Athletes Perceptions Of The Sources Of Role Ambiguity

10.1177/1046496404268533
SMALL GR
OUP RESEARCH / August 2005
Eys et al. / ROLE AMBIGUITY
ATHLETES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE
SOURCES OF ROLE AMBIGUITY
MARK A. EYS
ALBERT V. CARRON
University of Western Ontario
MARK R. BEAUCHAMP
University of Leeds
STEVEN R. BRAY
McMaster University
Thepurposeofthestudywas todetermineathletes’perceptionsofthesources ofroleambigu-
ity in interactive sport teams. Athletes (N = 151; 97 females and 54 males) were asked to
identify why ambiguity might exist in relation to the scope of their role responsibilities, the
behaviors necessary to fulfill those responsibilities, the evaluationof their role performance,
and the consequences of not successfully fulfilling their role responsibilities. Results
revealed an extensive set of possible sources for each dimension of role ambiguity that
emerged from the responses that included factors associated with the role sender (e.g.,
coach), the focal person (e.g., the athlete), and the situation. The types and frequency of fac-
tors differed among the various dimensions of ambiguity thereby lending support to the
necessity of considering role ambiguity in sport as a multidimensional construct. The rele-
vance of the results to sport and future intervention research is discussed.
Keywords: roles; sport; athletes; group dynamics; team
Descriptive examinations of athletes’perceptions of role ambigu-
ity in sport have revealed that this phenomenon is indeed an impor-
tant aspect of individual and group experiences within interactive
sport teams (e.g., Eys, Carron, Bray, & Beauchamp, 2003). Specifi-
cally, perceptions of increased role ambiguity—the lack of clear,
consistent information regarding an individual’s role (Kahn,
383
AUTHORS’NOTE: This project was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada grant to the first author. The authors are grateful for their support.
SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 36 No. 4, August 2005 383-403
DOI: 10.1177/1046496404268533
© 2005 Sage Publications

Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964)—have been shown to be
associated with decreased perceptions of task cohesion and task
self-efficacy (Eys & Carron, 2001), role satisfaction (Beauchamp,
Bray, Eys, & Carron, 2003a), overall athlete satisfaction (Eys,
Carron, Bray, et al., 2003), and role performance (Beauchamp,
Bray, Eys, & Carron, 2002; Bray & Brawley, 2002). Also, a posi-
tive relationship has been found between role ambiguity and per-
ceptions of the intensity of competitive state anxiety (Beauchamp
et al., 2003b).
Historically, the earliest comprehensive discussion of the nature
of role ambiguity was carried out by Kahn et al. (1964) in relation
to the industrial and organizational domain. More recently,
Beauchamp et al. (2002) adapted the Kahn et al. approach for use in
sport settings (for a more comprehensive overview of the develop-
ment of the conceptual model for sport, refer to Beauchamp et al.,
2002). Beauchamp and colleagues conceptualized role ambiguity
as both bisituational and multidimensional. That is, they proposed
that in both offensive and defensive situations, it is possible for an
athlete to be uncertain about (a) his or her scope of responsibilities,
(b) the behaviors necessary to fulfill those responsibilities, (c) how
he or she will be evaluated in the performance of role responsibili-
ties, and (d) the consequences of not successfully fulfilling his or
her role responsibilities.
Results from the research discussed above (e.g., Beauchamp et
al., 2003b) support the suggestion that reducing role ambiguity in
an interactive team setting would be beneficial for both the team
and the individuals who fulfill the necessary roles within its struc-
ture. However, these previous investigations have all examined the
correlates or consequences of role ambiguity. To gain an under-
standing about any phenomenon, it is necessary to determine the
sources or causes of it as well as to proceed from description to
explanation. This is a point highlighted by a number of authors. For
example, Kerlinger (1973) noted, “The basic aim of science is to
explain natural phenomena” (p. 8). Similarly, Salzinger (2001)
suggested that determining “an underlying mechanism . . . is the
main function of research” (p. B14). Consistent with the perspec-
tive advanced by Kerlinger and Salzinger, the general focus of the
384 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / August 2005

present study was to determine why athletes might experience role
ambiguity in relation to the scope of their responsibilities, the
behaviors necessary to carry out those responsibilities, how their
role performance is evaluated, and the consequences of failure to
carry out those responsibilities.
The process of communicating and understanding role expecta-
tions has been the focus of a number of researchers. For example,
from a broad sociological perspective, Parsons (1964) provided a
comprehensive discourse on the learning of role expectations
within his conceptualization of the development of social structure.
He noted, “The acquisition of the requisite orientations for satisfac-
tory functioning in a role is a learning process, but it is not learning
in general, but a particular part of learning. This process will be
called the process of socialization” (Parsons, 1964, p. 205).
Another conceptualization advanced by Kahn and his col-
leagues (1964) to explain role understanding in industrial/organi-
zational settings was adapted for use in the present study within the
sport domain. Figure 1 illustrates this adapted conceptual frame-
Eys et al. / ROLE AMBIGUITY 385
Role
Expectation
Role
Pressure
Role Sender (e.g., coach)
Experienced
Role Pressure
Response
Focal Person (e.g., athlete)
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 4
Focal Person
Related
Factors
Role Sender
Related
Factors
Situation
Related
Factors
Event 5
Figure 1: A Theoretical Framework of Factors Influencing the Transmission and
Reception of Role Responsibilities
NOTE: Adapted from Kahn et al. (1964, p. 30).

work guiding the present search for the underlying mechanisms
contributing to role ambiguity in sport. It reflects the fact that a lack
of understanding about role responsibilities could be the product of
two principal actors and the forces that exert influence upon the
communication between these two. The first actor, termed the focal
person, is the individual who is charged with executing the role
responsibilities. In an interdependent team sport setting, the focal
person typically would be the athlete. The second actor, referred to
as the role sender, is the individual who communicates (or sends)
an expectation to the focal person. In an interdependent team sport
setting, the role sender typically would be a head coach or his or her
assistant, but this also could be the athlete’s teammates, friends, or
parents.
A sequence of five consecutive events is assumed to transpire
within and between the two actors. This sequence of events is illus-
trated in Figure 1. First, the role sender (e.g., the coach) develops
expectations for the focal person (i.e., the athlete). Subsequently,
the role sender exerts pressure on the focal person to satisfy those
expectations. Third, the focal person experiences or perceives the
demands that have been placed upon him or her. It is at this point
that the focal person assesses whether the communication or
expectation sent is clear or ambiguous. Fourth, the focal person
responds to the expectations placed on him or her. It is important to
note that the response could take many forms including behaviors
such as compliance to or rejection of the demands, cognitions such
as raised or lowered efficacy beliefs (Eys & Carron, 2001), and
affect such as anxiety or dissatisfaction (Beauchamp et al., 2003b;
Eys, Carron, Bray, et al., 2003). Finally, the responses by the focal
person would then be experienced/interpreted by the role sender
who would, in turn, either maintain or change the role pressures
being exerted.
Figure 1 is also intended to illustrate that three major categories
of factors can influence the degree to which a focal person under-
stands his or her role. The first category, termed role sender related
factors, represents the sources of athlete role ambiguity that can be
attributed to, or are under the direct control of, the role sender (e.g.,
the coach). Thus, for example, the quantity and quality of a coach’s

verbal communications to an athlete might be poor, thereby leading
to ambiguity.
The second major category, termed focal person related factors,
represents the sources of role ambiguity that can be attributed to, or
are under the direct control of, the focal person (i.e., the athlete).
Thus, for example, an athlete who is new to the sport and lacking
experience with the terminology used might be confused about
instructions provided by the coach. Kahn and colleagues (1964), in
their discussion of role ambiguity in the business and industry
domain, labeled a similar category personality factors and defined
it as “a person’s propensities to behave in certain ways, his [or her]
motives and values, . . . and the like” (p. 32).
The final major category (see Figure 1), situation related fac-
tors, represents sources of role ambiguity that are neither directly
controlled by the focal person nor the role sender. One example
would be tenure with the team; perceptions of role ambiguity have
been shown to be higher at the beginning of a competitive season
than at the end (Eys, Carron, Beauchamp, & Bray, 2003). One pos-
sible reason for this could be that the turnover in personnel charac-
teristic of sport ensures that some athletes are new to the team and
unsure of their place within its structure. Although it becomes the
responsibility of both the coach and athletes to determine role
expectations over time, brevity of tenure with the team could repre-
sent a potential situational reason why some athletes might not
understand their roles.
The role episode model (Figure 1) represents a useful concep-
tual framework to begin to understand the general sources of role
ambiguity in sport. The specific purpose of the present study was to
determine a more comprehensive set of sources of role ambiguity
in interactive sport teams. As was indicated previously, role ambi-
guity is conceptually viewed as a multidimensional construct (e.g.,
Beauchamp et al., 2002). Therefore, athletes from a variety of inter-
active sports were asked to identify the sources of ambiguity in
regard to each separate dimension of role ambiguity: scope of
responsibilities, behaviors necessary to fulfill role responsibilities,
evaluation of role performance, and consequences of not fulfilling
role responsibilities.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 151 athletes from a variety of interactive
sports. Ninety-seven participants were female and 54 were male.
The mean age of the athletes was 21.28 years (SD = 3.15 years), and
the average association of the athletes with their respective teams
was 2.56 years (SD = 1.93). Ninety-three respondents were starters,
41 were nonstarters, and 11 were practice players; 6 participants
did not indicate their playing status. The designation, starters,
refers to those athletes who began the majority of their competitive
matches in the playing unit (e.g., on the court/field). The designa-
tion, nonstarters, refers to those athletes who were eligible to com-
pete in the majority of their competitive matches but did not start
games within the playing unit. Finally, practice players were those
athletes who were ineligible to compete in matches during the
season but practiced with the team.
MEASURE
Athletes’ perceptions of the sources of role ambiguity in sport
were assessed using an open-ended questionnaire format. Studies
utilizing open-ended questions of this nature have been conducted
previously in sport literature to achieve similar goals to the present
study. For example, Munroe, Estabrooks, Dennis, and Carron
(1999) utilized this approach to determine athlete perceptions of
group norms that are present on sport teams.
The athletes were initially provided with the definitions of a role
and role ambiguity as well as the following instructions for
responding:
Most team sport athletes are required to understand their roles on
both offense and defense but it is common that they are not 100%
clear regarding what their responsibilities are. The following four
questions ask for your thoughts on WHY this might be the case.
Please be as open and honest as possible.

The first question pertained to the role ambiguity dimension of
scope of responsibilities and was phrased, “In your view, please
provide explanations as to why an athlete may not fully understand
what his or her role is.” This question was followed by sufficient
lined space for the athletes to respond. The remaining three ques-
tions, which were constructed in a similar fashion, were as follows:
(a) behavior to fulfill role responsibilities: “In your view, please
provide explanations as to why an athlete may not fully understand
what behaviors are necessary to fulfill his or her role;” (b) evalua-
tion of role performance: “In your view, please provide explana-
tions as to why an athlete may not fully understand how his or her
performance is being evaluated;” and (c) consequences of not ful-
filling role responsibilities: “In your view, please provide explana-
tions as to why an athlete may not fully understand what the conse-
quences areshould he or she not fulfill his or her responsibilities.”
Prior to issuing the questionnaire to athletes, an assessment of
content validity was undertaken. The initial version of the above
questionnaire developed by the lead researcher was evaluated sepa-
rately by the remaining three investigators. This resulted in minor
alterations that included wording and structure changes, which
were adopted.
A more important issue that was also raised through this process
was the frame of reference that was given to the athletes in the ques-
tions. More specifically, it was discussed whether the athletes
should be asked to identify sources of role ambiguity that only they
had experienced in the past or sources of role ambiguity that could
occur for athletes in general. It was decided to use the latter
approach for two reasons. First, the purpose of the present study
was to identify a comprehensive set of reasons why role ambiguity
could occur in sport teams. Therefore, athletes drawing on all of
their experiences (i.e., their own experiences as well as their per-
ceptions of the experiences of teammates) would more likely iden-
tify a much broader list of possible role ambiguity sources. Second,
it was felt that asking athletes to use a more general frame of refer-
ence would reduce the likelihood of social desirability in responses
provided. For example, athletes asked to identify sources of why
they did not understand their own role might not identify them-

selves as the problem (i.e., self-serving bias). However, using ath-
letes in general as a focus may have provided an opportunity for
them to be more objective in their responses.
In addition to these open-ended questions, demographic data
were collected that indicated the athlete’s age, gender, team affilia-
tion, position, playing status, and tenure (years of association) with
his or her current team.
PROCEDURE
Contact and recruitment of athletes were conducted by the lead
researcher. Initially, each head coach was approached and asked
permission to invite his or her athletes to participate in the study.
Following a practice session and after approval was secured, the
researcher explained the nature of the study, and the participants
received a letter of information and the questionnaire. The ques-
tionnaires were completed at each team’s practice facility. Athletes
unable to complete the questionnaire following their practice ses-
sion were provided with an alternative time to participate. This was
arranged between the individual athletes and the lead researcher.
The questionnaire included the demographic and role ambiguity
questions outlined previously. Completion of the questionnaire
was considered to be an indication of informed consent—a suppo-
sition approved by the lead researcher’s institutional ethics board.
To answer any questions and ensure that the athletes understood the
inventory, the lead researcher was available during the data collec-
tion period. Finally, access to the general results of the investiga-
tion and an assurance of confidentiality regarding athletes’
personal responses were given.
DATA ANALYSIS
An inductive approach (where specific categories emerge based
on the responses of the participants) similar to that advocated by
Côté, Salmela, Baria, and Russell (1993) was utilized for the exam-
ination of data collected in the present study. First, the open-ended
responses of the athletes were subdivided into meaning units,

which are phrases or words that contain a single idea (Tesch, 1990).
Second, four investigators independently labeled (createdtags) and
grouped each meaning unit into categories with other similar
meaning units. Third, the categories that emerged through this pro-
cess were placed in the higher order factors contained within the
conceptual model presented above (see Figure 1 again)—role
sender, situational, and focal person factors. An initial assessment
of consensus among the investigators showed that a high level of
agreement was present: scope of responsibilities, 92.5%; behavior
to fulfill responsibilities, 93.7%; evaluation of role performance,
94.3%; and consequences of not fulfilling role responsibilities,
90.6%. The categorization of those meaning units that were not ini-
tially agreed upon were discussed among the investigators until
consensus was reached. Thus, upon conclusion of the data analysis,
100% agreement was achieved.
RESULTS
SOURCES OF AMBIGUITY REGARDING
SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Table 1 highlights 12 subcategories (as well as an example
meaning unit for each) that emerged related to the sources of ambi-
guity regarding the dimension scope of responsibilities. In total,
there were 277 meaning units identified for this dimension that
were classified into one of the three major groups of factors: role
sender related (37.2%), situation related (32.9%), and focal person
related (29.9%). In short, the proportion of responses for ambiguity
associated with scope of responsibilities was equally distributed
between the role sender, the focal person, and the situation.
SOURCES OF AMBIGUITY REGARDING BEHAVIORS
TO FULFILL ROLE RESPONSIBILITIES
Fourteen subcategories of responses emerged for the role ambi-
guity dimension of behaviors to fulfill role responsibilities. As is

shown in Table 2, a very similar classification system to the one
described above emerged. However, the number and percentage of
responses in each category were slightly different. Overall, there
were 191 meaning units, and these were categorized within the
three major categories of role sender related factors (43.5%), situa-
tion related factors (32.4%), and focal person related factors
(24.1%). In short, a large proportion of responses regarding ambi-
guity associated with behaviors to fulfill responsibilities was asso-
TABLE 1: Responses Related to the Role Ambiguity Dimension of Scope of
Responsibilities
Factor Category Number % Example
Role sender
related
a) Role sender
inability
14 5.1 “Poor coaching”
b) Lack of
communication
43 15.5 “The coach or other players
may not have explained why
certain things are done.”
c) Unclear
communication
36 13.0 “Coach does not explain role
with clarity.”
d) Conflicting
communication
10 3.6 “Conflicting advice from
two different coaches.”
Situation
related
a) Lack of practical
application
20 7.2 “Little game experience.”
b) Position shift 16 5.8 “The athlete is shuffled
around to different
positions.”
c) Complexity 27 9.7 “Too complex to grasp right
away.”
d) Prior experience 28 10.2 “They are new on a team
and their responsibilities
were different before.”
Focal person
related
a) Personal
expectations
14 5.1 “Player has different idea of
their role compared to
coach’s idea.”
b) Lack of initiative 11 3.9 “Does not ask for
clarification.”
c) Lack of diligence 19 6.9 “Player’s lack of attention.”
d) Athlete inability 39 14.0 “Does not understand all
aspects of the game.”

ciated with the role sender, whereas a much lower proportion was
associated with the athletes themselves.
It should be noted that in comparison to role ambiguity associ-
ated with scope of responsibilities, two additional categories of
responses emerged under situation related factors. First, athletes
perceived that a lack of role models could account for why a focal
person might not understand the behaviors necessary to carry out
role responsibilities. Second, a small percentage of respondents
indicated that if focal people do not understand what their role is in
general (scope of responsibilities), then it would be impossible to
understand what behaviors are expected of them. This has been
labeled “Hierarchy” within Table 2.
SOURCES OF AMBIGUITY REGARDING
EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
The subcategories that emerged for the third dimension of role
ambiguity, evaluation of role performance, are presented in Table
3. There were 12 subcategories that emerged from 185 meaning
units. Although the subcategories are nominally similar to those
listed in the previous dimensions, there are marked differences in
the distribution of responses. Specifically, 69.2% of meaning units
were categorized within the higher order role sender factors, 14.7%
within situation related factors, and 16.1% were categorized under
focal person related factors. That is, a large proportion of responses
regarding role ambiguity associated with evaluation of role perfor-
mancewas associated with actions (or lack of actions) on the part of
the role sender (coach).
SOURCES OF AMBIGUITY REGARDING CONSEQUENCES
OF NOT FULFILLING ROLE RESPONSIBILITIES
There were a total of 161 meaning units given within the
responses for the sources of ambiguity associated with the dimen-
sion of consequences of not fulfilling role responsibilities. The dis-
tribution and categorization of responses are shown in Table 4. The
proportion of responses for the highest order categories was similar

TABLE 2: Responses Related to the Role Ambiguity Dimension of Behavioral
Responsibilities
Role sender
related
a) Role sender
inability
15 7.9 “Lack of proper and
qualified coaching.”
b) Lack of
communication
34 17.8 “Coach does not
communicate what
behaviors are needed.”
c) Unclear
communication
23 12.0 “Not having it explained
clearly and not being shown
proper behavior.”
d) Conflicting
communication
11 5.8 “There has been conflict
in instructions from what
one coach has instructed to
another.”
Situation
related
application
14 7.3 “Lack of practice.”
b) Position shift 4 2.1 “Have been put in an
unfamiliar position.”
c) Complexity 6 3.1 “A player often has to play
with a different player and
in each case they may have
to change their style of
play.”
d) Prior experience 27 14.1 “Have been taught differ-
ently by previous coaches.”
e) Lack of role models 7 3.7 “They do not have
consistent role models.”
f) Hierarchy 4 2.1 “If you do not understand
your role, you obviously do
not understand the
necessary behaviors.”
Focal person
related
a) Personal
expectations
6 3.1 “Athletes may have
alternative behaviors to the
coach’s suggestions that
have been successful in the
past.”
b) Lack of initiative 5 2.6 “The athlete may not have
asked to find the neces-
sary behaviors.”
c) Lack of diligence 15 7.9 “Low attendance at
practice.”
d) Athlete inability 20 10.5 “Lack of game knowledge.”

to the evaluation-of-role-performance dimension in that role
sender related factors constituted 58.4% of meaning units, situation
related factors comprised 18.6% of the meaning units, and 23.0%
were categorized as focal person related.
TABLE 3: Responses Related to the Role Ambiguity Dimension of Evaluation of Role
Performance
Role sender
related
a) Role sender
inability
5 2.7 “Coaches must evaluate
each player’s performance
differently.”
b) Lack of
communication
85 45.9 “If coach does not outline
criteria by which athlete is
being evaluated.”
c) Unclear
communication
21 11.4 “A coach is unclear as to
what they expect.”
d) Conflicting
communication
17 9.2 “Inconsistent feedback from
coaches.”
Situation
related
application
2 1.1 “Does not play very often
(practice player).”
b) Complexity 4 2.2 “Different qualities are
valued in different
situations.”
c) Prior experience 9 4.9 “Each athlete may have been
evaluated differently in the
past.”
d) Hierarchy 12 6.5 “Athlete may not understand
expectations and thus
evaluation criteria.”
Focal person
related
a) Personal
expectations
11 5.9 “Coach may expect more;
different idea than what you
are thinking.”
b) Lack of initiative 4 2.2 “Players do not ask
questions.”
c) Lack of diligence 9 4.8 “Player’s lack of attention.”
d) Athlete inability 6 3.2 “May not know enough
about game.”

TABLE 4: Responses Related to the Role Ambiguity Dimension of Consequences of
Not Fulfilling Responsibilities
Role sender
related
a) Role sender inability 5 3.1 “Bad coach. Assumes you
know.”
b) Lack of
communication
34 21.1 “This is never specifically
addressed. Often seen as
a negative thing to talk
about.”
c) Unclear
communication
19 11.8 “The coach does not
make it clear.”
d) Conflicting
communication
36 22.4 “Consequences are not
consistent from athlete
to athlete.”
Situation
related
application
10 6.2 “Have not had much of
an opportunity to fulfill
those responsibilities.”
b) Complexity 1 0.6 “Lack of understanding of
how their role integrates
with their teammates’
roles.”
c) Prior experience 10 6.2 “Previous coaching.
There might not have
been any consequences.”
d) Hierarchy 9 5.6 “Because they do not
understand their role in
the first place.”
Focal person
related
a) Personal
expectations
7 4.4 “Athletes’ opinions
differ from those of the
coaches.”
b) Lack of diligence 10 6.2 “The player just does
not care about the
consequences.”
c) Athlete inability 20 12.4 “Does not have a clear
understanding of the
game itself and does not
realize how their actions
affect the game.”

DISCUSSION
In the present study, athletes’ perceptions of the sources of role
ambiguity in interactive sport teams were assessed. The conceptual
model of the role episode presented in Figure 1 provides a useful
framework to highlight important results.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, role sender related factors were iden-
tified as the major source of role ambiguity across all four dimen-
sions (i.e., scope, behaviors, evaluation, consequences). That is, the
athletes suggested that the role sender (typically a coach) is usually
the individual who is responsible, for a variety of reasons, if an ath-
lete does not understand his or her role. As Tables 1 to 4 show, lack
of communication, unclear communication, and conflicting com-
munication from the role sender were the primary factors cited. If
the coach (or possibly teammates) does not take the time to com-
municate role responsibilities or the communication is unclear, it is
likely that the athlete will not understand his or her role. In a meta-
analysis of role ambiguity research in business and industry con-
ducted by Jackson and Schuler (1985), role ambiguity was found to
be negatively related to the amount of communication and feed-
back from others. They concluded that this finding “is not surpris-
ing since it is primarily through such feedback that roles are
learned” (Jackson & Schuler, 1985, p. 29).
Another interesting factor under the category role sender related
factors—albeit one not often cited by the athletes—was lack of
ability on the part of the coach (see Tables 1 to 4). Lack of coach
ability as a contributor to role ambiguity makes intuitive sense. If
the coach is not knowledgeable with regard to what functions need
to be performed, then it will not be possible for his or her athletes to
know what is to be expected. In essence, lack of ability on the part
of the role sender is closely related to the Kahn et al. (1964) sugges-
tion that ambiguity will result if the information does not exist.
The fact that role sender related factors were identified by ath-
letes most often as sources of role ambiguity could be due, in part,
to a natural tendency to attribute negative outcomes to outside
sources (i.e., in this case, the coach). This tendency for people to

“attribute their own success to internal factors and their failure to
external factors” (Alcock, Carment, & Sadava, 1998, p. 50) has
been termed a self-serving bias. Given that athletes were asked to
identify why they might experience role ambiguity (assuming not
being clear with regard to one’s role is perceived as a negative out-
come), the self-serving bias would predict that they would identify
the role sender or the situation as mostly responsible for their lack
of role clarity. An interesting future direction would be to query
coaches as to their perceptions of why athletes may not understand
their roles fully and compare responses with those found in the
present study. The self-serving bias in this case would predict that
coaches would attribute role ambiguity more to the athletes and the
situation rather than to themselves.
The second major category of sources of role ambiguity in sport
was the situation related factors. Two factors that emerged across
all four dimensions of role ambiguity (see Tables 1 to 4) were com-
plexity and prior experience. Both of these have been identified as
common sources of role ambiguity in the business literature. For
example, both Kahn et al. (1964) and Abdel-Halim (1981) pro-
posed that role ambiguity could be expected to increase as the com-
plexity of the situation increases. Insofar as prior experience is con-
cerned, Jackson and Schuler (1985) concluded that job tenure is an
important factor in a person’s understanding of what is expected
when they noted, “The longer one is in a job, the more information
he or she obtains” (p. 37). Similarly, Eys, Carron, Beauchamp, and
Bray (2003) found that athletes’ perceptions of role ambiguity
decreased over the course of a competitive season as they gained
greater exposure to role related information.
The third major category of sources of role ambiguity in sport
was focal person related factors. As one might expect, athletes
identified themselves as least responsible for being unclear about
some aspects of their role (i.e., scope, behaviors, consequences,
evaluation). This general finding is entirely consistent with the lit-
erature on attributions for responsibility (Biddle & Hanrahan,
1998). Two factors that emerged across all four dimensions of role
ambiguity (see Tables 1 to 4) were lack of diligence and lack of ini-
tiative on the part of the athlete; both reflect an effort attribution.

Another factor that emerged across all four dimensions of role
ambiguity was lack of ability. Typically, athletes do not attribute
failure (in the present instance, failure would be a lack of under-
standing about various role dimensions) to internal factors such asa
lack of ability or a lack of effort; generally, external factors such as
coaching deficiencies or task difficulty were endorsed (Biddle &
Hanrahan, 1998). The present study focused on hypothetical situa-
tions, so it may be that when athletes actually experiencing role
ambiguity are queried, the salience of lack of commitment, lack of
initiative, and lack of ability will be deemphasized.
A second useful framework to highlight important results is the
multidimensional model for role ambiguity in sport (i.e., scope,
behaviors, evaluation, consequences) that was proposed by
Beauchamp and his colleagues (2002) and used to organize the
questions for the athletes in the present study. An examination of
the categories of responses listed in Tables 1 to 4 highlights two
important issues. First, whereas some perceived causes of role
ambiguity were common across dimensions, other causes were
idiosyncratic and specific to a particular dimension of role ambigu-
ity. As one example, the athletes identified a lack of role models as a
potential source of ambiguity only for the dimension of behavior to
fulfill responsibilities (see Table 2). In a sport setting, the learning
of appropriate formal behaviors (e.g., positional requirements) can
often be a result of watching others perform. For example, the sub-
stitutes can observe how the starting player executes his or her
responsibilities. The same could be true of a younger player (i.e.,
freshman) observing a more experienced player (i.e., senior) per-
form off-court behaviors. This interpretation is consistent with
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), which would predict that a
large amount of the learning required to execute the behaviors
necessary to perform one’s role could be obtained through
observational learning and modeling.
Another example of an idiosyncratic finding is the fact that only
the dimension of scope of responsibility did not contain a hierarchy
category. These results suggest that if athletes are unclear about
their scope of responsibilities, it is likely that ambiguity about
behaviors, consequences, and evaluation will follow.

The second issue related to examining the responses across the
role ambiguity dimensions is that the distribution of responses
across these dimensions served to further distinguish them from
each other. For example, lack of communication from the role
sender constituted 15.5% and 17.8% of the responses for the
dimensions of scope of responsibilities and behavior to fulfill role
responsibilities, respectively. Conversely, lack of communication
represented almost half (45.9%) of the responses for the dimension
of evaluation of performance. As another example, conflicting
communication from the role sender comprised 22.4% of the
responses for the role dimension consequences of not fulfilling
responsibilities but much lower percentages (3.6%-9.2%) for the
remaining three dimensions.
The understanding of role responsibilities is an important con-
cept in the psychological structure of sport teams (Carron &
Hausenblas, 1998). The present study provides another step in our
understanding of this role construct and has implications for future
research. First, these results have shown that athletes perceive role
ambiguity to emanate from a variety of different sources. In this
study, the athletes were asked to identify sources of role ambiguity
that could occur for athletes in general. Future research will need to
determine the extent to which each source is prevalent and consis-
tent across different teams, genders, and sport types.
Second, the present study only examined athletes’ perceptions
of the sources of role ambiguity, which are inherently subjective in
nature. Players and coaches hold a number of personal biases that
may sway their attributions with regard to perceptions of role ambi-
guity. Attempts to determine individual personality differences
(e.g., internal vs. external locus of control) and the sources of ambi-
guity (e.g., communication patterns between role senders and focal
person) on a sport team could provide areas of future research.
Finally, there have been no empirical studies that have sought to
examine the effect of interventions on perceptions of role ambigu-
ity. Anecdotal evidence supports a suggestion that a number of
coaches haverecognized the importance of clarifying roles for their
players. For example, Mike Keenan (a former National Hockey

League coach), in an address to the Roger Neilson Coaches’Clinic,
noted,
In the past, I have developed a very team oriented philosophy that
incorporates individual roles among the group. As an example,
some specific methods which I have utilized successfully include
one-on-one meetings with the players to employing particular on-
ice techniques during practice sessions themselves. (2001, p. 49)
This suggestion would seem to focus on improving the amount
of communication between role senders and the focal person—an
important cause of role ambiguity identified in the present study.
There have been other suggestions for improving role clarity in past
literature that have not been investigated empirically. For example,
Weinberg and Gould (2003) suggested using an effective goal-set-
ting program. Goal setting can give athletes direction as to their pri-
mary responsibilities within the team as well as motivate them to be
successful in executing their role. Also, Eys (2001) suggested the
use of teammates to help clarify roles. In this case, an athlete
receives input (this can be an anonymous process or group-oriented
technique) from teammates about what they feel his or her respon-
sibilities are on the team. This has a potential added advantage in
that the information is being delivered from the athlete’s peers,
which could lead to greater acceptance of roles. In the end, regard-
less of which technique proves to be more valuable, a greater
understanding of role responsibilities and, in turn, better role-per-
formance effectivenessis important for overallteamperformance.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1981). Effects of role stress-job design-technology interaction on
employee work satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 260-273.
Alcock, J. E., Carment, D. W., & Sadava, S. W. (1998). A textbook of social psychology.
Scarborough, Canada: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beauchamp,M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron,A. V. (2002).Role ambiguity, role effi-
cacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and mediational relationships within
interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 229-
242.

Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2003a). Multidimensional role
ambiguity and role satisfaction: A prospective examination using interdependent sport
teams. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2003b).The effect of role ambi-
guityoncompetitivestate anxiety.JournalofSport&Exercise Psychology,25(1),77-92.
Biddle, S., & Hanrahan, S. (1998). Attributions and attributional style. In J. L. Duda (Ed.),
Advancements in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 3-19). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Role clarity, role efficacy, and role performance effec-
tiveness. Small Group Research, 33, 245-265.
Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Group dynamics in sport (2nd ed.). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Organizing and interpreting
unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 127-137.
Eys, M. A. (2001, October). Role ambiguity: Research to practice. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Orlando,
FL.
Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy.
Small Group Research, 32, 356-373.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Beauchamp, M. R., & Bray, S. R. (2003). Role ambiguity in sport
teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 534-550.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2003). Role ambiguity and ath-
lete satisfaction. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(5), 391-401.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research
on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organiza-
tional stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Keenan, M. (2001, June). A philosophical position paper on player motivation. Paper pre-
sented at the Roger Neilson’s Coaches’ Clinic, Windsor, Canada.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Munroe,K.,Estabrooks,P.,Dennis,P.,&Carron,A.V.(1999).A phenomenologicalanalysis
of group norms in sport teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 171-182.
Parsons, T. (1964). The social system. New York: MacMillan.
Salzinger, K. (2001). Scientists should look for basic causes, not just effects. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 157(23), B14.
Tesch,R.(1990).Qualitativeresearchanalysistypesandsoftwaretools.NewYork:Falmer.
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould,D. (2003).Foundationsof sport andexercise psychology (3rded.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mark A. Eys is now an assistant professor in the Schoolof HumanKinetics at Lauren-
tian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His general area of interest is sport and exercise
psychology with a focus on group dynamics. Specifically, his current research inter-
ests include role ambiguity, role acceptance, and cohesion within sport teams.

Albert V. Carron is a professor in the School of Kinesiology at the University of West-
ern Ontario in London, Ontario. He teaches courses that deal with the nature of
group dynamics in sport and exercise groups. His current research interests focus on
the correlates of cohesion in sport and exercise groups.
Mark R. Beauchamp is a lecturer in sport and exercise psychology at the University
of Leeds, United Kingdom. He received his Ph.D. in 2002 from the University of Bir-
mingham, United Kingdom. His research focuses on the social psychology of groups
within sport and exercise settings with a particular interest in communication pro-
cesses, role perceptions, and motivation.
Steven R. Bray is an assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster
University inHamilton,Ontario.His researchinterests focusonsocialpsychological
factors inphysicalactivitysettingsandincludeinvestigationsofpersonal,group,and
proxy efficacy beliefs in sport, exercise, and cardiac rehabilitation.

Athletes Perceptions Of The Sources Of Role Ambiguity

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Athletes Perceptions Of The Sources Of Role Ambiguity

Similar to Athletes Perceptions Of The Sources Of Role Ambiguity (20)

More from Emily Smith

More from Emily Smith (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Athletes Perceptions Of The Sources Of Role Ambiguity