Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback on Athletes Perceptions of the Teams Motivational Climate

Jonathan Stein

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Kinesiology and Physical Education in the Faculty of Education McGill University June 9, 2009

ii Abstract Team motivational climate has been identified as an important variable in the growth and development of youth sport athletes. Coaching behaviors such as determining the presence and extent of social comparison, rewarding and punishing players, and the quality of interpersonal relationships fostered within the team can create a predominantly task- or ego-oriented team climate. Research on motivation has clearly identified many of the positive outcomes associated with athletes perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Since the motivational climate refers to the coachs general behaviors in games and practices, it is traditionally assumed that players within a team perceive the same type of team climate. However, research has recently reported that athletes within the same team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate. This has partly been attributed to players personal interactions with the coach. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of athletes perceptions of the individual feedback they received from their head coach during practices on their perceptions of the teams motivational climate. In addition, the present study examined the influence of the discrepancy between athletes preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns on athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. Participants (n = 70) were 13-14 year old elite male hockey players , who each completed the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) and the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that perceptions of positive individual feedback from the coach (B=.44) led to perceptions of a task-oriented climate, whereas perceptions of negative individual feedback from the coach (B=.51) led to perceptions of an egooriented climate. Moreover, the discrepancy between athletes perceived and preferred coach feedback patterns (B=.23) was positively correlated with athletes perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In general, these findings highlighted the importance of individual coach feedback for creating an effective team atmosphere. In particular, when athletes perceived their coachs behaviors as positive, informative, and supportive, they were more likely to perceive a task-oriented team climate. In addition, the current study identified antecedents (i.e., informative feedback, discrepancy between athletes preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns) of the motivational climate that were not previously reported. More specifically, this study revealed that a difference between the type of coach feedback that athletes preferred and the type of coach feedback that athletes perceived was likely to result in athletes perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Consequently, youth sport coaches should know their athletes preferred coach feedback patterns and try to provide them with individualized strategies in order to create an effective motivational climate for every athlete within the team.

iii Rsum Chez les jeunes athltes sportifs, le climat motivationnel de lquipe a t identifi comme un des facteurs qui influencent leur croissance et dveloppement. Les actions des entraneurs telle lidentification de la prsence des comparaisons sociales et le degr auquel elles existent, les rcompenses et punitions donnes aux joueurs, ainsi que le degr dencouragement former des liens interpersonnels de qualit au sein dune quipe peuvent crer un climat qui tende soit vers la valorisation de laccomplissement des tches, soit celle de lgo des joueurs. Les rsultats des rcentes recherches sur la motivation indiquent clairement les aspects positifs qui dcoulent de la perception des joueurs appartenant une quipe o rgne un climat motivationnel ax sur laccomplissement des tches. Traditionnellement lon a suppos que puisque le climat motivationnel dpend du comportement de lentraneur lors des matchs et pratiques, que tous les joueurs devaient donc percevoir un mme climat motivationnel. Cependant, de rcentes recherches dans ce domaine ont rvl que tous les membres dune quipe nont pas forcment la mme perception du climat motivationnel de leur quipe, car cette perception est fonde tout au moins en partie sur les liens qui unissent ces joueurs leur entraneur. Utilisant ces donnes comme point de dpart, le but de cette tude est danalyser linfluence quopre la perception dun athlte selon les commentaires et critiques de son entraneur en chef sur le type de climat motivationnel de leur quipe. De plus, la prsente tude a analys linfluence de la diffrence entre les commentaires et critiques prfrs des joueurs et ceux reus par les joueurs sur les perceptions des athltes du climat motivationnel de lquipe. Les participants de ltude (n=70) taient des joueurs de hockey masculins de calibre lite de 13 et 14 ans, qui avaient tous complt le questionnaire 2 sur la perception du climat motivationnel en sport (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda & Yin, 2000), ainsi que celui des commentaires et critiques des entraneurs (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000). Lanalyse de la rgression hirarchique a rvl quune perception individuelle positive des commentaires de lentraneur (B=.44) entranait alors une perception dun climat motivationnel valorisant laccomplissement des tches, contrairement une perception individuelle ngative des commentaires de lentraneur (B=.51), qui elle favorisait un climat motivationnel valorisant lgo des joueurs. De plus, une diffrence significative et proportionnellement lie la perception des commentaires prfrs par rapport ceux perus par le joueur (B=.23) existe, engendrant alors un climat motivationnel favorisant lgo des joueurs. De faon gnrale, les rsultats de cette tude dmontrent limportance du rle des commentaires individuels fournis par lentraneur pour la cration dun climat dquipe efficace. Il ressort aussi que lorsque les athltes peroivent les commentaires de leur entraneur comme positifs, informatifs et les appuyant, dans la majorit des cas cela mne a un climat motivationnel qui encourage la valorisation de laccomplissement de tches. Cette tude a aussi permis de dcouvrir certains facteurs des climats motivationnels qui navaient pas t analyss auparavant. De plus, cette tude fait ressortir que lorsquil y a une diffrence entre les commentaires prfrs des joueurs et ceux perus cela rsulte le plu souvent dans un climat motivationnel qui favorise lgo des joueurs. Consquemment, il est de la plus haute importance que les entraneurs connaissent le type de commentaires prfrs des joueurs, et ainsi daligner les stratgies employes sur ces prfrences afin de crer un climat motivationnel ax sur laccomplissement des tches et par ailleurs cr un climat motivationnel efficace pour chacun des joueurs de lquipe.

iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people who helped me complete my thesis: Dr. Gordon Bloom, my advisor who gave me the opportunity to explore my research interests in coaching and youth sport. You have been one of my mentors for the past 6 years and I want to thank you for introducing me to this great world of sport psychology. Your feedback was always honest and you were always available when I needed guidance. Most of all, you always challenged me to be better, I am a stronger person because of it. Dr. Catherine Sabiston, co-author who provided great insight and guidance during the completion of my thesis. Whether it was helping with statistics, providing constructive feedback or helping me see things from a different perspective, your support over the last two years has been instrumental in my learning and development as a graduate student. Dr. Billy Harvey, who was on my colloquium committee and who always brought a wealth of knowledge to our meetings. Thank you for all of your suggestions and insight. The eight coaches who allowed me to meet with their teams. The 70 hockey players who participated in our study. Will Falcao, my friend, lab partner, and conference partner. We shared the ups and downs of graduate life together. Ill never forget those trips to Sudbury, St. Louis and Toronto. So many stories and good timesYou are truly a gentlemen and a scholar.

v My parents who have provided me with endless support. Thank you for always being there and believing in me. Your values and belief in the importance of education are big reasons why I have succeeded as a graduate student.

vi Table of Contents Abstract Rsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii iii iv vi ix 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 15 15 19 21

Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables . Chapter 1 .

Introduction

Purpose of the Study . Significance of the Study Delimitations . Limitations . . .

Operational Definitions Chapter 2 . . . . . . . .

Literature Review Motivation

Achievement Goal Theory Motivational Climate . Coach Feedback . .

Effects of Coach Feedback Variation in Coach Feedback . Teacher-Student Interactions .

vii Influence of Teachers Expectations . Influence of Students Gender Hypotheses Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23 25 26 26 26 26 28

Method

Participants Procedures Measures

Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 28 Coaching Feedback Questionnaire Data Analysis Chapter 4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 34 36 36 36 37 39 42 42 42

Descriptive Statistics . Correlation Analysis .

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . .

Discussion

Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback

Influence of the Discrepancy between Preferred and Perceived Coach Feedback Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 50 50 53

Summary

Limitations

viii Practical Implications . References Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 57 70 70 72 73 76 79 80 83

Appendix A- Ethics Certificate

Appendix B- Sport Organization Consent Form

Appendix C- Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 Appendix D- Coaching Feedback Questionnaire Appendix E- Demographic Questionnaire Appendix F- Player Agreement Forms Appendix G- Parental Consent Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

List of Tables Page Table 1 The Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum, Maximum, Skewness, and Kurtosis for all measurement instruments (N=70) . . . . . .

36

Table 2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the teams motivational climate . . Table 3 Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of an ego-oriented motivational climate . . . Table 4 Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of a task-oriented motivational climate . . .

38

40

41

Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction It has been estimated that the majority (69%) of Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 21 are involved in organized sport on a yearly basis (Sport Canada, 2008). Given its popularity in Canada, the study of youth sport has been a key area of interest for sport psychology researchers in the last two decades. To date, much of this research has focused on the psychological benefits of youth athletic involvement, including increased self-esteem and competence and lowered anxiety levels in optimal sport environments (e.g., Duda, 2001; Smith & Smoll, 1990; Weiss, 1991). One individual who plays an important role in creating a positive youth sport experience is the coach (Smith & Smoll, 2002). Several studies by Smith, Smoll, and colleagues (Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett, 1993; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978, 1979) identified some of the key aspects of coaching that impacted the quality of the childs sport environment. It is the quality of this environment that affects a childs motivation in sport (Ames, 1992). One of the primary coaching variables that can impact an athletes motivation is the motivational climate created by the coach. The motivational climate in sport refers to the type (ego-oriented or task-oriented) of climate created by coaches in practices and games (Ames, 1992; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Certain coaching behaviors such as rewarding/punishing players, the presence and extent of comparing teammates to one another, and the quality of interpersonal relationships fostered within the team can promote a predominantly task- or ego-oriented team climate (McArdle & Duda, 2002; Smoll & Smith, 2006). More specifically, coaches can create a task-oriented climate by

Introduction 2 reducing the importance of winning and focusing on other participation motives such as skill development, effort, and affiliation with teammates. In contrast, an ego-involving climate occurs when the coach promotes intra-team rivalries, favors the most talented players, and punishes players for making mistakes (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). In general, research on motivational climate has clearly identified many positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented motivational climate, especially in youth sport (Horn, 2007). Consistent with the literature on motivation, many sport psychology researchers have encouraged coaches to create a more task-involving team climate (Horn, 2007). Since motivational climate represents the coachs general behaviors, it is traditionally believed that players within a team have the same perceptions of their teams climate (Duda, 2001). Despite this, some studies have recently concluded that players within a team do not always share the same perceptions of the teams motivational climate (e.g., Cumming, Smoll, Smith, & Grossbard, 2007; Duda, Newton, & Yin, 1999; Magyar, Feltz, & Simpson, 2004). More specifically, Cumming et al. found that variability in athletes (aged 10-15 years) perceptions of the teams climate indicated players were more likely to evaluate coach behaviors on the basis of their own personal interactions with the coach rather than interactions between the coach and the group as a whole. Personal interactions with the coach are more impressionable, meaningful, and easier to remember. Furthermore, athletes may also be less aware of how the coach interacts with other team members, thus limiting their perceptions of the motivational climate to their own personal exchanges with the coach (Cumming et al., 2007). Recently, several studies (Olympiou, Jowett, & Duda, 2008; Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li, 2005) have reported that

Introduction 3 coach-athlete interactions were associated with athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate. Thus, coaching behaviors such as the individual feedback coaches provide in response to athletes performances may be important antecedents that influence athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. Variation in how the coach interacts individually with different team members may further explain why athletes within a team do not have the same perceptions of the motivational climate. For example, Horn (1985) observed the individual feedback of junior high school softball coaches during games and practices and reported that coaches reacted differently to players of varying ability. Specifically, coaches communicated more frequently with high-ability athletes, were more likely to ignore the mistakes committed by low-ability athletes, and administered more punishment to high-ability athletes (Horn, 1985). All these coaching behaviors are represented in measures of the motivational climate (Cumming et al., 2007). Therefore, differences in athletes perceptions of the teams climate may arise. In conclusion, previous research on motivation has suggested that players within a team share different perceptions of the teams motivational climate. However, to date, it is unclear what individual factors may contribute to the variability in athletes perceptions (Horn, 2007). Although the literature on coach-player interactions suggests within-team variability in the individual feedback from the coach as a plausible factor, empirical evidence is lacking to support such a claim. Purpose of the Study The general purpose of the current study was to examine the influence of the athletes perceptions of the individual feedback they received from the head coach in

Introduction 4 practices on their perceptions of the teams motivational climate. In addition, the present study examined the influence of the discrepancy between athletes perceived and preferred individual coach feedback patterns in practices on their perceptions of the motivational climate. Significance of the Study Research on motivational climate in youth sport has clearly demonstrated the positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented team climate. Thus, identifying the specific coaching behaviors that influence such an environment would provide youth sport coaches with valuable practical information. Specifically, coaches would have a clearer understanding on how the individual feedback they provide to their athletes affects the type of motivational climate perceived within the team. Therefore, instructors would be more inclined to focus on the feedback they provide to athletes individually in order to create an effective learning environment for every player within the team. Moreover, coaches would be better prepared to meet the goals of youth sport which are centered on enhancing the growth and development of young athletes. Delimitations For the purpose of this study, the following delimitations have been identified: 1. Participants were hockey players aged 13-14 years old. 2. Participants were males. 3. Participants were from Bantam AA and BB hockey teams. Limitations For the purpose of this study the following limitations have been identified: 1. Results may only be indicative of elite youth hockey participants.

Introduction 5 2. Results may only pertain to hockey. 3. Since this study is examining male athletes perceptions, the results may only apply to that specific sex. 4. The questionnaires are self-reported. Operational Definitions For the current study, the following operational definitions were used: The motivational climate: the athletes perception of the type (ego-oriented or task-oriented) of motivational climate created by coaches in practice and game contexts by assessing the presence and extent of social comparison, the rewards and punishments distributed, and the quality of interpersonal relationships (Horn, 2007). Perceptions of coach feedback: the athletes perceptions regarding the type of individual feedback provided by their head coach in response to their successes and failures during performance. The feedback can be perceived as positive in nature which includes praise, encouragement, information, and corrective information, or as negative in nature which includes criticism, criticism combined with corrective information, and ignoring an athletes performance.

Literature Review 6 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review This chapter will consist of three main sections. To begin, a major theory of achievement motivation, achievement goal theory and an extension of it, the motivational climate, will be outlined. The second section will identify the influences of coach feedback on athletes perceptions of self-competence and motivation. While the current study will focus on coach-player interactions in elite youth sport, a third section will examine teacher-student interactions and its relationship to youth sport. Motivation The study of motivation has been a primary area of interest for sport psychology researchers in the last two decades. Much of the enthusiasm originated from the work of educational psychologists in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Harwood & Biddle, 2002). A major focus of this early research was to develop a better understanding of the factors that influenced a childs motivation in achievement settings. According to Harters (1981) competence motivation theory, motivation increases when a person successfully masters a task. Consequently, a successful performance encourages the person to master more tasks. Moreover, an athletes perceptions of self-competence and control are influenced by the outcome of mastery attempts and feedback from significant others (e.g., parents, teachers, and coaches). While Harters competence theory allows one to explore the importance of an individuals perceptions of their performance, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) suggested that perceptions of success and failure depended on the individuals goal orientation. In other words, Maehr and Nicholls argued that success and failure were

Literature Review 7 not concrete events but rather psychological states influenced by the individuals perception of reaching or not reaching his/her goals. Achievement Goal Theory Nicholls (1989) noted further that the main goal orientations, task and ego, were based on how people defined competence. For example, those who were more egooriented perceived ability as performing at a high level but exerting minimal effort. Thus, when a person was more ego-involved, they judged their performance in relation to others and had to demonstrate superior talent or outperform others to be satisfied. In contrast, individuals who were more task-oriented believed that a high level of performance required significant effort and that the harder you tried, the more able you felt. Moreover, a performer who was more task-involved was satisfied if they performed at a level that reflected how they had mastered a task or made personal improvements. In other words, achievement goal orientations represented the individuals orientation to the task or situation, and their general focus or purpose for achievement (Pintrich, Conley, & Kempler, 2003). Academically, achievement goal theory has received significant empirical attention. More specifically, it clarified how students thought about themselves and others around them regarding the task they were performing and how they evaluated their performances (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls, 1989). In addition, sport psychology researchers have also used this framework to develop a better understanding of how athletes goal orientations motivated and directed their behavior in sport. Research examining achievement goal theory in sport found that ego-involved individuals were more inclined to engage in strategies or behaviors, whether appropriate

Literature Review 8 or inappropriate (e.g., cheating), designed to increase the chance of winning (McArdle & Duda, 2002). In contrast, task-involved individuals were more likely to foster adaptive achievement behaviors, such as persistence in the face of failure, exerting effort, and selecting challenging goals, regardless of ones level of perceived competence (Chi, 2004; Duda & Hall, 2001; Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1997). Thus, the extensive work on achievement goal theory has established that a predominately task and/or egoinvolvement has implications for an individuals attitudes, affective responses, and behaviors in sport (Gano, Guivernau, Magyar, Waldron, & Ewing, 2005). Moreover, Nicholls (1989) predicted that an individuals goal involvement for a particular task was influenced by his/her dispositional goal orientation, namely the persons general degree of task and ego involvement. According to Nicholls (1989, p. 95), dispositional goal orientations reflect individual differences in proneness to the different types of involvement and tendencies in terms of how success is defined in particular achievement settings. While an athletes dispositional goal orientation influences his/her goals for a particular situation or task in sport, achievement goal theory also addresses situational factors that promote task or ego involvement within the athlete. The next section of the literature will examine one of these situational factors, the motivational climate created by the coach. Motivational Climate The motivational climate refers to a teams goal structure (e.g., task or egooriented) which is a result of the coachs personal goal orientation and behaviors. Depending on the type of climate the coach creates, his/her athletes will be inclined to adopt a similar goal orientation. Coaches can form a mastery-oriented climate by

Literature Review 9 promoting skill development, effort, and cooperation with teammates, along with emphasizing the important contributions that all players make to the team (McArdle & Duda, 2002; Smoll & Smith, 2006). In contrast, a performance-oriented climate occurs when the coach focuses on outcomes of athletic performance, punishes players for making mistakes, supports intra-team rivalries, and works more with the top athletes within the team (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Therefore, a mastery-oriented climate offers more of a cooperative learning environment whereas a performance-oriented climate offers a competitive learning environment. Consequently, athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate have been identified as a major factor influencing their motivation in sport. The literature examining athletes perceptions of the motivational climate has provided consistent support for a task-involving team climate, especially in youth sport where the focus should be on athletes growth and development (Cumming et al., 2007). Particularly, a task-involving climate has been linked to a variety of outcome variables such as athletes level of intrinsic or self-determined motivation, sport enjoyment, satisfaction, personal effort, persistence, a more task-oriented goal perspective, and perceptions of sport competence (Chi, 2004; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992). Moreover, some support has been found for the negative effects of an ego-involving (performanceoriented) motivational climate (Treasure & Roberts, 1998; Treasure, Standage, & Lochbaum, 1999). Specifically, this type of climate has been linked to higher levels of athletes anxiety, worry, and tension, perceived performance pressure, maladaptive coping strategies, and a more ego-oriented goal perspective.

Literature Review 10 More recently, researchers have expanded the research base on motivational climate to study other outcome variables that were important in youth sport. For example, several researchers have found that athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate were associated with sources of sport competence (Halliburton & Weiss, 2002) and sources of self-confidence in regard to their sport (Magyar & Feltz, 2003). More specifically, perceptions of a mastery-oriented climate were positively associated with adaptive or self-referenced sources of sport confidence whereas perceptions of an egooriented climate were positively associated with maladaptive or normative sources of sport confidence. Additional research has reported that a task-involving motivational climate was positively related to several team variables, including team cohesion (Heuze, Sarrazin, Masiero, Raimbault, & Thomas, 2006), perceptions of team improvement in regards to the technical, tactical, physical, and psychological aspects of the sport (Balaguer, Duda, Atienza, & Mayo, 2002), and collective efficacy (Heuze et al., 2006; Magyar, Feltz, & Simpson, 2004). Moreover, Sarrazin and colleagues (2002) reported a predictive and causal relationship between young athletes perceptions of a taskinvolving motivational climate, their perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, and their level of self-determined motivation. Furthermore, with time, athletes self-determined motivation was predictive of both their intention to drop out and their actual drop out behavior. This is an important contribution to the literature since it identifies some of the coaching variables that may influence attrition in youth sport. The onset of adolescence (ages 11 -12) is a period when discontinuation of sport participation is at its highest level (Hedstrom & Gould, 2004). Thus, youth sport coaches must

Literature Review 11 understand some of the different coaching factors, such as motivational climate, that influence drop-out rates among young athletes. In addition to attrition, team motivational climate has been identified as a potential factor affecting athletes moral judgments, sportspersonship values and beliefs, and fair play attitudes (Boixados, Cruz, Torregrosa, & Valiente, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Gano et al., 2005; Kavussanu & Spray, 2006; Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, & Treasure, 2003). In general, these studies have found a positive relationship between a task-involving team climate and athletes sportspersonship orientations, and a positive relationship between an ego-involving team climate and players tendencies to engage in amoral sport behaviors (e.g., cheating, aggression). Therefore, it is important for youth sport coaches to create a more task-oriented team climate in order to develop effective social skills among their athletes. Despite the considerable amount of research documenting the effects of the perceived motivational climate, some questions regarding its measurement have recently been raised. More specifically, some researchers (e.g., Cumming et al., 2007; Duda, 2001; Gano et al., 2005) have questioned whether athletes within a team share similar perceptions of the motivational climate, and as such, they have recommended measuring these perceptions as a group level variable. Since motivational climate refers to some of the coachs general behaviors in games and practices, these researchers have argued that players within a team should perceive a similar type of climate created by the coach. To assess motivational climate at the group level, Papaioannou and colleagues (2004) recommended aggregating the individual perceived motivational climate scores of the team members. Motivational climate scores at the level of the individual would then

Literature Review 12 be represented as displacement scores from the group mean (i.e., individuals score minus group mean). Although Papaioannou et al. recommendations have merit, Cumming et al. (2007) noted that there are a number of methodological problems associated with the use of aggregate scores as measures of motivational climate at the group level. More specifically, Cumming et al. argued that the modest intra-class correlations associated with the measures of ego and mastery climate suggested team members in their study only showed modest agreement in how they perceived their coachs behaviors. An intraclass correlation of greater than .80 is typically required to ensure inter-rater reliability among groups of coders in behavioral assessment studies (Hersen, 2006). The intra-class correlations reported by Papaioannou et al. and Cumming et al. were well below this reliability criterion. Moreover, they were similar in magnitude to those typically observed in individual-level variables, such as achievement goals (Smoll, Smith, & Cumming, 2007), and competitive trait anxiety (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2007). In a similar study, Gano et al. (2005) investigated potential team level effects of the motivational climate and found that most members of each girls volleyball team shared similar perceptions about the motivational climate. Examination of within-team agreement on the perceived motivational climate was found to be high for both the task-involving climate and the ego-involving climate, meaning that individuals on the same team had similar perceptions of the climate. Consequently, these results suggested that it was appropriate to aggregate the individual scores to the group level in order to determine the relationship to aspects of sportspersonship. However the authors also noted that although consensus was quite high, variance in perceptions did exist.

Literature Review 13 While some of the literature supports measuring the team climate at the group level, a small group of studies (Cumming, et al., 2007; Duda, Newton, & Yin, 1999; Magyar et al., 2004) have shown that players within a team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate. Specifically, Duda et al. found that female volleyball players within a team were more likely to agree on the presence and extent of a task-oriented team climate rather than on the aspects of an ego-oriented team climate. Furthermore, when the mean score of a particular climate (task or ego) on the PMCSQ-2 was higher, the athletes were more consistent in their evaluations of the teams climate. Also, when the volleyball players were more satisfied with their team as a whole, there was a stronger agreement on the mastery involving dimensions of the team climate. Consistent with these results, when the volleyball players were less satisfied with their team as a whole, there was more disagreement on the performance involving dimensions of the team climate. Similarly, Magyar et al. found that competitive junior rowers within the same boat demonstrated stronger agreement on the dimensions of a mastery-oriented motivational climate but less consensus on the presence of a performance-oriented motivational climate. More specifically, individual scores on the PMCSQ-2 indicated that certain boat members perceived the coach as having favorites and encouraging comparison among teammates, while other members in the same boat did not perceive these performance involving dimensions of the climate to be pervasive. Recently, Cumming et al. argued that it seemed inappropriate to assess the motivational climate at the group level since members of each youth basketball team in their study only showed modest agreement on how they perceived their coachs behaviors. Moreover, the authors suggested that players were more likely to assess the teams motivational climate based

Literature Review 14 on their personal interactions with the coach rather than the coachs general interactions with the team. Similarly, Olympiou, Jowett, and Duda (2008) reported that collegiate athletes perceptions of their interpersonal relationship with their coach were associated with their perceptions of the teams motivational climate. Specifically, their study found that athletes perceptions of a task-oriented team climate were associated with athletes perceptions of feeling close, being committed, and interacting in a complementary fashion with their coach. While the perceived ego-oriented team climate features of punishment for making mistakes and intra-team member rivalry were unrelated to coachathlete relationships, athletes perceptions of unequal recognition were associated with their perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship. More specifically, when players perceived that the coach favored the most talented players within the team, they were more likely to view their relationship with the coach as lacking in closeness, commitment, and complementarity. Recently, Smith, Fry, Ethington, and Li (2005) found that athletes perceptions of individual coach feedback were associated with their perceptions of the teams motivational climate. When athletes perceived that their coaches were providing them with praise and encouragement in response to successful and unsuccessful performances as well as not ignoring mistakes, athletes were more likely to perceive a task-oriented team climate. In contrast, when athletes perceived that their coaches were providing them with criticism in response to mistakes, they were more likely to perceive an ego-oriented team climate. While these results provided some insight into the relationship between coach-athlete interactions and athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate, the Smith et al. study only included female high

Literature Review 15 school athletes and only examined certain aspects of coach feedback (i.e., praise, encouragement, criticism, ignoring mistakes) so further research is warranted. Although coach-player interactions may be a potential factor, Horn (2007) indicated that, to date, it is unclear what individual differences may contribute to such discrepancy in athletes perceptions of the teams climate. While limited research has examined the effects of coach-player interactions on athletes perceptions of the motivational climate, the next section will identify some of the key findings regarding coach feedback in youth sport. Coach Feedback According to Harter's (1981) competence motivation theory, adults evaluation of a child's performance affects the child's feelings of competence in that activity (i.e., the degree to which the child feels capable of achieving mastery). Over time, and with prerequisite cognitive maturation, the child internalizes the feedback he or she has been given by significant adults. This cognitive internalization is reflected in the degree to which the child perceives that he or she has control of performance outcomes. Thus, coach feedback serves as a source of information that children use to evaluate both their competence and their ability to control the outcome of their performance. Consequently, Harters competence motivation theory has provided sport psychology researchers with a framework for examining the effects of coach feedback on athletes attitudes and perceptions of self-competence. Effects of Coach Feedback Much of the research on coach feedback was stimulated by a series of studies conducted by Smith and Smoll and their colleagues at the University of Washington (e.g., Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978, 1979; Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977; Smith, Zane, Smoll, &

Literature Review 16 Coppel, 1983). Their work began by developing the Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS), an observational instrument designed to assess the frequency with which individual coaches exhibited twelve behavioral dimensions such as informative and corrective feedback, encouragement, praise, and punishment. Following the development and testing of the CBAS, Smith and Smoll and their colleagues conducted a series of research studies designed to examine the link between coaches' behaviors and young athletes' psychosocial development. Some of these studies (e.g., Smith et al., 1978; Smith et al., 1983) examined the correlation between observed coaching behaviors and athletes self-esteem and post-season attitudes. Consistent support was found for the value of an encouraging, supportive, and instructionally-based coaching feedback style. In contrast, high levels of punishment-oriented feedback were negatively related to players attitudes. In addition to observational studies, other researchers have recently examined the effects of coach feedback by assessing athletes perceptions of the feedback they received from their coaches (Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006). Questionnaire versions of the CBAS, such as the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn, 2000), were therefore developed to measure athletes perceptions of their coachs feedback in games and practices. Participants in these studies have included intercollegiate athletes (Amorose & Horn, 2000) as well as youth and adolescent athletes (Allen & Howe, 1998; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006). In general, these studies have shown that athletes perceptions of encouraging, supportive, and information-based feedback in response to both player successes and performance errors positively influenced athletes attitudes and perceptions

Literature Review 17 of self-competence. In contrast, athletes perceptions of punishment-oriented feedback and coaches tendencies to ignore players performance errors as well as their successes were found to be detrimental to athletes psychosocial well-being. Thus, research on the effects of coaches feedback patterns (or verbal behaviors) has revealed the importance of coach-player interactions in the psychosocial development of young athletes. However this line of research has primarily focused on the frequency with which coaches provided particular types of feedback or on the total amount of particular types of feedback coaches provided their athletes. Moreover, Horn (2007) suggested that there are alternative, and perhaps more critical, aspects of coaches feedback that may be important to assess. Horn and colleagues (1985, 1987, 2002, 2006) found that the appropriateness and contingency of coaches feedback might be more critical than the frequency or amount. Appropriate and performance-contingent feedback from significant others has received empirical support as a facilitator of children's perceptions of competence and control (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978; Kennelly & Kinley, 1975; Lenney, 1977). Nonreinforcement (i.e., giving players no response after a successful performance) may clearly be seen as a non-contingent response (Horn, 1985). However, considerable evidence has suggested that reinforcement or praise, exhibited as an instructional behavior in academic settings, may not be given contingently. In other words, classroom teachers have been observed to use praise for motivational or disciplinary purposes and not as a performance-contingent or appropriate evaluation of the child's performance (Brophy, 1980). Thus, praise has often been found to be unrelated to or even negatively correlated with students' academic achievement (Brophy, 1980; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974).

Literature Review 18 In a sport setting, Horn (1985) concluded that high frequencies of both reinforcement and non-reinforcement may be negatively associated with increased players' perceptions of self-competence since these coaching responses carried little or no informational feedback. In addition, coaches' use of inappropriate praise might have established or set lower expectations for players' performance, resulting in negative self-perceptions regarding their skill competence (Horn, 1985). Recently, in a review and synthesis of the empirical and theoretical literature on the effects of praise on childrens intrinsic motivation, Henderlong and Lepper (2002) concluded that praise (as given by adults to children in response to their performance attempts in an achievement context) undermined, enhanced, or had no effect on childrens intrinsic motivation for the achievement task at hand. Furthermore, Henderlong and Lepper suggested that the effects of praise depended on five factors: the perceived sincerity of the praise, the performance attributions contained in the praise, the degree to which the praise contributed to the childs perception of autonomy, the degree to which the praise conveyed positive information regarding the childs competence without relying on social comparisons, and the level or standard of performance and future expectancies that was contained in the praise. Similarly, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, (1999), as well as Mageau and Vallerand (2003) have recently distinguished between positive feedback (praise) that was administered in an informational or in a controlling style. For example, positive feedback delivered by adults (teachers, parents, coaches, laboratory experimenters) in a controlling way generally contained the word should (e.g., Excellent! You should keep up that level.). Thus, controlling feedback carried the implication that the future performance of the learner/performer should conform to

Literature Review 19 the wishes of the person giving the praise (e.g., Keep it up! I would like you to do even better in the next game.). Such feedback, although positive in nature, may be perceived by athletes as a form of control. This perception of external control or external pressure may have lowered the athletes perceptions of autonomy, and did nothing to increase perceptions of competence. Therefore, the praise received from the coach may have resulted in a decrease in the athletes level of intrinsic or self-determined motivation. While extensive research has provided support for certain types of evaluative feedback such as praise, encouragement, and information regarding performance, some studies have revealed that athletes perceptions of praise and encouragement are not always perceived as positive coaching behaviors. Therefore, perhaps a more critical aspect of coach feedback is assessing what type of coaching responses athletes prefer or need rather than simply examining the type of coaching responses athletes receive. Consequently, the literature needs to measure the discrepancy between athletes perceptions of coach feedback and athletes preferred coach feedback to determine if particular feedback patterns are actually perceived by athletes as positive coaching behaviors. Although the literature on coach feedback has primarily focused on the effects of specific feedback styles, several studies have also revealed that coaches were generally inconsistent with the feedback they provided their athletes. Variation in Coach Feedback Smith (2006) recently re-analyzed data collected with the CBAS in earlier baseball studies (e.g., Smith et al., 1978; Smith & Smoll, 1990). In both these cases, the data obtained from individual coaches had been aggregated in each coding category and then expressed as percentages of total behaviors (i.e., 62% of Coach As emitted

Literature Review 20 behaviors were praise). In the re-analysis of this data, Smith examined the stability (or instability) of three forms of coaching behavior (supportive, instructional, and punitive) across three types of game situations (coachs team was winning, teams were tied, coachs team was losing). Examination of these results revealed that one coach showed a reasonable level of stability in the three forms of behavior across all three game situations. For example, the coach demonstrated relatively high levels of supportive and instructional behavior and relatively low punitive behaviors across all three game situations. In contrast, the other coachs profile was much more unstable. More specifically, his instructional behavior was relatively high when his team was winning but much lower when his team was tied or losing. When their overall percentages of the three behaviors were summed across the three game-situation categories, the two coaches looked very similar in their coaching styles. However when the data was re-analyzed to examine coaching feedback across game situations, the stability of their profiles differed considerably. Therefore, certain coaches may be more likely to provide their players with positive feedback depending on the situation of the game. Although the results of the Smith and Smoll et al. research project contributed valuable information concerning the relationship between coaches' behavior and athletes' self-perceptions, the focus in these studies was on the team as a group (Horn, 1985). Coaches' behavior was measured by recording the communications that they delivered to their team during game situations. However, the use of the team or group as the primary unit of observation and analysis ignored how coaches interacted individually with their athletes. Moreover, research has demonstrated that there is considerable variation in the

Literature Review 21 frequency and quality of coaches' communications directed to individual players within a team (Horn, 1984; Rejeski, Darracott, & Hutslar, 1979). Horn (1985) discovered significant variation in coach feedback when she observed how junior high softball coaches interacted individually with their players. Although previous research found discriminatory teaching behaviors toward low ability students, this study reported that it was the low expectancy players who received more positive feedback from their coach during performance. More specifically, the low expectancy players were given more technical instruction and feedback in general and following mistakes. Moreover, the low expectancy athletes also received more reinforcement in response to successful performances whereas the high expectancy players received more criticism following errors and were more often ignored after a successful performance. Therefore, coaches tended to put more pressure on the high expectancy athletes. While Horns study reported variation in coach-athlete interactions within a team, this line of research in sport psychology is limited (Horn, 1985). Thus, the next section will explore variation in teacher-student interactions. Although the context is different from sport, the literature revealed similar findings regarding the feedback students received from their teachers. Teacher-Student Interactions Extensive research has investigated the communication patterns of classroom and physical education teachers. The results of these studies have consistently demonstrated that there was significant variability in teacher-student interactions. This section will discuss some of the factors that influenced the individual feedback students received from their teachers.

Literature Review 22 Influence of Teachers Expectations Early research examining interactions in the classroom found that teachers exhibited preferential behavior toward students as a result of their expectations (Brophy, & Good, 1974; Chaikin, Sigler, & Derlega, 1974; Crowe, 1977; Kester & Letchworth, 1972; Martinek, 1981). This preferential behavior was either negative or positive and was communicated in several different ways (Martinek, 1981). For example, positive forms of communication were expressed non-verbally such as a nod, wink, or a pat on the back. In addition, verbal forms of reinforcement included teachers use of the students idea in class, selecting a student as group captain, or simply allowing a student to respond to a specific question asked by the teacher (Chaikin et al., 1974). In contrast, negative teaching behaviors included ignoring the students efforts or failing to provide a student with useful feedback (Crowe, 1977). For example, Chaikin et al. videotaped simulated tutorial sessions and observed teachers non-verbal forms of communication. The results indicated that teachers who thought they were interacting with the bright students smiled and nodded their heads more frequently than the teachers who thought they were interacting with the slow students. Consistent with these results, Kester and Letchworth provided teachers with designated expectations of certain students and observed that instructors were more supportive and accepting toward the selected brighter students class. In addition to interactions within the academic classroom, some researchers (e.g., Crowe, 1977; Martinek, & Johnson, 1979) observed teacher-student interactions in physical education. Once again, a link was found between teacher expectations and teacher-student interactions. Crowes study reported that (a) designated high achievers

Literature Review 23 were found to be treated more warmly by their teachers than the designated low achievers; (b) designated high achievers were given more opportunities to respond to the teachers questions than the low achievers; (c) designated high achievers received more attention than the low achievers. Similarly, Martinek and Johnson asked elementary physical education teachers to rate their students according to how they expected each to perform in terms of physical achievement. The results of this study showed that the high expectancy groups received significantly more encouragement, acceptance of ideas and analytic-type questions than the low expectancy groups. Recently, Drudy and U Chathin (2002) reported that studentteacher interactions were affected by four key variables: the gender of the teacher, the class size, the gender-typed subject being taught (i.e., feminine traditional versus masculine traditional) and the gender composition of the class. Influence of Students Gender Teachers may treat students differently according to the gender-typed subject of a class. It has been proposed that teachers hold higher expectations of males in the sciences and females in languages (Worrall & Tsarna, 1987). Moreover, certain tasks and activities have traditionally been assigned to males and others to females. These categorizations are social constructions based on societal expectations regarding beliefs about gender (Nicaise, Cogrino, Fairclough, Bois, & Davis, 2007). Gender differences are often found on expectancy measures, particularly for sports stereotyped by gender role (Eccles & Harold, 1991). Unfortunately, extensive evidence has indicated that females are stereotyped as less physically competent than males (e.g. Davis, 2000;

Literature Review 24 Eccles, Barber, & Jocefowicz, 1999), while many physical activities in the past have generally been labelled as masculine (Messner, 1992). Research in physical education (PE) has often focused on teachers who displayed gender biased behavior when interacting with their students. More specifically, PE teachers asked male students more questions, praised male students for good performance and female students for their effort, and provided male students with more corrective feedback in regard to physical skills (e.g., Dunbar & OSullivan, 1986; Griffin, 1981; MacDonald, 1990; Mitchell, Blunker, Kluka, & Sullivan, 1995; Napper-Owen, Kovar, Ermler, & Mehrhof, 1999; Solomon, 1977). There are only a few recent exceptions to the considerable amount of research over the past 30 years (e.g., McBride, 1990; Placek, Silverman, Shute, Dodds, & Rife, 1982). For example, McBride studied gender-role stereotyping by physical educators and found little evidence that students were treated differently because of their gender. Similarly, Placek and colleagues reported that elementary teachers provided remarkably equal opportunities for both sexes to participate and interact. In conclusion, research on coach-athlete and teacher-student interactions has revealed variation in the way instructors communicated individually with different students and players. This variation may partly explain why athletes within a team do not always perceive the same type of motivational climate created by the coach. To date, it is unclear what individual factors may contribute to within-team differences in athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. However this aspect of the motivational climate needs to be clarified so that coaches and educators have a better understanding of how to create a more task-oriented motivational climate for all of their athletes and students.

Literature Review 25 Since many youth sport programs have focused on the growth and development of athletes, perceptions of a task-oriented team climate would be beneficial due to the positive psychological and social outcomes that have been associated with this particular type of climate. Therefore, the current study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a relationship between perceptions of coach feedback and athletes perceptions of the teams motivational climate? Hypothesis: Athletes perceptions of positive individual coach feedback will be positively correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented team climate whereas athletes perceptions of negative individual coach feedback will be positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. 2. Is there a relationship between the discrepancy of athletes perceived and preferred coach feedback patterns and athletes perceptions of the teams motivational climate? Hypothesis: Scores on the discrepancy variable will be positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented climate and negatively correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented climate. 3. Is the discrepancy between athletes perceived and preferred individual coach feedback patterns a better predictor of the perceived motivational climate than athletes perceptions of the individual feedback they receive from their head coach. Hypohesis: Independent of team winning percentage and perceived ability, the discrepancy variable will result in a stronger correlate of the motivational climate than athletes perceptions of the individual feedback they receive from their head coaches.

Method 26

CHAPTER 3 Method The current study examined the influence of coach feedback on athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate. This chapter will describe the participants and the measurement instruments (Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 and Coaching Feedback Questionnaire) used in this study. In addition, the data collection and data analysis procedures will be outlined, as well as the hypotheses. Participants The participants were male hockey players (n = 70) from the Bantam AA and BB divisions (13-14 years old) in the West Island minor hockey region. More players came from the BB level (n = 58, 82.9%) than to the AA level (n = 12, 17.1%). According to Hockey Canada (2005), AA and BB are labeled as competitive levels, whereas A and B are labeled as recreational or community. Although no formal definition exists for each level of competition, AA and BB are the highest levels and are thus structured and geared for the most skilled and elite hockey players. Thirty of the players spoke English, ten of the players spoke French, and thirty players reported that they spoke multiple languages. A total of 8 teams participated in the study. Procedures Prior to collecting data, ethical approval for human subject research was acquired (Appendix A).. Once each hockey association had agreed to participate in the current study and had completed the sport organization consent form (Appendix B), the head coaches of their Bantam AA and BB teams were contacted in order to schedule a time to

Method 27 gather data. This included the completion of 3 items: the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) (Appendix C), the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (CFQ; Amorose & Horn, 2000) (Appendix D) and a demographic questionnaire (Appendix E). All of the questionnaires were administered to the players approximately one third into their regular season, which gave them suitable time to become familiar with their coaches behaviors and their teams motivational climate. When a session was scheduled, players and their respective parents/guardians were asked to fill out consent and agreement forms (Appendices F & G) prior to the session. These forms were available in English and in French. Six of the eight teams scheduled their sessions before practice and two teams scheduled their sessions after practice. Coaches were not present when the questionnaires were administered. Before players began completing the PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ, they were asked to fill out a demographic questionnaire. Since the PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ were only created in English by other researchers, these questionnaires were not translated into French for the current study due to validity and reliability issues that may have arisen. In order to ensure that the players could read English well enough to respond to the questionnaires, both the player agreement form and the parental consent form asked if players were able to complete the questionnaires in English. If players were unable to complete any of the questionnaires in English, they did not participate in the current study. However these players received reading material since they were obliged to remain with the rest of their team until all participants completed the questionnaires and one of their coaches returned. Although ten players reported speaking French, they were able to read and complete all three questionnaires in English.

Method 28 Measures Instrumentation for this study consisted of two questionnaires: The PMCSQ-2 and the CFQ. The two instruments will be explained with respect to their development, scoring, and psychometric properties. Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2 Early efforts to assess situational goal structures (also referred to as the motivational climate) were undertaken in the educational setting. Ames and Archer (1988) identified theoretical distinctions between what they termed a mastery and a performance climate in the classroom. The distinctions were based on differential evaluative classroom practices, the presence and extent of social comparison, the rewards and punishments distributed, and the quality of the interpersonal relationships being fostered in each motivational climate. Research in coaching drew upon the theoretical distinctions developed by Ames and colleagues (Ames, 1984, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988) to determine its utility in delineating similar dimensions of the motivational climate in the sport domain. Thus, Seifriz, Duda, and Chi (1992) developed the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (PMCSQ) to measure the athletes perceptions of the type of motivational climate coaches created in practices and in games. Congruent with classroom-based research, exploratory factor analysis of the PMCSQ revealed two major facets of the motivational climate operating on adolescent male basketball teams: a perceived performance (or Ego-Involving) climate and a perceived mastery (Task-Involving) climate. Although initial testing of the PMCSQ had supported its psychometric and concurrent validity (Duda & Whitehead, 1998), Seifriz et al. (1992) and Walling, Duda,

Method 29 and Chi (1993) indicated that the measure could be improved. In particular, it was proposed that the PMCSQ might be strengthened by conceptualizing the motivational climate in a hierarchical manner with subscales underlying the higher-order Task Involving and Ego-Involving scales. This suggestion was in line with Ames initial conceptual framework that viewed task-involving and ego-involving motivational climates as composites of several underlying dimensions or characteristics of the larger environment (Ames, 1984, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988). Based on the conceptual framework of Ames (Ames, 1984, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988) and the content of the PMCSQ items, the objectives of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire 2 (PMCSQ-2) (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000) (see Appendix C) were to expand the original questionnaire and to develop a hierarchical measure of the motivational climate in sport. The PMCSQ-2 consisted of 33 items which asked athletes to indicate the degree to which their team climate was characterized by a task-involving or an ego-involving goal perspective. More specifically, each item asked athletes to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) the extent to which that particular statement was characteristic of their teams climate. The items in the scale were hierarchically ordered into two first-order factors (a task-involving/mastery-oriented team climate and an egoinvolving/performance-oriented team climate) and six subscales (three subsumed under each of the two first-order factors) (Newton et al., 2000). A task-involving (masteryoriented) team climate was characterized by perceptions among athletes that trying hard was rewarded and that all players had an important role to fulfill and thus were all encouraged by the coach. In contrast, in an ego-involving (performance-oriented)

Method 30 climate, athletes perceived that teammates tried to outperform each other, players were punished for their mistakes, and individual recognition was limited to only a few stars within the team. The internal consistency of the two higher-order scales and six subscales proved to be acceptably high (Newton et al., 2000). Specifically, Cronbach s alphas were calculated for both the second-order factors and each subscale (Cronbach, 1951). The second-order Task-Involving (a= 0.88) and Ego- Involving (a= 0.87) scales proved to be internally consistent. Moreover, most of the subscales demonstrated coefficients greater than .70, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). For example, all three Task-Involving subscales; Cooperative Learning (a= 0.74), Important Role (a= 0.79) and Effort/Improvement (a= 0.77) exhibited internal consistency. In terms of the Ego-Involving subscales; Unequal Recognition (a= 0.86) and Punishment for Mistakes (a= 0.82) were similarly internally consistent however the Intra-Team Member Rivalry subscale exhibited low internal consistency (a= 0.54). However, Newton and colleagues argued that the sex of the participants may have influenced this finding. More specifically, coaches and the female athletes themselves may have been less likely to provide and participate fully in competitive training drills and rivalrous interactions in practices. The concurrent validity of the PMCSQ-2 was also supported (Newton et al., 2000). In line with previous research, enjoyment of, and interest in, volleyball correlated positively with a task-involving climate and all of its subscales. In addition, however, enjoyment/interest was inversely related to the perception of an ego-involving motivational climate and all of its subscales, particularly the unequal recognition

Method 31 component. Previous research reported that a major source of satisfaction and enjoyment in sport is the opportunity to master skills and improve performance (Smith et al., 1983, 1995; Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1989). Furthermore, athletes who perceived a more ego-involving motivational climate (and the three underlying facets of such a climate) reported greater feelings of pressure/tension while playing their sport. Based on the motivational climate literature, an ego-involving motivational climate was conducive to athletes feeling they must continuously prove their athletic ability in relation to other players within the team. Moreover, an ego-involving climate appeared to be an environment in which poor performance and errors led to reprimand by the coach. Such a team climate produced stress, perhaps in particular among individuals with low perceived ability (Newton et al., 2000). The PMCSQ-2 has been used to a great extent in the coaching literature (e.g., Boixados, et al., 2004; Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Gano et al., 2005; Heuze et al., 2006; Kavussanu & Spray, 2006; Ommundsen et al., 2003; Sarrazin et al., 2002). These studies have featured youth (e.g., 10 to 15 years of age), collegiate, and professional athletes. Moreover, the PMCSQ-2 has been used in a wide range of sports including handball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, rowing, and gymnastics. Coaching Feedback Questionnaire The Coaching Behavioral Assessment System, which has been extensively used to observe a variety of coaching behaviors, was modified by several researchers to measure athletes perceptions and preferences in regards to their coaches feedback (Allen & Howe, 2000; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1998; Horn & Glenn, 1988). One modified version is the Perceived Coaching Behavior Scale (PCBS; Horn &

Method 32 Glenn, 1988) which included 8 categories of coaching behaviors in response to athletes performance successes and failures, with one question for each category. Specifically, three categories represented coaching responses to athletes successes (praise, no response, praise combined with information about the performance) and five categories represented coaching responses to athletes performance errors (encouragement, no response, criticism, corrective information about the performance, and criticism combined with corrective information). Following the development of the PCBS, Black and Weiss modified this scale in a study that examined young swimmers perceptions of their coaches behaviors. The modified scale added two behavioral categories: information only, in response to a successful performance, and encouragement combined with corrective information, in response to an unsuccessful performance. In order to increase measurement reliability of the scale, each of the 10 categories was represented by three items instead of only one. Swimmers were asked to indicate the frequency with which their coaches displayed specific feedback patterns. They responded to the 30 items by rating each item on a Likert scale from always (5) to never (1). In addition, an openended questionnaire was included to determine whether the coachs responses were based on practices, swim meets, or both. The majority of swimmers indicated that their answers were based on both practices and swim meets. While the Black and Weiss version of the CBAS included 10 categories of coach feedback, one of its limitations was that it did not assess non-verbal communication from the coach. Therefore, Allen and Howe expanded the scale by adding two non-verbal feedback categories: nonverbal praise in response to a successful performance or effort and non-verbal criticism in response to an unsuccessful performance or mistake. Since their study included adolescent field hockey players, some

Method 33 of the items on the scale were modified so that the questionnaire was appropriate for field hockey. Similar to the previous scales, the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire (Amorose & Horn, 2000) (Appendix D) was developed to assess athletes perceptions and preferences regarding the type of individual feedback their coaches provided them in response to their performance successes and failures. The CFQ consists of 16 items representing eight different types of feedback responses. These eight categories include three that are given by coaches in response to athletes performance successes (praise/reinforcement, nonreinforcement, reinforcement combined with technical instruction) and five that are given in response to athletes performance errors (mistake-contingent encouragement, ignoring mistakes, corrective instruction, punishment and corrective instruction combined with punishment). These feedback categories correspond to those categories identified in the original CBAS, in addition to reinforcement combined with technical instruction. For each of the 16 items, athletes are asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (very typical to not at all typical) how typical it is for their coach to give them that particular type of feedback during practices and games. In addition to athletes perceptions of their coaches feedback, athletes are also asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (prefer very much to do not prefer at all) how much they prefer each type of feedback. Amorose and Horn (2000) used the CFQ in a study examining collegiate athletes perceptions of their coaches behaviors. Participants represented a variety of sports such as football, field hockey, gymnastics, ice hockey, swimming, and wrestling. The internal consistency of the measure was calculated using Cronbachs alpha. All of the subscales demonstrated coefficients greater than .70, indicating an acceptable level of internal

Method 34 consistency (Nunnally, 1978). Recently, the CFQ was modified for use in physical education (Nicaise, Cogrino, Bois, & Amorose, 2006). More specifically, these researchers measured students perceptions of the feedback their teachers provided them in response to their performance successes and failures in physical education activities. Although the current study used the CFQ (Amorose & Horn, 2000) to measure athletes perceptions of their coaches feedback, some of the items were modified. More specifically, all of the items that represented informative feedback in response to a successful (e.g., items 3, 4) or unsuccessful (e.g., items 4, 5, 8, 10) performance were more ice hockey specific in order to make the questionnaire more appropriate for the current study. These items were modified based on the ice hockey experiences of the present investigators and the head coach of the McGills mens ice hockey team. Following these changes, the questionnaire was pilot tested with a Bantam AA ice hockey team to ensure that the modifications were appropriate and concise. Moreover, the pilot study assessed whether the players in this age cohort were able to complete and comprehend the CFQ. . Data Analysis In order to test the first three hypotheses, correlation analysis was used to measure the degree of the relationships between athletes perceptions of coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate. Factors (e.g., perceived ability, teams winning percentage) that may have influenced these relationships were controlled for when correlation analysis was used. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the fourth

Method 35 hypothesis which examined the strength of the coach feedback and discrepancy variables as predictors of the motivational climate.

Results 36 CHAPTER 4 Results This chapter presents the findings examining the relationship between individual coach feedback and athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate. To begin, descriptive statistics for the measurement instruments are presented. The following section presents the results of a correlation analysis which includes Pearson correlation coefficients, followed by the results of a hierarchical regression analysis. Descriptive Statistics The means, standard deviations, and additional descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. A higher mean was reported for a task-oriented climate than an ego-oriented climate. Similarly, a higher mean was reported for perceived positive feedback than perceived negative feedback. All scales had adequate internal consistencies (PMCSQ-2, =.87-.89; CFQ, =.77-.78) except for perceived and preferred negative coach feedback (=.49-.65). Table 1 The Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum, Maximum, Skewness, and Kurtosis for all measurement instruments (N=70) Variable Min Max Mean Task-oriented climate (PMCSQ-2) 26.00 85.00 60.91 Ego-oriented climate (PMCSQ-2) 20.00 68.00 40.56 Perceived positive feedback (CFQ) 9.00 37.00 23.56 Perceived negative feedback (CFQ) 11.00 31.00 19.89 Preferred positive feedback (CFQ) 18.00 40.00 30.33 Preferred negative feedback (CFQ) 8.00 33.00 16.47 Discrepancy (CFQ) .00 20.00 6.84 Discrepancy between positive feedback .00 27.00 7.91 Discrepancy between negative feedback .00 18.00 5.21 Perceived ability 1.00 5.00 4.00 Team win percentage .25 .86 .60 a b Note. Std Error Skewness= .287, Std Error Kurtosis= .566 SD Skewnessa Kurtosisb 12.06 -.63 .59 11.64 .49 -.29 6.02 -.07 -.17 4.77 .33 -.45 5.67 -.38 -.64 5.24 .70 .75 4.70 .62 -.16 6.25 .82 .49 4.21 1.13 1.16 .70 -1.12 3.78 .18 -1.09 -.20

Results 37 Correlation Analysis Pearson correlation coefficients were examined for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the teams motivational climate. Significant correlations were reported for the relationship between perceptions of positive coach feedback and perceptions of a task-oriented climate and for the relationship between perceptions of negative coach feedback and an ego-oriented climate. Moreover, a positive relationship was found between the discrepancy variable and perceptions of an egooriented climate whereas a negative relationship was found between the discrepancy variable and perceptions of a task-oriented climate (see Table 2).

Results 38 Table 2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the relationships between perceptions of individual coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback and perceptions of the teams motivational climate
Variable 1. Task 2. Cooperative learning 3. Important role 4. Effort 5. Ego 6. Punishment 7. Unequal recognition 8. Rivalry 9. Perceived positive feedback 10. Perceived negative feedback 11. Preferred positive feedback 12. Preferred negative feedback 13. Discrepancy 14. Discrepancy positive 15. Discrepancy negative 16. Average ability 17. Team win percentage 1 -2 .80** -3 .83** .52** -4 .91** .62** .61** -5 -.44** -.20 -.43** -.43** -6 -33** -.18 -.29** -.33** .71** -7 -.46** -.22 -.45** -.46** .92** .46** -8 -.04 .05 -.14 -.01 .56** .12 .42** -9 .48** .31** .39** .49** -.25* -.24* -.23 -.05 -10 -.31** -.16 -.35** -.27* -.50** .49** .39** .25* -.20 -11 -.03 .04 -.06 -.03 -.01 .02 -.05 .06 -.18 .03 -12 -.15 -.10 -.10 -.16 .26* .07 .31** .12 .13 .34** -.17 -13 -.36** -.18 -.37** -.33** .36** .15 .42** .11 -.26* .18 .14 .17 -14 -.44** -.25* -.40** -.44** .28* .21 .26* .14 -.63** .23 .49** -.22 .44** -15 -.36** -.22 -.40** -.30* .35** .42** .28* .05 -.32** .63** .11 -.22 .22 .30* -16 -.13 -.14 -.19 -.03 .22 .16 .24 .03 .02 .21 .02 .04 .25* .02 .32** -17 .12 -.13 -.11 -.08 -.05 -.03 -.11 .13 -.21 .31** -.02 .18 .08 .09 .15 -.02 --

p < .05; ** p < .01

Results 39 Hierarchical Regression Analysis To test the strength of the coach feedback and discrepancy variables as predictors of the motivational climate, and after controlling for team winning percentage and perceived athletic ability, negative feedback from the coach (B=.51) was a significant (p.05) correlate of an ego-oriented team climate (see Table 3). The perceived-preferred discrepancy (B=.23) was also a significant (p.05) correlate, with the final model accounting for 36.9% of the variance in an ego-oriented climate. In contrast, when predicting a task-oriented team climate (see Table 4), positive coach feedback (B=.44) was a significant (p.05) correlate and the discrepancy did not emerge as a significant correlate. The final model accounted for 31% of the variance in a task-oriented climate.

Results 40 Table 3 Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of an ego-oriented motivational climate Model Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 26.67 9.34 3.61 1.96 -.419 7.90 26.88 10.18 1.83 1.73 -14.82 7.32 -.37 .20 1.22 .27 25.29 9.95 .93 1.74 -15.50 7.15 -.27 .20 1.19 .27 .55 .26 Standardized Coefficients Beta .22 -.01 .11 -.23 -.20 .51 .06 -.24 -.15 .50 .23 t Sig. Zeroorder 2.86 1.84 -.05 2.64 1.06 -2.02 -1.84 4.49 2.54 .54 -2.17 -1.36 4.49 2.10 .01 .07 .96 .01 .29 .05 .07 .00 .01 .59 .03 .18 .00 .04 .22 -.01 .22 -.01 -.24 .49 .22 -.01 -.24 .49 .33 Correlations Partial .22 -.01 .13 -.25 -.23 .49 .07 -.26 -.17 .49 .26 Part .22 -.01 .11 -.21 -.19 .46 .05 -.22 -.14 .45 .21

1 2

(Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback Discrepancy

Results 41 Table 4 Regression Analysis testing team win percentage, perceived ability, perceptions of individual coach feedback and the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback as predictors of a task-oriented motivational climate Model Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 76.51 9.65 -2.21 2.02 -11.82 8.16 56.53 10.86 -1.60 1.84 -.58 7.81 .86 .22 -.47 .29 57.93 10.73 -.82 1.87 .01 7.70 .77 .22 -.45 .29 -.48 .29 Standardized Coefficients Beta -.13 -.17 -.10 -.10 .44 -.19 -.05 .00 .40 -.18 -.19 t Sig. Zeroorder 7.93 -1.09 -1.45 5.21 -.87 -.07 4.00 -1.63 5.40 -.44 .00 3.55 -1.57 -1.70 .00 .28 .15 .00 .39 .94 .00 .11 .00 .66 1.00 .00 .12 .09 -.13 -.17 -.13 -.17 .48 -.30 -.13 -.17 .48 -.30 -.33 Correlations Partial -.13 -.18 -.11 -.01 .45 -.20 -.06 .00 .41 -.19 -.21 Part -.13 -.17 -.09 -.01 .42 -.17 -.05 .00 .37 -.16 -.18

1 2

(Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback (Constant) Perceived ability Team win percentage Perceived positive feedback Perceived negative feedback Discrepancy

Discussion 42 CHAPTER 5 Discussion The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of the athletes perceptions of the individual feedback received from the head coach in practices on their perceptions of the teams motivational climate. The current study also examined the influence of the discrepancy between perceived and preferred individual coach feedback patterns on athletes perceptions of the teams motivational climate. Overall, the findings suggested that the individual feedback provided by the head coach influenced athletes perceptions of their teams climate. Moreover, the results indicated that the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback was a significant correlate of the motivational climate. This chapter will discuss these findings as they pertain to previous research, the theoretical implications of the current study, and recommendations for future research. Influence of Perceived Coach Feedback As hypothesized, athletes perceptions of positive coach feedback and their perceptions of a task-oriented climate were significantly correlated. Positive coach feedback included praise in response to successful performances as well as encouragement and technical instruction in response to mistakes. This finding is consistent with previous research. Specifically, a task-oriented climate was associated with female high school athletes perceptions of their coaches providing them with praise, encouragement, and not ignoring their mistakes (Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li, 2005). Similarly, Olympiou, Jowett, and Duda (2008) reported that collegiate athletes perceptions of a task-oriented team climate were associated with athletes perceptions of

Discussion 43 feeling close, being committed, and interacting in a complementary fashion with their coach. Likewise, the current study reported that young male hockey players perceptions of praise, encouragement, and technical instruction from the head coach were positively correlated with their perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Based on the present results, athletes perceptions of positive coach feedback in response to successful and unsuccessful performances were more likely to make athletes feel that the coach valued their effort, and that the coach believed their hard work would help them improve their skills over time (Smith et al., 2005). These are all aspects of a task-oriented team climate (Newton & Duda, 1999). According to Achievement Goal Theory, coaches can create a task-oriented climate by reducing the importance of winning and focusing on other participation motives such as skill development, effort, and affiliation with teammates. Therefore, the current findings were in line with the tenets of Achievement Goal Theory. Based on these results, youth sport coaches need to demonstrate such behaviors in practice in order to create an effective team climate. Outcomes associated with positive feedback and a task-oriented climate are welldocumented. Encouraging, supportive, and information-based feedback given in response to athletes performances in sport are related to increased perceptions of competence and an increase in intrinsic motivation (e.g., Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006). Similarly, several recent studies have reported that athletes perceptions of a task-oriented climate were positively associated with adaptive or self-referenced sources of sport confidence (e.g., Chi, 2004; Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992). Therefore, strategies to improve both perceptions of positive feedback and subsequent

Discussion 44 task motivational climates need to be targeted in coaching programs and in practice. Since the current findings demonstrated that athletes perceptions of positive coach feedback was a significant predictor of a task-oriented team climate, encouraging, supportive, and information-based feedback may partly explain why a task-oriented team climate has been linked to sources of sport competence and intrinsic motivation. In addition to positive coach feedback, this study also examined the relationship between negative coach feedback and athletes perceptions of the team climate. As hypothesized, a significant relationship was observed between perceptions of negative coach feedback and an ego-oriented climate. More specifically, perceptions of negative coaching behaviors such as criticism and ignoring performance were positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Similarly, Smith et al. (2005) reported that athletes perceptions of criticism from their coach in response to mistakes were more likely to be associated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Likewise, Olympiou et al. (2008) reported that negative coach-athlete interactions were associated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In particular, when players felt that the coach favored the most talented players within the team, they were more likely to view their relationship with the coach as lacking in closeness, commitment, and complementarity. Based on the current findings, hockey players perceptions of negative coach feedback in response to successful and unsuccessful performances was associated with their perceptions that players would be punished for poor performances, would not receive positive feedback unless they were the best players, and that they had to focus on the outcome of their performance (Smith et al., 2005). Thus, the current findings are consistent with Achievement Goal Theory, which suggests that an ego-oriented climate

Discussion 45 occurs when the coach promotes intra-team rivalries, favors the most talented players, and punishes players for making mistakes (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Consequently, coaches should avoid using such behaviors in practice if their goal is to create a taskoriented team climate. Several studies on coach feedback reported that athletes perceptions of negative coaching behaviors such as punishment-oriented feedback and tendencies to ignore players performance undermined their intrinsic motivation (e.g., Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming et al., 2006). Likewise, extensive research on motivational climate has demonstrated that athletes perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate were linked to higher levels of athletes anxiety, worry, and tension, perceived performance pressure, and maladaptive coping strategies (Treasure & Roberts, 1998; Treasure, Standage, & Lochbaum, 1999). The current findings indicated a significant relationship between athletes perceptions of negative coach feedback and their perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. Therefore, coaching behaviors such as criticism and ignoring players individual performances may partly explain why an egooriented team climate can be detrimental to athletes psychosocial well-being. Based on these current findings, the individual feedback received from the coach is likely to be an important source of information that athletes use to assess their teams motivational climate. That being said, the current study examined athletes general perceptions of positive and negative individual coach feedback. Therefore, it would be interesting for future research to examine specific aspects of positive and negative coach feedback patterns (i.e., praise, encouragement, technical instruction, criticism, and ignoring mistakes) and to determine if certain coach feedback patterns are stronger

Discussion 46 correlates of the motivational climate than others. This type of research would provide youth sport coaches with valuable practical information by identifying which specific coaching behaviors help foster a task-oriented and an ego-oriented team climate. Influence of the Discrepancy between Preferred and Perceived Coach Feedback As hypothesized, the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback was significantly correlated with athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. Specifically, a discrepancy in preferred and perceived feedback was positively correlated with an ego-oriented climate and negatively correlated with a task-oriented climate. This relationship between discrepancy and an ego-oriented climate remained significant when team winning percentage and perceived ability were taken into account. Based on these results, players who felt that their coach did not provide them with individual feedback that they desired were more likely to believe that their coach was more concerned with the outcome of their performance than their development as a player. For example, if players preferred technical instruction from their coach in response to performance errors in practice but received more criticism, they were more likely to feel that their coach punished players for making mistakes instead of encouraging them to improve their skills. Therefore, these findings support Achievement Goal Theory, which proposes that coaches are more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate when they focus on participation motives such as winning rather than skill development. Consequently, the discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback impacts an athletes motivation. Thus, the current findings can be further explained by Self-Determined Motivation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). More specifically, the

Discussion 47 discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback may be linked to athletes perceptions of autonomy supportive and controlling coaching behaviors. According to Self-Determined Motivation Theory, athletes perceive their coaches behaviors as autonomy-supportive or as autocratic and controlling. Autonomy supportive means that an individual in a position of authority (e.g., an instructor or a coach) takes the others (e.g., a student or an athlete) perspective, acknowledges the others feelings, and provides the other with pertinent information and opportunities for choice while minimizing the use of pressures and demands (Deci & Black, 2000). All these coaching behaviors are aspects of a task-oriented climate. In contrast, coaching behaviors that are perceived by athletes as autocratic and controlling are more likely to create an ego-oriented climate (Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002). In the present study, when players received coach feedback that they felt they did not need or want, they were more likely to feel that the coach did not support their individual needs and that future performances had to conform to the wishes of the coach. Therefore, a discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback may have been perceived by athletes as a form of control. Consequently, athletes that reported a higher discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback were more likely to view their head coachs behaviors as ego-oriented. Future research would be warranted to better examine the association between autonomy-supportive and controlling coach behaviors and the links to coach feedback. While no research has examined the influence of the discrepancy between preferred and perceived coach feedback on athletes motivation, several researchers have suggested that positive coaching behaviors such as praise and encouragement do not

Discussion 48 always enhance athletes intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Thus, there are alternative and perhaps more critical aspects of coach feedback such as the discrepancy in preferred and perceived coach feedback than simply examining the type of feedback athletes perceive from their coach. Similarly, teachers use of praise or encouragement has been unrelated to or even negatively correlated with students' academic achievement (Brophy, 1980; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Thus, some studies (e.g., Deci et al., 1999; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) have recently distinguished between positive coach feedback (praise) that was administered in an informational or in a controlling style. In other words, the use of praise for motivational or disciplinary purposes was more likely to be perceived by athletes as a form of control and thus decreased their levels of intrinsic motivation. In contrast, coaches who used praise as an appropriate evaluation of their athletes performances were more likely to increase athletes levels of self-competence and intrinsic motivation. Similarly, the current results reported that the discrepancy variable was related to athletes perceptions of autonomy supportive and controlling coaching behaviors. Together, the findings suggest that the appropriateness and effectiveness of individual coach feedback may be influenced by whether athletes view the feedback as autonomy supportive or as controlling.. Contrary to what was hypothesized in the present study, athletes perceptions of coach feedback were a stronger predictor of the motivational climate than the discrepancy variable. Since no research has examined the influence of the discrepancy variable on athletes perceptions of their teams climate, the current findings revealed an antecedent of the motivational climate that was not previously identified.. Therefore, the discrepancy

Discussion 49 between preferred and perceived coaching behaviors is likely to be an important aspect of coaching that requires further investigation. Depending on the level of competition and the athletes perceived ability, these coaching preferences are likely to vary significantly from athlete to athlete, and therefore, may represent important individual factors when evaluating specific coaching behaviors. In the present study, participants were elite Bantam aged hockey players. Thus, the current results demonstrated that the discrepancy between skilled teenage hockey players preferred and perceived coach feedback patterns was associated with their perceptions of the motivational climate created by the coach. However, athletes participating at a recreational level (i.e., less competitive level of play) are likely to have very different preferences and needs in regards to coaching. Thus, it would be worthwhile for future studies to investigate if athletes level of competition and their perceived ability influence their preferred coaching behaviors. That being said, the current results suggested that youth sport coaches should become familiar with their athletes personal preferences regarding coach feedback patterns in order to help foster a task-oriented team climate and avoid creating an ego-oriented team climate.

Summary 50 CHAPTER 6 This chapter presents a summary of the current study followed by its limitations. The final section discusses practical recommendations for coaching and youth sport. Summary The motivational climate created by the coach has been identified as one of the primary variables that can impact an athletes motivation in sport (Ames, 1992; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000). Research on motivational climate has clearly demonstrated many of the positive outcomes associated with a task-oriented climate, especially in youth sport (Boixados, Cruz, Torregrosa, & Valiente, 2004; Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992). Since the motivational climate refers to the coachs general behaviors in games and practices, it is traditionally assumed that players within a team perceive the same type of team climate. However several recent studies have reported that athletes within the same team do not always share the same perceptions of the motivational climate (Cumming, Smoll, Smith, & Grossbard, 2007; Duda, Newton, & Yin, 1999; Magyar, Feltz, & Simpson, 2004). To date, it is unclear what individual differences may contribute to such discrepancy in athletes perceptions of the teams climate. Several sport psychology researchers (i.e., Cumming et al., 2007; Horn, 2007; Olympiou, Jowett, & Duda, 2008; Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li, 2005) have suggested coach-athlete interactions as a potential factor. Therefore, one goal of the present study was to examine the influence of the athletes perceptions of the individual feedback received from the head coach on their perceptions of the teams motivational climate.

Summary 51 While several studies (i.e., Allen & Howe, 1998; Amorose & Horn, 2000; Black & Weiss, 1992; Cumming, Smith, & Smoll, 2006) have provided support for certain types of evaluative feedback such as praise, encouragement, and information regarding performance, some studies (i.e., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) have revealed that athletes perceptions of praise and encouragement do not always result in positive outcomes. Therefore, perhaps a significant aspect of coach feedback is assessing what type of coaching responses athletes prefer or need rather than simply examining the type of coaching responses athletes perceive. Thus, a second goal of the current study was to examine the influence of the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback on athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. The participants in this study were 70 male hockey players from the Bantam AA and BB divisions (13-14 years old) in the West Island minor hockey region. Once each hockey association had agreed to participate in the current study and had completed the sport organization consent form, the head coaches of their Bantam AA and BB teams were contacted in order to schedule a time to gather data. This included the completion of 3 items: the Perceived Motivational Climate for Sport Questionnaire-2, the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire. Correlation analysis was used to measure the degree of the relationships between athletes perceptions of coach feedback, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback, and athletes perceptions of their teams motivational climate. As hypothesized, athletes perceptions of positive coach feedback were positively correlated with perceptions of a task-oriented team climate whereas athletes perceptions of

Summary 52 negative coach feedback were positively correlated with perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. In addition, the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback was a negative correlate of a task-oriented climate and a positive correlate of an ego-oriented climate. When team winning percentage and perceived ability were controlled for in the regression analysis, perceptions of coach feedback emerged as a significant predictor of the motivational climate. In particular, athletes perceptions of positive coach feedback were significantly correlated with a task-oriented climate whereas perceptions of negative coach feedback were significantly correlated with an ego-oriented climate. The discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback only significantly predicted an ego-oriented team climate. In sum, the present findings suggested that the individual feedback received from the coach was likely to be an important source of information that athletes used to assess their teams motivational climate. As suggested by Achievement Goal Theory (Newton & Duda, 1999), coaching behaviors that reduce the importance of winning and that focus on other participation motives such as skill development, effort, and affiliation with teammates are more likely to create a task-oriented climate. In contrast, coaching behaviors that make athletes feel that they would be punished for poor performances, would not receive positive feedback unless they were the best, and that they had to focus on the outcome of their performance were more likely to create an ego-oriented climate. Moreover, the current findings also indicated that the discrepancy between perceived and preferred coach feedback influenced athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. In line with the tenets of Self-Determined Motivation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985),

Summary 53 coaching behaviors that were perceived by athletes as needs supportive were more likely to create a task-oriented team climate whereas coaching behaviors that were perceived as controlling were more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate. Limitations While the current study identified antecedents of the motivational climate that were not previously reported, there are several limitations that must be discussed. To begin, all of the items on the Coaching Feedback Questionnaire that measured informative feedback were modified for the sport of ice hockey. Prior to collecting data, the questionnaire was pilot tested with a Bantam AA ice hockey team to ensure that the modifications were appropriate and concise. Although the pilot test was successful, the internal consistency of these items was not calculated. Moreover, this may explain why items pertaining to perceived and preferred negative feedback did not indicate adequate alpha coefficients (=.49-.65) in the data analysis of the current study. Another limitation regarding the CFQ was the validity of the items measuring coach feedback patterns. The instructions on the questionnaire asked participants to rate each statement in terms of how typical their coach gave them a specific type of feedback pattern (i.e., encouragement, praise, technical instruction, criticism, and ignoring performance) after a successful or unsuccessful performance. Despite this, if the feedback statement was not similar to the specific feedback provided by the coach, participants may have reported that statement as not typical at all even though the statement was designed to represent a general feedback pattern. For example, players may have reported lower levels of criticism because the specific statements measuring this type of feedback were not similar to the typical criticism received from their coach. In contrast, the present study assumed that players

Summary 54 who reported lower levels of criticism from their coach did so because they felt that it was not typical of their coaches to provide them with such feedback. Consequently, players ratings of the feedback statements on the questionnaire may not necessarily reflect their actual perceptions of their coachs typical feedback patterns. The present research reported a significant relationship between athletes perceptions of the individual feedback provided by the coach and their perceptions of the motivational climate. Despite the current findings, it should be noted that only certain dimensions of coach feedback were measured, thus limiting the generalizability of these results. To begin, participants were instructed to report the typical individual feedback provided by their head coach. However, team sports like hockey include several assistant coaches who also provide players with feedback in response to their performances. Thus, the individual feedback provided by the assistant coach(es) is likely to be an important aspect of coach feedback that future research may want to consider exploring. Consequently, the current results on coach feedback can not be generalized to all members of the coaching staff. In addition, the present study only measured the typical feedback provided by head coaches in practices. However, players receive a significant amount of individual feedback from their head coach in games as well. While the feedback provided by coaches in games is also likely to influence athletes perceptions of the motivational climate, the current results are limited to the feedback players received in practices. Furthermore, the CFQ only measured different types of verbal coach feedback patterns. However, the scale that Allen and Howe (2000) used in their study to assess athletes perceptions of coach feedback included items that measured non-verbal forms of coach feedback. Thus, non-verbal coach feedback such as a nod, wink, or a pat

Summary 55 on the back may also influence athletes perceptions of the motivational climate. Consequently, this represents another limitation for the present research. It should also be noted that the current study did not account for potential clustering within teams. Lastly, the present study only included elite male hockey players, thus limiting its generalizability. Practical Implications The results of this study have identified specific coaching behaviors (i.e., praise, encouragement, technical instruction, and preferred feedback) that influenced athletes perceptions of a task-oriented team climate. Previous research (Boixados et al., 2004; Chi, 2004; Fry & Newton, 2003; Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Magyar & Feltz, 2003; Seifriz et al., 1992) on motivational climate in youth sport has demonstrated the positive outcomes (i.e., self-determined motivation, sport enjoyment, satisfaction, personal effort, persistence, a more task-oriented goal perspective, perceptions of sport competence, and sportspersonship attitudes) associated with a task-oriented team climate. In addition, researchers (i.e., Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002) have found that with time, athletes self-determined motivation was predictive of both their intention to drop out and their actual drop out behavior. Therefore, understanding some of the coaching behaviors that help foster such an environment provides youth sport coaches with valuable practical information. Based on the current results, coaches are encouraged to provide athletes with praise and technical instruction in response to a successful performance during practice. However, when a player makes a mistake in practice, coaches should provide their athletes with encouragement and information on how to correct their performance. Coaching behaviors such as ignoring a players performance

Summary 56 and criticism are more likely to create an ego-oriented team climate. Furthermore, coaches need to be aware of the athletes individual preferences regarding coach feedback in order to create more of a task-oriented team climate. More specifically, providing players with feedback that is not in line with their coaching preferences is more likely to result in athletes perceptions of an ego-oriented team climate. By developing a clearer understanding on how the individual feedback coaches provide to their athletes affects the type of motivational climate perceived within the team, coaches are better prepared to meet the goals of youth sport which are centered on enhancing the growth and development of young athletes. In addition to the quality of individual feedback, coaches also need to be more consistent with the quality of individual feedback they provide to different players within the team. Some studies (i.e., Horn, 1984; Rejeski, Darracott, & Hutslar, 1979) have reported variation in how the coach interacts individually with different team members. Consequently, some of the literature (e.g., Cumming, et al., 2007; Duda et al., 1999; Magyar et al., 2004) on motivational climate has reported that athletes within the same team do not always perceive the same type of climate created by the coach. Moreover, Cumming et al. found that variability in athletes perceptions of the teams climate indicated that players were more likely to evaluate coach behaviors on the basis of their own personal interactions with the coach rather than interactions between the coach and the group as a whole. Based on these findings, coaches should focus on the feedback they provide to athletes individually in order to create an effective learning environment for every player within the team.

References 57 References Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes' perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 280-299. Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive motivational analysis. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: student motivation (pp. 177-208). New York: Academic Press. Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and adaptive motivational patterns: The role of the environment. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161 176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260- 267. Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes' gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84. Balaguer, I., Duda, J. L., Atienza, F. L., & Mayo, C. (2002). Situational and dispositional goals as predictors of perceptions of individual and team improvement, satisfaction and coach ratings among elite female handball teams. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 292-308.

References 58 Boixados, M., Cruz, J., Torregrosa, M., & Valiente, L. (2004). Relationships among motivational climate, satisfaction, perceived ability, and fair play attitudes in young soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 301-317. Brophy, J. (1980). Teacher praise: A functional analysis (Occasional Paper No. 28). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Brown, S., Brown, D., & Hussey, K. (1996). Promote equality in the classroom. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 9, 1922. Chaikin, A., Sigler, E., & Derlega, V. (1974). Non-verbal mediators of teacher expectancy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 144-149. Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook on research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan. Chi, L. (2004). Achievement goal theory. In T. Morris, & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications, and issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 152174). Sydney, Australia: Wiley. Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49, 389-410. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coe cient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 296-334.

References 59

Crowe, P. (1977). An observational study of expectancy effects and their mediating mechanisms on students of physical education activity classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. (2007). Is winning everything? The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 322-336. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, R. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Drudy, S., & U Chathin, M. (2002). Gender effects in classroom interaction: Data collection, self-analysis, and reflection. Evaluation and Research in Education 16, 3450. Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.) Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129-182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

References 60

Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport. Recent extensions and future directions. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 417443). New York: Wiley. Duda, J., & Nicholls, J. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290299. Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 21-48). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Dunbar, R. R., & OSullivan, M. M. (1986). Effects of intervention on differential treatment of boys and girls in elementary physical education lessons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 166175. Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom, and III. An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. and Jocefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In W. Swann, B. J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds) Sexism and Stereotypes in Modern Society, (pp. 153192). Washington, DC: APA.

References 61

Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles Expectancy-Value Model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7 35. Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025-1034. Fry, M. D. & Newton, M. (2003). Application of achievement goal theory in an urban youth tennis setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 50-66. Gano-Overway, L. A.,Guivernau, M., Magyar, T. M., Waldron, J. J., & Ewing, M. E. (2005). Achievement goal perspectives, perceptions of the motivational climate, and sportspersonship: Individual and team effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 215232. Good, T. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research. Educational Leadership, 38, 415-422. Griffin, P. S. (1981). One small step for personkind: Observations and suggestions for sex equity in coeducational physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1, 1217. Halliburton, A. L. & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Sources of competence information and perceived motivational climate among adolescent female gymnasts varying in skill level. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 396-419. Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 215-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

References 62

Harwood, C., & Biddle, S. (2002). The application of achievement goal theory in youth sport. In I. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 58-73). London: Thomson. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on childrens intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 774-795. Hedstrom, R. & Gould, D. (2004). Research in youth sports: Critical issues status. Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, pp. 21-25. Michigan State University. Hersen, M. (2006). Clinicians handbook of adult behavioral assessment. New York: Academic Press. Heuze, J., Sarrazin, P., Masiero, M., Raimbault, N., & Thomas, J. (2006). The relationships of perceived motivational climate to cohesion and collective efficacy in elite female teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 201-218. Hockey Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.hockeycanada.ca/e/develop/index.html Horn, T. S. (1985). Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their physical competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-186. Horn, T. S. (1987). The influence of teacher-coach behavior on the psychological development of children. In D. Gould & M.R. Weiss (Eds.), Advances in pediatric sport sciences. Vol. 2: Behavioral issues (pp. 121-142). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Horn, T. S. (Ed.) (2007). Advances in sport psychology (3rd. ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

References 63 Horn, T. S., & Glenn, S. (1988). The relationship between athletes psychological characteristics and their preference for particular coaching behaviors. Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Knoxville, TN. Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (2002). Perceived competence in young athletes: Research findings and recommendations for coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (2nd ed, pp. 435-464). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Horn, T. S., Lox, C. L., & Labrador, F. (2006). The self-fulfilling prophecy theory: When coaches' expectations become reality. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 82-108). NY: McGraw-Hill. Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2006). Contextual influences on moral functioning of male youth footballers. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 1-23. Kennelly, K., & Kinley, S. (1975). Perceived contingency of teacher-administered reinforcements and academic performance of boys. Psychology in the Schools, 12, 449-453. Kester, S., & Letchworth, G. (1972). Communication of teacher expectations and their effects on achievement and attitudes of secondary school students. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 51-55. Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement situations. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1-13.

References 64

Mageau, G., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883-904. Koester, M. C. (2000). Youth sports: A pediatrician's perspective on coaching and injury prevention. Journal of Athletic Training, 35, 466-470. McBride, R. E. (1990). Sex-role stereotyping behaviors among elementary, junior high, and senior high school physical education specialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 249261. MacDonald, D. (1990). The relationship between the sex composition of physical education classes and teacherpupil verbal interaction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 152163. Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 221267). New York: Academic Press. Magyar, T. M., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The influence of dispositional and situational tendencies on adolescent girls sport confidence sources. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 175-190. Magyar, T. M., Feltz, D. L., & Simpson, I. P. (2004). Individual and crew level determinants of collective efficacy in rowing. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 136-153. Martinek, T. (1981). Pygmalion in the gym: A model for the communication of teacher expectations in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52, 58-67.

References 65 Martinek, T., & Johnson, S. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effects on dyadic interaction and self-concept in elementary age children. Research Quarterly, 50, 60-70. McArdle, S., & Duda, J. K. (2002). Implications of the motivational climate in youth sports. In F. L. Smoll, & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp.409434). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press. Mitchell, C. B., Bunker, L. K., Kluka, D. A., & Sullivan, P. A. (1995). Gender equity through physical education and sport. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. Napper-Owen, G. E., Kovar, S. K., Ermler, K. L., & Mehrhof, J. H. (1999). Curricula equity in required ninth-grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 221. Newton, M. L., Duda, J. L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18, 275-290. Nicaise, V., Cogerino, G., Bois, J., & Amorose, A.J. (2006). Students perceptions of teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: Gender effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 3657. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjective experience, mastery choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328 346.

References 66 Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Olympiou, A., Jowett, S., & Duda, J. L. (2008). The psychological interface between the coach-created motivational climate and the coach-athlete relationship in team sports. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 423-438. Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., Lemyre, P. N., & Treasure, D. C. (2003). Perceived motivational climate in male youth soccer: Relations to social-moral functioning, sportspersonship, and team norm perceptions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 397-413. Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H. W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to motivational climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a group level construct? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 90118. Pintrich, P., Conley, A.M., & Kempler, T. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319-337. Placek, J., Silverman, S., Shute, S., Dodds, P., & Rife, F. (1982). Academic learning time (ALT-PE) in a traditional elementary physical education setting: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17, 4147. Rejeski, W., Darracott, C, & Hutslar, S. (1979). Pygmalion in youth sports: A field study. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 311-319.

References 67 Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Kavussanu, M. (1997). Motivation in physical activity contexts: An achievement goal perspective. In P. R. Pintrich, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 413447). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418. Scanlan, T., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 65-83. Seifriz, J. J., Duda, J. L., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-391. Smith, R. E. (2006). Understanding sport behavior: A cognitive-affective processing systems approach. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 1-27. Smith, S.L., Fry, M.D., Ethington, C.A., Li, Y. (2005). The effect of female athletes perceptions of their coaches behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational climate. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 170-177. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1990). Self-esteem and childrens reactions to youth sport coaching behaviors: A field study of self-enhancement processes. Developmental Psychology, 26, 987-993. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1997). Coach-mediated team building in youth sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 114-132.

References 68 Smith, R. E, & Smoll, F. L. (2002). Way to go coach!: A scientifically-proven approach to youth sports coaching effectiveness (2nd ed). California: Warde Publishers. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of childrens sport performance anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 125-142. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on youth sports (pp. 173-201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive behavioral approach to enhance relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75. Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401-407. Smith, R., Zane, N., Smoll, F., & Coppel, D. (1983). Behavioral assessment in youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children's attitudes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15, 208-214. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2006). Development and implementation of coach-training programs: Cognitive-behavioral principles and techniques. In J. M.Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed.) (pp. 458480). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of coaches self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 602-610.

References 69 Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes achievement goal orientations. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1, 2346. Solomons, H. (1977). Sex role mediated achievement behaviors and interpersonal dynamics of fifth grade co-educational physical education classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37: 5445A (University Microfilms No. DBJ7706538). Sport Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/sc/info-fact/youth_e.cfm Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1998). Relationship between female adolescents achievement goal orientations, perceptions of the motivational climate, beliefs about success, and sources of satisfaction in basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 211230. Walling, M.L., Duda, J.L., & Chi, L. (1993). The perceived motivational climate in sport questionnaire: Construct and predictive validity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 172-183. Weiss, M. (1991). Psychological skill development in children and adolescents. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 335-354. Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers reported practices towards girls and boys in science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300 312.

Appendices 70 Appendix A Ethics Certificate

Appendices 71

Appendices 72 Appendix B
SPORT ORGANIZATION CONSENT FORM McGill University requires that organizations be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. However, this does not imply that the organization or its participants are put at risk through their participation; the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts for Jonathan Stein, a graduate student in sport psychology, in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University. The purpose of this study is to assess youth ice hockey players perceptions of their head coaches behaviors in games and in practices. In particular, this study will ask players to fill out three separate questionnaires regarding this topic. We would like to invite your Bantam AA or BB hockey teams to participate in this study. When a team is filling out the questionnaires, the only adult that will be present will be the researcher. As well, copies of the results and conclusions of the study will be sent to the organization prior to the publishing of this data. All information retrieved in this study will remain confidential and will be used for publication purposes in scholarly journals or for presentations at conferences. The researchers will not disclose names or identity of the participants at any time. The participation of your hockey organization in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. The organization is free to withdraw from participation at any time, for any reason, without penalty or prejudice. I (please print your name/s), __________________________________________________________________, have carefully studied the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. My organization freely consents and voluntarily agrees to participate in this research project based on the terms outlined in this consent form. I understand that my organization may refuse to continue participation at any time, without penalty, and that all information gathered will remain confidential.

__________________________________ Signature Please feel free to contact us at any time: Jonathan Stein Masters Candidate, Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec jonathan.stein1@mail.mcgill.ca (514) 952-4619

___________________________ Date

Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 gordon.bloom@mcgill.ca

Appendices 73 Appendix C Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2

Appendices 74
Directions: Please think about how it has felt to play on your team throughout this season. What is it usually like on your team? Read the following statements carefully and respond to each in terms of how you view the typical atmosphere on your team. Perceptions naturally vary from person to person, so be certain to take your time and answer as honestly as possible. Circle the number that best represents how you feel. Note: Each item is responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). 1. On this team, the coach wants us to try new skills. 2. On this team, the coach gets mad when a player makes a mistake. 3. On this team, the coach gives most of his or her attention to the stars. 4. On this team, each player contributes in some important way. 5. On this team, the coach believes that all of us are crucial to the success of the team. 6. On this team, the coach praises players only when they outplay team-mates. 7. On this team, the coach thinks only the starters contribute to the success of the team. 8. On this team, players feel good when they try their best. 9. On this team, players are taken out of a game for mistakes. 10. On this team, players at all skill levels have an important role on the team. 11. On this team, players help each other learn. 12. On this team, players are encouraged to outplay the other players. 13. On this team, the coach has his or her own favorites. 14. On this team, the coach makes sure players improve on skills they are not good at. 15. On this team, the coach yells at players for messing up. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Appendices 75
16. On this team, players feel successful when they improve. 17. On this team, only the players with the best stats get praise. 18. On this team, players are punished when they make a mistake. 19. On this team, each player has an important role. 20. On this team, trying hard is rewarded. 21. On this team, the coach encourages players to help each other. 22. On this team, the coach makes it clear who he or she thinks are the best players. 23. On this team, players are psyched when they do better than their team-mates in a game. 24. On this team, if you want to play in a game you must be one of the best players. 25. On this team, the coach emphasizes always trying your best. 26. On this team, only the top players get noticed by the coach. 27. On this team, players are afraid to make mistakes. 28. On this team, players are encouraged to work on their weaknesses. 29. On this team, the coach favours some players more than others. 30. On this team, the focus is to improve each game/practice. 31. On this team, the players really work together 32. On this team, each player feels as if they are an important team member. 33. On this team, the players help each other to get better and excel. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Appendices 76

Appendix D Coaching Feedback Questionnaire

Appendices 77
Coaching Feedback Questionnaire As you perhaps already know, coaches really differ from each other in the type of feedback they give in response to their athletes performances. This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback your coach gives you in practices. Coaching Responses to Players Successes Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE. Not Typical At All 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very Typical 5 5 5 5 5 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Good play! Coach ignores your good performance. Way to go! You really went to the net this time. Great play. Now you're keeping your head up. Excellent work in practice today. Coach doesnt say anything to you about your good performance.

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

Coaching Responses to Players Errors Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW TYPICAL YOUR COACH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY. Not Typical At All 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very Typical 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Thats O.K. Keep working at it! Coach ignores your error or poor performance. That was a really stupid play! You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side. How many times have I told you to keep your head up. Hang in there! You will do better next time. Coach doesnt say anything to you about your error or poor performance. Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up. That play sucked! You need to work on having quicker feet.

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Appendices 78
Preferred Coaching Feedback Questionnaire This questionnaire is designed to find out what type of coaching feedback you would like your coach to give you in practices. Coaching Responses to Players Successes Listed below are six examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had a successful performance in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM YOUR COACH AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE. Do Not Like At All 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Good play! Coach ignores your good performance. Way to go! You really went to the net this time. Great play. Now you're keeping your head-up. Excellent work in practice today. Coach doesnt say anything to you about your good performance. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Like Very Much 5 5 5 5 5 5

Coaching Responses to Players Errors Listed below are ten examples of feedback your coach might give you after you have had made a mistake or committed an error in a practice. PLEASE RATE EACH STATEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM YOUR COACH AFTER YOU HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE ERROR OR POOR PLAY. Do Not Like At All 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Thats O.K. Keep working at it! Coach ignores your error or poor performance. That was a really stupid play! You were on the wrong side of him. Next time stay on the defensive side. How many times have I told you to keep your head up. Hang in there! You will do better next time. Coach doesnt say anything to you about your error or poor performance. Your technique looks lousy! Keep you head up. That play sucked! You need to work on having quicker feet. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Like Very Much 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Appendices 79 Appendix E Demographic Questionnaire

1. Language (s) spoken: ________________ 2. Birthdate: ______________ 3. Level this season (AA or BB): ________________ 4. Position: _________________ 5. How many assistant coaches are on your current hockey team: _____ 6. a) Are there any parents that are coaches on this team (please circle one) : Yes b) If yes, head coach: Yes No Assistant coach: Yes No 7. Is your parent a coach on this team (please circle one): Yes No No

8. What language does the head coach speak to you in: ______________ 9. a) Have you played for this head coach before (please circle one): Yes b) If yes, how many seasons has this person coached you : _________ 10. What is your teams current record: _____________ 11. How many games and practices have you missed since the beginning of the season (please circle one): 0 1-5 6-10 more than 10 12. Please choose the response that best reflects your ability in hockey: a) How good do you think you are at hockey? (1=not at all good to 5=very good) 1 2 3 4 5 b) Compared to your teammates, how would you rate your ability as a hockey player? (1=a lot worse than my teammates to 5= a lot better than teammates) 1 2 3 4 5 No

Appendices 80 Appendix F Player Agreement Forms English and French

Appendices 81

PLAYER AGREEMENT FORM - ENGLISH McGill University requires that participants be informed of the details of any research study in which they participate. However, this does not imply that the participant is put at risk through their participation; the intention is simply to ensure the respect and confidentiality of individuals concerned. This study is in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts for Jonathan Stein, a graduate student in sport psychology, in the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at McGill University. The purpose of this study is to assess young athletes perceptions of their head coaches behaviors in games and in practices. In particular, you will be asked to fill out three separate questionnaires. We believe that this study will provide minor hockey coaches with valuable practical information. The researchers will not disclose your name or identity at any time. In addition, your names will not be on the questionnaires so nobody will know which questionnaire you filled out. Your coaches will not be present while you complete the questionnaires. Your participation in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. You are free to withdraw from participation at any time, for any reason, without penalty or prejudice. Please be aware that the questionnaires are only available in English. If you choose not to participate, you will be provided with bilingual reading material until all of the participants in this study complete the questionnaires. I (please print your name), ____________________________, have carefully studied the above statements and have had the directions verbally explained to me. I freely assent and voluntarily agree to participate in this research project based on the terms outlined in this agreement form. I understand that I may refuse to continue participation at any time, without penalty, and that all information gathered will remain confidential.

__________________________________ Signature

___________________________ Date

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant in this study, please contact the McGill Research Ethics Officer at 514-398-6831. Please feel free to contact us at any time: Jonathan Stein Masters Candidate, Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec jonathan.stein1@mail.mcgill.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 gordon.bloom@mcgill.ca

Appendices 82
FORMULAIRE DENTENTE DU JOUEUR - FRANAIS Durant une tude, lUniversit de McGill demande ce que chaque participant soit inform de tous les dtails relis la recherche dont il fera part. Toutefois, ceci ne sous-entend pas que les sujets seront mis risque en participant ltude ; lintention de ce document est dassurer le respect et la confidentialit des individus impliqus dans ltude. Pour Jonathan Stein, un tudiant cherchant complter sa matrise en psychologie du sport, cette tude est ncessaire pour atteindre les exigences du dpartement de kinsiologie et dducation physique de lUniversit de McGill Le but de cette tude est danalyser votre perception du comportement de votre entraneur en chef durant les matchs, ainsi que durant les pratiques. Ceci se fera plus prcisment en remplissant trois questionnaires diffrents. De plus, lquipe de recherche sassurera que votre identit ne sera dvoile aucun moment. Les questionnaires seront anonymes alors personne ne pourra savoir lequel vous avez complet. Il est aussi important de noter que vos entraneurs ne seront pas prsents lors de cette priode dvaluation. Votre participation cette recherche est volontaire et non obligatoire. Vous tes libre de vous soutirer de cette tude nimporte quand, pour nimporte quelle raison, sans punition ou prjuger. Soyez informez que les questionnaires seront disponibles seulement en Anglais. Si vous ne participerez pas a ltude, nous vous procurerons avec du matriel bilingue de lecture jusqu' ce que tous les participants finissent de complter les questionnaires. Je, (en lettres imprimes), ____________________________, ai tudi avec attention les dclarations ci-dessus et reus des explications orales concernant ce mme sujet. Jacceptes librement et volontairement participer ce projet de recherche bas sur les conditions discutes dans ce formulaire d entente. Je comprends que je peux refuser de continuer participer cette tude en tout temps, sans punition, et que toute information recueillie restera confidentiel. __________________________________ Signature ___________________________ Date

Si vous avez des questions concernat vos droits en tant que participant cette tude, veuillez contacter le bureau d thiques concernat les recherches McGill au 514-398-6831. Vous pouvez nous contactez en tout temps: Jonathan Stein Candidat de matrise, Psychologie du sport Dept. de kinsiologie & ducation physique Universit de McGill, Montral, Qubec jonathan.stein1@mail.mcgill.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Programme dhautes tudes en psy. du sport Dept. de kinsiologie & ducation physique Universit de McGill, Montral, (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 gordon.bloom@mcgill.ca

Appendices 83

Appendix G Parental Consent Forms English and French

Appendices 84

PARENT CONSENT FORM - ENGLISH I am a current graduate student in sport psychology at McGill University. Part of my studies involves writing a thesis. I have chosen to study young athletes perceptions of their head coaches behaviors and I would like to invite your son to participate in my study. Your hockey association has approved this study and your coach has agreed to participate. McGill requires a letter of consent whenever research is conducted on human beings, stating the purpose, procedures, and conditions of the research. This does not imply that the project involves any risk; the intention is simply to assure the respect and confidentiality of the individuals concerned. The purpose of this study is to assess young athletes perceptions of their head coaches behaviors in games and in practices. In particular, your son will be asked to fill out three anonymous questionnaires. Jonathan Stein will be the only adult present during this time. As well, the researchers will not disclose names or identity of a child at any time. We believe that this study will provide minor hockey coaches with valuable practical information. Since the questionnaires were only created in English by other researchers, we are unable to translate them into French without affecting their validity and reliability. If you believe your son is unable to complete the questionnaires in English, he should not participate in the study. Players who do not participate in the current study will be with the team when the other players fill out the questionnaires. At this time, they will receive bilingual reading material on mental training and hockey. Your childs participation in this study is voluntary and not mandatory. He is free to withdraw from participating at any time, for any reason without penalty. I (parent/legal tutor), ____________________________ , have read and understood the above statements and I agree to have my child participate in this study. I have been informed that my childs participation in this study is voluntary and that he may withdraw from participating at any time. I have been told that the information collected will remain confidential. Childs Name (print): ________________________________ ________________________ (Parents signature) __________________________ (Date)

If you have questions or concerns about your childs rights as a research participant in this study, please contact the McGill Research Ethics Officer at 514-398-6831. Please feel free to contact me or my supervisor at any time: Jonathan Stein Masters Candidate, Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec jonathan.stein1@mail.mcgill.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Graduate Program in Sport Psychology Dept. of Kinesiology & Phys. Education McGill University, Montreal, Quebec (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 gordon.bloom@mcgill.ca

Appendices 85
FORMULAIRE DE CONSENTEMENT DU PARENT - FRANAIS Je suis un tudiant cherchant complter sa maitrise en psychologie du sport lUniversit de McGill. Ainsi, crire une thse fait partie des tches que je dois accomplir afin de complter mes tudes. Jai dcid de concentrer ma thse sur la perception que des jeunes athltes ont de leurs entraneurs en chef. Pour ce faire, jaimerais poser quelques questions votre fils. De plus, votre entraneur en chef a consentit participer a cette tude, qui a aussi t approuver par votre association de hockey. LUniversit de McGill ncessite, cependant, une lettre de consentement pour toute tude faite sur des tres humains. McGill require que ce formulaire indique le but, les procdures ainsi que les conditions dans laquelle ce droulera chaque tude. Toutefois, il est important de noter que ceci ne sous entend pas que le projet luimme implique des risques ; lintention de cette lettre est simplement dassurer le respect et la confidentialit des individus concerns. Le but de cette tude est dvaluer la perception que les jeunes joueurs dhockey ont des comportements de leurs entraneurs en chef. Plus spcifiquement, votre fils compltera trois questionnaires diffrents. De plus, Jonathan Stein sera lunique adulte prsent lors de la dure de lvaluation. Enfin, il est important de noter que lquipe de recherche sassurera que lidentit de votre fils ne sera dvoile aucun moment. Puisque les rechercheurs prcdents ont seulement utiliser ces questionnaires en Anglais, nous sommes malheureusement incapables de les traduire en Franais sans affecter la validit et lauthenticit des instruments utiliser pour ltude. Si vous croyez que votre fils sera incapable de complter le questionnaire en Anglais, il ne devrait pas participer dans cette tude. Si votre fils ne participera pas ce project, il restera avec son quipe quand les autres joueurs complteront les questionnaires. Durant cette priode, il recevra des textes bilingues sur lhockey. La participation de votre enfant est volontaire et non obligatoire. Il est libre de se retirer de ltude en tout temps, pour nimporte quelle raison, sans punition ou prjudice. Je (parent/tuteur), ____________________________ , ai tudi avec attention les dclarations cidessus et jacceptes que mon fils participe ce projet. On ma inform que mon jeune peut participer librement et volontairement ce projet de recherche bas sur les conditions discutes dans ce formulaire de consentement. On ma inform que mon jeune peut refuser de continuer participer cette tude en tout temps, sans punition, et que toute information recueillie restera confidentiel. Nom du jeune (en letter imprint): ________________________________ ________________________ (signature du parent) __________________________ (Date)

Si vous avez des questions concernat les droits de votre enfant en tant que participant cette tude, veuillez contacter le bureau d thiques concernat les recherches McGill au 514-3986831. Vous pouvez nous contactez en tout temps: Jonathan Stein Candidat de matrise, Psychologie du sport Dept. de kinsiologie & ducation physique Universit de McGill, Montral, Qubec jonathan.stein1@mail.mcgill.ca (514) 952-4619 Gordon Bloom, Ph.D. Programme dhautes tudes en psy. du sport Dept. de kinsiologie & ducation physique Universit de McGill, Montral, (514) 398-4184 ext. 0516 gordon.bloom@mcgill.ca