The influence of the Coach-Athleterelationship on coaching efficacy: Investigated the relationship betweencoaches’ perceptions of their relationship with athlete to coach efficacy.Method: participants were 632 head coachesof men’s and women’s teams at Division I, II, and III universities from the US innine different sports; soccer, basketball, lacrosse, ice hockey, volleyball swimming/diving,tennis, track and field/cross country. Participants completed an electronicsurvey after emails were collected from 129 Division I schools, 79 Division IISchools and 97 Division III Schools. Total number of emails to coaches was 2525Results:connection between coach-athlete relationship and coach efficacy was foundwhich explains a significant amount of variance in coach efficacy. Meaning thatcoach’s perception of their relationship with their athlete is related to theircoach efficacy. Showed a 32% variance between the coach-athlete relationshipand coach-efficacy.Findings:these results indicate that the coach-athlete relationship is very important innot only motivation efficacy. But also game strategy, technique, and characterbuilding efficacy.
This indicates that there is a strong importance to thecoach-athlete relationship and should be considered in modern day coachingmethods and that coach-athlete relationship is deeply embedded to coachefficacy. In particular, the canonical correlation showed that all subscales ofthe coach-athlete relationship being; direct closeness, commitment andcomplimentarity and meta-closseness, commitment and complimentarity were all positivelyrelated to coach-efficacy subscales; game strategy efficacy, motivationefficacy, technique efficacy, and character building efficacy. Conclusion:study shows coach-athlete relationship is highly related to coach efficacy assignificant relationship was found between all subscales of coach efficacy andcoach-athlete relationship. Historically self-efficacy has been a predominantpsychological factor in sport performance. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’sability on how well they can execute behaviours (e.g. sport performance) neededto achieve a certain outcome (e.g.
succeeding in the sport). The theory ofSelf-efficacy as proposed by Bandura 1974, suggests that people will generallyonly attempt an action when they believe it can be accomplished, and will notattempt a task if they believe they will fail. Bandura’s theory introducesthe idea that perception of efficacy is influenced by four factors; masteryexperience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and somatic and emotionalstateThere are two different measures of well-being which areknown as subjective well-being (SWB) and psychological well-being (PWB).
SWBcan be described as the experience of pleasure and satisfaction to one’s lifeand can be closely associated to happiness being the primary goal to anindividual’s well-being (Diener, 1984, 1994). On the contrary, PWB can bedescribed as the experience of personal growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance,positive relations, autonomy and mastery. Also, known as “Ryff’s six” domainsof PSW (Ryff & Singer, 1998).
For the purpose of this article, both SWB andPWS will be addressed to cover a broader understanding of well-being in sport.With emphasis on life-satisfaction / happiness(SWB), self-acceptance, personalgrowth and mastery experience (PWB).Ashley Marie Cocker,2011: to investigate the influence of coach on disorder eating disorders withrelations to coach-athlete relationship. 248 female participant female athletes anddancers from four universities were asked to complete a questionnaire tomeasure weight pressure from their coach, the coach-athlete relationship, anddisordered eating behaviours. Results: 13.30% of theparticipants’ results came back for disordered eating behaviours, and 2%reported having been diagnosed in the past.
(limitation: 25% of the athleteswho reported having an inmate with an eating disorder indicated that many hadunderreported in the study.) 13% of these eating behaviours were explained fromperceived weight-related coach pressure and coach-athlete relationship. Findings: from mediationalanalysis, the results can suggest that the coach-athlete relationship showed tobe mediating variable of disordered eating behaviours to some extent. Conclusion: the study demonstratesthat contribution of coaches lead to 13% disordered eating behaviours andsuggests the strength of this dynamic partnership and be crucial the short andlong term health of the collegiate participants but also to their overallpsychological well-being particularly in the subset of their self-acceptanceand subjective well-being for satisfaction in their own life.Child abuse study Gervis, M and Dunn, N 2004:investigated emotional abuse of elite youth athletes by their coaches in theUK. Participants were 12 former elite youth athletes from various sports, whocompeted at an international level for their respective age groups (M=4, F=8).Football (N=3), gymnastics (N=4), diving (N=2), hockey, netball and track andfield athletics (N=1 each). Participants were identified as elite athletesbetween the ages of 8-16yrs (M=13.
1yr, SD=2.4yr) and had competitive careersranging between 6-10yrs. Method: aninterview process using a retrospective analysis was used on the participantsas the mean age at the time of the interview was 22.9yr, SD = 0.9yr.
participantswere asked to reflect on experiences from about 10years ago in asemi-structured interview process. Data was collected with response-codingtechniques. Abusive behaviours were categorised into eight headings;belittling, humiliating, shouting, scapegoating, rejecting, isolating,threatening and ignoringResults:the results showed that all participants (N=12) reported to have experiencedbelittling and shouting by their coach. Nine athletes reported frequenthumiliation, nine reported frequent threatening behaviour, seven reportedscapegoating, six reported rejection or being ignored and four reported beingisolated all during the period when they were elite youth athletes.
It was alsoreported that the behaviour of their coaches changed when they were identifiedas elite athletes to become more negative. As result, participants reported tohave felt feeling stupid, worthless, less confident, depressed, upset, angry,fearful and humiliated. Conclusion:The results of Gervis, M and Dunn, N 2004showed that the behaviour of some coaches is a threat to the PWB of elite youthathletes and provides evidence about how influential a coach’s behaviour can beon their athlete. Both Gervis, M and Dunn, N 2004 and ……. Demonstrate the extent to which adolescent athleteslisten and absorb the words and behaviours of their coaches.
The words of coachesare indirectly using verbal persuasion from the self-efficacy principles. As seenin Gervis, M and Dunn, N, the study emphasised that the coaches behaviours wasa factor for triggering feelings of humiliation, stupidity, and depression inelite youth athletes. The development of these abuses can be explained by vicariousexperiences. Adolescence is a vulnerable and maturing state during their lifetime and role models such as coach must be wary of the behaviour that they aregiving across to their athletes.
Providing a negative mastery environment forthem to thrive in can have detrimental effects for the SWB and PWS of adolescents.These studies not only reinforce the idea of coaches as indicators for poorwell-being, but it also suggests the depth of a coach-athlete relationship. Not only is this suggesting thePWB of the adolescent athletes being hindered, but rather reinforces the termof ‘coach-athlete relations’ as strong indicators to a childs well-being. dueto coaches having so much influence on the adolescent’s feeling and thuswell-being, as shown in studies discussed previously, . , build either apositive or negative mastery environmentSelf-efficacy has been found to positively correlate togoals and performance (Justin M. Weinhardt 2013).
The antecedents ofself-efficacy; performance accomplishments, (verbal) persuasion, vicariousexperience, and physiological state seem to be vital components within goalsetting where goals mediated the relationship between performance andself-efficacy. Goal-setting and performance of young adolescents correlated towell-being. In a study bySteca P etal. (…), they aimed to analyse whether progress and value ofshort-term goals would affect the level and changes of subjective well-being.409 participants were gathered aged between 19-21, (186 males, 223 females) andasked to report their subjective well-being and two most important goals. Thestudy was a three-wave longitudinal study with one month intervals. Within eachinterval the participants rated their progress and value of their goals, andthen their subjective well-being.
Using alatent difference score model, their results revealed that participant withincrease in goal progress showed increase for subjective well-being. whilst,goal value increases should a negative affect on subjective well-being. thesefindings suggest that goal progress appears to play a key role withinsubjective well-being, thus modern day coaching methods should considerimplementing goal-setting programmes that aim to foster positive goal pursuits.It can be suggested that there is an indirect correlationbetween self-efficacy antecedents and well-being Aim: to investigate the influence of generalself-efficacy perceived by adolesscents with chronic conditions and paretns onthe quality of life in a cross-sectional studyMethod: 293 participants gathered. 92/293(31%)were adolecents, 121/293 (41%) were parents.
Participants completed an onlinequestionnaire. Adolescents with type 1 diabetes (N=229), juvenile rheumatoid arthritis(N=132), cystic fibrosis(N=24), kidney conditions (15), and neuromuscular disorders(N=38) and parents were surveyed using the Dutch version of the 10-item generalself-efficacy scale and DISABKIDS condition-generic module(Peterson et al.2005) to measure quality of life. the DISABKIDS questionnaire also asked participantsto provide information on background information including; age, gender,educational level, type of chronic conditions and level of functioning.
Self-perceivedand parents’ perceived general self-efficacy of adolescents was compared usingpaired t-tests. Quality of life and general self-efficacy was of adolescentswas compared using analysis of variance. Results: showed that generalself-efficacy was highest among adolescents with cystic fibrosis however wasnot significantly more than the mean result and lowest among urologicalconditons. Social quality of life was lowest among those with neuromusculardisorders (significantly lower than overall mean for social quality of lifescore which was p?0.001).
Analyse also showed that adolescents perceivedgeneral self-efficacy was significantly related to emotional, physical andsocial quality of life (all a p ? 0.001). Parents’perception of adolescents general self-efficacy was higher than adolescents at(p?0.05). general-self efficacy perceived by both parentsand adolescents was related to physical, emotional and social quality of life. Findings: Physical and emotional qualityof life did not differ across these chronic conditions suggesting that self-efficacyof all adolescent participants in the study experienced similar emotional andphysical quality of life with all participants reporting low quality of life inthese areas. Also found that those experiencing lowsocial quality of life(not emotional or physical) resulted in the lowestself-efficacy which suggest that social quality of life has the largest impactfor self-efficacy!AC1 This highlights the importancefor social interactions between parent, peers and particularly coachesrelations with adolescents. Conclusion: adolescents with chronic conditionsperceived their self-efficacy as low due to lack of support resulting in loweremotional, social, physical outcomes in quality of life – ‘quality of life’ ispart of PWB.
Therefore, greater general self-efficacy as perceived byadolescent with chronic conditions is significantly related to their physical,social and emotional quality of life. Limitations: whilst is showed generalself-efficacy of adolescents with chronic conditions had an important effect onquality of life outcomes, the study did not investigate whether interventionsaiming to enhance general self-efficacy actually improved quality of life. Alsodoesn’t suggest why there is such a big difference between emotional and socialquality of life. Sigal Eden et al.
2014: bullyversus victim on the internet; the correlation with emotional-socialcharacteristics. Aim: toinvestigate the correlation between the bully and victim in cyberbullying, andthe emotional-social aspects/social support, sense of loneliness, and sense ofself-efficacy that develop risk and protective factors among children and youthin Israel. Method:1094 elementary school participants. Participants were to complete fourquestionnaires addressing cyber-bullying and the social and emotional aspects;social support, loneliness, self-efficacy and personal well-being. Findings:the less social support the students had, the lower the sense of self-efficacy,the lonelier they felt, and the more the experiences a lower sense ofwell-being. therefore, greater likelihood to participate in cyberbullying. Highcorrelation found between frequency of harassment to social support andself-efficacy.
Conclusion:those who suffer from cyberbullying sense less social support, self-efficacyand lower well-being. shows lower self-efficacy also resulted in lowerwell-being. doesn’t suggest that one causes the other but it is notable thatwhen self-efficacy is low, coincidently well-being is also lower. This suggeststhe social support may be required in coaching to increase self-efficacy andmotivation to support well-being of adolescents.
Limitations:sampling is limited as only examined adolescents in school, doesn’t include adolescentthat dropped out of school. Participants were only Israel, cannot attributefindings to all youth. Analysis: study demonstrates bullying as a factor forlowering sense of well-being. Coaches can also be a form of bullying as brieflymentioned in Gervis, M and Dunn, N 2004 whereits results also state that elite youth athletes suffered from abuse from theircoaches.
GeneralisedSlef-efficacy and well-being in Adolescents with high vs low ScholasticSelf-efficacyAim: to investigate the relationship betweengerenralised self-efficacy and psychological well-being in highly vs lowlyefficient Italian adolescentsMethod: sample was 136 adolescents, 64boy and 72 girls aged between 14-18years from three public Secondary School inCatania, Italy. Participants were divided into two subgroups in relation to theperceived self-efficacy in scholastic performance (76 highly efficientadolescents vs. 60 lowly efficient adolescents). The generalised self-efficacyscale (Sibilia, Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1995) and Psychological well-beingscale (Ryff & Keyes, 1995) was used. Results: results partially confirmed a positiverelationship between GSES and PWB (r(136)=38, p<0.001).
particularlyfor environmental mastery(r(136)=42, p<0.001), personal growth (r(136)=29,p<0.001) and self-acceptance(r(136)=27, p<0.001).
Conclusion: These findings showed that themore the adolescents perceived themselves as highly efficient in coping withdaily hassles, the more they experienced sense of mastery and competence inmanaging their environment, realise their own potential, and able to accept differentaspects of self-image. Vandana Gupta 2012: Self-conceptand well-being: an empirical analysisAim: to investigate assocaition inself-efficacy and well-being; including mental and physical health. Method: sample of 104 scholar students(52 male and 52 females) from Banaras Hindu University between 25-30 completeda questionnaire using psychometric standardised measures of GeneralSelf-efficacy, sense of control, general health and somatic health. Results: all results were one tailedtests. Sself-efficacy was found to be positively associated with mental (r=-.
189,p<.05) and physical health (r=-.281, p<.01) with a positive relationshipbetween mental and physical health (r=310, p(one tail) <.001). Found thatself-efficacy accounted for 3.
6% variance in mental health scores and 7.9% forphysical health scores. Showing that self-efficacy is an important predictorfor mental and physical health, and furthermore, self-efficacy is an important determinantfor well-being Conclusion: AC2 Vandana Gupta 2012, emphasisesthe idea that teachers “should endeavour to enhance self-efficacy beliefs amongtheir students”. Limitations: Larger sample size needed to generalisefindings. AC1Thisgood, shows that ‘social quality of life’ is the biggest indicator forself-efficacy. Therefore, self-efficacy principles such as verbal persuasion willhas a large impact for PWB particularly the subset of ‘quality of life’ AC2Canuse these findings for you intro stuff where you state that how self-efficacyand well-being link together.
Other studies i.e Tong, & Song, 2004 also found that people withstrong sense of general self-efficacy reported higher levels of subjectivewell-being.