Running Head: ATHLETE MOTIVATION AND SUCCESS

Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations within Parenting and
Coaching Styles
Cortney Wilkerson and Eldon Hall
Faculty Mentor: James Gould
University of Northern Colorado
Recreation, Tourism, & Hospitality Program

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

2

Abstract
The purpose of this research was to investigate how parenting and coaching styles relate to
student athlete motivation and success. An online and hard-copy instrument was completed by a
target sample of 161 UNC athletes. The 40-item questionnaire consisted of items measuring
athlete motivations and indicators of parenting and coaching styles. Analysis included the use of
descriptive statistics, Pearsons correlation test, and an independent samples t-test. Results
revealed few differences across groups in motivation to compete excepting love for the sport and
to fulfill parents wishes. Results revealed that males were more motivated by their parents than
females. The correlation matrix revealed that coaches have a stronger influence on an athletes
success than an athletes parents and that providing structure from coaches is most related to
success. Overall, the study revealed that coaching was most associated with an athletes success
and that coaching style impacts an athletes motivation to compete.
Keywords: Motivation, Success, Parenting Style, Coaching Style,

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

3
Student Athlete Motivation and Success: Investigating Associations within Parenting and
Coaching Styles
From ancient times to the first Olympics to the modern day, athletes have been motivated
by honor derived from competition (Jezek, 2013). For university students, motivations to
compete may include pure love of the sport or to simply pay for school, and success is often
measured by winning records, improvement in abilities, and competing to ones full potential
(Smoll, Cumming, & Smith, 2011). Successful student athletes are motivated by their coaches,
parents, and their own selves. According to Cramer & Jowett (2010), young athletes are most
motivated by their coaches and parents. How coaches motivate is often dependent on the
athletes perception of their relationship with their coach and this perception can affect a young
athletes motivation to compete.
Recent studies have examined motivations for exercise among college students which
include, general health, maintain fitness, stress reduction, enjoyment pleasure, and feel
good/better research (Ebben & Brudzynski, 2008). Studies assessing motives for exercise
among college students identified competence (Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, & Sheldon,
1997), fitness, and situational body dissatisfaction (Smith, Handley, & Eldredge, 1998) among
others, but student athlete motivations seem to be less addressed. Therefore, the aim of this study
was to assess student athlete motivation and success from the perspectives of parenting and
coaching styles.
Parenting Styles
The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) involves four parent types based on the amount
of care and protection shown the child. The four parenting styles are: optimal parenting,
affectionless control, affectionate constraint, and neglectful parenting (Parker, Tupling, & Brown,
1979). Optimal parenting individuals demonstrate high care and low protection by way of being
affectionate, engaged, set limits, reinforce rules, and empower a childs decision making. This

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

4
style of optimal parenting is described as demanding and responsive and often parents in this
style have high involvement in a childs participation (Stattin, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2000). The
affectionless control parent demonstrates high protection and low care and is often emotionally
aloof, bossy, uses physical punishment or verbal insults, and dismisses a childs feelings. This
parent is considered authoritarian and is often characterized as being strict and discouraging of
open communication between the child and parent.
Another primary difference between the optimal parent and affectionless control parent is
the optimal parent relationship is child centered whereas the affectionless control relationship is
adult centered (Stattin, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2000). The affectionate constraint parent has high care
and high protection and is affectionate, overbearing, and controlling. The neglectful parenting
dimension is indicated by both low care and low protection and these parents are emotionally
removed or indifferent, uninvolved, do not discipline, and are inconsistent. Given these four
parenting styles, it was an aim of this study to assess athlete success relative to the parenting
styles.
Coaching Styles
In order to distinguish coaching styles, the amount of freedom and structure provided by
coaches are the most important criteria to be considered (Callej, 2001). An autocratic coach is a
coach that provides low freedom/high structure and is a do as I say type of coach. A
democratic coach is a coach demonstrating high freedom/low structure and allows athletes to be
involved in decision making. A laissez faire coach provides high freedom/low structure and
allows the group to do much of what they want with little direction from the coach (Callej,
2001). A fourth coaching style, low freedom/low structure, was not supported in research.
According to Ferguson (2008), athletes need balanced amounts of freedom and structure, but
providing neither would not be deemed effective coaching.
Purpose

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

5
The purpose of this research was to investigate how parenting and coaching styles relate
to student athlete motivation and success. The following questions guided this study:
R1: What are the primary motivations for competing?
R2: Are there differences in motivations to compete across family income levels?
R3: Are there differences between male and female athletes across motivations to
compete scores?
R4: What correlates the most with success among the parenting, coaching, and
motivation variables?
R5: Are there differences in motivations to compete across coaching styles?
R6: Are there differences in motivations to compete across parenting styles?
Methods
Participants
A non-probability target sample was conducted by emailing the survey link from
Qualtrics.com to club-sports officers, varsity athletes, and messaged through Facebook.com and
Twitter.com. Paper copy questionnaires were completed by athletes during an athletic study hall
and by the varsity Track and Field Team during a team dinner. The survey was conducted
between March 13, 2014 and April 9, 2014. In all, 161 athletes participated in the survey;
however 3 athletes failed to complete the survey in its entirety and were eliminated from
analysis. The remaining athletes (n=158) athletes were analyzed in this study.
Respondents in this study were 42% male and 58% female of which 27.8% were
Freshman, 24.7% Sophomores, 13.3% Juniors, 13.3% Seniors, 11.4% 5th yr. Seniors, and 9.5%
Graduate Students. The level of sport included 79.1% Intercollegiate, 10.8% Club, 1.9%
Intramural, 5.7% Unaffiliated with UNC, and 2.5% selected other. Of the 2.5%, two wrote
High School was the highest level they participated, one is a post-collegiate athlete, and one
person did not specify. 57% of respondents were athletes who received athletic financial aid
(scholarship/books) while 42.4% did not receive athletic aid. Twenty six different sports were
indicated by respondents of which the majority was from Track and Field (43.0%), Football
(8.9%), and Basketball (5.7%).
Measures

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

6
A 40-item questionnaire was used to assess parenting styles, coaching styles, motivations
to compete, and demographics. The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) (Parker, Tupling, &
Brown, 1979) was adapted using eight items to measure the four parenting styles on a four point
Likert scale (anchored by like my parents, unlike my parents) to describe care and
protection. Nine questions were also adapted and developed from the PBI to assess the amount of
protection that the athlete felt their parents showed towards them.
For coaching styles (Callej, 2001), there were six items on five point scales used to assess
the athletes structure or freedom provided by their coach. Three items assessed the coach-athlete
relationship, as well as three questions indicating the success of the athlete under the coach. The
three questions relating to success reflect the athletes improvement under their coach, their
teams winning record, and if the athlete competed to their fullest potential under the coach. An
athletes motivation to compete was measured by six rank order items that included: to pay for
school, to fulfill parents wishes, to achieve own goals, to stay in shape, or to fulfill social needs.
The last seven questions were demographics that included sport, gender, year in school, family
income, and family structure variables.
Procedures
In order to assess the samples motivation for competing, the mean scores of the athletes
motivations were indicated by a graph for visual comparison of the six different motivations.
Mean motivation scores by family income levels were indicated by a graph to answer the second
research question. Differences between male and female athletes across motivations to compete
scores were determined by conducting an independent samples t-test. Multiple Pearson productmoment correlation coefficients were computed to assess correlates of success with continuous
variables indicating parenting types (care and protection), coaching types (freedom and
structure), and the six motivations to compete. For research questions five and six, mean

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

7
motivation scores were indicated by graphs categorized by the four parenting styles and another
figure by the four coaching styles to asses differences across types.
Results
To answer the first research question, respondents were asked to rank the top three
motivations for competing in their respective sports. Visual inspection of rank scores showed that
athletes ranked love for the sport (M=2.53) the top motivation for competing. Athletes then
ranked achieve own goals, and to stay in shape second (M=2.05 respectively). To fulfill social
needs (M=1.45) was lowest ranked. See Figure 1 for ranked motivations to compete.
In order to answer the second research question, the top three sport motivations were
compared across levels of family income. Means scores indicated that athletes whose parents
estimated income was between $20,000-$40,000 were most motivated to participate for the need
to pay for school (M=2.6). Athletes whose parents estimated income was in the $40,000-$60,000
level ranked to fulfill parents wishes (M=3.0) as the most important. Athletes across the levels of
family income ranked love for the sport as one of their top two motivations. See Figure 2 for
ranked motivations to compete by levels of family income.
For the third research question, a t-test was conducted to assess mean differences between
male and female athletes across the motivations for competing. Means testing of these groups
revealed that two out of the six motivations were significantly different at the p<.05 level. The
largest difference in the motivation mean scores was in to fulfill parents wishes but love of the
sport was only slightly lower in female athletes. See Table 1 for mean comparisons between
male and female motivations to compete.
In order to assess the relationship between success and coaching styles, parenting styles,
and motivation to compete, multiple Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were
computed. See Table 2 for correlates of success. The correlation matrix revealed that love for the
sport had a weak positive correlation with success at the .01 level whereas to pay for school had

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

8
a moderate negative correlation with success at the .01 level. Both coach freedom and coach
structure scores had moderate positive correlations with success at the .01 level.
To answer the fifth research question, scores for the top three motivations to compete
were assessed across the four coaching types discerned by the freedom and structure item scores.
Inspection of mean scores revealed that that athletes whos coach was high freedom/low
structure ranked to pay for school (M=2.6) as their highest motivation. Low freedom/low
structure athletes ranked to fulfill social needs (M=3.0) the highest, and both high freedom/high
structure and low freedom/high structure athletes ranked love for the sport (M=2.61 & 2.52
respectively) as their top motivation. See Figure 3 for ranked motivations to compete by
coaching types.
In order to answer the sixth and final research question, scores for the top three
motivations to compete were assessed across the four parenting types as discerned by care and
protection item scores. Generally high scores for love for the sport were found across all
parenting types. A difference in to fulfill social needs was observed between the low care/low
protection (M=2.21) and high care/high protection (M=1.34) parenting types. Athletes of high
protection parents were also more motivated to compete to pay for school than athletes of low
protection parents. See Figure 4 for ranked motivations to compete by parenting types.
Conclusions
The purpose of this research was to investigate how parenting and coaching styles relate
to student athlete motivation and success. The primary motivation to compete for the entire
sample was love for the sport, which supported previous research (Kilpatrick, Hebert, &
Batholomew, 2005) that found enjoyment of the sport to be closely related to participation. When
motivations were analyzed by family income levels and parenting styles, love for the sport
consistently ranked among the top two motivators. For the family income level of $20,000$40,000, the highest motivation to compete was to pay for school. This finding seems logical if

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

9
athletes with parents that have low salaries and little disposable income are required to find
alternative ways to pay for school and student living. For the $40,000-$60,000 income level, the
primary motivation to compete was to fulfill parents wishes. This may indicate that parents of
this income level are more involved in the athletes career or reflect differences in values about
the students athletic career.
Means testing between male and female athletes revealed differences in love for the sport
and to fulfill parents wishes, of which males scored higher for both. This appears to be an
indication that males were slightly more motivated by enjoyment (Kilpatrick, Hebert, &
Batholomew, 2005) and love of the sport than females in this study. Inspection of the mean
scores in Table 1 indicate that fulfilling a parents wishes is second most important to males and
least important to females. This may suggest that males are more motivated by their parents to
compete than females or that males might be perceived or treated differently by parents when
competing in sports.
For the correlates of success, the matrix revealed significant relationships with love for
the sport and parenting care, but the strength of the correlations were weaker than those of
coaching freedom and coaching structure. This seems logical since many coaches have more
direct influence than parents on an athlete's training and can implement day-to-day practice plans
and competition strategies. While coaches vary in style, our research showed that those providing
sufficient coaching structure are likely to have more success with individual athletes and as a
team.
Motivation mean scores by coaching and parenting styles revealed that high
freedom/high structure and low freedom/high structure coaching styles are most associated with
competition for the love of the sport. Low freedom/low structure coaching was associated with
athletes motivated by social reasons and less so by their love of the sport. For the motivations by
parenting types, the majority of the differences were minute excepting to fulfill social needs and

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

10
to pay for school among low protection parents. The largest difference in the motivation of
fulfilling social needs was between athletes with parents at the extremes, high protection and
care relative to low protection and care. This study also found that athletes of high protection
parents are more motivated to compete to pay for school than athletes of low protection parents.

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

11
References
Callej, L. (2001). Coaching Styles. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from Brian Mac Sports Coach:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/styles.htm
Cramer, D., & Jowett, S. (2010). The prediction of young athletes' physical self from perception
of relationships with parents and coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(2), 140147.
Ebben, W., & Brudzynski, L. (2008). Motivations and Barriers to Experise Among College
Students. Journal of Exercise Physiology online, 11(5), 1-11.
Ferguson, J. (2008, September 22). Elegant Code>> Leadership and Self Examination: The 3
Coaching Styles. Retrieved from Elegant Code:
http://elegantcode.com/2008/09/22/leadership-and-self-examination-the-3-coachingstyles/
Jezek, G. (2013). What is Sport. Retrieved from History of Sports:
http://www.historyofsports.info/
Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Batholomew, J. (2005). College Students' Motivation for Physical
Activity: Differentiating Men's and Women's Motives for Sport Participation and
Exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), 87-94.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Intrinsic
Motivation and Exercise Adherence. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 28, 335354.
Smith, B., Handley, P., & Eldredge, D. (1998). Sex differences in exercise motivation and bodyimage satisfaction among college students. Percept Moter Skills, 86, 723-732.
Smoll, F. L., Cumming, S. P., & Smith, R. E. (2011). Enhancing Coach-Parent Relationships in
Youth Sports: Increasing Harmony and Minimizing Hassle. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), 13-26.
Stattin, K., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents' achievement
strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23(2), 205-222.

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

12

ATHLETE MOTIVATION & SUCCESS

13

ATHLETE MOTIVATION AND SUCCESS

14

Table 1
Mean Comparisons Between Male and Female Motivation for Competing
Male
Measure
Motivation
Love for Sport
To pay for School
To fulfill parents wishes
To achieve own goals
To stay in shape
To fulfill social needs

Female

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

2.66
1.95
2.00
1.91
1.39
1.36

0.61
0.91
0.89
0.66
0.59
0.63

2.43
1.76
1.20
2.17
1.49
1.64

0.76
0.81
0.42
0.67
0.71
0.79

t
1.85
0.81
2.58
-2.24
-0.63
-1.11

df

p-value

157
157
157
157
157
157

0.00
0.44
0.02
0.45
0.15
0.17

ATHLETE MOTIVATION AND SUCCESS

15