2.  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

3.  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)

4.  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)

5.  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)

6.  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)

7.  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)

8.  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)

9.  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

10.  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)

11.  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)

12. Source: Mageau and Vallerand, 2003. pg 884

13.  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)

14.  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

15.  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)

16.  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.

17.  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

18. Source: Google Images

19.  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

20.  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

21. Source: Google Images
If coaches nurture athletes and meet those needs
of autonomy, competence and relatedness, through
an autonomy supportive coaching style, then not
only are they potentially influencing their athlete
towards 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.

22.  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