{"id":6503,"date":"2019-07-19T06:30:14","date_gmt":"2019-07-19T11:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6503"},"modified":"2019-10-28T14:01:58","modified_gmt":"2019-10-28T19:01:58","slug":"the-association-between-high-school-coachs-leadership-behaviors-and-athletes-self-efficacy-and-grit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-association-between-high-school-coachs-leadership-behaviors-and-athletes-self-efficacy-and-grit\/","title":{"rendered":"The Association Between High School Coach\u2019s Leadership Behaviors and Athletes\u2019 Self-Efficacy and Grit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors: <\/strong>Dr. Katarii U. Donald, Dr. Stephen R. Marvin, Dr. Aarek W. Farmer and Dr. Karen Cypress<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong>
Katarii U. Donald, Ed. D
3144 Knight lane 101
Memphis, TN, 38115
donaldk@scsk12.org
901-281-9010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Katarii Donald is the Athletic Director at a T-Stem High\nSchool in Memphis and is also a Head Football Coach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Association Between High School Coach\u2019s\nLeadership Behaviors and Athletes\u2019 Self-Efficacy and Grit<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This quantitative\nstudy sought to determine the relationship between a coach\u2019s leadership\nbehaviors and their athletes\u2019 self-efficacy and grit. Specifically, the goal\nwas to determine whether behaviors informed by (a) training and instruction, (b)\ndemocratic behavior, (c) autocratic behavior, (d) social support, or (e)\npositive feedback of a coach impacted the student-athlete. The relationship\nbetween athletes and coaches is important and can influence an athletes\u2019\nathletic performance. This research investigated the effects of this\nrelationship on the student-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy and grit. Data were\ncollected from 197 college students from a public university in a rural area in\nthe southern portion of the United States. The findings indicated that\nstudent-athletes\u2019 perceptions of their former high school coaches\u2019 leadership\nbehaviors significantly influenced their self-efficacy and grit. Implications\nfor practice highlighted the importance of the student-athlete and coach\nrelationship and how this relationship can positively impact self-efficacy and\ngrit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> Coaching, Leadership Behavior, Self-efficacy, Grit, Student-athlete<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, youth\nhave been introduced to competitive sports at an increasingly young age\n(Bloemhof, 2008).  It is therefore\nreasonable to suggest that many athletes begin to develop relationships with\ntheir athletic coaches at a young age.  The potential to cultivate this relationship\nis key to determining whether this relationship provides any benefits for the\nathlete.  Jowett and Ntoumanis (2004)\ndefined the coach-athlete relationship as the situation in which coaches\u2019 and\nathletes\u2019 emotions, thoughts, and behaviors are mutually interconnected.  The\nrelationship between coaches and student-athletes remains an integral component\nof the development of both groups\u2019 performances (Phillips & Jubenville,\n2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Horn (2002) has suggested that the coach-athlete\nrelationship eventually leads to perceptions made by both the coach and\nathlete.  Horn further suggested that the\nperception a player forms of the coach\u2019s behavior plays a greater role than the\ncoaching behavior itself (Horn, 2002).  Similarly, Devine, Meyers and\nHoussemand (2013) noted that a\ncoach has the potential to have a tremendous influence on the student-athlete.  Coaching is a powerful tool for personal\nchange and learning.  The nature of the influence tends to come from the type of experiences\nand interactions the athletes have while interacting with their coach.  Boardley, Kavussanu, and Ring (2008) suggested\nthat the quality of an athlete\u2019s experience was significantly affected by their\nbehavior of the relevant coach.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One such area that can be influenced by a coach is self-efficacy.\u00a0 Self-efficacy refers to learners perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1977).\u00a0 Schunk (2001) hypothesized that self-efficacy influences one\u2019s choice of activities, effort expended, perseverance when difficulties are encountered, and skillful performance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, a\nstudent-athletes\u2019 grit may also be influenced by a coach. Grit is the perseverance and passion for long-term goals and\nentails working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest\nover years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress (Duckworth,\nPeterson, Mathews & Kelly, 2007).  Duckworth and Quinn (2009) noted\nthat grit may be as an essential influence as IQ toward high achievement.  Duckworth (2006) identified grit as a\nnon-cognitive trait.  Shechtman et al.\n(2013) suggested grit is the perseverance to accomplish long-term or high-order\ngoals in the face of challenges and setbacks, engaging the student\u2019s\npsychological resources, such as their academic mindsets, effortful control,\nand strategies and tactics.  Additional\nresearch on these topics could help determine how they impact student\u2019s\nlives.  This study aimed to determine if\nthe student-athlete\u2019s perception of their high school coach\u2019s leadership style\nis related to their self-efficacy and grit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODOLOGY<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This quantitative\nperception study sought to determine if relationships existed between the\nperceived leadership behaviors of a coach and the grit and self-efficacy of\nstudent- athletes. An email, containing the student consent form and survey\nlink, was sent by the researcher to the assistant athletic director for\nacademics and student-athlete services at the participating university. All\npotential participants (i.e., current college athletes who were former high\nschool athletes) were contacted through email by their university coaches. The\nstudent-athletes were then asked to complete the survey through an online\nportal Survey Monkey.  Prior to\nparticipating, all participants granted consent for their responses to be\nrecorded by completing and returning their consent form. The data collection process\ntook place over a one-month period.  Once\nthe data was collected and organized, the researcher applied the Intellectus\nStatistics software to run data analyses and address each research question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sample<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The population for this study consisted of a convenient sample, purposely chosen from current college student athletes from a rural area in the southern portion of the United States.\u00a0 The sample was conveniently selected due to the university\u2019s willingness to participate in the study.\u00a0 There were approximately 6,700 students served by the university at the time the study was conducted.\u00a0 Given the nature of this study, which involved determining perceptions of students regarding coaching behaviors, only former high school athletes from the university were identified as potential participants.\u00a0 The individual coach for each sport determined which of their athletes were former high school athletes.\u00a0 The specific population of student-athletes, who were also former high school athletes, consisted of 378 student-athletes.\u00a0 Former high school athletes were used for this study because this research concerned high school coaches and the potential impact they may have on student-athletes.\u00a0 Former high school athletes were also used because of the amount of time they spent with high school coaches and to determine if coaches perceived leadership behavior provide any benefits.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three-hundred\nand seventy- eight (378) participants from a variety of ethnic backgrounds,\nsocioeconomic levels, and levels of educational achievements were asked to\nparticipate in this study.  A sample-size\ncalculator was utilized to determine if the sample would allow for overall\ngeneralization regarding the student athletes in the university information.  A sample size calculator determined that,\nwith a 5% margin of error, a confidence level of 95%, and a 50% response\ndistribution, and a target population of 378, a sample size of 191 participants\nwould be sufficient (Scruggs, 2017). \nTable 1 provides a summary of the demographics of the target sample. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: <\/strong>Target Sample Demographics<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0<\/td>Frequency<\/td>Percentage<\/td><\/tr>
Ethnicity<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
Caucasian<\/td>189<\/td>50.0%<\/td><\/tr>
Afro-American<\/td>134<\/td>35.4%<\/td><\/tr>
Other<\/td>55<\/td>14.6%<\/td><\/tr>
Gender<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
Female<\/td>198<\/td>52.4%<\/td><\/tr>
Male<\/td>180<\/td>47.6%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note. N <\/em>= 378<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instrumentation<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three instruments were utilized for this study: Grit S survey<\/em> (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), the Leadership Scale for Sport survey<\/em> (LSS) (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980), and the General Self-Efficacy<\/em> Scale<\/em> (GSE) (Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1995).\u00a0 The Grit-S survey is a self-reported, 8 question survey utilizing a 5-point Likert-scale.\u00a0 Participants chose 1 (\u201cnot at all like\u00a0me\u201d) through 5 (\u201cvery much like\u00a0me\u201d) to answer to each question.\u00a0 Example survey items included: \u201cI finish whatever\u00a0I begin,\u201d and \u201cSetbacks don\u2019t discourage me.\u201d \u00a0Similarly, the responses possessed corresponding values with the minimum score being 1 (\u201cnot gritty at all\u201d) and 5 (\u201cvery gritty\u201d) (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).\u00a0 Permission to use the Grit-S was requested and granted from Dr. Angela Duckworth.\u00a0 The Leadership Scale for Sport<\/em> survey (LSS) (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) is a 40-item measure developed to assess how an athlete perceives their coach as a leader.\u00a0 Student-athletes rated their perceived level of agreement regarding their high school coach on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being \u201cnever agreeing\u201d, and 5 representing \u201calways agreeing\u201d with their coach.\u00a0 The five subscales of the LSS contained multiple items for each, and included: training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback.\u00a0 As noted below, the five subscales of the LSS have been shown to have good internal reliability and validity (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).\u00a0 Permission to utilize the LSS was granted by Dr. Packianathan Chelladurai via email on April 8, 2017.\u00a0 The General Self-Efficacy<\/em> Scale<\/em> (GSE) is a 10-item self-report created to assess a general sense of perceived self-efficacy with the aim in mind to predict coping with daily hassles as well as adaptation after experiencing all kinds of stressful life events (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).\u00a0 The scale was designed for a general adult population, including adolescents. \u00a0Schwarzer and Jerusalem noted that this measure has been used internationally with success for two decades and is suitable for a broad range of applications. \u00a0Students responded to items on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = \u201cNot at all true\u201d\u00a0to 4 = \u201cExactly True\u201d.\u00a0 The responses to all 10 items were added together to yield the final total score for each participant.\u00a0 Permission to give the General self-efficacy scale was requested from Dr. Ralf Schwarzer and granted via the Internet website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analyses<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the\nnature of the study, the following research questions and hypotheses were used\nto guide data collection and analyses.  Data was analyzed using Intellectus Statistics software. \nPearson\u2019s correlation\ncoefficients were used for research questions 1 and 2 to determine the relationships\nbetween the perceived leadership behaviors of\na coach and the grit and self-efficacy of student-athletes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Is there a relationship between the perceived leadership behaviors of a coach and the grit of student-athletes?
H<\/em>a<\/sub>1\u2014There is a significant correlation between student-athletes\u2019 grit and the perceived leadership behavior of a coach.
H<\/em>0<\/sub>1\u2014There is no significant correlation between student-athletes\u2019 grit and the perceived leadership behavior of a coach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Is there a relationship between the perceived leadership behaviors of a coach and the self-efficacy of student-athletes?\u00a0
H<\/em>a<\/sub>2\u2014There is a significant correlation between student-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy and perceived leadership behavior of a coach.
H<\/em>0<\/sub>2\u2014There is no significant correlation between student-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy and perceived leadership behavior of a coach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final\nsample (n=<\/em>197) for this study\nconsisted of 100 female student-athletes and 97 male student-athletes.  Most of the participants were Caucasian (n<\/em>=113; 57.4%), while 72 of the\nparticipants were African American (36.5%). \nThe remaining 12 participants (6.1%) represented other ethnic groups,\nsuch as Asian and Hispanic.  The participants\nwere also identified by grade level.  Of\nthe college student participants, 61 (31%) were juniors, 58 (29.4%) were\nfreshmen, 41 (21.8%) were sophomores, 32 (15.7%) seniors, and five (2.1%) were\ngraduate students.   The information for\nstudent demographics is presented in Table 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: <\/strong>Demographics of Final Sample Population <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Demographics<\/td>Frequency<\/td>Percentage<\/td><\/tr>
Ethnicity<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
Caucasian<\/td>113<\/td>57.4%<\/td><\/tr>
African American<\/td>72<\/td>36.5%<\/td><\/tr>
Other<\/td>12<\/td>6.1%<\/td><\/tr>
Gender<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
Female<\/td>100<\/td>50.8%<\/td><\/tr>
Male<\/td>97<\/td>49.2%<\/td><\/tr>
Grade Level (College)<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
Juniors<\/td>61<\/td>31%<\/td><\/tr>
Freshmen<\/td>58<\/td>29.4%<\/td><\/tr>
Sophomores<\/td>41<\/td>21.8%<\/td><\/tr>
Senior<\/td>32<\/td>15.7%<\/td><\/tr>
Graduate Students<\/td>5<\/td>2.1%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note. n <\/em>= 197<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Question 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first research question explored whether there were relationships between the perceived leadership behaviors of a coach and the grit of student-athletes.\u00a0 Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to explore relationships between the grit of an athlete and his or her perceptions of the coach\u2019s (a) autocratic behavior, (b) democratic behavior, (c) positive feedback, (d) social support, and (e) training and instruction.\u00a0 Cohen’s standard was used to evaluate the strength of the relationships, where coefficients between .10 and .29 represent a small effect size, coefficients between .30 and .49 represented a moderate effect size, and coefficients above .50 indicate a large effect size (Cohen, 1988).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistical\nanalysis of these data indicated that there was a significant positive\ncorrelation between the autocratic behavior of a coach and the grit of the\nstudent-athlete (r<\/em>p<\/sub> =\n0.29, p<\/em> < .001).  The\ncorrelation coefficient between autocratic behavior and grit was 0.29\nindicating a small effect size.  This\nindicated that as the perceived autocratic behavior of a coach increased, a\nstudent\u2019s grit also increased.  There was\nalso a significant positive correlation between the perceived democratic\nbehavior of a coach and the grit of the student-athlete (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.27, p<\/em> < .001).  The correlation coefficient between\ndemocratic behavior and grit was 0.27, again indicating a small effect\nsize.  This indicated that as the\nperceived democratic behavior of a coach increased, the student\u2019s grit also\nincreased.  This finding revealed a\nsignificant positive correlation between grit and positive feedback (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.15, p<\/em> < .05).  The correlation coefficient between grit and\npositive feedback was 0.15 indicating a small effect size.  This indicated that as positive feedback\nincreased, grit tended to increase.  There\nwas also a significant positive correlation between grit and social support (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.15, p<\/em> < .05).  The correlation coefficient between grit and\nsocial support was 0.15, again indicating a small effect size.  This indicated that as social support\nincreased, grit tended to increase. \nFindings also identified a significant positive correlation between grit\nand training and instruction (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.15, p<\/em> < .05).  The correlation coefficient between grit and\ntraining and instruction was 0.15 indicating a small effect size.  This indicated that as training and\ninstruction increased, grit tended to increase.   Overall, grit was found to have significant\npositive correlations with all five coaching behaviors; therefore, an increase\nin grit was correlated with an increase in autocratic behavior, democratic\nbehavior, positive feedback, social support, and training and instruction.  However, the highest correlation between a\nstudent-athletes\u2019 grit and a coaches\u2019 leadership behavior was autocratic\nbehavior and democratic behavior.  Table\n3 presents the Pearson correlations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: <\/strong>Pearson Correlation Matrix among Grit, Autocratic Behavior, Democratic Behavior, Positive Feedback, Social Support, and Training and Instruction<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Variable\n <\/td>\n    1\n <\/td>\n 2\n <\/td>\n 3\n <\/td>\n 4\n <\/td>\n 5\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 1. Grit Total\n <\/td>\n     –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n – \n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 2. Autocratic Behavior Total\n <\/td>\n 0.29***\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 3. Democratic Behavior Total\n <\/td>\n 0.27***\n <\/td>\n  0.29***\n <\/td>\n –   \n <\/td>\n        –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 4. Positive Feedback Total\n <\/td>\n 0.15*   \n <\/td>\n -0.07\n <\/td>\n 0.49***\n <\/td>\n  –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 5. Social Support Total\n <\/td>\n 0.15*\n <\/td>\n  0.02\n <\/td>\n 0.49***\n <\/td>\n 0.64***\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 6. Training an Instruction Total\n <\/td>\n 0.15*\n <\/td>\n -0.07\n <\/td>\n 0.50***\n <\/td>\n 0.65***\n <\/td>\n 0.69***\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note.<\/em> The critical values are 0.14, 0.18, and 0.23 for\nsignificance levels .05*, .01**, and .001*** respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Question 2<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second research\nquestion explored whether relationships\nexisted between the perceived leadership behaviors of a coach and the\nself-efficacy of the student-athletes. \nPearson correlation analyses were conducted to explore the relationships\nbetween the self-efficacy of an athlete and his or her perceptions of their\ncoach\u2019s (a) autocratic behavior, (b) democratic behavior, (c) positive\nfeedback, (d) social support, and (e) training and instruction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The autocratic behaviors of a\ncoach were not significantly correlated with the self-efficacy of a\nstudent-athlete (r<\/em>p<\/sub> =\n0.11, p<\/em> > .05).  However, there was a significant positive\ncorrelation between the democratic behavior of the coach and the self-efficacy\nof the student-athlete (r<\/em>p<\/sub> =\n0.27, p<\/em> < .001).  The\ncorrelation coefficient between democratic behavior and self-efficacy was 0.27\nindicating a small effect size.  This\nindicated that as the perceived democratic behavior of a coach increased, a\nstudent\u2019s self-efficacy also tended to increase.  There was also a significant positive\ncorrelation between the perceived positive feedback of a coach and the\nself-efficacy of the student-athlete (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.20, p<\/em> < .05).  The correlation coefficient between positive\nfeedback and the self-efficacy was 0.20, again indicating a small effect\nsize.  This indicated that as the\nperceived positive feedback of a coach increased, the student\u2019s self-efficacy\nalso increased.  Findings also indicated\na significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and social support (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.02, p<\/em> < .001).  The correlation coefficient between\nself-efficacy and social support was 0.25 indicating a small effect size.  This indicated that as social support\nincreased, self-efficacy tended to also increase.  There was also a significant positive\ncorrelation between self-efficacy and training and instruction (r<\/em>p<\/sub> = 0.19, p<\/em> < .01).  The correlation coefficient between\nself-efficacy and training and instruction was 0.19 indicating a small effect\nsize.  This indicated that as training\nand instruction increased, self-efficacy also tended to increase.  Self-efficacy was found to have significant\npositive correlations with democratic behavior, positive feedback, social\nsupport, and training and instruction, therefore the increase in self-efficacy\nresulted in an increase in democratic behavior, positive feedback, social\nsupport and training and instruction.  The\nhighest correlation of a student-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy was between democratic\nbehavior and social support of a coaches\u2019 leadership behavior.  Table 4 presents Pearson correlations.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4: <\/strong>Pearson Correlation Matrix among, Self-Efficacy, Autocratic Behavior, Democratic Behavior, Positive Feedback, Social Support, and Training and Instruction<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Variable\n <\/td>\n 1\n <\/td>\n 2\n <\/td>\n 3\n <\/td>\n 4\n <\/td>\n 5\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 1. Self-Efficacy Total\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n – \n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 2. Autocratic Behavior Total\n <\/td>\n 0.11\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 3. Democratic Behavior Total\n <\/td>\n 0.27***\n <\/td>\n               \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 4. Positive Feedback Total\n <\/td>\n 0.20**\n <\/td>\n -0.07\n <\/td>\n 0.49***\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 5. Social Support Total\n <\/td>\n 0.25***\n <\/td>\n  0.02\n <\/td>\n 0.49***\n <\/td>\n 0.64***\n <\/td>\n –\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 6.Training and Instruction Total\n <\/td>\n 0.19**\n <\/td>\n -0.07\n <\/td>\n 0.50***\n <\/td>\n 0.65***\n <\/td>\n 0.69***\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note.<\/em> The critical values are 0.14, 0.18, and 0.23 for\nsignificance levels .05*, .01**, and .001***<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All\nathletes are obviously different and have different preferences.  Some student-athletes may prefer that their\ncoach have one type of leadership behavior while their teammate may prefer\ntheir coach have another form of leadership behavior (Sernek, 2016).  The first researchquestion\ninvestigated if there is a relationship\nbetween the perceived leadership behaviors of a coach and the grit of\nstudent-athletes.  It is evident from this study\u2019s findings that\nrelationships do exist between the perceived leadership behaviors of a coach\nand the grit of student-athletes.  Morgan\n(2016) found that the term grit<\/em>\nserves as a valid and reliable measure of success throughout diverse life\npursuits.  There was a significant positive correlation between all\nfive of the leadership behaviors of a coach and the grit of a\nstudent-athlete.  This is extremely\nimportant because all five perceived leadership behaviors can be utilized by a\ncoach to significantly relate to student-athletes grit.  In addition, coaches may enjoy knowing that\nall these leadership style will positively correlate to student-athletes grit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These findings are\nimportant because they indicated that, within this study, as a coach\ndemonstrated either autocratic or democratic behavior toward the\nstudent-athlete, the student\u2019s grit showed more of an increase than with the\nother coaching behaviors in this study. \nKotur and Anbazhagan (2014) reported that with autocratic leadership, or\nthe authoritarian leadership style, the power and decision making resided with\nthe leader.  This study found that\nstudent-athletes that perceived their coach to work independent of them and\nmake the ultimate decision tended to have higher grit scores.  Similarly, Nami et al. (2013) reported\nthat the autocratic leadership style of coaches exists when athletes are not\ninvolved in decision-making about team goals and issues, but rather, must obey\ncoaching instructions.  This study also\nfound that as student-athletes perceived their coach to speak in a manner not\nto be questioned and the coach refuse to compromise with them then there tended\nto be higher correlations to student-athletes\u2019 grit.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surprisingly, this study\nalso found a higher correlation of grit with those student-athletes perceived\ndemocratic behavior from their coach, even though this leadership style is\nopposite of autocratic behavior.  The\ndemocratic coaching style, also known as the autonomy-supportive style, was\ndefined as including high amounts of training, social support, and positive and\ninformational feedback from coach to athlete (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011).  Sernek\n(2016) believed this is a type of coach that gives athletes the ability\nto have a say on and off the field.  This\nstudy found that student-athletes preferred to be\nable to share in the decision making and get group approval before going ahead\nwith the decision.  In addition, this\nstudy revealed that the student-athletes perceived that their coach asked for\nthe opinion of the athlete on strategies for specific competition and encouraged\nthem to make suggestions for ways of conducting practices.  This study found that athletes perceived the\ndemocratic coach allowed them to try their own way even if they made\nmistakes.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, the\ncorrelation coefficient between grit and positive feedback was 0.15, indicating\na small effect size.  This indicated that\nas positive feedback increased, the student\u2019s grit also tended to identify an\nincrease.  Chelladurai and Saleh\n(1980) reported that positive feedback is related to the needs of the coach to\ncompliment athletes and give positive feedback on their performances to\nmaintain motivation and is crucial in\nmaintaining the motivational level of the athletes.  This study found that student-athletes\npreferred when their coach compliment and reward them for their\nperformance.  In addition, in this study\nthe student-athletes preferred when their coach expressed appreciation and gave\ncredit where credit was due.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a significant\npositive correlation between grit and social support for the participants in\nthis study.  This finding indicated that\nas social support increased, grit also tended to increase.  Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) reasoned\nthat social support refers to the behavior of the coach that is directed toward\nthe personal needs of athletes.  This\nstudy found that student-athletes preferred a coach who settled conflicts and\nhelped them with their personal issues.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Findings also indicated\na significant positive correlation between grit and training and\ninstruction.  This indicated that as\ntraining and instruction increased, grit also tended to show an increase.  Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) suggested\nthat training and instruction incorporates how the coach\u2019s behavior is directed\ntoward improving an athlete\u2019s performance. \nThis study revealed student-athletes preferred\ncoaches explain to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport.  In addition, the coach explains every\nathletes\u2019 role and how they fit into the whole picture.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Overall, grit was found to have significant\npositive correlations with all five coaching behaviors, as students perceived\ncoaches to exhibit autocratic behaviors, democratic behaviors, positive\nfeedback, social support, instruction and training, grit increased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second research\nquestion investigated if there was a relationship between the perceived\nleadership behaviors of a coach and the self-efficacy of student-athletes. \nRelationships were identified between the perceived leadership behaviors\nof the coach and the self-efficacy of the student-athletes who participated in\nthis study.  Schunk, Meece, and Pintrick\n(2014) defined self-efficacy as one\u2019s perceived capabilities for learning or\nperforming actions at designated levels.   \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A significant positive\ncorrelation was identified in this study between democratic behavior and\nself-efficacy. As students perceived that their coach demonstrated more\ndemocratic behaviors, self-efficacy increased. \nNanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy\u2019s (2014) study revealed that democratic leaders take great care to involve all\nmembers of the team in discussion and can work with a small but highly\nmotivated team.  Within this sample, as\nstudent-athletes believed that their coach included them in the decision-making\nand allowed them to set their own goals, self-efficacy was increased.  In addition,\nthere was a significant positive correlation between positive feedback and\nself-efficacy.  As students perceived\nthat their coach demonstrated more positive feedback, self-efficacy\nincreased.  Within this sample, as\nstudent-athletes believed that as their coach compliment an athlete and rewards\nthem on their performance, self-efficacy was increased.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, Chelladurai\nand Saleh (1980) reported that positive feedback related to the needs of the\ncoach to compliment athletes and give positive feedback on their performances to\nmaintain motivation. \nThis finding is important because it indicates that when a coach\ndisplays democratic behavior or positive feedback toward the student-athletes,\nthe students\u2019 self-efficacy tended to increase. \nThis supports the hypothesis that a coach\u2019s leadership behavior is\nrelated to students\u2019 self-efficacy.  This\nstudy indicated that the student-athlete perceived when a coach expressed\nappreciation when an athlete performed well and this tended to correlate to\nincrease their self-efficacy.  In addition,\nthis study found that an autocratic coach who spoke to student-athletes in a\nmanner not to be questioned did not increase their self-efficacy.  This is important, because the perceived\ndemocratic behavior or positive feedback coach tended to increase self-efficacy\nrather than an autocratic behavior coach possibly due to how the\nstudent-athlete perceived how the coach treated them and instructed them.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A significant positive\ncorrelation was identified in this study between self-efficacy and social support.  This indicated that as social support\nincreased, self-efficacy also tended to increase.  This study found that a coach who encouraged\nan athlete to confide in them impacted their self-efficacy.  In addition, this research revealed that a\nsocial support of a coach who helped athletes with their problems tended to\nincrease their self-efficacy.  There was\na significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and training and\ninstruction.  This indicated that as\ntraining and instruction increased, self-efficacy also tended to increase.  Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) suggested\nthat training and instruction incorporates how the coach\u2019s behavior is directed\ntoward improving an athlete\u2019s performance. \nThis study further indicated that a coach who\npoints out each athlete\u2019s strengths and weakness tended to increase the\nstudent-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hodge and Lonsdale (2011) found that the\ndemocratic coaching style was defined as including high amounts of training,\nsocial support, and positive and informational feedback from coach to\nathlete.  This\nis impactful because self-efficacy, in this study, was found to have\nsignificant positive correlations with democratic behavior, positive feedback,\nsocial support, and training and instruction; therefore, the increase in\nself-efficacy resulted in an increase in democratic behavior, positive\nfeedback, social support, and training and instruction.  Within this sample, these were interesting\nresult, because these perceived leadership behaviors tended to show higher\nincrease in self-efficacy of student-athlete than the perceived autocratic\nbehavior of a coach.  This may be due to\nthe nature of the perceived autocratic coach in contrast to the perceived\ndemocratic behavior, positive feedback, social support, and training and\ninstruction coaches.  Those type of\ncoaches, by their nature tended to allow opportunities for student-athletes to\nbe positively engaged by their coach, however the autocratic leader tended to\nlead solely and by giving direct instruction with no feedback from\nstudent-athletes.  In addition, Chelladurai\nand Saleh (1980) further found that the coach\u2019s behavior may directly satisfy\nsuch needs or the coach may create a climate in which the members mutually\nsatisfy their interpersonal needs.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the perceived autocratic\nbehavior of a coach had no positive correlation with the self-efficacy of a\nstudent-athlete.  The autocratic behaviors of a coach were not\nsignificantly correlated with the self-efficacy of a student-athlete.  In this study,\nthis was the only perceived leadership behavior of a coach to not show any\ncorrelation with student-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy.  These findings suggested that the perceived\nautocratic behavior of a coach did not have positive correlation with\nstudent-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy.  Therefore, it\nis reasonable to suggest that a coach who aims to improve student-athletes\u2019\nself-efficacy should likely use democratic behavior, social support, positive\nfeedback, and training and instruction. \nThis study found student-athletes tended to not want to be excluded from\nthe decision making and the autocratic behavior of a coach was not impactful on\nthe student-athletes self-efficacy.  In\ncontrast, Martens (2012) found that the autocratic coach takes full\ncontrol by explaining exactly what needs to be done, and the role of the\nathlete is to listen to, absorb, and comply with the coach\u2019s commands.  This is an important point of autocratic\nbehavior coach and how they seem to work independently of the\nstudent-athlete.  Self-efficacy by its\ndefinition seems to work in contrast of an autocratic coach, therefore it makes\nsense that this was the only leadership behavior that did not correlate to a\nstudent-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy.  Bandura (1986) reported that self-efficacy\nrefers to a person\u2019s judgments of his or her capabilities to organize and\nexecute courses of action required to attain designated types of\nperformances.  Based on this definition\nof self-efficacy, it does not seem that an autocratic coach provides a\nstudent-athlete to develop in this manner based on the results from this study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATION IN SPORTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The leadership styles of coaches have a\nsignificant relationship to grit and self-efficacy. If looking to increase the\ngrit of a student-athlete, parents, school administrators and athletic\ndirectors should consider employing coaches who use any of the perceived\nleadership components. This study found\na significant correlation between the autocratic behavior and democratic behavior of a coach and the\ngrit of the student-athlete.  More specifically, behaviors that are\nassociated with an autocratic or democratic leadership style were perceived by\nstudents to be present among coaches that correlated positively with\nstudent-athlete grit.  Specific coaching\nbehaviors associated with the autocratic style included those behaviors when\nathletes were not involved in decisions about team goals and issues, as well as\nwhen the athletes must obey coaching instructions, or when a coach takes full\ncontrol by explaining exactly what needs to be done.  Specific coaching behaviors associated with\nthe democratic style included those behaviors that provides athletes the\nability to have a say on and off the field, as well as when a coach takes great care in involving all\nmembers of the team in discussion, or emphasizes the relationship between the coach and the athlete.  In addition, this study did find a\nsignificant correlation to use the positive feedback, social support, and\ntraining and instruction of a coach with an increase in grit for the student-athlete.  However, these leadership styles of a coach,\nbased on the findings from this research, weren\u2019t as significant to\nstudent-athletes increased grit as autocratic or democratic leadership styles\nof a coach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These\nfindings from current study also implied that coaches should use the perceived\ndemocratic behavior and positive feedback to increase student-athletes\u2019\nself-efficacy.  Additionally, social\nsupport and training and instruction of a coach, in this current study, showed\na correlation to the student-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy.  If\nlooking to increase the self-efficacy of a student-athlete, parents, school\nadministrators and athletic directors should consider employing leadership\nbehaviors associated with the democratic leadership style, positive feedback,\nsocial support, and instruction and training given associated with these\ncomponents and perceived by students within this study to be present among\ncoaches and had significant positive correlations with self-efficacy.  Specific coaching behaviors associated with\nthe positive feedback tended to focus on the coach complimenting athletes,\nproviding feedback related to the performances to maintain motivation, as well\nas recognizing and rewarding good performance as well as providing appropriate\nfeedback as to how well an athlete trains or performs.  Specific coaching behaviors associated with\nthe instruction and training included incorporating the coach\u2019s behavior toward\nimproving an athlete\u2019s performance, instructing the athlete in how to acquire\nthe necessary skills, as well as to teaching athletes the techniques and\ntactics of the sport.  However, the perceived autocratic behavior\nleadership behavior of a coach did not significantly increase\nself-efficacy.  Therefore, this\nleadership style of a coach is not recommended to be used to increase\nstudent-athletes\u2019 self-efficacy.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Bandura, A. (1977).\nSelf-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84<\/em>(2),\n191-215.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Bloemhof, H. J. (2008). Key principles in primary school support programs. African<\/em> Journal for\nPhysical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 14<\/em>(3), 282-298. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Boardley, I. D., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C.\n(2008). Athletes\u2019 perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-related outcomes in rugby union:\nAn investigation based on the coaching efficacy model. The Sport Psychologist<\/em>, 22<\/em>(1),\n269\u2013287.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sport: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology<\/em>, 2<\/em>(1), 34-45. Retrieved from https:\/\/ess220.files.wordpress.com\/2008\/02\/lss-highlighted.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical\npower analysis for the behavior sciences<\/em> (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Devine, M., Meyers, R., & Houssemand, C.\n(2013). How can coaching make a positive impact\nwithin educational settings? Procedia-Social\nand Behavioral Sciences, 93<\/em>, 1382-1389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.sbspro.2013.10.048<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Duckworth, A. L. (2006). Intelligence is not enough: Non-IQ predictors of achievement<\/em>. (Doctoral\ndissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses database.\n(UMI No. 3211063)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Mathews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social<\/em> Psychology, 92<\/em>(6), 1087-1101. doi.:10.1037\/0022-3514.92.6.1087\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. Duckworth,\nA. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale\n(grit-s). Journal of Personality\nAssessment<\/em>, 91<\/em>(2), 166-174. doi:10.1080\/00223890802634290<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Horn,\nT. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in\nsport domain: Advances in sport <\/em>psychology, <\/em>Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Jowett, S.,\n& Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach athlete relationship questionnaire (CART- Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14<\/em>(1),\n245-257. doi:10.1111\/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. Phillips, M. B., & Jubenville, C. B. (2009). Student-athletes\u2019 perceptions of men\u2019s basketball head coaches\u2019 competencies at 15 selected NCCAA Division II Christian colleges. Journal of Sport Administration & Supervision,<\/em> 1<\/em>(1), 39-51. Retrieved from http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2027spo.6776111.0001.108<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. Schunk, D. H. (2001).\nEnhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and goals: Motivational and informational effects. The Journal of Educational Research, 78<\/em>(1), 29-34.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy\nscale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M.\nJohnston, Measures in health psychology: A user\u2019s portfolio. Causal and\ncontrol beliefs<\/em>, 35-37. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. Sernek, J. M., (2016).\u00a0 “The relationship between softball student-athletes’ motivation, self-confidence, and perception of coach leadership” (Master\u2019s thesis). Retrieved from http:\/\/thekeep.eiu.edu\/theses\/2468<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

16. Shechtman, N., DeBarger, A. H., Dornsife, C., Rosier, S., &\nYarnall, L. (2013). Promoting grit, tenacity, and\nperseverance: Critical factors for success in the 21st century.<\/em> U. S. Department of\nEducation, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from http:\/\/pgbovine.net\/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Authors: Dr. Katarii U. Donald, Dr. Stephen R. Marvin, Dr. […]<\/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":[101,1493,1494,538],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1GT","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":8057,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/coaching-leadership-behaviors-a-comparison-of-high-school-and-collegiate-wrestling-coaches\/","url_meta":{"origin":6503,"position":0},"title":"Coaching Leadership Behaviors: A Comparison of High School and Collegiate Wrestling Coaches","date":"November 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jason J. Holder, Daniel M. Smith, and Thaddeus J. France, III Springfield College, Department of Physical Education and Health Education Corresponding Author:Jason J. Holder, Ph.D.Department of Physical Education and Health EducationSpringfield College263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109jholder2@springfield.edu603-490-6785 Dr. Jason J Holder is an associate professor and head wrestling coach\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/Figure1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6197,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/preferred-leadership-styles-of-student-athletes-in-a-midwest-naia-conference\/","url_meta":{"origin":6503,"position":1},"title":"Preferred leadership Styles of Student Athletes in a Midwest NAIA Conference","date":"December 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Todd D. Pitts, Ed. D, Gerald Nyambane, Ph.D., Stephen L. Butler Ed.D. Corresponding Author: Todd D. Pitts, Ed.D 6191 Kraft Avenue Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512 tpitts@davenport.edu 616-554-4716 Todd D. Pitts is an Associate Professor of Sports Management at Davenport University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He also serves as the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Leadership"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 4","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/Table-4.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":7550,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/student-success-an-exploratory-examination-about-male-athletes-perceptions-of-coaching-behaviors-in-middle-school\/","url_meta":{"origin":6503,"position":2},"title":"Student Success: An Exploratory Examination About Male Athletes Perceptions of Coaching Behaviors in Middle School","date":"December 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Tucker, Raymond & Black, Willie Corresponding Author:Raymond Tucker, D.S.M., CFSC, CSCS * D, CSAC, FMS, USATF, USAWAssistant Professor of KinesiologyUniversity of Houston at Victoria3007 N. Ben WilsonVictoria, Texas 77901Phone: (361)-570-4381TuckerR1@uhv.edu Raymond Tucker, D.S.M., CFSC, CSCS*D, CSAC, USATF, USAW is an Assistant Professor of Kinesiology at the University of Houston\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","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":6503,"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":4859,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/democratic-leadership-preferred-by-male-student-athletes-in-middle-school-athletic-programs\/","url_meta":{"origin":6503,"position":4},"title":"Democratic Leadership Preferred by Male Student Athletes in Middle School Athletic Programs","date":"February 16, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Raymond Tucker Corresponding Author: Raymond Tucker, D.S.M, CSCS, FMSL1, USATFL1, USAWLP-1 Assistant Professor of Kinesiology University of Houston at Victoria 3007 N. Ben Wilson Victoria, Texas 77901 Phone: (361)-570-4381 rtbills2001@gmail.com Raymond Tucker is an assistant professor of Kinesiology at the University of Houston at Victoria. He is a graduate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4021,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/preferred-behaviors-used-by-coaches-in-female-middle-school-athletic-programs\/","url_meta":{"origin":6503,"position":5},"title":"Preferred Behaviors Used by Coaches in Female Middle School Athletic Programs","date":"October 13, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Raymond Tucker Corresponding Author: Raymond Tucker, D.S.M, CSCS, FMSL1, USATFL1, USAWLP-1 Assistant Professor of Kinesiology University of Houston at Victoria 3007 N. Ben Wilson Victoria, Texas 77901 Phone: (361)-570-4381 rtbills2001@gmail.com Raymond Tucker is an assistant professor of Kinesiology at the University of Houston at Victoria. He is a graduate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"Female Coaches - Table 2","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/FemaleCoaches-Table2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6503"}],"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=6503"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6503\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6677,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6503\/revisions\/6677"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}