What do coaches do" and "how do they relate": their effects on athletes' psychological needs and functioning

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.