Relationships are a ubiquitous factor within human functioning (Jowett & Lavallee, 2007). Given the importance of the social environment and interpersonal influences on motivation as conceptualised by motivational theories such as SDT and AGT, consideration is worthy of the primary social agents of influence within sport. Studies have explored the wide range of social influences in sport and physical activity settings, such as coaches, parents, peers, PE teachers and sporting heroes (Carr & Weigand, 2002; Gavin, Mcbrearty, & Malo, 2016; Papaioannou et al., 2008; Weigand, Carr, Petherick, & Taylor, 2001). Although sport provides opportunities for a wide range of social agents to influence athlete motivation, a consideration of the breadth of social influences within the present thesis would result in a relatively shallow understanding of the social context of motivation in sport. This thesis, therefore, required a more focussed investigation. Of the relevant social agents in sporting
contexts, coaches, parents and peers are the most consistently identified and researched in relation to most models of motivation within sporting and physical activity contexts due to the large amount of time shared within these contexts (Côté & Erickson, 2016; Horn, 2008). As such, the following sections summarise the general research pertaining to the influence of each of these social agents within sport contexts before moving on to a discussion of the large body of research examining the role of social agents in athlete motivation.
2.4.1. The Role of the Coach.
Given the amount of time that athletes dedicate to their sport (approximately 10,000 hours over ten years to become an elite level athlete; Ericsson & Chaness, 1994), athletes are likely to spend a significant amount of time with coaches during their development
(Knowles, Shanmugam & Lorimer, 2015). Coaches are, therefore, an important social agent for athletes within sport, but their influence may extend beyond the sporting context
depending on the level of athlete participation (e.g., the contextual level of motivation influencing the global level as outlined in the HMIEM; Vallerand, 1997). Coaches influence athlete participation and development in sport through translation of sport-specific technical and tactical knowledge and development of requisite skills for performance (Lyle, 2007). Coaches also have a leadership role in sport settings. For instance, Vella, Oades, and Crowe (2012) undertook a cross-sectional study with 455 adolescent recreational athletes who played team sports, exploring the influence of coach transformational leadership on positive youth development. They found that the best predictor of athlete development of social, personal, goal setting and initiative skills was the combination of transformational leadership behaviours and perceived positive coach-athlete relationship, highlighting the importance of coaches within the context of team sport. The quality of the interaction between coaches and athletes can mediate the effectiveness of coaches to develop athletes. Relationships are proposed to be formed owing to the social exchanges between partners in that relationship, and individuals commit to relationships for the benefits that they can derive from them (Kelley et al., 1983). Jowett and Poczwardowski (2007) defined the coach-athlete relationship as “a situation in which a coach and athlete’s cognitions, feelings and
behaviours are mutually and causally interrelated” (p.4). Much of the recent research into
the role of coaches in sport has considered and examined the coach-athlete relationship (e.g., Antonini Philippe & Seiler, 2006; Davis & Jowett, 2014; Thelwell, Wagstaff, Chapman, & Kenttä, 2016).
Jowett and Poczwardowski (2007) proposed an integrated model of coach-athlete relationships (Figure 3) in an effort to bring together existing theories and propose a framework for further research, which included proposed antecedents, qualities and outcomes. Antecedents of the coach-athlete relationship included the coach’s and athlete’s individual differences (e.g. age, gender, experience), the sporting context (e.g., level of competition) and the relationship characteristics (e.g., duration of relationship). These
antecedents are proposed to influence the quality of different dimensions of the coach-athlete relationship, such as coach and athlete emotions, thoughts and behaviours within the
relationship. Outcomes of the coach-athlete relationship include intrapersonal (e.g., levels of satisfaction, performance), interpersonal (e.g., relationship stability, conflict) and group outcomes (e.g., team cohesion, team performance). Although an attempt to simplify and structure subsequent research, this model indicates the complexity involved within the coach- athlete relationship, and the difficulties in accurately investigating such relationships and their outcomes.
Figure 3: Jowett & Poczwardowski (2008) Integrated Model of Coach-Athlete Relationships
The most widely applied model of the coach-athlete relationship is the 3+1C model (Jowett, 2007), which conceptualises the relationship as comprising four elements: closeness, complementarity, commitment and co-orientation. Closeness reflects the emotional qualities associated with the coach-athlete relationship, including the amount of mutual liking and trust within the relationship. Complementarity is the behavioural element of the relationship and reflects the level of cooperation between the athlete and coach, and the degree to which their respective behaviours within the relationship are reciprocal (e.g., mutual effort levels during
Coach and Athlete’s
Intrapersonal Outcomes Interpersonal Outcomes Group Outcomes
Coach and Athlete’s
Feelings Thoughts Behaviours
Coach & Athlete
Individual Difference Characteristics Wider Social-Cultural-Sport Context Relationship Characteristics
Interpersonal Communication
training). The commitment construct reflects the cognitive qualities of the relationship and describes the perceptions of the coach and athlete regarding their dedication to that
relationship in the long term. Finally, the co-orientation dimension of the coach-athlete relationship reflects the amount of agreement in perspective regarding the quality of the coach athlete relationship (Jowett, 2007), with the level of similarity in perspectives indicating higher levels of interdependence within the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2008).
Jowett’s (2007) 3+1C model has been used as a framework to investigate the antecedents, quality and outcomes of the coach-athlete relationship. For instance, effective coach-athlete relationships have been linked to satisfaction amongst coaches and athletes (Davis, Jowett, & Lafrenière, 2013; Lorimer & Jowett, 2009), and athlete performance (e.g., Jowett, 2009). On the other hand, low levels of closeness, complementarity, commitment and/or co-orientation have been related to interpersonal conflict (Jowett, 2007). Mediating factors regarding the quality of the coach-athlete relationship include length of relationship, with athletes in an established relationship (i.e., over 3 years in length) reporting higher levels of relationship quality and competence than those in less well-established relationships
(Jowett, 2008). In addition, athletes who participate in individual sports report higher levels of satisfaction in the relationship with their coach than those in team sports (Rhind, Jowett & Yang, 2012).
2.4.1.1. Coach Influences on Athlete Motivation.
In addition to the above-mentioned dimensions of the coach-athlete relationship, coach influence in the development and maintenance of athlete motivation has been of great interest to researchers in sport. Coaches are important social influencers in the sporting context and coach motivational influences have been shown to be consistent across cultures (e.g., Alfermann, Geisler, & Okade, 2013) and between different contexts such as working with underserved young people (e.g., Gould, Flett, & Lauer, 2012). In relation to competence motivation theory, coaches are proposed to play a significant role in athletes’ perceptions of competence motivation through their feedback and reinforcing responses to performance (Weiss & Amorose, 2008). Studies have shown a relationship between athlete competence motivation and coach praise and/or criticism, and this relationship is positive where coaches provide information about how to improve performances alongside their feedback (Black & Weiss, 1992; Horn, 1985; Allen & Howe, 1998).
Various studies have demonstrated the importance of coaches in supporting athletes’ need for autonomy (e.g., Adie et al., 2012; Cheon et al., 2015). Adie et al. (2012), for example, investigated basic psychological need satisfaction and positive psychological well- being of adolescent footballers across two competitive seasons. Using a range of measures, they tracked perceived coach autonomy support, basic psychological need satisfaction, and well/ill-being outcomes amongst 91 male adolescent footballs players. Despite the study being correlational and limited to youth male soccer participants, Adie et al. (2012) identified that need satisfaction and psychological well-being were predicted by player perceptions that the coach provided autonomy support. Similarly, Cheon et al. (2015) explored the role of autonomy-supportive coaching behaviours within elite Paralympic sport over 12 weeks leading up to the London 2012 Paralympic Games. The researchers assigned coaches and athletes to an experimental or control group, with coaches in the experimental group receiving a multi-part autonomy support training programme. Following the training programme, the control group perceived the coaches as negative and controlling, whereas those in the experimental group perceived coaches as being more autonomy supportive. Furthermore, the athletes coached by those in the experimental group did not experience a deterioration in motivational levels or engagement with training as was seen in the control group. In addition, athletes coached by those who had undertaken the autonomy-supportive training had greater medal success during the Paralympics. The experimental nature of Cheon et al.’s (2015) study, as well as the objective measures of success (i.e., winning medals) suggests that coach-support for autonomy can lead to positive outcomes at elite level amongst adult athletes.
In addition to autonomy-supportive coaching behaviours, research into motivational processes in sport has also considered the role of perceived coach-created motivational climate. Research has indicated that this perceived motivational climate influences various outcomes including cohesion (e.g., Eys et al., 2013; Mclaren, Eys, & Murray, 2015), mental toughness (e.g., Nicholls, Morley, & Perry, 2016) and anxiety (e.g., Smith et al., 2007). Researchers have investigated interventions aimed at assisting coaches in providing mastery climates in sport, applying Epstein’s (1989) six-factor approach which consists of the task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation and time (i.e., TARGET) developed in education. For instance, Hassan and Morgan (2015) investigated the effectiveness of an intervention based on the TARGET approach aimed at enabling four coaches to create optimal motivation climates in sport when coaching their collective 43 student-athletes. The coaches undertook a
programme of training using the TARGET approach, and their coaching sessions were then observed using a measurement process based on identifying TARGET (i.e., mastery climate supporting) behaviours. The researchers also measured athletes’ pre- and post-intervention perceived motivational climate and perceptions of success. Although they did not test for significant differences between observed mastery-climate supporting behaviours, Hassan and Morgan (2015) identified an increase in the percentage of coaching behaviours that applied TARGET principles following the intervention. In addition, athletes perceived the climate created by the coach to be significantly less ego-orientated and more mastery orientated post- intervention compared with pre-intervention. Whilst this study involved a small sample size and was limited to student-age athletes, the results do suggest that coaches are able to adapt their coaching behaviour to become more mastery-orientated, and athletes are influenced by such changes in motivational climate.
The precise mechanism through which coaches influence athlete motivation has been investigated about the coach-athlete relationship. For instance, Olympiou et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between motivational climate and coach-athlete relationship amongst 591 athletes who participated in team sports. The cross-sectional study explored associations between elements of the motivational climate and coach-athlete relationship through canonical correlation analysis and identified that there was a relationship between the perceived coach-created motivational climate and direct and indirect coach-athlete
relationship. Specifically, perceptions of a task-involved climate were positively related to perceptions of closeness, complementarity and commitment within the coach-athlete relationship. Olympiou et al.’s (2008) study was, however, cross-sectional and therefore inferences regarding causality are not possible. Furthermore, the sample was not equally representative of different types of sport (e.g., open vs. closed) and participants completed questionnaires at different points in their respective seasons. Given the dynamic nature of perceptions of coach-athlete relationships and motivational climates, more longitudinal research including a more representative sample is required to provide further insight into the direction and consistency of any interaction between coach-athlete relationship and perceived motivational climate.
Based on CET (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and the HMIEM (Vallerand, 1997, 2007), Mageau and Vallerand (2003) proposed a sequential motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship. Within this model, a coach’s orientation toward coaching, the context within which they coach, and their perceptions of athlete behaviour and motivation, are all proposed
to influence their behaviours in coaching. These coaching behaviours are then proposed to manifest as autonomy-supportive behaviours, provision of structure, and involvement which in turn influences athletes’ satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness and competence.
Satisfaction of these psychological needs is then linked to athlete’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Riley and Smith (2011) expanded upon Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) model by investigating the model’s predication that athlete basic need satisfaction mediated the relationship between the coach-athlete relationship and athlete intrinsic motivation. Contextualising the coach-athlete relationship in line with the 3+1C model (Jowett, 2007) rather than simply autonomy-related behaviours, Riley and Smith identified that basic need satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between coach-athlete relationship and athlete intrinsic motivation amongst 211 youth athletes. The cross-sectional nature of this study again limits causality and does not include the temporal and dynamic nature of coach-athlete relationships and motivation levels, yet the results do indicate that within youth sport athlete perceptions of closeness, complementarity and commitment with their coach may lead to more self-determined forms of motivation by providing them with opportunities to partially satisfy their basic psychological needs within a sporting setting.
Building on the findings of Riley and Smith (2011) and other research demonstrating how perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship might predict basic need satisfaction and wellbeing amongst athletes ( e.g., Felton & Jowett, 2013, 2017), Jowett et al. (2017) investigated an expanded motivational coach-athlete relationship model and tested its relevance across cultures. Grounded in SDT and building on the HMIEM (Vallerand, 2007), the study used structural equation modelling to test a theoretical model of coach-athlete relationship and motivational outcomes. Results indicated that the proposed model fit the data of 756 adult athletes from five countries, and specifically that athlete basic need satisfaction was predicted by perceived quality of their relationship with their coach. Need satisfaction also predicted athlete intrinsic motivation and wellbeing, and this model was applicable across the five cultures tested (i.e., British, Greek, Chinese, Spanish and Swedish). Despite using more complex statistics to determine the relationships between variables within this study, the study itself was again cross-sectional, and the theoretical model of coach-athlete relationship would benefit from further testing through longitudinal research to determine whether the predictive qualities of perceive coach-athlete relationships for motivational outcomes persist or vary across time.
Research on the role of coaches on athlete motivation highlights the importance coaches have in creating optimal motivational climates for athletes whilst also satisfying important basic psychological needs through provision of autonomy support and quality coach-athlete relationships. The wealth of literature exploring the motivational role of
coaches suggests they have a multidimensional and dynamic role within athlete development and performance, but that such influence is not exerted within a socio-contextual vacuum. Indeed, there is a need to further understand the role that other significant social agents may have on athlete motivation.
2.4.2. The Role of Parents.
Parents are proposed to be integral to their children’s initiation and development in sport (Partridge, Brustad & Stellino, 2008), and have been suggested to mediate their children’s continued involvement (Bailey, Cope, & Pearce, 2013). Despite parental involvement in sport being a complex, multifaceted and dynamic area of investigation (Harwood, 2016; Knight, Berrow & Harwood, 2016), the role of parents in sport has become an increasingly researched area in recent years (Holt & Knight, 2014). Recent studies have identified that parents are influential in their children’s socialisation in sport (Dorsch, Smith, & McDonough, 2015), enjoyment of sport (McCarthy, Jones, & Clark-Carter, 2008;
McCarthy & Jones, 2007), experience of perfectionism (Appleton, Hall & Hill, 2010), anxiety in sport (Bois, Lalanne, & Delforge, 2009), perceived pressure (Dorsch, Smith, & Dotterer, 2016), and the skills necessary to cope with the demands experienced in sport (Neely, McHugh, Dunn, & Holt, 2017; Tamminen & Holt, 2012).
Systematic reviews have reported the leverage of parents in youth sport. A systematic review of 73 studies investigating social support in youth sport (Sheridan et al., 2014)
reported findings for parent social support relating to 467 participants, and identified that parents provided support for athletes’ motivation, participation in elite sport, development within sport, physical activity levels, and athlete drop out. Similarly, Gledhill et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review of literature related to the psychosocial influences on talent development within football. This review identified that parents were involved in providing emotional, technical, tangible, informational, and reflective support for athletes, with this support being facilitated through the climate the parents set and their supporting of healthy perfectionist behaviours.
Further studies have explored the role of parents from the athletes’ perspective. For example, Knight, Boden and Holt (2010) conducted focus groups with 42 high performance junior tennis players (Mage = 13.5 years, SD = 1.2 years) and identified that athletes would
prefer encouragement and effort support more than technical and tactical advice during competitions. Knight, Neely and Holt (2011) similarly conducted individual interviews with 36 female athletes and identified preferred positive parent behaviours before (e.g., helping the athlete physically prepare, understanding the mental preparation required for competition), during (e.g., encouraging all team members, focusing on hard work rather than success, being positive during interactions and controlling own emotions) and after competition (e.g.,
providing positive feedback). Negative parenting behaviours to be avoided included parents drawing attention to themselves or their child and parents coaching their children during performances. Whist the findings of Knight et al. (2010, 2011) provide insight into athletes’ preferred parental support during competition, participants in both studies are junior athletes. The influence of parents in sport, and life in general, is proposed to change as individuals develop (Wylleman, Rosier & De Knop, 2016), and therefore models which take into account the role of parents across the spectrum of athlete development may provide further insight and assist parents in providing optimal support throughout their child’s involvement in sport.
Building on research regarding athletes’ preferred parental support during
competition, researchers have provided guidance to optimise parental involvement in sport. Harwood and Knight (2015) reviewed existing literature and proposed six ways in which parents could provide their children with the best support in sport, namely: a) provision of access to activities and social support; b) adoption of appropriate parenting styles; c)
understanding of the emotional context of competition and acting as emotional role models; d) maintenance of positive relationships with others in the sporting context; e) management of the demands placed on them within sport; and f) adapting their involvement depending on developmental stage of the athlete. Models of parental involvement in youth sport have been proposed to better understand and optimise the support that parents provide their children. For example, Knight and Holt (2014) proposed a grounded theory of optimal parental involvement in youth tennis. Through semi-structured interviewing, and adopting a
Straussian grounded theory methodology, their grounded theory proposed three categories of involvement. First, parents and athletes should share their goals for tennis participation and communicate these during involvement in the sport. Second, parents should endeavour to establish an understanding of the emotional climate within which their child participates in
tennis, including the performance demands and influencing factors within the environment. Third, parents should engage in enabling and enhancing strategies such as meeting their child’s needs in the sport, developing their ability to cope with competition and managing their own emotions as parents. This theory is grounded in the experiences of tennis players, parents and coaches and recognises the unique social and contextual nature of the sport and those social agents who function within it. Knight and Holt (2014) applied many of the principles used to ensure quality when adopting grounded theory methodologies such as theoretical sampling, iterative processes of collecting and analysing data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Holt & Tamminen, 2010b; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), suggesting that the model
developed is appropriately grounded in, and reflective of, the culture and context of parenting in tennis.
2.4.2.1. Parent Influences on Athlete Motivation.
Parents are proposed to be a vital source of support for athlete motivation and