Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjsp20

The role of quality relationships and

communication strategies for the fulfilment of
secure and insecure athletes’ basic psychological
needs

Louise Davis, Sophia Jowett, Daniel Sörman & Rebecka Ekelund

To cite this article: Louise Davis, Sophia Jowett, Daniel Sörman & Rebecka Ekelund (2022) The
role of quality relationships and communication strategies for the fulfilment of secure and
insecure athletes’ basic psychological needs, Journal of Sports Sciences, 40:21, 2424-2436, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2022.2162240

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2162240

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 08 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3982

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
2022, VOL. 40, NO. 21, 2424–2436
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2162240

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The role of quality relationships and communication strategies for the fulfilment of
secure and insecure athletes’ basic psychological needs
Louise Davisa, Sophia Jowettb, Daniel Sörmanc and Rebecka Ekelunda
a
Department of Psychology, Umeå University and Umeå School of Sports Science, Umeå, Sweden; bSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences,
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK; cDepartment of Health, Education and Technology, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The correlates of coach-athlete relationship quality have been the focus of research for over a decade; Received 17 September 2021
however, little is known about the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying these associations. Revised 9 December 2022
The present study conducted a moderated mediation analysis to examine (a) the mediating role of Accepted 19 December 2022
communication strategies (via COMPASS) on the association between the quality of the coach-athlete KEYWORDS
relationship and athlete psychological needs satisfaction and (b) whether individual differences in Attachment; relationship
athletes’ attachment style (secure, anxious, avoidant) moderates the mediational relationship. 350 quality; needs satisfaction;
Swedish athletes representing a range of sports and competition levels completed a multi-section coaching
questionnaire. Mediation and moderation analysis partially found that coach-athlete relationship quality
and athletes basic psychological needs were associated via the COMPASS strategies of support, motiva­
tion, assurance and openness. It was also found that athletes secure attachment with their coach
significantly moderated the mediated effects of motivation and support. These findings highlight the
practical utility of motivation, support, openness and assurance strategies in enhancing the quality of the
coach-athlete relationship. Moreover, these findings demonstrate that the attachment orientation of
athletes towards their coaches play a significant role in determining what communication strategies to
use to enhance both the relationship quality and an athlete’s competence, autonomy and relatedness.

The relationship formed with a coach is central to an athlete’s
sporting experience (Davis et al., 2019b). It is not uncommon
for athletes to acknowledge the significance of their coach
following major performance success in competitive events,
during post competition interviews, via social media (e.g.,
Twitter), or in the narratives found in their autobiographies.
This was recently demonstrated by Lauren Steadman upon
winning Triathlon gold in the Tokyo 2020 Paralympics, “words
cannot describe how special it was to have my coach by my
side yesterday . . . he believed in me, encouraged me, pushed
me, guided me, and above all he’s always been there for me”
(Steadman, 2021). Although Steadman struggled to articulate
the unique connection with her coach, it is clear that the quality
of the coach-athlete relationship is a key determinant to health
and performance at the highest levels of sport competition.
Extant research outlines that good quality relationships are
associated with positive intrapersonal (e.g., wellbeing; Davis &
Jowett, 2014), interpersonal (e.g., performance; Hampson &
Jowett, 2014), and developmental outcomes (e.g., Vella et al.,
2013). From the perspective of athletes, harmonious and stable
coach-athlete relationships are important as they provide
security during turbulence in sport and/or life (Li et al., 2020;
Wachsmuth et al., 2018). Although coach-athlete relationships
have garnered increasing research attention, studies have lar­
gely focused on characteristics that constitute high quality
relationships and its correlates (e.g., Jowett & Shanmugam,
2016). The present study aims to advance knowledge by focus­
ing on the strategies, processes, and methods that can be
employed to develop and maintain high quality coach-athlete
relationships.
The quality of the coach–athlete relationship is defined and
operationalised as a social environment, whereby athletes’
and coaches’ feelings, thoughts, and behaviours are mutually
and causally inter-connected (Jowett, 2007). These feelings,
thoughts, and behaviours are reflected in Jowett’s (2007),
3 + 1Cs framework, shaped by the interpersonal dimensions
of closeness (emotional connection manifested in feelings of
trust, like, respect, appreciation), commitment (thoughts to
maintain a close tie over time), and complementarity (beha­
vioural interactions that are responsive, receptive, comforta­
ble, and friendly). The 3Cs signify the extent to which the
coach and the athlete perceive the relationship to be of high
quality. Co-orientation represents the +1C in the model and
provides an insight into the degree to which the coach and
the athlete perceive the relationship quality to be (dis) similar
(Lorimer & Jowett, 2012). Co-orientation acknowledges the
relationship from two different perspectives: (a) the direct
perspective reflects coaches’ and athletes’ own perceptions
regarding the 3Cs (e.g., “I trust my coach/athlete”); and (b), the
meta perspective reflects coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions
of how the other perceives the 3Cs (e.g., “My coach/athlete
trusts me”).
In an attempt to accelerate and map a pathway for focused
research surrounding the quality of the coach-athlete relation­
ship, Jowett and Poczwardowski (2007) put forward an inte­
grated research model (IRM) illustrating how the quality of the

CONTACT Louise Davis louise.davis@umu.se Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

coach-athlete relationship (3Cs) represents various social phe­
nomena (i.e., communication, personality, motivation) that can
either determine its quality or be determined by the quality of
the relationship. Accordingly, the model highlights three inter­
related layers outlining coach-athlete relationship quality. The
top layer identifies antecedent variables with the potential to
determine the quality of the coach-athlete relationship (second
layer). These antecedent variables include individual differ­
ences (e.g., personality, age, gender), the social-cultural context
(e.g., culturally defined norms, values), as well as relational
characteristics (e.g., duration, type). The middle/second layer
of the model describes the quality of the coach-athlete relation­
ship itself (e.g., 3Cs), whilst the bottom layer includes outcomes
or consequences of relationship quality. These outcomes
include intrapersonal (e.g., well-being, motivation, perfor­
mance), interpersonal (e.g., relationship satisfaction, interper­
sonal conflict), and group (e.g., team cohesion, collective
efficacy) factors. The three layers are interrelated, whereby
antecedent variables (top layer) such as athletes’ gender, per­
sonality, and experience may affect the quality of the relation­
ship (middle layer) and in return the quality of the coach-
athlete relationship affects athlete outcomes (third layer).
To date, both antecedent and outcomes variables of the
coach-athlete relationship quality defined by the 3 + 1Cs have
been widely examined. For example, the quality of the coach-
athlete relationship has been found to correlate with antece­
dents of personality (Yang et al., 2015), individual differences in
attachment (Davis et al., 2013), gender and age (Davis et al.,
2019b; Jowett & Nezlek, 2012), as well as outcomes including
cognitive performance (Davis et al., 2018), flourishing and thriv­
ing (Gosai et al., 2021), motivation (Felton & Jowett, 2013b),
collective efficacy (Hampson & Jowett, 2014), psychological
needs satisfaction (Felton & Jowett, 2013a), interpersonal con­
flict (Wachsmuth et al., 2018), and athlete burnout (Davis et al.,
2018, 2019b).
The integrated research model highlights that the main
middle layer of relationship quality is further sandwiched
between two auxiliary layers of interpersonal communication
(see, Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007). Communication (i.e., ver­
bal or nonverbal, intended or unintended, effective or ineffec­
tive), is the process by which the relationship is formed and
maintained (Sullivan et al., 2014). Subsequently, an effective
high-quality relationship requires the maintenance of effective
high-quality communication. Rhind and Jowett (2010) propose
that coaches and athletes employ seven key communication
strategies to maintain an optimal relationship. These seven
strategies presented within the COMPASS model include con­
flict management (e.g., efforts to identify, discussing, resolve,
and monitor potential areas of conflict and disagreement),
openness (e.g., efforts to engage in open lines of communica­
tion), motivation (e.g., providing reasons for the other partner
to stay in the relationship), preventative (e.g., efforts to discuss
expectations and what to do if these are not met), assurance
(e.g., efforts to demonstrate commitment to the relationship),
support (e.g., efforts to help each other through difficult and
challenging times), and social networks (e.g., create opportu­
nities to develop strong bonds with significant others that
prevent the coach and athlete operating in a “bubble”). Use
of these strategies support the maintenance of high-quality
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2425
coach-athlete relationships; conversely, absence of these stra­
tegies can undermine relationship quality (as defined by
the 3Cs).
Although research examining coach-athlete relationship
quality is extensive, limited research has focused on the strate­
gies coaches’ and athletes’ use to maintain relationship quality
and subsequent outcomes. Early research conducted by Rhind
and Jowett (2011, 2012) noted that higher levels of closeness
within the coach-athlete relationship were associated with
COMPASS strategies that promote open channels of commu­
nication and engagement with wider social networks including
peers, support staff, and/or parents. Further, higher levels of
commitment were associated with greater use of motivational,
support, and assurance strategies; whilst complementarity was
associated with greater engagement in the use of conflict
management and preventative strategies. More recently,
Davis et al. (2019a) observed that COMPASS strategies can act
as mechanisms that transfer the effects of relationship quality
onto dimensions of sport satisfaction. Specifically, support and
motivational strategies transferred the effects of relationship
quality onto athletes’ satisfaction with personal treatment,
training and instruction, and performance; these strategies
were most instrumental when the quality of the coach-athlete
relationship was perceived to be poor.
Preliminary research recommends further scrutiny of
COMPASS strategies to evaluate their role as mechanisms in
influencing relationship quality and associated outcomes
(Davis et al., 2019a). Therefore, the focus of the present study
was on COMPASS as a medium that transfers the effects of the
coach-athlete relationship quality onto athletes’ basic psycho­
logical needs satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, competence, and
relatedness). Previous studies have identified associations
between quality relationships (i.e., middle/second layer of
IRM) and athletes’ psychological needs satisfaction (i.e., third
layer of IRM; Felton & Jowett, 2013b; Riley & Smith, 2011), this
study explores whether COMPASS (i.e., auxiliary layer of com­
munication of the IRM) facilitates these associations.
Furthermore, individual difference characteristics such as per­
sonality (Jackson et al., 2011) and attachment styles (Davis et al.,
2013) are prevalent antecedents of coach-athlete relationship
quality and athletes’ psychological need satisfaction, therefore,
this study seeks to explore whether attachment orientations
(i.e., first layer of IRM) moderates the proposed mediation.
Attachment styles are considered personal tendencies
related to athletes’ and coaches’ ways of relating, interacting,
and communicating (Davis & Jowett, 2014). There are three
distinct attachment styles: secure, anxious-ambivalent, and
avoidant (Ainsworth et al., 1978). A secure attachment charac­
terises individuals who display confidence in the availability of
significant others (e.g., parents, peers, coach) and feel comfor­
table with relational closeness. In contrast, an anxious ambiva­
lent attachment style characterises individuals who display
a lack of confidence in the availability of significant others
(i.e., fear of rejection), yet a strong need for relational closeness.
Finally, an avoidant attachment characterises individuals who
also display a lack of confidence in the availability of significant
others and avoid any form of relational closeness. Extensive
research indicates attachment styles offer a means of explain­
ing relationship behaviours across the lifespan with diverse
2426 L. DAVIS ET AL.
significant relationship partners (e.g., romantics partners, tea­
chers, close friends, sports coaches) that provide protection and
support when needed (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; Collins & Read,
1990; Davis & Jowett, 2014; Mayseless, 2010).
Research focusing on attachment styles between coaches
and athletes has revolved around investigating the links
between coach-athlete attachment and the quality of the
coach-athlete relationship (Davis et al., 2013a), athletes’ affec­
tive well-being (Davis & Jowett, 2014; Felton & Jowett, 2013b),
sport satisfaction (Davis & Jowett, 2010), eating psychopathol­
ogy (Shanmugam et al., 2014), and athletic thriving (Davis et al.,
2021). In particular, athletes who reported a secure attachment
towards their sports coach evaluated the quality of their coach-
athlete relationship (3Cs) more positively, whilst avoidant ath­
letes tended to evaluate their relationship more negatively
(Davis et al., 2013). In relation to psychological needs satisfac­
tion, athletes reporting high levels of avoidant attachment can
also experience significant reductions in psychological need
satisfaction (Felton & Jowett, 2017). Although, athletes with
an avoidant attachment style indicate they can function opti­
mally if they perceive that their basic psychological needs were
satisfied (Felton & Jowett, 2013b). Taken collectively, research
suggests athletes’ attachment styles to their coach may offer
insight into the associations between relationship quality, com­
munication, and psychological needs satisfaction.
The Present Study
As such, the present study is guided by the integrated research
model (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007) with the aim to under­
take: (a) an analysis of the mediating role of communication
strategies (COMPASS) on the association between coach-
athlete relationship quality and athlete psychological needs
satisfaction (i.e., competence, autonomy, relatedness); and (b)
an examination of whether athletes’ attachment style moder­
ates the mediational influence of communication strategies on
the association between coach-athlete relationship quality and
athlete psychological needs satisfaction. Moderated mediation
Figure 1. The hypothetical model.
allows for further understanding of the mediating effect by
determining under what conditions or variables the mediation
may be significant (Preacher et al., 2007). The proposed mod­
erated mediational model is illustrated in Figure 1 and the
formulated hypotheses are as follow:
H1. The association between the quality of the coach-athlete
relationship (direct and meta perspectives) and athletes’ per­
ceived psychological needs (perceived autonomy, competence
and relatedness) will be mediated by each of the seven
COMPASS communication strategies.
H2. The association between the quality of the coach-athlete
relationship and athlete psychological needs via COMPASS
strategies will be positively moderated by athletes’ secure
attachment towards their coach and inversely moderated by
athletes’ insecure attachment (anxious and avoidance).
Methods
Participants
Participants were 350 Swedish athletes; 159 (45.4%) males, 190
(54.3%) females, and 1 (0.3%) categorized as other. The mean
age of the sample was 19.18 years (SD = 3.98 years, range = 15–
45 years) and athletes ‘were recruited from a range of sports
including both individual sports (46.9%; e.g., swimming, cross-
country skiing, golf, athletics) team sports (52.3%;(e.g., ice-
hockey, handball, football, floorball, volleyball) and unspecified
(0.8%). Participants competed in their sport at various levels
including regional (22.6%), national (49.1%) and international
level (26.3%), and 2% had reported “other”. Participants
reported they had been involved in their sport for a mean
length of 11.04 years (SD = 5.46) and had an average relation­
ship length with their principal sports coach of 2.59 years
(SD = 2.65), with a mean of 8.57 hours spent with their coach
in training each week (SD = 6.32).
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2427

Measures consistency (Rhind & Jowett, 2010). For the present study, the
items were translated into Swedish using a parallel back trans­
Coach-athlete relationship quality
lation process. Cronbach’s alpha was measured for each strat­
The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q; Jowett,
egy; Conflict management (α = .81), Openness (α = .80)
2009; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) was used to measure athletes
motivational, (α = .92), preventative (α = .84), assurance
direct and meta-perceptions of the quality of the coach-athlete
(α = .78), support (α = .89), and social networks (α = .79).
relationship. The 11-item direct perspective and the corre­
Similarly, to the CART-Q, the factorial validity of the items was
sponding 11-item meta-perspective of the CART
examined. Fit indices from the CFA of the Swedish version of
Q represented closeness (4 items, e.g., I trust my coach; 4
the 28-item, 7 factor model of the CARM-Q was adequate with
items, e.g., My coach trusts me), commitment (3 items, e.g.,
regard to all fit indices (χ2/df = 2.70, p < .001; CFI = .91; TLI = .90,
I am committed to my coach; 3 items, e.g., My coach is com­
RMSEA = .07, 90% CI = .06, .08). All items loaded significantly
mitted to me), and complementarity (4 items, e.g., When I am
(for all p < .001) on its latent variables (i.e., conflict manage­
coached by my coach, I am responsive to his/her efforts; 4 items
ment, openness, motivational, preventative, assurance, sup­
e.g., My coach is responsive to my efforts when he/she coaches
port, and social networks).
me). Responses were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Previous studies have displayed
Coach-athlete attachment
sound psychometric properties of the CART-Q (see, Jowett &
The Coach–Athlete Attachment Scale (Davis & Jowett, 2013)
Ntoumanis, 2004). As in previous research (e.g., Davis & Jowett,
was used to measure athletes’ attachment to their sports coach
2013; Davis et al., 2019b), a composite approach was imple­
across three orthogonal styles. The CASS contains 19 items,
mented for direct and meta relationship quality. For the present
designed to measure athletes’ secure (5 items, e.g., I know
study, the items were translated into Swedish using a parallel
I can rely on my coach”) anxious (7 items, e.g., I worry that
back translation process. Cronbach’s alpha was measured for
I won’t fulfil my coaches’ expectations) and avoidant (7 items,
the two perspectives: direct perspective (α = .94) and meta
e.g., I do not turn to my coach for reassurance) attachment
perspective (α = .95) respectively. Additionally, the factorial
styles. Responses were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly
validity of the items of the CART-Q were examined, since the
disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and relevant to how they feel
instrument has not been statistically scrutinized in the Swedish
towards their principal sports coach. Davis and Jowett (2013,
language. To test the validity of the items with this sample,
2014) have provided sound psychometric properties of validity
a second order CFA model was performed, where the 3Cs were
and reliability. For the present study, the items were translated
subsumed under a general category namely coach-athlete rela­
into Swedish using a parallel back translation process.
tionship quality. Analysis showed good fit for the direct per­
Cronbach’s alpha was measured for each attachment style;
spective: χ2/df = 3.52, p < .001; CFI = .97; TLI = 96, RMSEA = .08,
Secure (α = .89), anxiety (α = .89) and avoidant, (α = .88). The
90% CI = .07, .10. All items loaded significantly on its latent
factorial validity of the items was examined. Fit indices from the
construct (p < .001) following the addition of correlations
CFA of the 19 item, 3-factor model were adequate (χ2/df = 2.67,
between error terms within factors; closeness (“I like my
p < .001; CFI = .94; TLI = .93, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI = .06, .08) after
coach” and “I appreciate my coach’s sacrifices in order to
two correlations between error terms within factors were
improve performance”) and complementarity (When I am coa­
added; anxious (“I often worry that my coach does not value
ched by my coach: “I am responsive to his/her efforts”, “I am
me as much as I value him/her” and “ I worry a fair amount that
ready to do my best”, and “I adopt a friendly stance”). For the
my coach will leave me to train elsewhere”) and secure (“ I know
meta perspective, analysis also showed good model fit for CFI
that my coach is loyal to me” and “I find it easy to interact with
(.95), and adequate with regard to TLI (.93). However, fit indices
my coach”). All items loaded significantly (for all p < .001) on its
for RMSEA (.11, CI = .10, .13) and χ2/df = 5.51, p = .000 was still
latent variables (i.e., secure, anxious, and avoidant).
poor.
Basic psychological need satisfaction
Coach-athlete relationship maintenance strategies The Basic Need Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS; Ng et al.,
The Coach-Athlete Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire 2011) was used to measure athletes’ basic psychological needs
(CARM-Q; Rhind & Jowett, 2012) was used to assess the strate­ satisfaction. Specifically, 10 items measured athlete’s autonomy
gies athletes use to communicate with their coach. The 28 item satisfaction (e.g., in my sport, I get opportunities to make
questionnaire measures seven COMPASS communication stra­ choices), five items measured competence satisfaction (e.g.,
tegies including: conflict management (5 items, e.g., I am I am skilled at my sport) and five items measured relatedness
understanding during disagreements), openness (4 items, e.g., satisfaction (e.g., In my sport, I feel close to other people).
I am open about my feelings), motivational (5 items, e.g., I show Responses were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Not true at all,
that I am motivated to work hard with my coach), preventative 7 = very true). Ng et al. (2011) provided support for the valida­
(4 items, e.g., I tell my coach what I expect from him/her), tion of the scale both for internal consistency, and for the factor
assurance (3 items, e.g., I show my coach that s/he can count structure. For the present study, the items were translated into
on me), support (3 items, e.g., I give my coach support when Swedish using a parallel back translation process. Cronbach’s
things are not going well), and social networks (4 items, e.g., alpha was measured for competence (α = .86), autonomy
I like to spend time with our mutual friends). Responses were (α = .83) and relatedness (α = .85). The factorial validity of the
rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly 20 item, 3-factor CFA model was adequate with regard to all fit
Agree). The CARM-Q has high construct validity and internal indices (χ2/df = 3.25, p < .001; CFI = .91; TLI = .90, RMSEA = .08,
2428 L. DAVIS ET AL.
90% CI = .07, .09) following addition of correlations between
error terms within the factor of autonomy (between items “In
my sport, I have a say in how things are done” “ In my sport,
I can take part in the decision making process” and “ In my
sport, I get opportunities to make decisions” and between the
items “ I feel I participate in my sport willingly” and “I choose to
participate in my sport according to my own free will”) and
relatedness (between items “ In my sport, I feel close to other
people” and “ I have close relationships with people in my
sport”). All items loaded significantly (p < .001) on their respec­
tive latent factors (i.e., autonomy, competence, and
relatedness).
Procedure
A cross sectional, questionnaire-based design was employed
using a purposeful and convenient sampling technique.
Approval to conduct this study was granted by the
Swedish ethical review board. Sport-organizations and
sports clubs were contacted via phone and/or email and
informed about the nature of the study; permission to
approach athletes was sought out. Upon consent, one of
two methods for data collection were adopted. First, a date
and time for the research team to visit the sports clubs
closest to the first author were arranged. Upon meeting
the participants at the start of a training session, the study’s
aims were explained, confidentiality and anonymity assured
and written consent obtained. A multi-section questionnaire
was then distributed in paper and pencil format to all
participants over the age of 15. In line with the Swedish
Act (2003; 460) and the Swedish Ethical Review Authority
(Etikprövnings myndigheten) parent consent was not
required as young people of 15 years and older give their
own consent in Sweden. Participants were asked to com­
plete the questionnaire independently from their coach and
peers; members of the research team were on hand to
supervise any queries. This process took approximately
20 minutes. For those athletes’ who could not be contacted
face to face, and in an attempt to reach out to participants
across Sweden, a second method of data collection that
involved a web-based survey (i.e., SurveyMonkey) was
employed. Sport-clubs and organizations distributed the
web-based survey to their athletes. The web-based survey
explained the purpose, voluntary nature, anonymity and
confidentiality of the study, as well as provided instructions
on how to complete the questionnaire online. Upon con­
sent and after providing a personal code, the multi-section
questionnaire became available. Following completion, the
participants’ data were electronically sent to a secure data­
base for analysis.
Data Analysis
Analyses were conducted using SPSS 26 (IBM, 2019) and IBM
Amos 26 (Arbuckle, 2016). SPSS 26 was used to screen for the
proportion of missing data, univariate and multivariate outliers
and to compute the variables in the study. In addition, descriptive
statistics including alpha reliability coefficients, means, standard
deviation, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated for each vari­
able included in this study. The suggested threshold for Skewness
is 2, and for kurtosis is 7 (Finney & Distefano, 2006). Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM) was employed in IBM AMOS 26 using
maximum likelihood estimation to examine the proposed media­
tion and moderated mediation models of relationship quality
(direct and meta) on athletes perceived basic needs satisfaction
(competence, autonomy, relatedness). Because the mediation
model includes multiple mediators, specific indirect effects were
calculated by user-defined estimates and evaluated by multiply­
ing the two effects associated with this pathway. Furthermore,
the multiple moderated mediation effects were analysed by
using user-defined estimates. To evaluate the conditional indirect
effects, we followed the procedure suggested by Hayes (2013).
Values of the moderator variable representing “low”, “moderate”
and “high” were picked using one standard deviation below the
mean, the mean, and a standard deviation above the mean.
To examine the potential moderated mediation (interaction)
effects, factors (CART-Q, CARM-Q, and CAAS) were mean centred
(z score-transformed). In mediation models, we regressed the
basic psychological needs (BNSSS) variables (competence, auton­
omy and relatedness) on the CART-Q (3Cs) to investigate relation­
ship quality as a significant direct predictor. Each CARM-Q
mediator variable (conflict management, openness, motivational,
preventative, assurance, support, social networks) were regressed
on CART-Q to confirm CART-Q as a significant predictor of the
CARM-Q mediators, and we as well regressed BNSSS on CARM-Q
to fully investigate the mediating effects of the model. In moder­
ated mediation models, attachment styles (secure, anxious, avoi­
dant) were included to investigate if the factors moderate the
mediating effects (moderated mediation model). This process
was repeated for a moderated mediation model of direct relation­
ship quality and for meta relationship quality, resulting in model 1
and model 2.
Analyses with IBM Amos SPSS-26 (Arbuckle, 2016) allowed for
verification of the measurement and structural models using
goodness of fit indices. Using recommendations made by Hu
and Bentler (1999) and Marsh (2007), models were evaluated by
use of chi-square statistic divided by the degrees of freedom (χ2/
df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), and
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
Conventional cut-off criteria were used to estimate adequate fit
(CFI > 0.90 and TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08; Kline, 2010) and very
good fit (CFI > 0.95 and TLI > 0.95, and RMSEA < 0.06; Hooper
et al. (2008); Hu & Bentler, 1999). For χ2/df, the suggested upper
thresholds ranged from 2.0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) to 5.0
(Wheaton et al., 1977). To test direct, indirect, and total effects of
the mediation and moderated mediation models, 95% bias cor­
rected bootstrapped confidence intervals (BC CI) were calculated
based on 1000 resamples, which allowed to interpret how accu­
rate the sample statistic reflected the population parameters
(Preacher & Kelley, 2011). Statistical power of final models (mod­
erated mediation) for the test of close fit were calculated based
on RMSEA using significance criterion (α), sample size (n), and
model degrees of freedom (df) following the recommendations
by MacCallum et al. (1996). An illustration of the theoretical
framework used as a base for analyses is presented in Figure 1.
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2429

Results moderately associated with motivational (r = .56, p < .01),

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
Descriptive statistics including calculations of alpha reliability
coefficients, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurto­
sis along with Pearson’s correlations of all variables included in
this study are presented in Table 1. The means and standard
deviations revealed that on average, athletes tended to display
moderate -to -high perceived relationship quality from both
a direct and meta perspective as well as reporting the use of
maintenance strategies as moderate to high. A similar pattern
was found for basic psychological needs with athletes demon­
strating moderate to high levels of autonomy, competence and
relatedness. Finally, the athletes also tended to display high
levels of attachment security, moderate levels ofattachment
avoidance and low levels of attachment anxiety.
Bivariate correlations were computed to assess the asso­
ciations between the study variables. Statistically significant
correlations were found between relationship quality (direct
and meta), relationship maintenance strategies and athletes
basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and
relatedness. Furthermore, athlete’s attachment styles of
secure, anxiety and avoidance were significantly correlated
with all study variables and the directions of the correla­
tions were as expected. Perhaps of particular interest for
this study, correlational analyses showed that athletes’
direct-perspective of relationship quality was most strongly
associated with a secure attachment style (r = .71, p < .01),
as well as motivational (r = 49, p < .01), support (r = .49,
p < .01), and assurance (r = .48, p < .01) strategies, and the
satisfaction of the basic psychological need of autonomy
(r = .53, p < .01). Moreover, the meta-perspective of rela­
tionship quality was most strongly correlated with a secure
attachment (r = .74, p < .01) as well as with openness
strategies (r = .58, p < .01) and the satisfaction of the
basic psychological need of autonomy (r = .60, p < .01).
The meta-perspective of relationship quality was also
support (r = .51, p < .01), and assurance (r = .55, p < .01)
strategies.
Mediated, and moderated mediated effects of the
associations between direct relationship quality and basic
psychological needs (model 1)
Mediation
The first model included direct paths from direct relationship
quality on basic need satisfaction (in terms of competence,
autonomy and relatedness) as well as indirect relationships
mediated by relational maintenance strategies including con­
flict management, openness, motivation, preventative, assur­
ance, support, and social networks. The model provided
adequate model fit to the data with regard to χ2/df (2.34), CFI
(.94), TLI (.92), and RMSEA (.06, CI = .05, .07). Direct relationship
quality was significantly related to all three outcomes of basic
psychological needs satisfaction including competence, auton­
omy and relatedness. Direct relationship quality was also sig­
nificantly related to all seven mediators including conflict
management, openness, motivational, preventative, assurance,
support and social networks. Some of the mediators were also
directly related to the outcome variables. Support was nega­
tively related to competence and autonomy and motivational
was related to competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Openness was related to competence, and finally assurance
was related to autonomy.
Next, specific indirect effects of direct relationship quality on
the three outcomes of basic psychological needs satisfaction
through each of the seven relational maintenance strategies
were examined. The analysis showed that motivational strate­
gies positively mediated specific indirect effects on all three
outcomes including competence, autonomy and relatedness.
Further, the analysis showed that openness mediated indirect
effects on competence and finally assurance positively
mediated a specific indirect effect on autonomy. All indirect

Table 1. Descriptive statistics including alpha reliability coefficients (α), means (Ma), standard deviation (SD), skewness, kurtosis, and Pearson correlation matrix for
variables included in this study.
Factor α Ma SD Skewnessb Kurtosisc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Coach-athlete relationship quality
1. Cart-Q Direct .94 5.67 1.16 −1.50 2.37 -
2. Cart-Q Meta .95 5.51 1.20 −1.10 1.05 .84** -
Coach-Athlete Relationship Maintenance Strategies
3. Conflict Management .81 5.60 1.33 −0.73 0.36 .45** .47** -
4. Openness .80 4.85 1.36 −0.44 −0.42 .44** .58** .35** -
5. Motivational .92 6.07 1.05 −1.34 1.90 .49** .56** .51** .54** -
6. Preventative .84 3.75 1.54 −0.18 −0.58 .35** .44** .19** .64** .38** -
7. Assurance .78 4.44 1.48 −0.09 −0.61 .48** .55** .30** .60** .47** .70** -
8. Support .89 4.42 1.67 −0.21 −0.65 .49** .51** .26** .56** .35** .57** .74** -
9. Social Networks .79 3.65 1.51 0.49 −0.33 .35** .43** .17** .48** .24** .48** .54** .55** -
Coach-athlete attachment
10. Secure .89 5.33 1.41 −0.90 0.41 .71** .74** .36** .48** .40** .36** .44** .47** .37** -
11. Anxiety .89 2.02 1.19 1.48 1.80 .37** .45** .26** .25** .35** .18** 0.20** −.13* .16** .39** -
12. Avoidant .88 3.49 1.48 0.28 −0.67 .55** .57** .23** .48** .39** .43** −.51** .47** .40** .50** .32** -
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction
13. Autonomy .83 5.47 0.85 −1.16 2.05 .53** .60** .37** .47** .65** .36** .46** .31** .28** .45** .39** .43** -
14. Competence .86 5.94 0.93 −1.31 2.62 .35** .43** .29** .41** .60** .28** .30** .20** .22** .26** .29** .29** .65** -
15. Relatedness .85 6.28 0.89 −1.81 4.37 .38** .40** .31** .32** .49** .20** .23** .17** .18** .28** .33** .19** .50** .57**
Note: **p < .01 *p < .05.
2430 L. DAVIS ET AL.

Table 2. Estimates of significant direct and indirect effects of Cart-Q (direct) on basic psychological needs with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence
intervals and p-values.
Mediation model β B Boot S.E. 95% BCLL 95% BCUL P
Direct
Cart-Q (D) – Competence .18 .14 .06 .03 .26 .034
Cart-Q (D) – Autonomy .32 .28 .08 .16 .47 .005
Cart-Q (D) – Relatedness .32 .23 .06 .09 .33 .015
Cart-Q (D) – Conflict Management . 45 .45 .06 .32 .55 .019
Cart-Q (D) – Openness .44 .44 .06 .32 .55 .012
Cart-Q (D) – Motivational .49 .49 .07 .36 .63 .011
Cart-Q (D) – Preventative .35 .35 .05 .23 .44 .019
Cart-Q (D) – Assurance .48 .48 .05 .37 .59 .012
Cart-Q (D) – Support .49 .49 .06 .38 .59 .011
Cart-Q (D) – Social Network .35 .35 .05 .24 .44 .009
Support – Competence −.17 −.13 .05 −.25 −.0 .011
Support – Autonomy −.16 −.14 .06 −.28 −.03 .009
Motivation – Competence .51 .38 .07 .23 .52 .008
Motivation – Autonomy .57 .51 .07 .38 .69 .004
Motivation – Relatedness .37 .26 .07 .12 .39 .015
Openness – Competence .12 .09 .05 .02 .21 .022
Assurance – Autonomy .16 .14 .06 .02 .24 .039
Indirect
Cart-Q (D) – Support – Competence −.08 −.06 .02 −.12 −.02 .011
Cart-Q (D) – Support – Autonomy −.08 −.07 .03 −.13 −.02 .009
Cart-Q (D) – Motivation – Competence .25 .19 .05 .10 .30 .009
Cart-Q (D) – Motivation – Autonomy .28 .25 .05 .16 .39 .007
Cart-Q (D) – Motivation – Relatedness .18 .13 .04 .06 .22 .006
Cart-Q (D) – Openness – Competence .05 .04 .02 .01 .09 .023
Cart-Q (D) – Assurance – Autonomy .08 .07 .03 .01 .12 .042
β = Standardized beta, B = Unstandardized beta, S.E. = Standard Error, BCLL = Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval lower limit, BCUL = Bias-
corrected bootstrap confidence interval upper limit.

effects of direct relationship quality on the three basic needs
satisfaction scales through conflict management, preventative
and social networks were insignificant. A breakdown of all
significant findings can be found in Table 2.
Moderated mediation
Following assessment of the mediation model, we turned to
tests of moderated mediation to examine whether athlete’s
attachment styles towards their coach moderated the
mediated effect of relationship maintenance strategies
between the quality of the coach-athlete relationship and ath­
letes perceived basic need satisfaction. For this part of the
analysis, only the relationship maintenance strategies that indi­
cated significant indirect effects were investigated. Therefore,
secure, anxious and avoidant attachment styles were investi­
gated as moderators of the indirect effects of motivation, sup­
port, openness and assurance strategies on the relationship
between direct relationship quality and athletes perceived
competence, autonomy and relatedness. The moderated med­
iation model showed adequate model fit; χ2/df (2.09), CFI (.94),
TLI (.91), and RMSEA (.06, CI = .05, .06). The power of the
moderated mediation model, based on RMSEA (if .08),
α = 0.05, n = 350, and df = 386, shows that the power is
essentially 1.0, which is larger than needed to assure power of
at least 0.80 for rejecting the hypothesis of close fit in the
population.
Results showed that a secure attachment style to the coach
moderates the indirect effect of a support-focused strategy
between direct relationship quality and perceived competence
and autonomy. Results showed the overall (negative) indirect
effect of a support-focused strategy for perceived competence
was stronger, as indicated by beta weight, under high levels of
secure attachment than for those with low secure attachment.
Similarly, the indirect effect of a support-focused strategy on
autonomy was somewhat stronger among individuals with
a higher secure attachment compared to a low secure attach­
ment. Additionally, it was also found that a secure attachment
style moderates the indirect effect of motivational focused
strategies between direct relationship quality and competence,
autonomy, and relatedness. Evaluation of conditional indirect
effects showed that under the condition of high secure attach­
ment, the indirect effect of motivational strategy was some­
what stronger on competence, autonomy, and relatedness
than it was under low levels of a secure attachment on compe­
tence, autonomy, and relatedness. Attachment styles did not
moderate any indirect effects of assurance or openness on
basic psychological need satisfaction. The final model, includ­
ing both mediation effects and moderated mediation effects,
explained 49% (R2) of the variance in athletes perceived com­
petence, 67% in autonomy, and 45% in relatedness. All signifi­
cant moderated mediation effects are presented in Table 3.
Mediated, and moderated mediated effects of the
associations between meta relationship quality and basic
psychological needs (model 2)
Mediation
The second structural model was similar to the first model but
included the meta relationship quality perspective instead of
direct relationship quality. The model provided adequate
model fit to the data with regard to χ2/df (2.39), CFI (.94), TLI
(.91), and RMSEA (.06, CI = .06, .07). Meta relationship quality
was significantly related to all three outcomes of basic psycho­
logical needs satisfaction including competence, autonomy
and relatedness. Meta relationship quality was also significantly
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2431

Table 3. Estimates of significant moderated indirect effects of Cart-Q-direct on Basic psychological needs with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals and
p-values.
Moderated mediation model β B Boot S.E. 95% BCLL 95% BCUL P
Cart-Q (D) – Support – Competence (secure) −.03 −.02 .01 −.05 −.01 .025
+ 1 SD (High) − .08 .03 −.16 −.03
− 1 SD (Low) − .04 .02 −.08 −.01
Cart-Q (D) – Support – Autonomy (secure) −.04 −.02 .01 −.05 −.01 .032
+ 1 SD (High) −.08 .04 −.16 −.03
− 1 SD (Low) −.04 .02 −.09 −.01
Cart-Q (D) – Motivation – Competence (secure) .09 .05 .02 .02 .09 .028
+ 1 SD (High) .19 .08 .09 .29
− 1 SD (Low) .09 .05 .02 .17
Cart-Q (D) – Motivation – Autonomy (secure) .11 .07 .03 .03 .13 .023
+ 1 SD (High) .27 .08 .17 .41
− 1 SD (Low) .14 .06 .04 .26
Cart-Q (D) – Motivation – Relatedness (secure) .07 .03 .02 .01 .06 .032
+ 1 SD (High) .13 .05 .06 .22
− 1 SD (Low) .06 .03 .02 .14
a
Moderator variable in brackets, β = Standardized beta, B = Unstandardized beta, S.E. = Standard Error, BCLL = Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval lower
limit, BCUL = Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval upper limit, 1 SD = one standard deviation above or below the mean of the moderator variable.

related to all seven mediators including conflict management,
openness, motivational, preventative, assurance, support and
social networks. The motivational strategy was significantly
related to competence, autonomy, as well as relatedness,
whereas support was directly and negatively related to compe­
tence, and autonomy.
Next, specific indirect effects of meta relationship quality on
the three outcomes of basic needs satisfaction through each of
the seven relational maintenance strategies were examined.
The analysis showed that motivational strategies positively
mediated specific indirect effect on all three outcomes includ­
ing competence, autonomy and relatedness. Further, the ana­
lysis showed that support negatively mediated specific indirect
effects on perceived competence and autonomy. All indirect
effects of meta relationship quality on the three basic needs
satisfaction scales through conflict management, openness,
preventative, assurance and social networks were insignificant.
All significant findings are presented in Table 4.
Moderated Mediation
Following assessment of the mediation model, we turned to
tests of moderated mediation to examine whether athletes
attachment styles towards their coach moderated the
mediated effect of relationship maintenance strategies
between meta quality of the coach-athlete relationship and
athletes perceived basic need satisfaction. For this part of the
analysis, only the relationship maintenance strategies that indi­
cated significant indirect effects were investigated. Therefore,
secure, anxious and avoidant attachment styles were tested as
moderators of the indirect effects of motivation, and support
strategies on the relationship between meta relationship

Table 4. Estimates of significant direct and indirect effects of Cart-Q (meta) on basic psychological needs with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence
intervals and p-values.
Mediation model β B Boot S.E. 95% BCLL 95% BCUL P
Direct
Cart-Q (M) – Competence .25 .18 .05 .08 .28 .010
Cart-Q (M) – Autonomy .39 .35 .06 .22 .54 .004
Cart-Q (M) – Relatedness .31 .22 .09 .08 .32 .020
Cart-Q (M) – Conflict Management .47 .47 .06 .34 .57 .023
Cart-Q (M) – Openess .58 .58 .04 .45 .65 .036
Cart-Q (M) – Motivation .56 .56 .06 .42 .72 .009
Cart-Q (M) – Preventative .44 .44 .05 .33 .52 .023
Cart-Q (M) – Assurance .55 .55 .04 .46 .65 .015
Cart-Q (M) – Support .51 .51 .05 .40 .61 .012
Cart-Q (M) – Social Network .43 .43 .05 .34 .65 .015
Motivation – Competence .49 .37 .07 .22 .51 .009
Motivation – Autonomy .54 .49 .07 .35 .66 .006
Motivation – Relatedness .37 .26 .07 .13 .39 .014
Support – Competence −.16 −.12 .04 −.23 −.04 .008
Support – Autonomy −.12 −.11 .05 −.20 −.02 .022
Indirect
Cart-Q (M) – Support – Competence −.08 −.06 .02 −.12 −.02 .006
Cart-Q (M) – Support – Autonomy −.06 −.06 .03 −.11 −.01 .022
Cart-Q (M) – Motivation – Competence .27 .21 .05 .11 .33 .007
Cart-Q (M) – Motivation – Autonomy .32 .28 .06 .19 .41 .006
Cart-Q (M) – Motivation – Relatedness .21 .15 .05 .07 .25 .007
β = Standardized beta, B = Unstandardized beta, S.E. = Standard Error, BCLL = Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval lower limit, BCUL = Bias-
corrected bootstrap confidence interval upper limit.
2432 L. DAVIS ET AL.

Table 5. Estimates of significant moderated indirect effects of Cart-Q-meta on Basic psychological needs with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals and
p-values.
Moderated mediation model β B Boot S.E. 95% BCLL 95% BCUL P
CartQ (M) – Support – Autonomy (secure) −.03 −.02 .01 −.05 −.00 .049
+ 1 SD (High) −.07 .03 −.13 −.02
− 1 SD (Low) −.03 .02 −.08 −.01
CartQ (M) – Motivation – Competence (secure) .11 .06 .02 .03 .10 .016
+ 1 SD (High) .23 .06 .14 .36
− 1 SD (Low) .17 .05 .06 .22
CartQ (M) – Motivation – Autonomy (secure) .12 .08 .03 .04 .12 .008
+ 1 SD (High) .32 .07 .22 .48
− 1 SD (Low) .17 .06 .07 .28
CartQ (M) – Motivation – Relatedness (secure) .08 .04 .02 .02 .08 .005
+ 1 SD (High) .16 .05 .07 .24
− 1 SD (Low) .09 .04 .03 .16
a
Moderator variable in brackets, β = Standardized beta, B = Unstandardized beta, S.E. = Standard Error, BCLL = Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval lower
limit, BCUL = Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval upper limit, 1 SD = one standard deviation above or below the mean of the moderator variable

quality and athletes perceived competence, autonomy and
relatedness. The moderated mediation model showed ade­
quate model fit; χ2/df (2.09), CFI (.94), TLI (.91), and RMSEA
(.06, CI = .05, .06).Furthermore, similar to the moderated media­
tion model including direct relationship quality, the model with
meta relationship quality showed high power (1.0) based on
RMSEA.
The results showed that a secure attachment style to the
coach moderates the indirect effect of a support-focused strat­
egy between meta relationship quality and autonomy.
Evaluation of the interaction effects suggests that (negative)
indirect effects of a support-focused strategy on autonomy are
slightly stronger under high levels of secure attachment than
under the condition of low secure attachment. Attachment
style did not moderate the indirect effect of supportive strategy
on perceived competence.
Finally, it was also found that a secure attachment style
moderates the indirect effects of a motivational focused strat­
egy between meta relationship quality and competence,
autonomy, and relatedness. The interactions suggest that
with a high secure attachment, the indirect effect of motiva­
tional strategy is stronger with regards to feelings of compe­
tence, autonomy, and relatedness than under a low level of
secure attachment The model including both mediation effects
and moderated mediation effects explained 49% of the var­
iance in athletes perceived competence, 68% in autonomy, and
43% in relatedness. All significant moderated mediation effects
are presented in Table 5.
Discussion
The present study investigated the mediating role of commu­
nication strategies (COMPASS) on the association between the
quality of the coach-athlete relationship and athletes’ basic
psychological needs satisfaction. Further, we investigated if
athletes’ attachment style moderates the mediational influence
of communication strategies on the relationship between the
quality of the coach-athlete relationship and athletes basic
needs satisfaction.
Mediated effects of COMPASS strategies on the
associations between relationship quality and basic
psychological needs
The study’s first hypothesis stated that each of the seven com­
munication strategies identified as conflict management, open­
ness, motivational, preventative, assurance, support, and social
networks (COMPASS) would mediate the relationship between
the quality of the coach-athlete relationship as defined by the
3Cs and athletes’ psychological needs satisfaction. Taking into
consideration both direct and meta perspectives of relationship
quality (model 1 and 2), the direct effects illustrated that both
perspectives were significantly associated with satisfaction of
all three basic psychological needs and support findings of
previous studies (Camiré et al., 2019; Riley & Smith, 2011).
These associations align with Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003)
proposition, grounded in the hierarchical model of motivation
(see, Vallerand, 1997), that coaches’ interpersonal behaviours
can offer autonomy-support (e.g., involving athletes in deci­
sion-making). Additionally, these findings associate with
Relationships Motivation Theory (RMT; Deci & Ryan, 2014),
which highlights that people should not only experience the
satisfaction of the need for relatedness but also experience the
satisfaction of the need for autonomy and competence within
quality relationships. As such, the findings of the present study
reaffirm the proposition that a coaching context characterized
by high levels of closeness (e.g., trust, respect), commitment
(e.g., loyalty, promise), and complementarity (e.g., readiness,
responsiveness), has the potential capacity to satisfy all three
basic psychological needs.
Perceptions of both direct and meta relationship quality
were also significantly related to all seven COMPASS strategies
supporting conceptual assumptions (Jowett & Poczwardowski,
2007) and empirical evidence (Davis et al., 2019b; Rhind &
Jowett, 2011). These findings indicate that good quality rela­
tionships promote better communication, and within these
relationships athletes engage in a range of diverse communica­
tion strategies. More specifically, good quality relationships can
provide athletes a social situation that facilitates communica­
tion which aims to stimulate (motivation), support, assure,
encourage (preventative), unlock (openness), connect (social

network) and manage (conflict management) relationship
dynamics. It should be noted however, that motivation and
support were the only two communication strategies that
directly associated with basic psychological needs satisfaction;
that is, motivation was positively associated with satisfaction of
all three psychological needs and support was negatively asso­
ciated with competence and autonomy for both direct and
meta perspective models. As such, athletes who communicate
their motivation and passion to work hard, showcase their
talent, and achieve their goals are more likely to feel in control
of their actions and be self-reliant as well as connected with
others within the context of sport.
The indirect effects of relationship quality on the three out­
comes of psychological needs satisfaction showed that for both
direct relationship quality (model 1) and meta relationship
quality (model 2) two of the seven COMPASS strategies (i.e.,
motivation, support) transferred the effects of relationship
quality onto variations of athletes’ perceptions of needs satis­
faction. Specifically, motivational strategies positively mediated
indirect effects on all three needs, whereas support negatively
mediated specific indirect effects on perceived competence
and autonomy. Additionally, openness positively mediated
indirect effects on competence, and assurance positively
mediated a specific indirect effect on autonomy for direct
perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship; however, it is
worth noting that the links while significant, were relatively
small (model 1).
Research highlights good quality relationships are more
prevalent in environments that are motivational, engaging,
stimulating, involving, energetic, and dynamic (Duda &
Appleton, 2016; N. Smith et al., 2016). Moreover, the findings
of this study outline the importance for athletes to engage in
motivational communication strategies and interact with their
coaches in ways that showcase their ability, passion, motiva­
tion, and commitment, as well as desire to work hard. Athletes
that engage in these aspects of motivational communication
can feel more personally fulfilled (Camiré et al., 2019) as well as
develop and maintain functional relationships with their coa­
ches (Davis et al., 2019b).
Although motivational strategies can facilitate athletes’
needs satisfaction, support strategies may undermine percep­
tions of competence and autonomy fulfilment. In acknowled­
ging the small indirect effects, these findings remain thought
provoking as the support strategy appeared to potentially
detract from both development of high quality coach-athlete
relationships and satisfying athletes’ needs of autonomy and
competence. This finding does not directly follow previous
research that has found the support dimension of COMPASS
to positively transfer the effects of coach-athlete relationship
quality onto athlete satisfaction (Davis et al., 2019b).
Nonetheless,support, operationalized as giving coach support
(e.g., “I give my coach support when things are not going well”;
an item on the CARM-Q) appears to act as a mechanism
between relationship quality and satisfaction of needs,
although in a negative direction. This suggests that within
a good quality relationship, giving support to coaches can
thwart athletes’ satisfaction of the needs of competence and
autonomy. The provision of support may communicate one’s
desire to be compassionate, caring, and helpful; support has
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2433
been found to be a central psychological and interpersonal
process (Rees et al., 2016). However, the provision of support
from an athlete may induce perceptions that the recipient
(coach) is inadequate or ineffective. It may also suggest that
an athlete’s role is not to provide their coach support, hence
when support is offered the athlete’s needs satisfaction is
impeded. A recent study found that coaches’ individualised
support of athletes (one of 6 transformational leadership beha­
viours) was negatively linked with the commitment dimension
of the 3Cs of relationship quality (Zhao & Jowett, 2022).
Although contradicting research noted individualised support
to be positively linked to high quality coach-athlete relation­
ships overall (López de Subijana et al., 2021). It warrants con­
sideration that the nature of support (e.g., type, frequency,
intensity) can affect athletes’ perceptions of themselves (cf
R. E. Smith et al., 1983) and their coaches both negatively and
positively. Consequently, the strategy of support within the
context of coach-athlete relationships requires further
examination.
The communication strategies of openness predicted ath­
lete competence, and assurance predicted athlete autonomy;
both strategies were mechanisms that potentially explained
the direct link between relationship quality and psychological
needs satisfaction. These findings suggest that when athletes
perceive open lines of communication (e.g., information is
exchanged freely and frequently), and/or they are assured
and comforted during challenging times, they can experience
a strong connection with their coach as well as free-will and
self-sufficiency. When athletes can communicate to their coa­
ches that they are reliable, responsible, and trustworthy both
their relationships and autonomy benefit.
Moderated mediated effects on the associations between
relationship quality and basic psychological needs
satisfaction
The second hypothesis focused on the moderated mediated
effects of athlete attachment styles, with the aim of better
understanding the mediating effects by determining under
what conditions or variables the mediation is significant
(Preacher et al., 2007). To this end, only the COMPASS strate­
gies that indicated significant indirect effects were included in
the model. For direct relationship quality (model 1) secure,
anxious, and avoidant attachment styles were included as
moderators of the indirect effects of motivation, support,
openness, and assurance strategies on the relationship
between direct relationship quality and athletes’ perceived
competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Our findings were
partially in line with our hypothesis and highlighted that
a secure attachment style to the coach moderates the indirect
effect of a support-focused strategy between direct relation­
ship quality and perceived competence and autonomy. The
negative indirect effect of a support-focused strategy for per­
ceived competence and autonomy was stronger for those
athletes with high levels of secure attachment than for those
with low secure attachment. The findings for meta relation­
ship quality (model 2) were corresponding.
In explanation of these findings, securely attached athletes
can feel that within good quality relationships giving support
2434 L. DAVIS ET AL.
to their coaches is not required. Alternatively, athletes high in
security may not view giving support to their coaches as facil­
itating their autonomy and/or competence (Felton & Jowett,
2013a, 2013b). It may also be that a secure attachment style
and quality relationships promotes support provision when it is
actually required (e.g., during adversity). Beyond sport, secure
individuals report more positive relationship experiences and
are satisfied with both giving and receiving support (Kafetsios &
Sideridis, 2006). For highly secure individuals, relationship qual­
ity and psychological needs satisfaction may be at their peak
when there is mutuality (give and take) in support; yet this
warrants investigation within the sport context.
It was also found that a secure attachment style moderates
the indirect effects of motivational-focused strategies between
relationship quality (direct and meta) and satisfaction of all
three psychological needs. Interaction effects suggest that the
indirect effects of a motivational-focused strategy were some­
what stronger on competence, autonomy, and relatedness for
athletes with high levels of secure attachment. This finding
signifies that within the context of good quality relationships,
secure athletes can readily communicate enthusiasm through
working hard, showing their talent, and striving to achieve their
goals; in turn their three psychological needs are satisfied. As
such, facilitating a secure attachment within the coach-athlete
relationship is paramount for healthy relational development
and continued satisfaction.
Findings in the present study did not observe anxious and
avoidant attachment to be significant moderators. This partially
supports previous research (Davis & Jowett, 2014; Davis et al.,
2013; Felton & Jowett, 2013b) that has found non-significant
findings for attachment anxiety on athlete outcomes including
relationship satisfaction and well-being. The absence of any
moderated mediation findings for the insecure attachment
styles of avoidance and anxiousness may be due to anxious
individuals being rarely satisfied with the quality of their rela­
tionships with others, and that avoidant individuals are happy
to remain emotionally and behaviourally disconnected
(Ainsworth et al., 1978; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2017). It is possible
that insecure athletes do not engage in communication strate­
gies either, because they have limited interest or capacity/
ability to do so.
Practical significance of the findings
The significance of this research lies largely on its practical
significance for effective coaching. Understanding the role of
communication strategies (COMPASS) is important as it pro­
vides tangible means for practitioners (e.g., coaches, coach
developers, sport psychologists, lifestyle advisors) aiming to
maximise the effectiveness of key interpersonal relationships
and help athletes fulfil their basic psychological needs; both of
which are essential for growth and development (Deci & Ryan,
2014). The applied implications of the research can promote
the development of positive coaching environments within
which athletes fulfil their basic psychological needs while
acknowledging the role of individual difference characteristics.
A key aspect of effective coaching is to improve athletes’ out­
comes: competence, confidence, connection, and character
(Côté & Gilbert, 2009); to promote optimal outcomes, coaches
must possess knowledge and understanding of each unique
athlete in the team or squad (Lorimer & Jowett, 2012).
Understanding athletes’ attachment styles can help coaches
adjust aspects of communication and interaction to facilitate
effective and ethical coaching.
The findings of this study highlight that motivational strate­
gies are an important vehicle to athletes with secure attach­
ments for developing and maintaining good quality
relationships and for satisfying their basic psychological
needs. Therefore, coaches should pick up the cues when ath­
letes display their motivation, passion and hard work by
acknowledging their efforts. It may also be that coaches try to
cultivate or even educate athletes with insecure attachment
styles about the positive effects of using motivational strategies
of communication for both the benefits in regard to the rela­
tionship with their coach and the satisfaction of their psycho­
logical needs. Training coaches to recognise individual
difference characteristics such as attachment styles can help
coaches overcome interpersonal difficulties that may arise from
athletes’ apparent lack of connection, unwillingness to invest in
the relationship, or overbearing need for coaches’ attention. An
awareness of the implications of diverse personalities may help
coaches support athletes to develop secure and positive rela­
tionships over time (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Jowett & Felton,
2014). This type of training is important to ensure coaches
provide effective and fair provision to all athletes in their care.
Strength, Limitations and Future Directions
Overall, the findings of this study make an original contribution
to the literature and extend previous research by demonstrat­
ing how engaging in different communication strategies
(COMPASS) can enhance coach-athlete relationship quality
and satisfaction of athletes’ psychological needs. Moreover,
examining individual differences contributes to understanding
of the mediating effect of COMPASS by determining under
which attachment styles the mediation maybe significant.
Taken together, the present study addresses all layers of the
integrated research model (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007)
illustrating the various factors that are necessary to consider
in achieving effective relationships. That said, whilst the study
has conceptual and empirical strengths, there are also limita­
tions that need to be acknowledged. First, with any self-report
data there is concern about social desirability and the truthful­
ness of responses. In this study, questionnaires were anon­
ymous and were completed without the coach present to
facilitate a safe environment for participants to supply honest
and truthful responses. Second, cross-sectional data can intro­
duce common method variance or bias and prevents causality
from being established between the variables. Prospective
longitudinal or experimental studies examining an interven­
tion-based programme informed by the 3Cs and COMPASS
could further establish predictive power relative to important
performance and wellbeing outcomes. Third, data were gath­
ered from only athletes; data from coaches would yield addi­
tional insights and offer a more holistic picture of associations
within coach-athlete dyads. This is an important consideration
as athletes and coaches do not interact and communicate in
isolation. Finally, the sample comprised both individual and

team sports which potentially creates issues with biased esti­
mates and generalizability of the findings. Future research
should consider further analytical techniques to determine
potential differences between individual and team sports.
Summary
In conclusion, the present study adds to the growing body of
research on interpersonal relationships in sport by highlighting
the ways by which a number of communication strategies from
the COMPASS model (i.e., motivational, support, openness and
assurance) transferred the effects of coach-athlete relationship
quality onto athletes’ competence, autonomy and relatedness.
Furthermore, the findings demonstrated that athletes’ indivi­
dual difference in attachment played a significant role in the
interplay between communication strategy, relationship qual­
ity and satisfaction of psychological needs. Subsequently, indi­
vidual differences (e.g., attachment styles) and social
characteristics (e.g., communication) are important factors
that provide a context from which to better understand the
relationship and its outcomes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was funded and supported by the Swedish Research Council
for Sports Science (centrumforidrottsforskning; CIF) and Umeå School of
Sport Sciences (Idrottshögskolan; IH).
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: Assessed in the strange situation and at home. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2016). Amos (Version 26.0) [Computer Program]. IBM SPSS.
Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational
Psychology Review, 21, 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-
9104-0
Camiré, M., Rathwell, S., Turgeon, S., & Kendellen, K. (2019). Coach-athlete
relationships, basic psychological need satisfaction and thwarting, and
the teaching of life skills in Canadian high school sport. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(5), 591–606. http://doi.org/10.
1177/1747954119869542
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An Integrative Definition of Coaching
Effectiveness and Expertise. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1260/174795409789623892
Davis, L., Appleby, R., Davis, P., Wetherell, M., & Gustafsson, H. (2018). The
role of coach-athlete relationship quality in team sport athletes’ psycho­
physiological exhaustion: Implications for physical and cognitive perfor­
mance. Journal of Sports Science, 36(17), 1985–1992. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2018.1429176
Davis, L., Brown, D., Arnold, R., & Gustafsson, H. (2021). Thriving through
relationships in sport: The role of the parent-child and coach-athlete
attachment relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2021.694599
Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2010). Investigating the interpersonal dynamics
between coaches and athletes based on fundamental principles of
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2435
attachment. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4(2), 112–132. https://
doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.4.2.112
Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2013). Attachment styles within the coach athlete
dyad: Preliminary investigation and assessment development. Journal of
Clinical Sport Psychology, 7(2), 120–145. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.7.2.
120
Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2014). Coach-athlete attachment and the quality of
the coach-athlete relationship: Implications for athlete’s well-being.
Journal of Sports Science, 32(15), 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2014.898183
Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Lafrenière, M. A. K. (2013). An attachment theory
perspective in the examination of relational processes associated with
coach-athlete dyads. Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology, 35(2), 156–167.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.2.156
Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Tafvelin, S. (2019a). Communication strategies: The
fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.
02156
Davis, L., Stenling, A., Gustafsson, H., Appleby, R., & Davis, P. (2019b).
Reducing the risk of athlete burnout: Psychosocial, sociocultural, and
individual considerations for coaches. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 14(4), 444–452. http://doi.org/10.1177/
1747954119861076
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and Need Satisfaction in Close
Relationships: Relationships Motivation Theory. In N. Weinstein (Ed.),
Human Motivation and Interpersonal Relationships (53–73). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8542-6_3
Duda, J., & Appleton, P. (2016). Empowering and Disempowering Coaching
Behaviors: Conceptualization, Measurement Considerations, and
Intervention Implications. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A.-M. Elbe,
& A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport and Exercise Psychology Research: From
Theory to Practice (1st) ed., pp. 373–388). Elsevier.
Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2013a). The mediating role of social environmental
factors in the associations between attachment styles and basic needs
satisfaction. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(6), 618–628. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2012.744078
Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2013b). Attachment and well-being: The mediating
effects of psychological needs satisfaction within the coach-athlete and
parent-athlete relational contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(1),
57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.006
Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2017). A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on
Attachment, Need Satisfaction, and Well-Being in a Sample of Athletes:
A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 11(4), 304–323.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2016-0013
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and Categorical data in
structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & M. R.O (Eds.), Structural
Equation Modeling: A Second Course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Gosai, J., Jowett, S., & Nascimento-Júnior, J. R. A. D. (2021). When leadership,
relationships and psychological safety promote flourishing in sport and
life. Sports Coaching Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.
2021.1936960
Hampson, R., & Jowett, S. (2014). Effects of coach leadership and
coach-athlete relationship on collective efficacy. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(2), 454–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1600-0838.2012.01527.x
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation
Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version Vol. 26.0.
Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Jackson, B., Dimmock, J. A., Gucciardi, D. F., & Grove, J. R. (2011). Personality
traits and relationship perceptions in coach-athlete dyads: Do opposites
2436 L. DAVIS ET AL.
really attract? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 222–230. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.11.005
Jowett, S. (2007). Expanding the interpersonal dimension of coaching:
Closeness in the coach-athlete relationship: A commentary.
International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 2(4), 513–517.
https://doi.org/10.1260/174795407783359632
Jowett, S. (2009). Validating coach-athlete relationship measures with the
nomological network. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 13(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670802609136
Jowett, S., & Felton, L. (2014). Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychol­
ogy (pp. 73–90). (M. Beauchamp & M. Eys, Eds.). Taylor & Francis Group.
Jowett, S., & Nezlek, J. (2012). Relationship interdependence and satisfac­
tion with important outcomes in coach–athlete dyads. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 29(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407511420980
Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach-athlete relationship question­
naire (CART – Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245–257. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x
Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete
relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social Psychology in Sport
(pp. 3–14). Human Kinetics.
Jowett, S., & Shanmugam, V. (2016). Relational Coaching in Sport: Its
psychological underpinnings and practical effectiveness. In R. Schinke,
K. R. McGannon, & B. Smith (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of
Sport Psychology (pp. 471–484). Routledge.
Kafetsios, K., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Attachment, Social Support and
Well-being in Young and Older Adults. Journal of Health Psychology, 11
(6), 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105306069084
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
(3rd) ed.). Guilford Press.
Li, J., Gao, H., Liu, P., & Zhong, C. (2020). Does distance produce beauty? The
influence of COVID-19 lockdown on the coach-athlete relationship in
a Chinese football school. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 560–638. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560638
López de Subijana, C., Martin, L. J., Ramos, J., & Côté, J. (2021). How coach
leadership is related to the coach-athlete relationship in elite sport.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(6), 1239–1246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211021523
Lorimer, R., & Jowett, S. (2012). Empathic understanding and accuracy in the
coach-athlete relationship. In J. Denison, W. Gilbert, & P. Potrac (Eds.),
Routledge Handbook of Sports Coaching (321–332). Routledge.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Suguwara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis
and determination of sample size for covariance structure modelling.
Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.1.2.130
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship:
A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883–904.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Application of confirmatory factor analysis and struc­
tural equation modelling in sport/exercise psychology. In
(G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund, Eds.). Handbook of sport psychology (3rd
ed., pp. 774–798) Wiley.
Mayseless, O. (2010). Attachment and the leader-follower relationship.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 271–280. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2F0265407509360904
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2017). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure,
dynamics and change (2nd) ed.). The Guildford press.
Ng, J. Y. Y., Lonsdale, C., & Hodge, K. (2011). The Basic Needs Satisfaction in
Sport Scale (BNSSS): Instrument development and initial validity
evidence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 257–264. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.006
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models:
Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological
Methods, 16(2), 93–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated
mediation hypothesis: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate
Behavioural Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273170701341316
Rees, T., Hardy, L., Güllich, A., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Woodman, T.,
Montgomery, H., Laing, S., & Warr, C. (2016). The Great British medalists
project: A review of current knowledge into the development of the
world’s best sporting talent. Sports Medicine, 46, 1041–1058. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2
Rhind, D. J. A., & Jowett, S. (2010). Relationship maintenance strategies in
the coach-athlete relationship: The COMPASS model. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 22(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10413200903474472
Rhind, D. J. A., & Jowett, S. (2011). Linking maintenance strategies to the
quality of coach-athlete relationships. International Journal Sport
Psychology, 42(1), 55–68.
Rhind, D. J. A., & Jowett, S. (2012). Development of the coach-athlete
relationship maintenance questionnaire (CARM-Q). International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.
1260/1747-9541.7.1.121
Riley, A., & Smith, A. L. (2011). Perceived coach-athlete and peer relation­
ships of young athletes and self-determined motivation for sport.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 42(1), 115–133.
Shanmugam, V., Jowett, S., & Meyer, C. (2014). Interpersonal difficulties as a risk
factor for athletes’ eating psychopathology. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine
& Science in Sports, 24(2), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12109
Smith, N., Quested, E., Appleton, P., & Duda, J. (2016). Observing the
coach-created motivational environment across training and competi­
tion in youth sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(2), 149–158. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1159714
Smith, R. E., Zane, N. W., Smoll, F. L., & Cappel, D. B. (1983). Behavioral
assessment in youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children’s attitudes.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15(3), 208–214. https://doi.
org/10.1249/00005768-198315030-00005
Steadman, L. 2021 Words cannot describe how special it was to have my
coach by my side yesterday. He believed in me, encouraged me. Tweet.
https://twitter.com/LaurenSteadman/status/1432264948848238592?s=
20&t=KaOo0DvHOXYKFxDRXUQZ8Q. Twitter.
Sullivan, P., Rhind, D., & Jowett, S. (2014). Communication. In
A. Papaioannou & D. Hackfort (Eds.), Routledge Companion to Sport and
Exercise Psychology: Global Perspectives and Fundamental Concepts (pp.
559–570). Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th) ed.).
Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Vallerand, R. J. 1997. Toward a Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology M. P. Zanna Ed.
Academic Press 271–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60019-2
Vella, S. A., Oades, L. G., & Crowe, T. P. (2013). The relationship between
coach leadership, the coach–athlete relationship, team success, and the
positive developmental experiences of adolescent soccer players.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(5), 549–561. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17408989.2012.726976
Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S., & Harwood, C. (2018). Managing conflict in
coach-athlete relationships. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 7(4), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000129
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing
Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8,
84–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/270754
Yang, S. X., Jowett, S., & Chan, D. K. (2015). Effects of big-five personality
traits on the quality of relationship and satisfaction in Chinese coach–
athlete dyads. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(4),
568–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12329
Zhao, C., & Jowett, S. (2022). Coach transformational leadership can fall flat
on its face without quality coach-athlete relationships. Manuscript under
review.