1 ne Acc:1uc:1111"'~ .......... _____IDENTITY FORECLOSURE,
ATHLETIC IDENTITY, AND
COLLEGE SPORT PARTICIPATION
Alan J. Good
Ball State University
Britton W. Brewer
Albert J. Petitpas
Judy L. Van Raalte
Matthew T. Mahar
Springfield College

ABSTRACT
A study was conducted with 502 college students (246 non-athletes, 90
athletes) to investigate
theintramural athletes. and 166 intercollegiate
relationship between self-identity variables (i.e .. identity foreclosure andathletic identity) and college sport participation. Results indicated that identity
foreclosure and athletic identity increase with level of sport participation.
Identity foreclosure was significantly lower for upperclass students than forunderclass students among non-athletes.
but not among intramural andintercollegiate student-athletes.
These findings suggest that intercollegiate
student-athletes
may commit to the role of ··a1hle1e·• without exploringalternative identities. Implications of the results for the academic and careerdevelopment of student-athletes are discussed.

INTRODUCTIONl

Al the typical college or university.
several hundred students
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Participation in sport at the college level
involves an enormous commitment of time and energy. Despite the prevailingnotion that sport builds character, empirical investigations have demonstrated
that student-athletes
lag behind their non-athletic counterparts in terms ofThe Academic AtnIeuc Juu•, ,.. ,rc1yt: Lo, ne Academic

Athletic Journal, Spring 1993-

psychosocial development ( Blann. 1985: Kennedy & Dimick. 1987: Malismur& Schmitt, 1975; Petitpas, 1981; Schendel. I 965; Sowa & Gressard. I 983 ).
One reason why college student-athletes may show lower levels of
psychosocial maturity is that they engage in selective optimization (Danish,1983), in which they concentrate on a sport to the exclusion of other activities
during their involvement in the sport. Consistent with this idea. it has been
hypothesized that student-athletes are at increased risk for identity foreclosure(Nelson. 1983; Petitpas & Champagne. 1988). Rooted in Erikson ·s ( 1959)
theory of psychosocial development. identity foreclosure is a construct used todescribe people who have committed to an occupation or an ideology without
first engaging in exploratory behavior (Marcia. 1966: Petitpas. 1978).

\~i~~

0
: ~tth~e~;;:~\~,ed:~~:~:ti~~e~e~~:~:~~\~::~~:~t:t;~:~i~~~~n~~;~;;f t:~:~t~;,1
Van Raa\te. and Linder (In pr . . . -\erclass ~roup than 111 the~Brewer.
·\ ld be lower 111t 1e upp.tdentitY
foreclosure
s
1ou
and
.
underclass category.

Because of the rewards and demands (both physical and psychological)
inherent in competitive sport. student-athletes may lack incenti,·e or opportunity
to explore identities other than that of •'athlete... Preliminary support for thisargument was obtained in a study of college males by Petitpas ( I 98 I). whofound that senior non-athletes were significantly less foreclosed than senior
student-athletes. freshman student-athletes. and freshman non-athletes. No
significant differences in identity foreclosure were found among the latter threegroups of subjects.
Closely related to identity foreclosure is athletic identity (Brewer. Yan
Raalte, & Linder. in press). a construct tapping the degree to which anindividual identifies with the athlete role. It has been hypothesized thatmaintaining a strong and exclusive athletic identity can produce problems inadjustment to common sport-related transitions such as tenninating competitive
sport involvement. dealing with injury. and being cut from a team (Baillie &Danish. I 992: Blinde & Greendorfer. 1985: Pearson & Petitpas. 1990).
Several investigations have prO\ ided empirical support for thishypothesis. Hinitz ( 1988) found that retired gymnasts who strongly identified
with the role of ..gymnast" and \.vho considered participation in gymnastics tobe a central source of self-definition experienced difficult adjustments toathletic retirement.
Hinitz·s results suggest that people 11 ith strong andexclusive athletic identities may fail to adopt alternative occupational identities
following their participation in sport. In the realm of injury. Kleiber and Brock( 1992) found that among college student-athletes who had experienced athletic
career-ending injuries. only those who were invested in playing professional
sports experienced a decrease in self-esteem and life satisfaction. Similarly.
Brewer (in press) presented four studies in which a strong and exclusive athletic
identity was associated with depressed mood following sport injuries.

.
. closure and athletic identity would981) it was predicted that bo~h identity fo1eA!thou~h females have be~n foundl e;se with \eve\ of ath\ellC_111vo\vem~nt. Brewe;. Van Raa\te. & Linder. 111
inc~ lower in athletic identity than males ( d to date for identity foreclosure
to e no ~ender comparisons have_been ma \ uent\v. no hypotheses were?re:~~ COl;text of sport ?ar11c1pa11on.. ~~:~~vqforec\~sure. Concernrng t~ein
ced for females wtth respect to ,d , f, research showing. that idenu_ty
adv an nee of academic standing.. the body o oe ·,ears (Bourne. \ 978: Marcia.

METHOD
Participants. . . ductory psychology.
- --i . d 1ts enrolled ,n ,nt10.
.. . \
Participants were ::iO- s'.u e1 . small colleges and u111vers1t1es111t 1eh •siolog.y. or research c~urses ,\\ four this sample. \ 66 stude~ts (71 females~o~theast region of the Umted ~tates. ~nt-ath\etes. 90 students ()0 females andd 95 males\ were intercolleg1a1e stud_ d 746 students ( 180 females and 66
a4n011a\es\ were intramural athletes. ,in_ - col\eoiate and intramural student1·\
A · a oroup. 111ter "'. · · ( " baseball·-Iles) were non-ath etes.
s_ ::: .d ,.. ty of sport acuv1ues e.::,•• .
. ,.. soccer. softball. swimming,:~~\e~es reported involveme'.n in alt o~,1~1a::1:tics
basketball. field hockey. lootba . :::,

f

\

I
I

vol\eyba\\l.

- \ \ ~ 1·oreclosure subsca\e of the
F. 1--, ·sed wit 1 111::- OM-ElS: Adams. Shea. & nc 1.
lden1i1v foreclosure was asses.
f Eoo Jdenutv Status '· -- es such as
Objective \1easure o:::. .- ·1. of six statements on ,ssu_ .
.
\979). The foreclosure subscale con;~\~ondents are asked to indicate the1~politics. religion. and occupa11on: . -·point Liken-type scale with ancho7
aoreement with each statement o_na six .. :\dequ·1te internal cons1<;tency (a p1&a:::.. and ..strondv disagree. .
'b - . \e ( .;dams. Shea. '..strongly agree.
.- .d for the foreclosure su sea,==.7 6 l has been demonstrate

Measurest

Fitch. 1979).
. .
. the Athletic Identity Measurement
Athletic identity was assess,ed i~~~- in press). The Al~S_,s a ten-_item. le l 'JMS· Brewer. Van Raa\te. & L \ . ··t)' of an individual s ,dent1f1cat1on
Sca ,...., ·ld exc us1,1
80
9~)
scale that measures the strengt 1 anl . ·stency (alphas ranging from . to .. dcoln4s1d·1)'
period (r ==.89) have been reporte\v1·1hthe athlete role. rHigh1ntema
b. I tV over a - 'and high test-retest re ,a ' i . \ & Linder, in press).
for the AIMS (Brewer, Van Raa te.

Assuming that late adolescence is a critical period for identity
development (Erikson. 1968). the purpose of this study 11 as to examine identity
foreclosure and athletic identity across three levels of athletic involvement(intercollegiate sport participation. intramural sport participation. no sportparticipation) in male and female upperclass and underclass college students.
Based on previous research (Brewer. Yan Raalte. & Linder. in press: Petitpas.

I

L

l

Page 4j

Procedure---

The Academic Athletic Journal , S prmg
.
1993

?
I
l

!
'

1

The Academic Athletic JOUfllc:11

Table l (continued)____;_---------------------------

Participants com I.
d~mographic infonnation p ~ted the quesuonnaires and a ao.
with institutional review
.
dunng
a
regularly
scheduled. p ?e requestingboard
c Iass sessionI. .
1
the questionnaires constituted thp~
parllcipants
wereinfonnedth.at returnn accord
e1ricy.
consent
to part.ic1pate.
. the study.
ofmNon-athlete

Group

Underclass
Males

I

M
SD
FemalesM
SD!lMeans and standard de . .
Table I. In the ANOVA
viat1ons of foreclosure score .
class IE<1.490) = 7 46 perfom1ed on foreclosure scor.
Is are _presented in
8.6.3. < 00
, . . 12< .0 I) and level or ah . . es. t ,e mam effects forstalt~~ticallysignificant. Th~
ienf;olv~ment [E(2.490) =swtistTcaiiv- . '=",mt _( 1.490) = 2.41.12 > .05).
ect or gender was not~~~i~Table l\1eans and Standard D e, .·ia11ons.
of Foreclosure Scores
Level of A t hi et1c
· Involvement
Non-athlete

IntramuralIntercollegiate

M

12.68

15.96

15.96

SD

5.38

3.46

4.67

44

26

54

M

I 3.49

14.64

16.51

SD

4.80

5.42

5.31

_:,
r

39

L;pperclass\'!ales

Females

.!l

130

5.50
14

16.54
4.28
41

\ 5.10
4.44
50

\5.24
4.80
25

16.34
4.12
32

The significant main effects of class and \eve\ of athletic involvement
were superseded by the s1atistica\ly significant class by \eve\ of athletic
involvement lE(2.490) = 3.67 -12< .051. Inspection of the simple effects of class. within each level of athletic involvement revealed that although there were no
significant class differences for intramural and intercollegiate student-athletes,
upperclass non-athletes had significantly lower foreclosure scores than

Foreclosure

!l

3.88

15.71

!l

Separate 3 (]eve I of I I . .
analyses of variancei
at 1 ellc mvolvement) X ? oesco<es. Thm aoaly;:;ovAs]
wm pecfmm,d on fo;;d:~~n X 2d(class)foreclosure and_- . we_re mtended to examin.
re _an AIMS
Gender and clas:t~:,et1c _1dent11y
a_crossthe three levets differences in identity
been fd. ere mcluded in the ANOVA b
of athletic mvolvement
Rool1/~' Lit~d~:celated to ;d,n1;1yva,;abies ;n ;":;;:'""
thm ,adables ha,;. Ill press: Petit pas. 1981).
us research (Brewer. Van

Group

17.18
22

RESULTSs:lr~:~~~

Level of Athletic Involvement
Intercollegiate
IntramuralI

I

underclass non-athletes lE<\ .490) = 17.43. 12< .00 \ }.
The gender by class. gender by \eve\ of athletic involvement. andgender by class by \eve\ of athletic involvement interactions were notstatistically significant. indicating that foreclosure scores tended to decrease
with ad\'ancing class status for both males and females and that foreclosure
scores tended to increase with level of athletic involvement for both males andfemale~.

Athletic Identity\1eans and standard deviations of AIMS scores are displayed in Table
In 1he ANOVA performed on AlMS scores. the main effects for genderlEt \ .490) = 26.96. g < .001) and level of athletic involvement [E(:?..490) =179.19. g < .00\1 were statistically significant. The main effect for class was-i

not qatistica\ly significant lE<\ .490) = 2.41. g > .05].

,..a e 6

The Academic Athletic Journal, S

1993

The Academic AtnIeuc uuu11 ,rI

I.A~-•

Table 2[f:(2.490) = l 81.08. 12< .00 I) and underclass s1uden1-athletes I.E(2.490) = 56.76. 12< .001).

Means and Standard Deviations of AIMS ScoresGroup
Upperclass

Level of Athletic Jn\'olvement
Non-athlete
IntramuralIntercollegiai;

Males
M

31.21

SD

45.42

12.74

51.72

7.85

D.

44

9.22

26

54

Females

M

24.89

SD

41.16

12.03

49.59

9.29

10.03

.Q

130

,-

_.)

39

UnderclassMales
M

41 .4 lSD

46.14

l l .19

49.29

6.76

22

10.75

14

41

26.18
11.10
50

41.36
10.44
..,_.)

50.22
7.75

.Q

Females

M
SD
.Q

.,_

DISCUSSION
This study examined identity foreclosure and athletic identity in maleand female upperclass and underclass college students across three levels of sportparticipation. Empirical support was provided for the hypothesis that studentarhletes are susceptible 10 identity foreclosure. as foreclosure scores increased
with the level of athletic involvemenl. Similar to the results of Petitpas ( 1981 ).
upperclass non-athletes were significantly less foreclosed than underclass nonathletes. but no such developmental decrease was observed for intramural orintercollegiate
s1uden1-a1hle1es. It is possible that the demands of sportparticipation and the restrictive. sheltered nature of the competitive sport
environment discourage student-athletes from exploring alternative identities(Chartrand & Lent. 1987: Nelson. 1983: Petitpas & Champagne. 1988; Shifflette& Galante. 1985).
Bolstering this interpretation are the findings for athletic identity in thisstudy. which. as expected. indicated that strength and exclusivity of identification
with the athlete role increased with le\'e] of athletic involvement. It is worth
noting that athletic identity and foreclosure scores were significantly conelated
for 1he full sample lr(50 I)= .21. 12< .00 I]. This suggesis that athletic identity andiden1i1y foreclosure are distinct yet related constructs.

"').
Superseding the significant main effect f o
im·oJvement were the folio,···. .
. so eender and level of athletic.
,•mg stat1st1caJJv sion"f·.
le,el _01_athletic invoh·ement fE0.490);
7 ~41 icant mt:r~Cl!ons: gender byathletic 111voh·ement[F(.2.49 0) =.., ,--~ · Q < .00:,]. class by level of· ·.J. 1-· 12< 0:,J and 0 ender b1 et1c 111v0Jvement[F(' 490 ) _.., ..,1
· _ ·e
Y c Jass b,v level of
at 11
- -·
- _,_.,__ 12< .0:,J,Examination of the simple effects f. .
athletic involvement revealed that , I I d o gender w11hrn each level ofma es ia s1ornf1cantJ)' h' hth· 1·<
ig er AIMS scores. an. emales among non-athletes [f( I .490) = 4; 4 'J
s1gn1f1cant gender effects on the A1~1s f :-· -· Q .00!]. There were no~"or rntramuraJd ·.
stu dent-athletes. The simple effects of the level of. an mtercolJeg1a1e
each gender and v.:ithin each class showed th Athletic mvo!vemenr wirhin
level of athletic involvement for both males
sco_res increased with
- 19:i.82, 12< .001] andfemales [£(2,490) = 56.39. 12< .001] and for_b-,hor upperclass student-arhleres[F;;
49[;;~

Inspection of the simple effects of class within each level of athletic
involvement indicated thal. although there were no significant class differences
for intramural and intercollegiate student-athletes. underclass non-athletes had
significantly higher AIMS scores than upperclass non-athletes I.E(1.490) = 12.08.
12:: .005). However. the class effect within non-athletes held only for males. since
the AIMS scores of upperclass and underclass female non-athletes did not differ
significantly.

"Jo gender differences were found for identity foreclosure. Thus. it
appears that the findings of Petitpas ( 1981) obtained with male college s1Uden1s
apply IO female college students as ,,·ell. A gender difference was found on
athletic idenlity only for non-athletes. ,, ith male non-athletes having significantly
higher AIMS scores than female non-athletes. This finding suggests that male andfemale student-athletes identify themselves with the athlete role in a similar
fashion.
There are several importanl limitations of this study. First. the crosssectional design tha1 was used does no1 permit causal conclusions regarding therela1ions among sport participation. academic standing. and self-identity (athletic
identity and identity foreclosure) in college students. In the future. it would be
prudent to employ longitudinal designs 10 examine more thoroughly identity
development in student-athletes. Second. participants in this study were students
at NCAA Division 11 and Division III institutions.
Replicationof thisinvestigation with NCAA Division I student-athletes is recommended. However,r--ctgeo, . ,e Acaaem1c Atn1e11cJournal, :spring 1 !::l!::IJ

it might be anticipated that some of the findings of this stud:, might be evenmore pronounced among students at Division I institutions, where theexpec1ation of "turning pro" by student-athletes is probably much higher than atNCAA Division II and Division III institutions.

Implications
The results of this study imply that college student-athletes may
identify strongly with the athlete role to the extent that they fail to explore
alternative identities. These findings have ramifications for the academic andcareer development of student-athletes. Because of their intense involvement insport, student-athletes
may not identify. explore, and e\ entually pursue
academic and career options of potential interest. Althou£h an association
between identity foreclosure and career maturity has not b;en demonstrated
empirically in student-athletes.
research in non-athletic populations has
indicated that identity foreclosure is positively related to a dependent decisionmaking style that is considered maladaptive in the career deYelopment process(Blustein & Phillips. 1990).
Athletes sometimes encounter difficulty upon tem1inating involvement
in competitive sport (Baillie & Danish. 1992: Crook & Robertson. 1991:
Garbett. 1985). For example. documented sequelae of athletic ..retirement;.
include low life satisfaction (Kleiber & Brock. 1992: Wenhner & Orlick. 1986).
psychologicaldistress (Blinde & Stratta. 1992). and ~ubstance abuse(Mihovilovic. 1968). Failure 10 forn1Ulate adequate post-spon career plans may
in part account for the difficulties faced by some retired athletes. The findin£sof this swdy are of concern to the extent that an exclusive identification with thea1hle1erole prohibits career planning.
The current study and those of Blann ( 1985). Kennedv and Dimick( 1987 l. and Sowa and Gressard ( 1983) pro\·ide a rationaie for careerde\·elopmcnt interventions for college student-athletes (Jordan & Denson. 1990:
Lanning. 1982: Nelson. 1982: Pearson & Petitpas. 1990: Petitpas &Champagne. 1988: Riffee & Alexander. I 99 I: Sanders. 1992: Wilkes. Davis. &De\er. 1989: Wittmer. Bostic. Phillips. & \\.aters. 1981). Preliminarv researchsugges1s that career development progr::ims for student-athletes ar~ effective(7'ielson. 1992) and well-received by partic,p::ints (Petitpas. Danish. McKelvain.
& !\1urphy. I 992: Wilkes. DaYis. & Dever. 1989). It is hoped that. throughfurther empiric::il research and ongoing program evaluation. effective
interventions will be developed to ease the difficulties of s1uden1-a1hle1es
making the transition out of intercollegiate spon involvement.

II

REFERENCESJ

A d am. G . R .. Sl1ea • ··objective& Fitch. S. A. ( J979). Toward the development of anassessmentof ego identity

st::itus. Journalof Youth andAdolescence. li. 223-237.
Baillie. P. H. F.. & Danish. S. J. ( I 992). Understanding the career transition of
athletes. The Sport Psvcholo£ist. Q. 77-98.
Blann, w. (1985). Intercollegiate athletic competition and students· educationaland career plans. Journal of Colle2e Student Personnel. 26. 115-118.
Blinde. E. M., & Greendorfer, S. L. ( 1985). A reconceptualization of theprocess of leaving the role of competitive athlete. International Re\'iew for
the SocioloQV of Sport. 20. 87-93.
Blinde. E. M .. & Stratta. T. M. (1992). The --sport career death .. of college
athletes: Involuntary and unanticipated sport exits. Journal of Sport
Beha\'ior. D., 3-20.
Blustein. D. L.. & Phillips. S. D. ( I 990). Relation between ego identity statuses
and decision-making styles. Journal of Counselin£ Psvcholo£v. 37. 160168.

Bourne. E. ( 1978). The state of research on ego identity:.
.
- n~ roappraisal. Journal o1 Youth and Adolescence. J_. __ J-_) •A review and

Brewer. B. w. (in press). Self-identity and specific vulnerability to depressed
mood. Journal of Person::ilitv.
Bre\,er. B. w .. Van Raalte. J. L.. & Linder. D. E. (in press). Athletic identity:
Hercules· muscles or Achilles· heel"> International Journal of Sport
PsvchoJoQv.
Chartrand. J.M .. & Lent. R. W. (1987). Sports counseling: Enhancing thedevelopmentof the student-athlete.
Journal of CounselinQ and
Development. 66. I 64- I 67.
Crook, J. M .. & Robertson,

S. E. ( J 991 ). Transitions

International Journal of Sport Psvcholo2v. 22. 115-127.

out of elite sport.

Page 10The Academic Athletic Journalrhe Academic Athletic Journal, Spring 1993

Danish. S. J. ( 1983). Musings about personal competence: The contributions ofsport, health. and fitness. American Journal of Communit\' PsvcholoQv. ] J
221-240.
_,
Erikson. E. H. ( 1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers.
Psycholo!.!ical issues monoQraph. 1. New York: International Universities
Press.

..,age 11

Mihovilovic. M. ( 1968). The status of forn1er sportsmen. International Review
of Sport SocioloQV, l, 73-93.
Nelson. E. S. (1982). The effects of career counseling on freshman college
athletes. Journal of Sport Psvcholo!.!v, 1, 32-40.
Nelson. E. S. (1983). How the myth of the dumb jock becomes fact: A
developmental view for counselors. Counseling and Values, 27. 176-185.

Erikson, E. H. ( 1968). ldentitv. vouth. and crisis. New York: Norton.
Gorbet!, F. J. ( I 985). Psycho-social adjustment of athletes to retirement. In L.
K. Bunker, R. J. Rotella, & A. S. Reilly (Eds.), Sport psychologv:
Psycho]OQical considerations in maximizinQ sport performance (pp. 288294 ). Ann Arbor. Ml: Mouvement.

Pearson, R. E .. & Petitpas, A. J. ( 1990). Transitions of athletes: Developmental
and preventive perspectives. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69,
7-10.
Petit pas. A. ( 1978). Identity foreclosure: A unique challenge. Personnel andGuidance Journal, 56, 558-561.

Hinitz, D. R. ( 1988). Role theorv and the retirement of colleQiate QVmnasts.
Unpubished doctoral dissertation. University of Nevada. Reno.
Jordan. J.M .. & Denson. E. L. (1990). Student services for athletes: A modelfor enhancing the student-athlete experience. Journal of Counseli11Q and
Development. 69. 95-97.

Petit pas. A. ( \ 981 ). The identity development of the male intercollegiate athlete(Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2508A.
Petit pas . .A..• & Champagne, D. E. ( 1988). Dev.elopmental programming forintercollegiate athletes. Journal of Colle!.!e Student Development, 29, 454460.

Kennedy. S. R .. & Dimick. K. M. ( 1987). Career maturity and professional
sports expectations of college football players. Journal of Col]eQe Student
Personnel. 28. 293-297.

·, D · h S .. McKelvain. R .. & Murphv., S.( 1992). A career
P et1tpas .. -... anis .
assistance program for elite athletes. Journal of CounselingandDevelopment. 70, 383-386.

Kleiber. D. A .. & Brock. S. C. ( 1992). The effect of career-ending injuries on
the subsequent well-being of elite college athletes. Sociologv of Sport
Journal. 2. 70-75.
Lanning. W. ( l 982 ). The privileged few: Special counseling needs of athletes.
Journal of Sport Psvchologv_ 1. l 9-23.
Malismur. M. C.. & Schmitt. N. ( 1975). Social adjustment differences between
student athletes and student nonathletes as measured by ego development.
Spon Socio\ogv Bulletin.:±. 2-12.
Marcia. J. E. ( 1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journalof Personalitv and Social Psvcho]oQv, }. 551-558.
Marcia. J. E. ( 1976). Studies in ego identitv. Burnaby. British Columbia: Simon
Fraser University.

Riffee. K .. & Alexander. D. ( l 991 ). Career strategies for student-athletes: Ade,·elopmental model of intervention. In E. F. Etzel. A. P. Ferrante. & J. W.
Pinkne\' (Eds.). Counselingcolle!.!e student-athletes:
Issues andinterve~tions (pp. l Ol-120). Morgantown. WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Sanders. E. J. ( 1992). Implementing a career development program for studentathletes. Academic Athletic Journal, Fall. 24-29.
Schendel. J. S. ( 1965). Psychologic differences between athletes andnonparticipants in athletics at three educational levels. Research Ouanerlv,
36. 52-67.
Shifflette. 8 .. & Galante, F. (I 985). A career development model for college
athletes. Journal of College Placement, 1, 27-29.

rc:1

e I~

1ne Academic Athletic Journal, S

1993

The Academic Athletic JournaI

Sowa, C. J., & Gressard, C. F. ( 1983) Athl .
. . .
II etS1cpart1c1pa11on: Ics relationship to
student development. Journal ofo ege tudent Personnel. 24, 236-239.

C

Werthner, P., & Orlick T (1986) R 1·
' ·• e irement e •·pxpenences of successful
Olympic athletes. International Journal of S
port svcho]ogv.11, 337_ 363 _Wilkes ' S . B ., D av1s,· L ., & Dever, L. ( 1989) F.
student athletes. Journal of C IIS
. ostenng career developmento ege tudent Development. 30. 567-568.

inWittmer, J., Bostic, D., Phillips T D & W
aters, W. ( l 981 ). The personalacademic, and career proble:ns .of ., IIco ege student athl t .
answers. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 52-55.
e es. ome possibles. 'OCCUPATIONAL INTERESTPATTERNS ANDPERSONALITY STYLES OFFRESHMAN STUDENT-ATHLETES
Eric L. Denson
Janice M. Jordan
Kelly E. Green
Jennifer A. Harris
University of Delaware
ABSTRACTThe existence and relationship of common personality styles andoccupational orientations were explored.
Student-athletes
and non-athletes
enrolled in a freshman seminar completed the Personality Adjective Check List
and the Strong Interest Inventory. The results suggest that s1Uden1-a1hletes andnon-a1hle1es differ on several personality and occupacional variables and that
personality sryle has an important relationship 10 occupational orientation andinterests. Implications for athletic counseling professionals are discussed.

INTRODUCTION
One of the most important developmental tasks college students face isthat of establishing their personal identities (Chickering. 1975). While there aremany ways and sources from which identity is derived, a primary way in which
idemity is established is through the choice of careers. Casual observation ofinterpersonal interactions will bear this out. One of the most common andpowerful ways which people use 10 identify themselves 10 others is throughsharing their work roles or. in the case of college students, academic majors. It
is rare to hear people describe themselves without reference to the work they do(or do not do, as in the case of the unemployed) or to the major they are
pursuing.
This information provides the basis for many interactions
andrelationships.