\nUnderstanding how athletes interact with coaches is an important topic for not only increasing performance, but also for managing developmental dynamics so often associated with coaching. As a result, the purpose of the research is to examine student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coaching environments as related to autonomy-supportive motivational climates. Division I (formerly known as Division I AAA) student-athletes were surveyed (n=143) as part of a larger data collection process by the athletic department. Self-determination theory is applied to examine motivation, autonomy, and support, while psychosocial student development theory is used to influence variable selection relating to the student-athlete population. Statistical results indicate an overall positive perception of coaching environments by student-athletes and no differences based upon gender. Regression analyses indicate only 28% of the variance is explained by current variables\/questions on athletic department survey instrument with variables of gender, type of sport played, and student classification having little to no statistically significant impact. In accordance with previous research, coaches have the ability to create a positive atmosphere and in this study student-athletes had an overall positive view of their coaches\u2019 ability to develop autonomy-supportive team climates. However, many personal-level factors could account for the large percent of variance not explained by statistical analyses in the current study.<\/p>\n
Keywords<\/strong>: student-athletes, motivation, coaching climate, self-determination<\/p>\n <\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong> The psychological needs of student-athletes are social in nature, and include a variety of emotional and structural elements. Confidence and motivation are individualized attributes important to athletic success (6) and recent theorizing addresses how motivational climates relate to sport, exercise\/physical activity, and performance. Deci and Ryan\u2019s self-determination theory (SDT) has been widely used as a framework when studying motivation in sport-related activities. <\/p>\n According to the self-determination theory (10), an individual\u2019s level of motivation can range from intrinsic (internal) motivation to extrinsic (external) motivation to amotivation (not motivated). Extrinsic motivation, the middle of the continuum, includes external reasons for participating in an activity, which can be measured on a spectrum ranging from low to high forms of self-determination. <\/p>\n Within SDT, there are three psychological needs an individual strives to satisfy that are crucial for understanding human motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (9). Autonomy is the individual\u2019s desire and freedom to self-organize and integrate in a way that is in congruence with his or her self, while competence is the individual\u2019s ability to have an effect on the environment and opportunity to express his or her capabilities (8). Finally, relatedness refers to an individual\u2019s need for belonging and having a connection to others (2). The fulfillment of these needs can greatly influence an individual\u2019s overall well-being as well as one\u2019s own level of self-determined motivation (21, 24). <\/p>\n Vansteenkiste and Deci (2003) conducted research on competition, rewards, and intrinsic motivation and discovered not only is positive performance feedback essential for maintaining intrinsic motivation, but it also can counteract negative effects of losing a competition. Pope and Wilson (2012) studied motivational processes concluding athletes who perceive their coaches as empathetic produce more motivational benefits. Similarly, Gagne, Ryan, and Bargmann (2003) noted when coaches created an autonomous environment with their athletes it directly and positively affected the way the athlete felt in terms of competence, self-esteem, energy and sustained positive emotions. The training environment and the way the athletes interacted with each other also benefited from the autonomous environment the coaches encouraged (12).<\/p>\n J\u00f5esaar, Hein, and Hagger (2012) looked at the autonomously supportive coaches had on intrinsic motivation and motivation in general. The results parallel one of the principles of SDT, suggesting when athletes are given more choice and control, they are more intrinsically motivated. They recommend coaches have athletes complete tasks involving their peers, collaborative efforts, and learning because it helps promote intrinsic motivation, while\u2014similarly\u2014Garcia-Mas et. al. (2010) suggested creating challenging and interesting training for a comparable impact. Lonsdale, Hodge and Rose (2009), examining burnout and self-determination noted sport environments endorsing needs satisfaction promoted self-determined motivation, and aided in preventing burnout. <\/p>\n Structural factors (e.g. type of sport, gender) may impact autonomous coaching environments and have a long history of being associated with the development of students and student-athletes. A psychosocial student development approach highlights student athletes\u2019 development, which results from the unique situational characteristics of their social lives (Evans, 2010). Athletic environments are extremely important contexts for developing and educating young people\u2019s view of authority figures. Coakley (2009) noted the importance of athletics in identity development, which includes important structural influences, such as gender, race\/ethnicity, the type of team\/sport where the athlete participates, and other characteristics associated with student-athletes. <\/p>\n SDT aids in understanding the complex environments associated with sports or athletic performance and examining the structural factors associated with social environments and student (athlete) development provides a more holistic explanation of coaching dynamics. As a result, the purpose of this research is to examine Division I student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coaching environments regarding autonomy-supportive motivational climates. Specifically, the following research questions were answered: <\/p>\n 1) Are there differences between male and female student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coach autonomy support? METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n Measurement<\/em><\/p>\n Using the sport climate questionnaire (SCQ) (7), student-athletes from a public, urban-serving university were surveyed during the fall semester of a recent academic year. The SCQ is a validated and reliable instrument for measuring the athlete\u2019s perception of coach-provided autonomy support, even across various cultures and using differing languages and translations (1). Within this research the Cronbach\u2019s alpha was .933, which measures the internal relationships of the scale\u2019s questions, and is well above the accepted level within the social sciences for a reliable scale making it a useful instrument for measuring an athlete\u2019s perception of their coach\u2019s team climate or training environment.<\/p>\n Participants<\/em><\/p>\n The university is a Division I (formerly known as Division I- AAA) athletic department (i.e. no football program), which results in a slightly smaller athletic department when compared to those with football programs. Nonetheless, student-athlete responses were gathered from representatives of 94% of athletic programs supported by the athletic department. After data collection 143 complete surveys were collected (n=143), which is over 50% of the athletes in the athletic department at the time of data collection. The sample was composed of more male than female athletes (51.7% vs. 48.3%) and of freshmen (34.3%), sophomores (22.4%), juniors (20.3%), seniors (15.4%), and 5th year seniors (7.7%). Race\/ethnicity, age, and residency (i.e. foreign vs. domestic student-athletes) were not included on the athletic department\u2019s survey, and therefore not included in the results.<\/p>\n Procedure<\/em><\/p>\n Following athletic department approval, the athletic department administered the surveys for internally collected, NCAA mandated, data management. The SCQ was added to the already standing survey instrument. Student-athletes completed the survey during organized study time or while they were in the center for athletic academic services. Coaches were not present during data collection and responses were electronically gathered. Once gathered, each response was assigned an electronic identifying number, which became part of the electronic record and database. Researchers were not present during data collection. The database was both developed and analyzed within SPSS, version 21. Athletic department personnel provided access to the database for researchers, which did not provide any identifying respondent information except for demographic information provided on the survey instrument by the participant.<\/p>\n RESULTS<\/strong> Regarding the first research question (Are there differences between male and female student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coach autonomy support?), a t-test was conducted to see if the mean scores on the SCQ differed between male and females. The mean differences along the SCQ show males and females do not have a statistically significant difference in perceptions of autonomy support (t= -.140, df= 134). And, both males (mean=31.14, SD=8.95) and females (mean= 31.34, SD=8.17) had positive perceptions of their coaches respectively.<\/p>\n In order to answer the second research questions (What role do gender, sport, and student classification have upon student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coach autonomy support?) a regression model was developed to explain the variance of the dependent variable (SCQ) using structural variables associated with the psychosocial development of student-athletes. These independent variables include the respondent\u2019s sport, gender, and academic classification. A regression model was used to help in predicting the variables that have a distinct impact upon an athlete\u2019s perception of their coach\u2019s ability to develop an autonomously supportive training environment. The analysis of variance for the model was significant at the .000 level, which indicates the model based upon psychosocial student development theory is statistically significant to the null hypothesis that these factors have no impact. However, goodness of fit regression analyses (R2) revealed the independent variables explained only 28% of the variance in the dependent variable, the SCQ, thereby indicating several other factors influence student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coach-provided and autonomy-supportive motivational climates. Additionally, the only significant independent variable was the sport of softball, which would\u2014ultimately\u2014undergo a coaching change at the end of the season when these results were developed. See table 1.<\/p>\n DISCUSSION<\/strong> Psychosocial student development theory acknowledges the importance of specific roles, structurally relevant expectations, and individual life experiences (11). Confidence and motivation are related to perceptions of the surrounding environment, which is hypothesized to by influenced by the coach and his or her ability to develop an environment where the student-athlete feels confident to express him or herself. Results of this research, however, indicate the sport in which the athlete participates, school classification, and gender of the respondent\u2014while theoretically salient\u2014do not explain a substantial amount of the variance relating to the overall positive view of respondent\u2019s coaches. The one case where the sport was statistically significant (softball), it was associated with an acrimonious team climate, which was one antecedent that may have influenced a coaching change in that sport.<\/p>\n Vermillion (2010) noted student-athletes do not, necessarily, have a homogenous athlete-dominant identity while researching community college softball players\u2019 decisions to attend their current institutions. Specifically, he noted the multifaceted identities of many of the student- athletes, which manifested themselves in the factors influencing their higher education decisions. While playing time and head coach are factors associated with athletic identities, other student identity factors, such as tutoring and academic support, were equally important (23). A healthy self-concept and identity is associated with confidence and self-efficacy, the belief in accomplishing\u2014successfully\u2014one\u2019s appointed task (14). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation correlate with self-esteem, self-efficacy, and the encouragement within sport settings. <\/p>\n Self-determined motivation, as previously mentioned, can be enhanced by developing interesting or relevant interactions within the sport setting (13). Specifically, structured settings define expectations and the resulting impact can positively increase self-determined motivations; research recommended developing collaborative interactions, which promote healthy communication amongst athletes and foster a sense of team, when athletes are given choices they are more motivated (15) and have better self-esteem (12). Within this research the athletes perceive their respective coaches in a positive manner and there are no differences based upon athletes\u2019 gender or sport, thereby leading one to conclude the associations and relationships these athletes have with their coaches take place in supportive environments, which are healthy interactions for them (except for one team\/sport). This supports findings from research involving the climate coaches work with their athletes. Coatsworth and Conroy (2009) noted the importance of the coaching climate on the developmental benefits of sport participation. They concluded that coaches’ autonomy support, particularly through praise that focused on process, predicted youth competence need satisfaction and relatedness need satisfaction in the coaching relationship (5). As such, it would be beneficial for coaches to promote practice and competitive settings where athletes are comfortable with their environment, regardless of sport or gender.<\/p>\n Finally, Brinkman-Majewski and Weiss (2015) noted\u2014when examining motivational climates in intercollegiate athletic training rooms\u2014the importance of individual athletes\u2019 characteristics, dispositions, and goal orientations. The current research noted 28% of the variance was explained by the current factors (gender, type of sport, etc.), but the vast majority of the variance could be examined using more psychologically-oriented tools, such as scales or indices focusing on specific goal orientations, self-efficacy, or differing aspects of identity. For example, focusing on the athlete\u2019s motivational climate, whether a mastery or performance orientation, could be an important factor for understanding the remaining 72% of variance in this research. <\/p>\n CONCLUSION<\/strong> APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong> ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong> REFERENCES<\/strong> Authors: Jeff Noble, Mark Vermillion*, and Kewa Foster *Corresponding Author: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[994,295],"tags":[1016,271,1017,1015],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-10q","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":482,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/college-choice-factors-for-division-i-athletes-at-an-urban-university\/","url_meta":{"origin":3870,"position":0},"title":"College Choice Factors for Division I Athletes at an Urban University","date":"November 29, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Mark Vermillion, Wichita State University, and Gerrett Spears, Drake University ABSTRACTPurpose: Recently there has been much research attention focused on the college and university choice factors of potential student-athletes. Kankey and Quarterman (2007) developed a questionnaire, which was tested on Division I softball players, and advocated for more research utilizing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4751,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/so-whos-our-new-coach-ncaa-student-athletes-perceptions-after-a-head-coaching-change\/","url_meta":{"origin":3870,"position":1},"title":"“So, Who\u2019s Our New Coach?”: NCAA Student Athletes’ Perceptions After a Head Coaching Change","date":"November 29, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Emily A. Heller, Todd A. Gilson, Amanda Paule-Koba Corresponding Author: Emily A. Heller Aurora University 347 S. Gladstone Aurora, IL 60506 eheller@aurora.edu C: 630-217-2358 \u201cSo, Who\u2019s Our New Coach?\u201d: NCAA Student Athletes\u2019 Perceptions After a Head Coaching Change \u2003 ABSTRACT Coaches play an important role in athlete\u2019s collegiate experience,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Table1-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":148,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/student-athletes-perceptions-about-abuse-by-ncaa-division-ii-tennis-coaches\/","url_meta":{"origin":3870,"position":2},"title":"Student-Athletes’ Perceptions About Abuse by NCAA Division II Tennis Coaches","date":"February 21, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Vicky-Lynn Martin, D.S.M. Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine whether a significant difference existed between the perception of the National Collegiate Athletic Association male and female athletes regarding various types of abusive behaviors by their coaches. This research examined whether or not athletic departments in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3834,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/leadership-athletes-and-coaches-in-sport\/","url_meta":{"origin":3870,"position":3},"title":"Leadership: Athletes and Coaches in Sport","date":"July 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Dr. Sharon P. Misasi*, Dr. Gary Morin and Lauren Kwasnowski Dr. Sharon P. Misasi is a Professor of Exercise Science at Southern Connecticut State University. Dr. Gary Morin is a Professor of Exercise Science, Assistant Athletic Trainer and Program Director of the Athletic Training Education Program. Lauren Kwasnowski is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Univariate comparison of training questions by coaches for gender","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Table-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":4015,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/factors-that-influence-collegiate-student-athletes-to-transfer-consider-transferring-or-not-transfer\/","url_meta":{"origin":3870,"position":4},"title":"Factors That Influence Collegiate Student-Athletes to Transfer, Consider Transferring, or Not Transfer","date":"October 6, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jared K. Richards, Undergraduate Student, Shelley L. Holden, Ed.D., Steven F. Pugh, Ph.D. Corresponding Author: Steven F. Pugh HPE-1002 Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Sport University of South Alabama, 36688 sfpugh@southalabama.edu 251-460-7131 Steven Pugh is a professor and program leader for teacher education programs in health and physical education,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"Decision To Transfer - Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/DecisionToTransfer-Table1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2033,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-case-study-of-a-successful-mens-ncaa-division-i-distance-running-coach-to-what-extent-is-decision-making-humanistic\/","url_meta":{"origin":3870,"position":5},"title":"A Case Study of a Successful Men\u2019s NCAA Division I Distance Running Coach: To what extent is Decision-making Humanistic?","date":"July 29, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Seth E. Jenny and Glenn F. Hushman Seth E. Jenny, Ph.D., is an assistant professor within the Department of Physical Education, Sport and Human Performance at Winthrop University. He is a certified USA Track and Field coach and American College of Sports Medicine Health-Fitness Specialist. Glenn F. Hushman,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"Capture1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/Capture12.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3870"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3870"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3873,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3870\/revisions\/3873"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nWith the immense scrutiny sport receives from media outlets, a wide variety of groups (e.g. media, general public, organizational administrators, parents, boosters, etc.) have recognized the role of the \u201ccoach\u201d in the lives of athletes, especially student-athletes (16). It can be posited coaches exert an enormous influence in developing an environment, which aids in student, athlete, and individual development of young men and women (17). Recent research has shown exercise\/physical activity participation is motivated and mitigated by supportive structures, such as peers or authority figures (19), and may impact the quality of social interaction within a sport program. As a result, athletes pursue self-determined goals, which are set in place or influenced by those exogenous to athletes, such as coaches, in order to satisfy social-psychological needs. <\/p>\n
\n2) What role do gender, sport, and student classification have upon student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coach autonomy support?<\/p>\n
\nInitial statistical results indicate an overall favorable view of coaches\u2019 ability to provide autonomy within coaching environments, as measured by relatively high mean scores on the SCQ, which ranged from a possible score of 6 (low) to 42 (high). The mean score on the SCQ for student athletes in this sample was 31.24 (SD=8.526). <\/p>\n![\"Table](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Table-1-1.jpg?resize=436%2C636\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe purpose of this research was to examine Division I student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coaching environments regarding how well the coach promotes an atmosphere where student-athletes feel there is an autonomy-supportive motivational climate. Findings indicate over 70% of the variance regarding autonomous coaching environments is explained by factors other than gender, type of sport, and academic classification of student-athletes, which were measured on the athletic department\u2019s survey. <\/p>\n
\nThe current study surveyed Division I student-athletes in order to gain a better understanding of coach and student-athlete dynamics. As with any research there are limitations, which should be identified. For example, additional questions such as race\/ethnicity, age, and residency (foreign vs. domestic) should be included on subsequent data collection attempts in order to develop a more holistic picture of what influences student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of autonomous coaching environments. Understanding that an athletic department\u2019s coaches are producing coaching environments that allow student-athletes the opportunity to express themselves is extremely useful to many collegiate athletic administrators because it helps to develop an organizational culture where student-athletes feel comfortable expressing their opinions and views. Additional scales regarding self-efficacy, athletic identity, and student identity could help further examine the high scores generated by the SCQ, which represents athletes\u2019 perceptions of coaches\u2019 ability to create supportive and encouraging sport contexts. <\/p>\n
\nA clearer picture of what better explains student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of coaching environments will help coaches\u2019 communication efforts and impact on student-athletes. Additionally, understanding how student-athletes view coaches and the team atmospheres they create can assist athletic administrators evaluating these coaches. Finally, the more information other athletic department subunits charged with the task of student-athlete development have available to them, such as academic and athletic student services, then the more impact the programming aimed at helping student-athletes grow can be. <\/p>\n
\nWe would like to thank the athletic department that was willing to not only work with our researchers, but also recognizes the importance of bridging academic scholarship with organizational dynamics and leadership strategies.<\/p>\n
\n1.\tBalaguer, I., Castillo, I., Duda, J. L., & Tom\u00e1s, I. (2009). Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Climate in Sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 18, 73-83.
\n2.\tBaumeister, R., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
\n3.\tBrinkman-Majewski, R. E. & Weiss, W. M. (2015). Examiniation of the motivational climate in the athletic training room. Journal of Sport Behavior, 38(2), 143-160.
\n4.\tCoakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
\n5.\tCoatsworth, J.D., & Conroy, D.E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-supported coaching, need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 320-328.
\n6.\tCox, R. H. (2007). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (6th ed,) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
\n7.\tDeci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (ND). Sport Climate Questionnaire [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.selfdeterminationtheory.org\/pas-sport-climate\/.
\n8.\tDeci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum.
\n9.\tDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The \u201cwhat\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d of goal pursuits: Human need and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
\n10.\tDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
\n11.\tEvans, N. J. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice. (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
\n12.\tGagn\u00e9, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372-390.
\n13.\tGarcia-Mas, A., Palou, P., Gili, M., Ponseti, X., Borras, P. A., Vidal, J.,\u2026 Sousa, C. (2010). Commitment, enjoyment and motivation in young soccer competitive players. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 609-616.
\n14.\tGecas, V. & Burke, P. J. (1995). In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 41-67). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
\n15.\tJ\u00f5esaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). Youth athletes\u2019 perception of autonomy support from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport setting: One-year effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 257-262.
\n16.\tJones, R. L., Potrac, P., Cushion, C., & Ronglan, L. T. (Eds.). (2011). The sociology of sports coaching. London, UK: Routledge.
\n17.\tJosephson Institute of Ethics. (2006). Are coaches teaching our young athletes the right way to play? Retrieved from http:\/\/josephsoninstitute.org\/sports\/programs\/survey\/index.html
\n18.\tLonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. (2009). Athlete burnout in elite sport: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 785-795.
\n19.\tMurcia, J. A. M., de San Roman, M. L., Galindo, C. M., Alonso, N., & Gonzalez-Cutre, D. (2008). Peers\u2019 influence on exercise enjoyment: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 7, 23-31.
\n20.\tPope, J. P., & Wilson, P. M. (2012). Understanding motivational processes in university rugby players: A preliminary test of the Hierarchical Model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation at the contextual level. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 7, 89-107.
\n21.\tReis, H.T., Sheldon, K.M., Gable, S.L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
\n22.\tVansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Competitively contingent rewards and intrinsic motivation: Can losers remain motivated? Motivation and Emotion, 27, 273-299.
\n23.\tVermillion, M. (2010). College choice factors influencing community college softball players. Journal of Coaching Education, 3(1), 1-20.
\n24.\tWilson, P.M., Longley, K., Muon, S., Rodgers, W.M., & Murray, T.C., (2006). Examining the contributions of perceived psychological need satisfaction to well-being in exercise. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 11, 243-264.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"