Coach–athlete relationships, self‐confidence, and psychological wellbeing: The role of perceived and received coach support

Abstract

Coaches are recognized as key support providers, although there is limited understanding of how coach support relates to athletes' self‐confidence and psychological wellbeing. This study examined relationships among perceived coach support, received coach support, coach–athlete relationship, self‐confidence, and psychological wellbeing. A further aim was to identify mechanisms through which coach–athlete relationship influences self‐confidence and psychological wellbeing. A total of 537 athletes (Mage = 21.83 and SD = 3.67) from a range of sports completed measures of perceived coach support, received coach support, coach–athlete relationship, self‐confidence, and psychological wellbeing. Mediation analysis revealed a significant direct effect of coach–athlete relationship on perceived coach support (b = 1.44 and p = 0.04) and received coach support on psychological wellbeing (b = 1.94 and p = <0.05). Coach–athlete relationship was associated with a significant indirect effect on psychological wellbeing via received coach support (ab = 0.82 and 95% CI [0.40 and 1.26*]) but not perceived coach support. In contrast, coach–athlete relationship was associated with a significant indirect effect on self‐confidence via perceived coach support (ab = 0.16 and 95% CI [0.10 and 0.22*]) but not received coach support. These findings demonstrate the significant role perceived coach support and received coach support plays in potentially explaining the relationship between the coach–athlete relationship with self‐confidence and psychological wellbeing. Additionally, the results highlight that different forms of social support uniquely mediate the relationship among the coach–athlete relationship, confidence, and wellbeing. These results have implications for coaching practices, as coaches can use their relationships with athletes to provide optimal support and thereby enhance the athletes' self‐confidence and wellbeing.

Full text

Received: 7 May 2024
-
Revised: 24 October 2024
-
Accepted: 12 November 2024
DOI: 10.1002/ejsc.12226
ORIGINAL PAPER
Coach–athlete relationships, self-confidence, and
psychological wellbeing: The role of perceived and received
coach support
Adam H. Coussens
1
|Max J. Stone
2
|Tracy C. Donachie
2
1
Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of
Biomedical, Nutritional and Sports Sciences,
Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon
Tyne, UK
2
Faculty of Medical Sciences Newcastle
University, School of Psychology, Newcastle
Upon Tyne, UK
Correspondence
Adam H. Coussens, School of Biomedical,
Nutrition and Sport Sciences, Newcastle
University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Email: Adam.coussens@newcastle.ac.uk
Abstract
Coaches are recognized as key support providers, although there is limited under-
standing of how coach support relates to athletes' self-confidence and psychological
wellbeing. This study examined relationships among perceived coach support,
received coach support, coach–athlete relationship, self-confidence, and psycho-
logical wellbeing. A further aim was to identify mechanisms through which coach–
athlete relationship influences self-confidence and psychological wellbeing. A total
of 537 athletes (Mage =21.83 and SD =3.67) from a range of sports completed
measures of perceived coach support, received coach support, coach–athlete rela-
tionship, self-confidence, and psychological wellbeing. Mediation analysis revealed a
significant direct effect of coach–athlete relationship on perceived coach support
(b=1.44 and p=0.04) and received coach support on psychological wellbeing
(b=1.94 and p= <0.05). Coach–athlete relationship was associated with a signif-
icant indirect effect on psychological wellbeing via received coach support (ab =
0.82 and 95% CI [0.40 and 1.26*]) but not perceived coach support. In contrast,
coach–athlete relationship was associated with a significant indirect effect on self-
confidence via perceived coach support (ab =0.16 and 95% CI [0.10 and 0.22*]) but
not received coach support. These findings demonstrate the significant role
perceived coach support and received coach support plays in potentially explaining
the relationship between the coach–athlete relationship with self-confidence and
psychological wellbeing. Additionally, the results highlight that different forms of
social support uniquely mediate the relationship among the coach–athlete rela-
tionship, confidence, and wellbeing. These results have implications for coaching
practices, as coaches can use their relationships with athletes to provide optimal
support and thereby enhance the athletes' self-confidence and wellbeing.
KEYWORDS
leadership, mental health, self-efficacy, social support, team dynamics
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, pro-
vided the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Sport Science published by Wiley-VCH GmbH on behalf of European College of Sport Science.
Eur J Sport Sci. 2025;e12226. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejsc
-
1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.12226

Highlights
�Received coach support significantly predicted psychological wellbeing, whereas perceived
coach support significantly predicted self-confidence.
�Perceived coach support mediated the relationship between the coach–athlete relationship
and athlete self-confidence.
�Received coach support mediated the relationship between the coach–athlete relationship
and athlete wellbeing.
1
|
INTRODUCTION
Athlete confidence and wellbeing can be enhanced through the
support they receive and/or perceive and the relationships that they
develop through playing sports (e.g., Davis & Jowett, 2014; Gencer &
Öztürk, 2018). For many athletes, the coach is a key provider of
social support (Freeman, 2021). The confidence and psychological
wellbeing of athletes are of great concern to coaches who look to
nurture positive and impactful relationships (Forlenza et al., 2018;
Peng et al., 2020). Although the coach–athlete relationship and social
support are associated with increased self-confidence and wellbeing
(e.g., Freeman & Rees, 2010; Simons & Bird, 2023), no studies have
examined coach–athlete relationship and perceived support and
received support simultaneously in the same study. Further research
examining social support in relation to coach–athlete relationships is
vital to help understand potential mechanisms underpinning confi-
dence and wellbeing and distinguish nuances that may exist in sup-
port provision. The current study addresses this gap in knowledge by
examining the influence of coach–athlete relationships and the
mediating role of social support in enhancing confidence and
wellbeing.
Self-confidence plays a significant role in athlete performance,
motivation, and overall wellbeing (Vealey & Chase, 2008). Self-
confidence is defined as a belief in one's ability to successfully
execute desired actions and achieve desired outcomes (Vea-
ley, 2001). Research has shown that higher levels of self-confidence
are associated with improved performance outcomes (e.g.,
Woodman & Hardy, 2003). Athletes with higher self-confidence are
likely to experience lower levels of anxiety, although feeling a sense
of control and satisfaction (e.g., Craft et al., 2003). Confident athletes
are also more likely to set challenging goals, persevere in the face of
setbacks, and experience a greater sense of fulfillment and enjoy-
ment in their sport (Woodman & Hardy, 2003). Coaches can play a
role in this as overly critical and unsupportive coaches decreased
athletes' self-confidence (Bruner et al., 2008), whereas when athletes
feel a stronger coach–athlete relationship, confidence is enhanced
(Gencer & Öztürk, 2018). Thus, self-confidence serves as a vital
component of athletes' psychological wellbeing as well as contrib-
uting to overall performance.
The wellbeing of athletes is of paramount importance, as it
significantly influences their overall health and performance and
contributes to flourishing (e.g., Lundqvist, 2011). Psychological well-
being refers to an individual's overall mental health and positive
functioning across various domains of life (Kumar et al., 2020).
Although the significance of psychological wellbeing is widely
recognized for overall quality of life (Camfield & Skevington, 2008),
its specific prevalence and determinants within athletic populations
warrant further investigation. Some factors can pose challenges to
athletes' wellbeing including elevated levels of stress, competitive
anxiety, overtraining, and burnout (e.g., McLoughlin et al., 2021).
Conversely, factors such as perceived ability, self-esteem, and coping
skills have shown potential in enhancing athletes' psychological
wellbeing (e.g., Gould et al., 2002). One construct that is crucial in
promoting wellbeing is social support.
Social support is defined as “the social resources that persons
perceive to be available, or that are actually provided to them by
non-professionals, in the context of both formal support groups and
informal helping relationships” (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 4). Social sup-
port incorporates both structural and functional components
(Lakey, 2010). The structural component of support relates to the
number and type of relationships available in one's network (e.g., the
coach as a support provider; Freeman, 2021). The functional
component comprises of perceived support and received support.
Perceived support refers to appraisals of support availability,
whereas received support refers to an assessment of the amount of
support obtained usually over a given period of time (Vange-
listi, 2009). Although perceived support and received support are
similar in nature, they are statistically and conceptually distinct, with
a shared variance of between 12% and 19% (e.g., Haber et al., 2007).
Perceived support represents a dispositional interpretation of avail-
able support, whereas received support reflects objectively identifi-
able actions of support (Haber et al., 2007).
Both received support and perceived support have been found
to positively influence psychological outcomes. For example, a
meta-analysis demonstrated that both perceived support (r=0.31)
and received support (r=0.22) exert moderate effects on mental
health outcomes in emergency support workers (Prati et al., 2010).
However, other research has highlighted differences in how these
two types of support relate to other variables. For example,
Uchino (2004) found that perceived support is more consistently
related to positive health outcomes than received support. The
majority of research tends to focus on either perceived support or
received support independently, although it is critical that both are
examined concurrently to fully understand their individual re-
lationships with psychological outcomes. Furthermore, only a
limited amount of research on both perceived support and received
2 of 10
-
COUSSENS
ET AL.

support exists in sport, and studies are yet to examine these types
of support in relation to coach support and the wellbeing of
athletes.
Within the social support literature, there are two predominant
theories to explain how social support exerts beneficial effects: (a)
stress-buffering model and (b) main effects model (Cohen
et al., 2000). The stress-buffering model suggests social support
buffers the potential negative effects of stress (Cohen, 1988). There
is some evidence for stress-buffering effects in sport although this is
equivocal, as when both perceived support and received support
were examined simultaneously, only received support was associ-
ated with stress-buffering effects on self-confidence (Rees &
Freeman, 2007). In comparison, the main effects model suggests
direct beneficial effects of social support irrespective of stress levels
(Cohen et al., 2000). In sport, main effects for both perceived sup-
port and received support were reported in relation to performance
(Freeman & Rees, 2008), although this has not yet been shown for
coach support specifically. The current study examines the role of
perceived coach support and received coach support in reference to
the main effects model, as this model has stronger evidence for the
beneficial effects of social support across health (Lakey & Ore-
hek, 2011) and sport (Freeman & Rees, 2009).
One key factor influencing coaching effectiveness is the quality
of the coach–athlete relationship (Jowett, 2017). The coach–athlete
relationship is defined as a social situation in which coaches' and
athletes' perceived closeness (affective bond between individuals),
commitment (intention in the dyad to maintain the relationship), and
complementarity (interactions that underline cooperation) are
interdependent (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004). Although the coach–
athlete relationship and social support are conceptually related,
they are distinct constructs. For example, both constructs are
underpinned by an interaction between individuals and the percep-
tions of these interactions (Cohen et al., 2000). However, these
constructs differ at the level at which they operate; social support
encompasses perceived or received resources an individual experi-
ences (Lakey, 2010), whereas the coach–athlete relationship pertains
to an evaluation of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral quality of
a relationship (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004). Therefore, coach–athlete
relationship could be considered a higher order construct with
social support being a key behavior that maintains the quality of
relationships.
Positive coach–athlete relationships are associated with more
favorable psychological outcomes for athletes. Indeed, coach lead-
ership behaviors work synergistically with coach–athlete relationship
to improve developmental experience (Vella et al., 2013). There is
limited empirical research examining the relationship between
perceived support and coach–athlete relationship, although pre-
liminary data suggest they are related. For example, Simons and
Bird (2023) found that coach–athlete relationship constructs (close-
ness, commitment, and complementarity) positively correlated to
different types of social support (i.e., tangible, emotional, informa-
tional, and esteem). These findings suggest that the coach–athlete
relationship influences the types of support provided to athletes,
although this has yet been established for received support.
Coaches are often important role models to athletes and can
bolster athlete self-confidence through guidance, encouragement,
and support (Lopez de Subijana et al., 2021). Coaches play a role in
developing a nurturing environment to develop positive interper-
sonal relationships with their athletes, which contributes to building
confidence (Forlenza et al., 2018). Previous studies demonstrated
that perceived support from teammates boosts athlete self-
confidence (Freeman & Rees, 2010) and both perceived and
received support are crucial for self-confidence (Rees &
Freeman, 2007). Despite the importance of coaches to athletes,
neither of the aforementioned studies directly examined coach sup-
port or considered other potentially influential factors such as the
coach–athlete relationship.
Alongside self-confidence, perceptions of support have also been
associated with improved psychological wellbeing in college level
students (Adyani et al., 2019) and athletes (Simons & Bird, 2023).
Furthermore, autonomy support by a coach contributes to athletes'
subjective wellbeing (Lafrenière et al., 2011). Nuance and limitations
exist with this research though. For example, when perceived support
and received support were considered in the same study involving
student-athletes, received support was associated with psychological
wellbeing, whereas perceived support was not (Katagami & Tsu-
chiya, 2016). Simons and Bird (2023) examined perceptions of coach
support only rather than examining both perceived and received
coach support simultaneously. The equivocal nature of the relation-
ship between perceived support and received support with athletes'
psychological wellbeing warrants further investigation, specifically in
relation to coach support.
Beyond establishing an association among perceived coach sup-
port, received coach support, coach–athlete relationship, self-
confidence, and psychological wellbeing, it is vital to examine the
specific mechanisms through which perceived and received support
operate to help advance theory and develop more effective in-
terventions (Sarason & Sarason, 2009). Few studies have examined
potential mediators underpinning coach–athlete relationships with
outcomes, such as wellbeing, despite evidence suggesting they are
related and may influence athlete outcomes (Simons & Bird, 2023). In
particular, the positive relationship between coach–athlete relation-
ship and athlete outcomes may be influenced by the support pro-
vided and received from the coach. Furthermore, there is currently a
lack of research identifying potential mechanisms associated with
both perceived support and received support in the same study or
incorporating multiple psychological mechanisms concurrently
(Uchino et al., 2012). Although some researchers have investigated
mediating factors that explain the relationship between social sup-
port and outcomes variables (Uchino et al., 2012), there is limited
research that has examined how social support acts as a mediator
between social and intrapersonal factors in sport settings. Therefore,
further research is needed to demonstrate how social support in-
fluences important variables in sport contexts.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
-
3 of 10

1.1
|
The present study
To the best of our knowledge, no previous research has examined the
role of perceived coach support, received coach support, coach–
athlete relationship, self-confidence, and psychological wellbeing in
athletes. The present study aimed to (i) examine the relationships
among perceived coach support, received coach support, coach–
athlete relationship, self-confidence, and psychological wellbeing
and (ii) investigate the influence of perceived coach support and
received coach support as potential mediators of the relationship
among coach–athlete relationship, self-confidence, and psychological
wellbeing. Based on the previous research and theory, we expected a
significant positive relationship among perceived coach support,
received coach support, coach–athlete relationship, self-confidence,
and psychological wellbeing (hypothesis 1), and that both perceived
coach support and received coach support would mediate the rela-
tionship between coach–athlete relationship and self-confidence and
the relationship between coach–athlete relationship and psycholog-
ical wellbeing (hypothesis 2).
2
|
METHODS
2.1
|
Participants and procedure
GPower (G*Power, Version 3.1.9.7) was used to determine the a priori
sample size required for the study. Assuming a medium effect size
(f
2
=15), an alpha probability of 0.05, a beta probability of 0.80, and
three predictors, the required sample size was 77. Participants were
eligible to participate if they played sport each week, interacted with
their main coach at least once a week, and had maintained this rela-
tionship for at least 1 year. Following institutional ethical approval, 537
athletes (males n=288, females n=246, and nonbinary n=3;
Mage =21.83 and SD =3.67) were recruited via opportunity sampling
with participants provided with an online link to a questionnaire. All
participants were provided with a participant information sheet and
signed an informed consent form before completing an online ques-
tionnaire (Qualtrics, 2022, Provo) that was accessible for 4 weeks. The
order in which measures were presented was randomized to counter
any potential order effects. The ethnic identity of the sample consisted
of 488 (90.9%) White, 25 (4.7%) multiethnicity, 11 (2.0%) Asian, 10
(1.9%) Black, two (0.4%) other non-White, and 1 (0.2%) prefer not to
say. Each participant currently worked with a coach on average 5.18
times per week (SD =1.37) and had worked with their coach for an
average of 3.14 years (SD =3.29). Participants were sampled from a
range of team (n=414) and individual sports (n=123), trained on
average 3.54 times (SD =2.37) per week, competed 1.40 (SD =0.81)
times per week, and had played their sport for 15.81 years (SD =6.14).
The participants' current competitive level ranged from the university/
college level (n=315), county/semiprofessional (n=127), professional
(n=25), national (n=48), and international (n=22). See Table 1for full
demographic information.
2.2
|
Measures
2.2.1
|
Perceived coach support
Perceived coach support was assessed using the 16-item Perceived
Available Support Questionnaire (PASS-Q; Freeman et al., 2011).
Each of the question items were preceded by the question stem “If
needed to what extent would your main coach….” Sample items
included “Provide you with comfort and security?” and “Boost your
sense of competency?” Participants responded on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (not at all) to five (extremely so). Freeman et al. (2011)
provided evidence to support the internal and test–retest concurrent
validity and reliability of the measure. Internal reliability in the cur-
rent study was very good (α=0.94).
2.2.2
|
Received coach support
Perceptions of received coach support were assessed using the 22-
item Athletes' Received Support Questionnaire (ARSQ; Freeman
et al., 2014). Each of the question items were preceded by the
question stem “In the last 4 weeks, how often has your main coach….”
Sample items included “Cheer You Up?” and “Listen to you?” Partic-
ipants responded on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5
(seven or more times). Freeman et al. (2014) provided evidence to
support the content validity and reliability of the measure. Internal
reliability in the current study was very good (α=0.96).
2.2.3
|
Self-confidence
Self-confidence was assessed using the five item Revised Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory 2 (CSAI-2R; Cox et al., 2003) such as that of
the previous social support research (Freeman & Rees, 2010). Par-
ticipants responded to statements regarding perceptions of self-
confidence about an upcoming match/game in the presence of their
main coach. Each of the question items were preceded by the
question stem “In the presence of my coach.?” and sample items
TABLE 1Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and
internal reliability of variables.
Variable Mean SD PCS RCS SC C-A PWB
PCS 3.58 0.79 (0.94)
RCS 2.71 0.90 0.59* (0.96)
SC 3.15 0.66 0.59* 0.40* (0.90)
C-A 5.51 1.14 0.78* 0.53* 0.57* (0.94)
PWB 47.87 8.50 0.32* 0.33* 0.39* 0.30* (0.90)
Note: * Significant to p<0.05. Values in parentheses represent
Cronbach's alpha for the respective variables. PCS, perceived coach
support; RCS, received coach support; SC, self-confidence; C-A, coach–
athlete relationship; and PWB, psychological wellbeing.
4 of 10
-
COUSSENS
ET AL.

which included “I would be confident I could meet the challenge?” and
“I would be confident about performing well?” Participants responded
on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much
so). Evidence to support the factorial validity was provided by Cox
et al. (2003). Internal reliability in the current study was very good
(α=0.89).
2.2.4
|
Coach–athlete relationship
Perceptions of athletes' relationship with their coach was assessed
using the 11 item Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-
Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004), consisting of three subscales
including closeness, commitment, and complementarity. As suggested
by Lafrenière et al. (2011), these subscales are combined to show an
overall measure of coach–athlete relationship. Participants were
provided with statements regarding the nature of their relationship
with their coach and asked to respond to these on a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Sample items included “I feel close to my coach” and “I feel
committed to my coach.” Evidence for content validity and internal
reliability was provided by Jowett and Ntoumanis (2004). Internal
reliability of the CART-Q in the current study was very good
(α=0.94).
2.2.5
|
Psychological wellbeing
Functional and affective components of overall psychological well-
being were assessed using the 14-item Warwick Edinburgh Mental
Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007). Each of the
question items were preceded by the question stem “Please select
the response that best describes your experience over the last
4 weeks…?” and sample items included “I've been feeling relaxed” and
“I've been dealing with problems well?” Participants responded on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the
time). Evidence for the validity and reliability of the measure was
provided by (Tennant et al., 2007). Internal reliability of the
WEMWBS in the current study was very good (α=0.90).
2.3
|
Data analyses
All analyses were completed using SPSS (version 28.0; IBM Corp.).
Data were first checked for missing values, assumptions of normality,
and outliers. If participants had missing values, their data were
removed from the study. Mean or total scores were provided for
each measure, rather than providing individual subscales, consistent
with previous research (e.g., Rees et al., 2012). Assumptions of
normality were checked using visual inspections of scatterplots and
Q–Q plots and computing kurtosis and skewness scores for each
variable (with a cut-off value set at 2.0 for skewness and 7.0 for
kurtosis as the nnumber exceeds 300; Kim, 2013). Using these
methods, only the CART-Q was considered abnormally distributed.
Outliers were identified via the interquartile range method (using a
multiplier of three). Using this method, one outlier was identified in
the CART-Q which was winsorized to the next acceptable value.
Following screening of data, descriptive statistics, reliability
statistics, and bivariate correlations were calculated for all variables.
We conducted two mediation analyses via Hayes' (2013) PROCESS
macro (model number 4). In the first mediation model, the Xvariable
was coach–athlete relationship, the Yvariable was psychological
wellbeing, and the mediators were perceived coach support and
received coach support. In the second mediation model, the same X
and mediator variables were used but the Yvariable was self-
confidence. In both mediation models, mediators ran parallel to one
another. Mediation analyses permit the reporting of data from
regression analyses including r
2,
a, b, direct effects, t, and a�bin-
direct effect values. All mediation models were bootstrapped using
5000 samples. Mediation models were considered significant if con-
fidence intervals for the indirect effects did not include zero.
3
|
RESULTS
3.1
|
Correlation analyses
The mean scores for the primary variables of interest (perceived
coach support, received coach support, coach–athlete relationship,
self-confidence, and psychological wellbeing) are presented in
Table 2. Bivariate correlation analyses revealed a positive significant
relationship between all variables as shown in Table 2. Using Cohen's
recommendation (1988), self-confidence demonstrated a significant,
positive, and strong relationship with perceived coach support
(r=0.59 and p<0.001), coach–athlete relationship (r=0.57 and
p<0.001), and moderate relationship with received coach support
(r=0.40 and p<0.001). Psychological wellbeing demonstrated a
significant, positive, and moderate relationship with perceived coach
support (r=0.32 and p<0.001), received coach support (r=0.33 and
p<0.001), self-confidence (r=0.39 and p<0.001), and coach–
athlete relationship (r=0.30 and p<0.001). Perceived coach sup-
port and received coach support demonstrated a significant, positive,
and strong relationship with one another (r=0.59 and p<0.001).
3.2
|
Mediation analyses
Results for the mediation analyses are presented in Table 2. In the first
model, coach–athlete relationship, perceived coach support, and
received coach support collectively accounted for 14% of the variance
of psychological wellbeing. Coach–athlete relationship was associated
with a significant indirect effect (i.e., mediation) on psychological
wellbeing via received coach support (ab =0.82 and 95% CI [0.40 and
1.26*]), but not perceived coach support (ab =0.78 and 95% CI [−0.10
and 1.71]). In the second model, coach–athlete relationship, perceived
coach support, and received coach support collectively accounted for
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
-
5 of 10

39% of the variance of self-confidence. Coach–athlete relationship was
associated with a significant indirect effect on self-confidence via
perceived coach support (ab =0.16 and 95% CI [0.10 and 0.22*]) but
not received coach support (ab =0.01 and 95% CI [−0.01 and 0.04]).
4
|
DISCUSSION
The first aim of this study was to examine the relationship among
perceived coach support, received coach support, coach–athlete
relationship, self-confidence, and psychological wellbeing. In sup-
port of hypothesis 1, correlational analyses found significant positive
relationships between all variables. The second aim was to investi-
gate perceived coach support and received coach support as poten-
tial mediators influencing the relationship between coach–athlete
relationship with psychological wellbeing and self-confidence. Hy-
pothesis 2 was partially supported as the coach–athlete relationship
is associated with a significant indirect effect on psychological well-
being via received coach support but not perceived coach support.
Conversely, the coach–athlete relationship is associated with a sig-
nificant indirect effect on self-confidence via perceived coach sup-
port but not received coach support.
Bivariate correlations showed that both perceived coach sup-
port and received coach support were significantly correlated with
psychological wellbeing; however, when considered simultaneously
in the mediation analysis, only received coach support emerged as a
significant predictor of psychological wellbeing. This finding high-
lights the importance of examining multiple types of support
simultaneously to identify optimal practice recommendations for
coaches in sport settings. Received support was a significant pre-
dictor of psychological wellbeing in the current study, which aligns
with evidence from social psychology (Dadvand et al., 2016), and
the current study extends this understanding specifically to ath-
letes, suggesting that received coach support influences the rela-
tionship between coach–athlete relationship and psychological
wellbeing.
Contrary to previous research (e.g., Simons & Bird, 2023), the
current study found that perceived coach support did not predict
psychological wellbeing. However, these findings may be explained
by the analytical approach adopted by the current study. Specifically,
the current study simultaneously considered both perceived coach
support and received coach support, whereas previous research has
mainly examined perceived or received social support in isolation
(e.g., Simons & Bird, 2023). Consequently, unlike previous research,
we were able to control for, and observe, the unique contributions of
perceived and received social support in relation to our outcome
variables. This suggests that received social support and perceived
social support have distinct relationships with different outcome
variables in sport contexts. It has been suggested that received
support may be context specific as unwarranted support can be
perceived as unhelpful or a threat to independence (Bolger &
Amarel, 2007). A potential explanation for why only received coach
support predicted psychological wellbeing could be unique to coach
support. For example, coaches may be key providers of support for
athletes in sporting contexts (e.g., Freeman, 2021) and receiving
more tangible forms of support from these individuals may be critical
to athlete wellbeing rather than perceiving coach support to be
available. Furthermore, when received support is deemed particularly
needed, its relationship with mental health is stronger (Melrose
et al., 2015), suggesting that in the current sample, receiving coach
support was deemed necessary for increased psychological wellbeing.
The findings of the current study extend the work of Simons and
Bird (2023) by demonstrating that coach–athlete relationship is also
associated with overall psychological wellbeing beyond sport-related
wellbeing. When included in the mediation analysis, coach–athlete
relationship indirectly predicted psychological wellbeing via
perceived coach support and received coach support. This finding
suggests that the way coach–athlete relationship influences out-
comes is through social support. In comparison, Simons and
Bird (2023) found that coach–athlete relationship positively pre-
dicted psychological wellbeing in athletes. The current findings pro-
vide a more nuanced understanding of these relationships whereby
TABLE 2Mediation results for coach–athlete relationship predicting psychological wellbeing and self-confidence, with perceived coach
support and received coach support as mediators.
Mediators r
2
a b Direct effect c’ t Indirect Effect a £b (95% CI)
PWB 0.14*
PCS 0.54 1.44 0.78 (−0.10, 1.71)
RCS 0.42 1.94 0.82 (0.40, 1.26)*
CA-R 0.62 1.23
SC 0.39*
PCS 0.54 0.30 0.16 (0.10, 0.22)*
RCS 0.42 0.03 0.01 (−0.01, 0.04)
CA-R 0.16 4.98
Note: * Significant effects to p<0.05. PCS, perceived coach support; RCS, received coach support; SC, self-confidence; C-A, coach–athlete relationship;
and PWB, psychological wellbeing.
6 of 10
-
COUSSENS
ET AL.

received coach support influences the relationship between coach–
athlete relationship and psychological wellbeing. Further research
examining both perceived support and received support alongside
coach–athlete relationship as potential predictors of psychological
wellbeing is required. The current results suggest that it is not the
relationship that is key in facilitating wellbeing in athletes but rather
the extent to which athletes feel supported. These findings empha-
size the crucial role that a coach plays in being a support provider to
athletes and the wider beneficial effects on their wellbeing.
The results of this study underscore the pivotal role that coaches
play in shaping athletes' self-confidence, echoing the findings of
Freeman et al. (2011). Notably, perceived coach support emerged as
a positive predictor of self-confidence, with higher levels of perceived
coach support corresponding with heightened self-confidence.
Moreover, the study reinforces the importance of coach–athlete
relationship in regard to self-confidence. A stronger connection be-
tween the coach and athlete is linked to enhanced self-confidence,
consistent with Gencer and Öztürk (2018). In contrast to previous
research (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014), received support did not predict
self-confidence, although our findings may be specific to types of
support provided by coaches. The current findings are supported by
previous research that has shown perceived support to be strongly
related to similar variables such as self-esteem (e.g., Lu et al., 2023).
Previous studies within sport psychology have failed to account fully
for how social support relates to self-confidence, specifically in
relation to the role of coach support. Our research suggests that
perceptions of coach support are more important than the support
actually received in influencing self-confidence. Although not tested
in the current study, received coach support might aid self-
confidence via stress-buffering effects (e.g., Rees & Freeman, 2007).
Sarason and Sarason (2009) requested more research to explore
the mechanisms of how social support works, with a particular need
to test multiple psychological mechanisms simultaneously (Uchino
et al., 2012). In line with these previous recommendations, social
support was examined as a potential mechanism underpinning key
wellbeing and performance indicators. The current study found that
perceived coach support and received coach support may exert
contrasting effects. Specifically, coach–athlete relationship was
associated with a significant indirect effect on psychological well-
being via received coach support but not perceived coach support.
Therefore, when athletes feel they have a strong coach–athlete
relationship and receive support from their coach, psychological
wellbeing is enhanced. In contrast, coach–athlete relationship was
associated with a significant indirect effect on self-confidence via
perceived coach support but not received coach support. Therefore,
when athletes feel that they have a strong coach–athlete relationship
and perceive coach support to be available, self-confidence is
enhanced. Previous research has identified distinct mechanisms
explaining how perceived support and received support may relate to
health outcomes differently (Uchino, 2009). This aligns with the
current findings, which show opposing indirect effects of perceived
coach support and received coach support on well-being and self-
confidence.
The current study highlights the importance of social factors in
sport, particularly the role of the coach. Although previous research
has identified a relationship among social support with coach–athlete
relationship (Felton & Jowett, 2013), self-confidence (Freeman
et al., 2011), and positive wellbeing (Simons & Bird, 2023), the current
study is the first to explore the relationship between these variables
together. Furthermore, the current research examined the role of both
perceived coach support and received coach support concurrently in
relation to confidence and wellbeing. Studies mainly focus on one social
support construct and therefore, are unable to detect the nuance ef-
fects of both perceived support and received support on outcome
variables or identify potential mechanisms underpinning relationships
between variables. The current study addresses recommendations for
research to examine both support constructs (Freeman, 2021). Simons
and Bird (2023) found an association between coach–athlete rela-
tionship and psychological wellbeing with perceived coach support but
did not measure the potential impact of received coach support. The
current research significantly enhances our comprehension of how
social support positively influences wellbeing and confidence by
identifying mediating effects, while also distinguishing how perceived
coach support and received coach support function separately
(DeFreese & Smith, 2013).
This study has important implications for how coaches can best
offer support to their athletes and why such support is needed. Our
findings highlight the positive influence perceived coach support and
received coach support has in relation to a strong coach–athlete
relationship, with enhanced self-confidence and psychological well-
being. However, the effectiveness of social support-based in-
terventions has been mixed (e.g., Hogan et al., 2002). For example,
one study found an intervention that centerd around an expert
providing support to golfers led to feelings of enhanced received
support of all three participants although performance only improved
for one participant (Freeman et al., 2009). Despite the challenges of
developing effective support interventions, the current findings may
provide an evidence-based approach to effective coach support. We
will discuss an approach to increase perceptions of available coach
support and a recommendation for providing coach support.
In practical terms, enhancing perceptions of coach support along
with developing a positive coach–athlete relationship could lead to
improved self-confidence. Increasing perceptions of coach support
may be considered relatively challenging to implement, as perceptions
are based on generic evaluations of support providers and are
considered relatively stable (Lakey, 2010). One potential strategy to
improve perceptions of available support, and therefore, enhance self-
confidence, could be for coaches to have an open-door policy to allow
their athletes to speak to them if needed. This approach encourages
coaches to cultivate a meaningful relationship with their athletes and
shows commitment to supporting their needs. Additionally, by
improving the receipt of actual support alongside developing a positive
coach–athlete relationship could help enhance psychological well-
being. Coaches could cultivate greater awareness of their role as a
support provider to advocate psychological well-being and consciously
support their athletes in times of need. Understanding individuals'
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
-
7 of 10

support needs and how and when this support can be provided may
take time but would be worthwhile to nurture a positive coach–athlete
relationship and psychological wellbeing. Furthermore, educating
athletes as to the importance of perceived coach support and received
coach support, and encouraging them to seek coach support, may have
benefits for enhanced confidence and wellbeing.
Against the backdrop of the novelty of this study, there are some
limitations. The current study is cross-sectional in nature and ex-
amines only a single time point of athletes' ratings of their coach.
Further research might consider a longitudinal approach to monitor
coach support over a competitive season, as this could highlight any
potential effects of performance results and whether these influence
evaluations of coach support, coach–athlete relationships, and psy-
chological wellbeing. Therefore, tracking coach support for longer
would provide a better understanding of the stable or transient na-
ture of coach support. Moreover, although mediation analyses
revealed perceived support and received support as potential
mechanisms underpinning coach–athlete relationship with self-
confidence and psychological wellbeing, this approach is unable to
establish true cause and effect. Future studies might consider
adopting an experimental design such as manipulating coach support
and measuring subsequent effect on self-confidence in relation to a
performance task and psychological wellbeing.
To conclude, the findings from the current study demonstrate the
distinct roles that perceived coach support and received coach support
play in relation to the coach–athlete relationship, self-confidence, and
psychological wellbeing. When analyzed concurrently, received coach
support, but not perceived coach support, predicted psychological
wellbeing, whereas only perceived coach support and the coach–
athlete relationship were significant predictors of self-confidence,
whereas received coach support was not. This suggests that the
mechanisms in which perceived coach support and received coach
support relate to wellbeing and self-confidence operate differently.
Such that, the coach–athlete relationship is associated with a signifi-
cant indirect effect on self-confidence via perceived coach support.
Whereas, the coach–athlete relationship is associated with a signifi-
cant indirect effect on psychological wellbeing via received coach
support. Based on the results in this study, we have suggested practical
recommendations for coaches to become more effective support
providers by considering athletes' perceptions of support and the
support received, which has implications for improving athletes' self-
confidence and psychological well-being.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Any raw data are available upon request by contacting the corre-
sponding author.
ETHICAL STATEMENT
The study was approved by the Newcastle University Ethical Com-
mittee (Ref: 13,142/2018).
ORCID
Adam H. Coussens
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0710-684X
REFERENCES
Adyani, L., E. Suzanna, S. Safuwan, and M. Muryali. 2019. “Perceived Social
Support and Psychological Well-Being Among Interstate Students at
Malikussaleh University.” Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi 3, no. 2:
98–104. https://doi.org/10.23917/indigenous.v3i2.6591.
Bolger, N., and D. Amarel. 2007. “Effects of Social Support Visibility on
Adjustment to Stress: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 92, no. 3: 458–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.92.3.458.
Bruner, M. W., K. J. Munroe-Chandler, and K. S. Spink. 2008. “Entry into
Elite Sport: A Preliminary Investigation into the Transition Experi-
ences of Rookie Athletes.” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20, no.
2: 236–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200701867745.
Camfield, L., and S. M. Skevington. 2008. “On Subjective Well-Being and
Quality of Life.” Journal of Health Psychology 13, no. 6: 764–75. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1359105308093860.
Cohen, S. 1988. “Psychosocial Models of the Role of Social Support in the
Etiology of Physical Disease.” Health Psychology 7, no. 3: 269–97.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.7.3.269.
Cohen, S., B. H. Gottlieb, and L. G. Underwood. 2000. “Social Relationships
and Health.” In Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide
for Health and Social Scientists, edited by S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood,
and B. H. Gottlieb, eds, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cox, R. H., M. P. Martens, and W. D. Russell. 2003. “Measuring Anxiety in
Athletics: The Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2.”
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 25, no. 4: 519–33. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsep.25.4.519.
Craft, L. L., T. M. Magyar, B. J. Becker, and D. L. Feltz. 2003. “The Rela-
tionship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and
Sport Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology 25, no. 1: 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.25.1.44.
Dadvand, P., X. Bartoll, X. Basagaña, A. Dalmau-Bueno, D. Martinez, A.
Ambros, M. Cirach, et al. 2016. “Green Spaces and General Health:
Roles of Mental Health Status, Social Support, and Physical Activity.”
Environment International 91: 161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2016.02.029.
Davis, L., and S. Jowett. 2014. “Coach–athlete Attachment and the Quality
of the Coach–Athlete Relationship: Implications for Athlete’s Well-
being.” Journal of Sports Sciences 32: 1454–64. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2014.898183.
DeFreese, J. D., and A. L. Smith. 2013. “Teammate Social Support,
Burnout, and Self-Determined Motivation in Collegiate Athletes.”
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14, no. 2: 258–65. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.009.
Felton, L., and S. Jowett. 2013. “What Do Coaches Do” and “How Do They
Relate”: Their Effects on Athletes’ Psychological Needs and Func-
tioning.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 23, no. 2:
e130–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12029.
Forlenza, S. T., S. Pierce, R. S. Vealey, and J. Mackersie. 2018. “Coaching
Behaviors that Enhance Confidence in Athletes and Teams.” Inter-
national Sport Coaching Journal 5, no. 3: 205–12. https://doi.org/10.
1123/iscj.2017-0040.
Freeman, P. 2021. “Social Support.” In Stress, Well-Being, and Performance
in Sport, edited by R. Arnold, and D. Fletcher, eds, 240–58. Taylor
and Francis.
8 of 10
-
COUSSENS
ET AL.

Freeman, P., P. Coffee, T. Moll, T. Rees, and N. Sammy. 2014. “The ARSQ:
The Athletes’ Received Support Questionnaire.” Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology 36, no. 2: 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.
2013-0080.
Freeman, P., P. Coffee, and T. Rees. 2011. “The PASS-Q: The Perceived
Available Support in Sport Questionnaire.” Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology 33, no. 1: 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.54.
Freeman, P., and T. Rees. 2008. “The Effects of Perceived and Received
Support upon Objective Performance Outcome.” European Journal of
Sport Science 8, no. 6: 359–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1746139080
2261439.
Freeman, P., and T. Rees. 2009. “How Does Perceived Support Lead to
Better Performance? an Examination of Potential Mechanisms.”
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 21, no. 4: 429–41. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10413200903222913.
Freeman, P., and T. Rees. 2010. “Perceived Social Support from Team-
Mates: Direct and Stress-Buffering Effects on Self-Confidence.” Eu-
ropean Journal of Sport Science 10, no. 1: 59–67. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17461390903049998.
Freeman, P., T. Rees, and L. Hardy. 2009. “An Intervention to Increase Social
Support and Improve Performance.” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
21, no. 2: 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200902785829.
Gencer, E., and A. Öztürk. 2018. “The Relationship between the Sport-
Confidence and the Coach-Athlete Relationship in Student-
Athletes.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 6: 7–14. https://
doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i10.3388.
Gould, D., C. Greenleaf, Y. Chung, and D. Guinan. 2002. “A Survey of U.S.
Atlanta and Nagano Olympians: Variables Perceived to Influence
Performance.” Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport 73, no. 2: 175–
86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10609006.
Haber, M. G., J. L. Cohen, T. Lucas, and B. B. Baltes. 2007. “The Relationship
between Self-Reported Received and Perceived Social Support: A
Meta-Analytic Review.” American Journal of Community Psychology 39,
no. 1–2: 133–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1046400791009.
Hayes, A. F. (2013), Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Pro-
cess Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach Edn, Guilford Publications,
New York, NY, pp. 1–20.
Hogan, B. E., W. Linden, and B. Najarian. 2002. “Social Support In-
terventions. Do They Work?”. Clinical Psychology Review 22, no. 3:
381–440. https://doi.org/10.1016//S0272-7358(01)00102-7.
Jowett, S. 2017. “Coaching Effectiveness: The Coach–Athlete Relationship
at its Heart.” Current Opinion in Psychology 16: 154–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006.
Jowett, S., and N. Ntoumanis. 2004. “The Coach–Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and Initial Validation.”
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 14, no. 4: 245–57.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x.
Katagami, E., and H. Tsuchiya. 2016. “Effects of Social Support on Ath-
letes’ Psychological Well-Being: The Correlations Among Received
Support, Perceived Support, and Personality.” Psychology 7, no. 13:
1741–52. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.713163.
Kim, H. Y. 2013. “Statistical Notes for Clinical Researchers: Assessing
Normal Distribution Using Skewness and Kurtosis.” Restorative
Dentistry & Endodontics 38, no. 1: 52–4. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.
2013.38.1.52.
Kumar, S., S. Kodidela, A. Kumar, K. Gerth, and K. Zhi. 2020. “Intervention
and Improved Well-Being of Basic Science Researchers during the
COVID 19 Era: a Case Study.” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 574712.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574712.
Lafrenière, M. A. K., S. Jowett, R. J. Vallerand, and N. Carbonneau. 2011.
“Passion for Coaching and the Quality of the Coach–Athlete Rela-
tionship: The Mediating Role of Coaching Behaviors.” Psychology of
Sport and Exercise 12, no. 2: 144–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2010.08.002.
Lakey, B. 2010. “Basic Research in Social Support Suggests New Strategies
for Intervention.” In Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psy-
chology, edited by J. E. Maddux, and P. Tangey, eds, 177–94. New York:
Guildford Publications.
Lakey, B., and E. Orehek. 2011. “Relational Regulation Theory: A New
Approach to Explain the Link between Perceived Social Support and
Mental Health.” Psychological Review 118, no. 3: 482–95. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0023477.
López de Subijana, C., L. J. Martin, J. Ramos, and J. Côté. 2021. “How
Coach Leadership Is Related to the Coach-Athlete Relationship in
Elite Sport.” International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 16,
no. 6: 1239–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211021523.
Lu, H., X. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Song, and J. Liu. 2023. “Hippocampus Links
Perceived Social Support with Self-Esteem.” Social Neuroscience 18,
no. 3: 132–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2023.2216471.
Lundqvist, C. 2011. “Well-being in Competitive Sports -the Feel Good
Factor? A Review of Conceptual Considerations of Well-Being.” In-
ternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4, no. 2: 109–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2011.584067.
McLoughlin, E., D. Fletcher, G. M. Slavich, R. Arnold, and L. J. Moore. 2021.
“Cumulative Lifetime Stress Exposure, Depression, Anxiety, and
Well-Being in Elite Athletes: A Mixed-Method Study.” Psychology of
Sport and Exercise 52: 101823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.
2020.101823.
Melrose, K. L., G. D. A. Brown, and A. M. Wood. 2015. “When Is Received
Social Support Related to Perceived Support and Well-Being? when
it Is Needed.” Personality and Individual Differences 77: 97–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.047.
Peng, J., J. Zhang, L. Zhao, P. Fang, and Y. Shao. 2020. “Coach–athlete
Attachment and the Subjective Well-Being of Athletes: A Multiple-
Mediation Model Analysis.” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 17, no. 13: 4675. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17134675.
Prati, G., L. Pietrantoni, and E Cicognani. 2010. “Self-efficacy Moderates
the Relationship between Stress Appraisal and Quality of Life
Among Rescue Workers.” Anxiety, Stress & Coping 23, no. 4: 463–70.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20371.
Qualtrics. 2022. “Qualtrics, Provo, Utah.”. https://www.qualtrics.com.
Rees, T., and P. Freeman. 2007. “The Effects of Perceived and Received
Support on Self-Confidence.” Journal of Sports Sciences 25, no. 9:
1057–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600982279.
Rees, T., P. Freeman, S. Bell, and R. Bunney. 2012. “Three Generalizability
Studies of the Components of Perceived Coach Support.” Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology 34, no. 2: 238–51. https://doi.org/10.
1123/jsep.34.2.238.
Sarason, I. G., and B. R. Sarason. 2009. “Social Support: Mapping the
Construct.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26, no. 1: 113–
20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509105526.
Simons, E. E., and M. D. Bird. 2023. “Coach-athlete Relationship, Social
Support, and Sport-Related Psychological Well-Being in National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Student-Athletes.” Journal
for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 17, no. 3: 191–210.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2022.2060703.
Tennant, R., L. Hiller, R. Fishwick, S. Platt, S. Joseph, S. Weich, J. Parkinson,
J. Secker, and S. Stewart-Brown. 2007. “The Warwick–Edinburgh
Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK Vali-
dation.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 5, no. 1: 63–76. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.
Uchino, B. N. 2004. “Social Support and Physical Health: Understanding the
Health Consequences of Relationships.” Yale university press.
Uchino, B. N. 2009. “Understanding the Links between Social Support and
Physical Health: A Lifespan Perspective with Emphasis on the
Separability of Perceived and Received Support.” Perspectives on
Psychological Science 4, no. 3: 236–55. https://doi.10.1111/j.1745-
6924.2009.01122.x.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
-
9 of 10

Uchino, B. N., K. Bowen, M. Carlisle, and W. Birmingham. 2012. “Psy-
chological Pathways Linking Social Support to Health Outcomes: a
Visit with the “Ghosts” of Research Past, Present, and Future.” Social
Science and Medicine 74, no. 7: 949–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2011.11.023.
Vangelisti, A. L. 2009. “Challenges in Conceptualising Social Support.”
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26, no. 1: 39–51. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407509105520.
Vealey, R. S. 2001. “Understanding and Enhancing Self-Confidence in
Athletes.” In Handbook of Sport Psychology, edited by R. Singer, H.
Hausenblaus, and C. Janelle, eds. 2nd ed., 550–63. New York, NY:
McMillan.
Vealey, R. S., and M. A. Chase. 2008. “Self-confidence in Sport: Conceptual
and Research Advances.” In Advances in Sport Psychology, edited by
T. S. Horn, ed. 3rd ed., 65–97. Human Kinetics.
Vella, S. A., L. G. Oades, and T. P. Crowe. 2013. “The Relationship between
Coach Leadership the Coach-Athletes Relationship, Team Success,
and the Positive Developmental Experiences of Adolescent Soccer
Players.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 18, no. 5: 549–61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.726976.
Woodman, T., and L. Hardy. 2003. “The Relative Impact of Cognitive
Anxiety and Self-Confidence upon Sport Performance: a Meta-
Analysis.” Journal of Sports Sciences 21, no. 6: 443–57. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0264041031000101809.
10 of 10
-
COUSSENS
ET AL.