Scand J Med Sci Sports 2012: ••: ••–••
doi: 10.1111/sms.12029
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
“What do coaches do” and “how do they relate”: Their effects on
athletes’ psychological needs and functioning
L. Felton, S. Jowett
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK
Corresponding author: Sophia Jowett, PhD, School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire
LE11 3TU, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1509 226331, Fax: +44 (0)1509 226301, E-mail: S.Jowett@lboro.ac.uk
Accepted for publication 27 October 2012
Grounded in self-determination theory, this study aimed
to examine the links of the social environment, as
defined by coach interpersonal behaviors and coach–
athlete relationships, with athletes’ psychological need
satisfaction and indexes of well-being. Athletes (N = 300)
completed a multi-section questionnaire assessing
the study variables. Bootstrap mediation analysis
highlighted significant indirect effects whereby the
competence need mediated associations between the
social environment of coaching and athletes’ vitality,
negative affect, and physical self-concept (defined as
skillfulness and performance). Findings support theoretical assumptions and highlight that athletes’ perceptions of what coaches do, and how they relate, are
important to their psychological needs satisfaction and
optimal functioning.
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &
Deci, 2002), and more specifically the subtheory of basic
psychological needs theory (BPNT; Deci & Ryan, 2000),
has been employed by researchers to examine and
explain the effects of the social environment on peoples’
well-being. In the sporting environment, coaches are
instrumental in creating a social environment that has the
capacity to influence the physical growth and development as well as the psychological and subjective wellbeing of their athletes (e.g., Jowett & Cockerill, 2003;
Blanchard et al., 2009; Bartholomew et al., 2011b).
Moreover, a number of empirical studies have highlighted that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs
can be important nutriments for growth, development,
and well-being in the context of sport (e.g., Gagné et al.,
2003; Reinboth et al., 2004; Adie et al., 2008).
Within this line of inquiry and guided by the broader
self-determination theory, the social environment within
sport has been predominantly defined as athletes’ perceptions of coach behaviors of autonomy support and
control (e.g., Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Blanchard
et al., 2009; Bartholomew et al., 2011b). The social environment has also been defined, although less frequently,
as athletes’ perceptions of coach leadership (e.g., Reinboth et al., 2004) and coach-created motivational climate
(e.g., Sarazzin et al., 2002). More recently, Riley and
Smith (2011) were among the first (also see, Felton &
Jowett, 2013) to acknowledge that the role of such social
relationships as coach–athlete and peer relationships
should also be examined and better understood within
the framework of self-determination theory. Thus, our
study aimed to unravel the effects of social environments
defined, operationalized, and measured differently on
satisfying basic psychological needs.
Moreover, the satisfaction of basic psychological
needs has been predominantly assessed within the physical context in terms of whether athletes feel that the basic
needs are satisfied within their designated sport (e.g., “In
my sport, I feel competent”). In this study, we proposed
to capture the satisfaction of basic needs within the
context of a key dyadic relationship formed within sport,
namely, the coach–athlete relationship (e.g., “When I am
with my coach, I feel incompetent”). Overall, the present
study aimed to extend our knowledge by examining (a)
the effects of the social environment, as defined by the
type of coach behaviors on one hand and the quality of
coach–athlete relationships on the other hand, on athletes’ perceptions of basic need satisfaction as assessed
while relating to their coach, and (b) the effects of basic
need satisfaction within the coach–athlete relational
context on experiences of both well-being (vitality and
self-descriptions of skillfulness and competence) and illbeing (negative affect).
Basic psychological needs and well-being
BPNT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) stipulates that three basic
needs must be satisfied to ensure “ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well-being” (Deci & Ryan,
2000, p. 229). The three needs include the need for
1
Felton & Jowett
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy
refers to a need to feel volitional in one’s actions and to
be the originator of those actions (deCharms, 1968).
Competence refers to a need for effective interaction
with the environment in order to produce desired outcomes and thus feel competent in avoiding undesired
outcomes (White, 1959). Finally, relatedness refers to
feeling connected to and being understood by others or
fulfilling a sense of belongingness with other people
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Literature from both the broader social psychology,
and sport psychology more specifically, have consistently reported evidence that support the association
between the basic psychological needs and well-being.
Social psychology literature has revealed that satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs within a
variety of relationship types, including romantic, parental, and friendship relations, resulted in greater experiences of well-being as measured by such indexes as
vitality, self-esteem, positive and negative affect,
anxiety, life satisfaction, and depression (e.g., La
Guardia et al., 2000; Patrick et al., 2007). Sport psychology literature has also demonstrated that athletes experience greater well-being when they perceived their basic
psychological needs within their designated sport to be
satisfied (e.g., Gagné et al., 2003; Reinboth et al., 2004;
Adie et al., 2008).
Moreover, recent research has begun to examine the
associations between psychological need satisfaction
and experiences of both well-being and ill-being (Bartholomew et al., 2011a, b). It has been proposed that
psychological well-being and ill-being are distinct
factors based on the biological responses they each
uniquely present in individuals (Ryff et al., 2006), and
thus research that examines the causes of each is warranted. Bartholomew et al., 2011a, b) reported a diverse
range of findings that have demonstrated the positive
associations between need satisfaction within the sport
setting and well-being. They also reported negative associations to ill-being factors, for example negative affect,
burnout, depression, and disordered eating, although the
associations to depression and disordered eating were
nonsignificant. Overall, previous research within sport
psychology, as highlighted earlier, has demonstrated that
satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, within the
sport setting, is associated with enhanced experiences of
well-being while also being associated with reduced
experiences of ill-being.
Relevant literatures have examined the effects of basic
psychological needs satisfaction in rather distinct ways.
On one hand, social psychology literature (e.g., La
Guardia et al., 2000; Patrick et al., 2007) has mainly
examined individuals’ needs satisfaction within a specific relationship in terms of whether psychological
needs are satisfied within a parental or friendship relationship. On the other hand, sport psychology literature
(e.g., Gagné et al., 2003; Reinboth et al., 2004; Adie
2
et al., 2008; Blanchard et al., 2009; Bartholomew et al.,
2011a, b) has examined athletes’ satisfaction of basic
psychological needs within the sporting context in terms
of whether the psychological needs are satisfied within
athletes’ designated sport. While the satisfaction of basic
needs within both relational (e.g., social relationship)
and social (e.g., physical environment) settings is evidently important for individuals’ well-being, it would be
important to identify the potential distinct contributions
that these sets of environmental factors make to the satisfaction of basic needs. Therefore, in this study, it was
speculated that, given coaches instrumental place within
sport, the quality of the relationship they develop with
their athletes forms a platform for experiencing basic
need satisfaction to a greater or lesser extent.
The social environment and basic needs satisfaction
The social environment is capable of influencing individuals’ experience of the satisfaction of the three basic
psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Interpersonal
behaviors of autonomy support is considered a key factor
within the social environment and subsequently it has
received attention within the broader social psychology
literature (e.g., Black & Deci, 2000; Baard et al., 2004),
and within sport psychology literature specifically (e.g.,
Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Reinboth et al., 2004; Bartholomew et al., 2011b). Autonomy-supportive behaviors have the capacity to create a social situation that
allows individuals to work toward goals that reflect their
personal aims, while also allowing individuals to experience a feeling of psychological needs satisfaction
(Black & Deci, 2000; Baard et al., 2004). Overall,
reported findings confirm theoretical assumptions by
highlighting that autonomy-supportive behaviors manifested by significant others, such as coaches, can indeed
promote athletes’ perception of psychological need
satisfaction.
While research has supplied a steady stream of evidence that coaches who manifest autonomy-supportive
behavior can foster need satisfaction in their athletes,
relatively less research has consider the links of coaches’
controlling interpersonal behaviors and psychological
needs satisfaction within the sport environment. Blanchard et al. (2009) reported that athletes’ experiences
reduced autonomy satisfaction within their sport when
the coach adopted a controlling behavioral style.
However, Bartholomew et al. (2011b) reported a negative, albeit nonsignificant, association between the
coaches controlling behavior and the athletes’ perception of needs satisfaction within the sport. These associations have rarely been explored within the sport
psychology literature and warrant further examination in
order to improve knowledge of the associations
involved.
Whereas previous research has expressed the importance of coach behaviors, both supportive and control-
Coach effects on athlete needs & functioning
ling in various degrees, on athlete need satisfaction and
ultimately well-being, the importance of coach–athlete
relationship quality on need satisfaction has hardly ever
been explored. Nonetheless, this key sporting relationship has been found to be an important factor in athletes’
achievement motivation (e.g., Olympiou et al., 2008;
Adie & Jowett, 2010), facets of satisfaction (e.g., Jowett
& Ntoumanis, 2004; Lorimer, 2009), and physical selfconcept (e.g., Jowett, 2008; Jowett & Cramer, 2010).
Riley and Smith (2011) were among the first (see also
Felton & Jowett, 2013) to examine the effects of relationships as a social environmental factor capable of
influencing athletes’ perceptions of basic psychological
need satisfaction. It was reported that the quality of the
coach–athlete relationship (defined by closeness, commitment, and complementarity; Jowett, 2009) was positively associated with basic need satisfaction and that
need satisfaction was in turn positively associated with
motivation (Riley & Smith, 2011). In a similar vein,
Felton and Jowett (2013) reported that athletes’ insecure
attachment styles of anxiousness and avoidance were
negatively linked to athletes’ satisfaction of basic needs
within the coach–athlete relational context. Overall,
these initial findings suggest that if athletes are able to
positively relate, communicate, and interact with their
coaches, then they are more likely to feel that their basic
psychological needs are satisfied. Guided by theory and
based on these findings, we speculated that the relational
(e.g., quality of relationships) and sport (e.g., coach
behaviors, leadership) contexts are likely to focus on
different aspects of the social environment, and thus are
likely to correspondingly satisfy the three basic psychological needs.
Based on previous research (e.g., Blanchard et al.,
2009; Riley & Smith, 2011; Bartholomew et al., 2011b),
it was hypothesized that the social environment would be
associated with psychological needs satisfaction within
the relationship athletes and coaches develop, and in turn
needs satisfaction would be associated with indexes of
both well-being and ill-being in a conceptually meaningful way. It was also hypothesized that the basic psychological needs would mediate the associations between
the social environment and well-being/ill-being. This
hypothesis was forwarded based on previous research
within sport psychology (e.g., Reinboth et al., 2004;
Blanchard et al., 2009). The present study can potentially make significant theoretical contributions as it
examines important theoretical assumptions not fully
explored before. Moreover, the significance of this study
lies in its practical implications for coaching practice.
For example, the impact of different social environmental factors such as coaching relationships and behaviors
on athletes’ experiences of the three basic psychological
needs would clarify their relative importance for the
satisfaction of each basic psychological need and in turn
each needs importance in improving well-being and
worsening ill-being.
Method
Participants
A total of 300 athletes, of which 109 were males (36%) and 191
were females (64%), participated in this study. The age of the
sample ranged from 15 to 30 years [M = 20.4 years, standard
deviation (SD) = 2.44]; participating athletes represented a range
of individual (41%) and team (59%) sports. The athletes in the
sample were predominately White British (88%) and competed at
various levels of performance from club (32%) and university
(20%), to regional (21%), national (17%), and international (10%).
Procedure
Following ethical approval from the university’s ethical committee, national governing bodies (NGB), university, local, county,
and regional teams from across the UK were contacted regarding
participation in the study. All NGB and sports teams that reported
an interest in participating were sent the information sheet for the
study along with any other requested information. The questionnaire was available either as a hard copy to be completed between
training sessions, or electronically where the questionnaire could
be completed online. Athletes were instructed to read the study
information sheet before giving their informed consent. Athletes
under the age of 18 were instructed to gain parental assent before
being cleared to take part in the study.
Measures
Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q; Jowett &
Ntoumanis, 2004)
The CART-Q is an 11-item measure that assesses perceptions of
the coach–athlete relationship quality. In this study, the CART-Q
was employed to measure athletes’ direct perceptions of closeness
(e.g., “I respect my coach”), commitment (e.g., “I am committed
to my coach”), and complementarity (e.g., “When with my coach
I am ready to do my best”). The items are rated on a 7-point
response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), with a mean of the 11-items being calculated to indicate
the overall quality of the coach–athlete relationship. Higher scores
indicated greater relationship quality in terms of closeness, commitment, and complementarity (3Cs). In line with previous
research (e.g., Jowett, 2008), the 3Cs were merged into a single
variable. The Cronbach’s alpha score for the CART-Q scale was
0.85 with the sample of this study.
Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ; Reinboth et al., 2004)
The SCQ was originally developed from the Health Care Climate
Questionnaire (Williams et al., 1996); it is a 6-item scale that
assesses the degree to which a coach is autonomy supportive.
Example items include; “I feel my coach provides me choices and
options” and “I feel understood by my coach”. Athletes report the
degree to which they agree with each statement on a 7-point
response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The Cronbach’s alpha score for the SCQ was 0.92.
Coaches’ Controlling Behavior Scale (CCBS;
Bartholomew et al., 2010)
The CCBS is a 15 item scale that assesses athletes’ perceptions of
their coaches controlling behavior. Example items include: “My
coach tries to control what I do during my free time” and “My
coach shouts at me in front of others to make me do certain
things.” Athletes rate how much they agree with each of the 15
3
Felton & Jowett
items of a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha score for the
CCBS was 0.89.
hostile, nervous, and upset). These items were rated on a 5-point
response scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5
(extremely). A high score indicates feelings of experiencing high
negative affect. The Cronbach’s alpha score for NA was 0.74.
Need Satisfaction Scale (NSS; La Guardia et al., 2000)
The NSS was developed by La Guardia et al. (2000) as a tool to
measure the satisfaction of the three basic needs within diverse
relational contexts. The NSS contains nine items; three for each
basic need (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and are rated
on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7
(very true). Perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
within the coach–athlete relationship were assessed by averaging
the scores for each subscale with item 4, “When I am with my
coach, I often feel inadequate or incompetent”, item 6, “When I
am with my coach, I often feel a lot of distance in the relationship”, and item 9, “When I am with my coach, I feel controlled and
pressured to be certain ways” being reverse scored. The Cronbach’s alpha score for each subscale were 0.66, 0.81, and 0.73 for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. Because of
the moderate alpha value for the autonomy subscale, results concerning autonomy need satisfaction should be considered with a
degree of caution.
Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS; Ryan & Frederick, 1997)
The SVS is a 7-item measure that assesses perceptions of mental
and physical aliveness and energy in general terms. Items were
rated on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to
7 (very true). Sample items include: “I feel alive and vital”, and “I
look forward to each new day”. The only one negatively worded
item “I do not feel very energetic” of the scale was not utilized in
this study based on a recommendation made by Bostic et al.
(2000). The overall vitality of the athlete was calculated by averaging all items; higher scores indicated greater vitality. The Cronbach’s alpha score for the 6-item SVS was 0.86.
Elite Athlete Self-Description Questionnaire (EASDQ; Marsh
et al., 1997)
The 35-item EASDQ assesses athletes’ perceptions of physical
self-concept across five dimensions: skill ability, body shape,
physiological state, mental competence, and overall performance.
For the purpose of this study, the sub-scales of skill ability (5
items) and overall performance (6 items) were utilized. Physical
self-concept was utilized in this study on the basis that athletes’
perceptions of being skilful and performing affectively can be
reflective of personal growth, mastery, and self-acceptance all of
which are considered indicators of well-being (cf. Ryan et al.,
2008). Sample items from the two sub-scales include: “I am the
most skilled athlete in my best sport/event” (skilfulness) and “I
excel at my best sport/event because I am able to give a peak
performance when necessary” (performance). Items were measured on a 6-point response scale ranging from 1 (false) to 6
(True). The Cronbach’s alpha scores were 0.93 for skilfulness and
0.90 for performance.
The International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule –
Short Form (I-PANAS-SF; Thompson, 2007)
The I-PANAS-SF contains 10 items that originate from the Watson
et al. (1988) 20-item PANAS. These scales assess the level of
positive and negative affect experienced by the individuals. Only
five negative affect items from the I-PANA-SF were used in this
study to assess athletes’ level of ill-being (i.e., afraid, ashamed,
4
Data analysis
Basic descriptive statistics including means Ms, SDs, and bivariate
correlations (rs) were calculated for the study variables. In order to
examine the effects of each individual psychological need mediation analyses were performed according to the bootstrap procedure
in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL) outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2008) and Hayes and
Preacher (unpubl. data).1 Detailed explanation of the bootstrap
procedure is beyond the scope of this article (see Preacher & Hayes,
2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002 for a comprehensive review).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and
bivariate correlations for the variables in the study.
Table 1 indicates that the sample of athletes’ reported the
quality of the coach–athlete relationship, the autonomy
climate created by the coach (SCQ-C), as well as the
autonomy and competence needs, vitality, and performance self-concept (Perf SC) to be above the midpoint
of the respective response scales. The mean value for the
athletes’ perceptions of their skill self-concept (Skill SC)
was only marginally above the mid-points of their corresponding response scales. Overall, these values
suggest that this sample of athletes perceived high levels
of these variables. While the means for perceptions of
coaches’ controlling behaviors (CCBS) and negative
affect (NA) were both below the midpoint, suggesting
that athletes perceived low levels of both these factors.
The athletes’ mean perception of relatedness need was
around the midpoint of the scale, indicated average
levels of perceived relatedness. Moderate to strong associations between the social environmental factors
(CART-Q, SCQ-C, and CCBS), and each of the basic
psychological needs were recorded. The associations
between autonomy need and the well-being (vitality and
physical self-concept) and ill-being (NA) variables were
significant although relatively small. Similar associations were found between relatedness need and the wellbeing variables, although the association to ill-being was
1
In response to reviewers’ comments, we also conducted structural equation modeling (SEM), using EQS 6.1 for Windows (Multivariate Software, Inc., Encino, California, USA) and in accordance with Taylor and
colleagues (Taylor, Ntoumanis, and Standage, 2008) analysis, to support
the findings of the bootstrap analysis. The SEM analysis partially supported the bootstrap findings. Specifically, the only model to achieve
satisfactory fit was the model containing competence as a mediator
(non-normed fit index = 0.92, Robust comparative fit index = 0.92, root
mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Within this model, significant indirect effects via competence were observed for the associations
between the coach–athlete relationship and autonomy-supportive behavior, and all of the outcome variables. In contrast to the bootstrap analysis,
SEM did not show indirect effects of competence for associations involving controlling behaviors, due to controlling behavior being nonsignificantly associated to competence.
Coach effects on athlete needs & functioning
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables
Variables
Mean
SD
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. CART-Q
2. SCQ-C
3. CCBS
4. Autonomy
5. Competence
6. Relatedness
7. Vitality
8. NA
9. Skill SC
10. Perf SC
5.57
5.14
2.53
5.16
5.19
3.93
5.12
2.18
3.72
4.11
0.96
1.22
1.01
1.18
1.15
1.24
1.12
0.72
1.13
0.97
0.69**
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
-0.37**
-0.38**
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.52**
0.65**
-0.51**
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.61**
0.64**
-0.37**
0.65**
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.60**
0.57**
-0.27**
0.52**
0.59**
–
–
–
–
–
0.19**
0.25**
-0.07
0.14*
0.27**
0.14*
–
–
–
–
-0.09
-0.18**
0.13*
-0.20**
-0.30**
-0.09
-0.34**
–
–
–
0.18**
0.20**
0.05
0.13*
0.35**
0.22**
0.18**
-0.20**
–
–
0.16**
0.22**
0.01
0.14*
0.34**
0.20**
0.31**
-0.34**
0.53**
–
**P > 0.01, *P > 0.05.
CART-Q, coach–athlete relationship quality; SCQ-C, autonomy climate-coach; CCBS, controlling coach behaviors; NA, negative affect; Skill SC, skill
self-concept; Perf SC, performance self-concept; SD, standard deviation.
Table 2. Bootstrap analysis summary showing the indirect effect of autonomy need satisfaction on coach environment and psychological well-being
indexes
Independent
variables
Mediator
variable
Dependent
variables
a path
coefficienta
b path
coefficienta
c’ path
coefficienta
Mean
indirect
effecta
SE of
meana
BC 95% CI mean
indirect effecta
(lower and upper)
3Cs
3Cs
3Cs
3Cs
SCQ
SCQ
SCQ
SCQ
CCBS
CCBS
CCBS
CCBS
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.46*
0.46*
0.46*
0.46*
-0.34*
-0.34*
-0.34*
-0.34*
-0.10
-0.00
-0.09
-0.10
-0.10
-0.00
-0.09
-0.10
-0.10
-0.00
-0.09
-0.10
-0.01
0.12
-0.01
-0.09
0.19*
-0.05
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.21*
0.12*
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
-0.00
-0.04
-0.05
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
-0.0454, 0.0137
-0.0113, 0.0143
-0.0400, 0.0133
-0.0392, 0.0081
-0.1360, 0.0395
-0.0458, 0.0421
-0.1314, 0.0388
-0.1173, 0.0171
-0.0300, 0.1011
-0.0314, 0.0337
-0.0321, 0.0906
-0.0118, 0.0877
a
These values are based on unstandardized path coefficients.
*P < 0.05 level
NA, negative affect; Skill SC, skill self-concept; Perf SC, performance self-concept; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; SCQ-C, autonomy climate;
CCBS, controlling coach behaviors; BC, bias corrected.
nonsignificant. In contrast, moderate associations were
observed between the competence need and all wellbeing and ill-being factors.
Bootstrap analysis
The associated indirect effects of the three basic psychological needs, along with total and direct effects of the
social environment, were analyzed using the bootstrap
SPSS macro “MEDIATE” created by Hayes and
Preacher (unpubl. data). This program allows for the
imputation of several independent and mediator variables into each single dependent variable model. The
results of the bootstrap analyses are presented in Table 2
(autonomy), 3 (competence), and 4 (relatedness).
Table 2 presents the results concerning the indirect
effects of the autonomy need on the associations
between the social environment and the indexes of wellbeing and ill-being. The results show that autonomy did
not mediate any of the associations between the social
environment and the well-being and ill-being factors.
However, significant direct effects were reported for the
associations SCQ and vitality, and CCBS and athletes’
skill and performance self-concept. Table 3 reports the
results pertaining to the indirect effects of the competence need. The analysis shows that competence is a
significant mediator for all the associations analyzed in
the current study, with the exception of the association
between CCBS and vitality. The significant direct effects
observed in the associations between SCQ and vitality
suggests and those between CCBS and athletes skill and
performance self-concept suggest partial mediation.
Finally, Table 4 shows the results for the indirect effects
of the relatedness need. As with the autonomy need,
no significant indirect effects were observed for any
associations.
The results in Tables 2, 3, and 4 also provide information that highlights the associations between the social
environment and the three basic needs directly, as well as
similar associations between the three needs and the
5
Felton & Jowett
Table 3. Bootstrap analysis summary showing the indirect effect of competence need satisfaction on coach environment and psychological well-being
indexes
Independent
variables
Mediator
variable
Dependent
variables
a path
coefficienta
b path
coefficienta
c’ path
coefficienta
Mean
indirect
effecta
SE of
meana
BC 95% CI mean
indirect effecta
(lower and upper)
3Cs
3Cs
3Cs
3Cs
SCQ
SCQ
SCQ
SCQ
CCBS
CCBS
CCBS
CCBS
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Competence
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
0.35*
0.35*
0.35*
0.35*
0.37*
0.37*
0.37*
0.37*
-0.12*
-0.12*
-0.12*
-0.12*
0.26*
-0.24*
0.43*
0.36*
0.26*
-0.24*
0.43*
0.36*
0.26*
-0.24*
0.43*
0.36*
-0.01
0.12
-0.01
-0.09
0.19*
-0.05
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.21*
0.12*
0.09
-0.08
0.15
0.12
0.10
-0.09
0.16
0.14
-0.03
0.03
-0.05
-0.05
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.0218, 0.1727*
-0.1402, -0.0396*
0.0705, 0.2499*
0.0609, 0.2075*
0.0210, 0.1886*
-0.1500, -0.0415*
0.0860, 0.2442*
0.0708, 0.2165*
-0.0779, 0.0002
0.0014, 0.0672*
-0.1122, -0.0009*
-0.0962, -0.0004*
a
These values are based on unstandardized path coefficients.
*P < 0.05 level
NA, negative affect; Skill SC, skill self-concept; Perf SC, performance self-concept; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; SCQ-C, autonomy climate;
CCBS, controlling coach behaviors; BC, bias corrected.
Table 4. Bootstrap analysis summary showing the indirect effect of relatedness need satisfaction on coach environment and psychological well-being
indexes
Independent
variables
Mediator
variable
Dependent
variables
a path
coefficienta
b path
coefficienta
c’ path
coefficienta
Mean
indirect
effecta
SE of
meana
BC 95% CI mean
indirect effecta
(lower and upper)
3Cs
3Cs
3Cs
3Cs
SCQ
SCQ
SCQ
SCQ
CCBS
CCBS
CCBS
CCBS
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Relatedness
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
Vitality
NA
Skill SC
Perf SC
0.48*
0.48*
0.48*
0.48*
0.31*
0.31*
0.31*
0.31*
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
-0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
-0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
-0.01
0.12
-0.01
-0.09
0.19*
-0.05
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.21*
0.12*
-0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.1021, 0.0356
-0.0174, 0.0713
-0.0461, 0.0942
-0.0406, 0.0710
-0.0673, 0.0253
-0.0120, 0.0483
-0.0317, 0.0597
-0.0262, 0.0488
-0.0095, 0.0141
-0.0104, 0.0070
-0.0121, 0.0090
-0.0081, 0.0078
a
These values are based on unstandardized path coefficients.
*P < 0.05 level.
NA, negative affect; Skill SC, skill self-concept; Perf SC, performance self-concept; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; SCQ-C, autonomy climate;
CCBS, controlling coach behaviors; BC, bias corrected.
outcomes. Table 2 shows that SCQ scores were significantly associated with autonomy need satisfaction in a
positive direction, indicating increases in perceptions of
autonomy-supportive coaching results in increases in
athletes’ perception of autonomy satisfaction from the
coach. In contrast, Table 2 also shows that CCBS scores
were significantly associated with autonomy satisfaction, but negatively so, thus, perceptions of controlling
coach behavior resulted in reduced autonomy satisfaction. The CART-Q showed no significant association
with autonomy satisfaction. The results in Table 2 also
highlight that autonomy need satisfaction was not significantly associated with any of the well-being or illbeing factors.
Results in Table 3 show that both CART-Q and SCQ
scores were positively associated with competence need
6
satisfaction to a significant degree. Therefore, increases
in coach–athlete relationship and autonomy-supportive
coaching results in increases to athlete’s competence
need satisfaction. In contrast, CCBS was significantly
associated to competence in a negative way, suggesting
increases in controlling coach behavior results in
reduced satisfaction of the competence need. The competence need was also shown to be significantly associated with all well-being factors positively and negatively
to the ill-being factor. It would appear therefore that an
increase in competence satisfaction has a positive influence on well-being, while also reducing ill-being.
The findings in Table 4 show that while CART-Q and
SCQ scores were both positively associated with the
relatedness need to a significant extent, there was no
significant association between CCBS scores and relat-
Coach effects on athlete needs & functioning
edness. The results also show that relatedness was not
significant association with any of the well-being and
ill-being factors. Therefore, increases in CART-Q and
SCQ may result in increases in relatedness need satisfaction, but the increase in relatedness does not transfer
to significant change in well- or ill-being.
Discussion
Guided by BPNT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and based on
recent research (Bartholomew et al., 2011b; Riley &
Smith, 2011), this study aimed to examine the associations between different dimensions of the social environment (e.g., coaching behaviors and coach–athlete
relationship quality), athletes’ experiences of psychological needs satisfaction within the coaching relational
context, and well-being/ill-being. The study further
aimed to examine the indirect effects of the psychological needs on the associations between the social environment and indexes of well-being and ill-being. Findings
highlighted a number of associations between the
study’s variables as well as several significant direct and
indirect effects. Specifically, autonomy-supportive coach
behaviors positively predicted satisfaction of all three
basic needs. The finding that autonomy-supportive
behaviors are associated with need satisfaction supports
previous research within sport (e.g., Bartholomew et al.,
2011b) and broader areas of psychology (e.g., Black &
Deci, 2000; Baard et al., 2004). Therefore, in order for
the coach to create an environment in which the athlete
can satisfy their basic needs, the coach must allow the
athlete to feel that they can openly contribute to training
sessions and have input into what they do. Correspondingly, athletes’ perceptions of the quality of the coach–
athlete relationship were found to positively predict
satisfaction of the competence and relatedness needs.
These findings are in line with previous research conducted within sport psychology (Riley & Smith, 2011;
Felton & Jowett, 2013) and within the broader areas of
social psychology (e.g., La Guardia et al., 2000).
However, contrary to previous findings reported by Riley
and Smith (2011), the quality of the coach–athlete relationship was not associated with the need for autonomy.
One plausible reason is the sample. In this study, our
sample comprised young adult athletes, whereas in Riley
and Smith’s study the sample comprised of young adolescent athletes. A quality coach–athlete relationship that
is highly interdependent may allow young athletes to
increase their perceptions of autonomy in the knowledge
that their coach will be there for them regardless of the
outcome be it a failure or success. Another plausible
reason is the overlap noted (r = 0.69) between coaching
relationships and behaviors in this study; it is likely that
behavioral interactions occur within relationships, hence
what may be more important to investigate in the future
is the combined (as opposed to the unique) contribution
coaching relationships and behaviors make to the pre-
diction of psychological needs. It may be that the quality
of coaching relationships adds to the prediction of psychological needs beyond what is predicted by the type of
coaching behaviors alone. These conjectures warrant
investigation.
In contrast, controlling coach behaviors were negatively associated with needs for autonomy and competence within the relationship. This finding was again in
line with previous research (Blanchard et al., 2009) and
suggests that coaches who use less controlling behaviors
are more likely to promote a sense of needs satisfaction
within the relational context coaches and athletes formulate. It is also important to note that, as with previous
research (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2010), a moderate
correlation (r = -0.38) was reported between athletes’
perceptions of coach autonomy support and controlling
behaviors. This suggests that although autonomy support
and control behaviors are distinct constructs they are
related. Thus, a coach may use aspects from both types
of behaviors; for example, the use of rewards that
are controlling (Bartholomew et al., 2010) while clear
instructions are supplied that are supportive, promoting
athletes’ active engagement. It is important for further
BPNT-based research to consider autonomy-supportive
and controlling behaviors as independent constructs
without, however, assuming that the presence of one
excludes the presence of the other.
Findings from the bootstrap analysis of direct and
indirect effects unveiled interesting results. The indirect
effects through the competence need were the only significant indirect effects observed, with the exception of
the association between controlling coach behavior and
vitality, which showed no significant indirect effects.
The indirect effects indicated a variation of mediation
effects. For the associations between coach–athlete relationship quality and the well-being and ill-being factors
bootstrapping identified full mediation, suggesting that
the effects of relationship quality on well-being and illbeing in this sample are a product of athletes’ perceiving
their need for competence to be satisfied within this
coaching relational context. This finding shows that
despite the stronger relationship between coach–athlete
relationship quality and relatedness (b = 0.48) compared
with competence (b = 0.35), it is actually the satisfaction
of the athletes’ competence need that is most important
for enhancing well-being and reducing il l-being. This
finding is somewhat inconsistent with Riley and Smith’s
(2011) study; they found that all three needs mediated
the association between coach–athlete relationship
quality and self-determined motivation. Research findings have also supported the conceptual links between
self-determination motivation and well-being (e.g.,
Reinboth et al., 2004). Thus, future research that incorporates self-determination motivation may provide a
more complete test of the motivational sequence
between social environment, needs satisfaction, motivation, and well-being.
7
Felton & Jowett
The indirect effects of competence in the associations
between autonomy-supportive coaching and the wellbeing and ill-being outcomes were similar, although different types of mediation were observed. The association
with vitality was indicative of partial mediation as a
significant positive direct effect was observed along with
the significant positive indirect effect attributable to
competence. This indicates that other mediators, beyond
the three basic needs, exist and should be considered in
future research. This finding is consistent with previous
research that has highlighted the associations between
coaches’ autonomy-supportive behavior and vitality, and
the indirect effect of competence (Adie et al., 2008). The
associations between autonomy-supportive behavior and
skill self-concept, performance self-concept, and negative affect all indicated full mediation, suggesting perceptions of the satisfaction of competence need are
highly influential in transferring the positive effects of
autonomy-supportive behavior onto such outcomes.
The final set of significant indirect effects for the satisfaction of competence need were found between
coaches controlling behavior and the outcomes of skill
and performance self-concept and negative affect. Satisfaction of the need for competence demonstrated full
mediation in the association between controlling coach
behavior and negative affect. This finding highlights that
athletes are likely to experience less satisfaction of the
need for competence within the coaching relational
context because coaches are employing behaviors that
are controlling. However, the negative association
between competence and negative affect (b = -0.24)
shows that if athletes can satisfy their need of competence, then they are likely to perceive reduced negative
affect. Unfortunately, as controlling coach behaviors
reduced satisfaction of competence (b = -0.12), an
athlete with a controlling coach is always likely to experience negative affect. The significant indirect effects
between CCBS and the physical self-concept factors
(skill and performance) are representative of partial
mediation suggesting that although the indirect effect of
competence is significant, the model tested has omitted
other significant mediators.
Overall, the indirect effects have highlighted that,
within the current athletic sample, satisfaction of the
basic psychological need for competence is the only
significant mediator for associations between the social
environment and well-being/ill-being. While previous
research within sport psychology (e.g., Adie et al., 2008;
Blanchard et al., 2009; Bartholomew et al., 2011b) has
reported similar findings relating to the role of need
satisfaction in the associations between the social environment and well-being, few have explored the unique
indirect effects of each need (e.g., Gagné et al., 2003;
Reinboth et al., 2004) and only one has examined coach–
athlete relationship quality as a social environmental
factor (Riley & Smith, 2011). From a theoretical perspective, the findings show that coach–athlete relation-
8
ship quality should be considered an important factor
within the social environment of sports because of its
ability to predict competence and relatedness in a comparative manner as autonomy-supportive coach behavior. From a practical viewpoint, the indirect effect results
inform us that for coaches to give their athletes the best
opportunity to experience heighted well-being and
reduced ill-being they need to not only create a
supportive-autonomous environment and develop a
high-quality relationship with their athletes, but they
need to also provide satisfaction of the athletes need for
competence above all other needs.
It is also worth noting that significant direct effects
were observed between the autonomy-supportive coach
behaviors and vitality, and controlling coach behaviors
and the physical self-concept factors. The observed
direct effect between autonomy-supportive coaching
behavior and vitality suggests that, although autonomy
need satisfaction was not a significant mediator, if an
athlete receives autonomy-supportive coaching, this
directly affects their experiences of vitality; along with
the indirect effect of competence. The positive direct
effects for the associations between controlling coach
behaviors and skill and performance self-concept
propose that, despite being partially mediated by competence, athletes with controlling coaches perceive their
skillfulness and performance positively. Thus, it would
appear that despite research highlighting controlling
coaches’ negative impact upon athlete well-being (e.g.,
Bartholomew et al., 2011b), in terms of athletes physical
self-concept, it appears a controlling coach does not have
a negative effect. A possible explanation for these findings could be that due to controlling coaches’ restricting
the athletes’ need satisfaction, the athletes are forced into
an environment in which the coach dictates the training
sessions. This may allow the athletes to develop their
skills to a level greater than they would achieve if they
were granted input into the training sessions. Therefore,
while the athletes may experience lower vitality and
higher negative affect as a consequence of the coaches’
controlling behavior, their physical self-concept my
actually improve. These findings would need to be examined again in future research for substantial inference to
be made.
Finally, satisfaction of the competence need within the
coach–athlete relationship recorded positive associations
with vitality as well as with components of physical
self-concept (skilfulness and competence); while as
expected, a negative association was recorded with negative affect. Satisfaction of the autonomy and relatedness
needs was not significantly associated with any of the
well-being/ill-being factors. It is however important to
mention here that while much of previous literature
focused on needs satisfaction within the sport (e.g.,
Gagné et al., 2003; Adie et al., 2008; Bartholomew et al.,
2011b), the present study focused on needs satisfaction
within the relationship (Felton & Jowett, 2013; see also
Coach effects on athlete needs & functioning
La Guardia et al., 2000; Patrick et al., 2007). It would
appear that if athletes experience satisfaction of the basic
need for competence in coaching relationship, they are
also more likely to experience increased vitality and
physical self-concept and reduced negative affect. A
unique finding of the current study was that this relational type of competence satisfaction was associated
with physical self-concept (skill and performance). The
results suggest that athletes are more likely to perceive
that they are skilful and capable if they feel that when
they relate with their coach, they are competent, capable,
and effective. As the experience of needs satisfaction has
been shown to be dependent on the social environment,
it further emphasizes how important the role of the coach
is in influencing athletes’ well-being through bolstering
their perceptions as skilful and capable athletes. Overall,
this finding further contributes to the role and significance of the coach–athlete relationship not only as a
social environmental factor of basic psychological
needs, but also as a specific social situation within which
one satisfies the most basic psychological needs. Future
research could examine whether basic needs are satisfied
best within the sports context or within the relational
context and the possible interactions of the two.
While this study has added to the extant literature, it
is not without limitations. First, the findings reflect
responses from a predominately White British,
university-aged and university-athlete sample. Second,
the study was cross-sectional in nature limiting the
causal inferences that can be drawn. Third, the data were
collected employing a multi-section self-report questionnaire that has the inherent risk of social desirability bias
in responses. Future research employing a longitudinal
design could provide evidence related to identify patterns of effects of basic psychological needs as satisfied
within the relationship on athletes’ well-being and illbeing as they undergo through different phases of preparation (i.e., pre-competitive phase vs competitive phase)
and other important transitions (e.g., performance
slumps, injury, burnout). Future research should also
continue to examine the concepts of coach autonomysupportive behaviors and controlling behaviors as distinct, yet related, constructs. In doing so, the research
will provide a greater understanding of the social environment created by the coach and its impact upon needs
satisfaction. Also, as this study has demonstrated, the
quality of the coach–athlete relationship and other such
social environmental factors (e.g., social support, coach
leadership, social anxiety) should also be considered in
order to add further depth to the social environmental
information. Finally, research within this area may also
extend upon the current findings by including the
concept of psychological need thwarting (Bartholomew
et al., 2011a, b). Psychological need thwarting has been
shown to have stronger associations to the controlling
behaviors of coaches, and also to ill-being factors when
compared with needs satisfaction. Therefore, future
research that includes needs satisfaction and thwarting
would provide greater understanding of the associations
between the sport environment and an athlete’s psychological functioning.
In summary, the present study aimed to extend our
knowledge by examining (a) the effects of the social
environment defined as coaching behaviors and relationships on athletes’ perceptions of basic need satisfaction
while relating to their coach; (b) the effects of basic need
satisfaction within the relationship on athletes’ experiences of both well-being and ill-being; and (c) the mediating effects of the basic needs on the associations
between the social environment and indexes of wellbeing and ill-being. The findings suggest that, athletes’
perceptions of supportive-autonomous coaching behaviors and high-quality coach–athlete relationships may
serve to fulfill important psychological needs. Specifically, satisfaction of the competence need may promote
athletes’ well-being while thwarting their ill-being.
Perspectives
Coach behaviors as factors affecting athlete needs satisfaction and psychological well-being have been extensively researched. However, within this line of inquiry,
research has rarely focused its attention on the effects of
the coach–athlete relationship independently and
together with coach behaviors. The quality of the coach–
athlete relationship would seem as important as coaches’
behaviors in determining athletes’ need satisfaction and
ultimately their well-being. The findings of this study
advance knowledge and understanding that has practical
significance by underlining the central role coaches play
through what they do and how they relate in satisfying
their athletes’ psychological needs and promoting their
well-being.
Key words: needs satisfaction, autonomy support,
control, relationship, well-being
References
Adie JW, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N.
Autonomy support, basic need
satisfaction and the optimal functioning
of adult male and female sport
participants: A test of basic needs
theory. Motiv Emot 2008: 32: 189–199.
Adie JW, Jowett J. Meta-perceptions of
the coach–athlete relationship,
achievement goals, and intrinsic
motivation among sport participants. J
Appl Soc Psychol 2010: 40:
2750–2773.
Baard PP, Deci EL, Ryan RM.
Intrinsic need satisfaction: A
motivational basis of performance
and well-being in two work settings.
J Appl Soc Psychol 2004: 34:
2045–2068.
9
Felton & Jowett
Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Ryan
RM, Bosch JA, Thøgersen-Ntoumani
C. Self-determination theory and
diminished functioning: The role of
interpersonal control and psychological
need thwarting. Pers Soc Psychol Bull
2011b: 37: 1459–1473.
Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Ryan
RM, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C.
Psychological need thwarting in the
sport context: Assessing the darker side
of athletic experience. J Sport Exerc
Psychol 2011a: 33: 75–102.
Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N,
Thøgersen-Ntoumani C. The
controlling interpersonal style in a
coaching context: Development and
initial validation of a psychometric
scale. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2010: 32:
193–216.
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to
belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychol Bull 1995: 117:
497–529.
Black AE, Deci EL. The effects of
instructors’ autonomy support and
students’ autonomous motivation on
learning organic chemistry: A
self-determination theory perspective.
Sci Educ 2000: 84: 740–756.
Blanchard CM, Amiot CE, Perreault S,
Vallerand RJ, Provencher P.
Cohesiveness, coach’s interpersonal
style and psychological needs: Their
effects on self-determination and
athletes’ subjective well-being. Psychol
Sport Exerc 2009: 10: 546–551.
Bostic TJ, Rubio DM, Hood M. A
validation of the subjective vitality
scale using structural equation
modelling. Soc Indicat Res 2000: 52:
313–324.
deCharms R. Personal causation: The
internal affective determinants of
behaviour. New York: Academic Press,
1968.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York: Plenum, 1985.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and
“why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self- determination of
behaviour. Psychol Inq 2000: 11:
227–268.
Felton L, Jowett S. Attachment and
well-being: The mediating effects of
psychological needs satisfaction.
Psychol Sport Exerc 2013: 14: 57–65.
Gagné M, Ryan RM, Bargmann K.
Autonomy support and need
satisfaction in the motivation and
well-being of gymnasts. J Appl Sport
Psychol 2003: 15: 372–390.
10
Jowett S. Moderators and mediators of
the association between the
coach–athlete relationship and physical
self-concept. Int J Coa Sci 2008: 2:
43–62.
Jowett S. Validating coach–athlete
relationship measures with the
nomological network. Meas Phys Educ
Exerc Sci 2009: 13: 34–51.
Jowett S, Cockerill I. Olympic medalists’
perspective of the coach–athlete
relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc 2003:
4: 313–331.
Jowett S, Cramer D. The prediction of
young athletes’ physical self from
perceptions of relationships with
parents and coaches. Psychol Sport
Exerc 2010: 11: 140–147.
Jowett S, Ntoumanis N. The
Coach–Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q): Development
and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 2004: 14: 245–257.
La Guardia JG, Ryan RM, Couchman CE,
Deci EL. Within-person variation in
security of attachment: A
self-determination theory perspective
on attachment, need fulfilment, and
well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000:
79: 367–384.
Lorimer R. Coaches’ satisfaction with
their athletic partnerships. Int J Coa Sci
2009: 3: 55–64.
Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The
coach–athlete relationship: a
motivational model. J Sport Sci 2003:
21: 883–904.
Marsh HW, Hey J, Johnson S, Perry C.
Elite Athlete Self-Description
Questionnaire: hierarchical
confirmatory factor analysis of
responses by two distinct groups of
elite athletes. Int J Sport Psychol 1997:
28: 237–258.
Olympiou A, Jowett S, Duda JL. The
psychological interface between the
coach-created motivational climate and
the coach–athlete relationship in team
sports. The Sport Psychol 2008: 22:
279–306.
Patrick H, Knee CR, Canevello A,
Lonsbary C. The role of need
fulfilment in relationship functioning
and well-being: A self-determination
theory perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol
2007: 92: 434–457.
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple
mediator models. Behav Res Meth
2008: 40: 879–891.
Reinboth M, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N.
Dimensions of coaching behaviour,
need satisfaction, and the psychological
and physical welfare of young athletes.
Motiv Emot 2004: 28: 297–313.
Riley A, Smith AL. Perceived
coach–athlete and peer relationships of
young athletes and self-determined
motivation for sport. Int J Sport
Psychol 2011: 42: 115–133.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. An overview of
self-determination theory: An
organismic dialectical perspective. In:
Deci EL, Ryan RM, eds. Handbook of
self- determination research. Rochester,
NY: The University of Rochester Press,
2002: 3–33.
Ryan RM, Frederick C. On energy,
personality, and health: Subjective
vitality as a dynamic reflection of
well-being. J Pers 1997: 65:
529–565.
Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL. Living well:
A self-determination theory perspective
on eudaimonia. J Happi Stud 2008: 9:
139–170.
Ryff CD, Dienberg-Love G, Urry HL,
Muller D, Rosenkranz MA, Friedman
EM, Singer B. Psychological
well-being and ill-being: Do they have
distinct or mirrored biological
correlates? Psychother Psychosom
2006: 75: 85–95.
Sarazzin P, Vallerand R, Guillet E,
Pelletier L, Cury F. Motivation and
dropout in female handballers: A
21-month prospective study. Eur J Soc
Psychol 2002: 32: 395–418.
Shrout PE, Bolger N. Mediation in
experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and
recommendations. Psychol Meth 2002:
7: 422–445.
Taylor IM, Ntoumanis N, Standage M. A
self-determination theory approach to
understanding the antecedents of
teachers’ motivational strategies in
physical education. J Sport Exerc
Psychol 2008: 30: 75–94.
Thompson ER. Development and
validation of an internationally reliable
short-form of the positive and negative
affect schedule (PANAS). J Cross-Cult
Psychol 2007: 38: 227–242.
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A.
Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1988: 54: 1063–1070.
White RW. Motivation reconsidered: The
concept of competence. Psychol Rev
1959: 66: 297–333.
Williams GC, Grow VM, Freedman ZR,
Ryan RM, Deci EL. Motivational
predictors of weight loss and
weight-loss maintenance. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1996: 70: 115–126.