.18 3.02 3.49 3.37 4.66
Z
1.24 5.81* .67 2.56* 4.00* 1.20 .30 .46 1.85 3.62* 4.3'8* 2.16' 3.77* 1.92 1.76 2.44*
.g ?
F
s
PERSONALITY: STUDENTS I N PHYSICAL EDUCATION
191
tional studies be conducted with similar subjects in order t o reconcile these differences if possible a n d to p e r m i t a more complete description of personality traits t o be formulated. REFERENCES 1. CARR,R.J. Personaliry test scores ( 1 6 P.F.) of male p.e. students. British Journal o f Physical Educdion, 197 1, 2 , xlv-xlvii. 2. CATTELL,R. B., & D E R , H. W. Manrral for Forms A and B, Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1962. 3. CATTELL, R. B., EBER,H. W., & TATSUOKO,M. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Pactor Questionnaire (16 P.P.). Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1970. 4. CLARK,J. H. An interpretation of the MMPI profiles of college srudents: a comparison by college major subject. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1953, 9, 382-384. 5. DJMSDALE,A. G . An investigation into the personality profiles of a group of p.e. students. British Journal of Physical Education, 1970, 1, xviii-xx. 6. DUGGAN,A. S. A comparative study o f undergraduate women majors and non-majors i n physical education with respect to certain personality traits. New Yock: Teachers College, Columbia Univer., 1936. (Contributions to Education, No. 682) 7. HENDRY,L. B. Assessment of personality traits in the coach-swimmer relationship. Research Quarterly, 1968, 39, 543-551. 8. HENDRY,L. B. The coach and the teacher of p . e . 4 personality study. British journal o f Physical Education, 1974, 5, v-vii. 9. HENRY,F. Personality differences in athletes and physical education and aviation students. Psychological Bulletin, 1941, 38, 745. 10. IBRAHM,H. Comparison of temperament traits among intercollegiate athletes and physical education majors. Research Quarterly, 1967, 38, 615-622. 11. INSTITUTE FOR PERSONALITY AND ABILITY TESTING. Norm tables for the 1962 Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, 111.: Author, 1962. 12. INSTITUTEFOR PERSONALITY AND ABILITYTESTING. Tabular sirpplemenl No. I to the I 6 P.F. handbook. Champaign, 111.: Author, 1970. 13. KANE, J. E. Personality profiles of physical education students compared with others. In F. Antonelli (Ed.), Psychology o f sport, proceedings o f the first international congress o f sport psychology. Rome: Italian Association for Sport Psychology, 1965. Pp. 772-775. 14. OGILVIB,B. C., & TUTKO,T. A. Problem athletes and how to handle them. London: Pelham, 1966. 15. VANEK,M., & CRATIY, B. C. Psychology and the superim athlete. London: Macmillan, 1970.
Accepted May 19, 1975.
T W O STUDIES OF PERSONALITY: MALE GRADUATE STUDENTS I N PHYSICAL EDUCATION WILLIAM A. RUFFER Indiana State University, Terre Hardbe' Summary.-In Study I, scores for 100 male graduate students in physical education were compared to the norms for the general population on the 1962 16 PF test: Ss were higher on Intelligence, Ego-strength, Dominance, and Tenseness, and lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, and Self-sufficiency. Centiles derived from the raw scores deviated markedly only on Intelligence, Dominance, and Shrewdness. In Study 11, scores of 96 similar Ss were compared to the norms for the 1970 1 6 PF test; Ss were higher on Intelligence, Dominance, Enthusiasm, and Tenseness, and lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, Apprehensiveness, and Radicalness. N o marked centile deviations were found.
Attempts co idencify characteristic personality traits of various groups involved in sport have been made for about 40 yr. for athleces, students of physical education or coaching, and teachers and coaches. Some work with athletes seems promising; Vanek and Cratty ( 1 5 ) have reviewed comparisons incersports and intra-sports (by event or position). Little has been published on students, teachers, or coaches in spite of the early interest evidenced by Duggan ( 6 ) . A few personality profile studies of coaches have appeared recently. Ogilvie and Tutko ( 1 4 ) found American coaches to be intelligent, inflexible, sociable, highly organized, dominant, stable and mature, and open and trusting, with low interest in the dependency needs of others. Hendry ( 7 ) pointed out that coaches are driving, aggressive people as well as anxious and insecure. Later he (8) identified them as being generally authoritarian and high in exhibitionism and organizational tendencies but found clear-cut differences between coaches of different types of sports. Any discussion of the application of personality testing to a specific group is complicated by the large number of tests which purport to measure personality as each test designer defines it. This variability in definition and the resulting terminology differences make it virtually impossible to compare results intelligently at the present time as researchers use a variety of tests. Henry (9) compared physical education majors, athleces, and aviation students using items from the Thurstone Neurotic Inventory and some ascendance-submission questions. Majors were more submissive and lower on the Thurstone items and in total scores. They were also lower on social introversion, hypochondriac and neurasthenic syndromes, inferiority, hypersensitivity, and possibly in self-consciousness and self-sufficiency, but not in cycloid tendency. Clark ( 4 ) used the MMPI and found that male majors showed higher masculinity than male students generally. On the Guilford-Martin inventory male majors compared to college 'Department of Men's Physical Education.
188
W. A. RUFFER
baseball, basketball, and football players were about average or slightly above on General Activity, somewhat below average on Ascendance-Submission, and somewhat above average on Masculinity-Femininity ( 10). Hendry (8) compared male students on the Dynamic Personality Inventory of Grygier at the end of their curriculum in a specialty physical education college with some of the "best" coaches in Great Britain. H e concluded that the students were dominant and authoritarian, aggressive, self-assertive, and sought social roles. They were submissive to authority and order and emphasized strong authority and discipline. Also, they were higher than the general population in exhibitionism and organizational abilities bur not as high as the coaches. On the 16 PF large differences were noted between male majors and other students: high Enthusiasm, Outgoingness, Adventurousness, and Controlledness, and low Tough-mindedness ( 13) . Dimsdale ( 5 ) noted male majors more than the norms of college males showed high Dominance, Enthusiasm, and Shrewdness and low Ego Sttength and Superego Strength. Carr ( 1) compared male majors' scores and the norms and found them high on Outgoingness, Intelligence, Enthusiasm, and Radicalness but were low on Superego Strength and Shrewdness. Little agreement is noted among these three studies despite use of the 16 PF and similar subjects, all of whom were British whose scores were compared to American norms. (British norms did not become available until about mid1973.) It is not known if age-correction factors were applied in any of these studies. However, it appears that their male physical education majors were outgoing and enthusiastic, with low superego strength. Contradictory results were obtained on shrewdness. The present studies were conducted to add to knowledge of the personality traits of prospective and acrual physical education teachers and coaches. This cadre of professionals is educated in the physical education programs of our colleges and universities and exerts a profound influence on athletic performance and attitudes toward sport ranging from that of the youthful beginner to the adult amateur sportsman to the superior or elite athlete. It is important to identify the traits of this group for possible student-guidance purposes within these institutions. If a "typical" personality profile can be identified, this information would be of value to students generally and a potential influence on the career choices of some students who deviate markedly on several traits.
METHOD In Study I, which was conducted from 1969 to 1972, Form A of the 1962 edition of the 16 PP test (2) was administered to 100 male physical education swdents at the Master's level enrolled in courses in the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation of Indiana State University; the vast majority of these subjects were practicing physical education teachers and/or coaches. In Study 11, which was conducted from 1969 to 1974, Form A of the 1967-1968 edition of the test (3) was given to 96 subjects similar to those in Study I. All test papers were scored by hand by the investigator and means
PERSONALITY: STUDENTS IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION
189
and standard deviations were calculated by computer. Since the subjects in Study I had an average age of 26.42 yr. and were compared to general population subjects (n = 1,127) whose average age was 35 yr., an age-correction factor was applied (12, p. 7 2 ) . An age-correction formula was applied ( 1 1 , p. 39) to the subjects in Study 11; an average age of 26.73 yr. was compared to 30 yr. for the general population (n = 2,255). Z was calculated comparing the subjects to the norms on each personality trait in each of the studies (see Table 1 ) . Centiles are also given.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Statistically significant differences between these male graduate students in physical education and the general population were found on a number of personality traits. The majors were higher on Intelligence, Ego Strength, Dominance, and Tenseness. They were lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, and Self-sufficiency. Also, statistically significant differences between these scudents in Study 11 and the general population were found, with the majors being higher on Intelligence, Dominance, Enthusiasm, and Tenseness. They were lower on Imaginativeness, Shrewdness, Apprehensiveness, and Radicalness. In addition to the statistic Z , which simply identifies the degree of confidence one might have that a difference between the two groups will be repeated with other samples from the same populations, centiles were calculated. This statistic is a descriptive one and permits the investigator to generalize about the nature of the comparison group relative to the general population in a manner inappropriate to the Z statistic. The method involves converting the group means to Sten scores and thence to centiles; it is not an exact method but does give close approximations. For this reason the centiles given have been rounded off to whole numbers. In Study I, the physical education graduate students may be described as very intelligent (86 C ) , dominant (82 C), and naive (29 C). They were somewhat group-dependent ( 3 6 C ) and tense (67 C ) . They were higher than the general population in ego strength and practicalness but the differences were small. In Study 11, the scudents were found to be somewhat intelligent (66 C ) , dominant (64 C ) , enthusiastic (66 C ) ,and tense (64 C) . They were also more practical, naive, self-assured, and conservative than the general population, but only by a small margin. While a number of differences in degree were observed when comparing the results of the two studies, the over-all characteristics of these two groups of male graduate students in physical education are in general agreement. N o outright disagreements were found. These findings support previous research to a moderate degree. High intelligence, dominance, and enthusiasm in prospective and actual teachers of physical education and coaches have been observed in a number of previous studies and the research being reported here is in agreement. On the other hand, lack of agreement or contradictory results were found on some other traits, in particular, outgoingness, radicalness, and shrewdness. It is recommended that addi-
TABLE 1 TRAITS, MEANS, STANDARD D W I A ~ O NGENTILES, S, AND Z RATIOS FOR SWDIESI A N D 11 Study I
Traits Students n = 100
M Reserved - Outgoing Low Intelligence - High Intelligence Ego Weakness - Ego Strength Submissive - Dominant Sober - Enthusiastic Superego Weakness - Superego Str. Timid - Adventurous Tough-minded - Tender-minded Trusting - Suspicious Practical Imaginative Naive - Shrewd Self-assured - Apprehensive Conservative - Radical Group-dependent - Self-sufficient Uncontrolled - Controlled Relaxed - Tense *p 6 .05.
-
SD Cent.
9.72 3.02 8.17 1.89 17.03 3.95 14.82 4.65 13.15 4.09 14.13 2.93 13.27 5.87 8.61 3.02 8.54 3.73 11.34 3.25 10.44 2.93 9.05 3.88 10.67 3.09 9.30 3.22 10.61 3.13 12.36 5.08
Z
Norms n = 1,127 50 86 60 82 48 54 44 52 48 42 29 46 56 36 42 67
M 9.67 5.92 16.08 13.51 13.38 13.84 13.76 8.39 8.83 12.15 11.70 9.33 10.36 10.12 11.13 10.98
SD 3.35 .15 2.06 10.92* 3.75 2.53: 3.90 3.36* 4.43 .52 3.60 .81 5.16 .95 3.50 .63 3.20 .91 3.43 2.36* 2.62 4.81* 3.67 .76 2.83 1.10 3.46 2.37' 3.11 1.67 4.86 2.84*
Study I1 S~dents Norms n = 96 n = 2,255 M SD Cent. M SD 10.63 3.30 8.32 1.93 16.84 3.86 13.90 3.88 15.85 4.01 13.77 2.98 14.94 5.50 8.84 3.57 8.01 3.25 11.70 3.65 7.96 2.83 8.50 3.58 8.31 3.08 9.60 3.24 13.92 2.68 11.87 4.80
52 65 54 64 66 54 54 54 60 42 40 40 44 52 54 64
10.22 7.04 16.56 12.90 14.17 13.35 14.78 9.00 7.38 13.04 9.23 9.43 9.48 10.29 13.32 10.70
3.20 2.17 4.11 3.86 4.14 3.44 5.18 3.43 3.38 3.66 2.88 4.18 3.02 3.49 3.37 4.66
Z
1.24 5.81* .67 2.56* 4.00* 1.20 .30 .46 1.85 3.62* 4.3'8* 2.16' 3.77* 1.92 1.76 2.44*
.g ?
F
s
PERSONALITY: STUDENTS I N PHYSICAL EDUCATION
191
tional studies be conducted with similar subjects in order t o reconcile these differences if possible a n d to p e r m i t a more complete description of personality traits t o be formulated. REFERENCES 1. CARR,R.J. Personaliry test scores ( 1 6 P.F.) of male p.e. students. British Journal o f Physical Educdion, 197 1, 2 , xlv-xlvii. 2. CATTELL,R. B., & D E R , H. W. Manrral for Forms A and B, Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1962. 3. CATTELL, R. B., EBER,H. W., & TATSUOKO,M. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Pactor Questionnaire (16 P.P.). Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1970. 4. CLARK,J. H. An interpretation of the MMPI profiles of college srudents: a comparison by college major subject. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1953, 9, 382-384. 5. DJMSDALE,A. G . An investigation into the personality profiles of a group of p.e. students. British Journal of Physical Education, 1970, 1, xviii-xx. 6. DUGGAN,A. S. A comparative study o f undergraduate women majors and non-majors i n physical education with respect to certain personality traits. New Yock: Teachers College, Columbia Univer., 1936. (Contributions to Education, No. 682) 7. HENDRY,L. B. Assessment of personality traits in the coach-swimmer relationship. Research Quarterly, 1968, 39, 543-551. 8. HENDRY,L. B. The coach and the teacher of p . e . 4 personality study. British journal o f Physical Education, 1974, 5, v-vii. 9. HENRY,F. Personality differences in athletes and physical education and aviation students. Psychological Bulletin, 1941, 38, 745. 10. IBRAHM,H. Comparison of temperament traits among intercollegiate athletes and physical education majors. Research Quarterly, 1967, 38, 615-622. 11. INSTITUTE FOR PERSONALITY AND ABILITY TESTING. Norm tables for the 1962 Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, 111.: Author, 1962. 12. INSTITUTEFOR PERSONALITY AND ABILITYTESTING. Tabular sirpplemenl No. I to the I 6 P.F. handbook. Champaign, 111.: Author, 1970. 13. KANE, J. E. Personality profiles of physical education students compared with others. In F. Antonelli (Ed.), Psychology o f sport, proceedings o f the first international congress o f sport psychology. Rome: Italian Association for Sport Psychology, 1965. Pp. 772-775. 14. OGILVIB,B. C., & TUTKO,T. A. Problem athletes and how to handle them. London: Pelham, 1966. 15. VANEK,M., & CRATIY, B. C. Psychology and the superim athlete. London: Macmillan, 1970.
Accepted May 19, 1975.
