Journal of Park and Recreation Administration Volume 35, Number

511
Spring 2017 pp. 51–65
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I1-7296

Authoritative Coach: Building

Youth Through Sport

Christian S. Brinton
Brian J. Hill
Peter J. Ward

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Tens of millions of youth coached by millions of

coaches participate in competitive sports annually in the United States on a
weekly or even daily basis. Coaches, athletes, parents, league administrators,
and recreation professionals engaged in recruiting and training coaches have the
need to better understand the impact these coaches and their coaching styles have
on the youth athletes with whom they associate. The purpose of this study was to
determine the existence and extent of the relationship between coaching styles
and adolescent athletes’ psychological needs in terms of Self Determination
7KHRU\6'76SHFL¿FDOO\WKLVVWXG\DGDSWHG%DXPULQG¶VSDUHQWLQJVW\OHVRI
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissiveness to coaching styles and examined
the relationship between each coaching style and the tenets of SDT, namely
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The sample consisted of 194 students
from a university in the Western United States who had participated in either club
or high school level sports for at least one year during high school. Results from
block entry method linear multi-regression analysis suggested that coaching
styles were related to athletes’ levels of perceived autonomy, and competence.
5HVXOWVUHYHDOHGWKDWDQDXWKRULWDWLYHFRDFKLQJVW\OHZDVDVLJQL¿FDQWSUHGLFWRU
of athlete autonomy and competence while an authoritarian coaching style was a
VLJQL¿FDQWQHJDWLYHSUHGLFWRURIDWKOHWHDXWRQRP\OHYHOV5HVXOWVIURPWKLVVWXG\
hold practical implications for coaches, athletes, parents, league administrators
and recreation professionals. Coaches have new principles on which they can
base their coaching styles. Results provide criteria for parents and adolescents to
use while selecting coaches. League administrators and recreation professionals
received information for coach selection and training criteria and coaching
evaluation development. Overall, this study adds to the youth sport literature
by not only showing that coaches impact adolescent athletes’ basic needs, but
provides a practical style or mindset rather than a list of behaviors for coaches to
implement, coach selection criteria for parents and athletes, and guidelines for
league administrators and recreation professionals to use in selecting, training,
and evaluating coaches.

KEYWORDS: Authoritative coaching, authoritarian coaching, permissive

coaching, autonomy, competence, relatedness, youth sports, coaching
52

AUTHORS: Christian Brinton received a master of science degree from the

Department of Recreation Management at Brigham Young University, christian.
brinton@gmail.com. Brian J. Hill is a professor in the Department of Recreation
Management at Brigham Young University. Peter J. Ward is an associate
professor in the Department of Recreation Management at Brigham Young
University.

Introduction
An estimated 41 million youth around the United States participate in athletics
each year, and average team sizes would suggest millions of coaches interact with
these athletes on a daily basis (Hilgers, 2006). With these numbers of coaches
interacting with youth. coaches, athletes, parents of athletes, league administrators
and recreation professionals have an urgent need to understand not only the effect
these coaches have on the athletic skills of athletes, but also on their psychological
development.
Among many other motivational frameworks, scholars have utilized Self-
Determination Theory (SDT) to better understand coaches’ roles in athlete motivation
(Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Feltz, Hepler, Roman, & Paiement, 2009;
Matosic & Cox, 2014; Mourtadis, Lens, & Vansteenkiste, 2010). This project utilized
SDT due to its focus on motivation, and the breadth and depth in which it has been
XWLOL]HG LQ VSRUWV LQFOXGLQJ DGROHVFHQW VSRUWV 6'7 LGHQWL¿HV WKUHH SV\FKRORJLFDO
needs, which if met, contribute to self-determined motivation: autonomy (feeling one
KDVLQÀXHQFHRYHUZKDWKDSSHQVRUDIHHOLQJRIIUHHGRPFRPSHWHQFHIHHOLQJRQH
has the skills necessary to be successful at a given endeavor), and relatedness (feeling
connection with other people) (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Results from past research have indicated a coach’s style or approach to coaching
FDQ VLJQL¿FDQWO\ SUHGLFW DWKOHWHV¶ OHYHOV RI SHUFHLYHG DXWRQRP\ FRPSHWHQFH DQG
relatedness (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007). For example, much of the existing
research employing SDT has focused on autonomy-supportive (less controlling)
coaching styles (Almagro, Saenz- Lopez, & Moreno, 2010; Matosic & Cox, 2014;
Mourtadis et al., 2010; Ramis, Torregrosa, Viladrich, & Cruz, 2013). When a coach
implements autonomy-supportive methods, athletes participate in sports through
more self-determined motives, perform better at their chosen sport, tend to persist in a
given sport, and display higher levels of individual well-being (Almagro et al., 2010;
Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007).
Autonomy is important, but it must be accompanied by structure and support
in order to meet all three psychological needs (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
$XWRQRP\VXSSRUWLYH EHKDYLRUV ZLWKRXW VWUXFWXUH DQG VXSSRUW PD\ EH LQVXI¿FLHQW
to instill competence and relatedness, which are both pertinent components of self-
determination (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Mageau and Vallerand (2003) developed
an autonomy-supportive coaching style adding structure and support through
outlining seven coaching behaviors intended to meet all three psychological needs
rather than focusing primarily on autonomy. They suggest a sport applied version of
the authoritative parenting style in Baumrind’s Parenting Typology (Baumrind, 1966,
1978, 1991) would, like their autonomy-supportive coaching style, provide both the
structure and support necessary to meet all three psychological needs in athletes.
Baumrind (1966) developed a parenting typology including three parenting
styles––permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. Authoritative parents enact
rules and regulations in a supportive manner, provide rationale for decisions,
and encourage verbal give and take (Baumrind, 1966). Such a parent values both
structure and autonomy while supporting children in their individual needs and
personal endeavors. By extension, an authoritative coach would provide athletes the
freedom for athletes to take ownership for their behavior, the structure necessary to
 53

effectively learn a sport and gain competence, and the support to help athletes connect with
others (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Though Mageau and Vallerand have proposed their
idea of an authoritative coaching style, research has yet to adapt and apply Baumrind’s
3DUHQWLQJ7\SRORJ\WRDGROHVFHQWVSRUWVLQRUGHUWR¿QGDQ\SRWHQWLDOUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQ
the parenting typology and SDT in the sporting context. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to adapt Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to a coaching typology and examine
the relationship between authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive coaching styles and
athletes’ levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Applying Baumrind’s
Typology to coaching can provide a simple and straightforward way to train coaches to
interact constructively with players and contribute to positive youth development.

Review of Literature
The impact coaching styles have on adolescent athletes has been an important
consideration for scholars interested in youth sports over the past decade (Adie, Duda,
 1WRXPDQLV  %HFNHU  :ULVEHUJ  %HFNHU  %RDUGOH\ .DYXVVDQX 
Ring, 2008). Prevoius research has utilized Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to better
understand the affect coaching styles have on athlete motivation (Amorose & Anderson-
Butcher, 2007; Feltz et al., 2009; Myers et al., 2005). SDT focuses on motivational
orientation and the conditions that affect it.

Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination Theory postulates the existence of a motivation continuum
UHÀHFWLQJVHYHUDOOHYHOVRIPRWLYDWLRQIURPZKLFKSHRSOHDFW7KLVFRQWLQXXPUDQJHVIURP
amotivation (characterized by passive compliance) on the low end of the motivational
spectrum to intrinsic motivation (characterized by a high internal desire to participate
DSDUWIURPDQ\LQÀXHQFHIURPRXWVLGHVRXUFHVRQWKHKLJKHQGRIWKHVSHFWUXPZLWKIRXU
levels of self-determined behavior between the two extremes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT
maintains that engaging in an activity through higher levels of self-determination creates
SK\VLFDO HPRWLRQDO DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO EHQH¿WV WR WKRVH SDUWLFLSDWLQJ 7KHVH EHQH¿WV
include a greater interest in the chosen activity, increased intent to remain physically
DFWLYHLQWKHIXWXUHLQFUHDVHGH[FLWHPHQWDQGFRQ¿GHQFHOHVVSUHVVXUHDQGWHQVLRQZKLOH
participating, more creativity, better conceptual learning, a more positive emotional tone,
a higher level of persistence, enhanced performance, increased periods of moderate-to-
vigorous physical activity, and fewer periods of sedentary activity (Almagro et al., 2010;
Deci & Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Fenton et al., 2014; Gillet, Berjot, & Gobance,
2009; Gillet et al., 2010). SDT proposes that when immersed in environments meeting
three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, people tend to
act in more self-determined ways (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Autonomy. Autonomy is one of three psychological needs presented in SDT. Having
a sense of autonomy means “being the perceived origin or source of one’s own behavior”
(Deci & Ryan, 2002, p.7). An individual having a sense of autonomy feels one’s own
DFWLRQVHPDQDWHIURPZLWKLQDQGDUHRISHUVRQDOYROLWLRQYRLGRIRXWVLGHLQÀXHQFH'HFL 
Ryan, 1987). Much of the research utilizing SDT in a sports context has studied the effect
an autonomy-supportive coaching style has on athletes’ motivational orientation.
5HVXOWV KDYH VKRZQ DQ DXWRQRP\VXSSRUWLYH FRDFKLQJ VW\OH LV VLJQL¿FDQWO\ UHODWHG
to athletes’ perceived autonomy and higher levels of self-determination (Almagro et al.,
2010; Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Felton & Jowett, 2013; Fenton et al., 2014;
Matosic & Cox, 2014; Ramis et al., 2013; Readdy, Raabe, & Harding, 2014). Almagro
et al. (2010) for example, found when coaches praised athletes’ autonomous behavior, the
athletes’ perception of their own autonomy level increased which positively predicted their
level of intrinsic motivation. Similarly, Amorose and Anderson-Butcher (2007) found that
DWKOHWHV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKHLU FRDFKHV¶ DXWRQRP\VXSSRUWLYH FRDFKLQJ VW\OH VLJQL¿FDQWO\
predicted athletes’ individual levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which in
turn positively predicted their motivational orientation. Matosic and Cox (2014) showed
54

that when coaches displayed more autonomy-supportive, and less controlling behaviors,
athletes had more positive motivational experiences. Ramis et al. (2013) suggested that
in a sporting context an athlete’s perception of his or her coach’s autonomy support was
PRUHLQÀXHQWLDORQDQDWKOHWH¶VSHUFHSWLRQRILQGLYLGXDODXWRQRP\WKDQZDVWKDWRISDUHQWV
or peers. While much of the autonomy-supportive research has focused primarily on
autonomy, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) developed seven characteristics of autonomy-
supportive coaches adding structure and support to study all three needs rather than
autonomy alone. These characteristics are:
(a) providing as much choice as possible within certain guidelines, (b) providing
reasons for decisions, (c) asking for and considering other’s thoughts and feelings,
(d) allowing others to take initiative, (e) providing non-controlling competence
feedback, (f) avoiding guilt, statements of control, and tangible rewards, (g) and
preventing ego-involvement (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p. 886).
Mageau and Vallerand suggest that by implementing these coaching behaviors,
coaches help satisfy all three needs by providing structure and support in athletes rather
than autonomy alone. The next basic need addressed in SDT is competence.
Competence. Competence is another basic psychological need presented in SDT.
Competence is “feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment
and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capabilities” (Deci & Ryan,
2002, p.7). Thus, an athlete might feel a sense of competence when his or her capabilities
DUHVXI¿FLHQWWRPHHWWKHGHPDQGVRIWKHVSRUWJLYHQKLVRUKHUOHYHORIFRPSHWLWLRQ$KLJK
school basketball player, for example, would likely feel a high sense of competence while
participating in a recreational basketball game on a playground with elementary school
students. This same athlete, however, would certainly feel a low sense of competence
while competing in a game against professional basketball players. Certain coaching
behaviors lead to athletes’ increased sense of competence (Almagro et al., 2010; Mageau
& Vallerand, 2003; Matosic & Cox, 2014).
&RDFKHVPD\SURYLGHDWKOHWHVERWKRQ¿HOGDQGRII¿HOGVWUXFWXUHLQYDULRXVZD\V
LQRUGHUWRKHOSIRVWHUDVHQVHRIFRPSHWHQFH6RPHH[DPSOHVRIRQ¿HOGVWUXFWXUHPD\
LQFOXGHVSHFL¿FSRVLWLRQDVVLJQPHQWVDOORZLQJDWKOHWHVWRVSHFLDOL]HDQGEXLOGFRPSHWHQFH
in particular positions, expectations about attitude and effort levels while practicing and
playing in games, and organized practices. Coaches may also develop structure through
RII¿HOGDFWLYLWLHVE\LPSOHPHQWLQJSHUVRQDOFRQGLWLRQLQJVFKHGXOHVWRHQKDQFHDWKOHWHV¶
¿WQHVVGHYHORSLQJLQGLYLGXDOGULOOUHTXLUHPHQWVWRKHOSGHYHORSLQGLYLGXDOVNLOODQGGLHW
SODQV WR IRVWHU ¿WQHVV:LWKRXW VWUXFWXUH DQG LQVWUXFWLRQ IURPD FRDFK DWKOHWHV ODFN WKH
guidance, knowledge, and skills helpful to learning and progressing in their chosen sport
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Performance feedback based on the provided structure also
assists to instill a sense of competence.
Athletes invariably deviate from performance expectations at one time or another.
The way in which a coach provides corrective feedback when these performance
deviations occur affects athletes’ sense of competence (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013;
Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Mourtadis et al., 2010). A coach delivering performance-
correcting feedback poorly can convey messages of low competence and thus affect
athletes’ motivation (Mourtadis, 2010). Providing corrective feedback in an autonomy-
supportive (noncontrolling) manner, however, is correlated with an increased sense of
competence in athletes (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Targeting behaviors that are under the
athletes’ control, conveying high, but realistic expectations, showing empathy (taking into
account the athlete’s needs), providing tips on how to improve future performance, and
using a considerate tone of voice all support athletes’ development of a sense of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003;
0RXUWDGLV5HODWHGQHVVLVWKH¿QDOEDVLFQHHGSUHVHQWHGLQ6'7
Relatedness. 5HODWHGQHVV LV WKH ¿QDO RI WKUHH QHHGV LQ 6'7 WKDW ZKHQ PHW OHDG
individuals to act in self-determined ways (Deci & Ryan, 1985, Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Relatedness refers to “feeling connected to others, caring for and being cared for by others”
 55

(Deci & Ryan, 2002, p.7). In a sports realm, having a sense of relatedness could mean
feeling connected to a coach, teammates, or supporters such as friends, family, or fans.
While SDT presents autonomy, competence, and relatedness as all necessary to predicting
intrinsic and self-determined levels of motivation, research for the most part has failed to
focus on relatedness independent of autonomy and competence. The available research,
however, has shown a coach’s style is linked to an athlete’s sense of relatedness while
considered with one or both of the other needs (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Wu et al.,
2014). One way in which coaches can help foster a sense of relatedness is through his or
her style of corrective feedback (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013).
A few of the characteristics of effective feedback for developing all three needs may
UHODWH VSHFL¿FDOO\ WR DWKOHWHV GHYHORSLQJ D VHQVH RI UHODWHGQHVV 0DJHDX  9DOOHUDQG
2003; Mouratidis, Lens, & Vansteenkiste 2010; Wu et al., 2014; Carpentier & Mageau,
2013). A coach may use corrective feedback to support an athlete in developing a sense of
relatedness by taking the athlete’s needs and desires into account and by providing feedback
in a considerate voice (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013). Doing so may help athletes feel safe
while in the potentially vulnerable situation of having someone correct their behavior.
Delivering feedback promptly and privately might also help build a feeling of trust between
athletes and coaches by sending the message that the coach will in fact communicate when
issues arise and that the coach will refrain from embarrassing the athlete in front of his or
her peers (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013). While relatedness is important to self-determined
motivation, its effect is limited unless accompanied by autonomy and competence.
As has been shown, self-determined behavior is linked to all three needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Pragmatic coaching models focusing on all three needs, such
as Mageau and Vallerand’s autonomy-supportive coaching model, can impact athletes’
perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness levels (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Mageau and Vallerand suggest Baumrind’s authoritative parenting style is similar to their
autonomy-supportive coaching style by providing structure and support, and may provide
a model to meet all three needs.

Baumrind’s Parenting Typology

Baumrind (1966) described three parenting styles (permissive, authoritarian, and
authoritative) based on the tenets of demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness
“refers to the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole,
by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts, and willingness to confront
the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991, pp. 61-62). A parent high in demandingness
has lofty but achievable expectations for a child’s behavior, and provides the structure
necessary for the realization of those expectations. Responsiveness is “the extent to which
parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being
attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands” (Baumrind,
1991, p. 62). A parent high in responsiveness takes into consideration the child’s needs and
desires and supports the child in his or her endeavors whether individual or family related.
Baumrind’s Parenting Typology describes parents whose parenting styles fall into each of
the three areas and the effects each parenting style has on children.
Permissive. Low levels of regulation but high levels of responsiveness characterize
permissive parents. These parents do not enforce rules, but respond to their children
in a caring manner (Baumrind, 1966, 1978, 1991). A permissive parent also does not
necessarily strive to be an example for the child to follow, but more of a resource for
support (Baumrind, 1966).
DeHart, Pelham, and Tennen (2006) found that children reared by permissive parents
tended to have low self-esteem due to a lack of learning self-regulation often found through
parents’ teaching and examples. Lamborn et al. (1991) also found that adolescents with
permissive parents tended to have a higher likelihood of substance abuse and behavioral
issues in school than those with authoritative parents. Applying Baumrind’s Parenting
Typology to sports suggests a coach may take on characteristics similar to those of a
permissive parent.
56

A permissive coach might be akin to a permissive parent in many ways. A permissive

coach might support athletes regardless of what the athletes decide. In order to avoid
exerting pressure on the athletes, a permissive coach might not provide structure or rules.
These coaches would be more akin to friends than mentors (Baumrind, 1966). A permissive
coaching style would allow a high level of freedom, and thereby may satisfy the need for
autonomy in athletes. A permissive style might also provide the responsiveness necessary
to instill a sense of relatedness in athletes. It would, however, lack the structure necessary
to instill a sense of competence. Without rules and performance expectations, athletes
ZRXOGKDYHDGLI¿FXOWWLPHSURJUHVVLQJLQWKHLUVSRUW$XWKRULWDULDQLVDQRWKHUSDUHQWLQJ
style presented in Baumrind’s Parenting Typology that may be adapted to a sport context.
Authoritarian. Authoritarian parents are high in demandingness, but low in
responsiveness (Baumrind, 1991). They set arduous rules and expectations for their
children, but do not take into account children’s needs or offer reasons for their rules
or expectations. Adolescents from homes with authoritarian parents were found to lack
individuation, social consciousness, autonomy, and tended to have an external locus of
control. Applying an authoritarian parenting style to a sport context would suggest an
authoritarian coach would have strict rules for behavior, but would not provide rationale
for the rules or support for the athletes as they strove to meet the coach’s expectations. An
authoritarian coach may provide the structure necessary to instill competence in athletes,
but not freedom enough to provide a sense of autonomy, or responsiveness enough to instill
a sense of relatedness within athletes. An authoritative parent is similar to an authoritarian
parent with regards to demandingness, but demonstrates a high level of responsiveness
lacking in the authoritarian parent (Baumrind, 1991).
Authoritative. Authoritative parents display high levels of demandingness and
responsiveness (Baumrind, 1991). These parents enforce house rules and expectations
for their children, but also show concern for their children’s needs and desires. They also
provide rationale for their rules and expectations. Baumrind (1991) indicated adolescents
who had authoritative parents, when compared to their peers, were “individuated, mature,
UHVLOLHQWRSWLPLVWLFDQGSHUFHLYHGWKHLUSDUHQWVDVLQÀXHQWLDODQGORYLQJ´S7KHVH
children were also found to be more competent than their peers (Baumrind, 1991). Simons
(2007) found that adolescents who came from homes with two authoritative parents had the
most positive outcomes. As is the case with permissive and authoritarian parenting styles,
authoritative parenting characteristics may be applied to coaching styles.
An authoritative coach would expect the most out of athletes, but also support them in
achieving their goals. This coach would provide rationale for the tasks he or she asked of
athletes and would be open to verbal give and take. Demonstrating both demandingness and
responsiveness may allow an authoritative coaching style to meet all three psychological
needs presented in SDT (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). A high level of demandingness
might provide the structure necessary to enable athletes to learn a sport effectively and
WKHUHE\VXSSRUWDVHQVHRIFRPSHWHQFH%DVHGRQWKHGH¿QLWLRQRIUHVSRQVLYHQHVV±±³WKH
extent to which parents (coaches) intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and
self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs
and demands” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62) an authoritative coaching style may also foster
a sense of autonomy in athletes. Finally, responsiveness could provide athletes with the
personal support they need to feel a sense of relatedness. Individuality, self-regulation,
and self-assertion are all closely related to autonomy. Thus, Baumrind’s authoritative
parenting style adapted to coaching holds the potential to meet all three needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.

Gaps in the Literature

While researchers have applied SDT to better understand the affect coaching styles
have on athletes’ needs, opportunities exist to address gaps in the research as it relates to
athletic coaching. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) argued Baumrind’s authoritative parenting
style as adapted to a coaching style may provide a model for coaches to follow in order to
 57

foster an environment in which all three needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
are met due to the presence of structure and support in an authoritative parenting style.
Research has applied Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to areas of study other than
parenting. Pellerin (2005) is one study that applied Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to
school. She found that results for schools closely matched those found in parenting (i.e.,
that authoritative schools produced the highest results of the styles). While research has
DSSOLHG%DXPULQG¶V3DUHQWLQJ7\SRORJ\WRVFKRRODPRQJRWKHU¿HOGVLWKDV\HWWRDGDSW
and apply Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to youth sports and test the effect each parenting
typology may have on the needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness presented in
SDT. Thus, the purpose of this study was to apply Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to the
realm of adolescent sports in order to analyze the relationship permissive, authoritarian,
and authoritative coaching styles had with athletes’ needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. It is hypothesized that authoritative coaching styles lead to greater autonomy,
competence, and relatedness for youth sports participants. Coaches trained to use an
authoritative coaching style will thereby contribute to positive youth development.

Method

Study Sample
The sample for this study was a convenience sample drawn from student volunteers
enrolled at a major western United States university. The sample consisted of 194
participants who originally completed at least part of the survey. Through the process of
cleaning the data, 177 cases were used in the data analysis. The majority (75.3%) of the
sample was female. Ages ranged from 17 to 28 with a mean of 21.19 (SD = 1.98). The
number of years spent in the sport ranged from 1 to 20 with a mean of 6.86 years (SD =
4.84). Years with the chosen coach ranged from 1 to 14 with a mean of 2.58.

Data Collection Procedures

Test participants were recruited through large classes at a large, private, western
United States university. Professors distributed an online survey hosted by Qualtrics via
HPDLOWRWKHLUVWXGHQWV3DUWLFLSDQWVZHUHDVNHGWRUHÀHFWRQRQHVSHFL¿FFRDFKWKH\KDG
played for in club or high school sports for at least one year during high school and answer
questions based on experiences with the chosen coach and the coach’s particular coaching
style. Qualifying students completed a 67-question survey that included demographic
questions, questions through which athletes rated their coaches coaching styles, and
TXHVWLRQVDVNLQJDWKOHWHVWRUHÀHFWRQWKHLUSHUVRQDODXWRQRP\FRPSHWHQFHDQGUHODWHGQHVV
levels. Participants were asked a few questions regarding sports participation including the
number of years they engaged in their selected sport, and the number of years they played
for the particular coach to see if these factors impacted results.

Instrumentation
The study utilized The Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS) (Ng,
Lonsdale, & Hodge, 2010) to measure study participants’ perceived autonomy, competence,
and relatedness levels. An adapted version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)
(Buri, 1991) was used to measure coaches’ permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative
coaching styles.
The Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS). The BNSSS is a 5-factor
(20-item) Likert scale ranging from 1 (VWURQJO\ GLVDJUHH) to 7 (VWURQJO\ DJUHH) with 7
being high in the constructs it measures. The BNSSS measures participants’ levels of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ng, Lonsdale, & Hodge, 2010). Competence and
UHODWHGQHVVKDYH¿YHLWHPVHDFKDQGDXWRQRP\LVDFRPSLODWLRQRIWKUHHVXEVFDOHVFKRLFH
volition, and internal perceived locus of causality (IPLOC). Choice and IPLOC were the
only autonomy subscales used in the current study because volition has been shown to
be collinear with choice. The items from these subscales were summed to compute the
DXWRQRP\VFDOH7KHDXWRQRP\VFDOHKDGDQĮFRHI¿FLHQWRI$QH[DPSOHRIDFKRLFH
58

item is “In my sport, I have a say in how things are done.” The competence scale had an
ĮFRHI¿FLHQWRIDQGWKHUHODWHGQHVVVFDOHKDGDQĮFRHI¿FLHQWRI2QHRIWKH
competence items read “I can overcome challenges in my sport.” A sample of a relatedness
item was “In my sport, I feel close to other people.”
Adapted Parental Authority Questionnaire (Adapted PAQ). The Adapted PAQ is
a coaching adapted version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1991). A
small panel of youth development experts agreed that the adapted PAQ was a reasonable
measure of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive coaching. The Adapted PAQ is a
30-item Likert scale ranging from 1 (VWURQJO\GLVDJUHH) to 5 (VWURQJO\DJUHH) with 5 being
high in the constructs it measures. The scale measures authoritative, authoritarian, and
SHUPLVVLYH FRDFKLQJ VW\OHV7KH DXWKRULWDWLYH FRDFKLQJ VFDOH KDV  TXHVWLRQV DQG DQ Į
FRHI¿FLHQWRI$VDPSOHRIDQDXWKRULWDWLYHTXHVWLRQLV³:KLOH,ZDVSDUWRIWKHWHDP
my coach felt that on a well-run team the athletes should have their way on the team
as often as the coach does.” The authoritarian coaching scale has 10 questions and an
Į FRHI¿FLHQW RI  2QH DXWKRULWDULDQ LWHP UHDG ³:KHQHYHU P\ FRDFK WROG PH WR GR
something as I was part of the team, he or she expected me to do it immediately without
DVNLQJDQ\TXHVWLRQV´7KHSHUPLVVLYHFRDFKLQJVFDOHKDVLWHPVZLWKDQĮFRHI¿FLHQW
of .718. An example of a permissive item is “As I was on the team, my coach seldom gave
me expectations and guidelines for my behavior.”
7KH3$4ZDVFKRVHQIRUDGDSWDWLRQEDVHGRQLWVEHLQJZULWWHQLQ¿UVWSHUVRQIURP
the standpoint of the child. This made its adaptation into a coaching style scale simple thus
maintaining the integrity of the instrument. An example of the adaptation is as follows:
• Origina—My mother always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I felt that
family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.
• Adapted—This coach always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I felt that
team rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version
FRPSXWHUVRIWZDUH'DWDZHUH¿UVWLPSRUWHGLQWR6366IURPWKH4XDOWULFVZHEVLWH
and cleaned by eliminating surveys with missing responses. Descriptive statistics were
performed on the socio-demographic questions, which computed gender, average age,
years in sport, and years with coach. Years in sport and years with coach were added to
the model to see if these variables impact the effect of coaching style on the psychological
needs presented in SDT. Demographic variables were included in analysis at the bivariate
and multivariate levels.
Block-entry method linear multiple regression analyses were performed for each of
the three dependent variables (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The model for
HDFKGHSHQGHQWYDULDEOHFRPSULVHGWKUHHEORFNV8VLQJWKHEORFNHQWU\PHWKRGWKH¿UVW
block held the years in sport variable. Researchers added the years with coach variable into
the second block of each model. The authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative coaching
variables were added to block three of each model. The models were then examined using
OLQHDU PXOWLUHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZLWK D VLJQL¿FDQFH OHYHO RI p   ,Q WKH VLJQL¿FDQW
PRGHOV WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG UHJUHVVLRQ FRHI¿FLHQW %HWD ZDV H[DPLQHG WR LGHQWLI\ WKH
contribution of each variable.

Results
All descriptive statistics for the sample are included in Table 1.
 59

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics

Variables Mean S.D.

Authoritative 36.92 7.32

Authoritarian 29.94 6.60
Permissive 25.60 5.03
Autonomy 36.68 9.51
Competence 28.72 5.25
Relatedness 30.31 5.77

Zero-order correlations were used to examine bivariate relationships between

coaching styles and athletes’ perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness levels.
Results showed an authoritative coaching style had a positive correlation with autonomy
(r = .623, p < .05) and a moderately positive correlation with competence (r = .200, p <
.05). An authoritarian coaching style had a negative correlation with autonomy (r = -.517,
p < .05). A permissive style had a moderately positive correlation with autonomy (r = .332,
p < .05¬). Years in sport was reduced to four levels of increasing participation. Years with
coach was included as a continuous variable.

Multivariate Analyses
Multivariate analyses were computed with block-entry method linear multiple
regressions to examine the relationship between authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive
coaching styles and athletes’ perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness levels.
$SHUPLVVLYHFRDFKLQJVW\OHZDVQRWVLJQL¿FDQWZKHQFRQVLGHULQJDQ\RIWKHGHSHQGHQW
variables and was removed from further analyses. Furthermore, none of the coaching
VW\OHVRU\HDUVLQVSRUWKDGDQLQÀXHQFHRQUHODWHGQHVV7KXVWKHUHVXOWVRXWOLQHGEHORZ
will highlight the most pertinent results from the study, which are inclusive to autonomy
and competence.
Autonomy. In the model for autonomy (n = 177) (see Table 2), block one (R2 = .048,
p < .05), block two (R2 = .133, p < .05), and block three (R2 = .509, p < .05) explained a
VLJQL¿FDQWSRUWLRQRIWKHYDULDQFHLQDWKOHWHV¶DXWRQRP\VFRUHVZLWKHDFKEORFNVKRZLQJ
D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQL¿FDQW FKDQJH LQ YDULDQFH ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH SUHYLRXV EORFN
Years in sport was broken into quartiles. Years in sport four included athletes who had
participated in their chosen sport for more than 10 years with the maximum number of
\HDUV EHLQJ  7KLV YDULDEOH ZDV D VLJQL¿FDQW SUHGLFWRU RI DWKOHWH DXWRQRP\ LQ EORFN
one (pDQGEORFNWKUHHȕ p < .05). The years with coach variable was a
VLJQL¿FDQWSUHGLFWRURIDWKOHWHDXWRQRP\LQEORFNRQHp < .05), and block two (p < .05).
$XWKRULWDWLYHȕ pDQGDXWKRULWDULDQȕ p < .05) coaching styles
ZHUHVLJQL¿FDQWSUHGLFWRUVRIDWKOHWHV¶SHUFHLYHGDXWRQRP\OHYHOVLQEORFNWKUHH
Competence. In the model for competence (n = 178) (see Table 3), the variables
block one (R2 = .076, p < .05), block two (R2 = .150, p < .05), and block three (R2 = .178,
pH[SODLQHGDVLJQL¿FDQWSRUWLRQRIWKHYDULDQFHLQDWKOHWHV¶FRPSHWHQFHVFRUHVZLWK
HDFKEORFNVKRZLQJDVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWFKDQJHLQYDULDQFHZKHQFRPSDUHGZLWKWKH
SUHYLRXVEORFN7KH\HDUVLQVSRUWIRXUYDULDEOHZDVDVLJQL¿FDQWSUHGLFWRURIFRPSHWHQFH
scores in block one (p < .05), block two (pDQGEORFNWKUHHȕ p < 0.05),
ZLWK\HDUVZLWKFRDFKVKRZLQJVLJQL¿FDQFHLQEORFNVWZRp DQGWKUHHȕ p
$QDXWKRULWDWLYHFRDFKLQJVW\OHZDVDVLJQL¿FDQWSUHGLFWRURIDWKOHWHFRPSHWHQFHLQ
EORFNWKUHHȕ S,QRUGHUWRVDYHVSDFHLQWKHPDQXVFULSWDQGWRQRWFRQIXVH
WKHUHDGHUWKHDXWKRUVHOHFWHGWRUHSRUWRQO\ZKDWZDVVLJQL¿FDQWLQWKHWH[WEXWWKHWDEOH
tells the full story of what was included in the model.
60

Table 2
6XPPDU\RI%ORFNHG5HJUHVVLRQ(TXDWLRQV$XWRQRP\

Variables B SE B
p

Autonomy (N = 177)
Block 1 R2 = .048 (p = .034)*
YIS2 -2.058 1.692 -0.094 0.225
YIS3 -0.587 2.023 -0.022 0.772
YIS 4 6.823 2.805 0.184 0.016*
Block 2 R2 = .133 (p = .000)*
YIS2 -2.189 1.619 -0.100 0.178
YIS3 -0.980 1.939 -0.037 0.614
YIS4 5.054 2.719 0.136 0.065
YWC1 5.503 1.336 0.295 0.000*
Block 3 R2 = .509 (p = .000)*
YIS2 -1.565 1.228 -0.071 0.204
YIS3 1.782 1.491 0.068 0.234
YIS4 4.953 2.082 0.134 0.018*
YWC1 4.452 1.016 0.239 0.000*
Authoritarian -0.324 0.095 -0.230 0.001*
Authoritative 0.599 0.089 0.460 0.000*
Note. * p<.05

Table 3
6XPPDU\RI%ORFNHG5HJUHVVLRQ(TXDWLRQV&RPSHWHQFH
Variables B SE B
p

Competence (N = 178)
Block 1 R2 = .076 (p = .003)*
YIS2 -1.041 0.923 -0.086 0.261
YIS3 1.656 1.113 0.112 0.138
YIS 4 4.707 1.542 0.227 0.003*
Block 2 R2 = .150 (p = .000)*
YIS2 -1.116 0.887 -0.092 0.210
YIS3 1.481 1.071 0.101 0.169
YIS4 3.816 1.501 0.184 0.012*
YWC1 2.866 0.735 0.276 0.000*
Block 3 R2 = .178 (p = .000)*
YIS2 -1.085 0.879 -0.089 0.219
YIS3 1.921 1.075 0.130 0.076
YIS4 3.624 1.502 0.175 0.017*
YWC1 2.683 0.731 0.258 0.000*
Authoritarian 0.009 0.068 0.011 0.899
Authoritative 0.128 0.064 0.177 0.047*
Note. * p<.05
 61

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to adapt and apply Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to
adolescent sports, and examine the relationship between each coaching style and the tenets
of SDT. Results supported past research in the idea that coaching style can affect athletes’
perceived levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as presented in SDT (Almagro
et al., 2010; Carpentier, & Mageau, 2014). Results from this study showed authoritative
DQGDXWKRULWDULDQFRDFKLQJVW\OHVZHUHVLJQL¿FDQWSUHGLFWRUVRIFHUWDLQWHQHWVRI6'7ZKLOH
SHUPLVVLYHQHVVDVDFRDFKLQJVW\OHIDLOHGWRVKRZVLJQL¿FDQFH7KLVVHFWLRQZLOOGLVFXVVWKH
PRVWVLJQL¿FDQWUHVXOWVIURPWKHVWXG\SUDFWLFDOLPSOLFDWLRQVIRUWKHVH¿QGLQJVOLPLWDWLRQV
of the current study, and recommendations for further research.

Years in Sport and Years With Coach

%RWK \HDUV LQ VSRUW DQG \HDUV ZLWK FRDFK ZHUH IRXQG WR EH VLJQL¿FDQW LQ PXOWLSOH
blocks of various models. It seems reasonable that an athlete engaging in a sport over
DQH[WHQGHGSHULRGRIWLPHLVPRUHOLNHO\WREHFRPHSUR¿FLHQWLQDVSRUWDQGWKXVJDLQD
stronger sense of competence than one participating in the sport for a year or two. This
result may bring a ray of hope to athletes and parents of athletes with authoritarian coaches.
It supports the notion that longevity in a sport may overcome some of the negative effects
of an authoritarian coach.

Permissive Coaching
3HUPLVVLYHQHVV ZDV QRW IRXQG WR EH D VLJQL¿FDQW SUHGLFWRU RI DWKOHWH DXWRQRP\
competence, or relatedness. This was not surprising based on the level of sport participation
in which the study participants engaged. Study participants reported on sporting experiences
that were club or high school level. The high school and club level of competition
diminished the likelihood of athletes reporting on a coach who used a permissive coaching
style. These results do not necessarily show that a permissive coaching style is not related
to athletes’ perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, but rather that this type of
FRDFKLQJZDVQRWVLJQL¿FDQWO\UHSUHVHQWHGLQWKHVWXGHQWVDPSOH

Authoritarian Coaching
5HVXOWV UHYHDOHG WKDW DQ DXWKRULWDULDQ FRDFKLQJ VW\OH KHOG D VLJQL¿FDQWO\ QHJDWLYH
relationship with athletes’ sense of autonomy. These results supported previous research
showing that athletes immersed in a controlling atmosphere (like that of an authoritarian
coaching style) reported lower levels of autonomy (Matosic & Cox, 2014). Findings
would suggest that the often-prevalent controlling coaching style might negatively predict
athletes’ perceived levels of autonomy.

Authoritative Coaching
Results from this study supported Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) suggestion that an
authoritative coaching style would correlate with certain tenets of SDT. Results indicated
D VLJQL¿FDQW SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ DXWKRULWDWLYH FRDFKLQJ VW\OH DQG DWKOHWHV¶
perceived autonomy levels. Thus a coaching style implementing rules and regulations
while also supporting the needs of athletes was a positive predictor of athletes’ perceived
QHHGRIDXWRQRP\7KLVVLJQL¿FDQWUHODWLRQVKLSPD\H[LVWIRUDIHZUHDVRQV
2QH SRWHQWLDO H[SODQDWLRQ IRU D VLJQL¿FDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ DXWKRULWDWLYH
coaching style and athletes’ perceived autonomy levels might be the responsiveness
HOHPHQW RI DQ DXWKRULWDWLYH FRDFKLQJ VW\OH %DXPULQG  GH¿QHG UHVSRQVLYHQHVV DV
“the extent to which parents (coaches) intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation,
and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs
and demands” (p. 62). Thus, a coach offering athletes the opportunity to give input on
team decisions provides them with a sense of autonomy as these athletes have a chance
WRLQÀXHQFHGHFLVLRQVRURXWFRPHVRQWKHWHDP$QDXWKRULWDWLYHFRDFKLQJVW\OHDOVRKDGD
SRVLWLYHVLJQL¿FDQWUHODWLRQVKLSZLWKDWKOHWHV¶SHUFHLYHGOHYHOVRIFRPSHWHQFH
62

5HVXOWVVKRZWKDWDQDXWKRULWDWLYHFRDFKLQJVW\OHKDVDSRVLWLYHVLJQL¿FDQWUHODWLRQVKLS
ZLWKDWKOHWHV¶SHUFHLYHGFRPSHWHQFHOHYHOV%DVHGRQRQHRIWKHGH¿QLQJFKDUDFWHULVWLFV
of an authoritative parent (demandingness), an authoritative coaching style inherently
includes rules and behavior expectations. Without rules and regulations, a coach would
demonstrate more of a permissive than an authoritative coaching style. Results suggest a
permissive coaching style would not instill a sense of competence in athletes.
Though these results suggest that coaching styles can impact adolescent athlete’s
sense of autonomy and competence, as Mageau and Vallerand (2003) caution, coaching
EHKDYLRULVDOVRLQÀXHQFHGE\FRDFKLQJSKLORVRSK\FRDFKLQJFRQWH[WDQGWKHLUDVVHVVPHQW
of athlete behavior and motivation. Further, athlete variables such as race, ethnicity, and
VRFLRHFRQRPLFVWDWXVPD\DOVRPRGHUDWHWKHLQÀXHQFHRIFRDFKLQJVW\OHV

Practical Implications
Still, results from this study hold practical implications for coaches, parents, adolescent
athletes, league administrators, and recreation professionals. One implication for coaches is
the knowledge that a coach wanting to foster an athlete’s sense of competence can employ
an authoritative coaching style in order to do so rather than resorting to a controlling style as
is common in adolescent sports. Findings from this study provide parents and adolescents
a model to use for selecting coaches based on the parents’ and athletes’ desired outcomes.
/DVWO\OHDJXHDGPLQLVWUDWRUVDQGUHFUHDWLRQSURIHVVLRQDOVFDQXVHWKH¿QGLQJVIURPWKLV
study to not only create coach-selecting criteria, but also to create evaluation and training
material. Administrators can be more educated in coaching psychology and thereby more
intentional with their sports programming.
Thus, the results from this study follow suit with past research (Matosic & Cox, 2014)
in enabling coaches, athletes, parents, league administrators, and recreation professionals
in shifting the often-accepted culture in adolescent sports from a controlling and dictatorial
coaching style to one that supports athletes’ needs. As practitioners focus on the needs of
DWKOHWHVWKHDWKOHWHVZLOOQRWRQO\¿QGDVWURQJHUVHQVHRIDXWRQRP\EXWDQLQFUHDVHGVHQVH
of competence and thereby perform better in their chosen sport as was shown in previous
research (Gillet et al., 2010). In the sports world many people hold the belief that coaches
need to be hard on athletes in order to teach them to play a sport well. This study suggests,
however, that this is not the case, but in fact, a supportive style helps athletes learn to on a
higher level.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

As with every research effort, there are limitations and opportunities for further
research in the future. One limitation is the length of time between athlete experiences and
data gathering. Remembering coaching styles and feelings of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness may be compromised as several years may have separated sports participation
and the study. Aware of this limitation, researchers reduced this time by focusing on late
adolescent participation and targeting freshman and sophomore university students for the
study.
It should be noted participants only included individuals that had played club or
high school sports. Individuals that only played recreation or intramural sports were not
included in the sample. However, this limitation should not be overemphasized since the
purpose of the study was to test the conceptual application of Baumrind’s Typology and
WKH WKHRUHWLFDO ¿QGLQJV VKRXOG EH DSSOLFDEOH WR RWKHU VDPSOHV .HUOLQJHU  /HH 
)XUWKHUUHVHDUFKPLJKWLQFOXGHLQGLYLGXDOUHÀHFWLRQVRQUHFUHDWLRQDQGLQWUDPXUDOFRDFKHV
who may act similarly.
Another limitation is the lack of a measure of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation
measures were found to be lengthy and a decision was made to depend upon SDT measures
as a substitute for intrinsic motivation and minimize participant burden with an already
long questionnaire. Other limitations include the exploratory nature of study that just
begins to consider the applicability of Baumrind’s conceptual categories to coaching and
youth mentoring.
 63

)XWXUHUHVHDUFKFRXOGIXUWKHUWHVWWKHPRGHODQGLWV¿WDVDZD\WRFKDUDFWHUL]HDGXOW
and youth interactions. Other recommendations for further research include measuring the
impact of coaching style on intrinsic motivation, general well-being, and other positive
psychology variables. Future studies might involve a different sample population including
younger children and youth during their sport experiences.

Conclusion
In this study, youth sport participants’ experience with coaching styles have been
linked to Baumrind’s Parenting Typology. Authoritative coaching styles increase feelings
of autonomy and competence in adolescent athletes. Authoritarian coaching styles
decrease feelings of autonomy in adolescent athletes. However, feelings of relatedness
DUHQRWVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWIRUFRDFKLQJVW\OHDQGSHUPLVVLYHFRDFKLQJVW\OHVZHUHQRW
found within the sample. Authoritative coaching appears to be the best style for improving
adolescent athletes’ self-determination and positive youth development. Teaching youth
sport coaches the Parenting Typology in a way that can be applied to their interactions with
youth may improve the experience of adolescent athletes in recreational youth sports, club
sports, and high school athletics.

References

Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction
and the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport participants: A test of basic
needs theory. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 189–199.
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). Achievement goals, competition
appraisals, and well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players over two competitive
seasons. -RXUQDORI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH3V\FKRORJ\(4), 555–579.
Almagro, B. J., Saenz-Lopez, P., & Moreno, J. A. (2010). Prediction of sport adherence
WKURXJK WKH LQÀXHQFH RI DXWRQRP\VXSSRUWLYH FRDFKLQJ DPRQJ 6SDQLVK DGROHVFHQW
athletes. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 9, 8–14.
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and
self- determination motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-
determination theory. 3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH, 654–670.
Anderson, S. J., Greisemer, B., Johnson, M., Martin, T., McLain, L., Rowland, T., & Small,
E. (2000). Intensive training and sports specialization in young athletes. Pediatrics,
106(1), 154–157.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37, 857–907.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children.
Youth and Society, 9(3), 239–276.
%DXPULQG '  7KH LQÀXHQFH RI SDUHQWLQJ VW\OH RQ DGROHVFHQW FRPSHWHQFH DQG
substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.
Becker, A.J., & Wrisberg, C.A. (2008). Effective coaching in action: Observations of
legendary coach Pat Summitt. 6SRUWV3V\FKRORJLVW(2), 197–211.
Becker, A. J. (2009). It’s not what they do, it’s how they do it: Athlete experiences of great
coaching. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6SRUWV6FLHQFHDQG&RDFKLQJ(1), 93–119.
%RDUGOH\ , ' .DYXVVDQX 0  5LQJ & $WKOHWHV¶ SHUFHSWLRQV RI FRDFKLQJ
effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in rugby union: An investigation based on
WKHFRDFKLQJHI¿FDF\PRGHO6SRUW3V\FKRORJLVW(3), 269–287.
Buri, J. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. -RXUQDORI3HUVRQDOLW\$VVHVVPHQW(1),
110–119.
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). The role of coaches’ passion and athletes’
motivation in the prediction of change-oriented feedback quality and quantity.
3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH(4), 326–335.
64

Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). When change-oriented feedback enhances

motivation, well being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in
sport. 3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH, 423–435.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
-RXUQDORI3HUVRQDOLW\DQG6RFLDO3V\FKRORJ\(6), 1027–1037.
DeHart, T., Pelham, B. W., & Tennen, H. (2006). What lies beneath: Parenting style and
implicit self-esteem. -RXUQDORI([SHULPHQWDO6RFLDO3V\FKRORJ\, 1–17.
Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2013). “What do coaches do” and “how do they relate”: Their
effects on athletes’ psychological needs and functioning. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 23(2), e130-e139.
)HOW] ' / +HSOHU 7 - 5RPDQ 1  3DLHPHQW &  &RDFKLQJ HI¿FDF\ DQG
volunteer youth sport coaches. 6SRUW3V\FKRORJLVW(1), 24–41.
Fenton, S. A. M, Duda, J. L., Quested L., & Barrett T. (2014). Coach autonomy support
predicts autonomous motivation and daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
and sedentary time in youth sport participants. 3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH,
453–463.
Gillet, N., Berjot, S., & Gobance, L. (2009). A motivational model of performance in the
sport domain. European Journal of Sport Science, 9(3), 151-158.
*LOOHW19DOOHUDQG5-$PRXUD6 %DOGHV%,QÀXHQFHRIFRDFKHV¶DXWRQRP\
support on athletes’ motivation and sport performance: A test of the hierarchical
model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. 3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH(2),
155–161.
Hilgers, L. (2006, July 3). Re: Youth sports drawing more than ever [CNN U.S. online
website]. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2006-07-03/us/rise.kids.sports_1_
youth-sports- tennis-lessons-kids?_s=PM:US.
.HUOLQJHU)1 /HH+%Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Wadsworth.
Lamborn, S. M., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049–1065.
Lopez-Walle, J., Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., & Tristan, J. (2012). Autonomy support,
basic psychological needs and well-being in Mexican athletes. Spanish Journal of
3V\FKRORJ\(3), 1283–1292.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883–904.
Matosic, D., & Cox, A. E. (2014). Athletes’ motivation regulations and need satisfaction
across combinations of perceived coaching behaviors. Journal of Applied Sport
3V\FKRORJ\(3), 302–317.
Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective
feedback makes a difference: The motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-
supporting way. -RXUQDORI6SRUWDQG([HUFLVH3V\FKRORJ\(5), 619–637.
0\HUV 1 ' 9DUJDV7RQVLQJ 7 0  )HOW] ' /  &RDFKLQJ HI¿FDF\ LQ
intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. 3V\FKRORJ\
of Sport and Exercise, 6(1), 129–143.
1J-<</RQVGDOH& +RGJH.7KHEDVLFQHHGVVDWLVIDFWLRQLQVSRUWVFDOH
(BNSSS): Instrument development and initial validity evidence,3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUW
and Exercise, 12(3), 257–264.
2FFKLQR-/0DOOHWW&-5\QQH6% &DUOLVOH.1$XWRQRP\VXSSRUWLYH
pedagogical approach to sports coaching: research, challenges and opportunities.
,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6SRUWV6FLHQFHDQG&RDFKLQJ(2), 410–415.
Pellerin, L. (2005). Applying Baumrind’s parenting typology to high schools: Toward a
middle-range theory of authoritative socialization. Social Science Research, 34(2),
283–303.
 65

Ramis, Y., Torregrosa, M., Viladrich, C., & Cruz, J. (2013). Coaches, peers and parents’
autonomy support and its predictive capacity on young athletes’ self-determined
motivation.$QDOHV'H3VLFRORJLD(1), 243–248.
Readdy, T., Raabe, J., & Harding, J. S. (2014). Student-athletes’ perceptions of an extrinsic
reward program: A mixed-methods exploration of self-determination theory in the
context of college football. -RXUQDORI$SSOLHG6SRUW3V\FKRORJ\(2), 157–171.
Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-
determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of
(GXFDWLRQDO3V\FKRORJ\, 375–392.
Reinboth, M., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and
indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. 3V\FKRORJ\RI6SRUW
and Exercise, 7, 269–286.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. $PHULFDQ3V\FKRORJLVW 68–78.
Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother–father differences in parenting
to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family
Issues, 28, 212–241.
Walton, G. M. (1992). %H\RQGZLQQLQJ7KHWLPHOHVVZLVGRPRIJUHDWSKLORVRSKHUFRDFKHV
&KDPSDLJQ,/+XPDQ.LQHWLFV
Wu, A. M. S., Lai, M. H. C., & Chan, I. T. (2014). Coaching behaviors, satisfaction of
needs, and intrinsic motivation among Chinese university athletes. Journal of Applied
6SRUW3V\FKRORJ\(3), 334–348.
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.