4.1 Article

How Does Coaches' Reported Interpersonal Behavior Align With Athletes' Perceptions? Consequences for Female Athletes' Psychological Needs in Sport

Journal

SPORT EXERCISE AND PERFORMANCE PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 141-154

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/spy0000116

Keywords

interpersonal behaviors; self-report; coach-athlete relationship; self-determination

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this research was to explore the coach-athlete relationship through the lens of self-determination theory. Specifically, this study examined coaches' (n = 53) reported supportive and thwarting interpersonal behaviors, as well as their female athletes' (n = 250) perceptions of these behaviors. The first objective was to determine the rate at which coaches overreported (reported their own behavior more positively than their athletes), underreported (reported their own behavior more negatively than their athletes), or were in agreement with their athletes about their reported behaviors. The results suggested that approximately 30% of coaches may have overreported their behavior. The second objective was to explore how both coaches' reports of their behaviors and athletes' perceptions of these same behaviors affected athletes' psychological needs in sport. Overall, the results found that when coaches and athletes were in agreement on supportive behaviors, it promoted need satisfaction, and for thwarting behaviors, it predicted need frustration. When exploring the effect of a disagreement, athletes with coaches who underreported experienced additional need satisfaction and less need frustration compared with athletes with coaches who overreported. Overall, this study was the first to explore how coaches' reports of their behavior align with their athletes' perceptions and determine how the dynamics of that relationship affect athletes' psychological needs in sport.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available