A STUDY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF PLAYERS IN DIFFERENT POSITIONAL

PLAY IN HOCKEY

By
J. JAMES

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Mrs. P. ESTHER RANJINI
INTRODUCTION
 The psychology of the different positions in
hockey competition may differ, while the goal
keeper concentrates on defending the goal shots,
the forwards always tend to strike the goal.

 Thus, the responsibilities entrusted to the different

positioned players in the game situation are
different and these activities are bound to form
differences on psychological levels of the different
positioned players.

 This hypothetical notion has to be tested through

research and for this purpose the investigator
ventured this research to make this study
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
 To study whether there would be any difference on
anxiety among hockey players playing in different
positions.

 To study whether there would be any difference on

aggression among hockey players playing in different
positions.

 To study whether there would be any difference on team

cohesion (cooperation) among hockey players playing in
different positions.

 To study whether there would be any difference on

personality characters, extroversion and neuroticism
among hockey players playing in different positions.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
 The purpose of this study was to make a study on
selected psychological characteristics, of players
in different positional play in Hockey.

 The investigator selected psychological

characteristics such as anxiety, aggression,
cooperation (team cohesion and its sub sects,
attraction task, attraction social, group integration
task and group integration social) and personality
traits (Eysenicks Personality Traits - extroversion
and neuroticism) of different positional hockey
players, namely, defenders, midfielders and
attackers in hockey.
HYPOTHESES

 It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference in anxiety among different positional players
in hockey.

 It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference in aggression among different positional
players in hockey.

 It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference in team cohesion and its dimensions among
different positional players in hockey.

 It was hypothesized that there would be no significant

difference in personality traits among different positional
players in hockey.
 DELIMITATIONS
 This study was conducted among school level men hockey players
who had represented their schools in inter-school tournaments.

 The age of the players selected were between 15 and 17 years.

 The subjects were further classified based on their position of play,

namely, defenders, attackers and midfielders.

 The following dependent variables were selected for this study:

1. Anxiety
2. Aggression
3. Team Cohesion (i. Attracting Task, ii. Attracting Social, iii. Group Integration
Task and iv. Group Integration Social)

4. Personality Traits (i. Extroverts / Introverts ii. Neuroticism / Stable)

FLOW CHART SHOWING METHDOLOGY ADAPTED IN
THE RESEARCH
HOCKEY
PLAYERS N= 90

DEFENDERS MIDFIELDERS ATTACKERS

N=30 N=30 N=30

Data Collection
1. Anxiety
2. Aggression
3. Team Cohesion
a. Attracting Task
b. Attracting Social
c. Group Integration Task
d. Group Integration Social
4. Personality Traits
a. Extroversion / Introversion
b. Neuroticism / Stable

Statistical Analysis
Descriptive Statistics, Analysis of Variance and
Scheffe’s Post Hoc Test

RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS
 ANALYSIS OF DATA
RESULTS ON ANXIETY
COMPUTATION OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON ANXIETY AMONG
HOCKEY PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS
(Scores in Numbers)

SOURCE MEAN
ATTAC- OF SUM OF SQUARE OBTAINED
KERS MIDFIELDERS DEFENDERS VARIANCE SQUARES df S F RATIO

Between 149.49 2 74.74

Means 55.87 54.63 52.73 4.58*
Within 1418.30 87 16.30

Table F-ratio at 0.05 level of confidence for 2 and 87 (df) =3.10.

* Significant
 SCHEFFE’S POST HOC TEST ANALYSIS ON ANXIETY AMONG
ATTACKERS, MIDFIELDERS AND DEFENDERS OF HOCKEY

Mean Values of
MEAN Required
Attackers Midfielders Defenders DIFFERENCE C.I.

55.87 54.63 1.23 2.60

55.87 52.73 3.13* 2.60

54.63 52.73 1.90 2.60

* Significant at 0.05 level

Bar Diagram Showing the Mean Values of Attackers, Midfielders and
Defenders on Psychological Characteristics Anxiety

56

A N X IE T Y S C O R E S 55.5
55
54.5
54
53.5
53
52.5
52
51.5
51
Attackers Midfielders Defenders
Means 55.87 54.63 52.73
DISCUSSIONS ON ANXIETY
 The results proved that, the obtained F ratio value on the
scores of anxiety 4.58 was greater than the required F
table value of 3.10, which proved that there was a
significant difference in psychological characteristic
anxiety among attackers, midfielders and defenders of
hockey.
 The post hoc analysis proved that significant differences
existed between attackers and defenders and there was
no significant difference between attackers and midfielders
and midfielders and defenders.
 The results of this study is in agreement with the findings
of Janelle CM.(2002), who indicated that gaze behaviour
tendencies are reliably altered when performers are
anxious.
 RESULTS ON AGGRESSION
COMPUTATION OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON AGGRESSION AMONG HOCKEY
PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS
(Scores in Numbers)

ATTAC- MIDFIEL- DEFEN- SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN OBTAINED

KERS DERS DERS VARIANCE SQUARES Df SQUARES F RATIO

Between 368.60 2 184.30

Means 71.83 73.63 76.73 11.30*

Within 1419.00 87 16.31

Table F-ratio at 0.05 level of confidence for 2 and 87 (df) =3.10.

* Significant
SCHEFFE’S POST HOC TEST ANALYSIS ON AGGRESSION AMONG ATTACKERS,
MIDFIELDERS AND DEFENDERS OF HOCKEY

Mean Values of
MEAN Required
Attackers Midfielders Defenders DIFFERENCE C.I.

71.83 73.63 1.80 2.60

71.83 76.73 4.90* 2.60

73.63 76.73 3.10* 2.60

* Significant at 0.05 level.

Bar Diagram Showing the Mean Values of Attackers, Midfielders and
Defenders on Psychological Characteristics Aggression

77
76
75
A G G R E S S IO N

74
73
72
71
70
69
Attackers Midfielders Defenders
Means 71.83 73.63 76.73
DISCUSSIONS ON AGGRESSION
 The results showed that the obtained F ratio value on the
scores of aggression 11.30 was greater than the required F
table value of 3.10, which proved that the there was
significant difference in psychological characteristic
aggression among attackers, midfielders and defenders of
hockey.

 The post hoc analysis proved that significant differences

existed between attackers and defenders and midfielders
and defenders, and there was no significant difference
between attackers and midfielders.

 The findings of this study proved that attackers and

midfielders were more aggressive than defenders of the
hockey players. The findings are in agreement with
McCarthy and Kelly (1998) who rated high in aggression
scored significantly more goals than those low in aggression.
 RESULTS ON TEAM COHESION
COMPUTATION OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON TEAM COHESION
AMONG HOCKEY PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS
(Scores in Numbers)
ATTAC- MIDFIEL- DEFEN- SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN OBTAINE
MEANS KERS DERS DERS VARIANCE SQUARES df SQUARES D F RATIO

Attraction Between 61.76 2 30.88

19.17 19.50 17.60 4.41*
Task Within 608.87 87 7.00
Attraction Between 20.87 2 10.43
20.47 21.20 20.03 1.03
Social Within 881.23 87 10.13
Group Between 8.42 2 4.21
Integration 24.13 24.87 24.37 0.63
Task Within 583.90 87 6.71

Group Between 61.76 2 30.88

Integration 17.67 19.60 18.10 5.14*
Social Within 522.57 87 6.01

Between 413.87 2 206.93

Overall 81.43 85.17 80.10 4.87*
Within 3698.23 87 42.51

Table F-ratio at 0.05 level of confidence for 2 and 87 (df) =3.10.

* Significant
 SCHEFFE’S POST HOC TEST ANALYSIS ON TEAM COHESION AMONG
ATTACKERS, MIDFIELDERS AND DEFENDERS OF HOCKEY

Variables Attackers Midfielders Defenders Mean Required

Difference CI

19.17 19.50 0.33 1.70

Attraction Task 19.17 17.60 1.57 1.70

19.50 17.60 1.90* 1.70

17.67 19.60 1.93* 1.58

Group
Integration 17.67 18.10 0.43 1.58
Social
19.60 18.10 1.50 1.58

81.43 85.17 3.73 4.19

Team Cohesion
81.43 80.10 1.33 4.19
(Overall)
85.17 80.10 5.07* 4.19

* Significant at 0.05 level.

 Bar Diagram Showing the Mean Values of Team Cohesion Dimensions
among Attackers, Midfielders and Defenders
27

25
S c o re s

23

21

19

17

15
Attackers Midfielders Defenders
Attraction 19.17 19.5 17.6
Task
Attraction 20.47 21.2 20.03
Social
Group 24.13 24.87 24.37
Integration
Task
DISCUSSIONS ON TEAM COHESION
 The results proved that the obtained F ratios, 4.41, 5.14 and 4.87 on mean
values on the scores of team cohesion dimensions ‘attraction task’, ‘group
integration social’ and ‘team cohesion (overall) respectively were greater
than the required F table value of 3.10, which proved that there was
significant differences in psychological characteristic team cohesion and its
dimensions, attraction task and group integration social among attackers,
midfielders and defenders of hockey.

 The obtained F ratios 1.03, 0.63 for mean values on team cohesion
dimensions ‘attraction social’ and ‘group integration task’ respectively were
less than the required F table value of 3.10, which proved that there was no
significant difference in respect of these team cohesion dimensions.

 The post hoc analysis proved that significant difference existed between
midfielders and defenders in attraction task dimension, attackers and
midfielders in group integration social dimension and midfielders and
defenders in team cohesion (overall) and there was no significant difference
among other comparisons.

 The results of this study proved that midfielders were possessing better
social cohesion perception than the attackers and defenders and their
perception along with the attackers and defenders contribute for the better
achievement of the objective of the teams.
 RESULTS ON PERSONALITY TRAITS
COMPUTATION OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON EYSENCK
PERSONALITY TRAITS HOCKEY PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS

MEANS
ATTAC- MIDFIEL- DEFEN- SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN OBTAINE
KERS DERS DERS VARIANCE SQUARES df SQUARES D F RATIO

Between 61.76 2 30.88

19.17 19.50 17.60 4.41*
Extroversion
Within 608.87 87 7.00
/ Introversion

Between 20.87 2 10.43

20.47 21.20 20.03 Within 881.23 87 10.13 1.03

Neuroticism /
Stable
 SCHEFFE’S POST HOC TEST ANALYSIS ON PERSONALITY TRAITS
AMONG ATTACKERS, MIDFIELDERS AND
DEFENDERS OF HOCKEY
Variables Attackers Midfielders Defenders MD Required
CI

15.27 14.67 0.60 1.33

Extroversion /
15.27 13.63 1.63* 1.33
Introversion

14.67 13.63 1.03 1.33

12.47 11.40 1.07* 1.06

Neuroticism /
12.47 9.80 2.67* 1.06
Stable

11.40 9.80 1.60* 1.06

* Significant at 0.05 level.

Bar Diagram Showing the Mean Values of Personality Traits among
Attackers, Midfielders and Defenders

20

15

SCORES
10

0
Midfielde Defender
Attackers
rs s
Extroversion / 15.27 14.67 13.63
Introversion
Neuroticism/Stab 12.47 11.4 9.8
le
DISCUSSION ON PERSONALITY TRAITS
 The obtained F ratios, 4.80 and 19.97 on mean values on the scores of
personality trait dimensions ‘extroversion/introversion’, and ‘neuroticism/stable’
respectively were greater than the required F table value of 3.10, which proved
that there was significant differences in psychological characteristic personality
traits and its dimensions among attackers, midfielders and defenders of
hockey.

 The post hoc analysis proved that significant differences existed between
attackers and defenders in ‘extroversion/introversion’ and in ‘neuroticism/stable’
dimension, there were also significant differences between attackers and
midfielders, midfielders and defenders and attackers and defenders.

 The results of this study proved that midfielders were possessing better social
cohesion perception than the attackers and defenders and their perception
along with the attackers and defenders contribute for the better achievement of
the objective of the teams.

 In this study, it was found that attackers were significantly extroverts and
defenders were more stable than other positional players. Thus, the results of
this study, is in agreement with the findings of Rogulj (2005), who found
differences for assessment of extroversion, which was most pronounced in
wings, whereas psychotic behavior was more expressed in those at pivot
position
DISCUSSION ON HYPOTHESIS
 The null hypothesis on anxiety was rejected and the alternative
hypothesis that there would be significant difference in anxiety
between attackers and defenders of hockey was accepted at 0.05
level.

 The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis that
there would be significant differences in aggression between
defenders and attackers, and defenders and midfielders of hockey
was accepted at 0.05 level.

 The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis that
there would be significant differences in team cohesion and its
dimensions, attraction task and group integration social between
midfielders and defenders were of hockey was accepted at 0.05 level

 The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis that
there would be significant differences in personality traits among
different positional players in hockey was accepted at 0.05 level.
CONCLUSIONS

 It was concluded that there was significant differences in anxiety

among defenders and attackers of school level hockey players.
And it was concluded that attackers were significantly more anxious
than defenders.

 It was concluded that there was significant differences in

aggression among defenders and attackers, and defenders and
midfielders of school level hockey players. And it was concluded
that defenders were significantly more aggressive than attackers
and midfielders.

 It was concluded that there was significant differences in team

cohesion dimensions ‘attraction task’, ‘group integration social’ and
‘team cohesion (overall)’. It was found that midfielders were
significantly better than defenders in team cohesion dimension
‘attraction task’, midfielders were significantly better than attackers
in team cohesion dimension ‘group integration social’, and
midfielders were significantly better than defenders in team
cohesion (overall).
CONCLUSIONS…..

 It was concluded that there was no significant difference among

different positional players, namely, attackers, midfielders and
defenders in team cohesion dimensions, ‘attraction social’ and
‘group integration task’.

 It was concluded that there was significant difference between

defenders and attackers in personality trait
extroversion/introversion and it was found that attackers were
significantly extroverts than defenders.

 It was concluded that there was significant difference between

defenders and attackers, defenders and midfielders in personality
trait neuroticism/stability and it was found that defenders were
significantly more stable than attackers and midfielders.
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Efforts may be taken with proper psychological preparation to have
balanced anxiety, aggression, team cohesion and personality traits
for better achievements right from school level players.

 The research was conducted among players of different positions

among school level hockey players. A similar study may be
undertaken among hockey players of different positions at college,
university and state level.

 A similar research may be undertaken among women hockey

players.

 Researches may be undertaken to assess the differences among

different positional players by including psychological variables,
locus of control, stress, achievement motivation which may have
direct influence on the playing situation of the players.

 Researches may be undertaken to introduce suitable psycho

regulative programme and its effects on selected psychological
characteristics of players of different positions among hockey
players
THANK YOU
By
J. JAMES