A Comparative Study of Frustration among University Sports and Non-Sports Person

 

Dr. Kuldeep Nara

 

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Physical Education, A.I. Jat H.M. College, Rohtak

 

ABSTRACT:

 

Introduction:

The origin of sports psychology as a scientific field can be traced back to the year 1965 when a Roman psychiatrist Professor Ferrucio Anto-ned founded the international society of sports psychology in Italy. Thereafter, the sports psychology has grown a great deal and spread in various countries of the world. However, lot remains to be done to establish sports psychology as a separate scientific discipline like other well establishment branches of applied psychology.

 

If the study of behaviour is restricted to general population only it remains general psychology but when it covers a particular group or situation and utilizes the general psychological concepts for practical purposes in some specified field of activity then it becomes practical or applied psychology. As is the case of sports when we apply various psychological principles, laws and concepts in sports situation then it become sports psychology. To be more comprehensive we can define sports psychology as a “Science of behaviour of those involved in the field of sports” which means that in sports psychology we study not only the sportsmen and sportswomen but also those people who are directly or indirectly involved in sports situations. These people may be coaches, mentors, planners, organizers of games, audiences and so on.

 

Frustration

Whenever one is unsuccessful to achieve one’s goals, one becomes unsatisfied. With the continued experience of such failure and consequent non-satisfaction, one experiences frustration through the thwarting of motivation and the situation is sometimes said to create ‘psychological stress’. Thwarting may also occur when there is a conflict of motivation;

              

when two or more incompatible types of motivated behavior exist which cannot be pursued simultaneously.

 

Frustration has been defined in many ways: as a psychological state which results from the blocking of a goal-directed activity thwarting of a need or desire as a hypothetical construct produced either by some type of inhibitory condition or by an excitatory tendency leading to accumulation of strength (Brown and Farber, 1951). Frustration behavior lacks goal-orientation, involves feeling of intensive need deprivation and has a different set of behavior mechanism, which appears more or less senseless due to its compulsive nature (Chauhan and Tiwari, 1971).

 

Thus the frustration is an unpleasant feeling we experience when motive-satisfaction is blocked or delayed. The frustrating situation induces a state of frustration in the organism, which in turn gives rise to a variety of reactions.

 

Review:

Vealey et al. (1998) suggested that athletes who derive their confidence from uncontrollable sources could develop weaker or unstable perceptions of control and competence. Jones (1990) defined stress as a state in which some demand is placed on the individual, who is then required to react in some way in order to be able to cope with the situation. Wilson and Yamnitz (2004) suggested that athletes may experience even greater levels of stress due to the dual demands of athletics and academics placed on them during their freshman year.  Li-qin Yao (2010) conducted a study, “Effect of different stress stimulation on frustration tolerance of female college students with different temperament to investigate effect of different stress stimulation on frustration tolerance of female college students with different temperament, 145 female college students were chosen to perform four different training programs of aerobics, and then the frustration tolerance was investigated and analyzed. The results showed that frustration tolerance of female college students with phlegm temperament significantly increased with increasing stress stimulation (p < 0.01). Frustration tolerance of female college students with choleric temperament, sanguine temperament and melancholic temperament varied with increasing stress stimulation, but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). Frustration tolerance of female college students with choleric temperament and sanguine temperament increased rapidly under high-intensity stress stimulation. Frustration tolerance of female college students with melancholic temperament showed U-shape under different levels of stress stimulation. Egor (2010) investigated frustration as predictor of pro-active sport behaviour of NUGA athletes in South Eastern Nigeria. It was hypothesized that frustration will not significant predict pro-active sport behavior of NUGA athletes. Ex-post facto research method was used for the study. The research data were collected using PSB measuring instrument from 521 NUGA athletes. A reliability coefficient of 0.92 was obtained using test reset method. Five sports were selected from 15 NUGA sports based on laid down criteria. Inferential statistics of step-wish multiple regression was employed to test the hypothesis at 0.05 alpha level. The result shows that, frustration significantly predicted pro-active sport behavior of NUGA athletes (B=0.34, L=3.88, df=(1,509), p<0.05). It was recommended that handlers of sport in the University should train athletes with set pieces of frustration to condition them. 

 

One of the most challenging problems faced by the educational administrators today seems to be that of accurate prediction of psychological, sociological and cognitive variables of the students possessing different level of Frustration. This problem has aroused the attention  of  many  educationists,  psychologists, psychiatrists,  planners  and  administrators  and  is   assuming greater  importance  day  by  day as  our  society  is  advancing industrially  and  technologically  and also as  the  pattern  of education  is  growing more and more complex.  In view  of  these factors,  it is a vital importance for an educator to  understand the  dynamic potentialities of each and every student and every sportspersons  possessing different  levels  of  Frustration as well as stress and  strain,  for they  may  be  helped  and reared to  develop  very  healthy  and integrated  dimensions  of personality to become  productive  and creative members of the society.  This clearly stresses  the need of a study of different psychological sociological and  cognitive traits  of  an individual, like the types and  temperaments, the underline and precipitating factors determining the behaviour of the individual  attitude  and values,  strength  and  weakness, capacity to cope with tensions and tolerance to frustration  i.e. understanding of the total personality while put in operation.

 

 

Statement of the problem:

A Comparative Study of Frustration among University Sports and Non-Sports Person

 

Objectives of the study:

To compare the level of frustration (Regression, Fixation, Resignation and Aggression dimensions) among sports and non-sports persons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa.

 

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in the level of frustration (Regression, Fixation, Resignation and Aggression dimensions) among sports and non-sports persons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa.  

 

Sample

Present study was conducted on a sample of 200 subjects selected (100 sports and 100 non-sports person) in the age range of 18 to 43 years. All the subjects were selected following non-random purposive sampling basis. For the sports person category only those sports persons were selected, who were doing their post-graduation in physical education and have participated at least in inter-college competition of any game. In the non-sports person group those who were doing postgraduation in any discipline (arts, science and other subjects) were selected. An attempt was made to select equal number of students from all the two universities i.e. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa.

 

Tool used 

For the present study to measure the level of frustration, the Frustration test constructed and standardized by Chauhan and Tiwari (1972) was used to measure level of frustration.

 

Statistical Techniques

Mean, Standard deviation and ‘t’ Test were used to analyse the data,

 

Results:

The hypothesis framed to achieve the objective stated above is that there is no significant difference in the mean score of level of frustration of sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D.U. University, Rohtak and C.D.L.U. Sirsa

 

Table 1

Significance of Difference Between Mean of different dimensions of Frustration (Regression, Fixation, Resignation and Aggression) Scores of Government and non-government school students

 

Variable	Sportspersons  (N=80)		non-sportspersons (N=80)		‘t’ Value
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Regression	29.25	7.141	30.00	7.071	0.034NS
Fixation	24.83	7.12	26.33	6.72	1.371NS
Resignation	23.56	9.49	26.48	9.43	1.997*
Aggression	25.88	8.46	25.87	7.70	0.078NS

NS = Not significant

 

 

The mean values of sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa on Regression dimension of the frustration scale between sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa. The mean scores of sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa on this variable are 29.96 and 30.00, respectively, the difference between mean values is not significant at any level of significance. It signifies that two groups don’t differ significantly on this variable.

 

The obtained mean values for the fixation dimension of the frustration scale for the sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa are 24.83 and 26.33 respectively. However, the difference between the two mean scores is not significant at any level. It can be interpreted to mean that these groups don’t differ significantly on this variable also.

 

The mean difference on Resignation variable a between sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa are 23.56 and 26.48, respectively. The non-sportspersons have obtained higher mean scores than the non-sportspersons on this variable. This mean difference is significant at 0.05 level. It implies that non-sportspersons are likely to have lack of interest in surroundings, longing for loneliness and withdraw from social contacts in comparison to the sportspersons.

 

The table further indicates the mean difference on the aggression dimension of the Frustration scale between sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa. The mean scores of sportspersons and non-sportspersons of M.D. University, Rohtak and C.D.L. University, Sirsa are 25.88 and 25.87 respectively. As it is quite clear from the mean scores, the two groups don’t differ significantly at any of the level on this variable.

 

Findings:

On the basis of results obtained n the frustration scale, it can be commented that there is no significant difference between the two groups on different dimensions of frustration except Resignation. Hence Hypothesis is no retained in case of three dimensions of Frustration viz., Regression, fixation, Aggression and total score on Frustration. However, Hypothesis pertaining to Resignation is retained as the sportspersons have been found to have a lower frustration score on this dimension.

 

REFERENCES:

Carron, A.V., & Chelladu Rai, (1978). Psychological Factors and Athletic Success: An Analysis of Coach – Athlete Interpersonal Behaviour. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, Vol. 3, pp. 43-50.

Chauhan, N. S. and Tiwari (1972). Manual and scale for measuring frustration.

Chi, L. K. (1996). Stress management of athletes. National Physical Education Quarterly, 25(4), 51-57.

Egor G.O. (2010). Frustration as Predictor of Pro-Active Sport Behaviour of Nuga Athletes In South Eastern Nigeria, International Journal of Applied Psychology and Human performance Vol. 6 (2010) ISSN, 1473 - 9237

Jones, J. G. (1990). A cognitive perspective on the processes underlying the relationship between stress and performance in sport. In J. G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 17–42). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Li-qin Yao (2010). Effect of different stress stimulation on frustration tolerance of female college students with different temperament, African Journal of Business Management Vol. 4(13), 2790-2795.

Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sport confidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 54–80.

Wilson, G. and Yamnitz, B. (2004). What predicts adjustment among college students? A Longitudinal Panel Study. Manuscript submitted for publication.