Achievement goal orientations in competition dog obedience participants.

A major area of research in sport psychology is what motivates participation in physical activity and sport; much of this work examines goal orientations. Goal orientation researchers compare the satisfaction derived from mastering a sport (task orientation) with that based on demonstrating one's prowess and defeating competitors (ego orientation) (Duda, 1992; Duda, 1996). In many cases task and ego orientations are not mutually exclusive, but are present at varying levels simultaneously (Frederick-Recascino & Schuster-Smith, 2003; Nicholls, 1989). Furthermore, these are not the only goal orientations possible. These particular goal orientations are, however, among the most widely studied; they have been applied to a variety of situations including schoolwork, elite athletics, youth sport, and exercise (for a review of these studies, please see Duda & Whitehead, 1998). These orientations have not been used extensively in understanding the motivation to compete in nontraditional sports.

Contemporary nontraditional sports include a group of activities loosely categorized as "dog sports." These activities all involve teamwork between a human handler and one or more dogs. Dog sports vary in the objective of the teamwork, the numbers of humans and dogs per team, entrance eligibility requirements, equipment needed, the level and length of training required, and judging criteria. Competition obedience is one of the oldest and most widely recognized dog sports.

In competition obedience, a dog-handler team completes a standard series of exercises; Appendix A provides a brief description of the exercises (American Kennel Club, 2003). The team's performance of each exercise is judged against a standard of perfect execution. Each team's performance is scored; the teams who successfully complete each exercise and earn more than half of the available points for each exercise are recognized as "qualifying" in their class. In each class, special recognition is awarded to the qualifying teams earning the four highest scores. Dog-handler teams work toward earning titles that represent mastery of progressively more difficult exercises. At elite levels of competition, dog-handler teams can earn national rankings and opportunities to compete in invitational tournaments.

Dog sports have different judging requirements. In conformation, for example, a judge evaluates the dog's physical structure and temperament against a breed standard; the judge's task is to identify the most exemplary dog of its breed as the judge interprets the standard. Thus, conformation judging is a relatively subjective process. Particularly large and well-known shows (e.g., the Westminster Kennel Club) are televised, and have popularized the sport to the extent a comedic movie (Best in Show) was based on it.

Flyball, in contrast, has much more objective judging criteria. Flyball teams are made up of 3-5 dog-handler pairs; teams compete against one another in a relay race requiring the dogs go over a set of hurdles, retrieve a ball, and return over the hurdles. As in a relay race, the judge looks for false starts, which the team must correct via a restart. If a dog fails to retrieve the ball or skips a hurdle, the dog's team automatically loses; otherwise, the team earning the fastest total time for all dogs running wins the heat.

Obedience judging is analogous to sports such as diving, figure skating, and gymnastics. Each dog-handler team performs required exercises, and the judge determines how well the team executes each. Teams are awarded points for their execution of each exercise, based on the judge's determination of how closely the team's execution of the exercise matches perfect execution (as described in the AKC Obedience Regulations). The Regulations specify certain elements of each exercise which must be performed; failure to execute these "principle parts" of an exercise cause the team not to qualify (e.g., the team is eliminated from competition for the top slots in their class). For example, in retrieving exercises, a principle part of the exercise is for the dog to return an object to the handler; if a dog does not pick up the object, or does not carry it close enough to the handler so that s/he can reach it without stepping forward, the dog has not performed the principle part of the exercise.

Less drastic deviation from perfect execution of an obedience exercise result in point deductions from the team's score. For example, if a dog picks up an object to be retrieved, drops it at any point while returning to the handler, and then picks up the object again and brings it to the handler, points will be deducted but the team will still qualify for that retrieving exercise. The best dog/handler teams in an obedience class earn total scores ranging from 198 to 200. A score of 200 represents perfect performance of all exercises, and is rare.

Though obedience competition has existed for nearly 70 years, we know very little about what motivates people to become and stay involved in the sport. Some obedience enthusiasts are concerned about decreasing entries in obedience trials over the past several years. As dog agility (in particular) has become more widely available and more popular, dog sport competitors now have multiple options for involvement. For example, in 2002, 1,534,923 dogs competed in conformation, 407,309 competed in agility, and 118,488 dogs competed in obedience trials (American Kennel Club, 2002). These figures represent increases in conformation and agility participation from 2001 (9,837 dogs and 83,144 dogs respectively) and a decrease of 1,819 dogs in obedience. Thus, it is important to learn more about the attraction the sport holds for both beginning and the veteran competitors.

One factor that differentiates dog obedience from many other sports is that amateurs and professionals compete against each other. Many--if not most--competitors are dedicated amateurs who train and compete for recreation but derive their income from other sources. Some, however, are full-time trainers who hold obedience camps and seminars, offer private lessons and group classes, and sell training books and videotapes to disseminate their training approaches. An example of a professional is Connie Cleveland (2004), who trains dogs, gives seminars, publishes training videotapes and articles, and competes. Thus, for some competitors an ego orientation may be important in a very practical sense: their livelihood (via book, videotape, seminar and camp revenues) depends on maintaining a reputation for training excellence.

The present study was designed to determine the extent to which dog obedience competitors express task orientation and ego orientation with regards to their participation in the sport, and to determine whether the levels of these orientations differed for (1) relatively new participants as compared to more experienced competitors, (2) competitors who have earned a championship title as compared to those who have not, and (3) professional trainers as compared to non-professionals. It was hypothesized that relatively experienced competitors, those who have earned a championship title, and professional trainers, would express higher levels of ego orientation than would novice competitors, those who have not earned a championship and non-professional trainers respectively. Based on prior research on orientations (Duda, 1998), it was also hypothesized that task orientation would exceed ego orientation for all categories of trainer.

Method

Participants

Participants were 119 obedience trial competitors. Potential participants were selected from 8 dog show catalogues from six states (California, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Oregon). Dog show catalogues list each exhibitor's names and addresses, along with the type of event entered (obedience, agility, conformation, etc.). All exhibitors entered in the catalogued obedience events were selected. The total number of potential participants selected was 221.

The authors mailed each potential participant a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study along with the goal orientation questionnaire and a stamped addressed return mail envelope. A brief set of demographic questions was also included in the packet. The first 10 people to return the questionnaire received a $25 gift certificate from J & J Dog Supply, a well-known supplier of dog obedience and agility equipment. Questionnaires were coded by a number on the return envelope and on the last page of the questionnaire.

Two weeks after the initial mailing, reminder postcards were sent to those who had not yet responded. Out of the 221 potential participants, 23 questionnaire packets were returned by the post office. Of the remaining 198 surveys, 119 were completed and returned, for a response rate of 60%.

Measures

The study questionnaire packet included a modified (for the sport of dog obedience) version of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) (Duda, 1989; Duda & Nicholls, 1992), as well as a brief demographic questionnaire and items asking about the participants' history in competition obedience (e.g., years training and showing dogs in obedience, number of dogs titled, most advanced title earned). The questions from the modified TEOSQ included: I learn a new training technique and it makes me want to practice more.; My dog and I are the only ones who can do the particular skill.; I work really hard at my handling skills.; and I earn the blue ribbon.

There were also open-ended questions asking participants what they enjoyed and did not enjoy about dog training and about showing their dog. The TEOSQ yielded scores for ego orientation and task orientation.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare ego orientation and task orientation scores for (1) novice (e.g., those who have never trained and shown a dog beyond the novice level) as compared to experienced (e.g., those who have trained and shown dogs at the open or utility levels) trainers, (2) trainers who had earned at least one championship title as compared to those who had not, and (3) professional as compared to non-professional trainers. A paired sample t-test was used to compare ego and task orientation scores for all participants.

Results

Participant Characteristics. Most participants were women (n = 109), and most (57%) were in their 40's or 50's (though participants' ages ranged from under 18 to over 75). Most (66%) were currently married; of those individuals, most (65%) reported that their spouse did not participate in obedience trials.

About one-third (31%) of the participants currently compete in the Open and Utility classes; an additional 25% currently compete only in the Novice class. For nearly one-fifth (16.5%, n=20), the highest title earned on any dog was a CD; approximately the same number (19.8%, n=24) had earned an OTCH, (Obedience Trial Champion). About one in four (24%, n=29) reported that they were professional trainers (defined as earning any income from teaching classes or private lessons).

These participants are avid dog sport enthusiasts. Nearly all (77%) participate in other dog sports; those mentioned most often were agility, conformation, herding, and tracking. While the modal number (39.8%) of shows entered per year was fewer than five, nearly one third (31%) entered 5-12 shows; nearly one-fifth entered 13-24 shows, and nearly one in ten (9.3%) entered more than 25 shows a year. Most (60.2%) reported training between one and five hours weekly; an additional 26.3% reported training between six and ten hours per week. Very few participants reported training more than 10 hours weekly.

Group comparisons of ego orientation and task orientation scores. Table 1 presents mean Task Orientation and Ego Orientation scores for the total sample and all subgroups. Neither ego orientation scores nor task orientation scores differed for the novice as compared to the more experienced exhibitors, t's (110) < .78,p's > .44 (see Table 1). Nor did ego orientation and task orientation scores differ for participants who had earned a championship title as compared to those who had not, t's (110) < .42, p's > .47. Similarly ego and task orientation scores did not differ significantly for professional trainers as compared to non-professional trainers, t's (113) < .87,p's > .39.

Paired comparisons of ego orientation and task orientation scores. For the sample as a whole, task orientation scores significantly exceeded ego orientation scores, t (113) = 16.82, p < .0005.

Discussion

The purposes of this study were to determine the achievement goal orientations of dog obedience participants, to determine whether levels of these orientations differed for subgroups of participants who varied in experience, and to compare levels of task orientation and ego orientation for the entire sample. Results conformed partially to the hypotheses. The hypotheses that those competing at advanced levels, those who had earned a championship title, and professional trainers would have higher goal orientation scores than their less experienced counterparts were not supported. However, the hypothesis that task orientation scores would exceed ego orientation scores for all participants was supported.

The latter finding is consistent with results from prior studies of traditional sports and academic achievement. In a recent review article, Duda and Whitehead (1998) reported that means for task orientation typically exceeded means for ego orientation. Thus, exhibitors in the sport of competitive dog obedience have similar goal orientations to athletes in other sporting events.

The prominence of task orientation relative to ego orientation for obedience competitors makes intuitive sense. No matter how proficient a competitor is in footwork, pacing, and other components of handling, she or he must train the dog to complete the principal part of all exercises. Analyzing each exercise, identifying when and what kind of corrections are needed for the individual dog being trained, practicing to achieve smooth execution of the exercise, and the like are all essential steps in dog training as well as central components of task orientation. Until the dog masters the exercises, an individual cannot compete successfully. Finding satisfaction in learning, improvement, and practice (e.g., the realms of task orientation), then, is a necessary prerequisite to the opportunity to indulge ego orientation via success in competition.

Why were task and ego orientation scores not differentiated for more and less experienced competitors? It is possible that our measures were not sensitive enough to measure these orientations with the precision needed to detect differences that actually exist. Inclusion of additional items, and perhaps more items with specific reference to competition obedience situations, might reveal differences. However, it is also possible that levels of these orientations are in fact similar for novice and experienced competitors, those who have earned OTCH's and those who have not, and professionals as compared to amateurs. As noted above, the nature of the sport may dictate the orientation that competitors bring to practice and to the competition ring.

It is also possible that competitors who enter the sport with a high ego orientation leave the sport quickly if they do not receive recognition quickly. These individuals may be unwilling to invest the time necessary to achieve mastery and earn recognition; as with all sports, the time, effort, and practice needed to become proficient can seem tedious to some. Furthermore, in obedience competition, spectators' initial focus is on the dog. No matter how thoroughly the human member of the team understands the sport and handles smoothly, the dog must be focused and proficient before the team will stand out. Few people notice smooth handling if the dog is not performing well. Since the focus is on the dog first and then (if the dog's performance is notable) on the person, the social comparison (at least between handlers) prevalent in other sports takes a back seat in competition obedience. If the dog works well, then people will notice who is on the other end of the leash.

Finally, earning a qualifying score in obedience means that the team has achieved basic proficiency. In addition to the four teams earning placements in each class, all qualifying teams are deemed successful in the class. Since all obedience teams strive to meet the standard for each exercise, teams do not actually compete with one another. Perhaps, then, competitive dog obedience is structured in a way that promotes a task orientation as compared to an ego orientation. Only when a team has fully mastered the exercises does the special recognition that comes with class placements become a possibility.

Researchers may wish to look at other types of dog sports, such as conformation, agility, earthdog, and flyball, to determine if the achievement goal orientations of these exhibitors are similar to competitive obedience exhibitors. Social comparison between dog-handler teams is built into the sport of conformation, since only the dog winning first place in each class receives any recognition or reward whatsoever. In that situation, ego orientation may be more important than task orientation. Possibly, individuals interested in dog sports seek out the arenas that coincide with their achievement goal orientations.

In conclusion, the dog obedience participants in our study were predominantly task oriented. This finding may be helpful to the American Kennel Club (as well as other organizations that sponsor competition dog obedience) efforts to maintain and expand participation in the sport. As noted above, future research may focus on presenting specific competition obedience situations, interviewing participants to gain an in-depth understanding on their reasons for competing, and expanding the number of dog sports included in the research.

Appendix A

Competition Obedience Exercises: Novice, Open, Utility

Novice. At the novice level, dogs and handlers compete to earn a "CD," or "Companion Dog" title. As the title implies, dogs that earn this title can demonstrate the skills required to be a pleasing canine companion. The dog must heel (walk at the handler's left side, sitting when the handler halts) both on and off leash at different speeds; the dog must remain in place when the handler leaves it to cross the show ring and then come when called; the dog must stay quietly in a sitting or lying down position with a group of other dogs for several moments; and the dog must stand and allow a stranger (the judge) to approach and touch it without displaying fear, aggression, or excessive shyness.

Open. Dogs that have earned a CD title can progress to the Open level of competition, and work towards a "CDX," or Companion Dog Excellent title. At this level of competition all exercises are performed off leash, and the dog must work away from the handler. The exercises include heeling, retrieving objects, jumping obstacles, and remaining in a sitting or lying down position among a group of dogs while the handlers are out of sight.

Utility. The third level of competition is for the "UD," or Utility Dog, title. Exercises at this level require dogs to make decisions among alternatives and screen out distractions. The exercises include obeying commands to heel, stay, down, sit, and come given by hand signals; identifying on the basis of scent which of several identical objects the handler has touched; retrieving one of several possible objects; and running away from the handler, stopping and sitting upon command, and then returning over one of two possible jumps.

Additional Titles. UDX. A utility dog excellent (UDX) title is earned after a dog has earned the UD. Dog and handler teams must qualify in both open and utility on the same day ten times for this title. Dog/handler teams may earn multiple UDX titles (UDX2 for 20 same day qualifications, UDX3 for 30, etc.).

Obedience Title Champion (OTCH). Once a dog has earned the UD, OTCH points can be earned. OTCH points are based on placement in the utility and open class. A dog/handler team has to earn a first place in open and utility, plus one more first place in either class. Additionally, the team must earn 100 points, based on placement (1st through 4th place) and number of dogs beaten in the class. For example, 1st place in utility with 8 dogs showing is worth 6 points, versus 33 points if there are 34 dogs showing.

References

American Kennel Club (2003). Obedience Regulations. New York, NY: American Kennel Club, Inc.

American Kennel Club (2002). 2002 event and title statistics. Retrieved January 19, 2004 from_http ://www.akc.org/dic/events/statistics/2002/event_title.pdf

Cleveland, C. (2004). Dog trainers workshop. Retrieved January 19, 2004 from http://www.dogtrainersworkshop.com.

Duda, J.L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose of sport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11,318-335.

Duda, J.L. (1992). Sport and exercise motivation: A goal perspective analysis. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 57-91). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Duda, J.L. (1996). Maximizing motivation in sport and physical education among children and adolescents: The case for greater task involvement. Quest, 48, 290-302.

Duda, J.L. & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Duda, J.L. & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement, pp. 21-48. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Frederick-Recascino, C. M. & Schuster-Smith, H. (2003) Competition and intrinsic motivation in physical activity: A comparison of two groups. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 240-254.

Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Address Correspondence To: Brenda A. Riemer, Ph.D., School of Health Promotion and Human Performance, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197.

Brenda A. Riemer and Jeanne L. Thomas

Eastern Michigan University

Table 1.

Mean ego orientation and task orientation scores

                          Task Orientation    Ego Orientation
                               Score               Score

Full Sample                     4.24               2.86
(N = 119)                       (.50)              (.78)

Novice Exhibitors               4.29               2.72
(n = 18)                        (.48)              (.86)

Experienced Exhibitors          4.24               2.87
(n = 94)                        (.51)              (.76)

Have earned OTCH                4.29               2.95
(n = 23)                        (.56)              (.84)

Have not earned OTCH            4.24               2.82
(n = 89)                        (.49)              (.76)

Professional trainer            4.32               2.93
(n = 28)                        (.51)              (.80)

Amateur trainer                 4.22               2.84
(n = 87)                        (.50)              (.78)

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses.