Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

How perceived autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors are

related to well- and ill-being in elite soccer players: A within-person
changes and between-person differences analysis
Boris Cheval a, b, Aïna Chalabaev a, Eleanor Quested c, Delphine S. Courvoisier d,
Philippe Sarrazin a, *
a
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, SENS, F-38041 Grenoble, France
b
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
c
School of Psychology & Speech Pathology, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, Australia
d
Division of Epidemiology, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives: Grounded in Basic Psychological Needs Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002), this study examined the
Received 27 September 2015 temporal relationships between perception of coaches' autonomy support and different facets of con-
Received in revised form trolling behaviors, the satisfaction-frustration of athletes' basic needs, and subjective vitality, self-esteem
11 October 2016
and burnout in elite sportsmen.
Accepted 25 October 2016
Methods: Participants (N ¼ 110 males) from three elite youth soccer academies in northwest France
Available online 26 October 2016
completed a questionnaire on three occasions during the last three months of the competitive season.
Results: Linear mixed models revealed that perceptions of coach-autonomy support and only two facets
Keywords:
Self-determination theory
of controlling coach behaviors (excessive personal control and negative conditional regard) were related
Multilevel to basic need satisfaction-frustration, which in turn were related to the indices of well- and ill-being. In
Intra-individual differences most cases, the relationships were observed both at the within- and between-person levels, but some
Inter-individual differences were observed only at one level.
Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of considering the different facets of controlling
coach behaviors separately and disaggregating the between-person and within-person effects.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sport participation is associated with emotional well-being
(Adie, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2008) and lower risk of depression
(Jacka et al., 2011) among children and adolescents. However,
participation in sport is not always health conducive; the physical
and mental demands placed on athletes can lead to negative psy-
chological experiences (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, &
Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2011). Because they are actively involved in
training and competition, coaches are assumed to play a critical role
in shaping the quality of players' sport experience, depending on
their motivational style (Duda, 2013). It is therefore crucial to
identify which coach behaviors result in psychological well- and ill-
being for their athletes, as well as the social-psychological pro-
cesses that might explain these outcomes.
* Corresponding author. Laboratoire SENS, UFRAPS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, BP 53,
38041 Grenoble, France.
E-mail address: philippe.sarrazin@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr (P. Sarrazin).
Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), a sub-theory of self-
determination theory (SDT; e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2002), appears to
be a relevant framework to account for both the “dark” and “bright”
side of people's functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It specifies three
innate psychological needs, the satisfaction or frustration of which
affects psychological well- and ill-being: the needs for competence
(i.e., feelings of effectiveness in interacting with one's environ-
ment), autonomy (i.e., feelings of volition and the self-endorsement
of one's activity), and relatedness (i.e., feelings of love and care by
significant others such as coaches and teammates). Whereas the
satisfaction of the psychological needs results in optimal human
functioning and personal well-being, need frustration contributes
to diminished personal functioning and ill-being (Deci & Ryan,
2000). Need frustration is experienced when athletes' basic psy-
chological needs are not just unsatisfied, but actively thwarted by
others within the sporting context, leading the athlete to feel
incompetent, isolated, and controlled by others (Bartholomew
et al., 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.10.006
1469-0292/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
Importantly, SDT considers that the perceived social environ-
ment - notably autonomy supportive and controlling behaviors of
an authority figure such as a coach - is an important determinant of
basic needs satisfaction and frustration. Autonomy support is evi-
denced when a coach involves others in decisions, provides real
choice, reduces pressures, and takes others' perspectives into ac-
count (e.g., Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). In autonomy supportive
environments, athletes are more likely to experience higher need
satisfaction and well-being (e.g., Adie et al., 2008; Amorose &
Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Felton & Jowett, 2013; Quested & Duda,
2011). In contrast, a controlling style of coaching is “a coercive,
pressuring, and authoritarian way to impose a specific and pre-
conceived way of thinking and behaving upon athletes”
(Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2010, p. 194).
In such an environment, athletes are more likely to report lower
needs satisfaction (e.g., Blanchard, Amiot, Perreault, Vallerand, &
Provencher, 2009; Felton & Jowett, 2013; Isoard-Gautheur, Guil-
let-Descas, & Lemyre, 2012; Kipp & Weiss, 2013), higher needs
frustration (e.g., Balaguer et al., 2012; Bartholomew et al., 2011),
maladaptive health outcomes (e.g., eating disorders, burnout, and
physical symptoms), and perturbed physiological arousal prior to
training (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011).
A number of studies in sport have supported SDT's mediation
hypothesis, which predicts that autonomy supportive and/or con-
trolling coach behaviors are conducive to well- or ill-being through
basic needs satisfaction or frustration (see Ntoumanis, 2012 for a
review). The present study aims to extend this line of research in
two important ways: Firstly, we will investigate the unique impact
of different facets of controlling coach behaviors and autonomy-
supportive styles upon the satisfaction-frustration of psychologi-
cal needs.1 Secondly we will separate within-person changes from
between-person differences. Past research has only considered the
controlling coaching style in a global manner (e.g., Balaguer et al.,
2012; Bartholomew et al., 2011; Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2012).
However, this style includes specific types of behaviors likely to
differentially impact athletes' satisfaction-frustration of needs and
well- or ill-being. In the sport context, Bartholomew et al. (2010)
have identified four distinct ways that coaches can be controlling:
controlling use of rewards (i.e., using extrinsic rewards and praise to
induce engagement or persistence in certain behaviors and secure
athlete compliance), negative conditional regard (i.e., ignoring the
athlete and withdrawing attention and affection when desired at-
tributes or behaviors are not displayed), intimidation (i.e., display-
ing power-assertive strategies designed to humiliate and belittle),
and excessive personal control (i.e., using intrusive monitoring and
decreeing strict limits in areas of life that are not directly related to
the sport). As far as we know, no study has examined whether these
distinct ways that coaches can control athletes are differentially
related to the satisfaction-frustration of basic needs and in turn, to
well- and ill-being.
Another shortcoming of extant research on BPNT is that it has
typically relied on cross-sectional (e.g., Adie et al., 2008; Felton &
Jowett, 2013) or 2 time-point (e.g., Balaguer et al., 2012; Isoard-
Gautheur et al., 2012) data. In past work, analyses have typically
been based on between-person effects and this approach is poorly
suited to evaluating within-person processes (e.g., Curran & Bauer,
2011). As pointed out by Curran and Bauer (2011), it is important to
separate within-person from between-person associations.
Within-person changes refer to short-term deviations from a per-
son's average levels. This approach enables researchers to answer
1
Given that we considered and measured satisfaction and frustration of basic
needs as the two ends of a continuum (see measures section), we will use the
expression ‘satisfaction-frustration’ throughout the text.
69
questions such as whether over time variability in need
satisfaction-frustration may be explained by over time fluctuations
in perceptions of coach behavior. For example, if an athlete feels
that in recent weeks the coach is less accepting of him or her than
usual if he or she has disappointed him or her (i.e., the negative
conditional regard facet of the controlling style) this may lead to
feelings of rejection and isolation in relation to the coach (i.e., a
decrease in relatedness toward the coach) at that point in time. This
type of within-person association between controlling behaviors
and relatedness has been shown in parenting literature (e.g., Assor,
Roth, & Deci, 2004). However, these may be fleeting experiences of
need frustration that perhaps do not endure, or do not reflect how
the athlete typically feels. By contrast, between-person differences
reflect a player's average levels over a specified period of time,
contrasted with other players in the dataset. This facilitates the
answering of questions such as whether variations in need
satisfaction-frustration between players can be explained by dif-
ferences in how controlling players perceive their coach to be. For
example, sustained levels of negative conditional regard over a
longer period (i.e., when a player reports a higher average level of
the coach's controlling behavior over a period than other players)
may not necessarily be negatively related to a player's relatedness
toward the coach. This may be because an athlete who has exten-
sive sport experience may have become accustomed to such be-
haviors (which are not uncommon in the domain of high-level
sport). As such, the effects may be buffered. In summary, dis-
aggregating within-person changes from between-person differ-
ences enables us to specify the respective contribution of each
aspect of coaching style on well- and ill-being through basic needs
satisfaction-frustration. Thus, it allows us to know if the observed
relationships between variables are present only at the within- (i.e.,
short term intra-individual variations) and/or between- (i.e., inter-
individual idiosyncratic differences) person level.
To the best of our knowledge, the study by Adie, Duda, and
Ntoumanis (2012) is unique in the approach taken to test BPNT in
the area of sport. With a sample of 91 male players from an elite
youth soccer academy, results showed that intra-individual
changes and inter-individual differences in perceptions of coach-
autonomy support positively predicted intra-individual changes
and inter-individual differences in basic needs satisfaction. In turn,
intra-individual changes, but not inter-individual differences, in the
needs for competence and relatedness predicted intra-individual
changes in vitality. These findings confirmed that the relation-
ships observed at one level of analysis may not generalize to the
other level. Despite these advances in our understanding of BPNT in
sport, the study by Adie et al. presented three limitations. First, the
study focused solely on coach autonomy support without exam-
ining the effects of controlling coach behaviors upon needs.
Consequently, it was not possible to determine the extent to which
perceptions of coach interpersonal control and coach autonomy
support were independently linked to the players' basic needs
satisfaction and well- and ill-being. Second, this study only
assessed need satisfaction. As highlighted above, low need satis-
faction is not synonymous with high need frustration. As such, a
scale assessing both satisfaction and frustration associated with
basic needs would better capture psychological experience as a
whole and should therefore be particularly useful to explain vari-
ance in athletes' well-and ill-being indices. Third, the need for
relatedness was only assessed with regards to other members of
the team. However, athletes also vary in the degree of relatedness
they feel towards their coach (e.g., Kipp & Weiss, 2013). Examining
whether relatedness towards peers and coaches have independent
effects on well- and ill-being is interesting from both a conceptual
and applied perspective (see Ntoumanis, 2012). Accordingly, the
goal of the present study is to advance understanding of BPNT in
70 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
sport, by addressing these gaps in the literature.
To summarize, based on BPNT and past research, we conducted
a three month longitudinal field study to examine the temporal
relationships between perceived coach autonomy support and the
different facets of controlling behaviors, the satisfaction-frustration
of athletes' basic needs, and indices of well- and ill-being, in the
context of elite soccer. Aligned with SDT traditions (see Ryan &
Deci, 2001) we measured subjective vitality (Ryan & Frederick,
1997), a positive and phenomenally accessible state of having en-
ergy available to the self. We also assessed self-esteem, an index of
self-worth and self-acceptance (see Guerin, Marsh, & Famose,
2003), because it is often considered as a basic feature of well-
being and a protective factor of mental health (e.g., Mann,
Hosman, Schaalma, & de Vries, 2004). Finally, to capture both the
brighter and darker sides of athletes experiences, we measured
athlete burnout (Raedeke & Smith, 2001) as a specific indicator of
athlete ill-being. It has been noted in the literature that athletes are
at risk of burnout, but it is not an inevitable outcome of sport
participation. Understanding the social-psychological de-
terminants of burnout is critical, if interventions are to be devel-
oped to prevent it. SDT has recently become a popular framework
for the study of determinants of burnout (e.g., Balaguer et al., 2012;
Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2012; Quested & Duda, 2011). However, to
our knowledge, consideration of which facets of controlling coach
behaviors are relevant to the manifestation of burnout, remains
unknown to date. The design of our study has several characteris-
tics that add value to the existing research on this topic: First, we
take into account several characteristics of the coaches' motiva-
tional style, namely perceived autonomy support and the four as-
pects of controlling coach behaviors. Such an approach enables us
to examine whether certain facets of the coaches' motivational
style were more strongly related to satisfaction-frustration of some
basic needs than others. Second, we examine both relatedness to-
ward peers, and relatedness toward the coach. This design makes it
possible to examine whether relatedness with the coach and with
other athletes has differential effects on athletes' well-and ill-being.
Third, we disaggregate within-person changes and between-
person differences over a three month period in order to deter-
mine whether the relationships between coach motivational style,
basic needs satisfaction-frustration, and well- and ill-being indexes
are consistent at a micro- (i.e., within-person) and/or a macro- (i.e.,
between-person) level. Fourth, we recruited a sample of young elite
players as this enables us to examine the role of coach motivational
style in contexts where competition is particularly salient (Conroy
& Coatsworth, 2007). The environment created by the coach may
hold differential significance for elite athletes because of their
extensive sport experience compared to their grassroots
counterparts.
Based on the aforementioned literature, we expected a media-
tional sequence between athletes’ perceptions of the coaches’ be-
haviors, the satisfaction-frustration of athletes’ basic needs, and
well- and ill-being. More precisely, we hypothesized, first, that
autonomy support and the different facets of controlling coach
behaviors would be associated with the satisfaction-frustration of
basic needs, in particular with autonomy (Hypothesis 1 [H1]).
Because the current study was to our knowledge the first to sepa-
rate each of the dimensions of controlling coach behaviors, the
specific links between each facet and basic needs, and well- and ill-
being indices were explored but no a priori hypothesis was made.
Second, we hypothesized that the satisfaction-frustration of basic
needs would be associated with well- and ill-being, after control-
ling for autonomy support and the different facets of controlling
coach behaviors (Hypothesis 2 [H2]). Third, we expected that the
relationships between perceived autonomy supportive coach be-
haviors and the different facets of controlling coach behaviors and
well and ill-being would be mediated by the satisfaction-
frustration of basic needs (Hypothesis 3 [H3]). Finally, because of
the lack of previous literature, the specific associations at the inter-
individual and intra-individual level were explored but no a priori
hypothesis was made. It is likely that some relationships appear at
one particular level and not at another (e.g., Adie et al., 2012; Curran
& Bauer, 2011). For example, as indicated above, it is possible that a
negative relationship between negative conditional regard and
relatedness toward the coach will be evident only at the within-
person level.
1. Method
1.1. Participants
Participants were 110 males (Mean age ¼ 16.54, SD ¼ 1.99, range
13e21) from seven teams from three elite soccer clubs, in north-
west France. Specifically, in each club athletes from the under-15
and under-17 age categories were invited. In addition, the reserve
team of one club was also invited to participate in the current study.
On average, athletes trained for 15 h per week and they all
competed in national leagues.
1.2. Procedure
Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the in-
vestigators' University School ethics committee. A letter was sent to
the managers of the centers, the head coaches, and the parents
detailing the purpose and protocol of the study. Participants pro-
vided informed consent to volunteer for the study. APA guidelines
regarding anonymity and confidentiality were followed. Data were
collected once per month in March, April, and May 2010. The first
wave of data collection involved 104 athletes, the second wave
involved 101 athletes, and the third wave involved 93 athletes. Data
collection took place in the participants' elite training centers. In
order to maintain anonymity, players' responses at the different
time points were matched using a coding system.
1.3. Measures
1.3.1. Perceived autonomy support
Athletes' perception of the autonomy supportive behaviors
exhibited by their coaches was assessed using the short version of
the Sport Climate Questionnaire. This 6-item questionnaire is a
sport-adaptation of the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams
& Deci, 1996). Athletes were asked the extent to which they
agreed with each item (e.g., “I feel that my coach provides me
choices and options”) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Previous research (e.g.,
Adie et al., 2008) has confirmed the reliability and validity of this
tool. The back-translation method (Brislin, 1986) was used to
translate the original scale into French. A Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) of the data taken at the first wave of data collection
offered support for the factorial validity of the tool (c2 (9) ¼ 13.14,
p ¼ .11, CFI ¼ .97, IFI ¼ .97, RMSEA ¼ .08), following the traditional
cutoff criteria (e.g., Marsh, 2007) according to which values close to
.08 for RMSEA, and around .90 for CFI and IFI are indices of
acceptable fit. Moreover, with an omega composite reliability (u)
index (McDonald, 1999) of .76, the internal consistency was good,
following the recommendations of Reise, Bonifay, and Haviland
(2013) according to which values greater than .50 are a mini-
mum, and values closer to .75 would be much preferred.
1.3.2. Perceived controlling behaviors
The Controlling Coach Behaviors Scale (CCBS; Bartholomew
 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
et al., 2010) was used to assess athletes' perceptions of controlling
coach behaviors. The CCBS contains 15 items divided into four
subscales: controlling use of rewards (e.g., “My coach only uses
rewards and praise so that I complete all the tasks he or she sets in
training”), negative conditional regard (e.g., “My coach is less
accepting of me if I have disappointed him or her”), intimidation
(e.g., “My coach threatens to punish me to keep me in line during
training”), and excessive personal control (e.g. “My coach tries to
interfere in aspects of my life outside of my sport”). Participants
responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale has demon-
strated good content and factorial validity, as well as internal
consistency and invariance across gender and sport type
(Bartholomew et al., 2010). The back-translation method was used
to translate the original scale into French. A CFA was carried out on
the first wave of data and offered support for the factorial validity of
a four-factor model (c2 (84) ¼ 134.99, p < .001, CFI ¼ .91, IFI ¼ .91,
RMSEA ¼ .09). The factor correlations were significant and ranged
between .23 and .74. The u coefficients were good to minimally
acceptable (.88, .81, .77 and .57 for the controlling use of rewards,
negative conditional regard, intimidation, and excessive personal
control subscales, respectively).
1.3.3. The satisfaction-frustration of basic needs
The satisfaction versus frustration of the three basic psycho-
logical needs in sport was measured using the Needs Satisfaction-
Thwarting Scale (NSTS; Cheval & Sarrazin, 2011). The NSTS uses a
7-point bipolar response format, each boundary representing the
frustration (3) versus the satisfaction (þ3) of a need and the
median value (0) corresponding to a neutral sentiment. Following
the stem “In the past month, when you were playing soccer, you
generally felt …”, participants were asked to respond to each of the
16 items assessing autonomy (e.g., “I felt a lot of desire (vs. pres-
sure) to do things”), competence (e.g., “I felt capable (vs. incapable)
of doing things correctly”), coach relatedness (e.g., “I felt supported
(vs. neglected) by my coach”), and peer relatedness (e.g., “I felt
appreciated (vs. despised) by my teammates” satisfaction and
frustration. The use of such a bipolar format was motivated both by
theoretical and pragmatic reasons. From a theoretical point of view,
satisfaction and frustration scales cannot be totally independent.
Indeed, if low need satisfaction does not necessarily involve need
frustration, need frustration by definition involves low need satis-
faction (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). The moderate to high cor-
relations between need satisfaction and need frustration scales
found in recent studies (e.g., Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012) provides
support to this idea. Accordingly, we adopted a method of mea-
surement that reflects the perspective of a continuum (i.e., bipolar).
From a pragmatic point of view, the use of NSTS allows a reduction
in the number of items to be completed. In previous studies (Cheval
& Sarrazin, 2011) the scale demonstrated good factorial validity,
reliability and nomological validity (attested by expected correla-
tions with motivation, athlete burnout and vitality). In the current
study a CFA was carried out on the first wave of data and offered
support for the factorial validity of a four-factor model (c2
(98) ¼ 102.16, p ¼ .37, CFI ¼ .99, IFI ¼ .99, RMSEA ¼ .02). The factor
correlations were significant and ranged between .24 and .74. The u
coefficients were good (.75, .78, .90 and .91 for the competence,
autonomy, peer relatedness, and coach relatedness subscales,
respectively). A constant of þ4 was added to each subscale score so
that the values ranged from one to seven. The higher the score, the
more the need is satisfied; by contrast, the lower it is, the more the
need is frustrated.
1.3.4. Well-being and ill-being indicators
A French version of the Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS; Ryan &
71
Frederick, 1997) was employed to measure athletes' feelings of
positive energy (e.g., “I feel alive and full of vitality”). Responses
were provided on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (not true at all) to 7
(very true). In a previous study (Papaioannou et al., 2013) the scale
demonstrated good factorial validity and reliability. In the current
study a CFA was carried out on the first wave of data and offered
support for the factorial validity of the scale (c2 (5) ¼ 9.00, p ¼ .11,
CFI ¼ .98, IFI ¼ .98, RMSEA ¼ .08). The u coefficient was .85. Burnout
experienced by players was assessed using the French version of
the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ; Isoard-Gautheur, Oger,
Guillet, & Martin-Krumm, 2010). The ABQ includes three 4-item
subscales that assess reduced sense of accomplishment (e.g., “It
seems that no matter what I do, I do not perform as well as I
should”), emotional and physical exhaustion (e.g., “I am exhausted
by the mental and physical demands of soccer”), and devaluation
(e.g., “I am just not into soccer like I used to be”). Items are
measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to
5 (almost always). In the previous studies (e.g., Isoard-Gautheur
et al., 2010) the scale demonstrated good factorial validity and
reliability. In the current study a CFA was carried out on the first
wave of data and offered support for the factorial validity of a hi-
erarchical model with three first-order latent factors and one
higher order latent factor (c2 (51) ¼ 75.72, p ¼ .014, CFI ¼ .92,
IFI ¼ .92, RMSEA ¼ .07). The u coefficient was .83. The subscales
were combined to create a total burnout score. Athletes' self-
esteem was assessed using the general self-esteem subscale of
the French version of the Self-Description Questionnaire II (Guerin
et al., 2003) (e.g., “Overall, most things I do turn out well”). Re-
sponses were provided on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (False) to 6
(True). In the previous studies (e.g., Guerin et al., 2003) the scale
demonstrated good factorial validity and reliability. In the current
study a CFA was carried out on the first wave of data and offered
support for the factorial validity of a hierarchical model with three
first-order latent factors and one higher order latent factor (c2
(20) ¼ 27.20, p ¼ .13, CFI ¼ .95, IFI ¼ .93, RMSEA ¼ .06). The u co-
efficient was .77.
1.4. Data analysis
Data were analyzed using Linear Mixed Models (LMM) using the
R language lmerTest package, version 1.1e7. This package, like SAS
proc mixed, uses Satterthwaite's method to compute the degrees of
freedom of the t tests. LMM allows a correct estimation of param-
eters when data are hierarchically structured, i.e., with repeated
measurements (i.e., Level 1) nested within each individual (i.e.,
Level 2), because LMM accounts for the shared variance due to
multiple observations within the same participant (i.e., non-
independence). In addition, LMM does not require equal numbers
of responses from each participant. Therefore, players with missing
values are not excluded from the analysis but contribute less to the
results (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). In the current study, the first
wave of data collection involved 104 players (4.5% data missing),
the second wave involved 101 players (8.2% data missing), and the
third wave involved 93 players (15.5% data missing).
In a first step, we separated each predictor into an individual
mean value over the three time points and an individual deviation
score (from the individual mean value) for each time point. Each
predictor was thus decomposed into two variables, the mean score
capturing mean inter-individual differences and the deviation score
capturing mean intra-individual change. Club membership was
dummy-coded and introduced as a control variable in all models. To
analyze the extent to which perceived coach behaviors (i.e., au-
tonomy support and each of the controlling behavior facets) and
the satisfaction-frustration of basic needs (i.e., autonomy, compe-
tence, coach relatedness, peer relatedness) predicted the well- and
72 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
ill-being outcomes (i.e., subjective vitality, burnout, and self-
esteem), a series of LMMs were built for each outcome variable.
Time was coded as 0, 1, and 2 for the three time points, in order to
estimate main effects at the beginning of the study. The random
effects of the intercept, the linear slope, and the covariance slope-
intercept were included in each of the models, and the best
random structure was determined based on Bayesian information
criterion (BIC) and on a likelihood ratio test. To explore whether the
relationships between predictors and outcome variables differed
across occasions, interaction terms (time  predictor) were also
entered into the level 1 and level 2 equations in all conditional
models. The model with the best fit to the data was again deter-
mined based on BIC and on a likelihood ratio test (see Raudenbush
& Bryk, 2002).
In Model A, we regressed each basic needs satisfaction-
frustration variable onto both athletes' perceptions of coach au-
tonomy support and each facet of the coach controlling behaviors.
In Model B, we regressed each well- and ill-being index onto the
four basic needs satisfaction-frustration variables, controlling for
perceived coach autonomy support and each facet of the coach
controlling behaviors. Finally, the potential mediational effects of
the satisfaction-frustration of basic needs were examined using the
a and b joint significance test (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). As indicated
by Judd, Yzerbyt, and Muller (2014), this test is as powerful as other
tests of indirect effects (percentile bootstrap and numerical inte-
gration tests), and it is the only test that does not suffer from Type I
error. It is also relevant in the case of multilevel models. Specifically,
this test has two steps. The first step is to establish a relationship
between the predictors (i.e., perceived coach autonomy support
and controlling behaviors) and the mediators (i.e., the satisfaction-
frustration of basic needs). The second step aims to determine
whether there is a relationship between the mediators and the
outcomes (i.e., well- and ill-being indicators), after controlling for
the effects of the predictors on the outcomes. These steps were
tested in Models A and B respectively. Then, we also calculated a
95% confidence interval (CI) for the mediated effects using nu-
merical integration tests (e.g., Fritz, Taylor, & Mackinnon, 2012).
Pseudo R21 and R22 values were calculated to estimate the pro-
portional amount by which errors of prediction have been reduced
from the unconditional model to the conditional model. These
values are an estimate of effect size, similar to the R2 value in
traditional ordinary least squares regression analyses (Singer &
Willett, 2003).
2. Results
2.1. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and
intraclass correlations (ICC)
We first checked the statistical assumptions associated with
linear mixed modeling by exploring the residuals in the full con-
ditional models. Plots of the standardized Level 1 residuals against
their normal scores showed a reasonably linear relationship, indi-
cating relative normality and no extreme outliers. Furthermore, the
residuals against the predicted scores of the outcome variables
showed no major signs of heteroscedasticity. Table 1 presents the
means, standard deviations and Cronbach's alpha coefficients for
each variable at each time point, as well as the ICCs. All subscales at
all time points (except excessive personal control at time 1) showed
acceptable internal consistency. Over the three-month period,
athletes reported average levels of coach-controlling behaviors and
burnout under the scales' midpoints. Conversely, players' reported
subjective vitality, self-esteem, perception of autonomy support,
and basic need satisfaction-frustration were above the scale mid-
points. The ICCs indicated that between 30.4 and 60.9% of the
variance in the dependent variables was explained at the between-
person level. They suggest that a considerable proportion of the
total variance (between 69.6 and 39.1%) was attributable to the
within-person level, confirming the utility of disaggregating be-
tween- and within-person effects.
2.2. Model A: perceptions of coach-autonomy support and
controlling behaviors as predictors of mean levels and change in the
satisfaction-frustration of basic needs (Table 2)
At level 1, athletes' time-varying perceptions of autonomy
support positively predicted the satisfaction-frustration of the need
for relatedness towards the coach (b ¼ 0.49, p < .001) and towards
peers (b ¼ 0.24, p < .001). Negative conditional regard negatively
predicted the satisfaction-frustration of the need for competence
(b ¼ 0.12, p < .001) and of the need for relatedness towards the
coach (b ¼ 0.23, p < .001). Excessive personal control negatively
predicted the satisfaction-frustration of the need for autonomy
(b ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .008). At level 2, athletes' average perceptions of
autonomy support positively predicted the satisfaction-frustration
of the needs for relatedness towards the coach (b ¼ 0.57,
p < .001) and towards peers (b ¼ 0.28, p ¼ .022). Moreover, athletes'
average perceptions of excessive personal control negatively pre-
dicted the satisfaction-frustration of the need for autonomy
(b ¼ 0.33, p ¼ .001).
2.2.1. Range of effect sizes at each level of analysis
At the within-person level the R21 values were .06 for compe-
tence, .02 for autonomy, .05 for peer relatedness, and .20 for coach
relatedness indicating that adding coach motivational style as
predictors reduced the level 1 unexplained variance estimated in
the model without such predictors by 6%, 2%, 5% and 20% respec-
tively. At the between-person level the R22 values were .17 for
competence, .33 for autonomy, .39 for peer relatedness, and .75 for
coach relatedness.
2.3. Model B: the satisfaction-frustration of basic needs predicting
well- and ill-being, controlling for perceived coach autonomy
support and controlling coach behaviors (Table 3)
2.3.1. Subjective vitality
At level 1, athletes' time-varying satisfaction-frustration of the
need for competence (b ¼ 0.48, p < .001) and autonomy (b ¼ 0.24,
p < .001) positively predicted subjective vitality. At level 2, athletes'
average satisfaction-frustration of the need for competence
(b ¼ 0.51, p ¼ .010), and autonomy (b ¼ 0.26, p ¼ .018) positively
predicted subjective vitality.
2.3.2. Burnout
At level 1, athletes' time-varying perceptions of coach autonomy
support (b ¼ 0.06, p ¼ .022), and satisfaction-frustration of the
need for competence (b ¼ 0.12, p ¼ .001), and autonomy
(b ¼ 0.13, p < .001) negatively predicted burnout. At level 2,
athletes' average satisfaction-frustration of the need for compe-
tence (b ¼ 0.15, p ¼ .022) and autonomy (b ¼ 0.11, p < .001)
negatively predicted burnout. By contrast, athletes' average per-
ceptions of excessive personal control positively predicted burnout
(b ¼ 0.12, p ¼ .005).
2.3.3. Self-esteem
At level 1, athletes' time-varying satisfaction-frustration of the
need for competence (b ¼ 0.25, p < .001), and autonomy (b ¼ 0.20,
p < .001) positively predicted self-esteem. At level 2, athletes'
average satisfaction-frustration of the need for competence
(b ¼ 0.25, p ¼ .002), autonomy (b ¼ 0.16, p < .001) and peer
 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77 73

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of all study variables.

Variable Scale range Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 ICC

M SD Alpha M SD Alpha M SD Alpha

Perceived autonomy support 1e7 4.96 1.05 .79 4.79 1.05 .84 4.78 1.05 .85 .59
Controlling use of rewards 1e7 2.09 1.22 .85 1.97 1.15 .85 1.87 1.07 .88 .61
Negative conditional regard 1e7 3.58 1.40 .79 3.34 1.48 .82 3.29 1.36 .80 .65
Intimidation 1e7 2.71 1.27 .74 2.67 1.30 .80 2.68 1.20 .74 .70
Excessive personal control 1e7 2.27 1.28 .55 2.46 1.27 .62 2.21 1.15 .64 .55
Satisfaction-frustration of need for
Autonomy 1e7 5.71 1.05 .67 5.72 1.12 .76 5.80 1.05 .79 .59
Competence 1e7 4.72 0.69 .78 4.79 0.72 .76 4.93 0.75 .83 .58
Coach relatedness 1e7 5.00 1.20 .89 4.98 1.08 .76 5.04 1.17 .91 .42
Peer relatedness 1e7 5.64 1.04 .87 5.47 1.08 .90 5.42 1.25 .93 .46
Burnout 1e5 2.27 0.47 .74 2.16 0.46 .71 2.18 0.50 .79 .61
Self-esteem 1e6 4.70 0.62 .81 4.65 0.70 .75 4.74 0.72 .80 .51
Subjective vitality 1e7 4.38 1.13 .74 4.65 0.99 .78 4.53 1.16 .85 .30

Table 2
(Model A). Linear mixed models exploring within- and between- person variability in perception of coach autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors as predictors of
mean levels and change in psychological needs satisfaction-frustration.

Predictors Competence Autonomy Coach relatedness Peer relatedness

b SE b SE b SE b SE

Fixed effects
Intercept 4.45 0.12*** 5.35 0.17*** 4.46 0.15*** 5.09 0.17***
Time 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.06
Team membership (ref ¼ Club 1)
Club 2 0.52 0.14*** 0.62 0.20** 0.78 0.15*** 0.97 0.19***
Club 3 0.12 0.15 0.40 0.21 0.59 0.16*** 0.80 0.20***
Within-person level
Perceived autonomy support 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.49 0.06*** 0.24 0.07***
Controlling use of rewards 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.06
Negative conditional regards 0.12 0.04*** 0.09 0.05 0.23 0.05*** 0.01 0.06
Intimidation 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.07
Excessive personal control 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.05** 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.06
Between-person level
Perceived autonomy support 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.57 0.10*** 0.28 0.12*
Controlling use of rewards 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.10
Negative conditional regards 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.10
Intimidation 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.12
Excessive personal control 0.07 0.07 0.33 0.10** 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.10
Random effects
Random intercept 0.25 0.45 0.14 0.36
Error 0.19 0.46 0.60 0.63
R21 .06 .02 .20 .05
R22 .17 .33 .75 .39

Note. R12 and R22 values indicated the proportional amount of variance by which errors of prediction have been reduced from the unconditional model to the conditional model
at the within- and between- person level, respectively.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

relatedness (b ¼ 0.16, p ¼ .019) positively predicted self-esteem.
2.3.4. Range of effect sizes at each level of analysis
At the within-person level the R21 values were .15 for subjective
vitality, .14 for burnout, and .17 for self-esteem, indicating that
adding the coach motivational style and basic needs satisfaction-
frustration reduced the level 1 unexplained variance estimated in
the model without such predictors by 15%, 14% and 17% respec-
tively. At the between-person level the R22 values were .76 for
subjective vitality, .51 for burnout and .67 for self-esteem.
2.4. Mediational analyses
Results from the A and B models revealed that, at level 1, ath-
letes' time-varying satisfaction-frustration of the need for compe-
tence is likely to mediate the relationships between negative
conditional regard and the three dependent variables. At level 2,
athletes' average satisfaction-frustration of the need for relatedness
toward peers is likely to mediate the relationship between
autonomy support and self-esteem. Finally, at both levels, the
satisfaction-frustration of the need for autonomy is likely to
mediate the relationships between excessive personal control and
the three dependent variables. The joint significance test revealed
that, at level 1, time-varying satisfaction-frustration of the need for
competence mediated the relationships between negative condi-
tional regard and vitality (indirect effect ¼ 0.058, 95% CI
[0.106, 0.018]), burnout (indirect effect ¼ 0.014, 95% CI [0.003,
0.03]), and self-esteem (indirect effect ¼ 0.030, 95% CI
[0.056, 0.009]). At level 2, athletes' average satisfaction-
frustration of the need for relatedness towards peers mediated
the relationship between perception of autonomy support and self-
esteem (indirect effect ¼ 0.033, 95% CI [0.001, 0.109]). Finally, at
both levels, the satisfaction-frustration of the need for autonomy
mediated the relationships between excessive personal control and
subjective vitality (indirect effects ¼ 0.034, 95% CI
[0.067, 0.007] and 0.086, 95% CI [0.189, 0.011], at level 1 and
2 respectively), and burnout (indirect effect ¼ 0.018, 95% CI [0.004,
0.035] and 0.036, 95% CI [0.003, 0.082], at level 1 and 2
74 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77

Table 3
(Model B). Linear mixed models exploring within- and between- person variability in basic needs satisfaction-frustration as predictors of mean levels and change in subjective
vitality, burnout and self-esteem, controlling for perceived coach autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors.

Predictors Subjective Vitality Burnout Self-esteem

b SE b SE b SE

Fixed effects
Intercept 4.51 0.16*** 2.34 0.07*** 4.61 0.09***
Time 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Team membership (ref ¼ Club 1)
Club 2 0.10 0.18 0.21 0.08* 0.21 0.11
Club 3 0.08 0.17 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.11
Within-person level
Perceived autonomy support 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.03* 0.01 0.04
Controlling use of rewards 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03
Negative conditional regards 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03
Intimidation 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.04
Excessive personal control 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03
Autonomy 0.24 0.07*** 0.13 0.03*** 0.20 0.04***
Competence 0.48 0.09*** 0.12 0.04** 0.25 0.05***
Coach relatedness 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04
Peer relatedness 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04
Between-person level
Perceived autonomy support 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.07
Controlling use of rewards 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04
Negative conditional regards 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.05
Intimidation 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.06
Excessive personal control 0.13 0.86 0.12 0.04** 0.01 0.05
Autonomy 0.26 0.11* 0.11 0.05* 0.16 0.07*
Competence 0.51 0.13*** 0.15 0.06* 0.25 0.08**
Coach relatedness 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.08
Peer relatedness 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.16 0.07*
Random effects
Random Intercept 0.09 0.07 0.08
Error 0.71 0.08 0.19
R21 .15 .14 .17
R22 .76 .51 .67

Note. R21 and R22 values indicated the proportional amount of variance by which errors of prediction have been reduced from the unconditional model to the conditional model
at the within- and between- person level, respectively. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

respectively).
3. Discussion
The purpose of this three month longitudinal field study was to
evaluate both at a within-person and between-person level the
BPNT-grounded hypotheses that the relationships between
perceived autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors (i.e.,
controlling use of rewards, negative conditional regard, intimida-
tion, and excessive personal control) on players' vitality, self-
esteem, and burnout would be sequentially mediated through the
satisfaction-frustration of athletes' basic needs, among elite soccer
players. The results provided substantial but not complete support
for our hypotheses.
3.1. Perceptions of autonomy support and controlling coach
behaviors, and the satisfaction-frustration of basic psychological
needs
Extending past studies (e.g., Adie et al., 2012) the analysis of the
negative side of coach behaviors, revealed specific relationships
between two facets of perceived controlling coach behaviors and
the satisfaction-frustration of certain basic needs. Specifically, we
found excessive personal control to negatively predict within-
person changes and between-person mean differences in
satisfaction-frustration of the psychological need for autonomy. In
other words, when coaches attempted to interfere in aspects of the
players' lives that were not directly associated with their partici-
pation in sport or expected the players' entire lives to center on
sport participation, they undermined or even frustrated the
players' need for autonomy. This relationship was observed both
when players perceived their coach as more controlling than usual
(i.e., within-person level), and more controlling than others did (i.e.,
between-person level), suggesting that such behavior could have a
particularly strong impact on the satisfaction-frustration of the
need for autonomy for this sample. Moreover, within-person
changes in negative conditional regard negatively predicted the
satisfaction-frustration of the needs for competence and related-
ness towards the coach. These findings reflect what has been
shown in the parenting literature (e.g., Assor et al., 2004); parents
who provide less attention and affection than usual when their
children do not enact desired behaviors experienced resentment
from the children (i.e., a reduction in their children's closeness
toward them). Our result suggests that in the coaching context, the
use of such controlling behavior by a coach could also convey a lack
of trust in the athletes' ability to succeed and undermine or even
frustrate the players' need for competence and need for relatedness
towards the coach. Interestingly, these relationships were observed
only at the within-person level. At the between-person level,
players who reported experiencing lower sustained negative con-
ditional regard than others over the three-month period did not
report lower basic needs satisfaction-frustration. It may be that
players with extensive sport experience and greater maturity are
better able to buffer some negative effects of controlling coach
behavior. That is, they may be able to accommodate some con-
trolling behaviors because they consider these to be part of an elite
sport culture. As such, sport experience and/or level may be what
acts as a buffer to the potentially harmful impact of controlling
coach behaviors. This proposal deserves to be investigated in future
studies.
 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
The two remaining facets of controlling behaviors (i.e., con-
trolling use of rewards and intimidation) were not related to the
satisfaction-frustration of any basic need. This unexpected result
could be explained theoretically and statistically. From a statistical
point of view, the two subscales are moderately to strongly (be-
tween .31 and .74) correlated with the two other controlling coach
behaviors which exhibited relationships with basic needs (see
above). Because the estimates of the four controlling coach be-
haviors on basic needs represent the unique effect of each predic-
tor, the lack of significant relationships for intimidation and for the
controlling use of rewards could simply mean that these two be-
haviors did not have sufficient remaining unique variance for sig-
nificant associations to be observed in the analyses. From a
theoretical point of view, according to cognitive evaluation theory,
another SDT mini-theory (see Ryan & Deci, 2002), the functional
significance (i.e., attributed meaning) of the situation may differ
from one individual to another. In other words, the same social
event can be perceived as having a higher or lower informational or
controlling salience. It is possible that the use of extrinsic rewards
or intimidation strategies can be so integrated into the elite sport
culture that their influence on the satisfaction-frustration of basic
needs becomes negligible. It is also possible that athletes become
accustomed to viewing rewards positively, and are not fully cogent
of when rewards are used in a controlling manner, hence there
appears to be no evident negative impact upon the basic needs.
However, without additional investigation it would be inappro-
priate to interpret this finding to mean that such controlling be-
haviors can be regarded as harmless.
Regarding the positive side of coach behavior, in agreement with
past studies (e.g., Adie et al., 2012) results revealed that within-
person changes and between-person mean differences in auton-
omy supportive style positively predicted the satisfaction-
frustration of the need for relatedness towards peers. In other
words, when a coach provides real choice, gives rationale, takes
others' perspectives into account and displays other behaviors
characteristic of autonomy support (e.g., Mageau & Vallerand,
2003) he or she facilitates a feeling of closeness between team-
mates, probably because the climate is relaxed and everyone can
express themselves. Extending the results of Adie et al. (2012), our
study showed that an autonomy supportive style also positively
predicted the satisfaction-frustration of the need for relatedness
towards the coach at a micro- (i.e., within-person) and a macro-
(i.e., between-person) level. Unlike the negative conditional regard
that seems to cause a decrease in the satisfaction-frustration of the
need for relatedness toward the coach, autonomy support appears
to facilitate the players' closeness toward him or her.
By contrast, but in line with some past research (e.g., Kipp &
Weiss, 2013), results revealed no significant relationships be-
tween perceptions of coach autonomy support and the two other
basic needs. Regarding the need for competence, a possible expla-
nation for this result may be related to the social environmental
features targeted in this study (i.e., autonomy support and con-
trolling coaching). Other dimensions of the perceived social envi-
ronment (see Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) such as the degree to
which the coach creates a well-structured environment with clear
tasks and feedback guidelines or encourages self-referenced rather
than other-referenced perceptions of competence (i.e., a task-
involving climate) may be more directly related to the need for
competence and could explain more variance in the satisfaction-
frustration of the need for competence. Regarding the need for
autonomy, the insignificant finding could have been the result of a
shared variance issue; the controlling coach behaviors may have
taken up much of the shared variance in the prediction of the need
for autonomy. When autonomy support was modeled by itself (i.e.,
75
without the coach controlling dimensions), results revealed that
within-person changes in coach autonomy support positively pre-
dicted the satisfaction-frustration of the need for autonomy
(b ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.015). These results highlight the need to take into
account both autonomy supportive and controlling coach behaviors
to better understand the role of coach motivational style.
Ultimately the five coach behaviors have predicted between 2
and 20 percent of the variance in the basic needs at the within-
person level and between 17 and 75 percent at the between-
person level. Other coach behaviors and other elements of the so-
cial environment (e.g., family or academic pressures) could be
added to increase the percentage of variance explained in need
satisfaction-frustration, particularly for the needs for autonomy
and competence at the within-person level.
3.2. The satisfaction-frustration of basic psychological needs and
well- and ill-being
The present results support the BPNT proposition that the
satisfaction-frustration of basic psychological needs can substan-
tially account for both the “dark” and “bright” side of people's
psychological health (Ryan & Deci, 2002). They highlight in
particular the fundamental role of the needs for autonomy and
competence in the domain of elite sport. Indeed, the more players
felt they were at ‘the origin’ of their behavior and ‘competent’ in
soccer, the higher subjective vitality and self-esteem they reported,
and the lower their burnout. Supporting the contention that these
needs are key nutriments for optimal psychological functioning
among the elite adolescent soccer players (e.g., Adie et al., 2012),
such relationships were found both at the intrapersonal and inter-
individual levels and explained between 14 and 17 percent of the
well- and ill-being index variance at the within-person level and
between 51 and 76 percent at the between-person level. It is of
interest to note some differences between the present study and
that of Adie et al. (2012). First, they did not find any relationship
between needs satisfaction and the emotional and physical
exhaustion facets of burnout; second, the positive relationships
between needs satisfaction and subjective vitality were observed
only at the within-person level. We believe these differences are
related to the tool we used to measure psychological needs. While
the tool used by Adie et al. allowed only satisfaction of the need (i.e.,
high vs. low) to be captured, our tool used a bipolar format and
allowed the capture of both satisfaction (when the score is high)
and frustration (when the score is low) of a basic need experience.
Interestingly, the analyses underlined that relatedness when
measured in connection with two different significant others (i.e.,
the coach and teammates), is not related in the same way with
well- and ill-being. Specifically, in line with the cross-sectional
study by Kipp and Weiss (2013), results showed that between-
person differences in the satisfaction-frustration of the need for
relatedness towards teammates positively predicted self-esteem. In
other words, when a player felt higher levels of closeness towards
teammates than other players, they reported a higher self-esteem,
after controlling for the relationships between the two other needs
and self-esteem. By contrast, results revealed that the satisfaction-
frustration of the need for relatedness towards the coach did not
predict any indicators of well- and ill-being. There are several
possible explanations. First, the need for relatedness has overall a
more subordinate role in the players' well- and ill-being, compared
to the needs for autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000);
second, given the correlations between the needs, there is a similar
shared variance issue to the ones highlighted above; third, peers,
more than adults could be particularly influential in the formation
of self-concept during adolescence (e.g., Amorose, 2002); finally, as
76 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
suggested by Kipp and Weiss's study, the satisfaction-frustration of
the need for relatedness toward the coach could be related to short-
term hedonic well-being (e.g., positive affect), that we have not
assessed in this study, whereas the satisfaction-frustration of the
need for relatedness toward teammates could be more important
for players' overall sense of worthiness as a person. Accordingly,
disaggregating the relatedness construct, to capture relatedness
towards the coach seperately from relatedness towards teammates
in order to assess their relationships with several other indices of
well-being, constitutes an interesting avenue of research.
3.3. The mediational role of the satisfaction-frustration of basic
psychological needs
According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2002), the effects of autonomy
support and controlling coach behaviors on athletes' ill- and well-
being, are accounted for via the satisfaction-frustration of the
athletes' basic psychological needs. Extending previous longitudi-
nal work conducted in the sport domain (Adie et al., 2008, 2012),
the general pattern of results revealed some evidence of mediation
between two facets of the controlling coach behaviors (i.e., negative
conditional regard and excessive personal control) on well- and ill-
being indices via the needs for competence and autonomy. Spe-
cifically, at the within-person level, the satisfaction-frustration of
the need for competence mediated the relationships between
negative conditional regard and all the well- and ill-being out-
comes. At both levels, the satisfaction-frustration of the need for
autonomy mediated the relationship between excessive personal
control and subjective vitality and burnout.
Finally, unlike some previous work (Adie et al., 2012), evidence
of mediating processes between coach autonomy support and well-
or ill-being was weak, with only one significant indirect effect with
self-esteem through peer relatedness. The inclusion of the ‘dark
side’ of the coach-created environment enabled us to reveal that
this relationship may not actually be evident when a more rounded,
multi-dimensional picture of the coaching climate is assessed. This
could suggest that controlling coach behaviors are important to
consider in predicting elite athletes’ well- and ill-being.
3.4. Limitations and future directions
Although this study goes beyond cross-sectional investigations
by examining patterns of relationships over time both at the
within- and between-person level, the present findings stem from
correlational data and as such, causality cannot be determined.
Second, although our results offer an insight into the processes by
which athletes' well-being and ill-being may be enhanced, we
focused only on psychological functioning. Markers of metabolic
and immunological functioning (e.g., Quested et al., 2011), along-
side self-reported measures, could extend our understanding of the
processes involved in maintaining healthy sport participation at the
elite level. Third, our findings may be limited to elite adolescent
soccer players. Even if Ryan and Deci (2000, 2002) claimed the
three needs are universal and that all people would benefit from
basic need satisfaction regardless of their age or cultural values, this
does not imply that their relative salience are the same in all cul-
tures. Accordingly, it could be interesting to study whether the
relationships observed in this study are the same with other pop-
ulations (e.g., grassroots' players, sportswomen, adult players).
Fourth, in the same vein, it is possible that previous levels of sport
experience may moderate some of the relationships assessed in the
present study. For instance, players with little sport experience may
be more strongly influenced by the perceived social environment
than players with greater experience. This possibility should be
investigated in future research. Fifth, in this study we adopted the
conceptualization of needs that considers need satisfaction and
frustration as lying on a continuum. In recent years there has been
debate in the literature concerning whether needs should be
considered as lying on a continuum or modeled as distinct con-
structs with unique effects (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011; Sheldon
& Hilpert, 2012; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Since our study was
completed, recent research findings (e.g., Cordeiro, Paix~ ao, Lens,
Lacante, & Sheldon, 2016) have strengthened the case that need
satisfaction and frustration should be conceptually and statistically
differentiated. Thus, in the future, researchers could use different
scales to assess and explore the singular consequences of each of
these experiences. Sixth, this study focused on perceived coach
autonomy support and different facets of controlling behaviors.
Other coach behaviors more directly related to the dimensions of
competence or relatedness, and more generally other dimensions
of the social environment may be useful to explain more variance in
these respective needs. Finally, in the current study the reliability of
the excessive personal control subscale was minimally acceptable
(u coefficients  .57). This low reliability reduces the ability to
detect a significant association and requires cautious interpretation
of non-significant associations. Future research should examine
whether the reliability of this subscale is improved in other samples
and whether the pattern of results is similar to those obtained in
the current study.
Despite these limitations, this longitudinal study provides in-
sights into the determinants of within-person change and
between-person differences in indices of well- and ill-being in elite
soccer players. The information provided can inform coach edu-
cation as this study shows that reducing controlling coach behav-
iors alongside promoting autonomy support may lead to positive
changes in indices of well- and ill-being. Accordingly, coach edu-
cation interventions are required that not only support coaches in
promoting autonomy support, but also highlight how controlling
behaviors can be reduced. Interventions programs such as the
Empowering Coaching™ training program developed through the
PAPA project (Duda, 2013) could be implemented in an elite sport
context in order to (a) help coaches to understand how they can
foster athletes' well-being and reduce their ill-being and to (b)
provide them with strategies for promoting a more autonomous
and less controlling environment.
To conclude, the present study revealed that perceptions of
negative conditional regard at the within-person level and of
excessive personal control both at the between- and within-person
levels, were the most influential facets of controlling coach be-
haviors on well- and ill-being indices, via their impact on the need
for competence and autonomy, respectively. It also revealed that
while relatedness toward teammates was related to one index of
well-being (i.e., self-esteem), relatedness toward the coach was not
related to any index. In sum, this study highlights the need (1) to
consider each facet of the perceived coach-controlling environment
separately, (2) to assess the construct of relatedness both towards
the coach and towards teammates and (3) to conduct longitudinal
studies that allow the disaggregating of between-person and
within-person effects.
References
Adie, J., Duda, J., & 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(3), 189e199. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9095-z.
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support,
basic need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players:
A longitudinal investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(1), 51e59.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.008.
Amorose, A. J. (2002). The influence of reflected appraisals on middle school and
high school athletes' self-perceptions of sport competence. Pediatric Exercise
 B. Cheval et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 28 (2017) 68e77
Science, 14, 377e390.
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and
self-determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-
determination theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(5), 654e670. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.11.003.
Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents' conditional
regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72(1),
47e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.0022-3506.2004.00256.X.
Balaguer, I., Gonzalez, L., Fabra, P., Castillo, I., Merce, J., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Coaches'
interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well- and ill-being of
young soccer players: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15),
1619e1629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.731517.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thogersen-
Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning:
The role of interpersonal control and psychological need frustration. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459e1473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167211413125.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The control-
ling interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial vali-
dation of a psychometric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(2),
193e216.
Blanchard, C. M., Amiot, C. E., Perreault, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Provencher, P. (2009).
Cohesiveness, coach's interpersonal style and psychological needs: Their effects
on self-determination and athletes' subjective well-being. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 10(5), 545e551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.psychsport.2009.02.005.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In
W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in educational research (pp.
137e164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cheval, B., & Sarrazin, P. (2011). Vers la construction d’un outil de mesure de la
satisfaction et de la menace des besoins psychologiques fondamentaux dans le
domaine du sport. In H. Zouhal, G. Cabagno, S. Vincent, F. Bekono, & R. Kulpa
(Eds.), Actes du XIV eme Congr es International de l’Association des Chercheurs en
Activites Physiques et Sportives (ACAPS) (pp. 216e217) [Toward the construction
of a questionnaire measuring satisfaction and threat of basic psychological
needs in the sport domain. In H. Zouhal, G. Cabagno, S. Vincent, F. Bekono, & R.
Kulpa (Eds.) Proceedings of the XIV congress of the French Association of
Researcher in Physical Activity and Sport].
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2007). Assessing autonomy-supportive coaching
strategies in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 671e684. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.001.
Cordeiro, P., Paix~ ao, P., Lens, W., Lacante, M., & Sheldon, K. (2016). Factor structure
and dimensionality of the balanced measure of psychological needs among
Portuguese high school students. Relations to well-being and ill-being. Learning
and Individual Differences, 47, 51e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2015.12.010.
Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-
person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual review of psychology, 62,
583e619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227e268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965pli1104_01.
Duda, J. L. (2013). The conceptual and empirical foundations of Empowering
Coaching™: Setting the stage for the PAPA project. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 11(4), 311e318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1612197x.2013.839414.
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 & Science in Sports, 23(2), e130ee139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
sms.12029.
Fritz, M. S., Taylor, A. B., & Mackinnon, D. P. (2012). Explanation of two anomalous
results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(1),
61e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.640596.
Guerin, F., Marsh, H. W., & Famose, J. P. (2003). Construct validation of the self-
description questionnaire II with a French sample. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 19(2), 142e150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015-
5759.19.2.142.
Isoard-Gautheur, S., Guillet-Descas, E., & Lemyre, P. (2012). A prospective study of
the influence of perceived coaching style on burnout propensity in high level
young athletes: Using a self-determination theory perspective. The Sport Psy-
chologist, 26(2), 282e298.
Isoard-Gautheur, S., Oger, M., Guillet, E., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2010). Validation of a
French version of the athlete burnout questionnaire (ABQ) in competitive sport
77
and physical education context. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
26(3), 203e211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000027.
Jacka, F. N., Pasco, J. A., Williams, L. J., Leslie, E. R., Dodd, S.,
Nicholson, G. C., … Berk, M. (2011). Lower levels of physical activity in childhood
associated with adult depression. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(3),
222e226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2010.10.458.
Judd, C. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Muller, D. (2014). Mediation and moderation. In
H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and per-
sonality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 653e676). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kipp, L. E., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Social influences, psychological need satisfaction,
and well-being among female adolescent gymnasts. Sport Exercise and Perfor-
mance Psychology, 2(1), 62e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030236.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motiva-
tional model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883e904. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0264041031000140374.
Mann, M., Hosman, C. M., Schaalma, H. P., & de Vries, N. K. (2004). Self-esteem in a
broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education
Research, 19, 357e372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg041.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Application of confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling in sport/exercise psychology. In G. Tenenbaum, &
R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 774e798).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118270011.ch35.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ntoumanis, N. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on motivation in
sport and physical education: Current trends and possible future research di-
rections. In G. C. Roberts, & D. C. Treasure (Eds.), Advances in motivation in sport
and exercise (pp. 91e128). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Papaioannou, A. G., Appleton, P. R., Torregrosa, M., Jowett, G. E., Bosselut, G.,
Gonzalez, L., … Zourbanos, N. (2013). Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
and personal well-being in European youth soccer players: Invariance of
physical activity, global self-esteem and vitality across five countries. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(4), 351e364. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/1612197x.2013.830429.
Quested, E., Bosch, J. A., Burns, V. E., Cumming, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2011).
Basic psychological need satisfaction, stress-related appraisals, and dancers'
cortisol and anxiety responses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(6),
828e846.
Quested, E., & Duda, J. L. (2011). Antecedents of burnout among elite dancers: A
longitudinal test of basic needs theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(2),
159e167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.003.
Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an
athlete burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23(4), 281e306.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psy-
chological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 95, 129e140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence:
Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
319e338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965pli1104_03.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 141e166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An
organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination (pp. 3e37). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective
vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3),
529e565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x.
Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs
(BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction.
Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 439e451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-
9279-4.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling
change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability:
Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying prin-
ciple. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263e280. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0032359.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by
medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(4), 767e779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.70.4.767.