Observing the coach-created motivational environment across training and competition in youth sport

Abstract

Adopting an integrated achievement goal (Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.) and self-determination theory (Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01) perspective as proffered by Duda, J. L. (2013). (The conceptual and empirical foundations of empowering coaching: Setting the stage for the PAPA project. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 311-318. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2013.839414), the aim of the current study was to observe empowering and disempowering features of the multidimensional motivational coaching environment in training and competition in youth sport. Seventeen grass-roots soccer coaches were observed and rated in training and competitive settings using the multidimensional motivational climate observation system (MMCOS; Smith, N., Tessier, D., Tzioumakis, Y., Quested, E., Appleton, P., Sarrazin, P., … Duda, J. L. (2015). Development and validation of the multidimensional motivational climate observation system (MMCOS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 4-22. doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0059). In line with our hypotheses, coaches created different motivational environments in the two contexts. More specifically, coaches were observed to create a less empowering and more disempowering environment in competition compared to in training. The observed differences were underpinned by distinctive motivational strategies used by coaches in the two contexts. Findings have implications for the assessment of the coach-created motivational environment and the promotion of quality motivation for young athletes taking part in grass-roots-level sport.

Relationship between coaching climates and student-athletes’ symptoms of burnout in school and sports.

“…This would give more information about the coaching climates, if girls/women and boys/men perceive coaching differently or if the gender differences are caused by the coach. Further, it would be interesting to figure out whether the athletes under the same coach were consistent with the reported coaching climate they belonged or does the coach use more or less disempowering or empowering coaching in training compared to competitions (see Smith, Quested, Appleton, & Duda, 2017). Therefore, it would be interesting to follow the same athletes if their burnout levels stay the same, decreases or even increases over time in different coaching climates.…”

Examining Differential Coaching Behaviors in Positive Coaches: A Mixed-Methods Perspective Guided by the Expectation Performance Process

“…More needs to be studied about the intersection between coach efficacy and prophecies. Coaches may have good intentions to behave and create desirable climates, but lack of teaching skills or efficacy could dictate how athletes perceive reality (Smith, Quested, Appleton, & Duda, 2016a;Werthner & Trudel, 2006).…”

Determining If Competition Level Matters in Developing Positive and Negative Youth Sportsmanship

“…One study observed that as the level of competition increases in school basketball, coaches and players also increase in their emphasis on winning [32]. Increased pressure to have a winning team may result in negative coaching behaviors, neglect of players' personal development, and encouragement of unsportsmanlike conduct [4] [33] [34] [35]. When teams are competing at higher competitive levels, evidence has shown that coaches are more likely to provide players with feedback that is focused on performance outcomes as opposed to mastery outcomes [32].…”