Content uploaded by Jochen Delrue
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jochen Delrue on May 08, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Running head: Moderators of Coaches’ Motivating Style
1
2
Do Athletes’ Responses to Coach Autonomy Support and Control Depend on the
3
Situation and Athletes’ Personal Motivation?
4
5
6
Manuscript accepted for publication in
7
Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 43, 321-332.
8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.04.003
9
10
Last proof without editing
11
12
2
Abstract
13
Although plenty of studies have shown that a controlling, relative to an autonomy-
14
supportive, motivating style yields a host of undesirable outcomes, at least some sport
15
coaches endorse the belief that in some situations (e.g., when athletes misbehave) or with
16
some athletes (e.g., those who are amotivated) a controlling approach is warranted and even
17
beneficial. On the basis of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
18
2017), the current study examined to what extent the effects of an autonomy-supportive and
19
controlling coaching style depend on (a) the situation at hand and (b) athletes’ personal
20
motivation. To do so, we made use of an experimental vignette–based approach. Specifically,
21
after having completed a validated questionnaire on their motivation to practice judo (i.e.,
22
autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, amotivation), 101 judokas (67.3% boys; Mage
23
= 13.31 ± 1.54) were randomly assigned to either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling
24
condition. In each condition, judokas read two comics representing distinct situations (i.e.,
25
athletes struggling with skill mastery despite their effort versus athletes not putting effort and
26
disturbing practice), imagining themselves being the athlete in the comic. Having read the
27
comic, athletes filled out a paper and pencil questionnaire in which they rated their anticipated
28
need satisfaction/frustration, engagement, oppositional defiance, and anger. Results showed
29
that the situational circumstances (i.e., athletes are misbehaving) attenuated, yet, did not
30
cancel out, some of the detrimental effects of a controlling (relative to an autonomy-
31
supportive) approach. Effects of coaches’ motivating style appeared to be largely independent
32
of athletes’ motivation. The theoretical and practical significance of the results are discussed.
33
Keywords: Sports, Coaching, Self-Determination Theory, Motivation, Autonomy
34
3
“There is no need to pressure athletes when they are struggling with hard exercises. Yet,
35
when they are disturbing practice athletes expect their coach to punish athletes who are
36
behaving inappropriately.” (Lisa, Coach)
37
“Some athletes need pressure. If you don’t pressure them they will not train hard enough.”
38
(Peter, coach)
39
These statements illustrate that at least some coaches believe that in certain situations
40
(i.e., when athletes disturb practice) or with some athletes (i.e., those who are poorly
41
motivated), the use of a more controlling and pressuring approach may be beneficial.
42
Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), a
43
broad theory on human motivation, the main goal of this study was to examine whether the
44
effects of a controlling (relative to an autonomy-supportive) coaching style on athletes’
45
anticipated need-based experiences, anxiety, oppositional defiance, and engagement may
46
depend on (a) the specific situational circumstances (i.e., athletes are putting effort into a hard
47
exercise or athletes are displaying a lack of effort and are disturbing practice) and (b) athletes’
48
motivation (i.e., athletes displaying autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, or
49
amotivation). From a theoretical point of view, these questions are critical because they speak
50
to the claim that a controlling motivating style is universally more detrimental than an
51
autonomy-supportive style (Ryan & Deci, 2017). At the same time, these questions also have
52
important applied value because they can provide more specific and nuanced information on
53
which motivating style is most warranted under which circumstances and for which athletes.
54
Autonomy-supportive and Controlling Coaching
55
According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), athletes are more likely
56
to persist and thrive when their coaches rely on an autonomy-supportive style rather than on a
57
controlling style. When being autonomy-supportive, coaches solicit athletes’ needs, wishes,
58
and preferences, they use inviting and informational language, they encourage athletes to take
59
4
initiative, they provide autonomy-supportive feedback, and they follow athletes’ pace of
60
development. When athletes show resistance, autonomy-supportive coaches acknowledge
61
athletes’ negative affect and provide a meaningful rationale for assigned tasks and requests
62
(Aelterman, De Muynck, Haerens, Vande Broek, & Vansteenkiste, 2017; Carpentier &
63
Mageau, 2013; 2016; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Reeve, 2016). In contrast, when using a
64
more controlling style, coaches are more preoccupied with their own goals and ambitions,
65
thereby enforcing their personal agenda onto the athletes. A controlling style involves relying
66
on a variety of pressuring strategies such as the use of harsh, coercive language and
67
commands, the offer of contingent rewards and (threat of) punishments, the display of
68
conditional regard and even the use of intimidation and excessive personal control
69
(Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2010; De Meyer, Soenens, Aelterman,
70
De Bourdeaudhuij, & Haerens, 2016).
71
A wealth of cross-sectional, longitudinal, intervention-based, and diary studies in
72
youth sports has provided evidence that autonomy-supportive coaching relates to a host of
73
desirable affective outcomes, including greater vitality (Adie, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2012;
74
Gagné, Ryan & Bargmann, 2003; Reinboth, Duda & Ntoumanis, 2004) and well-being
75
(Haerens et al., 2018) as well as better behavioral outcomes such as engagement and
76
motivation (Curran, Hill, Hall, & Jowett, 2014; Langan, Blake, Toner, & Lonsdale, 2015),
77
mental toughness (Mahoney, Ntoumanis, Gucciardi, Mallett, & Stebbings, 2017), sustainable
78
persistence (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière; 2001), and performance (Cheon, Reeve,
79
Lee & Lee, 2015; Haerens et al., 2018). Conversely, controlling coaching relates to negative
80
outcomes such as burnout (Balaguer et al., 2012), ill-being (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan,
81
& Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; Haerens et al., 2018), and antisocial behaviors and resentment
82
(Delrue et al., 2017; Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011).
83
5
The systematic evidence for the differential effects of controlling and autonomy-
84
supportive coaching on athletes’ outcomes is consistent with the notion in SDT that these
85
coaching styles appeal differentially to athletes’ basic psychological needs. Autonomy-
86
supportive coaching has been shown to contribute to the satisfaction of athletes’
87
psychological needs for autonomy (i.e., to experience a sense of volition), competence (i.e., to
88
feel effective) and relatedness (i.e., to experience a warm relationship) (e.g., Haerens et al.,
89
2018). In contrast, a controlling coaching style has been found to thwart athletes’
90
psychological needs (Bartholomew et al., 2010). Because these psychological needs are
91
considered universal, that is, to be operative and relevant to all athletes, one can assume that a
92
perceived autonomy-supportive style is invariantly superior to a perceived controlling style in
93
terms of fostering adolescents’ motivation and well-being.
94
Does this universality claim imply that there is no variation whatsoever in effects of
95
autonomy-supportive and controlling coaching? No. According to SDT, there is room for
96
variability in the degree to which autonomy-supportive and controlling coaching affect
97
athletes’ outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Vansteenkiste, Aelterman, Haerens, & Soenens,
98
2019). While it is unlikely that a controlling style may be more adaptive than an autonomy-
99
supportive style, the effectiveness of both styles may depend partly on the situation at hand
100
and on athletes’ personal characteristics (e.g., motivation) (Ryan, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste,
101
in press; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Van Petegem, 2015).
102
The Situation-Dependent Effect of Coaches’ Autonomy Support and Control
103
In most previous correlational studies, the differential effects of autonomy-supportive
104
and controlling coaching were investigated by tapping into coaches’ typical style of
105
motivating athletes, thereby not taking the situational characteristics into account. This
106
shortcoming was partially addressed in experimental work examining the effects of coach
107
provided autonomy support and control in the context of a specific situation (e.g., De Muynck
108
6
et al., 2017). To date, these experimental studies mostly focused on situations in which
109
athletes are trying to master a specific skill. For example, in a lab study in which
110
undergraduate students learned to master a cricket throw, participants felt more self-
111
efficacious, reported more positive affect, and were more accurate when instructions were
112
given in an autonomy-supportive, compared to a controlling, way (Hooyman, Wulf, &
113
Lewthwaite, 2014). Along similar lines, kickboxers showed a greater willingness to exert
114
their practice drills when offered the possibility to choose the order of exercises compared to
115
when such choice was denied (Wulf, Freitas, & Tandy, 2014). Finally, tennis players involved
116
in an experimental field study reported more psychological need satisfaction and enjoyment
117
and showed more behavioral perseverance when feedback was delivered in an autonomy-
118
supportive, relative to a controlling, way (De Muynck et al., 2017).
119
Collectively, these experimental studies show that athletes who are practicing or even
120
learning a new skill benefit from an autonomy-supportive approach. Yet, sport coaches do not
121
only help athletes acquire and rehearse skills. Their role is also to monitor disciplinary matters
122
and to intervene when athletes fail to display appropriate behavior during training (Aelterman,
123
et al., 2017). In both roles, coaches are from time to time confronted with challenging
124
situations. Specifically, despite their efforts, athletes sometimes struggle to master new skills.
125
Also, athletes sometimes get distracted or they even show overt signs of resistance and
126
disruptive behavior, thereby refusing to put effort into the exercises at hand.
127
Up until today, we are not aware of any study in the domain of sports that compares
128
the effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling coaching in these different contexts.
129
Particularly when athletes refuse to put effort in the activity or even display disruptive
130
behavior, coaches may be inclined to react in a more controlling way. Indeed, studies in the
131
educational literature revealed that when students disengage or show disruptive behavior,
132
teachers tend to become more controlling (e.g., Grolnick, Weiss, McKenzie, & Wrightman,
133
7
1996; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Van den Berghe, Cardon, Tallir, Kirk, & Haerens, 2016).
134
Teachers may react in a controlling way in these circumstances because they hold the belief
135
that when students disengage or display disruptive behavior a controlling approach is
136
effective and, hence, necessary (Reeve et al., 2014). Moreover, also students expect their
137
teacher to react against disruptive behavior (Evertson & Poole, 2008), perhaps even if their
138
reaction is controlling. Like students, athletes may appraise a controlling intervention by their
139
coach differently as a function of the specific features of the situation at hand. As it is
140
relatively easy and effortless to refrain from disrupting practice, athletes may find that athletes
141
who disrupt the training should be held personally accountable for their misbehavior through
142
a forceful intervention. Moreover, because such disruptive behavior may have consequences
143
for other athletes (e.g., the team), athletes may conceive a forceful intervention by the coach
144
as legitimate, thus ending up with a relatively benign interpretation of a controlling reaction
145
of their coach. According to the Social Domain Theory, a theory emphasizing the domain-
146
specificity of effects of socialization (Smetana, 2011), such disruptive behavior involves a
147
violation of conventional regulations. In the conventional domain, socialization figures’
148
(including coaches’) setting of limitations is likely to be perceived as justified, even when the
149
limits are provided in a rather pressuring way (Smetana, 2011). On the other hand, previous
150
correlational (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Niemiec, 2009) and vignette-based (Mageau et al.,
151
2018) studies in the parenting domain, pointed out that children still perceive an autonomy-
152
supportive style of setting behavioral limitations as more acceptable and effective in fostering
153
internalization, compared to a controlling style.
154
Athletes may perceive a controlling coach intervention very differently in a situation
155
where, despite of their effort-expenditure, they keep struggling with the exercises. In these
156
circumstances, a controlling approach may be perceived more illegitimate as the lack of
157
mastery of the exercises falls outside the control of the struggling athlete and the athlete’s
158
8
behavior is less disruptive for the group process. From the Social Domain Theory perspective,
159
athletes’ lack of ability to competently perform the exercise falls under the personal domain
160
(Smetana, 2011). Adolescents have been found to be particularly sensitive to socializing
161
agents’ involvement in these personal issues, which they then perceive as less legitimate,
162
especially when such involvement is communicated in an intrusive way (Smetana, Wong,
163
Ball, & Yau, 2014). For this reason, coaches’ controlling interventions when athletes are
164
struggling with exercises may get appraised as more intrusive and, hence, more harmful.
165
The Role of Athletes’ Personal Motivation in the Effects of Coaches’ Style
166
Whether and how athletes are affected by autonomy-supportive or controlling
167
coaching may depend not only on the situation at hand, but also on athletes’ personal
168
motivation. According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), athletes’ motivation differs in terms of
169
both quantity (motivation vs. amotivation) and quality (autonomous relative to controlled
170
motivation). When athletes find an activity truly challenging and enjoyable (i.e., intrinsic
171
motivation) or understand and endorse its personal value (i.e., identified regulation), they are
172
said to be autonomously motivated. When their sport participation is driven by internal
173
pressures such as guilt or shame (i.e., introjected regulation) or external pressures such as the
174
threats of punishments or the offer of contingent rewards (i.e., external regulation), they
175
display controlled motivation. When athletes lack a sense of goal directness or intentionality,
176
when they feel aloof and they do not see the point in putting effort into the practice at hand,
177
they are amotivated (Ryan, Lynch, Vansteenkiste, & Deci, 2011).
178
Most studies so far have modeled athletes’ motivation as an outcome of coaches’
179
motivating style (e.g., Haerens et al., 2018; Pelletier et al., 2001) or as a mediator in the
180
relation between coaches’ behavior and important outcomes (e.g., Healy, Ntoumanis, van
181
Zanten, & Paine, 2014). Yet, given that there exist inter-individual differences in the amount
182
and type of motivation that athletes bring to the sport club, athletes’ motivation may also
183
9
color the interpretation of the coach’s motivating style and alter its effect, an idea that is
184
consistent with the notion that individuals pro-actively interpret and shape the situation they
185
are in (Reeve, 2013). In the literature, two hypotheses regarding the influencing role of
186
athletes’ motivation have been put forward. Specifically, the match hypothesis which is
187
inconsistent with SDT (Vansteenkiste, Timmermans, Lens, Soenens, & Van den Broeck,
188
2008), involves the idea that athletes will display the most favorable outcomes when there is
189
direct correspondence between their type of motivation and coaches’ type of motivating style
190
(e.g., autonomous motivation-autonomy-supportive style and controlled motivation-
191
controlling style). In contrast, according to the sensitization hypothesis (Moller, Deci, &
192
Elliot, 2010), athletes with high-quality motivation who have a longer history of need-
193
supportive interaction patterns, would be more sensitive to the benefits of an autonomy-
194
supportive coaching response, while being less sensitive to the costs associated with a new
195
controlling event. Conversely, due to their history of need-thwarting experiences, athletes
196
with poorer motivation would be particularly sensitive to the undermining effects of new
197
need-thwarting (e.g., controlling) events, while reaping fewer benefits from autonomy-
198
supportive coaching.
199
Both hypotheses yield partly overlapping and partly diverging expectations about the
200
moderating role of athletes’ motivation on effects of coaching style. According to both
201
hypotheses, athletes who are more autonomously motivated would benefit more from
202
autonomy-supportive coaches. Yet according to the match hypothesis, athletes with controlled
203
motivation or amotivation would benefit more and even need more controlling coaches, while
204
according to the sensitization hypothesis, athletes high on controlled motivation or
205
amotivation, will suffer more when exposed to controlling coaching behaviors, because they
206
will be more sensitive to it.
207
10
During the past two decades, the interplay between motivating style and personal
208
motivation increasingly received attention in empirical work (e.g., Black & Deci, 2000; De
209
Meyer et al., 2016; Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Sideridis, & Lens, 2011; Schüler, Sheldon,
210
Prentice, & Halusic, 2014; Van Petegem et al., 2017). These studies typically focused on
211
parents’ and teachers’ motivating style and yielded mixed results. Some studies provided
212
direct (e.g., Mouratidis et al., 2011) or indirect (e.g., Schüler et al., 2014; Van Petegem et al.,
213
2017) support for the overlapping premise of the match and sensitization hypotheses, showing
214
that autonomously motivated individuals benefit more from the provision of autonomy-
215
support. Yet, other studies did not support this idea, revealing that the benefits derived from
216
autonomy support were either larger for those low on autonomous motivation (Black & Deci,
217
2000), or were largely independent of persons’ autonomous motivation (e.g., De Meyer et al.,
218
2016). A few studies yielded evidence for a sensitization effect. For instance, Van Petegem et
219
al. (2017) showed that individuals with a history of need-thwarting were less sensitive to the
220
benefits of autonomy-support. None of the studies provided support for the match hypothesis,
221
while this hypothesis tends to hold truth in some people’s lay beliefs (Ng, Thøgersen-
222
Ntoumani, & Ntoumanis, 2012; De Meyer et al., 2016).
223
The Present Study
224
To examine our research questions regarding the moderating role of the situation and
225
athletes’ motivation, we chose to rely on an experimental vignette–based approach.
226
Specifically, we developed four different vignettes in which a judo coach is interacting with
227
two athletes, thereby crossing the style of interacting with athletes (i.e., autonomy-supportive
228
relative to controlling) with the situation at hand. In one situation athletes were struggling,
229
albeit putting effort into the exercises and in the other situation, they displayed a lack of effort
230
and even disturbed the training session. The characteristics of judo naturally align with the
231
investigated situations. That is, judo is a technical sport, in which athletes are challenged to
232
11
master complex skills (i.e., related to the first situation). Judo also has a culture in which
233
discipline is highly valued (i.e., related to the second situation; d’Arripe-Longueville,
234
Fournier, & Dubois, 1998).
235
Consistent with SDT and with previous research, we generally expect that an
236
autonomy-supportive style will be more beneficial than a controlling coaching style in terms
237
of athletes’ need-based experiences, felt anger, oppositional defiance, and engagement. Yet,
238
we anticipate that the strength of this effect may depend partly on the situation at hand and
239
athletes’ motivation.
240
Regarding the effect of the situational manipulation, consistent with SDT, we
241
hypothesize that even in the disruptive situation, an autonomy-supportive approach will be
242
more effective than a controlling style (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Mageau et al., 2018; Ryan &
243
Deci, 2017). Yet, we examine the possibility that the difference between an autonomy-
244
supportive and a controlling coaching style may be less pronounced in the situation where
245
athletes display disruptive behavior compared to the situation where they struggle mastering
246
the exercises.
247
As regards judokas’ personal motivation (i.e., autonomous, controlled and
248
amotivation), two alternative sets of hypotheses can be formulated. If the match hypothesis
249
holds true, more autonomously motivated athletes would benefit more from autonomy-
250
supportive coaching behaviors, yet controlled or amotivated athletes would benefit more from
251
controlling coaching. If the sensitization hypothesis holds true, athletes high on autonomous
252
motivation would be more sensitive to and therefore also benefit more from autonomy-
253
supportive coaching behaviors. Athletes high on controlled or amotivation would likewise be
254
more sensitive to the coaches’ behavior and thus suffer more from controlling behaviors.
255
Given the contradictory results in previous research on this matter (De Meyer et al., 2016;
256
Mouratidis et al., 2011; Schüler et al., 2014), we do not posit directional hypotheses. In a very
257
12
explorative fashion, we also consider the possibility that the situational characteristics and
258
athletes’ personal motivation interact in their influence on the effects of autonomy-supportive
259
(relative to controlling) coaching. For instance, the combination of the two most benign or
260
favorable conditions (athletes are in the situation where they struggle with a skill and the
261
athlete’s own motivation is autonomous in nature) may yield a surplus effect on the
262
effectiveness of autonomy-supportive (relative to controlling) coaching.
263
Method
264
Participants and recruitment procedures
265
A convenience sample of 101 Belgian judokas (32.7% girls) out of 20 different judo
266
clubs participated in the current study. They were on average 13.31 years of age (SD = 1.54),
267
trained on average 3.69 hours a week (SD = 2.06) and had on average 5.67 years (SD = 2.61)
268
of experience in judo. Some judokas were approached through their coaches, with the coaches
269
first asking permission of the judokas’ parents by means of an electronic invitation distributed
270
to the parents. If permission was obtained, a meeting with the judokas was scheduled after
271
one of their practice sessions. Other judokas were approached directly at tournaments, and
272
then the parents’ consent towards participation was asked right away.
273
If parental consent was obtained, the researcher explained the format of the study to
274
the judoka and addressed the judokas’ questions (if any). During the explanation, it was
275
ensured that judokas had every right to refrain from participating in the study, even if their
276
parents had consented. Judokas who provided consent to participate filled out a paper-and-
277
pencil questionnaire on their background characteristics and their general motivation to
278
practice judo. The experimental phase was then scheduled after their next practice session,
279
which was separated by a minimum of two and a maximum of seven days from the initial
280
assessment. For the experiment, judokas were asked to read two comic books (one for each
281
situation, i.e., athletes struggling with skill mastery despite their effort and athletes not
282
13
displaying effort and disturbing practice), and to imagine that they were one of the two
283
judokas in the comic book. After having read each of the two comic books, judokas filled out
284
a paper-and-pencil questionnaire measuring their perceptions of the coach’s interaction style,
285
and their anticipated need-based experiences, as well as anticipated anger, oppositional
286
defiance and engagement. The situations were presented in a counterbalanced manner to
287
avoid that the sequence of the vignettes would influence the way athletes responded to the
288
questionnaires. Both comic books contained experimentally manipulated vignettes concerning
289
an interaction between a judo coach and two judokas in a practice session. The coach’s
290
response in the vignettes was presented in either an autonomy-supportive or controlling way,
291
with judokas being randomly assigned to either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling
292
condition. As such, a 2x2 design was created with the situational context (i.e., “struggling”
293
versus “disruptive”) representing a within-subjects factor and with condition (autonomy-
294
supportive or controlling) representing a between-subjects factor. The study was approved by
295
the ethical board of Ghent University.
296
Measures and Materials
297
Pre- Experimental Measures. After providing information about background
298
characteristics (i.e., gender, age, hours of training, experience, club) participants completed a
299
validated 28-item scale (Assor, Vansteenkiste, & Kaplan, 2009) measuring their motivation to
300
put effort into their judo practice. The stem “I put effort in training…” was followed by items
301
to be rated on a 5-point-likert scale tapping into their intrinsic motivation (4 items; e.g.,
302
“because I find judo practice enjoyable”; α = .75), identified regulation (4 items; e.g.,
303
“because I appreciate the advantages of judo practice”; α = .69), introjected regulation (8
304
items; e.g., “because I would feel ashamed if I would not”; α = .78), external regulation (8
305
items; e.g., “because I would get approval from my coach”; α = .87) and amotivation (4 items;
306
e.g., but I ask myself why I do it”; α = .79). Next, a composite score was created for
307
14
autonomous motivation (8 items of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation; α = .80),
308
controlled motivation (16 items of external regulation and introjected regulation; α = .88) and
309
amotivation (4 items; α = .79).
310
Experimental Manipulation. Four different vignettes were created (see Appendix 1).
311
More precisely, situations where judokas were struggling to master a skill, and where judokas
312
were displaying disruptive behaviors during practice were created. These two situations were
313
then crossed with either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling coaching style, resulting in a
314
total of four different vignettes. Specifically, in the autonomy-supportive condition, coaching
315
behaviors consisted of acknowledging the judokas’ perspective, welcoming negative affect
316
and resistance, providing choice and a meaningful rationale, while making use of
317
informational language. In contrast, controlling responses consisted of ignoring judokas’
318
perspective and negative affect, demanding compliance and providing only coach-centered
319
rationales, threatening with punishment, while using controlling, guilt/shame-inducing
320
language. Although the type of operationalized autonomy-supportive (e.g., offer of choice)
321
and controlling (e.g., threatening with punishment) behaviors were held constant across the
322
two situations (struggling vs. disruptive), the precise wording was slightly adjusted to fit the
323
situation at hand as to maintain high ecological validity. All four vignettes were reviewed by a
324
panel of experts in SDT, judokas and judo coaches to evaluate the autonomy-supportive and
325
controlling nature, as well as the ecological validity and credibility of the coaches’ responses.
326
Based on these panel evaluations, only minor adjustments to the scenarios were made. The
327
adjustments dealt with the sport specific jargon and with how a judo skill is usually learned
328
and rehearsed in judo.
329
We chose a paper and pencil format instead of a video-based approach to avoid that
330
situational differences would be contaminated by a different tone of voice. That is, when role
331
playing the situations, actors may be inclined to use a harsher and more aggressive tone of
332
15
voice when being controlling (Weinstein, Zougkou, & Paulman , 2018). Because tone of
333
voice does not differ in vignettes delivered in a paper and pencil format, any observed
334
differences in the present study could be attributed only to the different autonomy-supportive
335
and controlling strategies and its different accompanying wording. However, we are aware
336
that such an approach can suffer from lower immersion compared to a video-based approach
337
(Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Therefore, vignettes were presented in a comic book format,
338
which depicted interactions between the judokas and the coach through text balloons.
339
Together with the fact that judokas participated in the study directly following a practice
340
session, these lively pictures may have allowed them to identify with the athletes in the
341
situation and to be more fully immersed in the story (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014).
342
Manipulation Check: Perceived Autonomy Support and Control. Judokas’
343
perceptions of the style of the coaches’ responses were assessed using items based on the
344
Teacher As Social Context Questionnaire (TASCQ; Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell,
345
1988) and the Psychologically Controlling Teaching scale (PCT; Soenens, Sierens,
346
Vansteenkiste, Dochy, & Goossens, 2012), which were found to be valid in the context of
347
Physical Education (De Meyer et al., 2016). After reading the stem “If I would be one of the
348
judokas in this training, I would have the impression that the coach…” participants answered
349
questions probing their perception of coaches’ autonomy support (6 items; e.g., “…gives me
350
the space to do things the way I would like to do things”; α = .74) or control (5 items; e.g.,
351
“…insists on doing things the way s/he likes to do things”: α = .38). By dropping the
352
controlling item “…tries to change the way I see things” the reliability of scale increased to α
353
= .52. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely
354
true).
355
Need Satisfaction and Frustration. Needs-based experiences were assessed using a
356
6-item instrument based on the adapted version of the BNSFS (Chen et al., 2015). After the
357
16
stem “If I would be one of the judokas in this training, I would…” participants answered to 3
358
items tapping into satisfaction of the needs for autonomy (i.e., “have the feeling I can be who
359
I truly am”), competence (i.e., “have the feeling I am doing well, even with hard exercises”),
360
and relatedness (i.e., ”have the feeling that the coach truly cares about me”) (α = .76), and 3
361
items tapping into frustration of the needs for autonomy (i.e., “experience it as an obligation),
362
competence (i.e., feel as a failure because of the mistake I make”) and relatedness (i.e., feel
363
excluded) (α = .61).
364
Affective and Behavioral Reponses. Anger, oppositional defiance and engagement
365
were assessed respectively with items adopted from Assor, Roth and Deci (2004),
366
Vansteenkiste, Soenens, Van Petegem, & Duriez (2014) and Skinner, Kindermann, and Furrer
367
(2009). After the stem “If I would be one of the judokas in this training, I would…”
368
participants answered to 3 items for anticipated anger (e.g., “be very angry with my coach”; α
369
= .78), 4 for anticipated oppositional defiance (e.g., “rebel against the expectations of my
370
coach”; α = .78) and 6 items for anticipated engagement (e.g., “work as hard as I could”; α =
371
.84).
372
Plan of Analyses
373
Preliminary Analyses. We first inspected descriptive statistics and Pearson
374
correlations among all variables (see Table 1). To examine whether randomization was
375
performed successfully, we tested through two-level (i.e., measures within athletes) multilevel
376
regression analyses whether participants in the autonomy-supportive and controlling
377
conditions differed according to their general background characteristics (i.e., age, hours of
378
training, and years of experience). We used χ²-analyses to examine gender distribution across
379
conditions.
380
Primary Analyses. To address our research questions, we performed a series of two-
381
level multilevel regression analyses with measures (i.e., for both situations), nested within
382
17
athletes1. Then, variance components models (i.e., Model 0; Rasbash, Steele, Browne, &
383
Goldstein, 2014) were tested to estimate how much of the variance in each of the outcomes is
384
explained at the within (i.e., Level 1) and between-athlete level (i.e., Level 2). Next, we added
385
relevant covariates (i.e., gender, age, hours of training, and years of experience) as well as
386
experimental condition (i.e., autonomy-supportive versus controlling) to the model (See Model
387
1, Table 2). To examine our first research question considering the possible moderating role of
388
the situation, we then added the main effect of situation, as well as situation by condition
389
interaction effects to Model 1 (see Model 2, Table 2). In a similar way, and to test for the
390
moderating role of students’ motivation, we added main effects of all three types of motivation,
391
as well as the three two-way interaction terms between types of motivation and condition to
392
Model 1 (see Table 4). Finally, in a more exploratory way we also tested for possible “condition
393
by situation by motivation” three-way interaction effects in a full model containing three-way
394
interaction terms as well as all possible two-way interaction effects and the main effects
395
condition, situation, and motivation.
396
Results
397
Preliminary Analyses
398
Table 1 shows the descriptive results, and the correlations between covariates and the
399
study outcomes. Age related positively to anticipated anger and negatively to engagement.
400
Number of training hours related positively to anticipated need satisfaction.
401
Randomization check. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in
402
judokas’ age (F(1,98) =.89, p = .35), years of experience (F(1,98) = 1.26, p = .27) and hours
403
of training (F(1,98) = .09, p = .77) according to condition. Furthermore, no differences
404
between conditions were found for athletes’ baseline scores of autonomous motivation
405
(F(1,98) = .90, p = .35), controlled motivation (F(1,98) = .31, p = .58) and amotivation
406
(F(1,98) = .04, p = .85).
407
18
A χ²-analysis indicated a significant difference in gender distribution across the
408
experimental conditions (2(1) = 4.49, p < 0.05). Specifically, the autonomy-supportive
409
condition contained relatively more boys (58.8%) than the controlling coaching condition
410
(41.2%), while the controlling condition contained more girls (63.6%) than the autonomy-
411
supportive condition (36.4%).
412
Primary Analyses
413
Inspection of the variance component models revealed significant variance at the
414
between-athlete level and at the within-athlete (between-situations) level for all outcomes. The
415
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC; Lüdtke, Robitzsch, Trautwein, & Kunter, 2009)
416
represents the percentage of variance lying at the between athlete-level as a proportion of the
417
total variance. The lowest variance at the between-athlete level was found for engagement
418
(32.85%), while the highest between-athlete variance was found for need satisfaction (56.72%).
419
For all other of the studied variables, values were in between.
420
Manipulation Check. Results showed significant main effects of condition on judokas’
421
perceptions of the coaches’ autonomy-supportive and controlling style (Table 2). Judokas in
422
the autonomy-supportive condition perceived the coach as more autonomy-supportive (M =
423
3.05) and less controlling (M = 2.13) compared to judokas in the controlling condition, who
424
perceived their coach as less autonomy-supportive (M = 2.56) and more controlling (M = 3.11).
425
These findings confirm the effectiveness of the manipulation.
426
Perceived Credibility. In terms of perceived credibility of the situations, no
427
significant main effect of condition effect was found (2 = 3.04, df = 1, p = 0.08). Yet, a
428
condition by situation interaction effect emerged: the autonomy-supportive approach was
429
perceived to be more credible than the controlling approach in the “struggling” situation (
=
430
-0.57, 2 = 11.95, df = 1, p 0.001), while no significant condition difference was found for
431
the “disruptive” situation (
= 0.06, 2 = 0.12, df = 1, p = 0.73).
432
19
Main Effects of Coaching Style. Judokas anticipated more need satisfaction (2 =
433
42.54, df = 1, p 0.001) and engagement (2 = 10.89, df = 1, p = 0.001), and less need frustration
434
(2 = 40.77, df = 1, p 0.001), anger (2 = 63.29, df = 1, p 0.001), and defiance (2 = 9.22, df
435
= 1, p 0.01) when they read the autonomy-supportive vignettes when compared to the
436
controlling vignettes (see Table 2).
437
The Moderating Effect of Situation. Next, we examined condition by situation
438
interaction effects in relation to the outcomes. For all but one outcome (i.e., engagement), we
439
found significant condition by situation interaction effects. Significance levels ranged
440
between 2 = 11.34, df = 1, p 0.001 for anger and 2 = 4.66, df = 1, p 0.05 for oppositional
441
defiance. For anticipated need satisfaction, a controlling (relative to an autonomy-supportive)
442
approach elicited less need satisfaction in both situations, yet the detrimental effects were
443
stronger for the “struggling” situation (B = -1.10,
2 = 49.49, df =1, p 0.001), when
444
compared to the “disruptive” situation (B = -.65,
2 = 17.29, df = 1, p 0.001). Similar, yet
445
opposite, effects were found for anticipated need frustration and anger. While a controlling
446
(relative to an autonomy-supportive) approach elicited more anticipated need frustration and
447
anger in both situations, the detrimental effect of a controlling approach appeared larger in the
448
“struggling” situation (B = 1.15, 2 = 46.81, df = 1, p 0.001 for need frustration; B = 1.55, 2
449
= 68.56, df = 1, p 0.001 for anger), when compared to the “disruptive” situation (B = .55,
2
450
= 10.68, df = 1, p = 0.001 for need frustration, B = .75,
2 = 16.42, df = 1, p 0.001 for
451
anger). As for judokas’ anticipated oppositional defiance, we found that only for the
452
“struggling” situation, athletes anticipated more defiance when exposed to a controlling coach
453
(B = .64, 2 = 13.94, df = 1, p 0.001), while in “disruptive” situation no differences were
454
found between an autonomy-supportive and controlling approach (B = .22, 2 = 1.59, df = 1, p
455
= 0.21). All averages are reported in Table 3.
456
20
The Moderating Effect of Judokas’ Motivation. Next, we examined motivation
457
(i.e., autonomous, controlled and amotivation) by condition interaction effects in relation to
458
the outcomes. Of the 15 interaction terms tested (3 types of motivation by 5 outcomes) only
459
one was significant (i.e., with autonomous motivation; See Table 4,), namely in the prediction
460
of need satisfaction. A test of simple slopes indicated that athletes reported less need
461
satisfaction when they were exposed to the controlling coach as compared to the autonomy-
462
supportive coach, especially when they were high (i.e., +1 SD above the mean) in
463
autonomous motivation (B = -1.27, SE = 0.19, z = -6.72 p < .01). The respective difference
464
between the controlling and autonomy-supportive approach was smaller among athletes who
465
were around the mean in autonomous motivation (B = -0.85, SE = 0.12, z = -7.20, p < .001)
466
and even smaller – yet still statistically significant - among those who were low (i.e., -1 SD
467
below the mean) in autonomous motivation (B = -0.44, SE = 0.17, z = -2.67, p = .008). A
468
graphical representation of this interaction is shown in Figure 1.
469
In terms of main effects of motivation, we found that judokas who were more
470
autonomously motivated, anticipated more need satisfaction (B = .65, 2 = 8.67, df = 1, p
471
0.01) and less anger (B = -.51, 2 = 4.04, df = 1, p 0.05), while no significant relationships
472
were found with anticipated need frustration, engagement or defiance. Judokas high on
473
controlled motivation anticipated more oppositional defiance (B = .33, 2 = 6.62, df = 1, p
474
0.05), yet no significant relations were found with other outcomes. No significant main effects
475
were found for amotivation.
476
Finally, we also explored whether there were significant “condition by situation by
477
motivation” three-way interaction effects. None of these three-way interaction effects
478
appeared significant (all 2 < 3.49, df = 1, p > 0.06).
479
Discussion
480
21
Recent SDT-based research has shown that an autonomy-supportive and controlling
481
coaching style are on average, respectively, beneficial and harmful for athletes’ experiences,
482
motivation, engagement, and performance (e.g., Wulf, 2007). Consistent with this research,
483
results of the current study demonstrate that an autonomy-supportive, relative to a controlling,
484
style predicts more need satisfaction and more engagement and less need frustration, anger,
485
and oppositional defiance. Our findings thus corroborate the average adaptive effect of an
486
autonomy-supportive coaching style.
487
Yet, some sport coaches raise doubts about whether in real life an autonomy-
488
supportive coaching style would always, that is, under all circumstances and with any athlete,
489
yield desirable outcomes (e.g., Ng, et al., 2012). That is, some coaches hold the belief that in
490
some situations (e.g., when athletes display disruptive behavior) and with some athletes (i.e.,
491
those high on controlled motivation or amotivation) a controlling approach is warranted and
492
even more effective (Ng et al., 2012). While the idea that a controlling approach would
493
sometimes be more effective than an autonomy-supportive approach is inconsistent with
494
SDT’s universality claim, SDT acknowledges that there might be gradation in the beneficial
495
and harmful effects of an autonomy-supportive and controlling style, depending on both
496
contextual and person characteristics (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Ryan, et al., in
497
press; Soenens et al., 2015). Yet, to date, this issue of gradation did not receive much
498
attention in the context of sports. Therefore, the current study examined whether the
499
anticipated beneficial and harmful effects of, respectively, an autonomy-supportive and
500
controlling coaching style depend on (a) the situation at hand and (b) athletes’ personal
501
motivation.
502
Situation-dependency of Coach Autonomy Support and Control
503
The detrimental effects of a controlling approach appeared to be more pronounced in a
504
situation where athletes are struggling albeit putting effort into the exercises when compared
505
22
to a situation where athletes display disruptive behavior. Thus, when athletes envisioned a
506
judoka who was approached by a controlling coach while struggling with the exercises (e.g.,
507
“just do as I say, it is not so hard”), they anticipated the least need satisfaction and the most
508
need frustration, they indicated they would experience more anger and resentment, and they
509
reported being more inclined to defy the request of the controlling coach all together. This
510
was very different when the coach was holding an autonomy-supportive approach in the
511
“struggling” situation. Then, athletes anticipated that they would experience high levels of
512
autonomy (i.e., a sense of volition), competence (i.e., effective) and relatedness (i.e., warm
513
relationship) satisfaction (with scores higher than 3 on a five-point scale) and low levels of
514
autonomy (i.e., pressured), competence (i.e., failure) and relatedness (i.e., cold relationship,
515
excluded) frustration (with scores of 2 on a 5-point Likert scale).
516
In a situation where athletes display disruptive behavior, the controlling approach
517
(e.g., “if I must say it another time, you will get punished”) was also detrimental (when
518
compared to an autonomy-supportive approach) in terms of anticipated need satisfaction, need
519
frustration, and anger. Yet, the effect was more modest in terms of effect size than in the
520
struggling situation.
521
While the situation at hand thus seems to attenuate the detrimental effects of a
522
controlling approach, it is important to note that, in both situations, an autonomy-supportive
523
approach elicited more engagement than a controlling one and that even in the disruptive
524
situation the autonomy supportive reaction was still more adaptive for most outcomes (except
525
for oppositional defiance). As such, the current results demonstrate that the situational
526
circumstances in which such coaching behaviors are displayed, only partially modify the
527
extent to which these coaching behaviors influence judokas’ anticipated experiences during
528
practice.
529
23
How can this attenuating effect of the situation be explained? Studies in the
530
educational literature show that teachers are pulled to act in a more controlling way when
531
students misbehave (e.g., Grolnick et al., 1996; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Van den Berghe et
532
al., 2016). As such, a controlling reaction might come across as more normative, realistic and
533
familiar in such a situation (Reeve et al., 2014). Our results provided some indirect support
534
for this interpretation as athletes rated the controlling approach as more credible in the
535
disruptive behavior compared to the struggling situation. Athletes may also have found such a
536
demanding and more forceful response of the coach to be somewhat more legitimate and
537
therefore less harmful (Way, 2011). After all, judokas have control over the amount of effort
538
they display and the extent to which they engage in disruptive behavior. As such, they can be
539
held accountable for their behavior in this situation. This is different when athletes are
540
struggling with exercises. In this situation athletes may feel as if their lack of competence falls
541
outside their control, and they may therefore feel not understood by a controlling coach. In
542
their opinion, the controlling coach may fail to notice their efforts to master the activity and
543
the fact of being considered personally accountable for making insufficient progress may even
544
come across as intrusive. For this reason, the use of control under these circumstances may be
545
perceived as less legitimate and, therefore, more harmful.
546
The Motivation-dependency of Coach Autonomy Support and Control
547
In addition to considering the role of the situation at hand, we also investigated
548
whether athletes’ motivation moderated the effect of coaches’ style. The results revealed that
549
the effects of coaching style were largely independent of judokas’ personal motivation (with
550
only one out of 15 interactions being significant). Further inspection of this interaction effect
551
revealed that the effect was a matter of gradation. That is, the difference between the
552
autonomy-supportive and controlling vignette in the prediction of need satisfaction was more
553
pronounced for judokas high in autonomous motivation. Specifically, highly autonomously
554
24
motivated athletes anticipated even more need satisfaction in response to an autonomy-
555
supportive approach and even less need satisfaction in reaction to a controlling approach
556
compared to individuals low in autonomous motivation.
557
Thus, athletes’ motivation affected the degree to which an autonomy-supportive
558
(relative to a controlling) approach elicited need satisfaction. Importantly, the condition effect
559
was not cancelled, let alone reversed. Together, these findings suggest, in contrast to some
560
coaches’ beliefs regarding the motivation-dependent effectiveness of an autonomy-supportive
561
or controlling approach (e.g., Ng et al., 2012), that the moderating role of athletes’ motivation
562
was rather limited. Our findings do not support the idea that a match between athletes’
563
motivation and coaches’ motivating style is warranted as has been suggested in previous
564
research (Horn, Bloom, Berglund & Packard, 2011; Schüler et al., 2014), as athletes high on
565
controlled motivation or amotivation did not benefit more from a controlling approach.
566
Neither do our results provide systematic support for the mechanism of sensitization that
567
received some support in prior research with teachers and parents (e.g., Van Petegem et al.,
568
2017). If the sensitization hypothesis would have been supported we would have found that
569
athletes who were highly autonomously motivated would not only be more sensitive to an
570
autonomy supportive approach but also be less sensitive to the detrimental effects of a
571
controlling approach, while athletes low on autonomous motivation with a history of need-
572
thwarting events would have been particularly sensitive to the undermining effects of new
573
controlling events. Our results supported only the former part of the hypothesis but not the
574
latter part.
575
Although only one moderation effect was obtained, such finding is informative in its
576
own right. Indeed, the claimed universal benefits of a perceived autonomy-supportive
577
coaching style begs the question of moderation by individual differences variables, an issue
578
that has received increasing attention over the past few years (Vansteenkiste & Mouratidis,
579
25
2016). A host of potential moderators have been addressed in recent work, varying from
580
personality differences (e.g., Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2011; Mabbe, Soenens, De Muynck, &
581
Vansteenkiste, 2018), to differences in need strength (e.g., Katz, Kaplan, & Gueta, 2010;
582
Schüler et al., 2014; Van Assche et al., 2018) and differences in motivation (e.g., De Meyer et
583
al., 2016). Congruent with previous work by De Meyer et al. (2016), herein, limited evidence
584
was found for the moderating role of athletes’ type of motivation in the relationship between
585
coaches’ autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors and athletes’ sport experience.
586
Interpreted differently, our findings suggest that an autonomy-supportive approach will most
587
likely yield adaptive outcomes, and that a controlling approach will most likely lead to
588
detrimental outcomes, even if athletes display high levels of controlled motivation or
589
amotivation.
590
Finally, our findings also revealed some direct relationships between athletes’
591
motivation and the outcomes. Irrespective of the coaching style they were exposed to, athletes
592
who truly enjoyed or valued practicing judo (high on autonomous motivation) anticipated
593
higher levels of need satisfaction and less anger. Further, athletes who scored high on
594
controlled motivation anticipated more oppositional defiance. These findings suggest that
595
these trait levels of motivation, which are likely to be rooted in a history of need satisfying (as
596
for autonomous motivation) and need frustrating (as for controlled motivation) experiences
597
determine to some extent (not systematically for all outcomes) how athletes respond to
598
experimentally manipulated vignettes of a coaching situation.
599
Practical Implications
600
In light of the findings demonstrating the benefits of an autonomy-supportive
601
motivating style, an increasing number of researchers have developed and tested evidence-
602
based interventions to train sport coaches to adopt a more autonomy-supportive style and
603
have shown such interventions lead to better motivation and performance (e.g., Cheon, et al.,
604
26
2015; Reynders et al., 2018). The present findings may help to bring a more nuanced message
605
regarding the effectiveness of autonomy-supportive and controlling coaching, thereby also
606
addressing coaches’ and educators’ critical questions. That is, during professional training
607
programs, coaches and educators often raise doubts about whether in real life an autonomy-
608
supportive style is always attainable (Reeve & Cheon, 2016), realistic and effective (e.g.,
609
Aelterman et al., 2013). Coaches particularly struggle to act in an autonomy-supportive way
610
when athletes are fooling around, are disrupting practice, or display a lack of effort
611
(Ntoumanis & Mallet, 2014; Occhino, Mallet, Rynne, & Carlisle, 2014; Reeve, 2009). In such
612
situations, a strong reaction is called for and coaches may be inclined to convey their
613
expectations in a fairly forceful manner by using commands (“It is enough, you must…”), by
614
threatening with sanctions (e.g., “If I need to say it another time, then…) or by punishing
615
(e.g., “you must sit aside now). Although coaches may hope to reorient athletes’ attention to
616
the exercise and to prompt them to extra efforts with such a forceful approach, they may end
617
up with athletes who do not feel understood, as indexed by lowered need satisfaction, and
618
who may even resist complying with the coaches’ request, as indexed by the elevated anger,
619
resentment and oppositional defiance. So, what is the alternative? Clearly, it is no option to
620
become permissive under these circumstances and to hope that the situation resolves itself.
621
Yet, the way of intervening seems to play a major role. In the present study, the coach in the
622
autonomy-supportive vignette tried to take athletes’ frame of reference, thereby being curious
623
to hear athletes’ perspective (e.g., “you seem to have problems to concentrate, how come?”)2
624
and acknowledging athletes’ negative affect; he also provided a rationale (e.g., “I understand
625
it is not easy to concentrate if you do not like this exercise too much, yet this exercise will
626
help you with the next exercise…”), and even built in genuine choice (e.g., “you can choose,
627
either you choose a different partner or you keep on working together and take the exercise
628
seriously”) to defuse the problematic situation. Although some coaches may consider such an
629
27
autonomy-supportive approach as being “too soft” to adequately handle disruptive behavior,
630
the current results indicate the opposite. Hence, the challenge for coaches is to consequently
631
follow up on athletes’ disruptive behavior (i.e., provide structure), yet do so in an autonomy-
632
supportive way (see also Mageau et al., 2018 in the parenting domain). Indeed, past research,
633
albeit not specifically related to athletes’ disruptive behavior, has found that the combination
634
of an autonomy-supportive style with the provision of structure is most ideal to promote
635
engagement and autonomous motivation (Curran, Hill, & Niemiec, 2013; Jang, Reeve, &
636
Deci, 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012).
637
When athletes struggle with hard exercises, coaches’ patience to follow athletes’ pace
638
of development may be challenged quite a bit. In such a situation it appears even more
639
important to refrain from controlling strategies such as the use of controlling language (e.g.,
640
“I see you are making the same mistake over and over again, you must….), pressuring
641
athletes (e.g., “if others manage, you have to as well”) or shaming them (e.g., “stop now, there
642
is no point in proceeding like this”). Indeed, given the benefits of an autonomy-supportive
643
approach were even more pronounced in this situation, coaches do well to maintain this style
644
when athletes invest a lot of effort into hard exercises they are struggling with. As such, an
645
autonomy-supportive style seems to help athletes stay positive and engaged when facing
646
challenging or even competence-frustrating situations.
647
In sum, the present contribution may help to fine-tune existing intervention programs
648
(Cheon et al., 2015; Langan et al; 2015; Mahoney et al., 2015), as our findings suggest that a
649
controlling approach is especially likely to backfire when athletes fail to master an exercise
650
despite their well-intended efforts. At the same time, coaches do well to maintain an
651
autonomy-supportive stance even when their athletes display disruptive group behavior. By
652
integrating these more refined conclusions in existing intervention programs, some of
653
coaches’ doubts about the effectiveness of autonomy-supportive practices and their
654
28
convictions regarding the effectiveness of controlling coaching in cases of athletes’
655
misbehavior could be addressed. Also, the vignette materials developed herein may offer a
656
more precise insight in how coaches can maintain an autonomy-supportive stance under
657
challenging circumstances, that is, when their athletes struggle with an exercise or disrupt the
658
concentration of their team members.
659
Finally, the results of the current study suggest that coaches should not pursue an
660
absolute match between their motivating style and athletes’ motivation, as if an autonomy-
661
supportive approach would only work for autonomously motivated athletes, while a
662
controlling approach would be effective for athletes with poor quality motivation (i.e.,
663
controlled motivation and amotivation). Instead, based on the results of the experiment
664
presented here, it can be hypothesized that, also in real-life, all athletes would thrive under
665
autonomy-supportive conditions and suffer from controlling strategies. We would like to
666
caution, however, that the current findings do not suggest that an autonomy-supportive style
667
represents a motivational cook book, including recipes that work all the time for all athletes.
668
An autonomy-supportive style in essence requires coaches to adopt a curious and receptive
669
attitude as to fully understand the athletes’ frame of reference (Aelterman et al., 2017;
670
Vansteenkiste & Soenens, 2015). Autonomy-supportive coaches flexibly adapt their strategies
671
to the athletes in front of them, in an attempt to identify, nurture, and develop their inner
672
motivational resources. Indeed, such an empathic stance is perhaps the most central feature of
673
an autonomy-supportive style (Mageau, Sherman, Grusec, Koestner, & Bureau, 2017;
674
Soenens, Deci, & Vansteenkiste, 2017; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010).
675
Limitations and Future Directions
676
Some limitations of the current study require attention. First, due to the repeated
677
measurement design, we limited the number of items per construct as to avoid response
678
fatigue among participants. However, this item reduction may account for the lower internal
679
29
consistency of some of the assessed constructs. Because the scales with lower internal
680
consistency include a substantial part of error variance (next to substantive variance capturing
681
the essence of the construct), associations of these scales with other measures may be affected
682
by error variance and may, most likely, be suppressed (thus representing an underestimation
683
of the true association). Second, the vignettes used to standardize participants’ exposure to
684
autonomy-supportive or controlling coaching behavior were very distinct and may not
685
correspond with daily reality. In real-life many coaches rely on a mixture of strategies (e.g.,
686
Haerens et al., 2018), alternating between more autonomy-supportive and more controlling
687
strategies within a situation. The pronounced difference between the two conditions not only
688
account for strong condition effects, this difference may also have reduced the probability of
689
obtaining evidence for the moderating role of the situation and athletes' motivation. These
690
moderating variables may play a more significant role in more ambiguous situations,
691
involving a combination of both styles. Third, although the use of written vignettes has its
692
advantages (e.g., no interference of body language or intonation), because we assessed
693
athletes’ hypothetical responses to the vignettes we cannot tell with certainty whether they
694
would feel and respond the same way in an actual training. Also, written vignettes are less
695
vivid than interactions put in scene and presented via video demonstration (e.g., Aguinis &
696
Bradley, 2014; De Meyer et al., 2016). As such, they rely heavily on participants’ imagination
697
and access to anticipated emotions and behavior. In future work one could also try to address
698
our research questions by manipulating sport coaches’ style in a real-life context and by
699
assessing athletes' real-life responses and feelings (e.g., Mouratidis et al., 2011). Finally, the
700
observed differences between both situations in terms of perceived autonomy support may be
701
due to the situational differences themselves, but could also be explained by the slightly
702
different operationalization of the specific autonomy-supportive behaviors between situations.
703
Although the type of operationalized autonomy-supportive behaviors (e.g., provision of
704
30
choice; communication of a meaningful rationale) was kept constant across situations, the
705
exact wording was adjusted to the situation at hand to maintain high ecological validity.
706
Future research may try to keep the wording perfectly constant across situations to draw
707
unambiguous conclusions regarding the observed differences in autonomy support between
708
both situations.
709
Conclusion
710
Coaches do not only help athletes to develop skills, they also have an important role in
711
monitoring disciplinary matters and in regulating athletes’ appropriate behavior during
712
training. Moreover, from time to time they also deal with athletes who are less optimally
713
motivated. The current study addressed the question whether in disciplinary situations, or with
714
poorly motivated athletes, a controlling approach may be warranted. Although we found that
715
the differences between the autonomy-supportive and controlling approaches were less
716
pronounced in situations where athletes disrupt the training compared to situations where
717
athletes struggle to master a skill, neither the situational circumstances (e.g., athletes are
718
misbehaving), nor athletes’ personal motivation (e.g., they show more controlled motivation
719
or amotivation) cancelled out the benefits of an autonomy supportive, relative to a controlling,
720
approach. These findings provide further support for the theoretical claim that a controlling
721
motivating style is universally more detrimental then an autonomy-supportive style (Ryan &
722
Deci, 2017). Although disruptive athletes or poorly motivated athletes may pull for a
723
controlling approach from coaches, the present findings suggest that even under these more
724
challenging circumstances coaches would do well to adopt an autonomy- supportive stance.
725
726
727
References
728
31
1.Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic
729
need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A
730
longitudinal investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 51-59.
731
2.Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G-J., Haerens, L., Vande Broek, G., & Vansteenkiste M.
732
(2017). Motiverend coachen in de sport. Leuven: Acco.
733
3.Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J., Van den Berghe, L., &
734
Haerens, L. (2013). Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive
735
teaching in physical education: qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and
736
Teacher Education, 29, 64–75.
737
4.Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and
738
implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research
739
Methods, 17(4), 351-371.
740
5.Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional cost of parents’ conditional
741
regard: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Personality, 72, 47–88.
742
doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x.
743
6.Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and
744
introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benefits of self-
745
worth striving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 482-497. doi:
746
10.1037/a0014236.
747
7.Balaguer, I., Gonzalez, L., Fabra, P., Castillo, I., Merce, J., Duda, J. L. (2012). Coaches'
748
interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well- and ill-being of young
749
soccer players: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 1619-1629.
750
8.Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011).
751
Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic
752
experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 75–102.
753
32
9.Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The controlling
754
interpersonal style in a coaching context: development and initial validation of a
755
psychometric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 193–216.
756
10.Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1988). Teacher as social context: A
757
measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and
758
autonomy support (Tech. Rep. No. 102). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
759
11.Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and
760
students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A Self-Determination
761
Theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
762
12.Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). When change-oriented feedback enhances
763
motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in
764
sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 423-435.
765
13.Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2016). Predicting sport experience during traing: The role
766
of change-oriented feedback in athletes’ motivation, self-confidence and need
767
satisfaction fluctuations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 45-58.
768
14.Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Duriez, B., Lens, W., et
769
al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength
770
across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236.
771
15.Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2015). Giving and receiving autonomy support
772
in a high-stakes sport context: A field-based experiment during the 2012 London
773
Paralympic Games. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 59-69.
774
16.Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Jowett, G. E. (2014). Perceived coach behaviors and
775
athletes' engagement and disaffection in youth sport: The mediating role of the
776
psychological needs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 45, 559-580.
777
33
17.Curran T., Hill A. P., & Niemiec C. P. (2013). A conditional process model of children’s
778
behavioral engagement and behavioral disaffection in sport based on self-
779
determination theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 30–43.
780
18.d’Arripe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J. F., & Dubois, A. (1998). The perceived effectiveness
781
of interactions between expert French judo coaches and elite female athletes. The
782
Sport Psychologist, 12, 317-332.
783
19.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
784
behavior. New York: Plenum
785
20.Deci. E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
786
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
787
21.Delrue, J., Haerens, L. Mouratidis, A., Gevaert, K., Vande Broek, G., & Vansteenkiste, M.
788
(2017). A game-to-game investigation in the relation between need-supportive and
789
need-thwarting coaching and moral behavior in soccer. Psychology of Sport and
790
Exercise, 31, 1-10.
791
22.De Meyer, J. Soenens, B., Aelterman, N., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Haerens, L. (2016). The
792
different faces of controlling teaching : implications of a distinction between
793
externally and internally controlling teaching for students’ motivation in physical
794
education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21, 632-652.
795
23.De Meyer, J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Van Petegem, S, & Haerens
796
L. (2016). Do students with different motives for physical education respond
797
differently to autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching? Psychology of Sport and
798
Exercise, 22, 72-82.
799
24.De Muynck, G-J, Vansteenkiste, M., Delrue, J., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B.
800
(2017). The effects of feedback valence and style on need satisfaction, self-talk, and
801
34
perseverance among tennis players: An experimental study. Journal of Sport &
802
Exercise Psychology, 39, 67-80.
803
25.Evertson, C., & Poole, I. (2008). Proactive classroom management. In T. Good (Ed), 21st
804
century education: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications,
805
inc.
806
26.Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction
807
in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
808
15, 372-390.
809
27.Grolnick, W. S., Weiss, L., McKenzie, L., & Wrightman, J. (1996). Contextual, cognitive,
810
and adolescent factors associated with parenting in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
811
Adolescence, 25, 33–54.
812
28.Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., De Meester, A., Delrue, J., Tallir, I., Vande Broek, G.,
813
Goris, W., et al. (2018). Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and
814
control: Identifying the most optimal motivating style. Physical Education and Sport
815
Pedagogy, 23, 16–36.
816
29.Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2011). Causality orientations moderate the
817
undermining effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Social
818
Psychology, 47, 485–489.
819
30.Healy, L. C., Ntoumanis, N., van Zanten, J. J. V., & Paine, N. (2014). Goal striving and
820
well-being in sport: The role of contextual and personal motivation. Journal of Sport
821
& Exercise Psychology, 36, 446-459.
822
31.Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: The role of
823
coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement.
824
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 527-547.
825
35
32.Hooyman, A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2014). Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus
826
controlling instructional language on motor learning. Human movement Science, 36,
827
190-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.005
828
33.Horn, T. S., Bloom, P., Berglund, K. M., & Packard, S. (2011). Relationship between
829
collegiate athletes’ psychological characteristics and their preferences for different
830
types of coaching behavior. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 190-211.
831
34.Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not
832
autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of
833
Educational Psychology, 102, 588-600.
834
35.Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Gueta, G. (2010). Students’ needs, teachers’ support, and
835
motivation for doing homework: A cross-sectional study. The Journal of Experimental
836
Education, 78, 246-267.
837
36.Langan, E., Toner, J., Blake, C., & Lonsdale, C. (2015). Testing the effects of a self-
838
determination theory-based intervention with youth Gaelic football coaches on athlete
839
motivation and burnout. Sport Psychologist, 29(4), 293-301. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2013-
840
0107.
841
37.Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of
842
learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school
843
characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34,
844
120–131.
845
38.Mabbe, E., Soenens, B., De Muynck, G.-J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). The impact of
846
feedback valence and communication style on intrinsic motivation in middle
847
childhood: Experimental evidence and generalization across individual differences.
848
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 170, 134–160.
849
36
39.Mageau, G.A., Lessard, J., Carpentier, J., Robichaud, J-M., Joussement, M., & Koestner,
850
R. (2018). Effectiveness and acceptibility beliefs regarding logical consequences and
851
mild punishments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 54, 12-22.
852
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.11.001.
853
40.Mageau, G. A., Sherman, A., Grusec, J. E., Koestner, R., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Different
854
ways of knowing a child and their relations to mother-reported autonomy support.
855
Social Development, 26, 630-644.
856
41.Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
857
model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883-904.
858
42.Mahoney, J. W., Ntoumanis, N., Gucciardi, D. F., Mallett, C. J., & Stebbings, J. (2015).
859
Implementing an autonomy-supportive intervention to develop mental toughness in
860
adolescent rowers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28, 199–215.
861
43.Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Elliot, A. J. (2010). Person-level relatedness and the
862
incremental value of relating. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 36, 754–
863
767. doi:10.1177/0146167210371622
864
44.Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Sideridis, G., & Lens, W; (2011). Vitality and interest-
865
enjoyment as a function of class-to-class variation in need-supportive teaching and
866
pupils’ autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 353-366.
867
45.Ng, J. Y. Y., Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Motivation contagion
868
when instructing obese individuals: A test in exercise settings. Journal of Sport &
869
Exercise Psychology, 34, 525-538.
870
46.Ntoumanis, N., & Mallet, C. (2014). Motivation in sport: A self-determination theory
871
perspective. In Papaioannou, A. &Hackfort, D., (Eds.) Routledge Companion to Sport
872
and Exercise Psychology: Global perspective and fundamental concepts. Routlegde:
873
New York.
874
37
47.Occhino, J.L., Mallet, C.J., Rynne, S.B, & Carlisle, K.N. (2014). Autonomy-supportive
875
pedagogical approach to sports coaching: Research, challenges and opportunities.
876
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(2), 401-415.
877
48.Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations
878
among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A
879
prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-306.
880
49.Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W.J. and Goldstein, H. (2014) A User’s Guide to MLwiN,
881
v2.31. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol
882
50.Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and
883
how they can become more autonomy-supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3),
884
159-175.
885
51.Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for
886
themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
887
105, 579 –595. doi:10.1037/a0032690
888
52.Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: what it is, how to do it. In Liu, W. C.,
889
Wang, J. C. K., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) Building autonomous learners: Perspectives
890
from research and practice using Self-Determination Theory. Singapore: Springer
891
Science + Business Media.
892
53.Reeve, J., & Cheon, S.H. (2016). Teachers become more autonomy-supportive after they
893
believe it is easy to do. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 178-189.
894
54.Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What theachers say and do to support students’ autonomy
895
during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218. DOI:
896
10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.
897
38
55.Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ikhlas, A., Cheon, S. H., Jang, H., Kaplan, H., et
898
al. (2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A
899
multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 93-110.
900
56.Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need
901
satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation
902
and Emotion, 28, 297–313.
903
57.Reynders, B., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Decroos, S., De Backer, M., Delrue, J., De Muynck,
904
G., Aelterman, N., et al. (2018). Coaching the coach: Intervention effects on coaches’
905
need-supportive behavior and athletes’ motivation and engagement. Manuscript
906
submitted for review.
907
58.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic psychological needs
908
in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: The Guildford Press.
909
59.Ryan, R. M., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). Motivation and
910
autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and behavior change: A look at theory and
911
practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 193–260.
912
60.Ryan, R. M., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (in press). Reflections on Self-
913
Determination Theory as an organizing framework for personality psychology:
914
Interfaces, integrations, issues, and unfinished business. Journal of Personality.
915
61.Schüler, J., Sheldon, K.M., Prentice, M., & Halusic, M. (2014). Do some people need
916
more autonomy than others? Implicit dispositions toward autonomy moderate the
917
effects of felt autonomy on well-being. Journal of Personality, 84, 5-20. Doi:
918
10.1111/jopy.12133
919
62.Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects
920
of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
921
Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581
922
39
63.Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on
923
engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s
924
behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom.
925
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525.
926
64. Smetana, J. G. (2011).Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct
927
their worlds. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
928
65.Smetana, J. G., Wong, M., Ball, C., & Yau, J. (2014). American and Chinese children’s
929
evaluations of personal domain events and resistance to parental authority. Child
930
Development, 85, 626-642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12140.
931
66.Soenens, B. Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2017). How parents contribute to children’s
932
psychological health: The critical role of psychological need support. In L. Wehmeyer,
933
T. D. Little, S. J. Lopez, K. A. Shogren, & R. Ryan (Eds.), Development of self-
934
determination through the life-course (pp. 171-187). New York: Springer.
935
67.Soenens, B.,Sierens, E.,Vansteenkiste, M.,Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012).
936
Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and
937
mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 108-120.
938
68.Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Niemiec, C.P. (2009). Should parental prohibition of
939
adolescents’ peer relationships be prohibited? Personal Relationships, 16, 507-530.
940
69.Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Let us not throw out the baby
941
with the bathwater: Applying the perspective of universalism without uniformity to
942
autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 9,
943
44-49.
944
70.Van Assche, J., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., De Schryver, M., Audenaert, E., &
945
Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). Are the benefits of autonomy satisfaction and the costs of
946
40
autonomy frustration dependent on individuals’ autonomy strength? Journal of
947
Personality, 86, 1017-1036.
948
71.Van den Berghe, L., Cardon, G., Tallir, I., Kirk, D., & Haerens, L. (2016). Dynamics of
949
need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior: The bidirectional relationship
950
with student engagement and disengagement in the beginning of a lesson. Physical
951
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21, 653–670.
952
72.Van Petegem, S., Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Brenning, K.,
953
Mabbe, E., Van Halst, J. et al. (2017). Does general parenting context modify
954
adolescents’ appraisals and coping with a situation of parental regulation? The case of
955
autonomy-supportive parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2623-2639
956
73.Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2019). Seeking stability in
957
stormy educational times: A need-based perspective on (de)motivating teaching
958
grounded in selfdetermination theory. In E. Gonida & M. Lemos (Eds.), Motivation in
959
education at a time of global change: Theory, research, and implications for practice.
960
Emerald
961
74.Vansteenkiste, M., & Mouratidis, A. (2016). Emerging trends and future directions for the
962
field of motivation psychology: A special issue in honor of Prof. dr. Willy Lens.
963
Psychologica Belgica, 56(3), 118–142. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pb.354
964
75.Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five
965
mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends,
966
and future directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead :
967
theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (Vol. 16A, pp. 105–166).
968
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
969
76.Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A.,
970
Aelterman, N., et al. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived autonomy support
971
41
and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem
972
behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22, 431-439.
973
77.Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2015). Vitamines voor groei: Ontwikkeling voeden
974
vanuit de Zelf-Determinatie Theorie. Leuven: Acco.
975
78.Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Duriez, B. (2014). Longitudinal
976
associations between adolescent perceived degree and style of parental prohibition and
977
internalization and defiance. Developmental Psychology, 50, 229–236.
978
79.Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008).
979
Does extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals' learning and
980
performance? An experimental test of the match perspective versus Self-
981
Determination Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 387-397.
982
80.Way, S. M. (2011). School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating
983
effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 346-375.
984
81.Weinstein, N. Zougkou, K., & Paulman, S. (2018). You ‘have’ to hear this: Using tone of
985
voice to motivate others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
986
Performance, 44(6), 898-913.
987
82.Wulf G. (2007). Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: implications for
988
physiotherapy.Physiotherapy, 93, 96–101. Doi:10.1016/j.physio.2006.08.005
989
83.Wulf, G., Freitas, H. E., & Tandy, R. D. (2014). Choosing to exercise more: Small choices
990
can increase exercise behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 268–271.
991
992
993
42
Table 1: Bivariate correlations between all assessed variables across both the struggling and the disturbing situation
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Covariates
1.Age
13.31
1.54
-
2.Training hours
3.69
2.06
.18*
-
3.Experience
5.67
2.61
.49**
.25**
-
Pre-Experimental
4.Autonomous Motivation
4.28
0.50
-.17*
.15*
-.11
-
5.Controlled Motivation
2.67
0.73
-.06
.17*
-.09
.19**
-
6.Amotivation
1.62
0.82
-.12
.01
.01
-.42**
.17*
-
Manipulation checks
7.Autonomy Support
2.60
0.85
-.12
.04
-.01
.05
.09
.10
-
8.Control
2.83
0.83
-.01
.07
-.09
.00
.08
-.06
-.44**
-
Post-Experimental
9.Need Satisfaction
2.63
0.90
-.09
.19**
-.03
.19**
.25**
.09
.70**
-.29***
-
10.Need Frustration
2.77
0.95
.07
.06
-.08
-.06
.11
.04
-.43**
.48**
-.36**
-
11.Anger
2.69
1.10
.18**
.04
.09
-.22**
.01
.11
-.60**
.44**
-.60**
.59**
-
12.Oppositional Defiance
1.97
0.88
.05
.14
-.02
-.09
.31**
.25**
-.15*
.36**
-.03
.31**
.40**
-
13.Engagement
3.98
0.79
-.14*
-.10
-.07
.17*
-.03
-.18*
.24**
-.19**
.17*
-.25**
-.45**
-.60**
43
Table 2. Main effects of Condition and Condition by Situation Interaction Effects
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Values in parentheses are standard errors.
aGender reference category = boy; b Condition reference category = autonomy supportive; c Situation reference category = struggling
PARAMETER
Autonomy Supportive Style
Controlling Style
Credibility
Need Satisfaction
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
FIXED PART
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
Intercept
3.05 (.08)
2.90 (.10)
2.63 (.08)
2.51 (.11)
2.91 (.10)
2.92 (.12)
3.03 (.10)
3.12 (.11)
Covariates
Gendera
-.01 (.12)
-.01 (.12)
-.40 (.13)**
-.40 (.13)**
.27 (.16)
.27 (.15)
.09 (.14)
.09 (.14)
Age
-.07 (.04)
-.07 (.04)
.02 (.04)
.02 (.04)
-.10 (.05)
-.10 (.05)
-.06 (.05)
-.05 (.05)
Training hours
.02 (.03)
.02 (.03)
.04 (.03)
.04 (.03)
.03 (.04)
.03 (.04)
.09 (.03)**
.10 (.03)**
Experience
.03 (.02)
.03 (.02)
-.06 (.03)*
-.06 (.03)*
.01 (.03)
.01 (.03)
.01 (03)
.01 (.03)
Predictors
Conditionb
-.92 (.11)***
-1.24 (.14)***
.66 (.12)***
.80 (.16)***
-.25 (.14)
-.57 (.17)**
-.87 (.13)***
-1.10 (.16)***
Situationc
-.29 (.12)*
(.08)***
.25 (.14)
-.02 (.11)
-.19 (.11)
Conditionb * Situationc
.64 (.18)***
-.27 (.20)
.63 (.16)***
.45 (.16)**
RANDOM PART REFERENCE MODEL
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
Athlete level variance
.26 (.07)
.06 (.05)
.18 (.07)
.08 (.06)
.29 (.08)
.27 (.07)
.42 (.09)
.24 (.06)
Repeated Measure level variance
.44 (.06)
.43 (.06)
.50 (.07)
.50 (.07)
.41 (.06)
.41 (.06)
.35 (.05)
.35 (.05)
RANDOM PART TEST MODEL
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
Athlete level variance
.06 (.05)
.09 (.05)
.08 (.06)
.08 (.06)
.27 (.07)
.32 (.07)
.24 (.06)
.25 (.06)
Repeated Measure level variance
.43 (.06)
.38 (.05)
.50 (.07)
.48 (.07)
.41 (.06)
.32 (.05)
.35 (.05)
.32 (.05)
Test of significance
IGLS Deviance reference model
476.57
423.30
479.51
452.42
473.22
470.22
476.62
441.11
IGLS Deviance test model
423.30
410.78
452.42
449.28
470.22
445.20
441.11
433.29
Χ2 (df)
53.27 (5)***
12.52 (2)**
27.09 (5)***
3.14 (2)
3.00 (5)
25.02 (2)***
35.51 (5)***
7.82 (2)*
44
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Values in parentheses are standard errors.
aGender reference category = boy; b Condition reference category = autonomy supportive; c Situation reference category = struggling
PARAMETER
Need Frustration
Anger
Engagement
Defiance
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
FIXED PART
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
Intercept
2.41 (.10)
2.37 (.12)
2.23 (.10)
2.07 (.13)
4.13 (.09)
4.26 (.11)
1.87 (.10)
1.72 (.12)
Covariates
Gendera
-.17 (.14)
-.17 (.14)
-.32 (.16)*
-.33 (.16)*
.16 (.13)
.16 (.13)
-.34 (.15)*
-.35 (.15)*
Age
.08 (.05)
.08 (.05)
.12 (.05)*
.12 (.05)*
-.07 (.05)
-.07 (.04)
.04 (.05)
.04 (.05)
Training hours
.04 (.03)
.04 (.03)
.01 (.04)
.01 (.04)
-.03 (.03)
-.04 (.03)
.07 (.03)*
.07 (.03)*
Experience
-.08 (.03)**
-.08 (.03)**
-.02 (.03)
-.02 (.03)
.02 (.03)
.02 (.03)
-.04 (.03)
-.04 (.03)
Predictors
Conditionb
.85 (.13)***
1.15 (.17)***
1.15 (.14)***
1.55 (.19)***
-.41 (.12)**
-.52 (.15)**
.42 (.14)**
.64 (.17)***
Situationc
.07 (.14)
.33 (.17)*
-.26 (.13)*
.30 (.14)*
Conditionb * Situationc
-.61 (.20)**
-.79 (.24)**
.20 (.18)
-.43 (.20)*
RANDOM PART REFERENCE MODEL
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
Athlete level variance
.29 (.09)
.12 (.07)
.40 (.12)
.09 (.09)
.18 (.06)
.14 (.06)
.24 (.08)
.20 (.07)
Repeated Measure level variance
.58 (.08)
.59 (.08)
.77 (.11)
.77 (.11)
.42 (.06)
.43 (.06)
.50 (.07)
.50 (.07)
RANDOM PART TEST MODEL
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
σ2 (S.E.)
Athlete level variance
.12 (.07)
.15 (.07)
.09 (.09)
.13 (.08)
.14 (.06)
.15 (.06)
.20 (.07)
.21 (.07)
Repeated Measure level variance
.59 (.08)
.52 (.07)
.77 (.11)
.69 (.10)
.43 (.06)
.41 (.06)
.50 (.07)
.48 (.07)
Test of significance
IGLS Deviance reference model
526.77
492.95
583.43
534.48
451.24
440.97
489.57
480.76
IGLS Deviance test model
492.95
479.97
534.48
523.47
440.97
436.79
480.76
475.36
Χ2 (df)
33.82 (5)***
12.98 (2)**
48.95 (5)***
11.01 (2)**
10.27 (5)
4.18 (2)
8.81 (5)
5.40 (2)
45
Table 3.
Means and Standard Deviations According to Condition and Situation
Situation
Struggling-Effort
Situation
Disturbing-Lack of effort
B0 (S.E.)
B0 (S.E.)
Autonomy Support
Autonomy Support
3.20 (.10)
2.91 (.10)
Controlling
1.96 (.11)
2.31 (.11)
Controlling
Autonomy Support
2.51 (.11)
2.75 (.11)
Controlling
3.31 (.12)
3.28 (.12)
Credibility
Autonomy Support
2.92 (.12)
2.91 (.12)
Controlling
2.35 (.13)
2.96 (.13)
Need Satisfaction
Autonomy Support
3.12 (.11)
2.94 (.11)
Controlling
2.02 (.13)
2.29 (.13)
Need Frustration
Autonomy Support
2.37 (.12)
2.44 (.12)
Controlling
3.53 (.13)
2.99 (.13)
Anger
Autonomy Support
2.07 (.13)
2.39 (.13)
Controlling
3.61 (.15)
3.15 (.15)
Engagement
Autonomy Support
4.26 (.11)
4.00 (.11)
Controlling
3.75 (.12)
3.69 (.12)
Defiance
Autonomy Support
1.72 (.12)
2.02 (.12)
Controlling
2.36 (.14)
2.23 (.14)
46
Table 4. Condition by Motivation Interaction Effects
Autonomous
Motivation
Controlled
Motivation
Amotivation
Motivation*condition
Motivation*condition
Motivation*condition
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
Autonomy
Support
-.13 (.26)
.23 (.15)
.04 (.16)
Controlling
-.36 (.27)
-.19 (.16)
-.29 (.17)
Need
Satisfaction
-.83 (.29)**
.13 (.17)
-.01 (.18)
Need
Frustration
-.48 (.31)
.10 (.19)
-.13 (.19)
Anger
.39 (.33)
-.03 (.20)
.07 (.21)
Engagement
-.09 (.28)
.14 (.17)
-.12 (.18)
Defiance
.16 (.30)
-.04 (.18)
.08 (.19)
Note. Tested in a model including covariates and main effects of motivation and
condition. **p < .01.
47
Figure 1. Graphical representation of the Condition by Autonomous Motivation
Interaction Effect in the Prediction of Need Satisfaction
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Autonomy supportive
style Controlling style
Need satisfaction
Low (-1 SD) autonomous
motivation
Average autonomous
motivation
High (+1SD) autonomous
motivation
48
Note 1
We did not consider a three-level model (with measures nested within athletes within
coaches/clubs), because due to the recruitment procedure the distribution of participating
judokas across sports clubs was very unbalanced (for 7 of the 20 clubs only one judoka was
questioned).
Note 2
Although the questions asked by the coach were meant to signal interest and to carry
high informational value, coaches can also ask questions in fairly confrontational and
interrogative, thereby coming across as distrustful and evaluative. Although Reeve and Jang
(2006) identified asking questions as one autonomy-supportive behavior, its perceived
functional significance (Deci & Ryan, 1985) likely depends on the exact wording, its
accompanying tone of voice (Weinstein, Zougkou, & Paulmann, 2018), the timing of the
question, and the presence of additional autonomy-supportive or controlling behaviors among
other factors (see Vansteenkiste, et al., 2019).
49
Appendix 1: Experimental Vignettes.
1.Autonomy-supportive style - Struggling situation
Below you find a short story, which is situated at judo practice. Try to project yourself
as good as you can in the depicted situation. Imagine that you were present in this practice
session and you were one of the two judokas. Afterwards, please fill in the questionnaire.
50
51
52
53
54
2.Autonomy-supportive style – Disturbing situation
55
56
57
58
59
3.Controlling style – Struggling situation
60
61
62
63
64
4.Controlling style – Disturbing situation
65
66
67
68
