• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
How does coaching style affect athlete pro-social or antisocial behaviour with reference to Self Determination Theory (SDT)?

How does coaching style affect athlete pro-social or antisocial behaviour with reference to Self Determination Theory (SDT)?






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Ryan and Deci, Hodge and Lonsdale
  • Black and Deci 2000
  • Black and Deci 2000 and enhancing youth sport
  • Black and DeciHodge and Lonsdale
  • Bartholemew,Ntoumanis & Thorgersen-Ntoumani 2010Hodge and LonsdaleMageau and Vallerand (3 and 4th point)
  • Mageau and Vallerand
  • umann and the Canadian rowingteam witnessed the tremendous difference coachescan make. After disappointing results in the SeoulOlympics in 1988, Rowing Canada hired British-bornrowing coach Mike Spracklen. Spracklen established anew and demanding programme where he made hisathletes his central focus and used their feedback toadjust his programme (Wickens, 1999). ‘In the ‘80s(. . .)’, said Worthington, a Canadian rower, ‘somerowers were forced to scull and coaches battled eachother for athletes. In ‘92 . . . the boats selectedthemselves. I had never seen anything so fair’(Wickens, 1999). Spracklen was viewed as a mentorwho not only taught athletes technical skills, but whoalso nurtured the person as a whole. Laumann hassaid of him that he was ‘the most selfless man [shehas] ever known’ (Wickens, 1999), with a rare mix ofgentleness and toughness (Blatchford, 1992). He notonly ‘knows everything about this one thing (rowing)[but] . . . his joy is to see his athletes realize a dream’(Wickens, 1999). Four years later in the BarcelonaOlympics, Canada’s top rowers excelled, bringinghome four golds to go with Laumann’s celebratedbronze. Andy Higgins, the director of the NationalCoaching Institute in canada, saw Spracklen’s success as ameasure of what a master coach can accomplish:‘Amateur and Olympic coaches bring a vision ofpersonal excellence [and] . . . create intrinsic motivation’(Jones, 2002).

How does coaching style affect athlete pro-social or antisocial behaviour with reference to Self Determination Theory (SDT)? How does coaching style affect athlete pro-social or antisocial behaviour with reference to Self Determination Theory (SDT)? Presentation Transcript

  •  Background research Central Ideas of SDT Coaching styles –autonomy supportive and controlled motivation Pro-social and antisocial behaviour The Coach-Athlete Relationship How that relationship affects behaviour Practical applications and further research
  •  Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) discussed whether relationships between contextual and personal factors affect athlete behaviour Ntoumanis and Standage (2009) suggested the SDT is a useful motivational framework to understand athletes needs The coach-athlete relationship is a key aspect in sport-behaviour (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)
  •  Athletes perception of coaching effectiveness can affect athlete-centred outcomes (Bartholemew, Ntoumanis and Thorgsen-Ntoumani, 2010) Athletes motivation leads to their behaviour and subsequent performance (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)
  •  Goal directed motivation that understands innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (Deci and Ryan, 2000) Social and individual contexts that satisfy these needs facilitate growth (Hodge and Lonsdale 2011) Ability to integrate intrinsic and extrinsic motivations more effectively (Deci and Ryan, 2000)
  •  Contexts that do not support these needs associated with poor performance, motivation and behaviour (Deci and Ryan, 2000) Research suggests that SDT is a useful framework in the sporting context (Ntoumanis and Standage, 2009)
  •  A coach takes the athletes perspective, acknowledges the feelings of the athlete (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011) Provides as much choice as possible within specific limits (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003) Allows opportunities for independent work Non controlling competence based feedback (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011)
  •  Avoids overt control and guilt inducing criticisms (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011) Provides rationale for tasks, limits and rules (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011) Prevents ego-involvement Creates inclusive environment (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011) Promotes character development through respect and fair play (Boardley , Kavussanu and Ring, 2009)
  •  Overt control of athlete (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003) Controlling statements Induces feelings of guilt in athlete (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011) Extrinsic incentives for progress Encourages ego-involvement Pushing own values and ideas on athlete Coach centred approach (Hodge and Lonsdale, 2011) Exclusive
  •  Pro-social  Antisocial › Designed to › Designed to harm benefit others or disadvantage › Self driven and others motivated › Non-cooperative › Helping team › Finds it harder to mates work within a › Able to work team independently › Can be verbally or within structure physically aggressive(Boardley, Kuvassanu and Ring, 2009)
  •  The coach is the most influential figure in an athletes sport experience (Ntoumanis and Standage) The values emphasised by the coach will influence athlete motivation and behaviour (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011) The quality of this relationship is a crucial determinant of athlete satisfaction and performance (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) Directly affects the athletes psychological needs outlined in the SDT (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)
  • Source: Mageau and Vallerand, 2003. pg 884
  •  This model articulates the meaning behind being an autonomy supportive coach It identifies the behaviours specific to this style of coaching It shows how the coaches’ behaviours have a beneficial impact on athletes psychologically innate needs as outlined in the SDT (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)
  •  Autonomy supportive › Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) found that athletes whose needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence were met found a strong positive relationship with pro-social behaviour towards team mates › This behaviour led to better results, higher levels of motivation, independence, trust in their team and overall satisfaction with the coach
  •  Autonomy Supportive Cont… › Research suggests that this style of coaching can be taught (Mageau and Vallerand 2003) › It also suggests that any interventions aimed at minimising coaches’ pressure and stress would in turn foster an autonomy supportive style (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003)
  •  Controlling Motivation › In the same study Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) found that controlled motivation had a weak positive relationship with anti- social behaviour towards team mates and a strong positive relationship with that same behaviour towards opponents. › Hodge and Lonsdale (2010) also found that the anti-social behaviour was correlated with feelings of dissatisfaction in their sporting lives.
  •  Controlling Motivation (cont…) › Black and Deci (2000) theorised that when Instructors [coaches] rely on psychological control, students [athletes] relinquish autonomy on behalf of that relationship › Mageau and Vallerand (2003) suggest that if coaches are willing to adapt their behaviours to fulfil the athletes needs they would get more favourable outcomes
  • Source: Google Images
  •  It’s important for coaches to understand how their behaviours can affect their athletes Understanding that may help them to improve the learning and performance of their athlete Increasing a coaches repertoire provides coaches with more choices to improve an athletes overall sporting experience Kavussanu, 2009) (Boardley and This research also has implications in the areas of teaching and parenting It could also have implications for looking at the reasons athletes partake in certain antisocial behaviours such as drug taking
  •  A major limitation of the research conducted so far is the sample sizes are small Further research could conduct these experiments on athletes across a range of ages and sports, both individual and team It could also explore the difference between males and females as well as different age groups in how coaching affects behaviour
  • Source: Google Images If coaches nurture athletes and meet those needsof autonomy, competence and relatedness, through an autonomy supportive coaching style, then not only are they potentially influencing their athletetowards behaving in a positive manner toward their team mates and towards the opposition but they are giving them the tools to build character and perform to the best of their ability.
  •  Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The controlling interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial validation of a psychometric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 193–216. Black, A.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: a self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756. Boardley, I.D., Kavussanu, M. (2009).The Influence of Social Variables and Moral Disengagement on Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviours in Field Hockey and Netball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(8), 843-854 Boardley, I.D., Kavussanu, M., Ring, C. (2008). Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaching Effectiveness and Athlete-Related Outcomes in Rugby Union: An Investigation Based on the Coaching Efficacy Model. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 269-287. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). The What and Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self Determination of Behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268 Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport: The Role of Coaching Style. Autonomous vs. Controlled Motivation and Moral Disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 527-547. Ntoumanis, N., Standage, M. (2009). Morality in Sport: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 365-380. Mageau, G.V., Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Motivational Model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883-904