Antecedents and Consequences of Student-Athletes’ Identity Profiles in Upper Secondary School

Abstract

This study examined the identity profiles that upper secondary school Finnish student-athletes show and the extent to which these profiles were associated with their athletic and academic achievements and withdrawal from sports and school. A total of 391 adolescent athletes (51% female) completed assessments of student and athletic identity four times during their time in upper secondary school. Using growth mixture modeling, three groups were identified: dual identity (77%), changing identity (5%), and athletic identity (18%). The higher the academic achievement was at Time 1, the more likely the athletes were to show a dual identity than an athletic identity profile. Similarly, athletes with dual identity showed higher subsequent academic achievement at Time 4 than those with an athletic identity profile. Finally, athletes with dual identity were more likely and athletes with athletic identity less likely to withdraw from sport activities during upper secondary school than would be expected by chance.

The Impacts of Sports Schools on Holistic Athlete Development: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review

“…The most frequent reason for dieting among girl and boy controls and girl athletes was to improve appearance, whereas boy athletes most often reported enhanced performance as a reason for dieting. One-third of the athlete boys and 13% of the athlete girls were dieting as directed by their coach or teacher, and this was higher than among boy and girl controls respectively 2 and 3b Moazami-Goodarzi et al 2020 [ 72 ] Student-athletes from six Finnish upper secondary sport schools ( N = 391, mean age at T1 = 16, SD = 0.17; 51% females and 49% males). 50% played individual sports (e.g., swimming or athletics) and 50% team sports (e.g., ice hockey or football) Sports achievement 4-point Likert scale, grade point average, the Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (Brewer et al 1993) and modified Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (Brewer et al 1993) Three groups were identified: dual identity (77%), changing identity (5%), and athletic identity (18%).…”

“…Two studies evaluated sports schools’ impact on identity and orientation through a standardised questionnaire [ 72 , 73 ]. The most common profile (typical for 77% of student-athletes) was a dual identity, that is, student-athletes who reported strong identification with both athlete and student roles [ 73 ].…”

“…The findings on higher education continuation were mixed [ 40 , 41 , 49 ], with some sports school student-athletes achieving lower higher education attainment [ 49 ] compared to mainstream school student-athletes. Therefore, although student-athletes tended to display a dual identity while at sports schools [ 72 ], the fact that more athletes outside sports schools attained higher education grades may indicate that sports school student-athletes choose to prioritise their sport over their studies to a greater extent once they leave the sports school and their sporting careers progresses. An overemphasis on sport may pose issues in terms of career opportunities for elite athletes once their athletic careers end.…”

“…The resting HR remained on the same level. In the racket sports group, the dynamic BS increased over the two years by 44 [46] Finland Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Baron-Thiene and Alfermann, 2015 [50] Germany Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Boyadjieva and Steinhausen, 1996 [51] Bulgaria Quantitative non-randomised 1 0 1 0 1 3 Brand et al 2013 [68] Germany Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Brettschneider 1999 [47] Germany Mixed methods 1 1 0 0 1 3 Brown 2014 [20] New Zealand Qualitative 1 1 1 1 1 5 Brown 2016 [27] New Zealand Qualitative 1 1 1 1 1 5 Chua 2015 [65] Finland and Singapore Qualitative 1 0 1 1 1 4 De Bosscher et al 2016 [41] Belgium Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 0 1 0 3 Elbe et al 2005 [69] Germany Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Emrich et al 2009 [22] Germany Quantitative non-randomised 1 0 0 0 1 2 Eriksson et al 2017 [52] Sweden Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Gisslèn et al 2005 [53] Sweden Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Henriksen et al 2011 [42] Denmark Qualitative 1 1 1 1 1 5 Ingrell et al 2019 [70] Sweden Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 0 0 1 3 Into et al 2020 [71] Finland Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Knowles et al 2017 [23] Australia Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Kristiansen and Houlihan 2015 [24] Norway Qualitative 1 1 1 1 1 5 Kristiansen 2018 [28] Norway Mixed methods 0 1 1 1 1 4 Lichtenstein et al 2018 [54] Denmark Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 0 0 1 3 Martinsen and Sundgot-Borgen 2013 [55] Norway Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Martinsen et al 2010 [56] Norway Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 1 1 1 5 Moazami-Goodarzi et al 2020 [72] Finland Quantitative non-randomised 1 1 0 1 0 3 Morris et al 2020 [19] Multi-Nation (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK) Qualitative 1 1 0 0 1 3…”

“…Twenty-one studies [18,22,23,28,37,40,42,43,45,46,49,59,63,[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] in total explored psychological impacts. The thematic analysis shaped five sub-themes: perceived pressure and anxiety, motivation, identity and orientation, self-optimisation and burnout.…”