HOW DOES COACHING STYLE AFFECT ATHLETE PRO-SOCIAL OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WITH REFERENCE TO SELF DETERMINATION THEORY (SDT)?

By Amy RoseU3011321

forSport Coaching Pedagogy

Lecturer: Keith Lyons

Background research Central Ideas of SDT Coaching styles –autonomy supportive

and controlled motivation Pro-social and antisocial behaviour The Coach-Athlete Relationship How that relationship affects behaviour Practical applications and further research

Background

Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) discussed whether relationships between contextual and personal factors affect athlete behaviour

Ntoumanis and Standage (2009) suggested the SDT is a useful motivational framework to understand athletes needs

The coach-athlete relationship is a key aspect in sport-behaviour (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)

Cont…

Athletes perception of coaching effectiveness can affect athlete-centred outcomes (Bartholemew, Ntoumanis and Thorgsen-Ntoumani,

2010)

Athletes motivation leads to their behaviour and subsequent performance (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)

Self Determination Theory (SDT)

Goal directed motivation that understands innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (Deci and Ryan, 2000)

Social and individual contexts that satisfy these needs facilitate growth (Hodge and Lonsdale 2011)

Ability to integrate intrinsic and extrinsic motivations more effectively (Deci and Ryan, 2000)

SDT cont...

Contexts that do not support these needs associated with poor performance, motivation and behaviour (Deci and Ryan, 2000)

Research suggests that SDT is a useful framework in the sporting context (Ntoumanis and

Standage, 2009)

Autonomy Supportive Coaching

A coach takes the athletes perspective, acknowledges the feelings of the athlete (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011)

Provides as much choice as possible within specific limits (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)

Allows opportunities for independent work Non controlling competence based

feedback (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011)

Cont...

Avoids overt control and guilt inducing criticisms (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011)

Provides rationale for tasks, limits and rules (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011)

Prevents ego-involvement Creates inclusive environment (Hodge and Lonsdale,

2011)

Promotes character development through respect and fair play (Boardley , Kavussanu and Ring, 2009)

Controlled Motivation Coaching

Overt control of athlete (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)

Controlling statements Induces feelings of guilt in athlete (Hodge and

Lonsdale, 2011)

Extrinsic incentives for progress Encourages ego-involvement Pushing own values and ideas on athlete Coach centred approach (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011)

Exclusive

Pro-social and Antisocial Behaviour Pro-social

› Designed to benefit others

› Self driven and motivated

› Helping team mates

› Able to work independently within structure

Antisocial› Designed to harm

or disadvantage others

› Non-cooperative› Finds it harder to

work within a team

› Can be verbally or physically aggressive

(Boardley, Kuvassanu and Ring, 2009)

The Coach-Athlete Relationship

The coach is the most influential figure in an athletes sport experience (Ntoumanis and Standage)

The values emphasised by the coach will influence athlete motivation and behaviour (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011)

The quality of this relationship is a crucial determinant of athlete satisfaction and performance (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)

Directly affects the athletes psychological needs outlined in the SDT (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)

Model of coach-athlete relationship

Source: Mageau and Vallerand, 2003. pg 884

Cont… This model articulates the meaning

behind being an autonomy supportive coach

It identifies the behaviours specific to this style of coaching

It shows how the coaches’ behaviours have a beneficial impact on athletes psychologically innate needs as outlined in the SDT

(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)

The Coach-Athlete Relationship and Behaviour

Autonomy supportive› Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) found that

athletes whose needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence were met found a strong positive relationship with pro-social behaviour towards team mates

› This behaviour led to better results, higher levels of motivation, independence, trust in their team and overall satisfaction with the coach

Cont…

Autonomy Supportive Cont…› Research suggests that this style of

coaching can be taught (Mageau and Vallerand 2003)

› It also suggests that any interventions aimed at minimising coaches’ pressure and stress would in turn foster an autonomy supportive style (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)

Cont…

Controlling Motivation› In the same study Hodge and Lonsdale

(2010) found that controlled motivation had a weak positive relationship with anti-social behaviour towards team mates and a strong positive relationship with that same behaviour towards opponents.

› Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) also found that the anti-social behaviour was correlated with feelings of dissatisfaction in their sporting lives.

Cont…

Controlling Motivation (cont…)› Black and Deci (2000) theorised that when

Instructors [coaches] rely on psychological control, students [athletes] relinquish autonomy on behalf of that relationship

› Mageau and Vallerand (2003) suggest that if coaches are willing to adapt their behaviours to fulfil the athletes needs they would get more favourable outcomes

Michael Spracklen, British born rowing coach

Source: Google Images

Why is this important It’s important for coaches to understand how

their behaviours can affect their athletes Understanding that may help them to improve

the learning and performance of their athlete Increasing a coaches repertoire provides

coaches with more choices to improve an athletes overall sporting experience (Boardley and Kavussanu,

2009)

This research also has implications in the areas of teaching and parenting

It could also have implications for looking at the reasons athletes partake in certain antisocial behaviours such as drug taking

Possible Further Research A major limitation of the research

conducted so far is the sample sizes are small

Further research could conduct these experiments on athletes across a range of ages and sports, both individual and team

It could also explore the difference between males and females as well as different age groups in how coaching affects behaviour

If coaches nurture athletes and meet those needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness, through an

autonomy supportive coaching style, then not only are they potentially influencing their athlete towards

behaving in a positive manner toward their team mates and towards the opposition but they are giving them the tools to build character and perform to the best of their

ability.

Source: Google Images

References Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The controlling

interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial validation of a psychometric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 193–216. 

Black, A.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: a self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756.

Boardley, I.D., Kavussanu, M. (2009).The Influence of Social Variables and Moral Disengagement on Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviours in Field Hockey and Netball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(8), 843-854

Boardley, I.D., Kavussanu, M., Ring, C. (2008). Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaching Effectiveness and Athlete-Related Outcomes in Rugby Union: An Investigation Based on the Coaching Efficacy Model. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 269-287.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). The What and Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self Determination of Behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268

Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport: The Role of Coaching Style. Autonomous vs. Controlled Motivation and Moral Disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 527-547.

Ntoumanis, N., Standage, M. (2009). Morality in Sport: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 365-380.

Mageau, G.V., Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Motivational Model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883-904