Journal of Coaching Education

Transcription

1 Coaching Leadership Preferences: Insight from the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Athlete Kelly S. Witte, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify and compare coaching leadership preferences of 1,859 varsity student-athletes participating at the Division III level in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The athletes attended one of fourteen colleges and universities located in the Midwest. Teams were selected according to task dependence and the existence of both male and female squads. Three independent (individual) sports and three interdependent (team) sports were selected: men s and women s basketball, men s and women s soccer, men s baseball and women s softball, men s and women s swimming, men s and women s tennis, and men s and women s track & field. The Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (Zhang, Jensen, & Mann, 1997) was used to assess participants leadership preferences on the dimensions of training and instruction behavior, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support behavior, positive feedback behavior, and situational consideration behavior. Females had a higher preference for positive feedback and situational consideration, whereas males expressed stronger preferences for social support and autocratic behavior. Individual sport athletes demonstrated a higher preference for democratic behavior, positive feedback, training and instruction, situational consideration, and social support than did team sport athletes and team sport athletes preferred autocratic behavior more than athletes participating in individual sports. The gender by task dependence interaction was not significant. These results suggest that differences in athletes and particular sports teams may facilitate specific leadership behaviors Key words: Athletics, Revised Leadership Scale for Sport, Situation Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 73 of 108

2 Coaching Leadership Preferences: Insight from the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Athlete Countless coaching styles have been recommended for success, fame, and fortune. Some coaches appear to be detached and indifferent, while a coach like Mike Krzyzewski seems to be a caring, compassionate father figure. Some allow their team members independence, while a coach like Pat Summit may supervise very closely. The list of factors is endless and no single approach has been proven to result in optimal success all of the time (Jones, Wells, Peters, & Johnson 1993; LeUnes & Nation, 1996; Anshel, 2003; Sabock & Sabock, 2005; Weinburg & Gould, 2011). Sport and athletic environments provide compelling evidence that the characteristics of the situation in which a coach is found is closely associated to the degree of success that the coach will enjoy. Magazines, newspapers, and biographies abound with stories of individuals who have been eminently successful in leadership roles in one environment, only to relocate and be considered a failure in another environment. Chelladurai (1980) insists that leader effectiveness in sport is subject to situational characteristics of the leader, the institution, and the individual or group members involved. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the leader can and will differ depending on the characteristics of the leader, characteristics of the athletes, and control variables of the situation. Multidimensional Model of Leadership The multidimensional model of leadership (MML) (Chelladurai, 1980, 1990, 1993) brings all these facets together placing uniform significance on each aspect. It provides a theoretical framework (shown in figure 1) for the study of sport leadership. The MML advocates that coaching is a complex process in which a variety of factors work together to determine effectiveness. Specifically the manner in which the coach, the athlete, and the situation work together to achieve the desired result. Central to its belief is that team performance and the athlete s individual level of satisfaction are intricately dependent upon three states of leader behavior: required, preferred, and actual. Required Leader Behavior The leader is required to behave in certain ways according to factors relating to the institution and its environment. First, the goals and objectives of the institution warrant particular behavior. A professional athletic organization may have unique goals to that of an educational institution. Secondly, the size and formal structure of the institution may control or constrain leader behavior. Thirdly, the degree of interdependence and variability of the tasks Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 74 of 108

3 will appropriately determine affective leader behavior. If members are involved in highly interdependent and variable tasks, the leader must express structuring behavior to clarify and coordinate. When the tasks are independent and routine the opposite is true (House, 1996). Fourth, the norms and codes of conduct for any specific social setting will alter the appropriate leader behavior. And finally, when members lack the intelligence, ability, experience and/or personality disposition to make judgments appropriate to the situation, the leader must decide for the members. Thus, required leader behavior is not only influenced by the uniqueness of the situation, but also its member characteristics (Chelladurai, 1980, 1990). Preferred Leader Behavior Preferred leader behavior is that which is desired by the team members in each unique situation. Preferences affect actual leadership because leadership is interpersonal by nature. The individual differences in personality traits such as the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, cognitive structure, and competence in the task influence the members preferences for coaching and guidance, social support, and feedback. Situational characteristics also affect member preferences. For example, organizational expectations held jointly by both coach and team members may socialize members into the same behavioral expectations in specific contexts (Chelladurai, 1980, 1990). Actual Leader Behavior Actual leader behaviors are simply the behaviors the leader exhibits, such as initiating structure or consideration. The leader initiates structure by organizing and clarifying roles, and providing coaching and guidance. This behavior indicates a strong concern for task accomplishment and goal attainment. Consideration refers to behavior representing friendship, mutual trust, respect, and a feeling of warmth between leader and subordinates. These measures indicate a strong sense in providing social support to the team environment. The leader s personality, ability, and experience determine whether they emphasize consideration or initiating structure in their leadership role. The preference of the group members and the requirements of the scope of the organizational system in which the leader exists are the two other sets of influences that affect actual leader behavior (Chelladurai, 1980, 1990). Performance and Satisfaction Performance is the process of performing the assigned tasks according to the expectations and specifications of the institution. The model is concerned with both individual and group Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 75 of 108

4 performance as a whole. Satisfaction in this respect is specifically concerned with leadership. The focus is on individual attitudes and opinions regarding the leadership experienced by the members (Chelladurai, 1980, 1990). The underlying premise of the MML suggests that if there is correspondence of the preferred leadership behavior of team members toward the required and actual leadership behaviors of the coach, performance and satisfaction are elevated (Chelladurai, 1980, 1990; Chelladurai & Reimer 1998). Sport Leadership Measurement The vast majority of the research associated with the MML has been conducted using the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) developed by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980). It measures five dimensions of leader behavior which include: training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback. Chelladurai (1990) expressed two concerns with the LSS in his sports leadership review. He noted that the items could be revised to refer to the context of coaching leadership behavior rather than the frequency, and that the items could be specifically modified through input of the target population. Additionally, the scale was originally developed in Canada utilizing Canadian athletes; therefore some items may not actually be culturally specific to the United States and governing rules of the NCAA (Zhang et al., 1997). Zang, Jensen and Mann organized a revision of the LSS by involving linguistic experts, experts in coaching leadership theory, intercollegiate coaches of both team and individual sports from various universities in the United States and NCAA Division I, II, and III collegiate athletes. They developed the Revised Leadership Scale for Sports (RLSS). All five factors of the original LSS were retained and one new category was introduced. This factor is situational consideration behavior. Application of the MML and its associated scales in regards to gender comparisons has yielded some interesting but inconsistent results (Riemer, 2007). Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) surveyed physical education students; Terry (1984) surveyed elite athletes at the international level; Wang (1996), Reimer and Toon (2001), Beam, Serwatka, and William (2004), and Windsor (2008) surveyed intercollegiate athletes and reported that males preferred more autocratic behavior than females did. While Erle (1981) found that male intramural and varsity ice hockey players preferred training and instruction and no significant difference regarding autocratic behavior or positive feedback was indicated. Riemer and Toon (2001) reported that female athletes preferred social-support behavior, but other studies have found the reverse to be true (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978; Beam et al. 2004; Lam, Chen, Zhang, Robinson, & Ziegler, 2007). Yet other researchers have discovered more similarities than differences (Terry & Howe, 1984; Sherman, Fuller, and Speed, 2000). Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 76 of 108

5 In regards to task dependence Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) reported that team sport athletes preferred more training and instruction behavior that individual sport athletes. Whereas Terry and Howe (1984) revealed that athletes in individual sports preferred more democratic and less autocratic behavior than that of team sport athletes. Terry (1984) reported that team sport athletes preferred more training and instruction, autocratic behavior, and positive feedback, and less democratic behavior and social support than individual sport athletes. Whereas Beam, Serwatka, and Wilson (2004) found that individual sport athletes preferred more democratic behavior, positive feedback, situational consideration behavior, and social support, and less autocratic behavior and training and instruction that individual sport athletes. One of the difficulties in comparing these previous studies may be the fact that they have worked with a variety of sports with different task attributes of dependence, and varying levels of competition (Reimer & Chelladurai, 1995). The purpose of this present study was to identify and compare coaching leadership preferences of athletes specifically competing at the NCAA Division III level based on gender and task dependence of the sport they participated in. Earlier studies have generally overlooked this population. It was hypothesized that there would be differences based on gender as well as between team and individual sport athletes because of the previously reported mixed results. This study responds to the research gap between non-scholarship, scholarship, international, and elite athletes. Method Participants The participants were 1,859 (931 males, 928 females) varsity athletes competing at the Division III level in the National Association of College Athletics (NCAA). They attended one of fourteen residential liberal arts institutions forming an academic consortium in the Midwest. Freshman (n = 572), sophomore (n = 525), junior (n = 421), and senior (n = 330) athletes participated. All participants were between the ages of 17 and 27 (M = 19.69, SD = 1.24). Specific sports were chosen based on availability for both genders and level of task dependence. Therefore, athletes from three independent (individual) sports (swimming, tennis, and track & Field; n=784) and three interdependent (team) sports (basketball, soccer, and baseball/softball; n=1,075) participated in the study. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 77 of 108

6 Instrumentation Demographic questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was used to collect basic background information from participants. Specifically, students were asked to state their college or university attended, inseason sport, age, academic class in school, and gender. These responses were used to identify the population for descriptive purposes. Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (RLSS). The athletes preference version of the Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (Zhang et al. 1997) was used to measure the six leadership behaviors. The behaviors were: 1. Training and Instruction (10 items): facilitating intense training, teaching skills, techniques, and tactics, planning training sessions and evaluating performance. An example statement reflecting this dimension is I prefer my coach to clarify training priorities and work on them. 2. Democratic (12 items): encouraging athlete participation relevant to group goals, practice methods, and competition tactics and strategies, acknowledging mistakes and confronting problems. An example statement reflecting this dimension is I prefer my coach to see the merits of athletes ideas when they differ from the coach s. 3. Autocratic (8 items): stressing personal authority, utilizing commands and punishment, and structuring independent decisions. An example statement reflecting this dimension is I prefer my coach to present ideas forcefully. 4. Social Support (8 items): providing for the well-being of athletes, facilitating personal problems, establishing camaraderie and a positive group atmosphere. An example statement reflecting this dimension is I prefer my coach to remain sensitive to the needs of the athletes. 5. Positive Feedback (12 items): acknowledge good behavior, rectifying unacceptable behavior rather than blaming the athlete, using body language appropriately. An example statement reflecting this dimension is I prefer my coach to express appreciation when the athlete performs well. 6. Situational Consideration (10 items): differentiating coaching methods at varied maturity stages and skill levels, clarify the path to a goal, place athletes in proper positions, and adjust to different game situations. An example statement reflecting this dimension is I prefer my coach to use alternative methods when the efforts of the athletes are not working well in practice or in competition. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 78 of 108

7 Participants rated their preference for each statement using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; and 5 = always). Preferences for each coaching leadership dimension was defined as the average rating across all relevant items, with possible preference scores ranging from 1 to 5. The RLSS has been shown to be an acceptable measure of leadership styles in sport. For the preference version, Zhang et al. (1997) reported internal consistency estimates of.87 for training and instruction behavior,.96 for democratic behavior,.59 for autocratic behavior,.88 for social support behavior,.89 for positive feedback behavior, and.84 for situational consideration. As with the original version of the Leadership Scale for Sport (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) the autocratic behavior dimension should be viewed with caution. Procedures Before conducting the study, all procedures and measures were approved by the institutional review board. Prior to collecting any data, all athletic directors and head coaches of the selected sports from each member institution of the academic consortium were contacted to inform them of the study. Subsequently, the RLSS was mailed to the head coaches of the participating sports teams approximately one week prior to the start of each sport season. The head coaches were asked to distribute the surveys to all athletes. Participation by the athletes was voluntary and informed consent was obtained for all participants. Athletes were asked to respond honestly to each statement, describing how they preferred to be coached. The coaches then collected the sport scales and returned them in the mail. Responses were received from 1,859 of the 2,792 athletes asked to participate yielding a 66.6% rate of return. Results A 2 x 2 (gender x task dependence) factorial MANOVA was used to explore differences in coaching leadership preferences. The MANOVA revealed significant main effects for gender, Wilks λ =.93, F (6, 1630) = 22.07, p <.001; partial η 2 =.075, and task dependence, Wilks λ =.98, F (6, 1630) = 7.09, p <.001; partial η 2 =.025. The gender x task dependence interaction was not significant, Wilks λ = 1.0, F (6, 1630) = 0.55, p =.77; partial η 2 =.002. Accordingly, post hoc tests (ANOVAs with Bonferonni correction) were conducted to identify which preferred leadership dimensions differed based on gender and on task dependence. Significant gender differences were found on the dimensions of positive feedback, F(1, 1635) = 7.61, p =.006; partial η 2 =.005, situational consideration, F(1, 1635) = 10.37, p = Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 79 of 108

8 .001; partial η 2 =.006, social support, F(1, 1635) = 8.39, p =.004; partial η 2 =.05, and autocratic behavior, F(1, 1635) = 98.68, p <.001; partial η 2 =.057. There were no gender differences in preferences for democratic behavior, F(1, 1635) = 0.10, p =.758; partial η 2 =.000, or training and instruction, F(1, 1635) = 1.17, p =.291; partial η 2 =.001. In comparison to the opposite gender, females had a higher preference for positive feedback and situational consideration, whereas males expressed stronger preferences for social support and autocratic behavior. Moreover, univariate tests revealed significant differences based on task dependence on all leadership dimensions (democratic behavior: F(1, 1635) = 13.58, p <.001; partial η 2 =.008, positive feedback: F(1, 1635) = 23.00, p <.001; partial η 2 =.014, training and instruction: F(1, 1635) = 5.53, p =.019; partial η 2 =.003, situational consideration: F(1, 1635) = 9.43, p =.002; partial η 2 =.006, social support: F(1, 1635) = 2.79, p =.004; partial η 2 =.005, and autocratic behavior: F(1, 1635) = 17.93, p <.001; partial η 2 =.011). Thus, individual sport athletes demonstrated a higher preference for democratic behavior, positive feedback, training and instruction, situational consideration, and social support than did team sport athletes. However, team sport athletes preferred autocratic behavior more than athletes participating in individual sports. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for all leadership preferences based on gender and task dependence level. Discussion This study investigated the leadership preferences of a specific population of NCAA Division III athletes. The results indicated that females preferred greater levels of positive feedback and situational consideration behavior while males preferred greater levels of autocratic behavior and social support. Individual athletes preferred greater levels of democratic behavior, positive feedback, training and instruction, situational consideration, and social support while team sport athletes preferred greater levels of autocratic behavior. When looking at previous studies involving Division I and II athletes (Windsor, 2004; Lam et al. 2007; Beam et al. 2008) the most consistent result is that male athletes tend to prefer more autocratic leadership. Similar to earlier studies previously mentioned, the outcomes involving female athletes and task dependence variables have been varied. This may be attributed to the cultural environment of the schools and conferences involved in each study, the competitive division of the institutions, the selection of sports per study, and/or the leadership the athletes are accustomed to. Regardless of the level of competition differences in preferences have been reported. This would suggest that the MML warrants support in so much that it proposes that coaches may have to modify or adjust their behavior in different situations according to its member characteristics. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 80 of 108

9 According to the NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report thru , numbers continue to rise for both male and female student-athletes. Out of the three divisions, Division III institutions comprise the largest consortium of active and provisional members in the NCAA. There are nearly 450 membership institutions providing employment opportunities for approximately 7,700 head coaches. Unlike most NCAA Division I and II student-athletes, Division III student-athletes participate without any financial aid linked to their athletic proficiency. The competitive emphasis is on the impact of the overall sport experience for the student (NCAA Division III Manual, 2010). Therefore making it even more crucial for coaches and coaching educators at this level to concentrate on identifying the coaching leadership behaviors that improve performance and satisfaction. There is an increasing amount of literature connecting the correlation of leadership behaviors and satisfaction to higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Amorose & Horn, 2001;Horn, 2002). As well as evidence that increased motivation and competency result in a higher commitment for the athlete to stay with their sport (Andrew, 2004; Weinberg & Gould, 2011). This is especially meaningful for the Division III coach and athlete. Coaches ask and expect athletes to condition and weight train in the offseason on their own time without receiving any type of compensation. If an athlete is motivated to do the extra work it is more likely that they will improve as an individual and contribute to the teams improved performance as well. It has been demonstrated in this study that preferred leadership is viewed most significant within the context of the group or team being addressed. Despite the various factors that distinguish sport programs from one another, it is important to prepare coaches to direct athletes through a student centered philosophy (NASPE, 2006). Investigating leadership preferences of athletes provides valuable information toward understanding effective leadership behavior, and the unique relationship between coach and athlete toward achieving greater performance and satisfaction. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 81 of 108

10 About the Author Dr. Kelly S. Witte Kelly Witte is an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, where she is also the Athletic Coaching Education Minor Coordinator. Prior to her current position she spent eighteen years coaching both volleyball and softball at the collegiate level. Her teaching interests include: Theories of Coaching, Psycho-Social Aspects of Coaching, Conditioning for Interscholastic Sports, and Application of Mechanical Principles to Coaching. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 82 of 108

11 References Andrew, D. P. (2004). The effect of congruence of leadership behaviors on motivation, commitment, and satisfaction of college tennis players (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahasse,Florida. Amorose, A. J. & Horn, T. S. (2001). Pre- to post-season changes in the intrinsic motivation of first year college athletes: Relationships with coaching behavior and scholarship status. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13 (4), Anshel, M. H. (2003). Sport psychology: From theory to practice. (4 th Ed.) San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Beam, J. W., Serwatka, T. S., & Wilson, W. J. (2004). Preferred leadership of NCAA Division I and II intercollegiate student-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27 (1), Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 5 (4), Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research in sport psychology. (pp ). New York, NY: Macmillan. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D.(1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, Chelladurai, P. & Riemer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in Exercise and Sport Psychology Measurement. (pp ). Morgantown, W. V.: Fitness Information Technology. Erle, F. J. (1981). Leadership in competitive and recreational sport (Unpublished master s thesis). The University of Western Ontario. London, Canada. Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2 nd Ed., pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), Jones, B. J., Wells, L. J., Peters, R. E., & Johnson, D. J. (1993). Guide to effective coaching: Principles and practice. (3 rd Ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Lam, E. T., Chen, L., Zhang, J. J., Robinson, D. A., & Ziegler, S. G. (2007, March). Preferred and perceived leadership styles by NCAA basketball players. In A. T. Pittman (Presided), Research consortium free communication: Leadership is sports. Consortium conducted at the AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition, Baltimore. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 83 of 108

12 LeUnes, A. D., & Nation, J. R. (1996). Sport psychology. (2 nd Ed.) Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. National Association for sport and Physical Education. (2 nd Ed.). (2006). Quality coaches, quality sports: National standards for sport coaches. Reston, VA: Author. National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010). NCAA division III manual. Indianapolis, Indiana: Author. Riemer, H. A. (2007). Multidimensional model of coach leadership. In Jowett, S. & David, I. L. (Eds.), Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Reimer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and satisfaction in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, Riemer, H. A., & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis: Examination of congruence, gender, and ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, Sabock, R. J. & Sabock, M. D. (2005). Coaching: A realistic perspective. (8 th Ed.) Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Sherman, C. A., Fuller, R., & Speed, H. D. (2000). Gender comparisons of preferred coaching behaviors in Australian sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23 (4), Terry, P. (1984). The coaching preferences of elite athletes competing at Universide 83. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 9 (4), Terry, P. C., & Howe, B. L. (1984). Coaching preferences of athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9 (4), Wang, Y. T. (1996). A comparison of the coach leadership behavior preferred by male and female track and field athletes (Unpublished master s thesis). Springfield College, Springfield, MA. Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport & exercise psychology. (5 th Ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Windsor, W. J. (2008). Gender comparisons of preferred coaching behaviors among selected Division I soccer players. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 68 (12-A), Zhang, J. J., Jensen, B. E., & Mann, B. L. (1997). Modification and revision of the Leadership for Sport Scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20 (1), Zgonc, E. (2010). NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report thru Retrieved from NCAA website: Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 84 of 108

13 Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for all Coaching Leadership Preferences. Males Females Individual Team Total Individual Team Total Preference M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Training and 4.16 (.688) 4.08 (.583) 4.11 (.627) 4.19 (.628) 4.12 (.686) 4.15 (.662) Instruction Democratic 3.42 (.580) 3.32 (.622) 3.36 (.607) 3.44 (.532) 3.32 (.582) 3.37 (.564) Autocratic 2.67 (.585) 2.81 (.575) 2.75 (.582) 2.41 (.549) 2.51 (.515) 2.47 (.532) Social Support 3.70 (.604) 3.65 (.596) 3.67 (.599) 3.65 (.558) 3.53 (.559) 3.58 (.561) Positive Feedback 3.93 (.669) 3.79 (.665) 3.84 (.670) 4.04 (.637) ) 3.94 (.681) Situational 4.15 (.657) 4.05 (.604) 4.08 (.627) 4.25 (.643) 4.15 (.672) 4.19 (.662) Consideration Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 85 of 108

14 Note. Scores closer to five indicate a higher preference for that particular coaching leadership behavior. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 86 of 108

15 Figure 1. The multidimensional model of leadership. Reprinted from Leadership in Sports: A Review by P. Cheladurai, 1990, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, p Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission. Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2011 Page 87 of 108