Original research

International Journal of Sports Science

& Coaching
Factors associated with coach–athlete 2021, Vol. 16(3) 509–518
! The Author(s) 2021
conversations about mental health in Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
intercollegiate sport DOI: 10.1177/1747954121993455
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo

Jessica Murphy and Philip Sullivan

Abstract
Increasing conversation about mental health is one way to decrease stigma and prevent/treat maladaptive processes
within the context of sport. Due to their proximity and influence over athletes, coaches can increase conversation and
change team culture. The objective of this study was to apply the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to explore the
factors associated with coach-athlete conversation about mental health. A total of 136 Canadian coaches completed a
demographic questionnaire as well as a TPB-based survey measuring Attitudes, Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC), Social
Norms and Intention. Intention was measured as Role perception, if a coach believed it was their role to be involved in
athlete mental health. Behavior was measured as talking with an athlete(s) about mental health. Approximately 68% of
coaches had spoken to athletes about mental health in the last season. The linear regression model predicted a signif-
icant amount (42.7%) of the variance in Intention (p < .05) from the three TPB constructs. Logistic regression found a
significant interaction effect of PBC and Intention on Behavior (p < .01). Measured TPB construct scores were influenced
by previous mental health training, personal experience with mental illness, age group and the act of talking (p < .05).
Although a promising amount of coaches spoke to athletes about mental health, improvement is still possible. Mental
health training should continue to be promoted to all members of the athletic community. As attitude scores were
generally positive, this training should potentially focus more on improving capabilities and social norms.

Keywords
Attitudes, coach behavior, social norms, theory of planned behavior

Introduction
Student–athletes are a unique group as they belong to
three separate cohorts, all identified as high risk for
mental health disorders. Firstly, student–athletes fit
into the classification of “emerging adults,” those
between the ages of 18 and 24 years, who have the high-
est prevalence of mental illness of all age groups.1,2
Further, student–athletes are enrolled in post-
secondary education; students are two-times more
likely to report symptoms of mental illness and elevated
distress as compared to their non-student peers.3
Lastly, student–athletes compete in high-level sport,
which introduces specific stressors including symptoms
of overtraining, injury, competitive failure, organiza-
tional factors, excessive time commitments, weight
control, and maintaining “appropriate” athlete behav-
iour.4–6 Such additional pressures appear to override
the benefits of physical activity and make student–ath-
letes at least as likely as non-athlete students to struggle
with mental illness.4 A 2019 study by Sullivan and col-
leagues7 reported that 20% of surveyed student–ath-
letes showed psychological distress scores indicative
of severe mental distress. The distress scores of stu-
dent–athletes were significantly higher than their non-
athlete peers and the general population.7 In addition
to psychological distress, many mental illnesses have
been identified as highly prevalent within the athletic
population.8–10 Anxiety and depression are among the
most common mental health disorders with approxi-
mately 30% of student–athletes reporting insurmount-
able difficulties during the past month and almost 25%
Reviewer: Britt Brewer (Springfield College, MA, USA)
Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada
Corresponding author:
Jessica Murphy, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, Canada.
Email: jm09ah@brocku.ca
510
reporting clinically relevant levels of depressive
symptoms.11,12
Unfortunately, within the athletic community, in
combination with the high risk of mental illness,
there is a lack of willingness to seek help, low levels
of perceived social support, and high levels of stigma-
tization.5,8–10 According to surveyed athletes, many of
the commonly listed barriers to positive mental health
and help-seeking (i.e.: lack of mental health literacy in
sport, stigma from coaches/teammates, and lack of
time) originate from the athletic environment.5,8,13 As
such, researchers have suggested that team culture
needs to be improved.5,9 Due to the influence, proxim-
ity, and frequency of time that coaches have with ath-
letes, they are often chosen as avenues to improve team
culture.14–16 Consensus statements on the mental
health of athletes have urged coaches to “be aware of
the person behind the player” by being open to discus-
sions about mental health.14,16 General sport psychol-
ogy research shows that student–athletes feel supported
when there is open and honest communication, and
when the sporting staff is present and available.17
Social support not only helps with positive physical,
mental, and emotional development but also lessens
the load of various stressors endured by student–
athletes.17 This sentiment is mirrored by mental
health-specific research in elite and student–athletes
with researchers concluding that having more conver-
sations about mental health can help to prevent and
effectively treat maladaptive processes.5,16,18,19
Fortunately, coaches at the recreational, competitive
and intercollegiate levels agree that it is within their
role to be involved in athlete mental health.20–22
While encouraging, evidence suggests that further
investigation into this area is warranted. Although
coaches agreed they should be involved in mental
health, their behaviors do not completely match this
opinion. Mazzer and Rickwood21,23 found that most
coaches performed “promotional” behaviors (e.g.: pro-
moting living a healthy lifestyle, identifying and stop-
ping bullying), as opposed to “prevention” or
“intervening” behaviors. The least commonly engaged
activities included asking about suicide risk, talking
about early warning signs of mental illness, offering
advice about mental health concerns, and contacting
parents or professionals about the struggling individu-
al.23 These results suggest that, although most coaches
state they believe it is within their role to support ath-
lete mental health, it may be that some coaches are not
taking the proper actions to do so. Mazzer and
Rickwood21 proposed that coaches may need further
and additional motivators to perform helpful behav-
iors. They hypothesized that coaches may be more
likely to perform helpful behaviors when they perceive
themselves as capable, when the behavior is linked to
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 16(3)
desired outcomes and/or rewards, and when the actions
are expected or required within their work role.21
As earlier research has outlined the importance of
open discussion and conversation about mental health
within the athletic environment, it is important to
explore what factors may contribute to the performance
of this behavior. Understanding such factors is critical
for creating a positive sporting environment, as well as
developing mental health-related interventions and
resources for coaches. As outlined by Mazzer and
Rickwood,21 it is possible that perceived outcomes and
capabilities, as well as role expectations may impact
whether a coach performs helpful behaviors. One
theory that could be used to explore this relationship is
the Theory of Planned Behavior.24 According to this
theory, an individual’s behavior can be predicted
through their Intention to perform said behavior. That
Intention is influenced by three constructs, Attitudes,
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) towards the behav-
ior and the perceived Social Norms of others.24 Attitudes
refers to one’s beliefs or thoughts towards the behavior
and the outcome that performing the behavior may
create. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) focuses on
the individual’s ability to perform the behavior. Lastly,
Social Norms refers to the perceived beliefs of important
others towards the behavior.24,25
The TPB, or variations of the TPB, have been applied
in many research areas, including both mental health and
sport. For example, the TPB has been used to measure
predictors of faculty intentions to refer26 and respond
to27 students believed to be struggling with a mental
health concern. It has also been used with community
youth workers and coaches to determine factors associ-
ated with the intent to advise youth to seek professional
help.28 In addition, the TPB model has been used in a
variety of sport settings to predict concussion reporting
and evaluate the effects of education on such report-
ing.29–32 Although the methods used to measure the
TPB constructs are self-reported, and therefore may
influence biases, results are still useful in understanding
behavior and guiding intervention development. The
purpose of this study was to use the TPB to determine
which, if any, of the three constructs (Attitude, PBC or
Social Norms) were associated with coach self-reported
intention and, further, if intention was associated with
coach self-reported behavior. The secondary objective of
this study was to explore demographic factors that may
be associated with the three constructs and the Behavior.
Methods
Procedure
Canadian coaches were contacted through either uni-
versity athletic directors, or the Coaching Association
Murphy and Sullivan 511

of Canada. Athletic directors of Canadian universities Table 1. Demographic variables of participating coaches.
were contacted via their publicly available email
Demographic variable n (%)
address. Emails contained a brief description of the
study along with a link to a consent form and ques- Gender
tionnaire. The athletic directors were asked to circulate Male 83 (61.0%)
this invitation to all coaches at their institution. The Female 50 (36.8%)
Non-Binary 2 (1.5%)
Coaching Association of Canada posted the brief
Missing 1 (0.7%)
description and the link to the questionnaire on their
Position
coach’s portal. Interested coaches who followed the Head Coach 84 (61.8%)
link were first taken to a consent form where they pro- Assistant Coach 47 (34.6%)
vided voluntary consent; they were then forwarded to Prefer not to Say 4 (2.9%)
the questionnaire. All coaches over the age of 18 were Missing 1 (0.7%)
eligible to participate. Ethnicity
Caucasian 119 (87.5%)
Other 9 (6.6%)
Participants
Asian 3 (2.2%)
A total of 136 coaches completed the study; demo- Black 3 (2.2%)
graphic data can be found in Table 1. The majority Latino 1 (0.7%)
were male (61%), head coaches (61.8%) and from Aboriginal 1 (0.7%)
Ontario (41.9%). Twenty-six different sports were rep- Personal experience
Yes 101 (74.3%)
resented in the current study; the most represented
No 34 (25.0%)
sports were hockey (18.7%) and track and field/
Prefer not to say 1 (0.7%)
cross-country (14.2%). Approximately 70% of coaches Previous training
strongly agreed or agreed that it was within their role as No 64 (46.3%)
a coach to be involved in athlete mental health. Yes 63 (47.1%)
A similar percentage (68%) reported that they had I do not Know 9 (6.6%)
spoken to their athlete(s) about mental health in the Age
last season. 40 years or younger 71 (52.2%)
41 years or older 63 (46.3)
Missing 2 (1.5%)
Data collection Competitive level
Both consent and data collection were completed Intercollegiate 35 (25.7%)
through Qualtrics,33 a secure online data collection Provincial Competitive 34 (25.0%)
platform. The questionnaire included demographic National Competitive 31 (22.8%)
variables (e.g.: age and gender) and experience- International Competitive 14 (10.3%)
Local Competitive 12 (8.8%)
specific measures (e.g. coaching role, previous mental
Non-Competitive/Recreational 8 (5.9%)
health training, personal experience with mental ill- Prefer not to Say 2 (1.5%)
ness). Prespecified age groups (18–25, 26–30, 31–35, Talked to athlete
36–40 and 40þ) were used to measure age in an attempt Yes 93 (68.4%)
to promote anonymity. Following data collection, it No 37 (27.2%)
was found that the number of coaches in each group I do not know 6 (4.4%)
was imbalanced. In response, the five age groups were n: number of participants; %: percentage of total sample.
collapsed into two (39 and 40 years) groups. This
classification is justified given earlier research stating
differences in mental health opinion and knowledge autonomy and capacity to perform the behavior
between those under and over 40.34–36 including questions on confidence, and perceived deter-
A TPB survey, developed following the guidance of rents the behavior (“athletes don’t need their coach to
Ajzen,24 was also completed by each participant. Five have positive mental health”). Social Norms questions
questions measured Attitude, seven measured PBC and asked if the coach though important others (fellow
two measured Social Norms. Attitude measures cap- coaches and athletes) would support the behavior.
tured the affective feelings and attitudes towards the Attitude, PBC and Social Norm questions were
outcome of performing the behavior. Attitude ques- answered using a 7-point Likert-Scale with 1 represent-
tions related to items like comfort, importance, and ing strongly agree and 7 representing strongly disagree.
level of benefit from talking to an athlete(s) about Intention was measured through asking coaches if they
mental health. Questions to measure PBC focused on believed that it was their role as a coach to talk to
512
athletes about mental health. Self-identity and role
were first introduced as an addition to the TPB
model, however, Ajzen and Fishbein37 believe that
role, instead, is better as an alternative measure for
Intention.38 The Intention question was also answered
on a 7-point Likert-Scale. Given the formation of the
Likert-Scale, higher scores on the three constructs and
on Intention, indicate less supportive/less positive
Attitudes, PBC, Social Norm and Intention scores.
Behavior was measured using the question “In our
last season, I had a conversation about mental health
with an athlete(s); this question was answered as
“True,” “False,” or “I do not know/remember.”
Those coaches who indicated “True” were asked if to
indicate if the conversation was with “one athlete” or
“more than one athlete.”
Data analysis
For each participant, the raw questionnaire data were
used to create an average score for each construct. For
example, the five questions measuring Attitude were
averaged to create an average Attitude score for each
participant. Calculated scores were then used in two
separate regression models to determine the fit of the
TPB model to the data. A linear regression analysis
measured the ability of the three TPB constructs
(Attitude, PBC and Social Norms) to predict
Intention. As suggested by Hankins and colleagues,39
for TPB data and regression analysis, the Adjusted R2
value was used. A binary logistic regression model was
then used to determine the interaction effect of PBC
and Intention to predict. The interaction between PBC
and Intention was added as the predictor, Behavior was
added as the dependent variable, with 0 representing
“Did not Talk” and 1 representing “Talked. The pro-
posed TPB model can be found in Figure 1. An
(a)
Atude
Social Norms
PBC
Legend: PBC, Perceived Behavioral Control
Figure 1. The theory of planned behavior model.
PBC: perceived behavioral control.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 16(3)
additional model, outside of the TPB was also per-
formed to measure any possible interaction effect of
Intention and PBC on conversation with one or more
than one athlete. Binary logistic regression was also
used, with the interaction between Intention and PBC
as the predictor and “number of athletes” as the depen-
dent variable, with 0 representing “one athlete” and 1
representing “more than one athlete.”
Chi-Square tests were used to explore the associa-
tion of both demographic and experience variables with
Intention, Behavior and Conversation with one or more
than one athlete. Independent t-tests were used to deter-
mine significant differences in construct scores between
demographic and experiential variables and Behavior.
During data analysis, only those participants who gave
definitive answers were included, in other words, those
who responded with “I do not know/remember” or
“prefer not to say” were excluded from analyses involv-
ing those variables. In addition, given the small number
of coaches who identified as non-binary (n ¼ 2), these
individuals were also not entered into gender analyses
on TPB constructs. All analyses were done in IBM
SPSS Version 26.40 Graphical representations of the
data (Figure 2) were created using RStudio.41
Results
The Cronbach’s alpha for the entire survey was calcu-
lated at 0.80. Individual constructs were lower with
Attitude (5 Items) calculated at 0.65, PBC (7 Items)
at 0.72 and Social Norms (2 items) at 0.51.
Acceptable Cronbach alpha values range from 0.70–
0.95. A low Cronbach’s alpha value can be caused by
a small number of questions, poor inter-relatedness
between items of heterogenous constructs.42 Prior to
conducting the analyses, the data was checked for
assumptions of linear and logistic regression. For
(b)
Intenon Behavior
Murphy and Sullivan
linear regression, the Durbin Watson statistic (2.10)
suggested independence of observations. The
Tolerance (TIF; range: 0.741–0.863) and the Variance
Inflation Faction (VIF; range: 1.159–1.349) statistics
suggested no multicollinearity. Skewness and Kurtosis
z-scores were calculated by dividing the Skewness and
Kurtosis values by the standard errors; all were within
the acceptable range (z <  3.29).43
Approximately 70% of coaches strongly agreed or
agreed that it was within their role as a coach to be
involved in athlete mental health. There were no signif-
icant associations found between any of the demo-
graphic variables and Intention (p > .05). A significant
association between Intention and previous mental
health training (X2(3) ¼16.853, p < .01) was detected.
Of those coaches who had previous training, 77%
strongly agreed or agreed and 0% indicated neutrality
or disagreement towards the Intention measure. In
comparison, in those coaches who had no previous
training, 61% strongly agreed or agreed, and 22%
expressed neutrality or disagreement. A reported 68%
of the total sample of coaches reported that they had a
conversation about mental health with their athletes
last season. Of those who reported speaking with ath-
letes, 42% reported speaking with only one athlete and
58% reported speaking with more than one athlete.
There were no significant associations found between
demographic or experiential factors and Behavior
(p > .05). Similarly, there was no significant associa-
tions between either demographic or experiential fac-
tors and if coaches spoke to one or more than one
athlete about mental health (p > .05).
The linear regression model with predictors Attitude,
PBC and Social Norms explained a significant amount
(42.7%) of variance in Intention. The model identified
that all three constructs had a significant positive rela-
tionship with Intention. In other words, an increase in
construct scores corresponds with an increase in
Intention score. This means that as Attitude, PBC and
Table 2. Summary of theory of planned behavior regression models.
Linear regression with intention
t p b F
Attitude 2.170 <.05 0.166
PBC 4.959 <.001 0.380
Social Norms 4.568 <.001 0.317
Logistic Regression with Behavior
B SE B Sig
PBC*Intention –.198 .075 <.01
Constant 1.047 .208 <.001
*denotes interaction.
PBC: perceived behavioral control.
513
Social Norm scores increase (become less supportive)
the Intention score also increases (becomes less support-
ive of the belief that the role of a coach is to be involved
in athlete mental health) (Table 2). The binary logistic
regression model revealed a good fit of the model to the
data (X2(1) ¼ 5.647, p < .05). Results indicated a signif-
icant negative association between the interaction of
PBC and Intention on Behavior (Table 2; Figure 2).
Those coaches with a lower interaction PBC and
Intention score tended to be more likely to report
having performed the Behavior than those with a
higher interaction score. Attitude, PBC and Social
Norms were all significantly correlated with each
other, as hypothesized in the TPB model (Table 3).
There was no significant relationship between
Intention and the number of athletes (one vs. more
than one) that a coach spoke with about mental
health in the last season (p > .05)
The three TPB constructs were associated with expe-
riential factors. There was a significant difference in
Attitude, PBC, and Social Norm scores between
coaches with and without previous training as well as
those with and without personal experiences. Coaches
with previous mental health had significantly lower
Attitude [t(125) ¼ –1.981, p ¼ .05], PBC [t(125) ¼ –3.602,
p < .001] and Social Norm [t(125) ¼ –2.579, p < .05]
scores as compared to those with no training.
Similarly, coaches with personal experience had signif-
icantly lower Attitude [t(133) ¼ –2.549, p < .05], PBC
[t(133) ¼ –2.494, p < .05] and Social Norm
[t(133) ¼ –2.501, p < .05] scores than those coaches with-
out personal experience. There was also a significant
difference between age groups in Social Norm scores
with those 40 years and under reporting significantly
lower scores than those 41 years and over [t(132) ¼ –
2.250, p < .05]. Lastly, those coaches who reported
talking to their athletes had significantly lower PBC
scores [t(128) ¼ 3.642, p < .001] and Social Norm
df p Adjusted R2
34.52 3 <.001 .427
Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp(B)
0.820 0.708–0.951
2.850
514
Figure 2. Interaction plots illustrating the effect of pbc on the relationship between talked and role.
It was created using RStudio41
Table 3. Correlation between theory of planned behavior
constructs.
1 2
Attitude 1.000
PBC 0.502* 1.00
Social Norms 0.303* 0.297*
*Significant correlation (p < 0.01).
PBC: perceived behavioral control.
[t(128) ¼ 3.839, p < .001] scores as compared to those
who did not report talking (Table 4).
Discussion
Recently published statements have called on coaches
to be involved in and support athlete mental
health.14,16 While there may be many ways for a
coach to do so, research has highlighted the benefits
of conversation and open discussion around mental
health.14–16 Mazzer and Rickwood21 hypothesized
that rewards/beneficial outcomes, perceived capabili-
ties, role requirements and expectations of others may
help explain coach behaviors. Given the highlighted
importance of conversation, the purpose of this study
was to apply the TPB to measure factors that influence
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 16(3)
whether a coach spoke to their athletes about mental
health. The objective was two-fold, firstly, identify if
3 Attitudes, PBC, and Social Norms could predict
Intention and secondly, to measure the interaction
effect of Intention and PBC on Behavior.
1.00 The current study found that 70% of coaches agreed
or strongly agreed that it was within their role to sup-
port athlete mental health. Approximately the same
percentage (68%) of coaches reported that they had
talked to their athletes about mental health in the last
season. Results suggested that the model structure pro-
posed by the TPB fits the sampled data. Attitude, PBC
and Social Norm scores explained approximately 43%
of the variance in coach Intention. The significant pos-
itive relationship indicated that as coach construct
scores increased (became less supportive) coaches
were less likely to agree that it is within their role to
be involved in athlete mental health. Further regression
analysis revealed a significant interaction effect of PBC
scores and Intention on Behavior (Figure 2). This sig-
nificant negative relationship suggested that as the
interaction score increased, coaches were less likely to
report having performed the Behavior. Such results
follow the TPB model, which states that there is a sig-
nificant effect of the interaction between perceived con-
trol over the behavior and intention to perform the
Murphy and Sullivan 515

Table 4. Average attitude, perceived behavioral control and social norm scores by group.

Attitude PBC Social Norms

Demographic variable n
x ðSDÞ n
x ðSDÞ n
x ðSDÞ

Gender
Male 83 2.13 (0.72) 83 2.35 (7.50) 83 2.60 (0.93)
Female 50 1.90 (0.60) 50 2.35 (0.75) 50 2.40 (0.84)
Talked
Yes 93 1.96 (0.67) 93 2.15 (0.66)* 93 2.31 (0.79)*
No 37 2.14 (0.69) 37 2.64 (0.77) 37 2.93 (0.95)
Previous mental health training
Yes 63 1.91 (0.60) 63 2.11 (0.65) 63 2.31 (0.87)
No 64 2.15 (0.72) 64 2.56 (0.77) 64 2.73 (0.89)
Age
40 71 2.07 (0.69) 71 2.28 (0.75) 71 2.36 (0.88)
 41 63 2.03 (0.69) 63 2.35 (0.73) 63 2.71 (0.91)
Personal experience
Yes 101 1.95 (0.66)§ 101 2.21 (0.70)§ 101 2.40 (0.87)§
No 34 2.29 (0.72) 34 2.56 (0.74) 34 2.84 (0.93)
*Significantly different than “No” (p < 0.05);
,
Significantly different than “No” Training (p ¼ 0.05);
,
Significantly different than “No” Training (p < 0.05);
¶
Significantly different than “  41” (p < 0.05);
§
Significantly difference than “No” experience (p < 0.05);
Comp: Competitive; n: number of participants; PBC: perceived behavioral control; SD: standard deviation;

x : mean.

behavior on the actual performance of the behavior in
question.
The current results were inconsistent with earlier
research in terms of the relationship between demo-
graphic factors, Intention and Behavior. Earlier
research in high school coaches, has reported that
older coaches were less likely to help than younger
coaches.44 The current study found no difference in
Behavior between age groups; this lack of difference
may be caused by measurement; age was measured by
group, and not precise age. Additionally, previous lit-
erature with college-level coaches has found gender to
be a significant predictor of intention to support, with
females showing more intention to perform these
behaviors.45 In the current sample, there was no asso-
ciation between gender and Intention, however, results
suggest that with either a larger sample size, or a more
balanced ratio of males to females, a difference may
have occurred. For instance, 18% of females reported
either somewhat agreeing, being neutral or disagreeing
that their role as a coach was to be involved in athlete
mental health. In comparison, 49% of male coaches
reported the same opinion. Although no demographic
factors had an association with Intention, an associa-
tion between Intention and previous mental health
training was found. This suggests that as compared
to their untrained colleagues, coaches with previous
training may be more likely to agree that their role
includes being involved in athlete mental health. It is
possible that the benefits of mental health training,46
explained further below, impacts role perception of
coaches. However, it is also possible that those coaches
who seek out training already have these role
perceptions.
In addition to the association between previous
mental health training and Intention, training also
had a positive association with Attitude, PBC and
Social Norm scores. Various forms of mental health
education have been shown to reduce stigma levels,
improve knowledge and increase confidence to help
someone with a mental disorder.46 The difference in
construct scores between trained and untrained coaches
may indicate that the training sessions received by these
coaches are effective. The association between training
and PBC, specifically, supports earlier claims of an
association between training and preparedness to talk
and have open dialogue with athletes in intercollegiate
coaches.22 A similar benefit was also found for person-
al experience; coaches with experience had better
Attitude, PBC, and Social Norm scores as compared
to coaches with no experience. Literature suggests
that individuals with experience often show higher
mental health literacy, lower stigmatization and lower
social distancing desires as compared to those with no
516
experience.47–51 In intercollegiate coaches specifically,
it has been reported that personal experiences are
used to better understand and support athletes.22
Lastly, younger coaches (40 years) had significantly
lower Social Norm scores as compared to older (
41 years) coaches. Older coaches may believe their col-
leagues and athletes are less supportive of conversa-
tions about mental health as compared to younger
coaches. This finding supports earlier research report-
ing a significant negative association between age and
mental health literacy in general populations52 and
intercollegiate coaches.53 The lack of differences in
construct scores between genders is somewhat contra-
dictory to earlier research. Earlier research in intercol-
legiate athletes found female coaches to have
significantly greater mental health literacy as compared
to males. As such, it was somewhat unexpected to find
no significant difference between genders.
Although demographic and experiential variables
did not relate to Behavior, data did reveal that individ-
ual construct scores may. Results indicated that those
coaches who talked to their athletes had significantly
lower PBC and Social Norm scores as compared to
those coaches who did not talk. Such results support
the hypothesis by Mazzer and Rickwood21 that helpful
behaviors are impacted by perceived capabilities and
whether the behavior is expected or required within
the work role. However, contrary to this hypothesis,
Attitude scores were not significantly different between
coaches who talked and coaches who did not talk. The
association between attitude and behaviors docu-
mented in earlier research is inconsistent; personal atti-
tudes towards help-seeking were shown to have a
significant positive association with coach support in
college-level coaches45 but not in high-school
coaches.44 The difference between the current intercol-
legiate coach sample and that in the study by Kroshus
and colleagues45 may be due to the types of attitudes
that were measured. In the current study, attitudes
towards the outcome of the behavior were measured
as opposed to personal attitudes towards help-seeking
measured by Kroshus and colleagues.45 Further, in the
current sample, the lack of significance may be due to
the overall low (positive) Attitude score. It is possible
that this sample had resoundingly positive attitudes
towards speaking about mental health with athletes.
The conclusions drawn from the current study
should be interpreted under the consideration of the
following limitations. Firstly, Attitudes, PBC, and
Social Norms of coaches reflected their current state,
while the Behavior was retrospective. In addition, the
sample size was quite small and the ratio of males to
females was imbalanced. Furthermore, all measures
were self-reported, as such, it is possible that social
desirability may have influenced responses for any of
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 16(3)
the TPB constructs, or the behavior itself. Third, the
data from this study does not give any detail on the
depth of conversation or the exact topic of the conver-
sation had between athletes and their coaches. As such,
the results can only be used to suggest factors that are
associated with the act of having the conversation, not
the type of conversation that is had. Future research
should investigate this further. Lastly, the Cronbach
alpha scores for the individual survey sections was
not optimal. Future studies could add more questions
to the Social Norms section by adding perceptions of
family, friends) and asking how important the opinions
of these individuals are to the coach. Despite these
limitations, the current study offers novel information
to the area.
Although a promising amount of coaches reported
speaking with their athletes about mental health, there
is still room for improvement. As this study helps to
confirm the benefits of mental health training, such
education should continue to be promoted to all mem-
bers of the athletic community at all levels of sport.
Results indicate that such training helps to improve
attitudes, perceived capabilities, and social norms. In
addition, the significant association between training
status and Role in combination with the association
between Role and Talked, implies their may be a
direct association between training and Talking. In
general, attitudes were quite positive; as such, while
training should still promote such beliefs, it may be
beneficial to focus heavily on capabilities and perceived
social norms within sport. It is important to continue
endorsing positive attitudes as the sampled population
may be biased towards such positive beliefs. Perceived
capabilities and social norms appear to relate to wheth-
er a coach talks to their athletes or not; social norms,
also seem to vary most between individuals. By con-
tinuing to offer training to all individuals within the
athletic environment it may be possible to not only
improve skills but also to improve social norms. This,
in turn, may allow coaches to feel more prepared to
help their athletes, and make the action of helping
feel more socially acceptable.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Jessica Murphy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2732-8498
Murphy and Sullivan
References

1. Arnett JJ, Zukauskien_ e R and Sugimura K. The new life
stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18-29 years: impli-
cations for mental health. Lancet Psychiatry 2014; 1:
569–576.
2. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Mental
illness, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/
mental-illness.shtml (2019, accessed 24 July 2019).
3. Jaworska N, De Somma E, Fonseka B, et al. Mental
health services for students at postsecondary institutions:
a national survey. Can J Psychiatry 2016; 61: 766–775.
4. Giovannetti S, Robertson JR, Colquhoun H, et al.
Mental health services for Canadian university student-
athletes: an exploratory survey. J Clin Sport Psychol
2019; 13: 469–485.
5. Gulliver A, Griffiths KM and Christensen H. Barriers
and facilitators to mental health help-seeking for young
elite athletes: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. Epub
ahead of print 2012. DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-12-157.
6. Van Slingerland KJ, Durand-Bush N and Rathwell S.
Levels and prevalence of mental health functioning in
Canadian university student-athletes. Can J High Educ
2018; 48: 149–168.
7. Sullivan P, Blacker M, Murphy J, et al. Levels of psycho-
logical distress of Canadian university student-athletes.
Can J High Educ 2019; 49: 47–59.
8. Castaldelli-Maia JM, de Mello e Gallinaro JG, Falcao
RS, et al. Mental health symptoms and disorders in
elite athletes: a systematic review on cultural influencers
and barriers to athletes seeking treatment. Br J Sports
Med 2019; 53: 707–721.
9. Moreland JJ, Coxe KA and Yang J. Collegiate athletes’
mental health services utilization: a systematic review of
conceptualizations, operationalizations, facilitators, and
barriers. J Sport Health Sci 2018; 7: 58–69.
10. Ryan H, Gaston Gayles J and Bell L. Student-athletes
and mental health experiences. New Directions for
Student Services 2018; 2018: 67–79.
11. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
NCAA GOALS study of the student-athlete experience:
initial summary of findings, https://www-ncaa-org.proxy.
library.brocku.ca/sites/default/files/GO (2016, accessed 6
October 2020).
12. Wolanin A, Hong E, Marks D, et al. Prevalence of clin-
ically elevated depressive symptoms in college athletes
and difference by gender and sport. Br J Sports Med
2016; 50: 167–171.
13. Sebbens J, Hassmen P, Crisp D, et al. Mentla health in
sport (MHS): improving the early intervention, knowl-
edge and confidence of elite sport staff. Front Psychol
2016; 7: 1–9.
14. Henriksen K, Schinke R, Moesch K, et al. Consensus state-
ment on improving the mental health of high performance
athletes. Int J Sport Exer Psychol 2020; 18: 553–560.
15. National Collegiate Athletic Association N. Supporting
student-athlete mental wellness, http://www.ncaa.org/
sport-science-institute/supporting-student-athlete-menta
l-wellness (accessed 19 June 2019).
517
16. Schinke RJ, Stambulova NB, Si G, et al. International
society of sport psychology position stand: athletes’
mental health, performance, and development. Int J
Sport Exer Psychol 2018; 16: 622–639.
17. Berg BK and Warner S. Advancing college athlete devel-
opment via social support. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics 2019; 12: 87–113.
18. Biggin IJR, Burns JH and Uphill M. An investigation of
athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of mental ill-health in
elite athletes. J Clin Sport Psychol 2017; 11: 126–147.
19. Way WC, Coker-Cranney AM and Watson IIJ. “So
many mental health issues go unsaid”: implications for
best practice guidelines from student-athletes’ perspec-
tives about service availability. J Clin Sport Psychol
2020; 14: 305–324.
20. Mazzer KR and Rickwood DJ. Mental health in sport:
coaches’ views of their role and efficacy in supporting
young people’s mental health. Int J Health Promot
Educ 2015; 53: 102–114.
21. Mazzer KR and Rickwood DJ. Teachers’ and coaches’
role perceptions for supporting young people’s mental
health: multiple group path analyses. Aust J Psychol
2015; 67: 10–19.
22. Rahill C. College coaches’ experiences, knowledge and
attitudes to support student-athlete mental health.
University of Vermonth ScholarWorks @ UVM
Graduate College Dissertations and Theses, http://sch
olarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/1241 (2020).
23. Mazzer KR and Rickwood DJ. Community-based
roles promoting youth mental health: comparing the
roles of teachers and coaches in promotion, prevention
and early intervention. Int J Mental Health Promot 2013;
15: 29–42.
24. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Org Behav Hum
Decis Process 1991; 50: 179–211.
25. Godin G and Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a
review of its applications to health-related behaviors. The
science of health promotion: behavior. Am J Health
Promot 1996; 11: 87–98.
26. Tye J. Predictors of faculty intentions to refer students
with mental health concerns to mental health professio-
nals. Culminating Projects in Higher Education
Administration 2016; 9: 1–170.
27. Schwartz LS. Faculty role in responding to the acutely
distressed college student. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing, The George Washington University, USA,
2010.
28. Mazzer KR and Rickwood DJ. Community gatekeepers’
advice to young people to seek help from mental health
professionals: youth workers and sport coaches. Int J
Ment Health Promot 2009; 11: 13–23.
29. Kroshus E, Baugh CM, Daneshvar DH, et al.
Understanding concussion reporting using a model
based on the theory of planned behavior. J Adolesc
Health 2014; 54: 269–274.
30. Kroshus E, Baugh CM, Daneshvar DH, et al.
Concussion reporting intention: a valuable metric for
predicting reporting behavior and evaluating concussion
education. Clin J Sport Med 2015; 25: 243–247.
518
31. Carpenter S, Lininger M and Craig D. Intrapersonal fac-
tors affecting concussion reporting behaviors according
to the theory of planned behavior in high school football
players. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2020; 15: 374–379.
32. Rigby J, Vela L and Housman J. Understanding athletic
trainers’ beliefs towards a multifaceted sport-related con-
cussion approach: application of the theory of planned
behavior. J Athl Train 2013; 48: 636–644.
33. QualtricsXM. QualtricsXM, https://www.qualtrics.com/,
2020.
34. Corrigan PW, Morris SB, Michaels PJ, et al. Challenging
the public stigma of mental illness: a meta-analysis of
outcome studies. Psychiatr Serv 2012; 63: 963–973.
35. Griffiths KM, Carron-Arthur B, Parsons A, et al.
Effectiveness of programs for reducing the stigma associ-
ated with mental disorders. A meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. World Psychiatry 2014; 13: 161–175.
36. Bradbury A. Mental health stigma: the impact of age and
gender on attitudes. Community Ment Health J 2020; 56:
933–938.
37. Ajzen I and Fishbein M. The influence of attitudes on
behavior. In: Albarracin D, Johnson BT and Zanna MP
(eds) Handbok of attitudes an attitude change: basic prin-
ciples. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2005, pp. 117–138.
38. Connor M. The theory of planned behavior. In:
Tenenbaum G and Eklund RC (eds) Handbook of sport
psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2020.
39. Hankins M, French D and Horne R. Statistical guide-
lines for studies of the theory of reasoned action and the
theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health 2000; 15:
151–161.
40. IBM. SPSS Statistical Software Version 26. USA, https://
www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software?lnk=
STW_US_STESCH&lnk2=trial_SPSS&pexp=def&
psrc=none&mhsrc=ibmsearch_a&mhq=spss, 2020.
41. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R.
Boston, MA: R Studio PBC, 2020.
42. Tavakol M and Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s
alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53–55.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 16(3)
43. Kim H-Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assess-
ing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis.
Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38: 52–54.
44. Kroshus E, Chrisman SD, Coppel D, et al. Coach sup-
port of high school student-athletes struggling with anx-
iety or depression. J Clin Sport Psychol 2019; 13:
390–404.
45. Kroshus E, Wagner J, Wyrick DL, et al. Pre-post evalu-
ation of the ‘Supporting Student-Athlete Mental
Wellness’ module for college coaches. J Clin Sport
Psychol 2019; 13: 668–685.
46. Breslin G, Shannon S, Haughey T, et al. A systematic
review of interventions to increase awareness of mental
health and well-being in athletes, coaches and officials.
Syst Rev 2017; 6: 1–15.
47. Farrer L, Leach L, Griffiths KM, et al. Age differences in
mental health literacy. BMC Public Health 2008; 8: 125.
48. Furnham A, Annis J and Cleridou K. Gender differences
in the mental health literacy of young people. Int J
Adolesc Med Health 2014; 26: 283–292.
49. O’Connor M, Casey L and Clough B. Measuring mental
health literacy - a review of scale-based measures. J Ment
Health 2014; 23: 197–204.
50. Svensson B and Hansson L. How mental health literacy
and experience of mental illness relate to stigmatizing
attitudes and social distance towards people with depres-
sion or psychosis: a cross-sectional study. Nord J
Psychiatry 2016; 70: 309–313.
51. White M and Casey L. Helping older adults to help them-
selves: the role of mental health literacy in family mem-
bers. Aging Ment Health 2017; 21: 1129–1137.
52. Hadjimina E and Furnham A. Influence of age and
gender on mental health literacy of anxiety disorders.
Psychiatry Res 2017; 25: 8–13.
53. Sullivan P, Murphy J and Blacker M. The level of mental
health literacy among athletic staff in intercollegiate
sport. J Clin Sport Psychol 2019; 13: 440–450.