An Examination of the Influence of Training Hours on Athlete Burnout RALPH APPLEBY1, PAUL A. DAVIS1, LOUISE DAVIS1, HENRICK GUSTAFSSON2, & ERIK LUNDKVIST3 1Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, U.K. 2Karlstad University, Sweden 3Umeå University, Sweden Introduction Methods The term burnout has transitioned into sport from occupational settings and is recognised by athletes, coaches, sport psychology practitioners and researchers. The most common characterisation of athlete burnout is Raedeke’s (1997)1 conceptualisation of athlete burnout as a multidimensional syndrome reflecting emotional and physical exhaustion, sport devaluation and a sense of reduced accomplishment. The demands of competitive sport require the investment of substantial time and effort into training; this can be physically and emotionally challenging and potentially contribute to burnout2. Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998)3 suggest burnout may manifest itself behaviourally and socially therefore it may be perceptible to other individuals. In non-sporting environments such as nursing, teaching and organisational settings, Bakker and colleagues4-5 have found burnout to be contagious between individuals. The concept of burnout contagion has not been investigated in sport; however aspects underlying burnout (i.e., emotions) have been acknowledged as being contagious within sport teams6. The aim of the present study was twofold: first, to explore whether athletes’ perceptions of their own burnout relates to their perceptions of teammates’ burnout. Second, to explore whether athletes’ reported number of training hours (per week) predicts their burnout and perceptions of teammates’ burnout. 140 participants completed data collection for this study Age 18-35 (M=21.6, SD = 3.3) 64 males; 76 females Participants reported training hours/week and completed two versions of the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ and TBQ)7. The team burnout questionnaire (TBQ) was created by adapting the ABQ in order to gain athletes’ perception of their teammates’ levels of burnout, e.g.: Participants were required to complete the survey at two time points between 1 and 4 months apart. At time point one, 188 participants competing at a national level, across a variety of team sports completed the questionnaires. At time point two, 140 of the 188 participants completed all questionnaires. DISCUSSION “I’m accomplishing many worthwhile things in {sport}”  “My teammates are accomplishing many worthwhile things in {sport}” Confirmatory factor analysis Results Individual and Team Burnout To test the hypothesis that perceptions of team burnout at time point one would predict athletes’ perception of their own burnout at time point two a simple linear regression was conducted and supported the hypothesis (R2 = .39, F (1,138), p < .001, β = .35, p < .001). To test the hypothesis that athletes’ burnout at time point one would predict perceptions of team burnout at time point two a simple linear regression was conducted and supported the hypothesis (R2 = .35, F (1,138), p < .001, β = .33, p < .001). Influence of Training Hours Two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted with Athlete Burnout at time point two and Team Burnout at time point two as the dependent variables: Athlete Burnout Athlete Burnout at the first time point significantly contributed to the regression model, F(1,138) = 83.61, p<.001, accounting for 37.7% of the variance in Athlete Burnout at time point two. Training hours explained an additional 2.1% of the variation in Athlete Burnout at time point two and this change in R2 was significant, F(2,137) = 45.41, p<.001. Team Burnout Team Burnout at the first time point significantly predicted 26.6% of the variance of Team Burnout at time point two F(1,138) = 49.94, p<.001. Training hours in the second stage accounted for an additional 3.1% and this change in R2 was significant, F(2,137) = 28.97, p<.001. Discussion References Over the course of the season an athlete’s ability to cope with training stress and associated recovery decreases. As their teammates share the same experiences, athletes also perceive their teammates to experience burnout. This may be explained by considering the allostatic load model. The physiological system fluctuates according to how the individual responds to and recovers from stress8. Physical symptoms (maladaptation to training) may be perceived as burnout at both an individual and team level. Firstly, athletes perceive their teammates to be burnt out as an extension of their own perceived burnout: Informed by self-perception - “I am burnt out, therefore my teammates are burnt out”. Secondly, athletes perceive their own level of burnout as a result of social interactions with teammates: Informed by perception of team – “My teammates are burnt out, therefore I am burnt out.” Limitations It is unclear as to the direction of the influence of perceived burnout. Further research and subsequent study designs are required. Burnout in sport may be contagious4-5, however the underpinning mechanism of this contagion has not been identified. Conclusion As the season progresses, training hours are likely to influence athletes’ burnout and their perceptions of teammates’ burnout. Additionally, athletes’ perceptions of their teammates’ burnout are related to their own burnout. Athletes and coaches would benefit from monitoring training hours and athletes’ perceptions of burnout both on an individual and team level. 1Raedeke, T.D (1997) JSEP, 19, pp.396-417. 2Gustafsson, H. et al (2008) PSE, 9(6), 800-16. 3Schaufeli, W et al (1998) CRC, press. 4Bakker, A.B et al (2005) JAN, 51(3), pp.276-87. 5Bakker, A.B et al (2000) JASP, 30(11), pp.2289-308. 6Totterdell, P. (2000) JAP, 85(6), 848. 7Raedeke,T.D et al (2001) JSEP, 23(4), pp.281-306. 8McEwen, B.S et al (1999) ANYAS, 896(1), pp. 30-47. Contact ralph.appleby@northumbria.ac.uk @ApplebyRalph