Impacts of Social Media on Athletes: Colleges Students’ Perceptions

...

Social Media Bans in College Athletics

Many institutions across the country are addressing their athletic department’s current dilemmas with social media by installing policies that restrict their athletes from using the various social media outlets. The recent policies that are being applied are causing questions regarding about students' right to freedom of speech and the authority of their teams and schools (Brousell, 2015). Although some policies extensively defined what constituted prohibited content, many invoked ambiguous language (Sanderson, 2011). This design left student-athletes to their own discretion to determine what constitutes “inappropriate” social-media content and enabled athletic departments to use strategic ambiguity (Sanderson). Brousell of CIO Magazine, stated in an article how “in many sports, particularly football and basketball, star players rise to celebrity-levels of popularity. These stars are not professionals, and universities do not pay them, but they are public figures and as such, they often draw significant media coverage” (Brousell). Brousell followed that point by expressing that “student athletes don't always make the best decisions when it comes to social media, but it's unclear whether or not coaches and teams overstep their boundaries when they impose formal social media bans or other restrictions”(Brousell). Carolynn Crabtree, founder of Cornerstone Reputation, voiced here opinion in the same article by saying “teams and coaches are likely impose social restrictions for two reasons: to be preventative and to reduce distraction” (Brousell). Crabtree was also quoted expressing “Coaches should flip that mentality and plant the seed early, and teach athletes to use social media responsibly and powerfully so they can have a genuinely positive impact and get positive attention"(Brousell). Jerry Barca of Forbes Magazine shared similar views to those of Brousell in an article he wrote. In the article Barca stated, “These are student-athletes playing games to represent their schools. Why not let the use of social media be part of that collegiate learning experience?” (Barca, 2015). This flexibility promotes more intensive regulation of student-athletes’ social-media postings but also intensifies perceptual conflictions between student-athletes and athletic department personnel about “appropriate” social-media content (Sanderson). Barca pointed out in the article how college athletes perform in front of thousands of fans with the trust of the institution every game, where these athletes raise the school’s brand (Barca). He would follow up this point with addressing the necessity to teach young adults how to act within society, which banning social media would eliminate (Barca).

Methodology

Questionnaire

A survey was developed that included a total of 24 Likert-Scale statements. Of the 24 statements, 8 related to the general impacts of social media, 5 related to self-interested reasons, 7 inappropriate comments, and 4 related to alternative actions. Each Likert-Scale statement contained five options from which the students were asked to choose. The range of responses from which to choose were: strongly agree-5, agree-4, neither agree nor disagree-3, disagree-2, and strongly disagree-1. The content of the questionnaire was determined based on current literature related to the impacts of social media on athletes. The researchers’ personal experiences of using social media also served as a source for the development of the Likert-Scale statements.

The Mailing Procedure

The questionnaire was given to a research assistant, who handed it out to his undergraduate Sport Management class for his students to complete. The process for the students included completing the questionnaire and handing it back to the primary researcher’s research assistant who, in turn, handed it to the primary researcher.

The student’s participation in this study was voluntary and was not regulated on the basis of race, gender, age, or any other characteristics. All information provided was kept confidential and maintained in a secure location. Anonymity was preserved and no identifying characteristics of the subjects (i.e., name, address, and place of employment) were included on the returned surveys. Responses were kept confidential. Those choosing to exercise their right not to participate were instructed to do so by simply not completing and returning the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was anonymous because the survey was sent out through Dr. Schneider to survey participants and when the students submitted their survey response it was returned without any of their personal information attached to the paper.

Return Rate

At the time of the distribution of the survey the total number of student participants, regardless of class level, was 31. Personally delivered questionnaires were presented to a student assistant’s undergraduate class. Of the 31 students who were given the questionnaire for the in-person survey procedure, 31 returned the survey for a 100% return rate, which is considered a typical response rate for in-person surveys. Survey research response rates are typically very low, but data clearly shows that face-to-face administration results in higher response rates than others (Nulty, 2008). For example there is a return rate of 24.8% for email surveys (FluidSurveys, 2014).

Data Analysis

All variables were summarized through the calculation of frequencies, averages, and percentages. Differences in the distribution of Likert-scale questions by impacting variables were statistically determined using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS statistics is an integrated family of products that addresses the entire analytical process, from planning to data collection to analysis, reporting and deployment (IBM SPSS Statistics, n.d.).

Results

Averages were calculated for each of the five Likert-scale options related to the perceptions of college athlete’s: general impacts of social media, self-interested reasons to use social media, inappropriate comments social media sites, alternative actions for social media use. Likert-scale choices ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree throughout the questionnaire.

Table 1.0 displays the overall rates at which all the college students (N=31) in the population surveyed agreed/disagreed with the social media impacts on college athletes that are perceived by college students. The number