Confusing Nice with Emotional Regulation and Psychological Goals: Part 2

Supporting Discussions

Deci and Ryan point to the recognition that autonomy is indicative of the benefits associated with such desirable characteristics as creativity, intrinsic motivation, cognitive flexibility, persistence, and many others (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007). Conroy and Coatsworth (2007) were interested in developing empirical literature to identify distinct autonomy-supportive behaviors (2: interest in athletes input and praise for autonomous behavior) and whether athletes were capable of identifying these measures. Further, these authors make note of not only the suggestive benefits of autonomy-support on intrinsic motivation, but also make mention of Ryan and Deci’s assertion that executing an autonomy-supportive approach can increase the internalization of ones own regulatory behaviours. As we will see later, stress can have a negative impact on autonomy-supportive styles thus affecting ones ability to facilitate the very state of self-determined motivation coaches hope to instil in their athletes.

Mageau and Vallerand (2003) suggest several key considerations when enhancing intrinsic/ autonomous forms of motivation become the goal. It is important to preface these suggestions with the differences between a coach-centered and an athlete-centered approach. A coach-centered approach will often be marked by a sense of control, or be categorized as an autocratic style of coaching. An athlete-centered approach is one where, among other things, a culture of choice and mutual respect, one where athlete initiative is respected and praised, and where rationale, limits, and discussion are understood as engrained in the motivational process (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). I would be remiss in pointing out that athletes often cannot achieve high performance states without enduring often unenjoyably and monotonous tasks and this is where more autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation are required and thus necessitate an effective coach delivered program. Importantly though, even through these coach-designed and delivered programs, autonomy-support can be facilitated, with an outcome of enhanced athlete intrinsic motivations Thus, a coach-athlete relationship is a necessity for enhanced motivation and diligence to performance cues over the short and long term.

Mallett (2005) discusses his experience with the 2004 Australian Olympic Track and Field team and how his coaching style is derived from empirical support found in self-determination research. Mallet was tasked with guiding the 2004 Athens-bound Olympic relay teams to increased performance. One prime example of autonomy-supportive coaching was the shared decision-making for the order of athlete performance between the heats and finals in the 4 x 100 m relay. While Mallett himself made the decision as to which runners would present on the team, he left the order of performance up to the athletes in order to establish more intrinsic importance for the performance of the team. Further, by having the athletes suggest the order, the team developed a sense of relatedness (another key facet to self-determined motivation) and strengthened the positions for each runner to take ownership for the performance (competence, another key facet to self-determined motivation). As an important aside that coaches may be more astute to than others in sport, the recognition that athletes do not appreciate being told what to do (controlled) nor do individual coaches enjoy being kept out of the informational circle when major games are at stake, Mallet’s (2005) autonomy-supportive approach managed to respect athlete competencies and existing coach-athlete relationships to ensure no additional performance factors were introduced.

A fourth piece of literature to mention is the overarching core social motives (Fiske, 2012) and the relationship these motives play to the development of autonomy and differentiation from independence. Fiske (2012) brings to light five unifying themes that demonstrate significant crossover in the interests of this research question. The five themes are: belonging, understanding, controlling, self-enhancing, and trusting. When examining the difference between independence and autonomy, themes such as belonging, understanding, and controlling define segregating messages between these two concepts. A sense of belonging is an over-arching theme for the coach-athlete relationship and the greater relationship the athlete has with sport itself. As well, understanding implies a connection to the themes being referenced by Mageau and Vallerand (2003), particularly the points for “providing a rationale for tasks and limits” and “acknowledging the other person’s feelings and perspectives” (p. 888). In the event that we consider Cote and Gilbert’s (2009) assertions that coaching effectiveness should be predicated on the undercurrent of the 4C’s, particularly competence and confidence, then in the appreciation for the core social motive of understanding, the athlete perspective should be considered, taken, and the athlete feel appreciated in order to further structure autonomy. The third core social motive, controlling, is at the heart of autonomy. Mallett (2005) specified that he did not absolve himself of coaching responsibility and decision-making but cultivated a culture of understanding and belonging in order to progressively develop appropriate controls for the athletes to demonstrate competence. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) suggest an equal measure in their model of coaching effectiveness, particularly in the context of coach involvement, structure, and autonomy-supportive behaviours. Fiske (2012) makes the association for control “between what people do and what they get, or…a contingency between behaviour and outcomes” (p. 20). Coaches often remind athletes that they must take responsibility for training, technical and tactical development, and performance measures such as nutritional practices, and yet many coaches facilitate a culture that, in essence, is the antithesis of what they desire in their athletes. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) point out that people tend to increase controls toward less intrinsically motivated individuals. Coaching can be a stressful role and when faced with athletes who are demonstrating control (what coaches perceive is independence), they often work to reduce this state thus feeding a greater divide between coach-athlete relationship. One must ask, at that point in time, is this coach-centered or athlete-centered behaviour?

This brings me to the fifth and final piece of literature: Cote and Gilbert’s (2009) examination of coaching effectiveness. The above-mentioned 4C’s (Competence, confidence, connection, and character) have been mentioned as an undercurrent and necessary feature in athlete-oriented coaching. At the same time, the performance expectations must be considered as well in order for the coach to understand how acting in a participatory or performance manner will affect athlete motivations. The demands on a coach at the participation level of sport are to provide the fundamental skills and develop a lifelong love for activity through sport. The performance level demands change slightly but should not take away from the delivery of the 4C’s. Still, setting up regimented training plans, increased time demands on athlete practice, and increase importance for technical, tactical, and performance goal setting have the potential to reduce the autonomy a young athlete feels in sport. At the same time, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) point out, that incongruent with the definition of independence, autonomy still plays a role in many reduced control athletic circumstances. Athletes can make the decision to increase dependence upon those who coach them in these sporting endeavours. As such, this has the potential to shift a coach’s impression toward performance and outcome-focused states and reduce the importance of task-specific successes in practice and competition. Many coaches struggle to balance these essential features in sport thus necessitating the very coach education program suggested by Mageau and Vallerand and backed by Cote and Gilbert. This suggests that coaches need to maintain perspective when coaching athletes toward higher performance, and particularly developmental aged athletes, to ensure long-term athlete development is kept in mind, athlete-centered motivational cultures are cultivated with autonomy at the forefront to ensure a ever-developing sense of intrinsic motivation for the increasing demands of sport performance.

References

Coatsworth, D.J., & Conroy, D.E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching, need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 320-328. doi: 10.1037/a0014027

Cote, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sport Coaching, 4(3), 307-323. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.1260%2F174795409789623892

Fiske, S.T. (2012). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21(11), 883-904. doi: 10/1080/0264041031000140374 Mallett, C. (2005). Self-determination theory: A case study of evidence-based coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 417-429. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.1123/tsp.19.4.417

Martens, R. (2012). Successful coaching (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.