A Study on the Competitions between Different Levels of the Male Tennis Players’ Attribution of Success & Failure and Achievement Expectancy

• Main Authors: Su-Lin Lai, 賴素玲
• Other Authors: 王俊明
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2002
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/hx9vd4

碩士 === 國立體育學院 === 教練研究所 === 90 === This study was based on the attribution theory of Wiener (1972). The aims were: (1) to understand the percentage of winning/losing or success/failure of competitions between different levels of tennis players; (2) to understand the attributed factors of winning/success and achievement expectancy between the levels of tennis players; and (3) to understand the attributed factors of losing/failure and achievement expectancy between the levels of the players. The subjects were 18 male tennis players (6 main-draw players and 12 qualified players) studying at National College of Physical Education and Sports. The players who participated in this study completed the questionnaires in relation to the attribution of success & failure and achievement expectancy. As a consequence, the results showed as follows: (1) Most of the two levels of the main-draw and the qualified players attributed winning to success (86.84%) and losing to failure (94.75%). (2) In terms of winning/success, when the main-draw players played against either the main-draw players or the qualified players, the results appeared to attribute to the factors of “effort” and “ability”. When the main-draw players played against the main-draw players, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “winning” appeared to be the highest, the “uncertainty” appeared to be lower and the “losing” appeared to be the lowest. When the main-draw players played against the qualified players, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “winning” appeared to be the highest, the “uncertainty” appeared to be lower and the “losing” did not appear. When the qualified players played against the main-draw players, the results appeared to attribute to the factors of “other” (i.e. excellent performance and strong will) and “luck”. In this circumstance, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “uncertainty” appeared to be the highest, the “losing” appeared to be lower and the “winning” did not appear. When the qualified players played against the qualified players, the results appeared to attribute to the factor of “effort” whereby the percentage of the achievement expectancy “winning” appeared to be the highest, the “uncertainty” appeared to be lower and the “losing” appeared to be the lowest. (3) In terms of winning/success, based upon Wiener’s (1972) attribution theory, higher explaining percentage of the attributed factors (above 70%) was found in the circumstance of main-draw players playing against either the main-draw players or the qualified players. (4) In terms of losing/failure, when the main-draw players played against either the main-draw players or the qualified players, the results appeared to attribute to the factor of “other” (i.e. health not in good condition). When the main-draw players played against the main-draw players, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “uncertainty” appeared to be the highest, the “winning” appeared to be lower and the “losing” appeared to be the lowest. When the main-draw players played against the qualified players, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “winning” appeared to be the highest, the “uncertainty” appeared to be lower and the “losing” appeared to be the lowest. When the qualified players played against either the main-draw players or the qualified players, the results appeared to attribute to the factor of “ability”. When the qualified players played against the main-draw players, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “losing” appeared to be the highest, the uncertainty” appeared to be lower and the “winning” did not appear. When the qualified players played against the qualified players, the percentage of the achievement expectancy “uncertainty” appeared to be the highest, the “losing” appeared to be lower and the “winning” appeared to be the lowest. (5) In terms of losing/failure, based upon Wiener’s (1972) attribution theory, much higher explaining percentage of the attributed factors (above 70%) was found in the circumstance of qualified players playing against either the main-draw players or the qualified players.