Diferencias en el_coaching_psicologico_de_mujeres_y_hombres


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Diferencias en el_coaching_psicologico_de_mujeres_y_hombres

  1. 1. http://coachesinfo.com/category/becoming_a_better_coach/13/ Keyw ord Search Query > Search: Home About Submission Other Sports Links<< Back to Becoming a Better CoachPrintable versionShould boys & girls be coached the sameway?Dr. Craig Stewart - Professor, Department of Health & Human Development, Montana StateUniversity o Introduction - Pupose of this Study o Methodology o Discussion o ConclusionsIntroduction"Should I coach girls differently than boys?" That is a question often heard in the privateconversations between coaches. Coaching has survived a period in which that question,regardless of its legitimacy, would have instigated ridicule. The mere implication that there mightbe different methods for coaching the two genders was characterized as an assault on allfemales.But as the number of athletic opportunities for females increased, the louder the question hasbecome. It is not being asked to identify either gender as less competitive than the other, but bydedicated coaches who sincerely desire to use the best methods to prepare female athletes. 1
  2. 2. Purpose of this StudyThe purpose of this study was to determine if gender differences existed in former athletes intheir perceptions of favorite and least favorite coach characteristics. Former athletes have beenidentified as valuable sources of information from which little information has been gathered(Anshel, 1990). Smoll and Smith (1996) related athletes memories and perceptions of coachingbehaviors to coaching effectiveness, and stated that the psychological impact of sportparticipation on athletes could be examined by how players and former players remember theircoaches behaviors. Kenow and Williams (1999) found that surprisingly little research has beenreported on the effects of coaching behaviors and its effectiveness. In their study, they foundplayers who perceived their coaches as being more compatible, evaluated their communicationability and player-support levels of the coach more favorably. Conversely, if athletes disagreedwith the coachs goals, personality, and/or beliefs, some psychological needs of the athleteswere not met. That failure often resulted in frustration and a loss of self-concept by the player.Therefore, it was hypothesized that if differences existed in how male and female athletesremembered their favorite and least favorite coach, understanding those differences wouldassist professionals in coach education in the preparation of future coaches. It would assist inclarifying any differences between genders in how each valued specific coachingcharacteristics, thus contributing to whether one should alter coaching behaviors dependentupon the gender of the athletes. Conversely, if no differences were gleaned in this comparison,that too, would provide valuable insight in coaching methods.Holbrook & Barr, (1997) stated that while coaching females is not significantly different thancoaching males, gender differences occur in some psychological domains. They wrote thatthere are differences in the manner women respond to positive feedback. Also, females seem tovalue personal improvement over winning more than males, and regard team unity as astronger motivating factor than males. The authors were adamant, however, that thesedifferences have nothing to do with the female athletes skill levels, desire and willingness towork, capacity to learn, and mental toughness.The Presidents Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Report on Physical Activity & Sport inthe Lives of Girls (1997) supported Holbrook and Barr that there are more similarities betweenthe genders than differences. However, the report identified specific areas of differencesrequiring coach awareness. According to the report, females, in general, are more internallymotivated by self improvement and goals related to team success and appear more motivatedby a cooperative, caring, and sharing team environment. The authors cited Garcia (1994) thatsome female athletes actually can be turned off by coaches who over emphasize winning. It is 2
  3. 3. not that female athletes want to win any less, but may approach competition differently thanmale athletes. In some competitive circumstances, female athletes place more emphasis onsportspersonship and playing fair, than males. When their team loses, females have atendency to blame themselves first for the poor performance. Under similar circumstances,males appear to be more self or ego oriented and tend to be more win at any cost in theirapproach to sport. Males are more apt to break rules to achieve their goals and blame others(the referee, the weather, the coach) when they fail. The causes for the psychologicallydifferences are unknown. They could be gender related, but could also be highly influenced bysocial or cultural expectations (Gill, 1994).If differences exist, coaches need to be aware of them. That awareness could assist coaches invarying coaching styles to meet the individual needs of the gender being coached. Ifindividualization is achieved, coaches would be assisting both the team, and the individualplayer, in achieving the highest performance possible. It could also reduce the frustrationexperienced by coaches who switch between teams of different genders.MethodologyStudents in two, college, coaching classes were asked to complete an in-class assignment. Inthe assignment, they stated their gender, total number of years they had played organizedsport, their main sports, and the highest level they had played. They were then asked to list boththe positive qualities of their favorite coach and the negative qualities of their least favoritecoach (Stewart, 1993).The descriptive statistics are presented in Tables 1 & 2. The coaching qualities were recordedand categorized following the guidelines of Neuman (1997). The categorization process allowedthe author to quantify the final results as the percent of total responses, by gender, in eacharea. 3
  4. 4. 4
  5. 5. DiscussionThe positive category, PERSONALITY, received the most references by both genders (males =27.8% & females = 19.6%). Within this category were specific behaviors interpreted as beingrelated to a coachs personality (or that which made that coach a unique person)- assertive,cooperative, determined, respected (& respectable), willing to help, dedicated, a quality person,great personality, cool under pressure, responsible, liked coaching, a role model, energetic,and wanted to be there. Likewise, PERSONALITY also was the most frequent reference in thenegative responses (males = 32.1% & females = 24.5%). In addition to being the opposite of thepositive personality characteristics previously mentioned (unwilling to help, not a role model, nota nice person, not focused, not personable, and a jerk ) other negative behaviors whichrepresented personality were arrogant, disrespectful, indecisive, lazy, too much ego, toorelaxed, rude, thought he was God, unreliable, weak willed and irritating. 5
  6. 6. Other positive categories for females which appeared most frequently were COMMUNICATION,POSITIVE and CARED. For males, the next most frequent were CARED, MOTIVATION andKNOWLEDGE. For males, COMMUNICATION (problems), TEACHING SKILLS (lack of), and(playing) FAVORITES were the next most frequent responses in the negative category. Forfemales, NEGATIVE, TEACHING SKILLS, and COMMUNICATION were negative categoriesmentioned most.Though impossible to verify statistically, perhaps the best representations of similarities anddifferences between the genders are presented in Tables 3a-4b. Tables 3a and 3b present thefrequency of positive responses in percentages of both female and male athletes. In Tables 4aand 4b, the negative responses of the genders are presented.In the positive responses, the greatest numerical differences between the genders occurred onCOMMUNICATION, EMOTION, and POSITIVE characteristics of coaches. The femalesrecorded those characteristics more than males. On the other hand, males recorded moreresponses in positive coaching characteristics in WINNING.The frequency of NEGATIVE coaching characteristics can be found in Tables 4a and 4b with anapparent difference between genders in one area. Only in the category, NEGATIVE, does thereappear to be a visible difference between genders with females recording more responses thanmales.ConclusionsIn the examination of gender differences in sport behavior, Gill (1994) stated that investigationof these factors is more related to social and psychological characteristics than behaviorsdirectly associated with a specific gender. In addition, she wrote that behaviors andcharacteristics are neither dichotomous nor biologically based, and the attempt to investigatethem is elusive at best. As the society changes in which athletes exist, so do the gender roles ofthe athletes.The results of this study appear to support that belief. There were more similarities in how malesand females remembered and characterized their favorite and least favorite coaches thandifferences. Both genders valued personality above any characteristic as a positive attribute.While personality is a broad, general descriptor, it certainly provides future coaches with specificbehaviors that players remember. Athletes of both genders characterized their favorite coachesas those who were assertive, cooperative, determined, respected (& respectable), willing tohelp, dedicated, a quality person, great personality, cool under pressure, responsible, liked 6
  7. 7. coaching, a role model, energetic, and wanted to be there. The memories of those athletes canprovide future coaches with behavioral guidelines by which to develop their coaching styles.Other positive characteristics which were similar between genders were CARED ANDCOMMUNICATION. With both genders, these characteristics were remembered by coachingbehaviors such as cared for me as a person, cared away from the game, talked to me aboutschool, and asked me about things away from my sport.In contrast, males valued KNOWLEDGE (of the sport) and TEACHING SKILLS more thanfemales. Females appeared to value EMOTION and POSITIVE characteristics of coaches morethan males. These findings appear to support the thesis that females tend to be moreinternalized than males in some motivational aspects of sport. Females are apt to valuedperformance improvements based upon positive interactions and self-comparisons, while malesbase some motivational factors on externalized factors which would be impacted by a coachsKNOWLEDGE of the sport and the ability to TEACH. However, females remembered the lack ofTEACHING SKILLS as a frequent negative characteristic just as male athletes had.In the comparison of negative memories, the genders were even more similar than with positiveattributes of their former coaches. The only obvious differences were in NEGATIVE (morefrequently noted by females) and WINNING (more with males). However, those differenceswere very small. These results seem to accentuate the similarities between the genders.Certainly being remembered as favorite or least favorite coach is not, in itself, an absolutemeasure of coaching effectiveness. However, since the subjects in this study were experiencedathletes with extensive backgrounds in traditional sports, their input should be valued in thedetermination this area.It has been stated that, in general, most coaches do not understand female athletes as well asthey should. That very likely remains true today. Sport clinicians and coach educators shouldspend more time exploring gender differences among athletes and emphasizing working withyoung female athletes more. Continued examination will assist coaches, and those who trainthem, in working with all athletes effectively.Finally, although qualitative data is difficult to analyze statistically, it does provide informationthat is valuable to provide coaches with knowledge on how players perceived and rememberedtheir behaviors. This study represents but a small contribution to the determination of how bestto coach athletes of either gender. Additional work like this is needed to establish other areas ofsimilarities and differences. 7
  8. 8. ReferencesAnshel, M. (1990). Sport psychology; From theory to practice. Scottsdale, Az.; Holcomb Hathaway Publishing.Center for Mental Health Services/Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration. (1997). The Presidents Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Report on Physical Activity & Sport inthe Lives of Girls. Retrieved October, 1999 from World Wide Web: http://www.kls.coled.umn.edu/crgws/pcpfs/sxn1.html.Garcia, C. (1994). Gender differences in young childrens interactions when learning fundamental motor skills. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (3), 247-255.Gill, D.L. (1992). Gender and sport behavior. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 143-160).Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics Publishers.Gill, D.L. (1994). Psychological perspectives on women in sport and exercise. In D.M Costa and S.R. Guthrie (Ed.)Women and sport: Interdisciplinary perpective (pp. 253-284).Holbrook, J. E. & Barr, J. K. (1997). Contemporary coaching: Trends and issues.Carmel, In.; Cooper Publishing CompanyKenow, Laura. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athletes perception of coaching behaviors. Journal of SportBehavior, 22, (2), 251-259.Neuman, W.L (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, Ma.; Allyn & Bacon.Smoll, F.L. & Smith, .E. (1996). Children and Youth in Sport: A Biopsychosocial Perspective. Madison, Wi.; Brown &Benchmark Publishing.Stewart, C. (1993). Coaching behaviors: "The way you were, or the way you wished you were". Physical Educator, 50 ,23-30. 8