SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Spor Egzersiz ve Antrenman Bilimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

Athlete Identification and Decision-Making in Basketball Players: Age and Gender as Moderators

Basketbolcularda Sporcu Özdeşleşmesi ve Karar Verme: Yaş ve Cinsiyetin Düzenleyici Rolü

Mehmet Kara(Mersin Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9454-5164
Gültekin Lekesiz(MERSIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3927-0828
Ferhat Caner Açıkbaş(MERSIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0219-8447
Şekip Can Deli(MUS ALPARSLAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8689-7709
Pages
134–144
Publication Date
2026-10-18
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The findings indicate that the relationship between athlete identification and effective decision-making varies according to age and gender.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: We examined the relationship between athlete identification and effective decision-making in basketball players, testing whether age and gender moderate this relationship.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Athletic identity significantly and positively predicted internal decision-making.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The findings indicate that the relationship between athlete identification and effective decision-making varies according to age and gender.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yaş · Sporcu Kimliği · Basketbol

Abstract

Aim: We examined the relationship between athlete identification and effective decision-making in basketball players, testing whether age and gender moderate this relationship. Method: The study employed the Athlete Identification Level Scale (AILS) and the Scale of Effective Decision-Making in Sport (SEDMS) within a quantitative framework. Data were analyzed via correlation, multiple linear regression, and moderation tests. Results: Athletic identity significantly and positively predicted internal decision-making. For external decision-making, image and career maturity was a significant negative predictor, whereas athletic identity was a significant positive predictor. Age and gender significantly moderated the relationship between athlete identification and effective decision-making. Specifically, higher athlete identification was associated with lower effective decision-making among older and female basketball players. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the relationship between athlete identification and effective decision-making varies according to age and gender. These results highlight the importance of considering demographic differences when addressing decision-making processes in basketball players.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, basketbolcularda sporcu özdeşleşmesi ile etkili karar verme arasındaki ilişki incelenmiş ve yaş ile cinsiyetin bu ilişkide düzenleyici (moderatör) bir rol oynayıp oynamadığı test edilmiştir. Yöntem: Çalışmada, nicel bir araştırma çerçevesinde Sporcu Özdeşleşme Düzeyi Ölçeği (SÖDÖ) ve Sporda Etkili Karar Verme Ölçeği (SEKVÖ) kullanılmıştır. Veriler; korelasyon, çoklu doğrusal regresyon ve düzenleyici etki (moderasyon) analizleri aracılığıyla incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Sporcu kimliği, içsel karar vermeyi anlamlı ve pozitif yönde yordamıştır. Dışsal karar vermede ise imaj ve kariyer olgunluğu anlamlı bir negatif yordayıcı olurken, sporcu kimliği anlamlı bir pozitif yordayıcı olmuştur. Yaş ve cinsiyet, sporcu özdeşleşmesi ile etkili karar verme arasındaki ilişkide anlamlı bir düzenleyici rol oynamıştır. Özellikle, daha ileri yaştaki ve kadın basketbolcularda daha yüksek sporcu özdeşleşmesi, daha düşük etkili karar verme düzeyi ile ilişkilendirilmiştir. Sonuç: Bulgular, sporcu özdeşleşmesi ile etkili karar verme arasındaki ilişkinin yaşa ve cinsiyete göre farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, basketbolcularda karar verme süreçleri ele alınırken demografik farklılıkların göz önünde bulundurulmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kara, M., Lekesiz, G., Açıkbaş, F. C., Deli, Ş. C. (2026). Athlete Identification and Decision-Making in Basketball Players: Age and Gender as Moderators. Uluslararası Spor Egzersiz ve Antrenman Bilimi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.1968799

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641–1660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x
  2. Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules' muscles or Achilles heel?. International journal of sport psychology, 24(2), 237–254.
  3. Byrnes, J. P. (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203726495
  4. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
  5. Çetin, M. Ç., & Kara, M. (2024). Sporda etkili karar verme ölçeği (SEKVÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 29(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.53434/gbesbd.1377855
  6. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
  7. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles’ expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209108406432
  8. Erickson, K. I., Hillman, C. H., & Kramer, A. F. (2015). Physical activity, brain, and cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 4, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.01.005
  9. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  10. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
  11. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2024). IBM SPSS statistics 29 step by step: A simple guide and reference (18th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032622156
  12. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
  13. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
  14. Horton, R. S., & Mack, D. E. (2000). Athletic identity in marathon runners: Functional focus or dysfunctional commitment? Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(2), 101–119.
  15. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  17. Kalaycı, Ş. (Ed.). (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (5. bs.). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  18. Kara, M., Genç, M., & Çetin, M. Ç. (2024). Athlete identification level scale (AILS): Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Recreation and Sports Science, 8(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.46463/ijrss.1479136
  19. Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
  20. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). The Guilford Press.
  21. Koivula, N. (1999). Gender stereotyping in televised media sport coverage. Sex Roles, 41(7–8), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018899522353
  22. Makrakis, V., Biasutti, M., Kostoulas-Makrakis, N., Ghazali, M., Othman, W., Ali, M., Fitriyanto, N. A., & Mavrantonaki, K. (2024). ICT-enabled education for sustainability justice in South East Asian universities. Sustainability, 16(10), 4049. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104049
  23. Raab, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015). The power of simplicity: A fast-and-frugal heuristics approach to performance science. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01672
  24. Raheem, M. A., Udoh, N. S., & Gbolahan, A. T. (2019). Choosing appropriate regression model in the presence of multicolinearity. Open Journal of Statistics, 9(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2019.92012
  25. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004
  26. Robbins, M. W., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., & Ramchand, R. (2021). Blending probability and nonprobability samples with applications to a survey of military caregivers. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 9(5), 1114–1145. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smaa037
  27. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  28. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16
  29. Teixeira, D. S., Rodrigues, F., Monteiro, D., & Cid, L. (2022). The Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-4): Psychometric evidence of introjected approach regulation in Portuguese health club exercisers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 63, 102286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102286
  30. Travassos, B., Araújo, D., Davids, K., Vilar, L., Esteves, P., & Vanda, C. (2012). Informational constraints shape emergent functional behaviours during performance of interceptive actions in team sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(2), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.11.009
  31. Turman, P. D. (2005). Coaches’ use of anticipatory and counterfactual regret messages during competition. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(2), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880500045072
  32. Tyrer, S., & Heyman, B. (2016). Sampling in epidemiological research: Issues, hazards and pitfalls. BJPsych Bulletin, 40(2), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.114.050203