In order to reach high levels of expertise, youth athletes need to improve sport-specific characteristics, such as the physiological, technical, tactical and psychological characteristics (Elferink-Gemser, Visscher, Richart & Lemmink, 2004; Reilly, Williams, Nevill & Franks, 2000). The greatest improvements in these performance characteristics can be achieved with training volumes (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993), incorporating the help of coaches, along with available material, organizational and scientific support (Gambetta, 1989). Youth athletes have to persevere during their road to the top, dedicating a lot of effort and benefiting maximally from training to improve their performance (Starkes, 2000). Furthermore, an athlete’s sport performance at any point in their development is influenced by person-related, task-related, and environmental characteristics (Elferink-Gemser & Visscher, 2011). Environmental characteristics include variables such as the sport federation or sport-specific competition structure on a macrolevel, and variables such as training facilities and parents as well as coaches on a meso- and microlevel. The coach plays an important role in the development of the behavior and the motivation of the youth athlete, and can help the athlete to acquire a higher performance level (Adie, Duda & Ntounamis, 2008; Balaguer, Castillo & Duda, 2008; Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007). Therefore, understanding coaching styles that produce optimal athletic performance is an important pursuit for both coaches and researchers (Amorose, 2007).
The relationship between coach and athlete is important for effective coaching, and is one of the fundamentals of an athletes’ optimal functioning (Gould, Collins, Lauer & Chung, 2007; Jowett, 2002; Lyle, 2002). In the development of youth elite athletes, coaches can be an important source of feedback, instruction, and support (Horn, 2008). A distinction can be made between coaches with an autonomy supportive coaching style and coaches with a controlling coaching style. Autonomy supportive coaches are more likely to consider the athlete’s or team’s perspective, offer a rationale, promote choice and encourage decision-making (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Coaches with a controlling interpersonal coaching style behave in a coercive, pressuring, and authoritarian way to act upon their athletes. It is assumed that autonomy supportive coaches are best for leading to a greater satisfaction of the psychological needs of the athletes, whereas controlling coaches prevent their athletes’ experience of the basic needs (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis & Thøgersen-Ntounami, 2010; Deci & Ryan, 1985).
The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is an approach to human motivation and personality, which focuses on inner resources for personality development and behavioral self-regulation (Ryan, Kuhl & Deci, 1997). The SDT states that humans have three basic psychological needs to satisfy: autonomy (feeling that one is perceived origin of one’s action), relatedness (feeling of being connected to and being accepted by significant others) and competence (feeling to be able to meet the demands of the activity) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The different components of motivation that are included in the SDT are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous self-determined form of motivation. To be intrinsically motivated is to engage inherently in an activity because one finds the activity itself interesting and enjoyable. Comparisons between people whose intrinsic motivation is high and people whose motivation is merely externally controlled showed that those with high intrinsic motivation, have more interest, excitement, and confidence, which subsequently enhances the performance, persistence, and creativity (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne & Ilardi, 1997).
Several studies have shown that the relationship between coaching styles and motivation is mediated by these three psychological basic needs (e.g. Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier & Cury, 2002). According to SDT, the coaching style should be in line with the basic needs of the athlete. If the need for autonomy of the athlete is high, the coach should, preferably, behave in an autonomy supportive manner. Vice versa, if the need for autonomy of the athlete is low, the coach should behave less in an autonomy supportive manner. The level of agreement between the interpersonal coaching style and athletes’ basic needs can ultimately affect athletes’ psychological and physical well-being (Reinboth, Duda, Ntoumanis, 2004). For example, a study from Sarrazin et al. (2002) showed that athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ showing an autonomy supportive coaching style were associated with higher levels of athletes’ self-determined motivation, while athletes’ perceptions of coaches with a controlling coaching style facilitated higher levels of athletes’ non self-determined types of regulation. As such, it seems coaching styles can play an important role in supporting or hindering the athletes’ motivation, and performance in sport (Treasure & Roberts, 1995; Alvarez, Balaguer, Castillo & Duda, 2009). However, to date, not a lot is known about the influence of interpersonal coaching styles on the athletes’ performance level.
The coaches’ perception of their own coaching style may not always be in agreement with their actual coaching style. Divergences between the coach and their athletes can cause disaffection among players, which can potentially be a reason for decreases in motivation, and therefore performance. For a better understanding of the divergences between the athletes’ and coaches’ perception, a study from Smoll and Smith (1989) examined the agreement between researcher observed behaviors (using the Coach Behavior Assessment System, CBAS; Smith, Smoll & Hunt, 1977), the coaches’ perceived behaviors, and the athletes’ perception of their coaches’ behaviors. The results indicated that coaches’ self-perceptions of how frequently they performed certain behaviors were generally low and not significantly related to the CBAS observed behaviors. The only significant correlation was for punishment. In contrast, the athletes’ perception of the behavior scales correlated much higher with the CBAS measures. As such, it seems coaches may have limited awareness of how frequently they show certain behaviors, whereas athletes may be more accurate in rating their coaches’ behaviors.
As shown in several studies (e.g. Smoll & Smith, 1989; Møllerløkken, Lorås & Pedersen, 2017), athletes’ perception of their coach’s behavior is more strongly associated with their coaches’ observed behavior than the coach’s perception was. Additionally, as noted above, the interpersonal coaching style should be adapted to the needs of the athlete, since the motivational climate coaches create has been shown to be important to the athletes’ performance (Joesaar, Hein & Hagger, 2012). The present study aims to examine the relationships between athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, the coach’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles and the observed coach’s behavior. The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between (a) the athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, (b) the coach’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles and (c) the observed coach’s behavior and, subsequently, (d) the prediction of the interpersonal coaching styles on the athlete’s current performance level. Two hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): A high association between the athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles and the observed coach’s behavior is predicted, whereas a low association is predicted between coach’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, the athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, and the observed coach’s behavior.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): A positive relationship between an autonomy supportive coaching style and the athlete’s current performance level is predicted, whereas a negative relationship is predicted between a controlling coaching style and the athlete’s current performance level.
Method
Participants
Table 1 shows the descriptives of the samples of the three analyses included in the present study: the athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, the coach’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, and the observed coach’s behavior. The study was first conducted in the Netherlands and subsequently in Canada. The first sample included all athletes and coaches from both the Netherlands and Canada who participated in the present study. The second sample included a subsample of the first sample, since the research question regarding the second part of the present study could only be answered with complete data on the athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, the coach’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles, the observed coach’s behavior, and the athlete’s current performance level.
The first sample of the present study (i.e., the athlete’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles and the coach’s perceived interpersonal coaching styles) consisted of 81 youth athletes (n = 61 male, n = 20 female), ranging from 11 to 18 years (Mage = 14.52 years, SD = 1.33), and 9 coaches (n = 7 male, n = 9 female), ranging from 20 to 52 years (Mage = 32.43 years, SD = 12.14). The athletes from the Netherlands (n = 34 male, n = 2 female, Mage = 14.83 years, SD = 1.14) played at the highest national youth level in ice hockey and the highest national youth level in field hockey in their age group. The athletes from Canada (n = 27 male, n = 18 female, Mage = 14.52 years, SD = 1.33) played at AA/AAA level in ice hockey and regional/national youth level in field hockey in their age group. The coaches had 10.11 ± 6.33 years of experience on average, and 6.33 ± 5.46 years of experience at the current expertise level on average.
The second sample of the present study (i.e., observed coach’s behavior) consisted of 56 youth athletes (n = 48 male, n = 8 female), ranging from 13 to 17 years (Mage = 14.36 years, SD = 1.23), and 6 coaches (n = 6 male), ranging from 20 to 52 years (Mage = 28.33 years, SD = 11.95). The athletes from the Netherlands (n = 34 male, n = 8 female, Mage = 14.47 years, SD = 1.39) played at the highest national youth level in ice hockey and the highest national youth level in field hockey in their age group. The Dutch coaches had 7.60 ± 2.30 years of experience on average, and 4.40 ± 2.30 years of experience at the current expertise level on average. The athletes from Canada (n = 14 male, Mage = 14.62 years, SD = 1.05) played at AAA level in ice hockey in their age group. The Canadian coach had 10 years of experience, and 5 years of experience at the current expertise level.